Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and growers urge clarity on I‑80 interchange study notice and revenue goals
Summary
Public commenters said maps showing potential I‑80 interchange sites surprised landowners, urged the county to prioritize revenue‑generating agribusiness uses if that is the explicit goal, and asked for earlier release of meeting slides and materials.
Multiple public commenters told the board they were surprised by a map showing candidate interchange sites near Chadbourne Road and asked for clearer notice and access to presentation materials.
"We were not contacted about this meeting... Map 23, which is the I 80 Chadbourne Road, which is exactly where my property is," said Linda Tenbrink, who asked staff to enlarge the map and provide follow‑up information. Tenbrink said the overlay appeared to show housing and commercial shading on or near her property and described discovering the map as "a surprise." Staff and the chair responded that the map had been posted on the county website and denied any intent to hide information; staff offered to follow up with Tenbrink.
Lisa Howard, speaking for a local growers association, told supervisors that if the county's chief objective is to generate sales and property tax revenue the board should prioritize processing and visitor‑serving ag uses — wineries, on‑site sales and events — because traditional commodity farming generates little sales tax. "If that is the goal, then let's talk about what kinds of projects generate those two items," she said.
Jim Leland, representing local interests, argued that agritourism and secondary processing can produce meaningful county revenue and asked the board to agendize the Nov. 24 corridor study for January input; he cited an economic estimate that Caymus (local producer) contributes about $120 million annually.
Dwayne Grama of Orderly Growth urged the board to evaluate net fiscal impacts — revenues minus the cost of services for new development — and asked staff to make presentation slides available before meetings so the public can prepare questions.
The board acknowledged the concerns, encouraged follow‑up with affected property owners and committed to incorporating public input into the general plan consultant RFP and upcoming outreach. No formal action was taken.
