Ashland County planning committee debates public participation plan, scope with Northwest Regional Planning

The Ashland County Planning Committee on July 21 reviewed a draft public participation plan and the proposed scope of work for the county comprehensive plan update, discussed how farmland-preservation work will feed into the comp plan, and directed Northwest Regional Planning staff to provide a contract-style scope for committee review.

The committee’s chair, George Bouset, opened the meeting by identifying the committee and the meeting details and noting the public participation plan and scope of work were on the agenda. He reminded members that adopting a public participation plan is a statutory requirement before planning work begins.

Why it matters: County officials said the public participation plan must be in place before Northwest Regional Planning can begin facilitated work. Committee members pressed for clearer language so the document reads as a set of options rather than a promise, and asked for practical assignments (who will do outreach, maintain lists and the website) before the county launches larger outreach efforts.

Committee discussion and key points

- Statutory requirement and timing. Bouset noted state law requires counties to “adopt written procedures designed to foster public participation” before work on a comp plan proceeds. Northwest Regional Planning staff confirmed the firm will not begin facilitated planning until the county board adopts a public participation plan and the consultant contract is in place.

- Scope of work and services. Emily (Northwest Regional Planning) told the committee the current scope of work includes eight committee meetings, one facilitated public open house (separate from the statutory public hearing), updating tables/charts/maps, drafting chapter revisions, and providing digital and Word/PDF copies of draft and final plans. She also said: “Within the current cost, the $75,000 would be the opportunity to do a digital survey with Northwest Regional Planning assisting the committee with developing questions… and then Northwest Regional Planning would do a summary report of all of the answers.”

- Contract status and next steps. Committee members were told the county and state grant contract has been approved; the consultant contract between the county and Northwest Regional Planning was not finalized at the meeting. Emily and Autumn (Northwest Regional Planning) agreed to prepare and send a draft scope framed as a contract to a small group of committee contacts for review (Dan Grady, George Bouset and county contacts named during the meeting). The committee agreed that county administration and legal review will be required before final contract approval by the county board.

- Outreach expectations and wording. Several members voiced concern that the public participation plan reads as a long “menu” of outreach tactics and could create unrealistic expectations if staff or volunteers are not available to carry them out. Committee members proposed adding clarifying language that the list represents options the county is “considering” and that implementation is subject to staff time and available resources. The committee endorsed handling any specific amendments at the county board meeting the next day or in August after further discussion with Northwest Regional Planning.

- Advisory access and consultant support. Subcommittee leaders asked that the scope explicitly allow reasonable advisory access to Northwest Regional Planning staff for subcommittee-level questions while recognizing the consultant’s time and budget limits. Members suggested tracking consultant contacts in subcommittee reports so the committee can monitor use of consultant time.

- Farmland preservation and chapter integration. Pat Kinney and others described ongoing work on a farmland preservation plan that will supply background material for the comp plan’s agriculture element. Northwest Regional Planning staff said the farmland preservation plan and the comp plan update are distinct but can be coordinated and integrated so background information need not be duplicated.

- Technical and logistical matters. Committee members asked about a SharePoint repository for draft materials and public inputs. Several members said they did not yet have access; Emily said Northwest Regional Planning can use its own file-sharing as an alternative if the county prefers. Members scheduled a next committee meeting for Monday, Aug. 18, while noting staff availability and standing Northwest Regional Planning commitments could affect timing.

Votes and formal actions

- The committee approved the meeting agenda (motion by Charlie Ortman; second by Elizabeth Franek). The motion carried (vote recorded as “aye”; no detailed tally recorded in the transcript).

- The committee approved the minutes of the June 17 meeting (motion and second noted). The minutes were approved; the transcript records one abstention but does not identify the abstaining member.

- The committee authorized Northwest Regional Planning to send a contract-form scope to named county contacts for review and requested county administration and legal staff handle formal contract steps prior to county board consideration. (This was recorded as direction to staff rather than a formal contract vote.)

- The meeting adjourned on a motion by Charlie Ortman, seconded by Paul Wilharm; the motion carried.

What was not decided

- The committee did not adopt any amendment to the public participation plan at the meeting. A proposed sentence to begin the outreach-options list with wording such as “Ashland County is considering some or all of the following for public participation” was discussed; members agreed one or more committee members on the county board could offer that revision at the county board meeting the following day.

- The consultant contract with Northwest Regional Planning was not signed at the meeting; committee members agreed to review a draft contract and expect county administration and legal review before final board approval.

Numbers, timeline and next steps

- Scope components cited by Northwest Regional Planning: eight committee meetings, one facilitated public open house (distinct from the statutory public hearing), mapping and table updates, draft chapter revisions, and a consultant-prepared digital survey summary.

- Budget reference: Emily said a digital survey option would fit “within the current cost, the $75,000,” and that color printing or other optional deliverables would be additional costs. (Committee members discussed but did not finalize the survey budget or whether additional paid outreach would be added.)

- Deadline: Committee members noted the comp plan update is targeted for completion by the end of 2026; they discussed the need to pencil in responsibilities by August and to ensure continuity after the April 2026 election if membership changes.

- Next meeting: The committee set Monday, Aug. 18 as the next meeting date and asked Northwest Regional Planning to supply a contract-style scope for a small-group review beforehand.

Ending

Committee members said they preferred a concise public-facing plan and communications package rather than a long “Cadillac” menu of outreach items without assigned roles. Northwest Regional Planning and county administration were directed to produce a contract-style scope and to clarify which outreach items will be treated as required, recommended or optional when the county board considers the public participation plan and the consultant contract.