HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2005 Work Session
.
.
.
JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS MEETING
April 19, 2005
5:30 p.m. (Commissioners' Conference Room)
City Councilor John Woodrow called the meeting of the City Council of Springfield to order.
Present: Anne Ballew, Joe Pishioneri, and Dave Ralston. Sid Leiken and Tammy Fitch were
excused.
City Councilor George Polling called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Present:
Bonnie Bettman, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Gary Pape, David Kelly and Betty
Taylor
Commissioner Anna Morrison called the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners
to order. Present: Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Faye Stewart and Recording Secretary Melissa
Zimmer.
1.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING/Ordinance No. PA 1221/In the Matter
of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to
Clarify and Provide Greater Flexibility for Public Safety Service Delivery in the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area (Metro Plan, Growth Management, Policy 15) (NBA &
PM 4/5/05).
Kent Howe, Land Management, explained the purpose of the proposed plan amendment
is to clarify the formation of a Public Safety District that would be consistent with Metro
Plan policies. He noted there are no policies in the Rural Comprehensive Plan or other
small city plans that addresses special district formation. He said it was only the Eugene
Springfield Metro Plan that has policies that address district formation. He indicated at
the time the Metro Plan was developed, it didn't contemplate the need for special service
districts that would be providing public safety services nor did the Metro Plan
contemplate the financial constraints that would be placed on local government.
Howe noted the Metro Plan has policies that specifically limit the formation of special
service districts regardless of the nature of the services provided. He added the Metro
Plan contemplates special districts for urban services and growth management. He
indicated that Policy 15 appropriately limits their formation and links them to future
annexation requirements in order for cities to measure growth-reducing services. He
explained the services are limited to and consistent with benefits in reaction to public
safety services to provide context for determining services that would be consistent. He
noted the proposed amendment does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield
or their ability to annex land or to control the proliferation of other growth inducing
special districts. He said there were two criteria that were applicable to the authorization
of the Metro Plan amendment: that the amendment is consistent with the statewide
planning goals, or that the amendment would not create an inconsistency in the Metro
Plan.
Page I - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005
WD bc/m/05035/T
.
Howe indicated on February I there was a joint public hearing with the Planning
Commissions. He added all three Planning Commissions deliberated separately and
recommended approval of the proposed amendment, that it met the land use criteria for
approval of the Metro Plan. He said they identified concerns that were centered on three
general areas of the proposal: the "notwithstanding" exception language that is in the
proposed policy; the single countywide district and the list of services that has "including
but not limited to." He noted in the supplemental packet dated April 19, staff had
proposed four Metro Plan amendment proposals. He added the alternatives addressed
some of the concerns that the Eugene and Springfield Planning Commissions had with
the language. He said there was a recommendation from the Eugene Planning
Commission that there be a single countywide district. He added the recommendation
from Springfield was that in case there was a city that was not within the district, so there
wouldn't be a potential Metro Plan conflict in the future; make it a single district within
the County.
Howe said the second alternative was to delete the "but not limited to" language so it
would read that those services are included. He noted the third alternative was instead of
using the word "including," to use the words "such as." He noted the fourth alternative
stated that "shall be" be changed to "limited to."
.
Howe explained that tonight's meeting and public hearing is to take testimony to improve
the policy amendment language that Lane County is proposing for the purpose of
providing a better financial situation for public safety in Lane County. He indicated the
elected officials had in their packets materials provided to the Planning Commissions at
the February 1 public hearings, the staff responses to questions that they raised at the
public hearing, the minutes of the public hearing and the draft minutes of the three
Planning Commissions' deliberations. C
Howe indicated the main premise is for land use. He said it is a Metro Plan policy that is
being proposed to be amended and the two criteria to be focused on is if the land use
amendment is consistent with the statewide planning goals and if it would create an
internal inconsistency in the Metro Plan. He noted if the elected officials find that those
two are met, then the policy is worthy of being amended in the Metro Plan.
Bettman commented that the need for the County is financial but the decision in the
Metro Plan is land use. She said it didn't make sense to her.
Howe responded there are criteria in the Metro Plan for amending it. He said the need. is
something they will have to determine. He explained this was unique as the services of
the district are not really metro growth inducing services. He added that the policy of the
Metro Plan addresses that. He indicated the County was being cautious in making the
Metro Plan amendment because they don't want someone to say that it is inconsistent
with the Metro Plan.
.
