HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/31/1989, A-2 - REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS �&GENDA -,2
San Luis Obispo Area Coordinatirj ff&j�ZVM # A �de
Grover City
Morro Bay
3faind Regional Transportation Planning Agency Paso Robles
Pismo Beach
ITTED BY COUNCILWOPIAN RAPPA FOR YOUR INFOKfATION San Luis Obispo
® San Luis Obispo County
DATE: JULY 12, 1989
TO: ALL SAN LJIS OBISPO AREA COORDIlIATING COUNCIL nMr_= C E I V
FIM: SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA CO0RDI1Q=G COUNCILN J U L 1 4 198
VIA: RONALD L. DE CARLI, PROGRAM MANAGER r-v4-j �—
SUBJECT: REGIOtAL'PIAbIIdING PROGRAM CITY CLERK SURVEY RFSULTS SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
At its July 5th meeting, the Area Council directed that we forward the
attached survey results to the delegates, requesting that you provide the
results to your governing boards for formal action by September 1st. this
formal action should include the following:
a) Identify and prioritize programs for further consideration;
b) Identify preferred implementing organization(s) , concerns and
recommendations;
/ c) Determine willingness to participate in a task force to further
scope and study establishing an implementation/financing plan for
selected, high priority programs.
During the adoption of the 1988 Regional Transportation Plan, a number of
delegates questioned whether the Area Council had the authority to address
regional issues other than transportation planning. A policy subcommittee
was formed and determined that the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) allows
broader regional planning authority. Staff contacted Regional Planning
Agerc m throughout the . State to identify possible programs of interest .
for our region. A survey to ascertain interest in these programs was then
prepared and distributed to all elected officials, planning commissioners,
planning and public works directors and city/county administrators.
Attached is the staff report to the Area Council with the summary analysis
of the survey results, together with additional background data. If you
have any questions regarding the report or would like to have a
presentation of its findings, please call me at 549-5714.
Countv Government Center, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 (805) 549-5706
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA COORDINATING COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: J= 51 1989
SUBJECT: =ONAL PLVWM pROMM SURM RFSUITS
The Regional Planning Program Survey has been crnpleted and the results
have been reviewed by your ad hoc policy ccmnittee. Of-the 22 prospective
programs, a high interest was shown by over 50$ of the respondents in the
following ten programs:
* Regional Transportation Planning
* Overall Regional planning
* Regional Data Center
* Development of Cmmtywide Planning Goals
* Regional Open Space Planning
* Regional Water Resources Planning
* Air Quality Planning .
* Regional Census Center
* Solid & Har.attl us Waste Management
* Regional Recycling Program
Most of the reqxmdents preferred that the Area Council, Cities and the
County should individually and/or collectively be responsible for the
various programs. Generally, the respondents felt that the wasting
government agencies should be made to work better and more cooperatively
to solve regional problems. Mlile creation of a new regional planning
organization was recommended by some respondents, it was not generally
seen as necessary or desirable since the powers and responsibilities of
the Area C amcil and the Cities and County can be modified to fulfill the
need for mare effective cooperation on regional issues.
CATIONS '
1) Fan%wd survey results to the County Growth Management C=omittee for
review and written response.
2) Request Area C=ncil delegates distribute results to their govezmi*>;
boards for formal action by September 1st, to:
a) Identify and prioritize progr-ea for further consideration;
b) Identify preferred imple:aenting organization
c) Determine ori l l i rryixc to participate in establishing an
inplementatiAn/f7nancing Plan for program development.
J,
DISCUSSION
During May we mailed out a total of 102 surveys to all City and County
elected officials, planning commissioners, city administrators, public
works directors and planning directors. A total of 39 responses, or 38%
Of the total, were returned. A summary chart is attached comparing the
program interest level for all responses, elected officials, planning
commissioners and executive staff in the top ten programs. Statistically,
the number of responses should be considered a good representation of
countywide opinions. Written comments were also submitted and have been
oiled in the attachment.
