Minutes 03/24/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TUESDAY MARCH 24, 1981 .-- In February, Councilman West moved publicly to resurrect the idea of City-County merger, and the Council formally agreed to call on the County Board of Supervisors to join in a renewed study of this pro- position. The initial reaction of the Board was positive. An exploratory meeting, involving Board Chairman Doug Johnston, Acting County Administrator Lee Lintecum, Mayor Greene and me, to discuss approaches to a new study was held on March 19 and seemed productive. - In general, it has already been established that in this State the legal and constitutional barriers to merger are negligible. The political barriers could, however, be significant. Summary and Recommendations All of the planning propositions described are important, but they are much easier to generalize about than they are to attack. One dilemma is that they are all inter-related; but, in my opinion, they do not wholly lend themselves to a single, integrated planning process. With these convictions and after conferring with staff members and various consultants, my recommendations are as follows: 1. To tie the population loss question into an overall reV1Slon and update of the Comprehensive Plan, utilizing a consultant and under the general direction of the Planning Commission. Rationale: The matter of population gain or loss is largely a reflection of the other basic elements of the Comprehensive Plan--housing, economics and community facilities. To analyze the City's population loss will, in fact, require an updating of the Plan; and I feel that we should see it that way going in, looking to the Planning Commission for guidance instead of organizing a special study group on the population issue. .-- 2. To proceed on a separate track with the new merger study, possibly using a consultant and under the guidance of a citizens study committee. Rationale: No matter how positively the two governing bodies approach the question of merger, there may be sizeable obstacles and it is impossible to predict how long the merger study will take nor what the final result will be. It is, therefore, impractical to delay revision of the Comprehensive Plan until the merger issue is settled, nor to attempt to incorporate the merger issue into revision of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. To budget as required to cover anticipated costs of these two planning exercises during fiscal year 1981-82.