11th Annual Report Page: 24
3 of 36 v. 27 cmView a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Mexico. State grants to eligible regional organizations are
authorized in an annual amount of $10,000 plus five
cents per capita for the population exceeding 100,000
served by the regional organization. These grants, however,
may not exceed the amount contributed by
members of local governments.
The New Hampshire legislature amended its regional
planning commission enabling act to allow two or more
cities or towns to form regional planning commissions if
none exists in any region outlined by the State office of
planning and research. Otherwise, a city or town may
join a commission that exists in the planning region
outlined by the State planning office. The legislature
also authorized interstate regional planning compacts,
and local units of government may participate in
interstate regional planning agencies, provided the State
planning agency and the regional planning agency
concerned approve. Member towns or cities, however,
are not bound by regional plans and are not required to
make financial contributions unless voted by the city
council or town meeting.
Ohio expanded the powers of regional planning
commissions, including authorizing an executive committee
to make final decisions, determinations, findings,
and so forth. The new legislation broadened the scope of
regional planning to include social, economic, and
governmental characteristics and authorized regional
commissions to provide local planning assistance and to
form joint planning councils with other regions.
Regarding areawide servicing problems, a Metropolitan
Service District Act was passed by the Oregon
legislature. Such districts may be created in standard
metropolitan statistical areas by a vote of the residents
of the area. Newly-formed districts may draft and adopt
their own charters setting forth the membership and
term of office of the governing body as well as the
functions that the district will perform. The service
district may undertake a number of functions, including
sewage facilities, solid and liquid waste disposal, control
of surface water, and public transportation. It may take
over facilities and functions of another public corporation,
city, or county located within its boundaries.
Financing of district activities may be raised by revenues
from ad valorem property taxes, usage fees, service
charges, and proceeds from general obligation and
revenue bonds.
Areawide transportation problems commanded the
attention of several State legislatures. Again in Oregon,
the legislature authorized establishment of mass transit
districts in the State's standard metropolitan statistical
areas. A district may be formed by having the governing
body of the most populous city propose, by resolution,
the creation of such a district if that city has a local
transit system and if the city council finds that theareawide mass transit needs cannot be met by local
transit operation. A seven member board of directors for
the district would be appointed by the Governor. The
district would have general obligation and revenue
bonding authority. If a metropolitan service district
exists in the area, however, the new law requires that the
transit district transfer all its functions and assets to the
service district upon the latter's order.
In a more specific action, the Colorado legislature
created a regional transportation district for the City of
Denver and six surrounding counties. The district may
levy an ad valorem property tax not to exceed two mills
annually.
Finally, the Minnesota legislature enacted a number
of proposals affecting the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Council, created in 1967. Two operating programsparks
and open space and solid waste disposal-were
placed within the jurisdiction of the Council. The
legislature also took steps to pull existing special district
handling of airports and transport more closely under
Council supervision. A far-reaching bill that consolidates
the several independent sewerage disposal systems into
one areawide system also became law.
Municipal consolidation was considered seriously by
at least two States in 1969. The Maine legislature created
two alternative procedures to encourage consolidation
by making it unnecessary to seek legislative approval for
consolidation plans. Under the provisions of the new
Maine Voluntary Consolidation Act, 10 percent of the
voters of the municipality may petition their municipal
officers to request that three representatives be elected
to serve as a joint consolidation charter commission. The
elected joint charter commission then drafts an agreement
between the consolidating communities and a
public hearing is held on the proposed agreement.
Consolidation of two or more municipalities is completed
upon agreement of the majority of those voting in
each municipality. The second alternative permits local
officials of interested municipalities themselves to act as
the joint charter commission and to prepare the consolidation
agreement. In this procedure, no petition is
required nor is a special election to name commission
members necessary.
New Virginia legislation provides that a county
containing two or more cities of the first class may be
divided into two or more areas. These areas would be
consolidated with the existing cities. The cities then
would be authorized to establish subordinate taxing areas
whereby a higher tax rate could be levied to finance
additional or more complete services in the more
urbanized parts of the consolidated community.
The Indiana legislature passed legislation effecting
the consolidation of Indianapolis and surrounding
Marion County. This action was unique in that no local
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 11th Annual Report, book, January 1970; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1160/m1/34/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.