Included with this report are four sets of bar darts which graphically
display the level of interest for all of the 22 programs and the range of
preferred agencies selected by the respondents. Mese graphs have been
provided to show how opinions vary by group. fey include: the sum of all
responses; elected officials only; planning commissioners only; and
executive staff only. • Refer to the listing and Summary of programs to
identify particular programs for comparison. of interest and agency
prefer. The bar charts are self explanatory, with interest (INT)
ranging from high interest (5) to no interest (0) and preferred agency
including the Area Council (SIOACC) , the Cities, the County, a new agency
and no answer.
Mai or Findings•
Our analysis Of' survey answers showed that ten programs received a very
high interest rating (5 & 4) by 50% or more of the total respondents.
Zhese programs are listed below in priority order based on interest,
together with the agency that was preferred by the highest percentage of i
the respondents. -
1. Regional Traffic Circulation & Infrastructure Planning (No.22) was
rated high by 792% with SMAOC the preferred agency by 51%
2. Overall Regional Planning (No.21) was rated high by 70 with-the
CMM-Y the Preferred agency by 29% and a new regional agency preferred
by 24%
3. Regional Data Center (NO-1) ' was rated high by 74% with SLOACC the
preferred agency by 40%
4. Development of Countywide Planning Goals (No.3) was rated high by 74%
with STOAfx the preferred agency by 37% and a new regional agency
. termed by 24%
5. Regional Open Soace Planning (No.6) was rated hi
gh
C=YY the Preferred agency by 57% by 69%.with the
6. Regional Water Resources Planning (No.7) was rated high by 64% with
the County the Preferred agency by 52%
7. Air Quality Planning (No.13) was rated high by 62% with the County the
Preferred agency by 44%.
2
8. Regional Census Center (No.2) was rated high by 59% with the County
the preferred agency by 37% and SIDACC preferred by 31%
9. Solid & Hazardous Waste Manacrarent Planning (No.12) was rated high by
;- 59% with the County the preferred agency by 53%
10. Regional Recycling. Ptvgtam (No.14) was rated high by 56% with the
County the preferred agency by 43%
The data shows that there is a high interest in about half of the possible
regional programs and that a new regional planning agency is not generally
supported. Most respondents preferred that the Area Council, Cities and
the County should individually and/or collectively be responsible for the
various programs.
Written Cmmsents
The written comments from the respondents are very revealing of strong
attitudes in favor of and in opposition to regional planning. Generally,
it is felt that the existing government agencies should be made to work
better and more cooperatively to solve regional problems. The creation of
a new regional planning organization is not seen as necessary or desirable
since the powers and responsibilities of the Area Council, Cities and
County can be expanded and modified to fulfill the need for more
cooperation. Mere are malty thoughtful recommendations in the tents.
The comments express a willingness to work together to develop acceptable
solutions that will preserve local control as much as possible while
effectively responding to important regional concerns.
In conclusion, the range of responses and comments can be viewed from many
different perspectives. We have simplified our analysis as much as
possible for the . sake of clarity and have provided as mach detail on the
responses as seemed appropriate.
Attachments: Summary Table of Interest in Top Ten Programs
Summary of Survey Programs
Written Comments from Respondents
Comparison of Survey Responses
REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAM SURVEY INTEREST IN TOP TEN PROGRRtS
INTEREST (2)
