[0:13] Okay.
[0:14] >> So, first we'd like to find out who we
[0:16] » So, first we'd like to find out who we
[0:16] have present. I can see Gary Mertoff.
[0:19] >> Yes.
[0:20] » Yes.
[0:20] >> I see Dan Grady's office is online. Is
[0:23] » I see Dan Grady's office is online. Is
[0:23] that us or is that Dan?
[0:24] >> His boardroom.
[0:25] » His boardroom.
[0:25] >> That's his boardroom. And we need to
[0:27] » That's his boardroom. And we need to
[0:27] know who we can see Northwest Regional
[0:30] Planning is online. Who's with us from
[0:31] Northwest?
[0:34] >> This is Autumn. Emily will be joining in
[0:36] » This is Autumn. Emily will be joining in
[0:36] just a couple minutes as well.
[0:39] >> Autumn and who?
[0:40] » Autumn and who?
[0:40] >> Emily.
[0:41] » Emily.
[0:41] >> Autumn. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[0:44] » Autumn. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
[0:44] >> She just appeared online.
[0:47] » She just appeared online.
[0:47] >> And then, hi Emily. And then we need to
[0:50] » And then, hi Emily. And then we need to
[0:50] know who is area code 715.
[0:54] Can I read that?
[0:55] >> 9696732.
[0:59] » Meaning that's me, Elizabeth Franic.
[1:01] >> Hi Liz.
[1:02] » Hi Liz.
[1:02] >> Hi Liz.
[1:03] » Hi Liz.
[1:03] >> Okay. Glad everybody's here.
[1:04] » Okay. Glad everybody's here.
[1:04] >> Hi.
[1:06] » Hi.
[1:06] >> So uh we could take a roll call then
[1:08] » So uh we could take a roll call then
[1:08] please. Karisha.
[1:10] >> Okay. George Busousay
[1:12] » Okay. George Busousay
[1:12] >> here.
[1:13] » here.
[1:13] >> Bradley Ray is excused. Elizabeth Franic
[1:17] » Bradley Ray is excused. Elizabeth Franic
[1:17] >> here. Pat Kenny
[1:19] » here. Pat Kenny
[1:20] >> here.
[1:20] » here.
[1:20] >> Gary Mertig
[1:22] » Gary Mertig
[1:22] >> here.
[1:23] » here.
[1:23] >> Dan Greedy is excused. Lisa Radkey.
[1:29] » Is Lisa Radkkey online?
[1:33] >> No. Okay. And then Charlie Ortman
[1:35] » No. Okay. And then Charlie Ortman
[1:35] >> here.
[1:36] » here.
[1:36] >> And then Paul Wilharm.
[1:42] » Okay. So business,
[1:44] >> first order of business will be uh this
[1:46] » first order of business will be uh this
[1:46] is the Ashlin County Planning Committee
[1:49] working on the Ashlin County
[1:50] Comprehensive Plan. Uh for anybody here
[1:53] for public comment or uh or listening in
[1:56] and we will be uh going over the agenda
[1:58] as posted online. It's uh Monday, July
[2:02] 21st, 1 p.m. over at Ashlin County
[2:03] Courthouse and my name is George Buset
[2:06] and I'm the I chair of the committee. So
[2:08] we start with the approval of the
[2:10] agenda. Uh, has everybody had a chance
[2:12] to look it over and can we have a motion
[2:15] for an approval or comments or
[2:16] amendments? Anybody?
[2:18] >> Move to approve.
[2:19] » Move to approve.
[2:19] >> Charlie move.
[2:21] » Charlie move.
[2:21] >> Is that a second from you, Liz?
[2:24] » Is that a second from you, Liz?
[2:24] >> Yeah.
[2:25] » Yeah.
[2:25] >> Okay. Seconded by Liz Franek. So, the
[2:27] » Okay. Seconded by Liz Franek. So, the
[2:27] agenda is approved.
[2:29] The first uh item after the approval
[2:32] agenda is item number three, public
[2:35] comments order. We had a motion or a
[2:36] second, but we didn't vote.
[2:38] >> Oh. Oh, you like to move move to Yes, I
[2:41] » Oh. Oh, you like to move move to Yes, I
[2:41] stand corrected that. Uh,
[2:44] there was a second. So, all in favor of
[2:46] approving the agenda, say I.
[2:48] >> I. I.
[2:49] » I. I.
[2:49] >> Oppos.
[2:49] » Oppos.
[2:49] >> I.
[2:50] » I.
[2:50] >> Thank you for that correction. And then
[2:52] » Thank you for that correction. And then
[2:52] we move on to public comments. Is there
[2:55] anybody online or present for public
[2:56] comment?
[2:59] Anybody online for public comment?
[3:01] Present. Hearing. No public comment. We
[3:04] move on to the next agenda item, which
[3:06] is approval of the minutes of the prior
[3:08] meeting.
[3:09] Move to approve.
[3:11] >> Uh, Charlie Orman moves to approve the
[3:13] » Uh, Charlie Orman moves to approve the
[3:13] minutes. Is there a second?
[3:19] » This is paddle. Second.
[3:21] >> Kenny seconds. Uh, is there discussion?
[3:25] » Kenny seconds. Uh, is there discussion?
[3:25] Corrections. All in favor of approving
[3:27] the minutes of the prior meeting of June
[3:29] 17, please say I.
[3:30] >> I.
[3:31] » I.
[3:31] >> I.
[3:31] » I.
[3:31] >> Any opposed?
[3:34] » Any opposed?
[3:34] >> One abstension. W Paul Wilharm abstains.
[3:38] » One abstension. W Paul Wilharm abstains.
[3:38] And the motion carries. So that's done.
[3:41] So now we're on to discussion and action
[3:44] items. And item A is little fun facts or
[3:48] favorite things about Ashlin County.
[3:49] Does anybody have something to offer?
[3:52] >> Oh, could I uh if we could back up just
[3:56] » Oh, could I uh if we could back up just
[3:56] a minute. I'm not sure if Carver, did
[3:59] you get here before public minutes or
[4:01] public comments was offered?
[4:04] >> Okay. Thank you. That All right. Thank
[4:06] » Okay. Thank you. That All right. Thank
[4:06] you. of note, there's a second chance to
[4:08] public comment at the end of the agenda.
[4:11] Anything for uh fun facts? Okay, I have
[4:14] one thing here.
[4:19] » Maybe you know this, but Ashlin County
[4:20] was founded in 1854
[4:23] by Asaf Whittley.
[4:28] » Oh, there's Lissa. Okay, Lissa uh
[4:32] right survived. So the panic of 1857
[4:36] and then the Civil War nearly overcame
[4:39] the little settlement completely.
[4:43] But one family remained.
[4:46] >> One family. And then in 1870 when a
[4:50] » One family. And then in 1870 when a
[4:50] railroad line headed in that direction,
[4:52] it made a new start. In 1877, the first
[4:55] railroad, the Wisconsin Central, reached
[4:57] it. The years 1886 and 1887 saw a boom
[5:02] caused by the realization that Ashlin
[5:04] would be the port of the newly opened
[5:06] Gogeic iron range. In the 80s and 90s,
[5:10] Ashlin was also a great sawmill town. A
[5:14] little bit of Ashlin history. Any fun
[5:16] facts, Lissa, to add? Not today. Okay.
[5:20] >> Uh, no. I could add a quick one. Nothing
[5:22] » Uh, no. I could add a quick one. Nothing
[5:22] cool like that.
[5:24] Um well, while you're talking about
[5:26] people history, we have lots of um
[5:28] famous people from Ashlin, famous in the
[5:32] big picture, maybe not famous that we
[5:33] can claim, but um a Pulitzer
[5:36] Prizewinning author, David Marinus. He's
[5:40] written numerous biographies of other
[5:42] well-known figures like Vince Lombardi.
[5:46] Um, Lewis Robert Blake was Blake was an
[5:49] American ice hockey player who played
[5:51] with the Boston Bruins
[5:54] for 17 years. And Milton Leroy Moose
[5:59] Gardner was a professional American
[6:02] football guard in the National Football
[6:04] League playing for Detroit and Buffalo
[6:07] and finally the Green Bay Packers.
[6:12] » Thank you for that. Any more fun facts?
[6:14] If not, we move on to item 5B, which is
[6:18] subcommittee status reports.
[6:21] And we usually take this in order
[6:22] starting with uh intergovernmental. Uh
[6:25] Mr. Ortman,
[6:26] >> I have nothing to report at this time.
[6:30] » I have nothing to report at this time.
[6:30] >> Okay. Reviewing and moving along.
[6:33] » Okay. Reviewing and moving along.
[6:33] >> Subcommittee report from trends and
[6:35] » Subcommittee report from trends and
[6:35] issues. Uh Lisa Ratkkey.
[6:39] Um, yes. I've been contacting some
[6:42] people who have expressed in the past an
[6:45] interest to talk about issues and
[6:46] opportunities. We're going to do just
[6:48] little half an hour um check-ins to pull
[6:53] together a team who wants to look at
[6:57] those ideas in a more formal way. that
[6:59] they would come to one of these meetings
[7:01] and express their opinions as well as
[7:03] help spread the idea to their friends
[7:06] and neighbors that these discussions
[7:09] about issues and opportunities and
[7:11] obstacles are are happening.
[7:17] » Any questions for the um the transit
[7:20] issues team? Uh then cultural resources
[7:24] and community facilities. Uh Liz, do you
[7:26] have something to add today?
[7:29] nothing at this time. I'm going to be
[7:32] inviting certain um folks to our
[7:35] meetings I think that and putting that
[7:38] on their agenda in the very near near
[7:42] future. Thank you.
[7:45] >> Uh moving on, uh agriculture, forestry,
[7:48] » Uh moving on, uh agriculture, forestry,
[7:48] and natural resources. that Kenny,
[7:51] >> we had another farmland preservation
[7:53] » we had another farmland preservation
[7:53] meeting since the last comp plan meeting
[7:56] and we're going to have another meeting
[7:57] every month or so for the remainder of
[7:59] the year. But I got a question for
[8:01] Alyssa. Back in um December, January, we
[8:05] had I believe three egg related
[8:08] meetings. And so my question is why did
[8:13] we have those meetings? How do they tie
[8:15] into the comp plan? and the timing of
[8:17] that before we even made assignments for
[8:20] who would have who on the comp plan.
