Ashland County committee debates scope, language of public participation plan before county board review

The Ashland County Planning Committee debated whether to amend its public participation plan before the county board reviews it, focusing on capacity to carry out outreach, statutory requirements and wording that could create public expectations.

The committee’s chair, George Boussay, said the public participation plan is required by state law before work on a comprehensive plan can begin and that the county board will consider the plan at its meeting tomorrow. “State law says, shall adopt written procedures designed to foster public participation…with advanced notice and opportunity for written comments,” Boussay said.

Committee members described the plan as a broad “smorgasbord” of outreach options rather than a binding operational commitment, but several warned that listing many possible activities without assigning responsibility could raise public expectations. Committee member Alicia (no last name given in transcript) suggested adding clarifying language so the document reads as a menu of possible tactics to be used as staffing and resources allow. “I don’t want somebody in the public to get a hold of the public participation plan and say, ‘You didn't do an email list and you didn't do a display,’” she said.

Northwest Regional Planning staff described what is included in the contractor’s scope of services. Emily (Northwest Regional Planning) said the current scope includes eight facilitated committee meetings, one facilitated public open house (separate from the statutory hearing), mapping and draft revisions, and assistance with a digital public-opinion survey and its summary if the county chooses that option. “Within the current cost, the $75,000 would be the opportunity to do a digital survey with Northwest Regional Planning assisting the committee...and Northwest Regional Planning would do a summary report,” Emily said.

Some members urged delaying formal approval until an August meeting with Northwest Regional Planning to clarify who will do which outreach tasks; others said delaying would risk missing contract- and grant-related deadlines. Charlie Ortman moved to add language that the committee’s listed outreach items are subject to change after the August meeting; he later withdrew that motion and instead supported asking a county board member to propose a short clarifying sentence at the board meeting. Pat Kinney agreed to raise that amendment with the county board the following day.

Committee members also identified a wording inconsistency in the public participation plan: a focus-group item labeled “trends and issues” that they want changed to the statutory term “issues and opportunities.” Committee member Erica noted the comprehensive-planning law uses the phrase “issues and opportunities,” and members agreed to ask a board member to propose that wording change at tomorrow’s board meeting.

Discussion remained careful to separate possibilities from firm commitments: several members emphasized that most listed activities are optional (“may be used”) and that the plan’s minimum statutory requirements are limited to public participation procedures, an open hearing and notice. The committee did not vote at the meeting to change the plan; instead members resolved to have a board member present the two specific clarifying edits at the board meeting and to revisit outreach details in August after Northwest Regional Planning and county staff outline the contractor roles and timeline.

Ending: The committee set its next meeting for Monday, Aug. 18, and directed staff and Northwest Regional Planning to supply a contract draft and a condensed scope for review before that meeting. The county board will consider the public participation plan at its meeting the following day.