ALL ELECT® : PLANNING :EXECUTIVE
:No. PROGRRM :RE :OFFICIFILS COMM. STAFF
I TIZSPORTRTION PLANNING 79% 67/. 842 88X
2 MERML REGIONAL PLANNING 742 757 79V 637
3 REGIONAL DATA CENTER 74% 92/ 687 63[
4 COUNTYWIDE PLANNING GOALS 74z 672 841/ 637.
5 OPEN SPACE PLANNING 69X 587/. 797 63%
6 WATER RESOURCES PLANNING 642 757 6ez 38X[
7 AIR QUALITY PLANNING 62X 587. 74X aw..
8 REcIONAL CENSUS CENTER 59% 67Z 53/. 63X
9 SOLID M S.WASTE MGMT 647. 537. 68i : 38X
IO REGIONAL RECYCLING PROGRRM : 56X 75`i S3/. 'AEM
j REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY
LISTING OF PROGRAMS
1. REGIONAL DATA CENTER
2. REGIONAL CENSUS CENTER
3. DEVELOPMENT OF COUNTYWIDE PLANNING GOALS
4. REGIONAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PLANNING
5. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
6. REGIONAL OPEN SPACE PLANNING
7. REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
8. REGIONAL SEWERAGE PLANNING
9. REGIONAL ENERGY PLAN DEVELOPMENT
10. REGIONAL OFFSHORE ENERGY PLANNING
11. CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLEARINGHOUSE
12. SOLID & HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
13. AIR QUALITY PLANNING
14. REGIONAL RECYCLING PROGRAM
15. REGIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
16. REGIONAL GRANTS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
17. EMERGENCY/DISASTER RESPONSE MANAGEMENT
18. AREAWIDE CLEARINGHOUSE
19. LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX PROGRAM DEVELOP & ADMIN
20. REGIONAL HUMAN SERVICES NEEDS
21. OVERALL REGIONAL PLANNING
22. REGIONAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & INFRASTRUCTURE
SAN IDIS OBISPO AREA OJORDINATMG CXx7NCIL
REGIONAL PIANNIM NEEDS smzmy
SLZ24ARY OF PROGRAM
i
1. Regional Data Center - Establish a clearinghouse for: consolidating
and sharing information on development activity, vacant lard supply,
and resource consumption throughout the county; monitoring and
projecting the local and regional cumulative effects on water supply,
road capacity, air quality, school capacity, other ' and
government services; providing on-line access to such information by
each purity.
2. Regional Census Center - Preparation for 1990 census and maintenance,
analysis and distribution of countywide census information.
3. Development of Countywide Planrung Goals - Work together to formulate
broad lam use planning policy goals for the county as a whole, to
express a vision for the future of the county shared by the cities and
the county, which would then be implementert by each local government
in their individual planning policy decisions. Compliance would be
the sole responsibility of the cities and the county, with each making
findings as to how their plan amendment and rezoning decisions.
4. Recrional Housing Allocation _Planning - Preparation and annual update
of the plan, including fair share allocations, in coordination with
local jurisdictions.
5. Regional Economic Development Planning - Development and monitoring of
coordinated actions which local jurisdictions could take to improve
the ability of residents to live and work in the same community and to
- develop a methodology ' to better balance economic development with
housing growth at the regional level.
6. Regional Open gpace Plannirrr - Develop and maintain a regional plan
that coordinates local open space and sensitive land policies with
regional needs including acquisition and protection of identified
sensitive habitat, critical open space and major heritage areas.
Possibilities include: the Morro Bay Estuary, the Morros, dune areas
and riparian an habitat.
7. Regional Water Resources Planning - Coordinate development of major
local and regional water supply and distribution facilities.
8. Regional Sewerage Planning - Coordinate development of major local and
regional sewage collection and disposal facilities.
9. Regional Energy Plan Development - Development of a countywide energy
master Plan including onshore effigy mel , energy conservation,
and contingency planning.
10. Regional Offshore Enemy Planning & Project Review - Monitor and
respond to offshore energy leasing proposals and related activities.
11. Criminal Justice Clearinglnouse - Compilation and distribution of
timely info tien relative to crime and justice statistics, trends
and issues.
5 ��� -
12. Solid & Hazardous waste Manaaement Planning - Coordinate and review
development of regional planning to assure environmentally sound
disposal of wastes consistent with air and water quality plans;
Prepare, update and monitor the plan and provide technical assistance _..\
to all local jurisdictions in dealing with land use and transportation
issues related to waste management.
13. Air amity Planning - In cooperation with the Air pollution Control
District, develop a regional implementation strategy and monitor the
effectiveness of the air quality tactics adopted as part of the update
of the air quality plan.
14. Regional Recycling Program - Coordinate efforts by the public and
private sector in the collection and processing of recyclable
materials.
15. Regional Legislative Program - Develop, implement and monitor an
annual legislative program; review and respond to pertinent
legislative bills.
