Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates general‑plan redlines, survey use and whether to hire consultant or rely on state technical assistance
Summary
Commissioners reviewed proposed edits to the county land‑use element, discussed using a citizen survey, and disagreed over whether to issue a paid consultant RFP or use state and regional technical assistance; several members flagged Open Meetings Act concerns before agreeing to send revisions to the planning commission for vetting.
San Juan County commissioners on Sept. 16 reviewed redlined draft language for the county general plan’s land‑use element and debated relying on a recent community survey versus hiring an outside consultant to finish the update. Administrators and planning staff presented proposed edits; commissioners expressed differing views on whether to proceed by RFP or to use state agencies’ free technical assistance.
Why it matters: the general plan provides the statutory framework for future land use, water conservation, housing and annexation policies. The commission must satisfy state requirements while also reflecting local public input.
Lede and key facts County planning staff presented proposed, line‑level changes to the land‑use element and recommended incorporating a recent community survey intended to reflect the views of unincorporated residents. Staff said the county has been contacted by several state agencies and regional partners that offer technical assistance at no cost, and noted outreach to planning commissioners and a community group that conducted a separate survey of more than 200 participants.
Survey credibility and representation Several commissioners, including Commissioner Stubbs and Commissioner Schulte (identified in the hearing as expressed concerns), asked whether the 200‑plus responses accurately represent the unincorporated population and requested the raw survey results, sampling method and respondent addresses (staff said the survey used address‑based filters). Commissioners asked planning staff to provide the survey questionnaire and the geographic breakdown before deciding to incorporate results into the official document.
Consultant RFP vs. state assistance and Open Meetings concerns Commissioners recalled an earlier discussion about issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for a paid consultant. Some commissioners said a previous meeting had authorized issuing an RFP; others said no formal vote had committed the county to spending consultant money and that staff had been tasked to explore free state technical assistance instead. Commissioner Johnson (attorney Mon in the hearing) raised a point about deliberations occurring between meetings and said that if commissioners had effectively changed course outside an open meeting, that could raise Open Meetings Act issues. County administration said no funds had been expended, no RFP had been issued and that the current approach is to work with state agencies and then route a redline through the planning commission for public hearings.
Next steps and public engagement Commissioner Harvey and others recommended sending the edited document to the planning commission for thorough review and public outreach; commissioners emphasized the need for clear public notice, multiple public hearings and legal review before final adoption. Staff committed to providing the underlying surveys, the redline document and to coordinating a planning‑commission process that solicits public comment, including outreach to unincorporated residents and tribal communities.
Ending Action: commissioners agreed to proceed with planning‑commission review and additional outreach. No consultant contract or RFP was approved at the Sept. 16 meeting; staff will return with the surveys, proposed outreach schedule and legal advice if needed.
