Commissioners seek broad partners for countywide strategic-planning roundtables and a regional planning effort

El Paso County commissioners discussed two strategic-plan actions Oct. 16 intended to align the county and regional partners on shared goals: Action 5.2, a strategic-planning roundtable to exchange plans among government partners, and Action 5.9, a broader regional strategic-planning effort involving community partners.

County staff asked commissioners for guidance on desired outcomes, participants and format. The office that presented (staff member identified in the meeting as Betsy) described 5.2 as a narrower, partner-focused sharing session and 5.9 as a larger, community-facing planning effort designed to identify high-level regional goals and coordinate follow-up work across jurisdictions.

Why it matters: commissioners said a coordinated planning effort could identify shared priorities for growth, water and utilities, economic development and other infrastructure needs; participants discussed the value of aligning municipal, county, school-district and utility plans to reduce duplication and identify funding opportunities.

Discussion highlights and proposed approach

• Scope and participants: Commissioners and staff suggested inviting municipal mayors, school districts, emergency-service districts (ESDs), municipal utility districts (MUDs), regional utility providers (including El Paso Water and El Paso Electric), Fort Bliss, neighboring counties and cross-border partners such as Juárez, along with community organizations and business leaders. Several commissioners said the county is well positioned to convene but that federal and state delegation offices (including the congressional office) could also help convene a broad table.

• Format and sequencing: Participants favored doing preparatory work — a short survey or letter to prospective partners asking for priorities — followed by segmented meetings (sector-specific roundtables) that feed into a larger regional summit. Staff suggested a special work session format and using county facilities; the court discussed possible facilitation support from an external consultant but acknowledged staff could perform preparatory work if resources are limited.

• Short-term priorities and follow-up: Commissioners emphasized near-term issues such as water infrastructure, hydrant and distribution concerns, and coordination with entities that manage water and power, especially in rural and unincorporated areas. Several commissioners urged that the court collect stake-holder input and return with a recommended approach, a proposed invitation list, and an assessment of staff capacity or consultant costs.

• Existing efforts and partners: Commissioners referenced prior regional planning efforts that led to major initiatives, and recommended contacting officials who participated in those earlier efforts to avoid duplicating work and to identify preexisting analyses and touch points.

Court direction

The court directed staff to prepare a proposed approach for Action 5.2 that includes an invitation list, sample survey questions, a recommended event format, and an estimate of staff or consultant resources needed. Commissioners discussed staging the work in smaller segments and then holding a larger, inclusive regional meeting (Action 5.9) once partner priorities are identified.

Ending: Staff will return with a written proposal for the strategic-planning roundtable, suggested preparatory survey material and a resource estimate so the court can decide next steps and a timeline.