16. Regional Grants Management Program - Develop a regional assistance
program to enable local govertments to more effectively oampete for
available grant funds by disseminating information on funding
opportunities and assisting in the om pleticm of comprehensive and
timely applications.
17. Ehleraenav/Di castor Res n Management _ Prepareand iaplement
regional program of local, regional arra state coordination for all
natural and technological emergencies or disasters.
18. Areawide Clearinghouse - Identify measures of areawide significance;
notify local officials of federal document availability; review and
early transmit comments/positions on grant applications and
environmental documents; and coordinate areawide reviews on proposed
federal actions.
19. Laval Option Sales Tax yam Develonment and Administration - Assist
in proyr Page; prepare and m amain project schedule for the
expenditure plan approved by the electorate, including compliance
guidelines, prop scheduling and priority setting, programming,
monitoring and public information; and administer the funds.
20. Regional Hunan Service Needs - Coordinate and monitor actions by
public and private agencies .related to the homeless, health care,
child care are related services.
21. Overall Regional Planning - Generally, do you believe there should be
an i*creasirg emphasis on regional planning efforts?
22. Regional Traffic Circulation & Infrastructure program - Take actions
to develop and monitor regional circulation plans, traffic improvement
studies, transportation v1stems management per, traffic modeling
and jobs/housing balance programs.
6
SAN IDIS OREM AREA COOmnjA,= COUNCIL
REGICNAL PIAINIM NEEDS SURVEY
WRITTEN CM'S
I. Elected Official - In general, my response (to the planning needs
survey) would be "high interest" in all topics, and would be entirely
open-minded as to the "preferred agency." I would be incapable at
this point of even prioritizing the topics. I would like to see some
free-wheeling preliminary discussions take place to get a feel for the
magnitude of each topic and the appropriate options as to agency.
"Regional planning" is high on my list, arra I.'m willing to get
involved to make it happen. I have no inherent objection to
establishing a board of directors of a regional agency made up of
elected or appointed officials frcmm each jurisdiction. r1he
appy r ateness of that, however, would depend on what is ultimately
decided for that board to handle.
2. Elected Official - At this point in time, I am in opposition to the
formation of a new regional organization. I believe the Area Council,
County and cities are qualified tomos the areas of concern this
qu�tionaire addresses. Elected officials are prone to view the
majority of ism you raise at the local level and its local effect,,
in my opinion. I concur that we should now be taking the perspective
of interrelated cause and effect on the entire county, however,
arriving at a concensus on the majority of issues is a long and
difficult road to traverse. Also, some of the issues (ie. 15-19)
could be tied into pzng=ams in place with the League of California
Cities or perhaps CSAC.
- 3. Elected Official - The idea of a regional planning agency is a novel
idea, however, the opportunity for a regional. clearinghouse for
planning can easily becmne a mega organization. The cm=ept of
regional planning between cities and the county is important but the
creation and implementation can take an enormous amount of money. The
Cities in SIO emty are unique, some agricultural, some heavily into
tourism, while others pr ncte retail commercial. Lets not create a
monster-
4. Elected Official - Because City/county relations are often related to
growth related matters, any new agency may not receive the support it
needs to make any major difference, especially if political leaders
serve on the council. It is better to see the county, with the use of
the COG (Area Council) , establish a performance standard and clearing
house of information that can be used by the cities, the County and
the media. Thus: (1) Mlis is not a good time to create any new
councils, (2) Use the existingcoo, and ask the cities to help the
County and in turn be helped by the County to serve as a resource
center for information, (3) Staff at the County can coordinate the
information and the COG could serve as a hearing body, since it has a
representative from all agencies, (4) The interject and participation
by the County will help City/County relations in a positive manner,
rather than a "superior agency" that will meet resistance f m Cities
or criticisms generated from the "water ethic" report.
5. Elected Official - I am not in favor of expanding government, but at
present elected and appointed officials have their hands full. the
aim of this survey relates to growing government and that I don't
agree with. If you would urate on certain major areas (water,
power, circulation) under one tent and leave the rest to induvidual
Cities, we-would be better off.