[8:22] Could you explain that to me?
[8:29] » Go ahead.
[8:31] >> Yeah. So, um, about a year ago, I
[8:34] » Yeah. So, um, about a year ago, I
[8:34] started talking to Dan Grady about, um,
[8:38] hearing from people that in the county
[8:41] that they were very interested in making
[8:42] sure that the new comp plan included
[8:45] robust conversations about how extreme
[8:48] weather was affecting county, people,
[8:51] places, and resources.
[8:53] And so, I was working with National Park
[8:56] Services um, team of expert planners who
[8:59] deal with this. and we came up with this
[9:03] method of working with
[9:06] each of the nine elements
[9:09] um current plan goals and objectives and
[9:13] making sure that they were infused with
[9:15] issues of importance related to ex
[9:18] extreme weather. So those were just
[9:20] conversations around each chapter. Um we
[9:23] we went through five chapters and then
[9:25] the federal government um cut the people
[9:28] on the National Park Service team. So, I
[9:31] don't have access to them anymore, but
[9:33] we met with transportation, natural
[9:35] resource, agriculture, land use, and um
[9:39] utilities and community facilities. And
[9:42] so each of those committees when um they
[9:47] meet with a larger group looking at all
[9:50] egg issues in this case, not just
[9:52] climate related or weather related that
[9:56] they would get a copy of those
[9:58] recommendations from that group of
[10:00] experts and specialists and people like
[10:02] yourself working in those areas and say,
[10:05] "Will you please consider our
[10:07] recommendations
[10:08] about how the county could deal with um
[10:11] impacts from extreme weather when you're
[10:13] looking at your broader chapter
[10:16] >> and then we'll have to figure out how to
[10:17] » and then we'll have to figure out how to
[10:17] tie that into what we're doing on the
[10:19] comp plan going forward.
[10:21] >> Yeah. So, the way we had set it up was
[10:24] » Yeah. So, the way we had set it up was
[10:24] let's say you're going to um regional
[10:26] planning is going to have a meeting
[10:28] scheduled to talk about the egg chapter.
[10:32] Then everybody involved, the public can
[10:34] have a copy. We'll post it online. will
[10:36] certainly give it to the members and say
[10:37] here's what a group of local and state
[10:40] specialists had decided were good
[10:42] recommendations to be included and then
[10:45] that egg committee will look at those
[10:47] and say yeah this one really fits really
[10:49] well or this one we don't feel is viable
[10:54] >> all right thank you
[10:55] » all right thank you
[10:55] >> does that sound like what you were
[10:57] » does that sound like what you were
[10:57] hoping okay cool and thanks for being
[11:00] >> so I have a another question about the
[11:03] » so I have a another question about the
[11:03] egg section and the I don't quite
[11:06] understand fully how the farmland
[11:08] preservation plan work flows into the
[11:12] comprehensive plan as is it like a third
[11:14] section how do you see that Pat and I'd
[11:17] like to ask the same thing of Emily how
[11:19] does the farmland preservation plan flow
[11:22] into the comprehensive plan
[11:23] >> the farmland preservation plan has to be
[11:25] » the farmland preservation plan has to be
[11:26] updated anyway and just with the timing
[11:30] of it all it ties in with the schedule
[11:33] we're on and So the farmland
[11:36] preservation plan like the forestry plan
[11:38] is a rather lengthy document and what
[11:40] goes in the comp plan is going to be
[11:44] much more brief than that. Um but then
[11:47] another round of input for the public
[11:49] specifically for the comp plan even
[11:51] though we have input opportunities for
[11:52] the farmland preservation plan. So it's
[11:55] going to provide a lot of background
[11:57] that the whole document won't be in
[11:59] there.
[12:01] So does that mean we'll be utilizing a
[12:03] lot of the background information from
[12:05] the farmland preservation plan plan
[12:08] for data requirements within the comp
[12:10] plan like land usage, land mapping.
[12:14] The topics in the farmland preservation
[12:17] plan should provide
[12:20] an excellent starting point for the
[12:22] conversation on the egg component. But
[12:26] because the comp plan is going to have
[12:27] its own opportunities for input, we
[12:30] shouldn't
[12:32] um decide in advance what should go or
[12:36] not go into the comp plan and how it
[12:38] should be framed. So the comp plan is
[12:41] another opportunity for that discussion.
[12:43] But the farmland preservation plan and
[12:45] the outcomes from there, Charlie's on
[12:47] that also should give us a very strong
[12:50] framework to work from as we consider
[12:53] topics and issues to bring forward for
[12:55] the discussion on egg.
[12:58] >> So as I understand that then both Lisa's
[13:00] » So as I understand that then both Lisa's
[13:00] pre-work and the farmland preservation
[13:03] pre-work all feeds into being available
[13:06] information for the um the egg section
[13:08] of the comp plan.
[13:10] >> That is the hope. That's what we've been
[13:12] » That is the hope. That's what we've been
[13:12] working towards.
[13:13] >> Yeah.
[13:13] » Yeah.
[13:14] >> So, I'd like to if Emily, if you're
[13:15] » So, I'd like to if Emily, if you're
[13:15] online, do you have an observation with
[13:17] that regard?
[13:23] » I'm not.
[13:23] >> Yeah. Can you hear me everyone?
[13:25] » Yeah. Can you hear me everyone?
[13:25] >> I can hear you now.
[13:27] » I can hear you now.
[13:27] So they're two distinct but closely
[13:30] related planning documents
[13:34] and the farmland preservation
[13:38] even has follows the same adoption
[13:42] procedures that the comprehensive plan
[13:44] does so that they can be fully um
[13:47] coordinated and integrated with each
[13:49] other.
[13:51] So comprehensive plan would be talk
[13:53] thinking about broadland use guidance
[13:55] and then the farmland preservation plan
[13:57] focused on
[13:59] eggland protection.
[14:05] » Okay.
[14:07] >> Thank you. Um Pat,
[14:10] » Thank you. Um Pat,
[14:10] >> I have a question.
[14:12] » I have a question.
[14:12] >> Go ahead, Liz.
[14:15] » Go ahead, Liz.
[14:15] in the plan. Can we have data um like if
[14:21] there's any existing small dairy farms
[14:25] in the area and how do they see their uh
[14:30] future in the farming community and how
[14:34] are they staying small as opposed to
[14:38] growing?
[14:41] Yeah,
[14:42] >> the farmland preservation plan has in
[14:46] » the farmland preservation plan has in
[14:46] the current draft version and the
[14:48] updated version will have information on
[14:51] all the different types of farming and
[14:53] sizes. And they've got information on
[14:55] the number of headed cattle, dairy and
[14:56] beef. So that's all in there. And then
[14:59] those issues and concerns related to,
[15:01] you know, egg in general, but also dairy
[15:03] farms. And we've talked about smallcale
[15:06] farming and smaller ones um at um
[15:09] extensively also. And Emily, you made a
[15:12] comment about, you know, the two plans.
[15:14] Um, forget the exact phrase you
[15:16] mentioned, but it's important that
[15:18] there's consistency in there when we're
[15:20] done so that one plan doesn't say one
[15:23] thing and the other one's at odds with
[15:25] it.
[15:28] Any other discussion on the egg?
[15:30] >> Thank you.
[15:31] » Thank you.
[15:31] >> Section. Then we move on to
[15:33] » Section. Then we move on to
[15:33] transportation. So that's my element. I
[15:36] have asked Paul Wilharm to join me in
[15:39] that effort on uh transportation
[15:42] utilities particularly in sense that
[15:44] Mandal Island has uh unique
[15:46] transportation issues and that there are
[15:49] issues around the future of
[15:50] transportation on the water in Bay and
[15:53] around the Basel Islands. And I think
[15:55] Paul you also have some background on uh
[15:57] with regard to airports. Is that
[15:58] correct?
[16:02] Maybe you could uh give us a little bit
[16:03] of your what you might bring as insights
[16:06] from your background for transportation.
[16:10] >> Uh well, as far as aviation goes, uh
[16:13] » Uh well, as far as aviation goes, uh
[16:14] just like uh the electric cars that are
[16:16] coming, uh you know, there's going to be
[16:18] electric aircraft.
[16:21] Uh there's already
[16:23] uh one V tall single person aircraft you
[16:27] can buy for $100,000 that has 20
[16:30] minutes. So you'd be able to take off
[16:33] and you know whip over to to Bayfield
[16:36] from from the island. Uh and there's
[16:39] more of this coming.
[16:43] » Uh thank you. I just note that I I I saw
[16:45] an article this week on small uh
[16:47] hydrooil electric fairies because
[16:49] they're hydrooil. They are much more
[16:50] efficient and carry much smaller battery
[16:52] and fry around, you know, between 10 and
[16:55] 20 people might be ideal for Schwaming
[16:57] Bay in the future. So there a lot of
[16:58] things could change in the next 20 years
[17:00] technologically with regard to utilities
[17:02] and transportation and uh that's where
[17:05] we'll be be looking. So next is housing
[17:08] and that's Brad's element but he's not
[17:10] here. So Gary, you have uh land use and
[17:13] economic development. Where do we stand
[17:15] with that?
[17:16] >> Yeah, I just a more of a comment than in
[17:20] » Yeah, I just a more of a comment than in
[17:20] depth because there's more background to
[17:22] find out. But in our last plan on
[17:25] economic development, it said we would
[17:27] develop and maintain a strong economy,
[17:30] supports residents and the community
[17:32] with services and so on.
[17:36] down below it talks about the fastest
[17:37] growing industry 10 years ago or so was
[17:40] in Ashen County was tourism.
[17:43] Um
[17:45] that will have to define where we're
[17:46] really going now. Is tourism our fastest
[17:49] growing industry
[17:51] and then how do we maintain a strong
[17:55] economy for the residents if that's it.
[17:58] Um so that's just a a thought that I
[18:01] had. The other one that I um in land use
[18:05] projections
[18:06] back in the last plan it said based on
[18:09] the growth in the county um more than
[18:14] 85% of the growth will occur in
[18:15] unincorporated areas of the county. And
[18:18] I'd like to look at that sometime a
[18:20] little deeper because what I'm seeing in
[18:21] the southern part of the county is every
[18:24] home that's up for sale, there's a 50%
[18:28] chance that those homes are being bought
[18:30] up by somebody from outside the county
[18:32] who does not live here. Um I can take
[18:36] you down roads here where 10 homes and
[18:39] nine of them are not lived in year
[18:42] round. we wonder why we have a housing
[18:44] shortage or uh employers say, "Hey, we
[18:46] need employees employees need housing."
