Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting Miscellaneous 2/1/2005 ~, AGENDA COVER MEMO DATE: February 1,2005 Planning Commission Meeting Date. TO: JOINT EUGENEISPRlNGFIELDILANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: KENT HOWE, PLANNING DIRECTOR LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION AGENDA ITEM TITLE: IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE- SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN POLICIES TO CLARIFY AND PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SERVICE DELIVERY FORA PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT, (METRO PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY 15, PAGE ll-B-5 OR PERIODIC REVIEW REVISED METRO PLAN PAGE II-C-S). I. MOTION: RECOMMEND THE EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA . ELECTED OFFICIALS ADOPT THE METRO PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY 15 AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN SERVICE DELIVERY FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL DISTRICT.. II. ISSUE OR PROBLEM -::' On August 25, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners initiated a Eugene/Springfield Metro Plan (Metro Plan) amendment (Order 04-8-25~8) to Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15 that would provide 6''';''~''' flexibility for service delivery in the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area. . III. DISCUSSION A. BACKGROUND , , . . The Metro Plan Chapter II Growth tyianagement Policy 15 provides the requirements , for the creation of new special service districts within the Plan Boundary of the Metro Plan, This policy was adopted prior to the changes to local government fmancing . that resulted from the passage of Ba,Ilot Measures 5,.47 and 50. These changes have drastically affected the Lane County, General Fund ability to finance public safety. Consequently, public safety services'are not able to keep up with the needs of Lane County citizens, both inside and outside the Metro Plan, The goal of this policy amendment is to authorize a new financing vehicle without. undermining the compact urban growth policies of the Metro Plan. Date R. . d ' . ' . ~ffiW . FEB .0 1 Z005' PlCinner: BJ ' \ B. ANALYSIS Pursuant to Lane Code Chapter 12, the proposed amendment is aType I Metf.iJ Plan amendment because it is a non-site specific amendment of the Plan text. A Metro Plan text .Type I amendment must be approved by all three governing bodies. . ' The applicable criteria for approval of a Metro Plan text Type I amendment are: a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning.goals adopted by the Land c;onservation and Development Commission; and . b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. 1) Consistency with relevant statewide planning goals: . Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement Develop a citizen involvement program that insu"res the opportunity for citizens to be involved in aU phases of the planning process. Public notice'has been provided pursuant to Lane Code requirements. The Metro ,Planning Commissions are conducting a public hearing February 1 st to involve citizens and soliCit public comment on the draft amendments. Subsequent to the Joint Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Metro Area elected officiais will . also conduct a joint public hearing which will also involve the public and solicit. public. comment. The elected officials will consider the public input in the action they take on the draft Metro Plan amendment. . Goal 2 - Land Use Planning , To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for aU decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Metro Plan policy amendm(:nt is being considered urider the framework of , Lane Code Chapter 12, Metro Plan Amendment Process which requires consistency with the relevant statewide planning goals and internal consistency within the Metro Plan. ,. Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands - Not relevant Goal 4 - Forest Lands - Not relevant Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Areas - Not relevant Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - Not Relevant Goal 7 -Natural Hazards - Not Relevant Goal 8 - Recreational Needs - Not Relevant Goal 9 - Economic Development - Not Relevant . Goal 10 - Housing .' Not Relevant . . . . . Date Received FEBO 1 ZOO~ o '2 Planner: BJ \ . Goal I J - Public FaciJities and Services To plan'and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as aframeworkfor urban and rural development, Urban services refers to the appropriate type and level of police protection. The proposed Metro Plan amendment is specifically addressing the orderly and efficient arrangement of provision for public services for urban and rural development within' the realities of the current financing constraints. . Goal 12 - Transportation - Not Relevant . Goal 13 - Energy Conservation - Not Relevant . Goal 14 - Urbanization To provide for an orderly and efficient transitionfroni rural. to urban land use, The proposed public safety service district is not a growth inducing service that will encourage'urban scatteration and sprawL Statewide Goal 11 and the Public Facility Rule recognize water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation services or facilities as the drivers of the urban growth form. . Goal 15 - Willamette Greenway" Not Relevant . 