6. Elected official - Funding has to play a major role in the decision on
any expanded services.
7. Elected Official - The board of directors for a new regional
organization _ should be composed of people dedicated to solving these
problems first and should be made up of both elected and appointed
officials.
8. Planning Commissioner - All of the above is of no
not control importance if we do
past. IRW can't we be first. •No more act, not react as in the
smog, traffic and crime ad
infinitum. We live in an envi.rcrm*nt we create.
9. Planning Commissioner - I am basically suspect of regional government.
I do believe in regional cooperation between local governments and in
specific subject areas where goals can best be achieved by a regional
agency. I strongly support local control and grass roots government.
10. Planning Commissioner - We need to start planning now for public
transportation needs of the future. Highway 101 gets more congested
every year with commuters. The bus service to the south county is a
joke. There are not enough conveniently located bus stops or -
convenient time service to attract ridership.
11. Planning Commissioner - I have supported the establ shmen of a new
regional agency, and, because of the existing inertia of the in place
Coordinating Council, it is my opinion we must have a fresh start and
outlook that a new regional organization will provide. Composition is
the key element to the success of such a
group, however. It is my
opinion, and I
strongly suggest, that the new regional organization nation be
composed of one elected official (Councilman or Mayor) from the county
and each City. In addition, based on a population formula, their
should be "at large" appointments from the County and each City. Last
but not least, none man, one vote" should apply. It is my considered
opinion that regional coordination is the key to a successful SID
County futzure. I would volunteer my time and services to help plan
such a proposal.
12. Planning Commissioner - I have repeatedly stated publicly that we need
area-wide coordination of housing, economic & industrial development.
Employment and housing must go together. The alternative (and what is
happening now) will be increasing suburban sprawl, typical of the Ids
Angeles basin. We have a chance to avoid that scenario, if the county
and City Officials have vision enough to give up their parochial
viewpoints.
8
1'
13. Planning Commissioner - The establishment of another regional agency
will create mare red tape and bureaucracy. I do not support a new
r ate.
14. Planning Commissioner - It would be nice if the county Was more
responsive to local concerns, instead of following its own agenda. For
example, the Ins Osos sewer railroad job, and proliferation of growth
in the SIO airport area, both of which conflict with local wishes.
15. Planning Commissioner - Strengthen representation, staffing arra
authority of the Area Coordinating Council, similar to ABAG and SCAG,
rather that creating a new regional organization.
16. Planning C mnnissioner - Why create a another layer of government?
17. Planning Co mnissioner - A new regional agency should be cheated made
up of elected and appointed officials with a 50/50 split.
18. Planning Cmmnissioner - I agree with you that we need additional
regional planning. Who would disagree?
19. Planning Commissioner - Do not encpurage a new regional planning
organization. Use what we have better and more efficiently.
20. Planninq Camnissioner - I support establishment of a new regional
planning organization composed of both appointed and elected
officials, eg. a nine member board, five of which would be elected
officials and four appointed.
21. Planning Co mnissioner - I support establishment of a new regional
planning organization made up of elected officials .from each
jurisdiction.
22. Planning Camnissioner - I would not support establi *+* of a new
regional planning agency, there are too many already.
23. Public Works Director - While I support regional planning, I oppose
any new regional layer of government. I oppose any erosion of local
control. I oppose the SID Area Coordinating council being involved in
any activity other than transportation planning.
24. Planning Director - the Area Council is already in place and reflects
all local units of goverrmwrt; there is no need to create a new
entity.
25. Planning Director - My ca ent on. a. "new regional agency" is that it
need not be a new "agency" in the sense of decision making. The
clearinghouse function and information gathering can be done by
contract paid for by the Cities and County under a JPA or sane other
f� �. Regional planning is probably best done by representatives
jurisdictions, coordinated by an outside consultant, rather
than existing staff from any single agency, new or old.
26. Plarming Director - A new regional planning body should. be established
composed of appointedofficialsrepresenting interest groups.