[18:50] So that's a just a short look at it, but
[18:53] that's something we're going to have to
[18:55] be concerned about is uh if we want
[18:57] development and we want people, are we
[19:01] going for tourism, which I'm not saying
[19:03] we aren't, but how do we maintain who we
[19:06] have here and support schools,
[19:09] industries, and things if most of our
[19:12] housing is being bought up by somebody
[19:14] that doesn't live here year round? So,
[19:17] like I say, there's a lot more to that
[19:20] down the road to come, but those are
[19:21] just some of the points I see that we
[19:24] need to discuss.
[19:28] Any uh observations or comments on uh
[19:31] the economic development element?
[19:34] Um
[19:36] see, I think we pretty much covered the
[19:37] bases. We do have a risk and
[19:40] opportunities element, but we're
[19:41] probably a little bit too soon to be
[19:42] getting to that. And then there'll be an
[19:44] implementation element. We're probably a
[19:46] little bit early on the um calendar for
[19:48] that as well. So, if there's no
[19:50] objection, I think I'll move on to the
[19:52] next uh agenda item, which is um let's
[19:56] stand or reconsider or amend a
[19:57] previously approved public participation
[19:59] plan. So,
[20:02] at our last meeting, we approved a
[20:03] public participation plan uh with the
[20:06] understanding that anybody who voted in
[20:08] favor could bring a motion to reconsider
[20:12] and if there was a second and a vote in
[20:13] favor of reconsidering could be
[20:15] reconsidered. Now, this is on the public
[20:18] on the county board agenda for approval
[20:21] tomorrow.
[20:23] So to rewrite it, it'd be tricky. But if
[20:28] we really wanted to, we could amend it
[20:32] and then the amendment would be an
[20:34] add-on to what's being approved by the
[20:36] county board tomorrow hopefully because
[20:38] we need it to be approval to be
[20:40] completed.
[20:41] My personal preference would be let it
[20:44] stand and if we need to amend it at a
[20:46] future date, we could do so. But open
[20:49] for discussion.
[20:51] Anybody?
[20:54] >> Sean,
[20:54] » Sean,
[20:54] >> I guess I I'm I'm in the process of
[20:57] » I guess I I'm I'm in the process of
[20:57] outlining and then attempting to flesh
[20:59] out two additional elements. Um,
[21:02] community health and sustainability.
[21:05] And I just want to make sure this would
[21:07] allow to have those entered if we if
[21:10] after review of these sections, this
[21:12] body felt them appropriate. And and I
[21:16] know that it's got some specific
[21:17] elements listed. Does it would that be
[21:19] exclusionary to any additional ones or
[21:21] not?
[21:23] >> Uh, no. I don't think my interpretation
[21:25] » Uh, no. I don't think my interpretation
[21:25] would be no exclusion, but I think that
[21:27] falls into the discussion about scope of
[21:29] work.
[21:30] >> Okay?
[21:31] » Okay?
[21:31] >> Because this is this is about how we
[21:33] » Because this is this is about how we
[21:33] engage the public to be able to comment
[21:35] and participate,
[21:36] >> right?
[21:36] » right?
[21:36] >> And if we add work to the process, they
[21:39] » And if we add work to the process, they
[21:39] can easily participate and comment on
[21:41] that as well. But this is what we know
[21:43] as our baseline because we haven't added
[21:45] any elements as of this point in time.
[21:48] Mary Erica,
[21:51] >> just one thing that I wanted to um point
[21:54] » just one thing that I wanted to um point
[21:54] out here and is in the email that I sent
[21:58] all of you with notes is that there's a
[22:01] lot that is in here that is sort of
[22:04] extra that I assume we will never use
[22:07] and I feel like it would be a clearer
[22:09] document if we cut some of it. Um
[22:14] there are also like there's there are no
[22:18] activities assigned to any single person
[22:21] or to any group. And so this is
[22:25] something I would really like to have
[22:26] some kind of open conversation with. I
[22:28] would think in a meeting with at least
[22:30] Lisa and probably all of us because
[22:34] these are big things. Um
[22:38] so like as just a general document sure
[22:41] it's fine but there's like there's also
[22:43] still inconsistent language across
[22:46] documents. So one the scope of work
[22:49] calls something a digital public survey
[22:52] whereas we just call it a survey and it
[22:56] doesn't tell the mechanism. It doesn't
[22:59] sort of say anything. So there's just
[23:00] there's a lot of like different terms
[23:02] used across the two documents and yet
[23:04] there's they're referring to each other
[23:06] sort of constantly. So that that was the
[23:09] those were the things I was trying to
[23:10] point out. I'm not trying to halt this.
[23:14] In fact, you know, we we need to get it
[23:16] done. Um but
[23:20] just wanted to offer that up.
[23:23] Other comments I'd like to ask uh Emily
[23:26] you're there or Autumn about the digital
[23:30] public survey. Is that a capacity that's
[23:32] offered by Northwest Regional Planning?
[23:35] Yeah, within the
[23:38] uh current cost the 75,000
[23:41] would be the opportunity to do a digital
[23:45] survey with Northwest Regional Planning
[23:48] assisting the committee with developing
[23:49] questions
[23:51] um creating usually we create a QR code
[23:55] and then it would be the county or
[23:57] committee's responsibility to
[24:00] um distribute the survey information
[24:04] whether that's social media, newspapers
[24:07] on county website to get that
[24:09] information about the survey opportunity
[24:11] out to the public. And then once those
[24:15] um surveys are completed, Northwest
[24:19] Regional Planning would do a summary
[24:22] report of all of the um answers within
[24:28] the survey and that would be within the
[24:30] current constructs of the cost.
[24:35] >> Uh thank you. Other comment on a
[24:37] » Uh thank you. Other comment on a
[24:37] question, Pat? Well, what Erica said, I
[24:41] I've got some of the same questions,
[24:43] thoughts, concerns. One is it seems
[24:46] ambitious, which is fine, but then the
[24:49] question of who's going to do what and
[24:50] when, and that isn't in there. So, for
[24:54] example, I've got the egg section, but
[24:56] I've had three meetings with Alyssa.
[24:57] We're going to have a good nine or more
[24:59] with farmland preservation, and that's
[25:01] all outside of whatever the comp plan
[25:03] says we're going to do. Then I have the
[25:05] forestry. So, I'm thinking about all
[25:08] these meetings just for the comp plan
[25:10] update in those sections, let alone
[25:12] everything else. Um, it's not clear to
[25:14] me what I have to do, when I'm going to
[25:19] have to do it, where I'm going to have
[25:21] to do it. And that's partly penciling
[25:23] in, you know, this update around
[25:26] everything else in life. And then I, you
[25:29] know, I've mentioned this before, next
[25:31] April, there's an election and the comp
[25:34] plan doesn't need to be done until the
[25:36] end of 2026.
[25:38] All things being equal, it' be a nice if
[25:40] the group of us that are active now, you
[25:42] know, largely have it what we need to do
[25:45] done by April. But if we don't, it
[25:48] should be really clear to whoever picks
[25:49] it up, if anybody's not here after
[25:51] April, that they know what they would be
[25:54] getting into if they take it on. So
[25:57] there's there's no clarity on that yet.
[26:00] I'd like to get to it when we get a
[26:02] chance. Other other discussion, Erica,
[26:06] >> just to make things really clear. So in
[26:09] » just to make things really clear. So in
[26:10] the public participation plan, there's
[26:12] something called summaries.
[26:14] Whereas in the public participation
[26:16] plan, there's the word summaries being
[26:20] used, summaries of meetings that are
[26:23] transcribed. I believe in in Ashlin
[26:25] County we call those minutes. So I mean
[26:28] some of these things are really easy to
[26:29] change just to make them consistent so
[26:31] that we're referring to actual documents
[26:34] that are recorded um that we don't so we
[26:37] don't need to do additional summaries,
[26:39] right? Um, also listed under its own um,
[26:44] bolded subheading is community display
[26:48] and exhibit. That is separate from our
[26:51] open house, our all of our other
[26:54] meetings, sort of everything else. At
[26:56] least to my knowledge, we haven't talked
[26:58] about a community display and exhibit. I
[27:01] don't know if Lisa is thinking about an
[27:03] extra community display and exhibit. And
[27:06] if we're not, why don't we just delete
[27:08] that part? like if we're not going to do
[27:09] it, if nobody's going to pick that up,
[27:11] wouldn't that just be a super easy fix?
[27:14] Um
[27:17] there's also, let's see, an email
[27:21] mailing list that someone should be
[27:25] overseeing, collecting emails, and then
[27:30] sending out updates to things. Do we
[27:32] have anyone in mind for who's going to
[27:34] do that? Uh if not, I think we could
[27:37] take that out too. Um I think if it's
[27:40] more the subcommittees are creating
[27:42] their own sort of groups of people, then
[27:45] maybe that doesn't need to be in here.
[27:47] And then there's also a newsletter.
[27:51] Someone is going to create a newsletter
[27:54] uh periodically and pass that out. Um,
[27:59] there's also quite a few things listed
[28:01] here that need to be on the website that
[28:03] are not on the website yet. So, like a
[28:06] lot of it is not I I don't feel like
[28:09] it's sort of debatable. Like I don't I
[28:11] don't know like if we're not intending
[28:13] to do it, it would be it would be a more
[28:15] concise document. It would be easier to
[28:17] read and things would actually reference
[28:20] across multiple documents.
[28:24] Lisa,
[28:27] >> thank you. Um, yeah, I know when we were
[28:30] » thank you. Um, yeah, I know when we were
[28:30] when Erica and I met and we talked about
[28:33] this, it was almost like we should not
[28:36] um quote pass this yet until we met in
[28:41] August with regional planning to find
[28:43] out like what exactly they're doing and
[28:47] what we were doing. So, thanks for
[28:49] mentioning my name a hundred times, but
[28:51] I don't have the capacity to do that in
[28:53] the next year. you know, I can do a few
[28:55] things. Um, but I can't be the keeper of
[28:58] the outreach for the county's plan. Um,
[29:01] I'm not sure what is in the um contract.
