Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Two consultant teams pitch comprehensive‑plan proposals to Coffey County commission
Summary
Shockey Consulting with CFS Engineers and a second team (Horton Consulting and partner Vic Burks) gave hour‑long presentations outlining a 12‑month, five‑phase approach emphasizing community engagement, data analysis and implementation steps including funding strategies.
Two consultant teams presented proposals and answered commissioners’ questions Jan. 14 as part of Coffey County’s competitive process to choose a firm to lead a countywide comprehensive plan.
Shockey Consulting (project lead Kara Albert) presented with civil engineering partner CFS Engineers (municipal services leader Michelle Mahoney). The team proposed a five‑phase approach — project launch, discovery, engagement, planning and adoption/implementation — and estimated a roughly 12‑month schedule. Shockey emphasized a community‑engagement toolbox that includes stakeholder interviews, a steering/advisory committee, pop‑up events, a digital engagement platform for surveys and an interactive community visioning workshop. CFS said it would supply transportation and infrastructure analysis and work from the county’s 2021 capital improvement program when developing recommendations.
Shockey described an engagement strategy that includes a statistically valid resident survey (typically about 25 questions), targeted outreach to underheard parts of the county, advisory committees and subcommittees and visualization tools and mapping to show future land use alternatives. The team said it would produce an implementable document (future land use map, prioritized implementation steps and funding opportunities) and offered optional add‑on services such as fiscal impact modeling and follow‑up/advisory support post‑adoption.
A second team, identified in the presentation materials as Horton Consulting with partner Vic Burks, emphasized community buy‑in and practical, implementable recommendations. That team also recommended a statistically valid survey and described how survey results can be geocoded to show where support and opposition are concentrated within a county. The presentation included examples of prior projects and explained how a compiled plan can help secure state and federal grant funding by providing an explicit, community‑backed roadmap.
Commissioners asked about community‑level outreach (town halls, hybrid events), advisory‑committee sizes (teams suggested fewer than 10 core members plus subcommittees), the role of county GIS data and the schedule. Both teams said they would use existing county data, coordinate directly with county staff for GIS and engineering information, and be available to commissioners and staff through the contract period. Both teams also discussed grant identification and funding strategies to help implement plan recommendations.
Ending
The board heard both presentations, asked questions about logistics and outreach strategies, and will decide which firm to contract in a future agenda item.