Page 2 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005
WD bc/m/05035/T
.
.
.
Bettman asked what the boundary of the safety service district would be.
Howe explained it was all of Lane County. He noted there will be negotiations with each
city. He said ifit ends up a city doesn't agree, it would create a hole in Lane County.
Bettman commented if they were inconsistent with the Metro Plan they wouldn't have to
include language rendering all of the policies of the amendment. She said when they say
it is notwithstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related polices and
texts of this plan that it makes a, b, c, d, and e of Policy 15 neutralized. She added it also
neutralizes many of the other Metro Plan policies. She thought that made it a glaring
inconsistency with the Metro Plan.
Howe explained this would be an exception to the other policies as it would be a creation
of a new special service district.
Bettman indicated that earlier they made the point the services they are going to provide
are specific services that are not urban services and not provided by cities.
Jennifer Solomon, Peter Sorenson arrived at 6:10 p.m.
Bettman asked how much the district would displace of the $35 million and how much
would be coming to the revenue stream with the substitute part of the $35 million.
Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, responded the specific details have not been
worked out. He indicated they had to first work with the Metro Plan amendment then
they will work on the resolution of support by the 12 cities of Lane County. He said at
that point they would discuss what the balance of services should be and work those
issues out.
Kitty Piercy arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Kelly commented that on the Metro Plan criteria the amendment shouldn't make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent. He asked if it mattered legally what the definition of
who provides the services is. He wanted legal feedback. He added that the Metro Plan
talks about who the logical provider of various services is. He didn't think the distinction
was made that just because they provide money for a service, they are not necessarily a
provider. He wanted to know if there was any case law. He was dismayed that in the
packet there was no description of what the tax rate could be, what services it would
provide, or what services that the cities now provide would go away because of
compression. He said it made him uncomfortable to have the discussion without any
documentation.
Page 3 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005
WD bc/m/05035/T
.
.
.
Bill Grile, Development Service Director, City of Springfield, indicated the Springfield
Planning Commission took this up and passed it by unanimous recommendation to move
it forward. He noted the Planning Commission stated this was primarily a budget issue
for the elected officials to deal with. He said there was a recommendation to the
Springfield City Council that the language would state there would be a single service
district within the County.
Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene, noted the City of Eugene Planning Commission had similar
concerns as the Springfield Planning Commission. He said they noted the Metro Plan
policies were written at a simpler time and it reflects services the County is currently
providing. He said they thought an amendment to the Metro Plan made sense.
Christine Lundberg arrived at 6:20 p.m.
Yeiter indicated that the Eugene Planning Commission was the first to deliberate on the
proposed amendment. He said they weren't able to wordsmith adequately. He said the
concern was to constrain the special districts so that other services that wouldn't be
provided by statute are not pulled in under a broad language. He noted the closest to that
was Option 4. He stated the Eugene Planning Commission discussed the public safety
district as too broad a term.
Bettman asked if it would cost more for rural services than for urban services and if the
Planning Commissions discussed this.
Yeiter responded they didn't address any financial issues. He said they considered
growth inducing impacts and wordsmithing.
Bettman asked if they were comparing services with what the statute stated.
Yeiter indicated they discussed what was required by state statute and the list might have
been too constrained for what could be allowed with the exception. He said there are
current services that are provided that are not required that are logically provided by state
statute.
Bettman asked if this language was internally consistent. She stated she would submit
questions and wanted responses back.
Alex Gardner, Deputy District Attorney, commented that this was a rational process. He
indicated if there was a better alternative he was willing to hear those ideas. He noted
that service in Lane County is cost effective. He urged the elected officials to do an
analysis of what it takes to prosecute each case. He added they are failing to prosecute
over 100 cases per month and 60% to 70% of those cases come from the
Eugene/Springfield area.
Page 4 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005
WD bc/m/05035/T
.
.
.
Kelly agreed there needed to be improved public safety. He suggested doing it in a way
that doesn't require a change in the fundamental structure of government. He thought
there could be a serial levy, or an income or sales tax that wouldn't change the Metro
Plan amendment.
Bettman asked how the voting would take place. She asked if elected officials had to opt
in and if they were included in the vote.
Van Vactor responded that if the city council adopts the resolution it is part of the
application and the Boundary Commission authorizes the ballot. He added if a city
council does not vote for it, that jurisdiction does not participate in the vote.
