02/26/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r~ .~ special department for social services and the City could then participate through funding. Mr. Rice said that what really is at stake is whether the counties and cities will be Eady to assume the responsibility in decentralization of social service programs. He noted the changing pattern in use of Federal funds and said that that should not result in State bureaucracy. But monies will go to the State if the local governments are not prepared to administer them. Betty Niven, member of Planning Commission, questioned whether the County would discharge its responsbility under contractual arrangement in a satisfactory manner. 'Mrs. Campbell read from the recommendations that".. .it is assumed City has re- . sponsibili ty to set standards for type and level of service and to check the quali ty." I Mr. Rice explained that this proposal is for the purpose of giving a sense of di- rection on how to proceed under decentralization, other steps will follow. Councilman Murray noted areas of agreement and disagreement in the proposal. He thought the re- port and the discussion were both useful in setting dir~ctions for future considera- . tion and suggested the next step should be discussion with the County for joint I . ~ consideration. Councilman Williams expressed concern with interaction between Item 13 - Housing . . and Item 23 - Community Development~ He said there should be deleted from Item 23 :.those items with regard to inspection services and housing which appear under Item 13.1 : He also fel t the i tern on communi ty development should be separated into two parts - 'one, economic development dealing with jobs in the area, and the other, dealing , wi th communi ty development in terms of neighborll9.od development, urban renewal, etc. .' Mrs. Beal asked for clarification of the issue being considered. Mayor Anderson said it was whether to forward to LCOG this subconmtittee report with any further recommendations or alterations. Mrs. Beal commented on the need to consider the ,entire social services program and wondered whether it wouldn't be better to relay : that fact to LCOG at the same time these recommendations are forwarded. Mayor didn't : feel that concern for consideration of the entire social services program should 'preclude sending the suggested recommendations to LCOG so they will be available in · preparing further drafts of the proposed program. Ultimately an overall policy will be developed areawide which will take in the whole area of social services. 'Mr. Murray expressed satisfaction that the list of services included in fhe LCOG proposal listed everything discussed in terms of revenue sharing and that the report was very systematic and comprehensive. Mrs. Campbell agreed. ,Mr. Williams moved that the statement in Item 23 be revised to suggest that .items currently listed as communi ty development might well ITPre properly be defined as economic development, and that a separate item for community development covering neighborhood development, urban renewal ,and physical facilities should be considered. Also that the housing program and inspection program should be deleted from that area because they fit more properly under Item 13- Housing. There was no second. . In making fue ITPtion Mr. Williams said that the things listed under Item 23 deal to a great extent with economic development. He felt they should be included but in a separate listing. Manager sai d it was the intent to distinguish and encompass in Item 23 community development as it is normally defined and as it is defined in : revenue sharing. Mrs. Niven did not think housing should be removed from the com- ,munity development item because of the inter-relationship with other things in that category, including inspection. Mr. Rice felt housing should be related to com- muni ty development in the sense of the need for public resources to provide housing for those in need of it - satisfying a social need is what is addressed. Mr.Murray fel t also that housing is an important ,part of communi ty development and favored keeping it under that listing. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to revise the area of community development and redefining it as economi c development, make a new category of communi ty develop- ment to cover urban renewal, housing, neighborhood development, etc., and, delete Item 13 as a specific category for housing from Section 1 of the report. Mr. Murray expressed his opposition to the motion. He said it would result in look- ing at housing only in terms of restructuring as provided in community development whereas housing is a major consideration. tt' Councilman Hershner asked if categories as listed in the proposal in any way desig- nated priorities. Mr. Rice Said that all of those in the first group are'considered top priority for public social services monies since they represent basic survival needs for people. He added that to reITPve housing from that group would be saying it is not basically a survival need. The other groups, he said, were supposed to have priori ty ranking but no decision was made in that regard. Councilwoman Campbell noted the recommendation to IlVve the day care item into the first priority group. ! Mr. R:,i.ce said that day care was intended to be included in the first group but was _inadver,tently omj.tted.__ _,_ __~_,_ _ _.._ o}" ~....," u _...J 5' 2/26/73 - 11 " :- =,..1 ,"'.... ..... -. " . ~"."