09/23/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---- -- ,. -- ._~_. . '.--.. - -. - - --...~ ..-~---.__.. - Councilman Keller thought MAPAC's designation for the ~ork would duplicate efforts, , '. I that LCOG appeared to be the appropriate body because of statistics they had already developed. Mr. Murray recognized statistical information developed by LCOG but thought that MAPAC, as a committee of LCOG, would automatically have that information. tit I.councilman Wood noted LCOG's consideration of creating a committee to look at func- tions of the various committees. He thought that submission to LCOG for a recommenda- itionwould be best because of the co-operative effort desired. ! :Councilman Williams suggested deletion of reference in the resolution to MAPAC, . ;making the first paragraph of the resolution read: "The city of Eugene invites I ;Lane County and the city of Springfield to join us in conducting a thorough study...." IHe said this would hold open for the time being the specific question of who would do ' ') , . Ithe study. Or it would give the opportunity perhaps to consider as a more appropriate t.... group one made up of elected officials of the governmental units, similar to the ~ Metropolitan Sewer Advisory Committee. Councilman Murray said that a jointly- I :appointed "citizens" COrmhittee was very much a part of the proposal. He wondered I . . ~f input from LCOG staff present at this meeting would help. J ~ ~ayor Anderson noted his experience as a panel member on property law at the University l ,during the past summer wherein he had occasion to do considerable reading on growth i studies which gave him an appreciation of the magni tude of the task under discussion. .j . . He thought that before proceeding into the technical phase of how a growth study i .7' should be conducted or trying to delineate what was to be included there should be a 1 general resolution inviting the other jurisdictions' support and participation, in- j ~ cluding resources. Then, the resolution finally adopted would define in detail the ,., areas the study should encompass, similar to that on the Goodpasture Island area. He proposed a different resolution for adoption at this time, which he read, and sug- gested that Councilman Murray, Manager, and planning staff meet with representatives of Springfield and Lane County to develop a document which would more specifically spell out the thrust of the study and how it would be conducted. He felt the Murray/ Beal resolution might call for studies in areas where information was already available. Manager said it seemed inevitable that concerns of other jurisdictions - Cottage Grove, Creswell, Veneta, etc. - and school districts would have to be taken into considera- tion in'any growth study for the metropolitan area. And that the existing LCOG struc- ture would be particularly suited to that purpose without creating a special organiza- tion comprisi~g just the three units. He suggested the LCOG Board might be willing I J;.Q--J;..I~p,Qml[lel)d._delineatiQn of. suchC!.$tudt7andhow to qo abou};_it.__Coun.ciJ-J!lal1....wood _ agreed with that viewpoint, pointing out tllat LCOG would De in contact wi th many school districts in the County attempting to gain a greater degree of participa- \ tion from them in LCOG's activities. He felt too that the problem of growth would be of concern to other cities looking to the metropolitan area for regional shop- ,ping services. . '.. !Councilman Murray said he. would be willing to.amend his motion to provide for ... /adopt)PIl ~f the or.iginaI-.r;~olution revised to make the first paragraph read: "TheW ~cify of Eugene'~i1vites -tane C(illnty and the c4ty of Springfield.... to join us ~ll request- ling ~ jointly-appointed citizens comrn}(tee t;;coi1a.uct-~a-tnorcfugh-sttldy._. :7'and to ladd at the end the provision that "this resolution be distributed to LCOG for con- ,sideration and comment." I I iCouncilman Williams wondereg-if-itwould be appropriate to ask LCOG for considera- .'tion and comment on the r~solution first, then bringing back the revised version Ifor adoption. Councilman McDonald could see no reason for that action. He asked iwhy LCOG, if it was to be involved, had not initiated the study of its own accord. [Mr. Williams answered that because LCOG was uniquely-qualif~ed_to.be deeply in- voLved in a .;;tudy of th~s ,fl9J:.uJe it seemed. logical to get their thoughts before Ii t was started. Councilman Wood added tha't it would seem to eliminate duplication ' jinan intergovernmental action. He favored sending ,the resolution to LCOG 'for review' land comment. ...._ I ~ :Mayor Anderson thought a mor~_general approach should be made to LCOG. He felt 'several of the areas covered in the Murray/Beal resolution needed'clarification. "Methods of control," for instance - did it mean to control growth itself or ef- .fects of growth; "cost/benefits of growth" :... did it mean fiscal impact of growth ' or disadvantages vs advantages. He. wondered how other thing!!.__c.C?uld be worked in, e' __ ,such as effect of major growth problems in this area as opposed to other areas, 'and interim development controls. These, he said, would take techniques which would take time to develop so it would appear better to use a very general .approach to LCOG asking for a study of economic and population growth, analysis of major growth problems, and developme~t of a growth poiicy. After response from them, a more defini tive statement could be developed. , 8/23/74 -2 .331