'Goal 16 _ Estuarine Resources , Not Relevant . Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands - Not Relevant . Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes - Not Relevant . Goal 19- Ocean Resources - Not Relevant Conclusion: The proposed Metro Plan amendment is consistent with the . relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. 2) Internal consistency within Metro Plan The Metro Plan Public Facility and Services Policie5'fecognize water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation services or facilities as the drivers of the urban growth form, The Metro Plan Growth Management and Special Service District Policies. were developed to guide city development and provide more uniform and orderly . services on the urban fringe, This proposed public safety service district is not a growth inducing service that will encourage urban scatteration and sprawL Service districts or other entities within the Metro Plan are currently providing transit, Scl:lOOls, parks, fire and EMS, electric, water, communication, either directly or thro~gh contract. . Lane Coun~ is already providing (or has in the p~tbe.wlRe~ived public safety services countYWide: . . ,. UClltl , FEB 0 1 ZOOS: '-~ 3 Planner: BJ . adult and youth correc\ions services . prosecution . detention . supervisIOn . mental health and alcohol and drug services for offenders ' . drug court . . interagency narcotics enforcement . patro I . investigation . arrest ; In many cases Lane County is the exclusive provider. In some cases services are provided by contract and IGAs to assist the city and county citizens. C. CONCLUSION This policy has been coordinated with the Public Safety providers and will enhance and will not detract from the public services provided by Eugene and Springfield. This policy does not weaken the position of Eugene and Springfield relative to the growth management policies or their ability to annex land or to control the proliferation of other new special distriqts. Therefore, the Metro Plan should not preclude these, public safety services: from being provided by special service districts. The proposed amendment to Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15 is found to be internally consistent with the Metro Plan Policies and the Statewide Plailning Goals and Guidelines. D. ALTERNATIVE/OPTIONS {, 1, Recommend the Eugene/SpringfieldILahe County Elected Officials adopt proposed Metro Plan amendment to Chapter II Growth Management Policy l5 that would provide greater flexibility for service delivery in the Eugene/Springfield Metro Area. 2. Recommend the Eugene/SpringfieldlLaneCounty Elected Officials modify the proposed Metro Plan amendment to Chapter II Growth Management PoliCy 15, 3. Recommend the Eugene/Springfield/Lane County Elected Officials not adopt the proposed Metro Plan amendment to Chapter II Growth Management Policy 15. RECOMMENDATION 4 '. Date Heceived FEB 0 1 ZOo5' Planner: BJ Alternative 1. IV. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment A - Draft Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 15.f. 2. Attachment B - Findings in Support 3. Attachment C - Metro Plan Chapter II. C. 5. Growth Management Policies 4. Attachment D - Register Guard Editorial, November 23, 2004 5 Date Receiveci FEB 0 1 200~1 Planner: BJ Attachment A Metro Plan Amendment Proposal to Growth Management Policy 15 Existing Metro Plan page II-B-5/Periodic Review revised Metro Plan page II-C-5 . Policy 15. Creation of new special service district. . . , f. Not withstanding the above provisions of this policy and all other related policies and text in this Plan, a district or zone of benefit may be created and maintained to provide public safety services, including but not limited to, adult and.youth corrections services, prosecution, detention, supervision, mental health and alcohol and drug services for offenders, drug coUrt, interagency narcotics enforcement, patrol, investigation and arrest. Date Received FEB 0 1 200:5: , ,~ 6 Planner: BJ Attachment B Findinl!s inSuooort . Significant changes in local government financing have occurred as a result of statewide ,Measures 5, 47 and 50. . Financing changes have affected the Lane County General Fund which finances Public Safety countywide, . Consequently, publiC safety services are not able to keep up with the needs of Lane County citizens ,inside and outside of the Metro Plan area, .. Goals of proposed change are to authorize a new financin.g vehicle without undermining the compact urban growth policies of the Metro Plan, . The growth management and special service district policies were developed to guide city development and provide more uniform and orderly serVices on the'Urban fringe. . The Metro Plan should not preclude these public safety services from being provided by special service districts. . · Service districts or other entities are currently providing transit, schools, parks, fire and