[29:06] You know, um, Emily mentioned maybe
[29:08] $20,000 for a survey. I don't know if
[29:11] that's already in the scope of work as a
[29:13] contract item or if that's an additional
[29:16] thing. So it seemed like before we
[29:19] passed this and you could pass this and
[29:22] say this is our first attempt but it's
[29:24] an organic process and we know things
[29:26] will change and then go back to the
[29:28] board and say we want to do some changes
[29:30] or I think we're meeting with regional
[29:32] planning in August for the first time
[29:35] you know get more information then about
[29:37] what is theirs and then what is our real
[29:41] goal our real are we going the Cadillac
[29:45] template outreach That's this or are we
[29:48] doing the Chevy or the bicycle
[29:52] and then figure out who could do what
[29:55] >> or the electric airplane ready to go?
[29:59] » or the electric airplane ready to go?
[29:59] >> I would just are do
[30:02] » I would just are do
[30:02] are you both kind of suggesting that
[30:05] this might be a little premature
[30:07] approving this till until we meet in
[30:09] August and if so is there any rush
[30:11] George that we couldn't take this off
[30:14] the agenda for this month? It's my
[30:16] understanding we're required to have it
[30:17] now when the contract goes into place.
[30:19] The contract has not yet been put in
[30:21] place. The next thing on the agenda is
[30:23] to talk about the scope of work. Uh
[30:25] point out to of the things that I find
[30:27] in this the state law says, you know,
[30:30] shall adopt written procedures designed
[30:33] to foster public participation. That's
[30:35] the requirement. She'll adopt written
[30:36] procedures designed to foster written
[30:38] participation.
[30:41] There'll be open discussion,
[30:42] communication programs, information
[30:44] services, public meetings, and with
[30:46] advanced notice and opportunity for
[30:49] written comments. That's all that's
[30:50] required.
[30:52] So, I see this as documentation
[30:56] of a smorgus board of options for the
[30:59] committee and future committee if it's
[31:01] different than us next year to be
[31:03] working with. And if we leave things
[31:05] out, they won't be there on this
[31:07] mortgage board table for people to
[31:08] choose from. I'll point out that most of
[31:10] these are open house and openhouse.
[31:14] Okay, one open house is actually
[31:16] required by law. But when you come to
[31:18] some of these other items, it's
[31:22] uh see where
[31:25] it's a may. So, community play may be
[31:30] used. Doesn't say it will be used. It
[31:32] says it may be used. Is there as an
[31:34] option?
[31:36] um a newsletter may be prepared. So, I
[31:39] see no point in deleting these items
[31:41] because they're reminders of something
[31:43] that we could do and we might decide to
[31:44] do later in the process. Um the last
[31:49] thing I'll say is that um personally I
[31:52] support leaving this alone and letting
[31:53] the county board approve it tomorrow,
[31:55] but it's up to the committee. Um, this
[31:58] has already been approved. So, would
[32:01] take a a motion and a vote to reconsider
[32:04] and to open reopen discussion and then
[32:07] revise it at this meeting or at a future
[32:10] meeting. But, if we delay to the future
[32:12] meeting, then it won't be in place for
[32:14] the satisfaction of the contract and the
[32:16] grant requirements. So, it's um it's up
[32:20] to the committee. But, uh, Charlie, you
[32:22] have the floor.
[32:23] >> That Thank you. That clarifies things
[32:26] » That Thank you. That clarifies things
[32:26] for me. Um, and I support approving this
[32:29] now. Um, and then I suspect when we meet
[32:33] in August, then we'll be able to decide
[32:35] which of these options are our best ones
[32:37] to use should we choose. I'm glad
[32:40] they're not mandatory. You said there
[32:42] was three mandatory things, I think. So,
[32:44] thank you.
[32:45] >> Just want to point out there's there's
[32:47] » Just want to point out there's there's
[32:47] nothing to be done now if nobody brings
[32:50] a motion to reconsider. was just
[32:52] discussion and we move on because it's
[32:54] already been an approved document and
[32:57] it's already on the agenda for the
[32:58] county board for tomorrow. But we do
[32:59] have the option of bringing it up for
[33:01] reconsideration if someone wants to do
[33:03] so.
[33:04] >> Right. Pat.
[33:06] » Right. Pat.
[33:06] >> So at the board meeting tomorrow, if the
[33:08] » So at the board meeting tomorrow, if the
[33:08] board as a whole wants to modify this
[33:10] document and approve the modified
[33:12] version, I would assume that that is
[33:15] then the document that this committee
[33:17] would be working with.
[33:18] >> Yes. Totally within their empowerment.
[33:20] » Yes. Totally within their empowerment.
[33:20] Yeah. So if Erica and Lisa
[33:27] had one or more things that they say,
[33:29] you know, this really really should be
[33:31] changed and they sent it to the board
[33:34] prior to the meeting tomorrow, the board
[33:36] consider could consider making the
[33:38] changes in. Some of it's just language
[33:40] for consistency of language so it's
[33:43] clear that it's the same thing and not
[33:45] different things.
[33:47] Um, you know, but it's a long list of
[33:50] stuff to do and then, you know,
[33:52] ultimately you got to rouse it with
[33:53] who's going to do it. And I've heard
[33:54] multiple people say, "I'm busy enough.
[33:57] Don't put that on my plate." And I know
[34:00] how busy my plate is just with the comp
[34:03] plan stuff, let alone everything else.
[34:06] So,
[34:09] and then we talk about how often does
[34:11] anybody look at the comp plan. You know,
[34:13] we hear those comments all the time. And
[34:14] for those of us on the board, we know
[34:16] how often the comp plan is referred to,
[34:19] like not often, you know, it's rarely
[34:22] referred to. So, in many ways, if we had
[34:25] a shorter, more focused list, I I think
[34:29] being realistic,
[34:31] that would be helpful. But I think it
[34:33] would be good to get input. I mean, just
[34:34] in terms of process, because you don't
[34:36] want to modify this today and then amend
[34:37] the agenda with here's a new one. Not
[34:39] that we couldn't. We certainly could,
[34:41] but we could also agree on a list of
[34:43] changes today and then if someone on
[34:45] this committee that's on the board then
[34:47] wants to make that motion tomorrow and
[34:49] and bring it forward, the board could
[34:51] consider that as a whole.
[34:54] >> Further discussion,
[34:56] » Further discussion,
[34:56] >> Lissa? I mean, one of the amendments
[34:58] » Lissa? I mean, one of the amendments
[34:58] could be that um a sentence or so near
[35:02] the beginning that says these are proven
[35:06] successful outreach strategies that can
[35:09] help reach more people, blah blah blah.
[35:12] Um
[35:15] we will work on them or accomplish them
[35:17] as staff and resources are available.
[35:22] I mean, I don't I just don't want
[35:23] somebody in the public to get a hold of
[35:25] the public participation plan and say,
[35:29] "You didn't do an email list and you
[35:32] didn't do a display or I didn't hear
[35:34] anything about it. What's your plan?"
[35:36] And then you say, "Well, here's our
[35:38] plan." And they say, "Well, who's doing
[35:39] your website?" And we said, "Well, we
[35:41] don't know. That was just our idea.
[35:43] We'll figure that out." I just don't
[35:45] want to have create that vulnerability
[35:48] of setting up because this is a this is
[35:50] a Cadillac plan. I mean, it doesn't have
[35:52] social media on it, but I was going to
[35:54] do that anyway just because I do social
[35:56] media, but I'd hate for it to be like
[36:01] here's how we intend to engage people,
[36:04] but then we come back, somebody says,
[36:06] well, you didn't talk to seniors. and we
[36:08] come back and say, "Well, these were
[36:10] maze or maybe if we had a person." So,
[36:15] if we added a disclaimer,
[36:18] maybe it's a little bit of a bumper
[36:21] as an amendment because you did ask us
[36:23] if we had things that we wanted to be
[36:25] reconsidered or amended. Does that make
[36:27] sense? What do you think? What if
[36:29] somebody came to you and said, "I saw
[36:30] your public participation plan. Where's
[36:32] this newsletter?" And you know,
[36:35] >> I'd ask them if they didn't know what
[36:36] » I'd ask them if they didn't know what
[36:36] the word may meant. I mean, we still
[36:39] have to decide of of what those we're
[36:41] going to use. And I think that's so we
[36:44] leave those options there and then in
[36:46] August we we rewrite it and say these
[36:49] are the ones we're going to use. And
[36:51] then if they don't find those, they have
[36:53] a beef with us. But if they don't find
[36:56] us using something that we said we might
[36:58] use but didn't, then they don't have
[37:00] really a grounds for a complaint. But I
[37:02] see where that could possibly happen,
[37:05] but I think that going to jam us up more
[37:07] than it would help us at this phase.
[37:10] >> Can is there um would you have a issue
[37:12] » Can is there um would you have a issue
[37:12] with adding some language that says
[37:16] this is our first great plan depending
[37:19] on resources and staffing. I
[37:23] >> I look at this now that we're looking at
[37:25] » I look at this now that we're looking at
[37:25] this Cadillac option plan to determine
[37:28] what part of it we want to use. Can we
[37:30] decide that today?
[37:33] >> Uh, not my daily wick, but if George
[37:35] » Uh, not my daily wick, but if George
[37:35] says we can, is it adopted?
[37:38] >> Yeah, let me let me chime in here. Um, I
[37:41] » Yeah, let me let me chime in here. Um, I
[37:41] think it' be more expeditious for us to
[37:44] amend this at a future meeting if we
[37:47] wish to. There's nothing says that we
[37:49] have to do all these things. I view this
[37:51] more as a checklist and a a keeping us
[37:57] on plan. sort of a checklist of things
[37:58] we can and will be doing during the
[38:01] course of the year. We might do some and
[38:02] we might not do others. So just because
[38:05] it's a plan doesn't mean that
[38:08] everything's going to be done as long as
[38:09] we meet the legal requirement
[38:12] which is pretty open. The legal
[38:15] requirement is just to have some public
[38:17] participation and open discussion and
[38:19] communication programs. It doesn't it
[38:23] doesn't say that we have to do all these
[38:24] things. So if we don't do them, we're
[38:26] not in any kind of detriment. We just
[38:30] But we m we've got our ideas down on
[38:32] paper of things that we should can be
[38:34] doing and we have a timeline which is
[38:37] maybe tells us whether we're behind or
[38:39] ahead of schedule. So I see personally I
[38:43] see no problem with this.
