County planning staff told the Board that Minnesota statute requires a comprehensive plan update roughly every 10 years and recommended contracting with consultants to perform a full plan and zoning-ordinance review, including a future land-use map, housing inventories and several specialized elements such as a Farmers Park management plan.

Eric (planning staff) described why the county is at the point of a larger update: the statutory 10‑year schedule (citing Minnesota Statute 394.232) and the fact the county lacks a current future land‑use map and more up‑to‑date background data. He and staff argued that in-house resources and expertise are insufficient for a multi-topic update on a 20‑year horizon and that consultant firms typically price such comprehensive work in the $100,000–$200,000 range; staff said existing budget authority contains a partial appropriation and that the proposed contract was intended to keep the project on schedule and on budget.

Several commissioners said they support updating the plan but asked staff for a tighter public explanation of what the contract will achieve and whether smaller, phased updates could address the most urgent needs without spending the full amount all at once. Commissioners asked for concrete, prioritized outcomes — for example, clearer guidance on where subdivisions and housing could be sited without converting prime farmland, and straightforward remedies for recurring permitting issues (septic setbacks, lot sizes, and frequent variance requests). Commissioner Begley summarized constituent concerns by urging caution about “spending taxpayers’ money” without a demonstrable list of outcomes; other commissioners echoed the need for clearer public messaging and cost justification.

County attorney and legal staff also emphasized the planning/legal connection: an up-to-date comprehensive plan provides findings of fact that help support zoning and Board of Adjustment decisions and makes those local decisions easier to defend if challenged. Counsel noted that a plan aligned with zoning reduces legal risk by ensuring policy and ordinance language are consistent.

Staff said the procurement produced multiple proposals and that a subcommittee had shortlisted candidates, but recommended the Board provide direction and a sense of urgency if it wished to start the consultant-led update now because consultant availability and competitive pricing can be time-sensitive. No formal contract was authorized during the discussion; staff said they will return with a contract and asked for consensus to continue the procurement process.

Ending
Staff will bring a draft contract and additional materials back to the Board. Commissioners asked staff to prepare clearer public-facing talking points and a prioritized list of what the update will address before executing a consultant contract.