EMS, electric, water, communication, either directly or through contract. .. This proposed public safety service district is not a growth inducing service that will encourage urbaI) scatteration and sprawL The Statewide Goal 11 and Public Facility Rule recognize water, wastewater, stormwater and :transportation services or facilities as the drivers of the urban growth form, . Lane County is already providing (or has in the past) each service listed in I5.f. countywide and in many cases is the exclusive provider. In some cases services are provided by contract and IGAs to assist the city and county citizens. . · This policy has been coordinated with the Public Safety providers and will enhance and will not detract from the public services provided by Eugene and Springfield. · This policy does not 'weaken the position.ofEugene and Springfield relative to the growth management policies or their, ability to ai'mex hind or to control the proliferation of other growth-inducing special districts, 7 Date Receiv€;;q FEB 0 1 200p'l Planner: BJ : Attachment C C. Growth Management Goals, Findings, and Policies, To effectively control the potential.for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization, compact growth and the urban growth boundary (UGB) are, and will remain, the primary growth management techniques for directing geographic patterns of urbanization in the community. In general, this means the filling in of vacant and underutilized lands, as well as redevelopment inside the UGB. , , Outward expansion of the UGB will occur only when it is proven necessary according to the policies set forth in this Metro Plan, particularly in this element. . , Goals 1. Use urban, urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently. 2, Encourage orderly and efficient conversion ofland from rural to urban uses in response , to urban needs, taking into account metropolitan and statewide goals, . 3. Protect rural lands best suited for non-urban uses from incompatible urban encroachment. Findings and Policies Findings 1. Many metropolitanareas.,within the,United States that have not implemented geographic growth management techniques suffer from scattered. or leapfrog urban growth that leaves vacant and underut}lized land in its path and encourages isolated residential developments ,far from metropolitan centers. Until adoption of the 1990 Plan's urban service area concept, portions of this metropolitan area were characterized by these phenomena. ' 2. Beneficial results of compact urban growth include: a. 'Use of most vacant leftover parcels where utilities assessed to abutting property owners are already in place. ' . h. Protection of productive forest lands, agricultural lands, and open space from . premature urban development. c. More efficient use oflimited fuel energy resources and greater use of bicycle and ' pedestrian facilities due to less miles of streets and less auto dependence than otherwise would be required. d. Decreased acreage ofleapfrogged vacantland, tq:us resulting in more efficient and less.costly provision and use'ofutilities, roads,and public services, such as fire' . protection. '. .' . . Date Received f~B 0 1 200~ .' Planner: BJ I1-C-l e, Greater urban public transit efficiency by providing a: higher level of service for a given investment in transit equipment and the like. . 3. The disadvantagesofa too-compact UGB can be a disproportionately greater increase in the value of vacant land within the Eugene-Springfield area, which would contribute to higher housing prices.' Factors other than size and location ofthe UGB and city limits affect land and housing costs. These include site characteristics, interest rates, state and federal tax laws, existing public service availability, and future public facility costs. 4. Periodic evaluation ofland use'needs compared to land 'supply provides a basis for orderly and non-excessive conversion of rural land to uibanizable land and provides a basis for public action to adjust the supply upward in response to the 'rate of consumption., 5,. Prior to the late 1960s, Eugene and Springfield had no growth management policy and, therefore, growth patterns were generally dictated by natural physical characteristics. 6. Mandatory statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) require that all communities in the state establish UGBs to identifY and separate urbanizable land from rural land. 7. Between 1970 and 1983, Springfield's population increased about four percent arid , Eugene's about 2,5 percent a year, but unincorporated portions of the metropolitan area experienced a populatiori decline. About 17 percent of the total increase in the population was related to annexations. This indicates that growth is occurring in cities, which is consistent with the compact urban growth concept and lirriitations'on urban . scatteration into unincorporated areas, as first embodied in the 1990 Plan. 8. In adqition to Finding 7 above, evidence that the UGB is an effective,growtli management tool includes the following: a, Consistent reduction over time of vacant land within the UGH. , b, Reduction of vacant residential zoned land in Springfield and Eugene. c, Greater value of vacant land within Springfield and Eugene than similar land outside incorporated areas but within the UGB , , d, Increase since 1970 of the proportionate share of residential building permits issued within city limits. 