Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Suamico board begins comprehensive‑plan update; refers process questions to staff and committees
Summary
Trustee-led discussion asked staff to confirm Brown County’s planning process and asked village committees to review the 2015 plan, list 1–5 and 5+ year objectives and note constraints. The board emphasized keeping a concise set of priorities for the village and referred follow‑up to staff.
Trustee Stevens opened a broad discussion July 21 to prepare for a comprehensive‑plan update and the board directed staff to confirm Brown County’s process and return with a timeline and recommendations for committee involvement.
"This is, the intent here is is in preparing for the comprehensive plan," Trustee Stevens said, framing a request that committees and staff do preparatory work so public input sessions with Brown County will be more productive.
The board discussed how to structure the update, whether the village should treat the document as a traditional comprehensive plan or a shorter business‑style plan focused on top priorities, and who should lead the project. Trustees and staff agreed on two immediate tasks: ask Brown County to describe its formal process and ask each standing committee (public works, planning and zoning, public health and safety, park and recreation) to review the 2015 plan and return with three items: 1) long‑term objectives (5+ years), 2) near‑term objectives (1–5 years) and 3) constraints or restrictions that would limit implementation.
Trustee Stevens and other board members emphasized that the update should be usable — not simply a long template — and should incorporate recent public input, including a 2023 village survey that board members said is available for review. Several trustees argued that pairing committee input, staff priorities and survey results could be reduced to an “affinity” or themes exercise to surface the most important priorities without producing a cumbersome 200‑page document.
Board members asked staff to check whether a comprehensive plan is mandatory for continued exercise of certain land‑use powers and to confirm the statutory requirement that an adopted plan be reviewed and updated at least every 10 years (the board referenced this obligation during discussion). The board also discussed whether the village administrator would serve as project manager or whether the village should hire outside consulting support if the administrator cannot take the lead.
The board agreed to refer the matter back to staff so Brown County’s process could be confirmed and committees could begin the suggested review; staff said they would report back at a future meeting. Trustee Stevens was asked to continue leading the effort on the board’s behalf.
Ending: Staff will return with Brown County’s process description, a recommended timeline and an implementation approach (village administrator management vs. outside project manager), and committees will be asked to bring recommended objectives and constraints to their next meetings.