Bettman commented in the past that when the County had a bond measure the
commissioners were not campaigning for it. She thought if they supported their own
ballot measure it would pass. She said they need to establish credibility with the voters
and work hard.
Dwyer explained that the County has grown over 25% with the same amount of revenue
that they are trying to manage with. He said they are trying to provide the same current
level of services. He added the County receives $1.27 per thousand, including bonding.
He stated the Coburg Fire Department receives more per thousand than Lane County. He
said they still have to provide public safety, the District Attorney's office, the jail, the
Department of Health and Assessment and Taxation. He commented that the system is
currently broken and it is not acceptable. He recalled that the Metro Plan was put
together with the three major metropolitan areas so they don't have competing districts to
compete with what the cities are going to provide. He said they have to consider the
mechanism question on whether they should form this district.
Green commented that a sales tax would never pass in Oregon. He noted Lane County's
public service budget is around $38 million just for public safety. He added the
discretionary general fund is $50 million and 75% goes to public safety. He said they
would be willing to give the services back to the cities to see how well they could do. He
said the challenge is whether or not they could afford. He said they are trying to get to a
solution.
Bettman wondered if Lane County looked at priorities and if they are providing just the
services that are mandated. She commented she sees Lane County spending money that
is frivolous. She asked if the County was still mandated by statute to provide public
safety services.
Van Vactor responded that crimes will be committed and to the extent they have the
resources they will prosecute and incarcerate them.
Page 5 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005
WD bc/m/05035/T
.
Bettman commented that services are more expensive in the rural areas and there would
be non-conformity in the cities.
Pryor stated this problem was not just the County's problem. He said it is everyone's
problem. He said they have a jail that can't accommodate all of the criminals they do
have. He said the dilemma for him is not an issue of being opposed to the idea; he said it
is a matter of being skeptical about the idea. He said the COUlIty is asking cities to
consider making a fundamental change in the core services the cities provide in the first
place, which is public safety. He said the County is asking the city governments to look
at making a fundamental change in what has been for years their core function. He
wanted to make sure every option was considered before they continue to go forward.
Dwyer said Lane County is mandated to prosecute all the crimes in Lane County
including cities' crimes even if they were to option out. He asked what other ideas they
could come up with.
.
Lisa Smith, Department of Youth Services, stated that the Department of Youth Services
serves the entire community and they are the authorized provider of the services. She
said they have had significant reductions in services and they lost the psychiatric hospital.
She noted they have no sobering programs for youth in the community. She added the
drug court is in peril and there are changes and reductions to the Oregon Health Plan.
She stated their current prevention program, (the best in the system) has been cut. She
noted that for Youth Services this year they will have $1 million in reductions because of
federal grant conclusions. She added in the last biennium they had a 50% reduction in
secure custody beds and some of those were from the state. She stated that 250 beds
were lost. She indicated when she came on board four years ago the cap was 75 and
today it is 31. She eXplained that it wasn't because there wasn't a need, it is because the
state had a financial crisis. She said they lost half their Pathways residents and all of their
girl shelter programs. She commented that everything is interrelated when there are cuts.
Kelly commented that what is making this challenging is the intermixing of two different
things. He said it would be up to the voters to decide what they are willing to pay for
services. He added it was up to the elected officials to decide collectively what
mechanism they would use to pay for the service district. He said they have to determine
what is the best mechanism to collect the money.
Bettman stated she supported all the services they were discussing a land use issue to the
Metro Plan and any other testimony is irrelevant to the criteria. She added the public
hearing should be limited to the Metro Plan. She didn't know what other comp plans
there were for other jurisdictions. She asked why Lane County hadn't gone out and
gotten the approval of the cities so they could come to Eugene and Springfield. She said
that would eliminate the inequity in Florence and other cities. She asked why they were
working on the Metro Plan amendment first.
.
Page 6 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005
WD bc/m/05035/T
j , . ..
.
.
.
Morrison indicated they had been talking to cities. She said there are multi-tracks
because of timing. She indicated there is discussion with the Regional Managers Meeting
and the outreach had started to other city councils.
Morrison recessed the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 6:45 p.m.
Piercy recessed the meeting for the Eugene City Council at 6:45 p.m.
Woodrow recessed the meeting for the Springfield City Council at 6:45 p.m.
Melissa Zimmer
Recording Secretary
("
Attest:
Cj=~
Page 7 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting - April 19, 2005
WD bc/m/05035/T