9. Reduction in the use of zoning provisions 'and regulatory processes that favor single- family detached dwellings on standard size parcels would increase the opportunity to realize higher net residential densities than are presently occurring, particularly in newly developing areas, II-C-2 Date, Recei\njd . . m '01 r2bO~i , I - '~ Planfl@f:. ~ 10. . A variety of public services are provide(J'bY Lane County and special service districts to unincorporated portions of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan ,area. ' Il. In 1986, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield entered into Urban Transition Agreements with Lane County which transferred from the county to the .cities administration for building and land use within the urbanizable portion of the UGH. Objectives 1. Continuce to minimize urban scatteration and sprawl by.encouraging compact growth and sequential development. ' -, 2. Insure that land supply is kept in proper relationship to land use needs: . 3. Conserve those lands needed to efficiently accommodate expected urban growth. 4, Protect rural land and open space from premature urbanization. 5. When necessary to meet urban needs, utilize the least productive agricultural lands for needed expansion.. . 6. Encourage new and maintain existing rural land uses. where productive or beneficial outside the urban growth boundary, 7, ..., Shape and plan for a compact urban growth fotin to, provide'for growth while preserving the special character ofthe metropolitan area. 8. Encourage development of suitable vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelopable land, where services are available, thus capitalizing on public expenditures already made for these services, 9. Protect life and property from natural hazards and natural disasters. 10. Allow smaller' outlying communities the opportullity to plan for their own futures without being engulfed'byunlimited outward expansion of the metropolitan area, ' 11. Identify methods of establishing an urban transition program which will eventually. reduce 'service delivery inefficiencies by providing for the provision of key urban services only by cities. Policies 1. The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. The provision of all urban services shall be concentrated inside the UGB. Date Received FEB 0 1 zoo's! ~-,,.' II-C-3 Planner: BJ , 2. ,The UGB sh~lllie along the outside edge of existing and planned rights-of-way that fo'rm a portion of the UGB so that the full right-of-wayis within the UGB. . 3, Control oflocation, timing, and financing of the major public investments that directly influence the growth form of the metropolitan area shall be planned and coordinated on a metropolitan-wide basis. 4, Lane CoUnty shall discourage urban development in urbanizable and rural areas and encourage compact development of outlying communities. 5, To maintain the existing physical autonomy of the smaller outlying communities, urban development on agricultural and rural lands beyond the UGB shall be restricted and' based on at least the following criteria: a. Preservation and conservation of natural resources b, Conformity with the policies and provision~ of the Lane, County Rural Comprehensive Plan that borders the metropolitan area c. Conformance with applicable mandatory statewide planning goals. 6. Outlying communities close to Springfield and Eugene shall be encouraged to develop. plans and programs in support of compact urban development. 7. Conversion of rural and rural agricultural land to Urbariizable land through Metro Plan amendments expanding the UGB shall be consistent with mandatory statewide planning goal. ' 8, Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through annexation to a city when it is found that: a, A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area in an orderly and efficient manner. ' b. There will. be a 10gical area and time within which to deliver urban services'and facilities. Conversion ofurbanizable land to urban shall also be consistent with . the Metro Plan. 9. A full range of key urban facilities and services shall be provided to urban areas according to demonstrated need and budgetary priorities. 10. Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be the highest priority'. 11. The tax differential concept, as provided for in ORS 222.111 (2), shall be one mechanism' that can be employed in urban transition areas. Date Received FE8 01 ZOOS' '-' Il-C-4 P!Qnne'~. RJ .it;t, :., l,: ""0 -.. I.U '12, When the following criteria are met, either Springfield or Eugene may annex land which is not contiguous to its boundarie~, .. '. a. The area to be annexed will be provided an urban service(s) which is (are) desired immediately by residents/property owners. b. The area to be annexed can be serviced (with minimum level of key urban facilities and services as directed in the Metro Plan) in a timely and cost-efficient manner and is a logical extension of the city's service delivery system. , c. The annexation proposal is accompanied by support within th~ area proposed for annexation from the owners of at least half the land area in the affected territory. 