[38:45] >> Yeah. So, we get to August, which isn't
[38:47] » Yeah. So, we get to August, which isn't
[38:47] very far away, and we we need to pencil
[38:50] in who's doing what and when, you know,
[38:54] for each of the components of the comp
[38:55] plan, but also all of these other issues
[38:57] that we're talking about, when we get to
[38:59] August,
[39:01] could we at least have an understanding
[39:03] that some of these items, the email
[39:05] list, the website, etc., if we don't
[39:07] have a volunteer or someone penciled in
[39:10] that we reduce that list and update this
[39:12] document because if we hit August, which
[39:15] is when we're supposed to hit the ground
[39:16] running on updating the comp plan, if we
[39:19] don't have people penciled in, then we
[39:22] should shorten that list in this
[39:23] documents. I agree with what Lisa said.
[39:26] I've read things like that and you know,
[39:28] it creates the impression that there's
[39:30] going to be a bunch of stuff going on.
[39:31] And yes, the word may is in there, but
[39:34] you know, you can only not do so many
[39:36] things that you say we may do this, we
[39:38] may do that without leaving a sour taste
[39:41] with the public. I would rather have a
[39:43] shorter list that we're committed to and
[39:44] have the people and the resources to do
[39:47] and then do that, you know, pencil it in
[39:49] and be committed to that. But we had
[39:51] August. We need to pencil names and
[39:54] dates and commitments in. So, I'm okay
[39:56] with leaving it to August, but if we
[39:58] don't have names in August, then I think
[40:01] We have no choice but to shorten the
[40:03] list.
[40:04] >> I guess I see we got to we can't really
[40:08] » I guess I see we got to we can't really
[40:08] make those are good things to keep in
[40:09] the back of their head till we actually
[40:11] have the meeting with NWRPC.
[40:14] That's what we're waiting on, right? See
[40:16] what exactly the the disposition of
[40:18] duties is going to be. So to try to
[40:20] pencil stuff in now,
[40:23] it might not be just go out the window
[40:26] when we actually have the the meetings.
[40:29] So Well, is Emily on the call right now?
[40:33] >> Emily, you want to chime in?
[40:40] » Emily will be coming back in just a
[40:43] second here. She'll be able to hop on
[40:45] and give some answers. But um I guess
[40:51] our situation that we're in right now is
[40:54] we're not technically under contract um
[40:58] yet to be coming to like attending
[41:02] meetings in person and things like that.
[41:05] We don't have a contract set in stone
[41:07] right now. Um so that would be something
[41:10] that we could talk about once that scope
[41:13] of work gets approved and um the
[41:15] contract is approved. Um public
[41:17] participation plans are important to
[41:20] have that prior to doing any work on a
[41:24] comp plan. Um it is statutoily required
[41:28] before um any work to a comp plan is
[41:32] done that that public participation plan
[41:34] is approved. So that would kind of be
[41:37] your first step on anything would be to
[41:40] get the public participation plan nailed
[41:42] down and approved by the county board.
[41:46] >> Thank you.
[41:49] » And I am back now. This is Emily.
[41:52] >> Go ahead, Emily.
[41:53] » Go ahead, Emily.
[41:53] >> So we would have um just a ma like a
[41:57] » So we would have um just a ma like a
[41:57] general outline. Northwest Regional
[42:00] Planning's responsibilities
[42:02] would be to make sure that all of the
[42:05] statutory requirements are met for the
[42:07] comp plan update. So that would include
[42:09] the adoption of the public participation
[42:11] plan by the county board before we start
[42:14] any sort of planning committee meetings
[42:16] that are facilitated.
[42:18] We'd also make sure that the draft plan
[42:21] is properly distributed
[42:23] to all of the required entities. So that
[42:26] would be neighboring jurisdictions
[42:29] and then we help prepare the materials,
[42:31] the draft plan for county board
[42:34] adoption. We'll be the ones responsible
[42:37] for updating the tables, charts, maps,
[42:40] any narrative content that's affected by
[42:44] any new data. We would draft updated
[42:46] narrative content and revise the plan
[42:49] chapters for review by this committee.
[42:52] And then for actual facilitated
[42:55] meetings, the current scope of work
[42:58] includes eight meetings of this
[43:00] committee as well as one facilitated
[43:02] public open house. So that's different
[43:05] than the required public hearing that's
[43:07] a part of statute. The open house would
[43:09] be on the preliminary draft
[43:11] comprehensive plan before it moves into
[43:14] the formal um adoption process to get
[43:17] some input from the public on a
[43:18] preliminary draft.
[43:22] And then we would also provide digital
[43:23] copies of the draft and final plan in
[43:26] both Microsoft Word and PDF formats. We
[43:29] do the the mapping and develop the
[43:32] updated existing land use and the future
[43:35] land use maps.
[43:37] We would support the county in the
[43:39] preparation of the public hearing.
[43:42] That's the statutory requirement that is
[43:44] the with the 30-day notice of the final
[43:47] draft plan. And we would also assist
[43:49] with the uh information you need for
[43:52] plan final plan adoption by the county
[43:54] board.
[43:56] And then the current scope of work also
[43:59] includes the assistance with a digital
[44:01] public opinion survey. And then we would
[44:03] have the summary analysis for that as
[44:07] well as um any hardcolor copy printing
[44:11] of the final plan that the county might
[44:13] want to have that would be at an
[44:15] additional cost. So for Russ County, for
[44:18] this planning committee, the main things
[44:20] would be to review and provide timely
[44:22] feedback on all the draft materials that
[44:25] we provide
[44:28] that the county board adopts the public
[44:30] participation plan according to
[44:33] comprehensive planning law requirements.
[44:36] You would be the responsible for
[44:37] conducting and coordinating any of the
[44:40] additional public outreach engagement
[44:42] activities. So that sounds like what
[44:43] you're talking about right now within
[44:44] this public participation plan that's
[44:47] above and beyond the statutory
[44:48] requirements. And this public
[44:50] participation plan is um based on one
[44:53] that another county that we worked with
[44:56] um did. So these are things like that
[45:00] another county um had as their
[45:03] priorities and maybe those priorities
[45:05] are different in Ashlin County. So, I
[45:07] heard you talking about the community
[45:09] display, and what that county did was
[45:12] had a display with some of the
[45:16] survey results as well as some of the
[45:19] background information, population, and
[45:21] housing data, and they had that
[45:23] displayed at the entrance to their
[45:26] government center.
[45:30] And then we'd also assist with uh
[45:33] organizing the public hearing for plan
[45:35] adoption as well as approval of the
[45:37] final plan and related ordinance with
[45:40] the county board. And I see one hand up.
[45:44] >> Yeah, this Emily and Autumn, this is
[45:46] » Yeah, this Emily and Autumn, this is
[45:46] Gary Merdict. I have a question. You uh
[45:49] Autumn, I think you said you didn't have
[45:50] the contract. I got an email over 10
[45:54] days ago saying that that contract had
[45:56] been approved. Is it something that
[45:59] >> you haven't uh
[46:00] » you haven't uh
[46:00] >> the contract with for the grant has been
[46:04] » the contract with for the grant has been
[46:04] approved? So the state and the county.
[46:07] >> Okay.
[46:08] » Okay.
[46:08] >> So now that that has been approved, we
[46:10] » So now that that has been approved, we
[46:10] can and I today you also have
[46:14] >> um the scope of work on your agenda at
[46:17] » um the scope of work on your agenda at
[46:17] the this committee level. Then we can
[46:20] look at the contract between Northwest
[46:23] Regional Planning and the county for
[46:25] this plan update.
[46:27] >> Okay. Thank you.
[46:28] » Okay. Thank you.
[46:28] >> Contract was specific to the grant.
[46:30] » Contract was specific to the grant.
[46:30] >> Okay. Thank you very much.
[46:32] » Okay. Thank you very much.
[46:32] >> Yes.
[46:34] » Yes.
[46:34] >> Any further discussion? Uh see Eric, did
[46:38] » Any further discussion? Uh see Eric, did
[46:38] you have Okay, Charlie, go ahead.
[46:40] >> Okay. Sorry. I I don't want staff to
[46:43] » Okay. Sorry. I I don't want staff to
[46:43] think that I don't support them 100%.
[46:46] Perhaps a a uh
[46:50] an amendment stating
[46:52] uh that the uh points in this plan are
[46:56] subject to change uh may may change
[47:00] based on the August meeting.
[47:04] Would would something like that give you
[47:06] comfort?
[47:07] >> Other discussion, Lisa?
[47:09] » Other discussion, Lisa?
[47:09] >> Something like that gives me more
[47:10] » Something like that gives me more
[47:10] comfort because it reduces expectation
[47:13] levels. Um maybe there should be a
[47:16] statement in the beginning that says
[47:18] this is what's required by the statute.
[47:20] What follows is a checklist of ideas
[47:23] that we may pursue. Make sure everyone
[47:26] in the county gets the news as staff and
[47:28] resources allow
[47:31] because there's a difference to me
[47:33] between like a wish list and an action
[47:35] plan. you know, an action plan. I am
[47:38] saying I'm doing this and then um
[47:41] whether that's a Chevy or a Cadillac
[47:43] plan, maybe it's two things, maybe it's
[47:45] 20 things, but it's a plan of action
[47:47] that I'm going to do a a guideline or a
[47:51] checklist to me is is a little bit
[47:53] different. Whereas the idea that we're
[47:55] calling this participation plan to me
[47:57] sets up expectations and I'm not sure
[48:00] that a lot of people will read it at
[48:02] all. Um but the word and and whether
[48:06] they zone in on the word may
[48:10] um you know that's a separate question
[48:12] but if if we're clear about what the
[48:14] expectation is to do this work or just
[48:17] say these are our great suggestions.
[48:19] We're going to try and get to it. You
[48:21] know nice statement like that. This is
[48:24] what's required that will get done.
