HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-02-18 Bd Comm minutesFebruary 11, 1975
To: Members of the Iowa City Council and the City Manager
From: James Harris -
Re: Funding for the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission and
the division of labor between the City's planning function and that
of the regional commission.
I am a member, at Mayor Czarnecki's request, of a committee to
develop a proposed study design for the City's comprehensive planning process
and to recommend details of the interface between the planning work done by the
two jurisdictions. It has been my understanding that the purpose of this committee
is to explore the appropriate scope of planning and that the City was seeking its
guidance in this matter.
In this perspective I find it difficult to understand how the Council,
this week, can consider establishing its funding to the JCRPC at a level requiring
a reduction in staff and programs. It makes no sense for us to be examining these
policies after the budget decision has already been made, on a basis not derived
from the considerations that we have been asked and scheduled to develop.
I have jumped ahead, see attached memo, to voice my views of the
scope of the City's planning function in the hope that these views will lead to
a working definition of scope and collaboration in staff work. This will show
the direction of my thought - which does not indicate that the City should reduce
its support of the JCRPC. I appreciate that there are frustrations; differences of
policy assumption and criticisms, but these need to be dealt with in the context
of compromise and commitment (to deadlines, changes of scope, etc.)
I cannot see' any response on my part other than to urge you to
allocate the $83, 323 requested for the three categories: Commission's programs,
direct contract work and support of the multi -county agency. You may wish to
qualify this action by holding in abeyance for 60 to 75 days an amount ($15,000=)
until the process now started has been pursued through the stage of decisions
about scope and division of effort. To force the regional commission into a
reduction of staff and programs is a serious step and moves away from a carefully
devEi7ped commitment to regional scale cooperation and planning on a -countywide
basis. - -
.1, 197
To the Study Design Committee
Statement by Jim Harris re: scope of the City's planning undertakings and
its relationship to the JCRPC
I see several facets, some immediate and some of longer range operational
nature:
Immediate
A. The City is unhappy with the delays in completionofthe area transportation
study and with some of the details of the land use planning upon which it is
based. I suggest:
(1) the JCRPC (with the State Highway Commission - Iowa Dept. of
Trans. - and the consultants working on this study) establish a schedule
for early completion, giving it highest priority.
(2) the City identify now explicitly any objections to the study thus far
and seek a resolution with the JCRPC - including policy assumptions.
(3) great care be given to the remainder of the process (area trans. study)
for in it are the identification of major projected flows (desire lines), alter-
natives in route locations and traffic assignments to these various routes.
This process needs the fullest communication and debate, for the impacts
of -future improvements in streets, highways, etc. are determined by these
end product plans.
B. The City's present position has tendencies toward wishing to choose only a
part of the regional commission's program for support, based upon perceptions of
direct benefit, without the assumption of the major responsibility for (1) areawide
pianning for the entire county population about two thirds of which is in Iowa
City, and (2) the commitment built up for regional cooperation and coordinated
Planning. I would like to see this assumption evaluated very carefully before
the City adopts such a stance.
Lona ranee
in my view there is no justification for assuming that a full range of planning
studies should be done separately at regional level and at city level, particularly
in light of the high percentage of the urban population living in Iowa City.
From the document from the City's Community Development staff dated November 11,
1974, thr:::cop of ti.e cnrnprrhnnslve planninil emphasizes basic factors and their
extension into sectors that are heavily physical in nature. Haman servlcFff bre,
-less emphasized.
-z=
Planning theory has moved away from earlier definitions of'a comprehensive
uian as a development document to viewing planning as an ongoing process
vaith overall and specific concerns, emphasizing participation by consumers
and giving new equal emphasis to human needs, social services, special depriva-
tions, ctc. This is not to discredit the scope of planning suggested but to
suggest the following:
1. that the total scope of planning needed be viewed as that now provided,
plus what can be done, by both jurisdictions.
a. human services has been an emphasis of the JCRPC.
For the present let it continue to develop in this area.
b, basic context and physical planning are now divided but
should be viewed as one unit of work, building upon the JCRPC's
work to the extent that it has progressed --necessitating a high
level of cooperation, communication and, trust.
c. special sub -area and problem studies should be done by both
agencies as most appropriate. For the City, there -are some important
planning programs that need policy and planning work:
--physical planning for various subareas both now fully developed
and those in process
--the inner city area --see Harris' earlier memo to City Council
and Citizens' steering committee
tying into lower Ralston Greekareasand the IowaRiver
basin work
--public services and facilities and special functions by the City
-
eg., parks, recreation, open space
--housing policies --linked to other studies at both levels
--transportation and land use--w/in the framework of the area
transportation study
--policy analysis of these and many other special opportunities --
developed within the umbrella of the area wide planning framework
agreed upon jointly, by both jurisdictions
Feb. 11,_ 1975
TENTATIVE
LISP OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
FOR FUNDING IN FIRSTYEAR_
HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY UI.IVLI,0I1MI:NT ACT OF 1974
CONSENSUS
�1-,�^�•
FOR FUNDING: 3.
Skills Unlimited Workshop Center -
4.
River Corridor Acquisition and Development=•oo,do'
5.
Parks and Recreation Projects �6;. r oc-
8.
Removal of Architectural Barriers c.^O
10.
Ralston Creek Study and Improvements ��^^:� " •^ o
12.& 1.
Comprehensive Community Development Planning
including a Human Needs Planner -
14.
Urban Redevelopment - Code Enforcement
and Housing Rehabilitation at,'•co b.
15.
Urban Renewal Project Improvements =,^•^-n
23.
Administrative Costs c,c-o•
----
- NO CONSENSUS: G.
Children and Family Resource Center-;. =
7.
Mark IV Neighborhood Center--:-,`
11.
Senior Citizens Center •''i. ,
-
20.
Rape Prevention and Crisis Center h`c
22.--Human-Resources
Center }`-
Fire Detection Devices -
Old Post Office Purchase `- -
PROJECTS NOT
ELIGIBLE: 16.
Mass Transit
---
21.
Recycling — ,:'
S.E.A.T.S. .)..
PROJECTS
_
ELIMINATED FROM
CONSIDERATION: 2.
United Way Information and Referral Center -'-o
9.
Swimming Pools ,,-
13.
Cable Television
17.
Fire Truck Acquisition
. 19.
Human Relations Commission-
-, _ 'I