13. Police, fire and emergency medical services may be provided through:extraterritorial extension with a signed annexation agreement or initiation of a transition plan and upon concurrence by the serving jurisdiction. ' 14. Both Eugene and Springfield shall examine potential as,sessment deferral programs for low-income households. 15. Creation of new special service districts or zones of benefit within the Plan Boundary of the Metro Plan shall be considered only when all of the following criteria are satisfied: a, There is.no'other method of delivering public services which are required to mitigate against extreme health hazard or public safety conditions. b. ,The three metropolitan area gen'eral purpose governments concur with the proposai to form the service district or zone of benefit. c. The district or zone of benefit is an interim'servi,ce delivery method, and there are legal assurances, such as annexation agreements; to ensure that annexation to the appropriate city occurs within the planning period. d. The servicing city is not capable of providing the full range of urban facilities and services in the short term, although it is recognized that urban facilities'and services will be provided by a city consisient with adopted p'ublic facilities plans and capital improvement programs. e. The district or zone of benefit will contract with the appropriate city for interim service delivery until annexed to the appropriate city. 16. Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with the req~ired minimum level or'urban facilities and services. While the time frame for annexation may vary; annexation should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to urban: ' ' Date Received 1I-C-5 FEB 0 1 zoos: PP~nnnr' PJ rJl.A. ~ ~+.. (j :.::..'] ,17. Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, Eugene Water & Electric' Board (EWEB) and Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall bethe water and electrical service providers within the UGB. . 18. As annexations to cities occur over time, exisiing special service distriCts within the UGB . shall be dissolved.' The cities should consider developing intergovernmental agreements, which address tran~ition issues raised by annexatio~, with affected special service districts, 19. The realignment (possible consolidation or merger) of fringe special service districts shall be examined to: a. Promote urban service transition to cities within the UGB, ' b. Provide continued and comprehensive rural level services to property and people outside theUGB. . . c, Provide more efficient service delivery and more efficient governmental structure for serving the immediate urban fringe. .20. Annexation oc'tenitory to existing service districts within the UGB shall occur only when the following criteria.are met: a. lmmediate annexation to a city is not possible because the required minimum. level of key urban facilities and services cannot be provided in a timely manner' (within five years, as outlined in an adopted capital improvements program); b. Except for areas that have no fire protection, affected property owners have signed consent to 'annex agreements with the applicable city consistent with Oregon annexation law. Such annexations shall be considered as interim service delivery solutions until ultimate annexation to a city occurs. 21. When unincorporated tenitory within the UGB is provided with any new urban service, that service shall be provided by the following method (in priority order). a. Annexation to a city; b. Contractual annexation agreements with a city; c.' Annexation to an existing district (under conditions described previously in Policy #20); or d, . Creation of a new service district (under conditio~s described previously in Policy #15). ". .. Date Received FEB 0 1 zooill II-C-6 Planner: BJ 22. Cities shall not extend water or wastewater service outside city limits to serve a residence or business without flfSt obtaining a valid annexation petition, a consent to annex agreement, or when ahealth hazard annexation is required. 23, Regulatory and fiscal incentives that direct the geographic allocation of growth and density according to adopted plans and policies shall be examined and, when practical, adopted. 24, To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text and on the Metro Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential construction, but not necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling units per gross acre over the planning period. 