[48:26] We've hired a contractor to help us. If
[48:28] I may, uh, if you look at the second
[48:31] page of the public participation plan,
[48:34] uh, paragraph two, it says, um, we'll
[48:37] use due diligence to ensure the spirit
[48:40] and intent of this public participation
[48:42] plan is upheld. The spirit and intent.
[48:46] However, it should be expected that
[48:48] deviations from this plan may be
[48:49] warranted. It's right in there.
[48:52] >> Okay. I didn't read that part. Did you
[48:54] » Okay. I didn't read that part. Did you
[48:54] do you agree with that then, Charlie?
[48:56] I'm
[48:56] >> because that's what you're getting at as
[48:58] » because that's what you're getting at as
[48:58] well, right?
[48:59] >> Yeah. I I think we're all getting a
[49:02] » Yeah. I I think we're all getting a
[49:02] little wrapped up with what may or may
[49:05] not be a final and that's not going to
[49:07] happen till we meet with NWRPC. Then
[49:09] then then
[49:11] we got to make sure that we're dotting
[49:13] and crossing
[49:15] te's and eyes that we can do before we
[49:18] say yes. So these are all just may now
[49:20] in preparation for that meeting. And so
[49:23] I'm comfortable with it the way it is.
[49:27] So if I go to page two of the document,
[49:32] it's there's a section called public
[49:34] participation plan by method and then
[49:38] there's a paragraph or two, then there's
[49:40] a bunch of bullets, but then when you
[49:43] get to page three of the document, now
[49:47] it starts with community
[49:48] display/exhibit. It doesn't really
[49:50] there's this other language in front of
[49:52] that. And what I'm wondering is before
[49:54] the community display/exhibit
[49:57] if we could add a sentence that says
[50:00] Ashlin County is considering some or all
[50:02] of the following for public
[50:04] participation.
[50:06] Then that very clearly in one standalone
[50:08] sentence is says considering some or all
[50:11] of the following. It's by no way
[50:14] promising and it doesn't say may which
[50:17] can be interpreted various ways.
[50:21] So, for simplicity sake, if this
[50:23] committee agreed on inserting that
[50:25] sentence above the community
[50:27] display/exhibit as a standalone
[50:29] sentence, then tomorrow at the board
[50:30] meeting, a board member could make a
[50:33] motion to change the public
[50:36] participation plan by adding that
[50:38] sentence there and it would save you all
[50:39] of this. You know,
[50:43] >> Ashlin County is considering some or all
[50:46] » Ashlin County is considering some or all
[50:46] of the following for public
[50:48] participation.
[50:51] Yeah. So, thanks that I think I would go
[50:54] along with that. That's what I've been
[50:55] trying to say is like let's cert some
[50:57] clarifying language so that we don't set
[51:00] unrealistic expectations.
[51:02] >> And then in August, we have to be
[51:03] » And then in August, we have to be
[51:03] prepared. If somebody wants a certain
[51:06] thing in there like email or website, we
[51:09] need to pencil somebody in
[51:11] or take it off the list.
[51:12] >> Y
[51:13] » Y
[51:13] >> yeah, we're we're likely to be resource
[51:15] » yeah, we're we're likely to be resource
[51:15] thin. So, um I think we could take that
[51:19] as amendment today and then it would be
[51:21] in the the presentation tomorrow to the
[51:23] county board if we amended it today.
[51:25] >> I'll make move to make that amendment.
[51:27] » I'll make move to make that amendment.
[51:27] >> Well, hang on.
[51:29] » Well, hang on.
[51:29] I Well, I'll second it for purpose of
[51:32] discussion. Now, we're going to have to
[51:33] vote, but I'll second it, but then I'd
[51:34] like to speak
[51:35] >> now. So, there's an amendment on there's
[51:36] » now. So, there's an amendment on there's
[51:36] a a motion on the floor to amend the
[51:39] public participation public
[51:41] participation plan as previously
[51:43] approved at the past meeting to say at
[51:46] the beginning of the listing of
[51:51] options for public participation on page
[51:54] three that we should have a header that
[51:56] says Ashlin County is considering some
[52:00] or all of the following for public
[52:03] participation. That would be the
[52:05] amendment as I understand it. Is that
[52:08] correct?
[52:09] >> Well, it it is. Um but logistically
[52:12] » Well, it it is. Um but logistically
[52:12] speaking, the board meeting is tomorrow.
[52:13] If we pass this today, we're changing
[52:15] the plan the board has asked to
[52:17] consider, which would mean you would
[52:19] need to send the administrator an
[52:20] updated copy of this plan today. They
[52:23] would then need to modify what's on the
[52:26] county website for the packet tomorrow.
[52:28] And for those board members who get the
[52:30] packet in print, they would need to
[52:32] print copies to give to them. If we
[52:35] agreed as a committee on this change
[52:37] today, a board member tomorrow could
[52:41] make a motion to modify the plan with
[52:43] the sentence that you just said and then
[52:45] say that the committee supported making
[52:47] this change yesterday, but we're not
[52:49] going to go through the logistics of you
[52:52] and Dan and others having to update the
[52:54] packet.
[52:55] >> So, would you like to propose? Would you
[52:57] » So, would you like to propose? Would you
[52:57] be prepared to make that amendment
[52:59] tomorrow?
[52:59] >> I I would as long as this committee is
[53:02] » I I would as long as this committee is
[53:02] in support of making that. Um,
[53:07] » I support.
[53:08] >> So, you want to withdraw?
[53:09] » So, you want to withdraw?
[53:09] >> I'll withdraw my amend withdraw my
[53:11] » I'll withdraw my amend withdraw my
[53:11] amendment proposal and support the
[53:12] course of action that Pat submits it
[53:15] tomorrow at the board meeting.
[53:16] >> Are there any objections to the proposal
[53:18] » Are there any objections to the proposal
[53:18] by Mr. Kenny?
[53:22] Then so be it.
[53:23] >> And we move on to the next agenda item.
[53:30] the
[53:31] uh
[53:33] work
[53:35] this this would be used this is what's
[53:37] going to be used in discussion with land
[53:40] as to what the job is to be done
[53:43] so this must becomes the foundation of
[53:46] the contract
[53:47] I believe will be set up
[53:55] Um, I don't know exactly who sets it up.
[53:58] I know that, you know, Dan and Gary will
[54:01] need to sign it as it is a contract, but
[54:04] I would guess that you, George, are also
[54:06] involved.
[54:08] >> Uh, so I mean, probably it's going to
[54:11] » Uh, so I mean, probably it's going to
[54:11] take legal review. It' be my
[54:13] understanding, but I'm not sure how it
[54:14] was done last time around, so we have to
[54:16] look into that. But anyway, as I
[54:18] understand it, the scope of work
[54:20] document becomes the basis for the
[54:22] agreement with Northwest Regional
[54:24] Planning as to who's going to do what
[54:26] and how much they're going to contribute
[54:27] within the amount of funding that we
[54:29] have available to them. And I have a
[54:33] concern. Okay, I'm I'm pretty good with
[54:36] all of this that's in this document.
[54:40] um you know the plan elements will
[54:43] include at least these nine elements
[54:45] which means there could be more which
[54:47] was Charlie's problem and like in
[54:49] transportation these are we looking at
[54:52] proposed things for the future they're
[54:55] not definite commitments that you can do
[54:56] that I don't think I highlighted there's
[54:59] some other things I highlighted that
[55:01] we're looking at you know future risk
[55:03] and opportunities and we want to promote
[55:06] diverse sustainable economic case and
[55:09] that land use is proposed land uses and
[55:14] that implementation is policies,
[55:16] programs and actions to achieve plan
[55:18] goals.
[55:20] Uh so we will need in the end reasonable
[55:23] parties and strategies but my concern is
[55:25] this.
[55:27] I look at at what we have in terms of
[55:29] resources among ourselves to do work. I
[55:32] mean, some of us are professionally
[55:34] committed and have an overload of work
[55:38] probably already and the rest of us are
[55:40] essentially volunteers who receive a
[55:43] predeem for going to a meeting, but
[55:44] essentially so there's a lot to be done
[55:47] here and we're going to need a lot of
[55:48] help from Northwest Regional Planning.
[55:50] But I what I'm seeing is probably the
[55:54] need from each
[55:57] subcommittee team leader to be able to
[56:00] draw upon the advisory skills of the
[56:04] consultant.
[56:06] So, it seems to me that if Charlie's
[56:09] working intergovernmental or Pat's
[56:11] working agriculture or Gary's working on
[56:13] economic development,
[56:15] they may need the advice and guidance of
[56:20] experts at Northwest Regional Planning.
[56:22] And I strikes me that it would be
[56:24] constructive for us to establish that
[56:27] you would have all subcommittee
[56:29] chairpersons would have access to
[56:32] drawing upon that expertise. And I don't
[56:34] know what other people think about this.
[56:37] Charlie, go ahead. I
[56:38] >> I think if if my
[56:42] » I think if if my
[56:42] perception of what they're doing is
[56:44] correct that they're going to be looking
[56:47] at each they're going to be eyeballing
[56:49] my element and then coming back and I
[56:52] get to review that. So I think I feel
[56:55] like I have the access to that expert
[56:57] already and that they're going to be
[56:59] applying an expert eye to my element. If
[57:03] that's wrong, they'll tell me in August,
[57:05] I suppose.
[57:07] >> I guess what I'm thinking of is if you
[57:10] » I guess what I'm thinking of is if you
[57:10] have questions, if you need help.
[57:13] >> Yeah.
[57:13] » Yeah.
[57:13] >> You have authority. Do you have
[57:14] » You have authority. Do you have
[57:14] authority to call Emily or Autumn and
[57:18] ask them some questions and get some
[57:20] advice that right now with the farmland
[57:22] preservation plan?
[57:24] >> So, that's what I'd like to make more
[57:25] » So, that's what I'd like to make more
[57:25] clear in the scope of work. And so just
[57:28] what I wrote here is that the scope of
[57:31] work should include a section on
[57:34] advisory services. It doesn't spec
[57:36] explicitly say that. And I would write
[57:39] it this way. Advisory services to the
[57:41] planning committee as a whole.
[57:44] Individual committee members as leaders
[57:45] of sub subject element subcommittees.
[57:50] county administration and county board
[57:52] in addition to the work and processes as
[57:55] prescribed herein and otherwise agreed.
