Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />'. <br /> <br />,Councilman Murray expressed his concern about the ongoing proliferation of groups <br />~)with overlapping functions, referring to the creation of the Metropolitan Area <br />planning Advisory Committee (MAPAC) whose functions, he said, s$emed to be parallel <br />to those of LCOG. He felt one problem with MAPAC and the feeling of loss of citizen <br />: input was the lack of staff support, and he wondered whether other governmental <br />agencies.cou1d give some. In-,answer to Mrs. Campbell's impression that funds were <br />: allocated in the budget and that the County and springfield were contributing. <br />Assistant Manager said both the County and Springfield had been asked to participate <br />C in financing MAPAC staff.. 'However , Springfield decided not to increase its par- <br />;ticipation in LCOG funding above 6%. Concern about that limitation on LCOG programs <br />iwas to 'be a matter of discussion in the next Budget Co~ttee meeting. He v.erified <br />ithat the Eugene budget did provide an allocation for MAPAC staffing. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />:Manager said that staffing requirements were not known for the land conservation <br />: and development co-ordination required under S.B.lOO. However, MAPAC responsi- <br />!bilities were somewhat different from the co-ordination role in that they were <br />: charged initially with updating and refinement of the 1990 Plan for this metro- <br />politan area. The area-wide planning role was broader and would require co- <br />ordination of local planning activities with State land use planning. Planning <br />Director added that LCOG deals with the County-wide planning while MAPAC deals <br />: only with the metropolitan area, that MAPAC is within the structure of LCOG itself. <br />: Final determination on land use planning would be made by the LCOG Board which, he <br />: said, would incorporate advice from the citizens advisory committee. He had no <br />. knowledge of funding for the co-ordination role but thought there might be some <br />State support to the agency designated. His understanding was that there would <br />. . <br />, be no additional money from the County for"MAPAC ahd a relatively smaJ.l amount <br />: from Springfield. But until requirements of the co-ordination function were <br />more clearly known, it was felt LCOG would best serve the purpose. <br /> <br />: Councilman Murray, r~cognizing that LCOG could function in the co-ordinating role, <br />: felt LCOG and MAPAC could conceivably end up competing for staff support. ,He ' <br />, didn't see why, if MAPAC served only the metropolitan area, members represent- <br />. ing other areas of the County could not be added so that MAPAC could function as <br />. the co-ordinating agency. Planning Director responded that MAPAC was a part of <br />, the LeOG structure and could not be separated, that the LCOG Board was made up <br />,of elected officials for policy direction whereas MAPAC was an advisory land <br />use planning body. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />'Councilman Wood noted that using MAPAC would call for creation of more citizen <br />',groups throughout the County whereas LCOG was already set up in that respect. <br />;Hesaid it was his und~rstanding that staff would be nBde available regardless <br />iof Springfield's decision and that MAPAC's information would be integrated into <br />the co-ordination function through LCOG. He thought some unversity help would <br />'also be available in the updating function of MAPAC. He added that S.B.lOO <br />would add increased burden and regardless of which agency was designated ear <br />, the co-ordination function that responsibility would have to be funded in some <br />fashion. Mr. Murray had serious reservations about staffing, remarking that <br />,without significant increase in staff support there could be no advisory work <br />accomplished and he didn't see how Eugene could take that responsibility by it- <br />,self. He noted MAPAC's year-and-a-ha1f existence with minimum staff help which <br />,was supplied by Eugene. <br /> <br />i <br /> <br />Councilwoman Beal wondered if LCOG took on the co-ordination role required by <br />S.B.lOO whether it would be financed primarily by Eugene since others were not <br />'budgeting funds for LCOG. Planning Director replied that was not the case, - i <br />,that a financing plan for the co-ordination program was not yet devised~ The I <br />,funding would have to be supplied by the County if it accepted that responsibility,( <br />'the same was true of LCOG. It was hoped the. State would allocate Federal funds I <br />,for that purpose but in any event Eugene would probab.ly fund its share, based I <br />:possibly on population. It was assumed that MAPAC would be a part of the effort I <br />; if LCOO was designated as the responsible agency. \ <br /> <br />I <br />~ <br /> <br />Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. .Wood to recommend designation of <br />Lane Council of Governments as the area-wide planning co-ordination <br />agency with the idea that MAPACwould playa very important role in <br />that function. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Manager in general comment on the question raised by Mr. Murray said that at sOllJe <br />point in time it would be well to' take a gopd look at the committee structure of <br />.LCOG and the cost of operating. In the proqess of encouraging citizen participa- <br />tion in planning decisions, he ~.id;, it ~f!3~e?_ t~:.:-=_.'should ,~~__~,?m'::_l2?~l1~ a~__. ---~ <br /> <br />1.00 <br /> <br />6/i0/74 - i9 <br /> <br />~ <br />