25. When conducting metropolitan planning studies, particularly the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan, consider the orderly provision and financing of public services and the overall impact on population and geographical growth in the metropolitan area. Where appropriate, future planning studies should include specific analysis of the growth . impacts suggested by that particular study for the metropolitan area: 26. Based upon direction provided iri Policies 4, 8, and 24 of this section, any development taking place in an urbanizable area shall be designed to the development standards ofthe city which would be responsible for eventually providing a minimum level of key urban services to the area. Unless the following conditions are met, the minimum lot size for. campus industrial designated areas shall be50 acres and: the minimum lot size for all other designations shall,be 10 acres. Creation of new parcels intheurbanizable'ilrea will comply with the following standards:' . a, The approval of a conceptual plan for ultimate development at urban densities in accord with applicable plans and policies. . b, Proposed land uses and densities conform to applicable plans and policies. c. The owner of the property has signed aD. agreemeht with the adjacent city,which provides: '(1) The owner and his or her successors in interest are obligated to support annexation proceedings should the city, at its option, initiate annexation. (2) The owner and his or her successors in interest agree not to challenge any annexation of the subject property. (3 ) The owner and his or her successors in interest will acquire city approval for any subsequent new use, change of use, or substantial intensification of use of the property. The city will not withhold appropriate approval of the use arbitrarily if it is in compliance with applicable plans, policies, and . Date Received . FEB 0 I200~j , II-C-? Planner: BJ ,standards, as interpreted by the city, as well as the. conceptual plan approved under subsection a above. . 27. Any lot under five acres in size to be created in an urbanizable area will require utilizing the following additional standards: a. The property will be owned by ii, governmental agency or public utility. b. A majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property are smaller than five acres. c, No more than three parcels are being created. 28. The siting of all residences on urbanizable lots served by on-site sewage disposal systems shall be reviewed by Lane County to ensure the efficient future conversion of these lots to urban densities according to Metro Plan assumptions and minimum density requirements, 29. The approval of on-site sewage disposal systems for rural and urbanizable area uses and developments shall be the responsibility of Lane County; subject to: (a) applicable state law; (b) the criteria for the creation of new lots in Policies 26, 27 above; (c) the requirement for the siting of residences in Policy 28 abo~e; (d) requirements of Policy 30; arid (e) the requirements for special heavy industrial designated areas. 30. . In'order,to encourage economic diversification, on-site sewage disposal systems shall be allowed for industrial development and for commercial development allowed within Campus Industrial designated areas in conjunction with annexation to a city, when , ej(tension of the public wastewater system is imminent or is identified as part of an approved capital improvement program. . 31. Eugene, Springfield, and 'Lane County shall continue to involve affected local govemments and other urban service providers in development of future, applicable Me/ro Plan revisions, including amendments and update's. 32. if expansion oftheUGB is contemplated, all other options should be consideredand eliminated before consideration of expariding the UOB in the area west of Highway 99 and north of Royal A venue. . Note: For other related policy discussion, see the Public Facilities '!I1d Services Element in Chapter III-G, Date Received FEB 0 1 ZOO&J Planner: BJ II-C-8 - , . f '. .: r .-'" ~ ~ . ~ f.f ~ ~([{i;;p'{V;;/;'" ~'."~ BIW"~ L ): ~ ,'-..............'" TUd BRINTON I NewsAr( 3-_ C SA~:~Y - Lack of adequate funding cuts to the core of serviG~~,' ','; ',.,) l' Ill".i,. ',,1, 1 ..J '" ,- ;~.". '. troopers per resident than the average of' three neighboring states, , Our local law enfor"cement community is in even worseshaiJe., The ume County'Sher- iffs Office no longer has depu~ies-to investi~ gate felony property crimes. Hyou live out- side city limits, arid your house is burglar-' ized; calling 911 will not bring a' police officer unles's theburglar"ig stnUn your house. Lane County's narcotics enforcement team has been dissolved, just as the governor is identifying methamphetamine as one of the ~test threats to oUr children and cornmu- ,nlty, The Lane County Jail. now more than 25 years old, needs to be expanded by more than 330 beds just to meet the minimum.needs that our comrn. 