03/08/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . expenditure. Manager added that capital outlay money is generally frozen to provide for other already - budgeted items. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. It D.l990 Plan Update Process - January 26 official report has been distributed to Council members, recommending approval of the proper process. John Porter, Planning Director, explained that the first proposed 1990 Plan update structure has been reviewed with the LCOG staff by the area's planning directors and administrators, and that agreement on a satisfactory process is now sought among all governing bodies. The 1990 Plan calls for updates every five years, and the time is now arriving for the first one. MAPAC has been responsible for reviewing the plan annually, said Mr. Porter, since the State Goals and Guidelines COlTU1Jittee found that, to avoiu' potential problems, there needed to be a nEtro plan review group separate from these preparing the plan. Planning COlTU1Jission has recommended a new committee structure, involving a Metro Plan Policy Com~ittee consisting of one elected official from each of the three jurisdictions, one appointed board or commission member from each of the three jurisdictions, a citizen-at-Iarge from each jurisdiction and two citizens-at-large to be appointed from the metro area by LCOG. Along with that commattee, Mr. Porter noted suggested restructuring of MAPAC to concentrate more fully on the citizen review functions, and also formation of a technical planning committee designed to prepare technical work for the policy committee. Mr. Porter finally noted the Planning Commassion's desire to have membership on the Metro Plan Policy COmnUttee rather than on MAPAC. Jim MiLler, LCOG senior planner and project director for the update process, detailed the process as outlined in a chart presented to the Council. The process is a 2 1/2 year process which began last December and which will run to July, 1978. It is divided into four phases which are: Study Design, Identification of Data-Research Needs, Plan Preparation, and Public Hearing and Adoption. e ..---" Mr. Murray wondered why a regular type of committee structure was not being used, with a policy cOmnUttee assisted by staff rather than two other cOmnUttees. Mr. Miller explained that, for a metro-wide plan coordination, this mode might best balance technical and citizen input. Mr. Murray wondered the reasoning behind appointment of two citizens-at-Iarge by LCGG. He thought it more logical for the three jurisdictions to appoint an additional representative each. Mr. Porter responded that LCOG might appOInt people representing different local government bodies, thus providing more comprehensive representation. ,TO Mrs. Beal's question on funding, Mr. Porter responded that, in addition to seeking assistance from LCOG, costs are envisioned as being prorated based on the population of each area - Eugene perhaps 50% and Springfield and Lane County each-25%. Mrs. Beal felt there should be a relationship bet~een decision-making votes and population and funding; Planning Director responded the same mode was being used as had been for MAPAC. In answer to a question on who has approved the proposed structure to date, Planning Director said the county has approved the general structure; the Springfield Planning Commission has discussed it, has generally concurred, and is taking it to their City Council; and the Eugene Planning Commission has approv-ed it .dth some suggested modifications. - . --/ 3/8/76 - 12 .13~