Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 99 PAGE 806 <br />Intergovernmental Coordination Element <br />Director Keating advised that staff had modelled this <br />evaluation and appraisal report responding to the following <br />questions. Who do we deal with? How do we deal with them? What are <br />the issues? <br />Director Keating explained how the Legislature had made far- <br />reaching changes affecting this element and then changed them. <br />Because of those changes, this has been a strange element to track <br />in the last 5 years. <br />By approaching this element in a thorough manner, Director <br />Keating felt that most of the objectives were achieved. A number <br />of changes have been suggested, several of which he pointed out <br />(below) and explained the reasoning. He thought the Board might <br />wish to give additional direction. <br />Objective Achieved <br />Minor revisions to the objective <br />• Delete policy 1.14 <br />Study feasibility to become charter county <br />(study completed, not feasible at this time) <br />• Minor revisions to policies 13, <br />1.6.1.10 and 1.15 <br />• New policy promoting joint <br />meetings between the Board <br />and other local governments' <br />elected officials <br />• New policy regarding <br />identifying LOS inconsistencies <br />with other jurisdictions <br />• New policy requiring a written <br />report containing specific <br />actions to reduce or eliminate <br />inconsistencies <br />• New policy pass a resolution <br />requesting that the state <br />eliminate Regional Planning <br />Councils <br />The Board concurred that meetings with elected officials of <br />other local governments would be acceptable in order to address <br />specific mutual issues, if warranted, but they were not in favor of <br />meetings being held on a regular basis. <br />Director Keating also advised that an objective cluster <br />related to annexation will be included, and Commissioner Eggert <br />22 <br />November 12, 1996 <br />