5'ty estab.1ished in 1999: In fact, the jail is s e<flll~..m.ejed' of years ago, a f e8ilu.v"JVI limit the number,of itunates the jail could ' hold - and that was b~ 1e'tffosd to Please"tum to PUBLIC SAFETY, Page B4 Planner: BJ . By ALEX GARDNER For The Register-Guar~ 'eminent had plenty of money', Roften wasn't true, but the message stuck.:. As ~':result, support for government has erodeg to the.point where many critical pro- - giams-are,held together only by an awkward pat'chwork'oftemporary state and federal . grants: 'Our system is in-trouble. Evidence ()f the de~e.rioratio~ is all'around us.' , ','The Qregon State,pti1ice~g,ency Is for~d to compete with 'our children's education for . limited general fund sUPlx)'rt; so Its staff has beenslash'ed, AS the agency's responsibili. ties have multiplied. and our state's -popula- tion has grown, we should expect state police staffing to be almost double what it was 25 years ago. It isn't. The Oregon State Police 'd~partment'actually has 30 percent fewer sworn officers than it had in 1960, The patrol division has been slashed by an astonish'ing so percent. We now have 60 percent fewer Before Ballot Measure 5 passed in 1990, . Oregon government was relatively' , stable. Many of us didil't realize it at the time, but our government did a pretty fair job,' , We had a,sound ed"ucation system; includ- ing higher education institutions that were strong, accessible and affordable. Our law en- forcemcnt.'system, though imperfect, was sol- vent and by, today's standards, 'well staffed", Our so~ial service programs, met most"of the needs of our least fortunate citizens. There was' some waste, and there was plenty of room for improvement in all areas, 'but our government worked, and we had every rea- son to be optimistic about the future, , Measure 5 marked the beginning of a sus- tained attack on government service in Ore- gon, A' persistent campaign of misinforma- tion vilified government agencies and work- ers. Time and again, we were told that gov- AleX Gardner is the Lane County district attorney. " , " ~ ~ "'~ ~'Public safety: ~tatf lacl~s the resources to eta the job Continued from Page HI c1ose'another 119 beds due to underst'afTing. This year, th{~ Lal~e County jallis expected to prematurely release between 6,000 ;lnd 7,000 inmates beC<lllSe of crowding. Most criminals will not be h(~]d hefore trial. and 11105t will ,serve only a fraction oftheil' sentences following convicl ion. A woman Tecently convicb'd of felollY theft was released an :,,'r serving only 23 hours of her 180-day jail sentence - and that was before the jail closed more beds. Lane County desperately needs a higger jail, but our sheriff doesn't even have the money to operate the little)ail we've got. The Oregon Constitution identifies the district attorney as the law enforcement author- ity within a given jurisdictjr:~. The district attorney is a g:aw- keeper in the law enforcemcllI system; every felony case frum every police agency in the county must move through the DA's ofTicc to moveforward. Unfortunately, the Lane County DA's oUke has been crippled by years of increasing caseloads and financial starva- tion. The office has lost 11 law- yer positions (more than 30 per. cent). nine investigCltor posi. tions (more than 80 percent), and a proportionately large number of support stafT silw!' 1981, when the ~aseload was less than half of what it is to. day, The DA's office will receive almost,B,OOO cases this year. Deputy district attorneys' case- loads are nearly three times as. heavy as the cascloads of their 1981 counterparts. At current staffing, 200 to 300 cases per' month are either rejected for - lack of resources or treated as non-criminal violations, and the DA's ofTicc has been told to expect yet another severe cut next spring. Lane County's Community Corrections department is sim- . Harly understaffed. Parole and probation officers supervise about twice as many offenders as national standards recom- mend, To add insult to injury, theseofficers.have been de. prived of most of the tools they need to do their jobs, They. have little jail space available to them, so their ability to sanc- tion misconduct is severely limited. Little drug treatment is available, and most of the other traditional alternatives for managing Qff~nd~rs'.<!Le.:..ei=--' ther unavailable or over.filled. The staffing situation is al- most as grim in the county Ju. venile Department and Mental Health Department. Our public servants simply don't have the resources todo what we're ask. ing of them. . Lane County has SOlne gre~t people doing difficult jobs, but we can't double their work, cut their resources and then expect them to be successfuL Dinkult juveniIesdon't go away when they're ignored ~ they jil~l become more ex pen- slvI; prohlerils when they 1l1i1- ture into difTicult adults. ' The mentally ill who no longer receive county sen':-iccs are still here ~ they're jl~.~1 out i':anderilw ilrounc1 withciJt ade- qll;liv tn~:illlwnt, mecticatioll'or ~,llpCrv.bioll, frequently com- pounding the problems for the, police. jRU anrl enll~rgerncy med- ical systems., ,: When we cut the meth?,d, m~; program for heroin addicts, . we're not reducing drug use ~ wc're just ensuring that the ad- , dicts find their drugs on the streets and, generally, support their habits through'stealing, prostitution, drug dealing and . other illegal activities. We dOll't need to speculate about the results of our poor choices; the consequences are there to be measured. In 1999, the juvenile arrest rate in Eugene was higher than in 90 percent of the cities in the I),S, During that year, the last, year for which I have complete stat ist.ics, the crime rate for Eu- gl~l1C' was in the top 15 percent. of ,\Illerican cities with popula- tioll~ greatcr than 25,000. The tgg!! index crime rate for: Eu. gene was higher than the rates 111 Los Angeles, New York <;ity; San J,'rancisco, Las Vegas and . I'hibdelphia, , We should attack this prob-, Jell! uy stibjec.tinK~y.ery rela~ed government"pro~am to a c.o~t-' benefit analys~s tl~at,compares the,actualcosts,of:each, '(' problel.n-solutjon paIr. We ::.