Brown County planners outline process for Suamico comprehensive plan update

Brown County Planning staff on Monday explained to the Suamico Village Board how they will lead the village’s required 10-year comprehensive plan update, describing an iterative process that includes departmental reviews, a citizen advisory committee, public visioning and online survey and mapping tools.

The briefing, delivered by Dan Teeters, planning director and metropolitan planning organization director for Brown County, and planner Devin Yoder, laid out a schedule of background data collection, chapter-by-chapter updates and public engagement. Teeters said the county’s role is advisory: “this is the village of Suamico’s plan, not Brown County’s plan,” he told the board.

Why it matters: A comprehensive plan guides the village’s land use, transportation, parks and utilities decisions for a decade and shapes future budgets, development review and capital projects. The board and staff said they want departmental input and broad public participation to shape priorities for the update.

Teeters and Yoder described several core elements of the county’s approach: establishing or improving a citizen participation plan; assembling a combined committee of five citizen representatives plus the Planning and Zoning Commission to serve as an advisory body; collecting background demographic and mapping data; and holding a public visioning session early in the process. The visioning session would use a nominal group technique to generate ideas that are then ranked in a follow-up survey; mapping tools would allow residents to identify places and priorities online.

Village Administrator Caker and trustees asked about timing and workload. County staff said background work could begin “when the calendar flips over,” with the visioning session targeted for early winter if an update started in January. The county project budget assumes roughly seven two-hour committee meetings; staff noted that schedule and the Gantt chart are flexible and may be adjusted if additional meetings are required.

Board members discussed how departmental reviews will feed into the advisory committee. Teeters and Yoder said staff-level review will identify “big picture” items the village departments see in daily operations, while the advisory committee and public input will surface resident priorities; county staff will combine those inputs into draft chapters for committee review.

On voting and roles: the village’s comprehensive plan committee will make recommendations to the village board. Teeters confirmed the committee’s recommendation (cast by its members) is the formal recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Commission and then the village board will consider. No formal action or vote on contracting for the county’s services was taken at the meeting; the presentation was informational and intended to prepare the board for later decisions on scope and schedule.

Ending: County staff invited board questions and said they will work with village staff to refine the public participation plan and schedule. Board members asked for the advisory committee to have input on the draft survey content and for departmental materials to be ready in time for committee review in late spring.