02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Councilman Murray thought budget costs would answer some of the questions raised. The budgeting level would determine the type of study. He said no one intended that this study would be an endless, on-going political process. Councilwoman Beal said she hadn't realized that the provisions for composition of the steer- ing committee and appointment of a project director excluded LCOG, and she was of the opinion that LCOG should be one of the "main sources" and should probably , select the director. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to amend the motion by deleting items-having to do with representation on the steering committee and appointment of project director, those items to be worked out later. . Councilman Murray was not opposed to deleting prov~s~on for selection of a project director, saying MAPAC could be delegated that responsibility. But he was opposed to deletion of the provision for representation on the steering committee, saying 'that who was ,on the committee was critical and that if that item was de1.eted it would leave a "gaping hole." Mayor Anderson said from the standpoint of negotiations with other juriSdictions, a less definitive statement, one that appeared not so dictatorial as to the makeup of a policy committee, would probably give more chance of getting'itheir co- operation. He thought once an agreement was made with the other jurisdictions on the study, then a steering committee could be developed of whatever representa- tion was felt appropriate. ~ Ken Battaile; LCOG staff, concurred with Councilman Williams' viewpoint on geo- graphic area of the study. He said the task force in considering the question of area recognized statements in the General Plan that the metropolitan community should encourage ou~lying juriSdictions to develop their own plans. Part of that encouragement, he said, would be their inclusion in any growth study of the metro- politan area~ He thought another important factor in limiting the study to the urban service boundary would be the exclusion of the Lane Community College basin; that aspect should be re-examined. Mr, Battaile concurred in Manager's statement that the agency appointing the project director should have responsibility for selection of that person. Councilman Murray noted that the LCOG outline for the growth study proposed the various LCOG agencies would be solicited for funding. He said it was never stated that funds would come from any other source. Councilman Williams saw fund- ing as a purely academic question. He said the efficacy of the study would re- quire co-operation and commitment of other jurisdictions regardless of whether they con~ributedfinancially. He thought it would be an error to restrict the study to just those paying for it and to just the urban area. A short discussion on rules of order and type of motion that would prevail resulted in motion by ,Councilman Bradley seconded by Counil- woman Shirey to refer the issue back to committee (Council members Murray and Beal) to work out rewording of the motion presented. Motion carried unanimously. e Comm 2/19/75 Approve L. Echo Hollow West PUD - Copies of report from planning department were previously distributed to Council member requesting enforcement proceedings by calling a public hearing to determine what provisions of the original contract had not been met. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to set hearing as requested for, March 10 Council meeting~ Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/19/75 Approve e, 2/24/75 - 30 98