- should first know whether It costs us more to fix a problem. or ignore it.'With that infor~a- I iOIl- in hand, we should conslu' er the costs and benefits that " are more,difficult to quantify--:- such as the equally important, but more ethereal. "quality of life" considerations. . For exari1ple,let's consider? , the questiun, "Should tax dol- , lars be used to fund treatment for criminal drug addicts'" The extreme anti-tax-no-matter- whatfaction would say, "No, they put themselves in that sit,. uation, th,ey can get themselves out of it. We shouldn't have to.' pay for the consequences of their voluntary choices," Nobody wants to pay for somebody else's stupidity, but., that response completely miss-' es the poiI1t. If the objective is to make: the.community safe and save money, we need to ask, "Does it cost us more mon~ ey to treat or ignore the crim.~-' -naldrug addicts?". 'Tha't question' produces a .' more useful, solution-driven .. answer. The data show that for every ${invested in' addiction treatment, $7 is saved by reduc- ing-costs in criminal justi~e, health care and emergency- roomovisits, welfare, disability and other costs. ,t --I' :';{: ~ "Date Recr:ived IFm 0 1 7rtl~ PtIarnn::1t; DJ,i , Of course, InLane County . , 'wecim't get many oflhese folks Into drug treatment, because 'we can't afford to prosecute ,them properly and, without a fW1ctlonal jail, we can't keep them clean and sober long.' enough' to make a clear-headed decision to get treatment. Crime also changes the way we feel about our community and what it costs to Iive.here, How do you feel about your community as the crime rate Increases and graffiti and van- dalism become Increaslngly._ common? What is the cost of feeling more vulnerable when you leave your house for the weekend? How do you feel when you're walking with your child and you see a ment8.ily ill man arguing with himself or urinating on the sidewalk? Crime drives up our insur- ance and medical costs, The costs associated with car theft, vandalism and W1insured visits to emergency rooms are not' paid lhrou'gh the'generosity of the insurance companies and' medical providers, we pay them In the fonn of higher premiums and medical fees, What does it cost to ignore those probiems? What's It worth to fIx them? Wouldn't we rather live in a community that did so?' , Our law enforcement system works properly only when all of the essential partner.systems are Intact. If you don't fund mental health, former patients end up clogging the emergency rooms and the criminal justice system, where. their care co~ts much more and is much less ef- fectlve.lfwe don'!fund an ade- . quate jail, the police officers end up re-arrestlng the same criminals over and over again; and without any jail time or drug ,treatment, the cycle reo peats itselfindefmltely. Right now, we're living the worst possible scenario: None of the component programs are funded to do the job, so we're spending lots of money and making little or no progress. Here's the argument for ade. quately funding the InteITelat. ed systems oflaw enforcement, drug treatment and mental. health: - 1) It's the moraIiy right thing to do, A society should , protect Its most vulnerable citi- zens and take care of people , who are unable to care for , themselves, , 2) It's the mostelfective way to protect and enhance the , quality oflife In our commW1l. , ty, The cost Is worth it because it pays enormous dividends in quality oflife, ," " 3) It saves money, In the , long tenn, it's much less expe~ ~_ sive to't'acKletnese prQblems , head-on than It isto ignore - them.. ' 4) A safe commW1ity pro- motes healthy growth and eco- nomie vitality. The conclusion is mescap-, able: Responsible citizens must 'overcome apathy, become in- fonned and act. Sometimes, in- fluencing the political process '. , 'I lis as simple as writing a letter or making a call, It may seem silly, but the few people who , regularly gather on the court- house steps exert more influ- , ence on the political system than the thousands who sit at, home grumbling but doing' nothing about the choices made , by their represenbltiYe~. If the apathetic home.sltters would use their phones, their '! . computers and their votes, they, could pitch the politicians,mak- '. ing irresponsible decisions and' :" fIx these problems quickly, ,: At $1.25 per $1,000 of as' " : sessed property, value, Lane' COW1ly's.tax'rateranks 35th . out of36 countiE,s: Our citizens may be paying plenty of taxes, but the money isn't going to the cOW1ty. We're going to have to ,put political gamesmanship , \.slde and fIx the revenue side of the county fInancial equa- tion, or the downward spiral in community safety support will continue In Lane County, ' Please take the time to study the issues and hold POlitiCiam;,' accountable, '" l' :-:~-t"--_. ._~, ',..; ::<':. ,:j ,I ,. , '-', ~.--..~---........-;" Date Received f- El 01 Zoog;'; PUryX';ler: BJ !\"A,ii .~.