PAP
POO
IN
.21
Oo
10
.40
— ---------
lo', 1"1
�\lN
roo
PAP
NN N
le
1;vm a"well)M 1 16"
1000
010"
0
0
90.
21"
%
Q
e i
1O i4 15 16 17 7,
54% '11 41% 10% 15% 41% 49% 26t 10% 21% 18% 36% 44% 33% 15% 18% 26% 151 23% 21% 447 46%
21% �� 3� 1� I % �� 1� l� 2� 13% in 2� 13� 2� � 21% 1� 15% 26% 18% 31V
l3% 1 15% l�% 21t 1O% 1St �� 1� �� 2� 15% 15% 10%
7�<�) 57 1� � 1� ' � � � 1� 1()V 10-/ 1� � 5 X 13% 0% 1ln 3% 13% 5% 21t 3% �
M 8% l 107 1'X 5% 10% 1'" T/. 5% 07 13% n, 5% 07 7' � 3�
15% �� 13% 13% 2�% 38% 26% 21% 282 31% 21% 1C� 8�
l�=5?�4<�� 74% 59% 74% 273. 33% 6r% 64% :-1-sX 33% 33% K7 597 6 2% 56Z '11% 3 87. 36/ 49% 3 b-/ -,47. �
l/T=,&2(%) 0% 15% SA38% S1% 157 15" -6% -" 267 23% 23% 157 23% 28% 31% 41% 36X 21% 36% 13% 10%
lNT=1&3(%) 10% 26% 191 38% 36% 15% 21% 36% 38% 41% 44% 18% 23% 2 1 Z 51% 31% Mn 33Z 1% 26% 13% 10%
{�T=5&4&S�%> 35� 64% 7Y% 51% �2% 7�% 72% 5!z 51% 49% 46% 79% 72� 67% 4Y% 56% 74% 54% 64% 54% 85� 92%
[NT=2&1&0(%) I5% 36% 21% 49� 387 21% 28% 49% 4Y% 51% 54% 21% 28% 33% 51% 44% 26% 46% 36t 46% 15% 18%
REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SUR�EY: PREFERRED AGENCY ALL RESPONSES
1 2 9 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
A8EhCY-4M 10% 31% %7% O% 36% 18% 28% 16% 23� 12% 13% 29% 29% 17% 30% 48% 21% 52% 3O% 21% 18% 51%
A6ENCY=8(%) 5% 11% 177 36% 21% 25% 21% 38% 137 15% 13% 9% 9% 30% 22% 14% 157 16% 17% 26% 16% 17%
AGENCY=C(%) �4% 37% 227 41% 182 57% 52% '34I 37% 61% 67% 53% 44% 43% 33% 24Z 52% 26i 371 42% 2Y% 17%
AGEWCY=D(%> 24% 20% 24% 23%- 241 O% O% 13% 27% M 7% 9% 18% 10% 15% 14% 127 62 17% 11% 24% 15%
A6Eh[YzNA(%) 7% 07 07. 0% 0% 01 0% 0% O% V% 0% O% O% O% 0% 6% 0% OI 8% 07. 121 0*4
REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY: INTEREST LEVEL ELECTED OFFICIALS
INTEREST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22
{NT--5(%) 58% 33% 33% 8% 8% -J31 50% 33% 8% 25% 0% 33% 331 -M 02 0% 17% 177 *I 17% 50% 42%
lNT=4W 33z 333 37% 17% 253 25% 257 177 3Z/ 17% 421 25% 25% 50% 8% 42% 8% 8% 42% 4M 25% 25%
lNT=3M 81 O% 17% 33% 23% 17% 0% 8% 25% 17% 17% 25% 17% W% 50% 8% 431 331 17% 8% 87 87.
