Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City and County Move to Form Joint Committee to Update Sheridan County Comprehensive Plan
Summary
City and county officials agreed to form a joint committee of planners and elected representatives to scope and cost an update to the Sheridan County comprehensive plan and to align the city transportation map with the joint land‑use plan.
Madam Chair (Unidentified Speaker 1) moved the Sheridan County comprehensive‑plan discussion earlier in the agenda and asked whether increased sales‑and‑use revenue could be used to pay for an update, noting the county’s joint planning document was adopted in 2016 and the county plan is five years old. "I wanted to move the Sheridan County's comprehensive plan up in the agenda," the chair said, opening discussion of timing and funding.
Planning staff told the group the countywide plan was last updated in 2020 while the joint planning‑area plan dates to 2016. An unidentified planning staff member said the partners previously used a two‑thirds (city)/one‑third (county) cost share and recalled a prior consulting price tag of about $60,000, suggesting a combined update could yield economies of scale.
Kelly Schroeder, city planner, said the transportation plan update "is more or less complete" and recommended beginning a joint process "at the city level and then jointly with the county to look at, perhaps amending that map" so both jurisdictions use the same transportation map for future land‑use decisions.
Elected officials raised practical questions about areas of growth on municipal fringes (including Bighorn and Ranchester), points of development "pinch" around municipalities and the need to define the level of public engagement for any comprehensive‑plan update. Several participants proposed forming a joint committee with representation from both governing bodies and city and county planners; one participant suggested limiting committee membership to avoid creating a quorum of either body.
The city and county agreed staff would reach out to interested members and that city planners and county staff would participate in scoping costs, public‑engagement levels and the draft schedule. The group did not take any formal vote or set a deadline for a plan update; the matter will return to future meetings for further scoping and a proposed committee membership list.
The next step is staff outreach to Mark and Kelly and formation of a small ad hoc committee to produce cost and engagement estimates for both governing bodies to consider.