[57:58] I'd like to make it very clear that
[57:59] there's access to advisory services for
[58:02] the people that are doing the work. I
[58:04] don't know if you think that's I don't
[58:05] know if you think that's necessary and
[58:06] I'll be interested in Emily and Autumn's
[58:08] observations. Pat, do you have a
[58:10] comment?
[58:11] >> Well, when we get to August and we start
[58:13] » Well, when we get to August and we start
[58:13] penciling things in that ties into the
[58:15] question of how do we work with each of
[58:18] these sections? So if I have the egg
[58:20] section, I need to somehow coordinate
[58:22] with Northwest Regional Planning on how
[58:25] we do that. So implicitly we have to
[58:28] have some access to them um to
[58:31] coordinate this without question. But
[58:35] given there's a limit to the budget,
[58:37] there's a limit to their time and
[58:38] access. So somewhere in there if we add
[58:40] a sentence or a paragraph um as time and
[58:44] budgets allow so that we don't have say
[58:47] a member just asking for endless hours
[58:50] that then push the budget outside of the
[58:53] scope of what we have. So there's got to
[58:55] be as time and budget allows and
[58:57] Northwest Regional Planning would have
[58:59] to talk to individual committee members
[59:01] and say, "Look, you know, I can give you
[59:03] a certain amount of time, but if
[59:05] someone's start sucking up 40, 50, 60,
[59:08] 80 hours, that's probably not going to
[59:10] work so well."
[59:13] So my I thought about that problem and I
[59:15] thought that the way to deal with that
[59:17] is that when we do our subcommittee
[59:19] reports at each of our committee
[59:21] meetings, one of the things that the
[59:22] committee members would be asked to
[59:24] report is time
[59:27] time on calls to Northwest Regional
[59:30] Planning if if at all. And that would,
[59:33] you know, if some if you if we had a
[59:35] committee meeting and you someone said,
[59:36] "Well, I spent 10 minutes on the phone
[59:38] with Emily and I asked a question, but
[59:41] somebody else says,"Well, I was on the
[59:42] phone with Autumn for 3 hours." You
[59:44] know, then we can see that we're bumping
[59:46] up against limitations if we have a a
[59:48] monthly reporting process. Pat,
[59:51] >> I think for the August meeting, it would
[59:53] » I think for the August meeting, it would
[59:53] be helpful if Northwest Regional
[59:54] Planning would tell us what they
[59:57] typically um have as guidelines when
[1:00:00] working with counties to update comp
[1:00:01] plants, how this process works to set up
[1:00:04] meetings, sharing files, back and forth,
[1:00:06] updates, and how much time outside of
[1:00:09] meetings is reasonable for the scope of
[1:00:12] work that they envision for what they're
[1:00:14] contracted for.
[1:00:18] I don't see how we can do this without
[1:00:19] having access to them. So, I think
[1:00:21] that's implicit that they could tell us.
[1:00:25] >> Gary, if you're there, do you have any
[1:00:27] » Gary, if you're there, do you have any
[1:00:27] observations on this?
[1:00:31] » No, not in addition to what's already
[1:00:33] been said. I think uh we need Northwest
[1:00:35] Regional Planning to basically give us
[1:00:38] the lead and and then we'll follow
[1:00:45] » if it goes anything like the farm plan.
[1:00:47] They're going to come back to us with
[1:00:48] their ideas on each element and then
[1:00:50] we'll all get to ask their expert. We'll
[1:00:53] we'll input. We've had three meetings
[1:00:56] now with farm planning and that's what
[1:00:58] you've just described is what's been
[1:01:00] happening at those meetings. We we input
[1:01:02] to them. They take notes. They tell us
[1:01:04] what they think and then we oh what
[1:01:06] about this? What about that? What about
[1:01:08] this? So and it and it's so it also
[1:01:10] triggers those they they present it in
[1:01:12] such a way that gets you thinking
[1:01:16] uh it isn't it isn't like calling them
[1:01:18] afterwards but it's definitely a long
[1:01:22] process. I say long but it's like an
[1:01:24] hour meeting where you go over that
[1:01:26] element and you might do that element
[1:01:28] three times. Who knows? But I like I
[1:01:31] also agree that we should be able to
[1:01:33] call them if something strikes us. So I
[1:01:36] I I agree in theory with what you're
[1:01:38] saying is provided it doesn't add $10
[1:01:40] million to the bill.
[1:01:43] >> Thank you.
[1:01:45] » Thank you.
[1:01:45] >> Yeah. So I I think there needs to be in
[1:01:48] » Yeah. So I I think there needs to be in
[1:01:48] order to get things done and to be not
[1:01:50] get tangled up with a lot of
[1:01:52] communication that there needs to be
[1:01:54] empowerment of the sub subcommittee
[1:01:56] chairpersons,
[1:01:58] you know, not to have to call Dan or
[1:02:00] come to come to me or, you know, just
[1:02:03] within reason be able to go directly
[1:02:05] with your questions to to Emily or
[1:02:06] Autumn. So Emily, do you have an
[1:02:09] observation on this uh chain of thought?
[1:02:13] I would say that based on
[1:02:18] experience from other counties that
[1:02:19] we've worked with that have had
[1:02:20] subcommittees for individual chapters,
[1:02:25] we have
[1:02:28] Northwest Regional Planning staff would
[1:02:30] first
[1:02:32] update the chapter
[1:02:36] with information that we have available
[1:02:38] to us. And once that draft is updated,
[1:02:42] we would share that maybe on SharePoint
[1:02:44] or whatever platform that the county
[1:02:47] prefers. Sometimes we'll even include it
[1:02:49] on our uh web page and those can be
[1:02:53] downloaded by the committee members and
[1:02:55] that's available to review by the
[1:02:58] committee. So typically we've had you
[1:03:01] start with uh reviewing the background
[1:03:04] information
[1:03:05] and making those revisions and then
[1:03:07] moving to the visioning and the action
[1:03:10] plan and implementation and doing it in
[1:03:13] that sort of sequence and sharing those
[1:03:15] documents as we go through the plan
[1:03:17] update process. So, it works, I think,
[1:03:20] best if Northwest Regional Planning does
[1:03:23] the first round of updates
[1:03:26] and um provides that first updated draft
[1:03:30] to the subcommittee for their um
[1:03:33] expertise and additional revisions and
[1:03:36] any additional information that they
[1:03:37] want to include in that updated chapter
[1:03:40] as a sort of a basic general
[1:03:43] update process.
[1:03:47] My question back then
[1:03:49] my question back then Emily is um are
[1:03:53] you talking about the background data
[1:03:56] >> or are you talking about the goals and
[1:03:57] » or are you talking about the goals and
[1:03:57] visions because I'm talking about the
[1:03:59] goals and visions
[1:04:00] >> all of the above but it wouldn't occur
[1:04:03] » all of the above but it wouldn't occur
[1:04:03] all at once. First, we would share the
[1:04:06] background information that we have
[1:04:07] updated and then you can use that
[1:04:10] updated background information to help
[1:04:12] inform the update of the visioning and
[1:04:15] the actions.
[1:04:17] >> Yeah. Okay. So, we we're in a parallel
[1:04:20] » Yeah. Okay. So, we we're in a parallel
[1:04:20] process already of trying to draw from
[1:04:24] the public and from our departments and
[1:04:26] committees
[1:04:28] their ideas about how what they would
[1:04:30] like this the future to look like.
[1:04:34] And so it occurs to me that a committee
[1:04:37] subcommittee may be working on a set of
[1:04:40] data. Is it out of bounds for them to
[1:04:43] send you an email with a question?
[1:04:46] >> Definitely not. that would be
[1:04:47] » Definitely not. that would be
[1:04:47] appreciated because I know that there
[1:04:50] are certain things that this
[1:04:53] um committee has expertise on that
[1:04:55] Northwest Regional Planning might not
[1:04:57] have access to certain information or
[1:04:59] data or plans or ideas that you might
[1:05:02] have that should be incorporated in the
[1:05:04] update.
[1:05:07] So from my position here as chair,
[1:05:11] I would want all of the subcommittee
[1:05:14] chairpersons to be empowered, feel
[1:05:16] empowered that they could submit
[1:05:17] questions, you know, I send an email or
[1:05:19] a short conversation
[1:05:21] uh if necessary to go after the contract
[1:05:24] is signed because we don't have that yet
[1:05:27] and that we would monitor that
[1:05:29] utilization by in our
[1:05:32] reports at our monthly meetings. So when
[1:05:34] we go around the table and say each
[1:05:36] subcommittee's reporting, that's where
[1:05:39] we we collect a little understanding of
[1:05:41] how much utilization or underutilization
[1:05:44] we would be uh drawing upon. And if if
[1:05:47] if Emily or thought that we were uh
[1:05:50] using up too much time on you know long
[1:05:53] conversations that she could also let us
[1:05:55] know. Does that sound amendable to the
[1:05:57] group?
[1:05:59] >> Because if not maybe we just move on.
[1:06:01] » Because if not maybe we just move on.
[1:06:01] Maybe we any other discussion on the uh
[1:06:03] scope of work.
[1:06:07] » Um I actually want to go back to the um
[1:06:12] proposed comp plan public participation
[1:06:16] and then because I might end up coming
[1:06:17] back to the scope of work and and on
[1:06:20] page five of the participation plan if
[1:06:23] someone can explain to me it's the
[1:06:25] bottom of page five the focus groups.
[1:06:27] There's two lists there both one through
[1:06:29] seven and the first list
[1:06:33] the second item is trends and issues and
[1:06:36] then the second list you know is largely
[1:06:38] a reorganization of the first seven but
[1:06:41] what is missing
[1:06:43] is in the second grouping
[1:06:47] um
[1:06:49] issues is missing
[1:06:53] the trends and issues what happened to
[1:06:55] that and then if we go back to the nine
[1:06:57] required items. There's issues and
[1:06:59] opportunities. So we went from in the
[1:07:02] comp plan nine elements we went from
[1:07:04] issues and opportunities on the focus
[1:07:06] groups. Number two is trends and issues
[1:07:08] and then it is not seen in the second
[1:07:11] group of seven which left me with
[1:07:13] question.
[1:07:16] >> This is Emily. Issues and opportunities
[1:07:18] » This is Emily. Issues and opportunities
[1:07:18] is the name of the element
[1:07:22] uh as written in the comprehensive
[1:07:24] planning law.