INT=2(%) 0% 8% F% 17% 02 0% 17% 17% 8% 8% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% O% 17% 8% 17% 8% 8%
INT=1(t) O% 17% 0% O% 177 02 8I O% 8% 0% 0% 8x o% 0% R% 8% 0l 0% O% O% O% Oz
lNT=0(%) 0% 8% 6% 25% 172 257 0% 257 17% 3�2 25% 8% 25*4 17% 33% M 3:Z 257 25% 252 8% 17%
INT--5&4(z) 92% 67% 67% 25% 33% 58% 75% 507 42% 421 421 58Z 58% 751 Q% 422 25% 25% 50% SO% 75% 67%
lNT=3&2M 8% 8% 2511 50% 33% 17% 174 25% 33% 25% 33% 25% 17% 8% 50% 25% 42% 50% 25% 25% 177 17%
lNT=0&1(%) 0% 25% 31 25Z 331 M 8% 257 2M 33% 2SZ 17% 25% 171 421 33% 33% 25% 25% M �oj 17%
lNT=5&4&3(%) 100% 67% 83% 58% 67% 75% 75% 58% 67% 58% $3% 75% 8M 58% 50% 67% 58% 671 5e% 837 75t'
!mT=2&1&0<%> O% 33% 173 42% 33% 257 25% 4Z/ 3M 42Z 42Z 17% 25% 17% 422 50% 33% 42% 3n 42% 17% 25%
REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY: INTEREST LEVEL ELECTED OFFICIALS
INTEREST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
AGENCY=A(%> 47L 2/37 27% 25% 23y. Ma 21% 17% 25Z 0% 07 312 15% 81 1.TA r37 0% 38% 33Z 7% 21% 62 7
AGENCY=B(Z) 0% 8% 27% 8% 15% 152 142 1'rl 8*4 0% 8% 0% 8% 17% 15% 8% 81 8% 8% 277 14% 15%
AGENCY=C<%) 25% 3 1 Z 20Z 33t 23% �232 21% 17% 8% �� ��I 4O% 46% 4�� �1% 8z �43 Z� 17% 47� 29% 8z
AG�CY�(%) 33% �5I 2� 17% 15% 23% 29% 17% 421 M O% 2� 87 32 0% 17% 8% eX 17% 7% 20% 81
AGENCY--NAM O% 23% O% 17% 23% 152 14% 33% 1ri. 33% 251 O% 2M 25% 31% 33% 31% 23% 25% 13% 77 n
14
RE 7'.!T T 4,
G ION AL PLANNING NEEDS 3u'A VEY: EREEST LEVEL P'�-P,, DSIONERS
7N TE.;E T 7 10 1112) 133 14 15 1 -.7
26%
SM c
537. li7 21% 4 7% 537 21'/. 16Z 2b1. 3 -'2" 937 42% 2 6"' 267
!A% 7.
�f=40.) 16% 267. 16% 2 1% 17,11% 16% '27 16% 5% 2 A 7. 6 17 Ot' 16-4 51.
16% 11% 0% 26% 217. 11% 11% 21% 167. 21% 16% 117. 57 16% 26% 3 7 22 167 2
1"7=2 M 1-%5r c *4 -..
% 16% 0% 74 5% 11% 0'! 11-1 5 5% 0% 2 o7 c
5" 16-' 5" �17 % 7
T=I M 57 5% 07. 1i7, 161' 07. 117 117. S2 117 267 57 5% 0% 167 (Y4 0% 07. c,-,,1. .n
5111
0' 5% 167 167 M 16% 0% 11% 217 327 21% 117 16% M 217 42% 126% 167 21 7 47 :17 11% 1.
IN=`&4(7) 68% 537 84% 26% 427. . 79% 637. 37% 42% 42% 427 607 74% 537 267. 427 4'--,'% 4 4
;4 -,.-.7-4 -7. 9,. 0 ..
1 NT=:3&2 M 21% 26% 0% 32% 267 217. 117. 327 2217 2 6% 217. 117 117 267 16 X *321 42% 37% M 47-1. 11-4 5%,
..A .
16Z 12% 1 - 14 A.
Ill 21% 42X 327 0% 21% 0-7 37% 32% '37% 21% 16% -41% 58% 26% 16Z 26% 422 1- 117 1-
I - I ,
INT--544&3(7.) 84% 63% 847 537 637 019% 19% 58% 58% 63% 587 79% 791' 587 427 687 79% 5671. 537 687 807 847.
