|
Citizen
Involvement in Land Use Planning in
Jackson County, Oregon
IS IT
HAPPENING? Survey May
31, 2006
page
- 2 -
Findings
The questionnaire was organized
into three sections: 1) Goal 1 Compliance
through a designated Committee for Citizen
Involvement (CCI), 2) use of Citizen Advisory
Committees (CAC) in considering land use issues,
and 3) additional land use questions of
significance to Jackson County.
Section 1:
All communities surveyed have a written plan for
citizen involvement though the plans differ
considerably in content and none of the
municipalities strictly adhere to their written
plan. Larger municipalities tend to have a more
formalized citizen involvement process, while
smaller ones tend to use a more informal
process. Many communities designated their
Planning Commission as their CCI and a few had
no designated CCI but, rather, used ad hoc CACs
to address specific land use planning issues.
All of the municipalities understood the
requirement for promoting an active and involved
citizenry and all reported having outreach
programs to address this; some by meeting
minimal legal requirements to notify residents
who could be impacted by a land use change,
others by actively soliciting citizen
participation through newsletters, media
announcements, flyers, and sometimes direct
contact. Monitoring and evaluating the actual
level of citizen involvement was, in some cases,
clearly specified but, in others, altogether
lacking.
Section 2:
All respondents said that their municipality
uses CACs to address long-range planning issues
such as zoning or ordinance or comprehensive
plan changes. Some communities used ongoing
standing committees, others appointed advisory
committees, as needed, to address specific
issues, and several communities used both.
Service on a CAC, in many communities, was open
to any interested resident (or citizen) although
a selection process was typically employed. A
few respondents indicated that CAC membership
was more limited and solicitation was directed.
Most communities provide guidance for the
committee members. Sometimes there is support
provided in terms of a meeting facility,
printing, and a staff liaison. The majority of
the municipalities have staff actually
participate on the committee. The frequency of
CAC meetings and the terms of service varied.
If minutes are taken, they are typically either
“available on request” or posted on the official
website. All respondents stated that
recommendations from the CACs are considered
during the decision-making process and local
citizens have opportunities to provide input
through the public meeting process. However,
the majority of respondents commented that
citizen involvement could be improved. Many
expressed frustration that citizens are not
engaged and need to better understand the role
they can play in the decision-making process.
Section 3:
(Measure
37) – Most of the municipalities have
adopted procedures for processing Measure 37
claims. Only two had received a claim as of the
time the survey was conducted. (Since
Measure 37 claims are not considered to be “land
use” issues, public input is not required.)
(Regional Problem Solving)
-
Seven of the 11 municipalities
interviewed are included in the RPS process.
All seven feel to a greater or lesser degree, it
is a helpful process. A couple of the
communities feel the process is moving too
slowly and are actively negotiating with Jackson
County, outside the RPS process,
to expand their Urban Growth Boundaries (UGB) to
allow for more development.
(Enforcement of
Goal 1) - Participants in the survey were
asked whether Goal 1 citizen involvement should
be legally mandated with enforcement
mechanisms. All but one of the communities
answered with a strong “no”. Most doubted
whether enforcement would be effective. Some
stated that citizens cannot be forced to be
interested. Some indicated that lack of funding
for extensive outreach could create a problem
with compliance.
read on conclusions
on page - 3 -
|
