Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Governance Wildlife Advisory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge commissioners to review wildlife advisory committee membership and conflicts of interest
Summary
Several residents used the board’s open‑mic period to ask the commissioners to pause or reconstitute the county wildlife advisory committee, citing apparent conflicts of interest where local VARD board members also serve on volunteer wildlife panels and concerns over retroactive overlay application.
Multiple speakers at the Jan. 31 open‑mic session told the Board of County Commissioners they were concerned about perceived conflicts of interest and procedural problems involving the county’s wildlife advisory committee and how wildlife overlays have been applied to pending land‑use applications.
Anthony Wilcox and others asked commissioners to examine committee membership and asked that people who serve on both the Valley Advocates for Responsible Development (VARD) board and county advisory committees either recuse themselves or be replaced. Wilcox said news coverage of a recent department‑heads meeting characterized the wildlife committee as reviewing land‑use applications — a practice he described as inappropriate if committee members hold positions on advocacy boards.
Other commenters, including attorney Kurt Bailey and neighborhood residents, urged the board to address a problem that emerged when wildlife overlays were applied to active land‑use files. Bailey and several neighbors described a sequence in which the wildlife committee adopted new overlays and county staff then notified applicants that the overlays now applied to their pending projects. Those applicants said the county later received legal advice that retroactively applying overlays to applications already under review was improper.
Speakers asked the commissioners to pause the wildlife committee’s recommendations, expand membership to ensure wider community representation, and publicly clarify the county’s process for assigning overlays to pending applications. Several also said prior decisions were implemented without legal review; commissioners and staff acknowledged periods when the county had limited in‑house legal support and said legal review processes have since changed.
Commissioners did not take immediate action during the public‑comment period but acknowledged the concerns and signaled they were researching the history of overlay decisions and committee appointments. The record shows multiple public requests for clearer procedures and improved communications between departments, committees and applicants.
Ending: Commissioners said they are reviewing the concerns raised; residents seeking changes told the board they would follow up in writing and through future meetings.