!NT='Zd'I&0(%) 16% 377 161 47% 377 117 217. 42% 4121 371. 427. 217 217 421 58% 327 21% 427 477. 327 11-4 167
REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY: PREFERRED AGENCY PLANNING COMMIS:SIONERS
4 ')1
AGENCY 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1-2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -20 -
An,rCY=A(%) 457 251 431 24% "2. 51 201 rl 141 131 147 197 297. 147 20% 327 232 50% 5% 26% 17% 2`7.
AGENCY=B(%) 0% 10% 5% 247 18% 14% .5% 35L 54 13% 9% 10% 0Z 24X 10% 5% 9% 0% 10% lr,,. 9% 14%
AGENCY=CM M M2 141 147 9% 487 301 26Z 387 46% 507 427 33-L 19% Is in M. 551 337. 26% 'm 187
AGENcy=D(%) 2107 207 107 107 23% M 257 41 107. 87 54 0% 147. 5% 5% 37 171 Y,. 10% 9% 267 187
AGENCY=NAM IOZ 207 197 297 181 51 207 261 =4 21% 237 20% '74% M 50% 41% 27% 40% 42,22% -,,"y
I - 80%
REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY: INTEREST LEVEL EXECUTIVE STAFF
t-REST 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
INT--5(%) 50% 387 M4 M) 13% M 38% 25% 0% 01 01 257 M2 25% 13'L 251 M 131 50% 0% 137 387
INT=4(7.) 13% 255% 38% 0% 0% M 0% 07 0% 0% 0% 13% 131 137 1.37 0% 251 13% 257 13% 501 .50%
INT=3(11) 01 01 0% 251 38% 0% 131 OZ 137 0% 01 38% 13% 251 251 137 387 137 13% 01 137 01
INT=2(1) M 0% 0% 13% 0% TZ 13% 13% M -M 13% 13% 13% 137 0% 251 07 0% 01 M4 0% 137
INT=I(%) 137 257 131, 13% 13% 13% 13% M 0% -n% 257 0% 13-1 0% 131 137 13% 257 0% 257 13% 0%
!NT=i)(%) 137 137 251 387 3387 257. 25% 257 637 507 63% 137 257 25% 387 257 137 38% 137 387 13% 02
INT=5&4(%)
63% 637 63% 137 137 63% 38% i','jl 0% 0% 0% 38% 387 387 257 252 = 25% 75% 13% 637 887
INT=362(%) 13% 0% 0% 38% 38% 0% 257 13% 38% 25% 137 50% M 387 2257 38% 387 132 13% 251 137 13%
INT=1&0(%) 252 287 387 50% 507 382 M 63% 63% 752 88% 13% 381 251 507 382 257 63% 137 631 25% 0%
INT=5&4&3(7.) 63% 6n, 631 381 507 632 50% "M 137 0% 0% 75% 50% 637 50% 387 757 38% 88% M 757 882
INT='2&Ik1(%) 38% M- 38% 63% 501 397 50% 75% 88% 100% 1001 25*4 50X M 50% 637 251 63% 137 SM 257 127
REGIONAL PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY: PREFERRED AGENCY EXECUTIVE STAFF
AGENCY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .10 21 22
AGENrY=A 3301 387 207 10% 227 9% 07 107 102 10% 11% 227 20% 10% 207 30% 20% 10% 40% 107 20% 60%
AGENCY=B 20% 0% 20% N2 % 11% 27% 271 20% 207 20% 11% Ill 207 20% 20% 207 20% 30% 207 207 307 11107
AGENCY=C 207 38% 2201 207 111 451 454 30% 202 20% 11% 33% 207 40% 207 20% 30% 30% 201 *130% 307 101
AGENr,Y=D 20% 137 20% 10% 111 9% 07 10% 10% 10% 117 117 207 10% 207 10% 10% 0% 10% 10% 10% 10%
AGENCY=NA 101 137 201 40% 447 9% 9% jO% 40% 40% 967 22X 20% 207 20% 207 201 30% 10% 30% 101 0%
15