Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plan Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft maps and presses to include prior action plans; debate over public-facing table format
Summary
Committee map presenter said draft GIS maps are posted online; members raised concerns that action steps from previous planning efforts (natural resources, agriculture, climate) are missing and debated whether to streamline the public-facing action table while keeping detailed evaluation and resources in an appendix and annual review.
The committee reviewed draft maps and spent substantial time discussing how to present implementation action steps in the public draft.
The map presenter (speaker 13) said draft maps — including existing land use, development-area hexagons, road functional classifications, emergency-service territories, prime farmland and future land use — were posted online for committee review and encouraged members to email any suggested edits. Committee members asked for additional data layers such as energy corridors and confirmed that GIS layers would be shared with county land records.
Several members raised concerns that action steps developed in prior, multi-month efforts (including natural resource and agricultural planning work) were not incorporated into the draft implementation chapter. A committee member noted that those previous efforts produced 25 action items and recommended either integrating those county-relevant actions into the implementation chapter or including them as appendices so the knowledge is not lost. The committee agreed staff and the facilitator will compile outstanding action items and suggested using appendices or an implementation table to incorporate approved actions from other county plans.
Members debated the public-facing format of action-step tables. Beth Scott recommended removing detailed columns such as “resources needed” from the publicly published plan and instead documenting evaluation, status and resource details in a separate appendix and in annual reviews. Charlie Ortman and others supported preserving evaluation/status coding (green/yellow/red) as a review tool but agreed the public summary should prioritize clarity and that the standing planning committee would maintain a separate evaluation table for ongoing tracking.
Steven Wiley from the city planning department, who was noted in attendance, offered to share city-level approaches to property maintenance enforcement and to discuss where county objectives intersect with city responsibilities. Wiley said the city is “starting our comprehensive plan process as well” and offered staff follow-up after the meeting.
Committee members directed staff to assemble a consolidated list of action steps (including those originating in prior adopted plans) before the August/September meetings so the group can assign leads and timing and prepare materials for public outreach.
