Planning commission refines 2025 general-plan survey: splits water question, debates aquifer protections and livestock wording

The Planning and Land Use Commission on June 5 conducted a line-by-line review of the 2025 general-plan survey and approved a change splitting one water-related question into separate nonpotable and potable items to clarify resident preferences.

At the meeting the commission accepted a motion to add two subquestions under survey item B-5 asking separately whether residents support the town continuing to research options to provide nonpotable water and to research options to provide potable water. The motion to accept the new wording was moved by Dorje and seconded by Janie; roll-call votes recorded ayes from Dorje, Janie, Jeff, Marie and Brian and the motion carried.

Much of the meeting then focused on how to ask about aquifer and surface-water protection. Commissioners and staff debated whether the survey should use specific regulatory language (for example, a proposed question that would "ban the outdoor use of synthetics, pesticides, herbicides") or instead pose a broader, vision-based question. Planner Corey Shurtleff urged caution about mixing technical regulatory detail into a general-plan instrument: "We kind of, I would imagine, have 1 shot to really get a really great result," he said, noting that surveys can produce response biases and that visioning questions typically yield more useful long-term direction.

Some commissioners worried that narrowly worded questions would push respondents toward knee-jerk answers and suggested a scaled response. The group favored rephrasing the aquifer item to ask whether residents have concerns about aquifer or surface-water contamination and to invite brief comments listing specific concerns; several commissioners suggested adding a short scale (for example, "very concerned" to "not concerned") and a free-text line for specifics. The proposed working language discussed at the meeting read in part: "Do you support the town exploring restrictions and/or mitigations to protect the aquifer and surface water?" Participants agreed to keep the wording intentionally broad to preserve the survey's visioning purpose and to allow professionals to later recommend specific mitigations or regulatory steps.

The commission also discussed livestock and agriculture questions. Multiple speakers recommended removing highly prescriptive numeric caps from the survey and replacing them with vision-based prompts: for example, "In a rural community that allows livestock as part of its community character, what negative effects, if any, reduce your quality of life? What positive effects, if any, increase your quality of life?" Several commissioners recommended relocating the livestock/agriculture block into the community-life section and using a short scale question (strongly agree to strongly disagree) about whether agriculture and livestock contribute to community character.

Commissioners also reviewed practical survey mechanics. Staff and volunteers discussed printing sequentially numbered paper surveys so respondents could preserve anonymity while preventing duplicate submissions, and the commission asked staff to add one question asking whether a respondent prefers anonymity. Colleen Thompson noted that sequential identifiers could be printed on the paper copy and entered for online submissions to prevent double-counting while keeping responses anonymous.

Timing and next steps: commissioners agreed to hold an ad hoc workshop on Friday the 13th at 5:30 p.m. to finish the survey wording and to finalize mailing logistics (proposed postage and serial-numbered paper copies). Staff will bring updated wording and cost details back to the commission before sending the survey to the town council for review.