[1:07:25] >> Right. But a lot of you Ashlin County
[1:07:28] » Right. But a lot of you Ashlin County
[1:07:28] must refer to that as trends and issues
[1:07:30] and it was not a part of the element
[1:07:33] focus groups for this public
[1:07:35] participation plan because that county's
[1:07:38] trends and issues or issues and
[1:07:40] opportunities was only a list of the
[1:07:43] issues and opportunities.
[1:07:45] So it was a full committee exercise of
[1:07:49] updating the list of issues and
[1:07:50] opportunities in the county and it was
[1:07:52] not at the subcommittee level. It was a
[1:07:54] full committee level meeting that that
[1:07:56] occurred.
[1:07:58] >> So for the sake of clarity, would it be
[1:08:01] » So for the sake of clarity, would it be
[1:08:01] helpful if we train change trends and
[1:08:03] issues to issues and opportunities
[1:08:06] for consistency?
[1:08:08] >> I'll leave that up to the committee, but
[1:08:10] » I'll leave that up to the committee, but
[1:08:10] it's for consistency with the
[1:08:12] comprehensive planning law. It might be
[1:08:14] reasonable.
[1:08:17] >> Okay. So, I'm going to
[1:08:21] » Okay. So, I'm going to
[1:08:21] make a motion that at the board meeting
[1:08:24] tomorrow, the following change is
[1:08:25] supported. In focus groups number two,
[1:08:28] we change trends and issues to issues
[1:08:31] and opportunities so it's consistent
[1:08:33] with the element from the requirements
[1:08:36] for the comp plan.
[1:08:39] >> Well, okay. So, I need you to write that
[1:08:41] » Well, okay. So, I need you to write that
[1:08:41] down on paper so Karisha would have it
[1:08:42] specifically.
[1:08:45] So, at the board meeting tomorrow, I
[1:08:47] would make a motion that in the
[1:08:51] um public participation plan on page
[1:08:55] five
[1:08:58] under focus groups number two, trends
[1:09:01] and issues
[1:09:06] is changed to
[1:09:13] issues. and opportunities
[1:09:19] so that it is consistent with the
[1:09:21] language used in one of the nine
[1:09:23] required elements of the comp plan.
[1:09:37] So it I interpret that as needing no
[1:09:40] action at this time because that's going
[1:09:41] to be brought as a motion tomorrow.
[1:09:44] >> Yeah.
[1:09:45] » Yeah.
[1:09:45] >> Okay.
[1:09:51] » Are there further comments or discussion
[1:09:53] on scope of work?
[1:09:58] Um,
[1:10:02] I'm just going to make a note that on
[1:10:05] lower part of page three in one of the
[1:10:08] bullets, second to the last of volume
[1:10:10] two, it says issues and opportunities.
[1:10:12] So, we we see it there. Now, the
[1:10:14] language is consistent.
[1:10:16] Excuse me.
[1:10:22] » Could you repeat that, please, Pat?
[1:10:25] Um
[1:10:27] under volume two second to the last
[1:10:29] bullet is issues and opportunities. So
[1:10:33] now the proposed change for tomorrow
[1:10:36] changing trends and issues to issues and
[1:10:38] opportunities will occur
[1:10:42] um in the comp plan required elements in
[1:10:44] the previous document and it's
[1:10:46] consistent with issues and opportunities
[1:10:48] shown here. And so it's consistent then
[1:10:51] which makes it simpler for those of us
[1:10:53] who are easily confused.
[1:10:56] » Erica,
[1:10:58] >> I have uh a few suggestions just for
[1:11:02] » I have uh a few suggestions just for
[1:11:02] consistency and clarity of word choice
[1:11:06] across documents. But since this does
[1:11:08] not need to be finalized today, I think
[1:11:11] we should probably just do that as we
[1:11:14] talk with Northwest Regional.
[1:11:17] >> Uh okay. So I I agree with Erica's
[1:11:19] » Uh okay. So I I agree with Erica's
[1:11:19] comment. This is
[1:11:21] this is input document for
[1:11:25] preparation of a a contractual document
[1:11:29] and if there'll be rewarding and better
[1:11:32] wording of things I imagine in the
[1:11:33] contract and it'll be subject to a back
[1:11:36] and forth and discussion between
[1:11:39] our representative and Northwest
[1:11:41] Regional Planning. So this basically
[1:11:44] sort of represents intent.
[1:11:46] And so the only thing that I thought I
[1:11:48] needed to add for intent was that idea
[1:11:51] of that I I need my committee these
[1:11:54] committee members to have access to the
[1:11:58] consultant with if they have if you have
[1:12:00] questions or need advice. That's the
[1:12:01] only thing I really wanted to add.
[1:12:03] Anybody else?
[1:12:06] Yeah. I really just want to express
[1:12:08] support for Erica's desire to have
[1:12:11] consistency of language. When I see
[1:12:13] language that's different, I can spend a
[1:12:16] lot of time trying to figure out why is
[1:12:18] this language different? Is it the same
[1:12:19] thing or not? And if it's stated
[1:12:23] differently or different words chosen,
[1:12:25] why is it different? Um, so I really
[1:12:27] appreciate the consistency of language
[1:12:29] and any extent that Erica, Alyssa, and
[1:12:31] others can make that language
[1:12:33] consistent, I really really appreciate
[1:12:35] that. So I don't go down rabbit holes.
[1:12:42] » Are we going to do that?
[1:12:44] >> Are we going to do that? Suggest that or
[1:12:47] » Are we going to do that? Suggest that or
[1:12:47] should we give um are we going to talk
[1:12:49] about that language changes? Because in
[1:12:53] the public participation plan on page
[1:12:55] five, it says focus groups, trends, and
[1:12:58] issues, which is what you want to change
[1:13:01] to issues and opportunities to be part
[1:13:04] of the um scope of work. Is that what
[1:13:08] you're saying?
[1:13:09] >> Yeah. In fact, that's a good point. If
[1:13:11] » Yeah. In fact, that's a good point. If
[1:13:11] it occurs in more than one place, we
[1:13:13] should make changes to the entire
[1:13:14] document
[1:13:15] >> and the public participation.
[1:13:17] » and the public participation.
[1:13:17] >> Yeah. because it it says trends and
[1:13:20] » Yeah. because it it says trends and
[1:13:20] issues in
[1:13:20] >> so I should I mean if the committee is
[1:13:23] » so I should I mean if the committee is
[1:13:23] okay with it replace trends and issues
[1:13:25] with issues and opportunities in the
[1:13:27] public participation plan and then
[1:13:29] someone could do a search and catch them
[1:13:31] all that would be good. Yeah.
[1:13:36] And does that mean that because and
[1:13:40] Erica you you've done a lot of planning
[1:13:42] to me trends, issues, and opportunities
[1:13:46] are all different perspectives,
[1:13:50] but it sounds like what we're suggesting
[1:13:52] is we don't talk about trends
[1:13:54] necessarily.
[1:13:56] We talk about issues and then
[1:13:59] opportunities arising, but not
[1:14:01] necessarily trends. Like we said,
[1:14:04] housing,
[1:14:05] you know, is becoming perhaps more and
[1:14:08] more um owned by seasonal residents. So
[1:14:11] that's a trend is do we want to just
[1:14:14] give instruct since I'm doing the issues
[1:14:16] and now opportunities group
[1:14:20] >> in sorry in the scope of work or in the
[1:14:22] » in sorry in the scope of work or in the
[1:14:22] public participation plan
[1:14:24] >> in in the whole participation plan. If
[1:14:26] » in in the whole participation plan. If
[1:14:26] we're taking out trends, are we we we
[1:14:29] are we're still going to want to talk
[1:14:30] about trends, right? We're we're
[1:14:32] changing language
[1:14:36] that changes the discussion.
[1:14:39] >> Uh if I may, if is there any reason we
[1:14:41] » Uh if I may, if is there any reason we
[1:14:41] can't just say trends, issues, and
[1:14:42] opportunities?
[1:14:43] >> That's what I'm asking. I mean,
[1:14:45] » That's what I'm asking. I mean,
[1:14:45] >> I don't see they all seem to go
[1:14:47] » I don't see they all seem to go
[1:14:47] together. Trends in give uh insight to
[1:14:51] issues which open up discussion of
[1:14:54] opportunities. It's kind of a sequential
[1:14:56] thing.
[1:14:57] >> That's what I'm asking. So I would
[1:14:58] » That's what I'm asking. So I would
[1:14:58] prefer the language trends, trends,
[1:15:00] issues and opportunities.
[1:15:01] >> And the definition
[1:15:03] » And the definition
[1:15:04] of the issues and opportunities element
[1:15:06] is that it includes background
[1:15:08] information on the county and a
[1:15:10] statement of overall objectives,
[1:15:12] policies, goals, and programs of the
[1:15:14] county to guide future development and
[1:15:16] redevelopment of the county over a
[1:15:18] 20-year planning period. Background
[1:15:21] information includes population,
[1:15:23] household, and employment for CRA Cass.
[1:15:27] that the county uses in developing its
[1:15:29] comprehensive plan and demographic
[1:15:31] trends, age distribution, education
[1:15:34] levels, income levels, and employment
[1:15:37] characteristics that exist within the
[1:15:40] county.
[1:15:41] So within the definition, it does
[1:15:43] incorporate the housing and population
[1:15:47] trends and projections.
[1:15:51] So when I have those public
[1:15:53] conversations or however we do those,
[1:15:55] we'll make sure that we're going to
[1:15:57] bring up those three things and then
[1:15:58] they'll be fact checked by trends that
[1:16:01] have been identified in volume one.
[1:16:05] Does that sound right?
[1:16:08] >> Yeah.
[1:16:10] » Yeah.
[1:16:10] >> So if we may, we could move on to item
[1:16:13] » So if we may, we could move on to item
[1:16:13] 5e, which is our working relationship
[1:16:15] and scheduling with Northwest Regional
[1:16:18] Planning.
[1:16:20] Uh Emily, are you sort of able to give
[1:16:22] us the outline of how we proceed with
[1:16:25] you folks from, you know, development of
[1:16:28] contract and our first steps forward?
[1:16:31] >> The next step would be to
[1:16:35] » The next step would be to
[1:16:35] develop a contract based on the scope of
[1:16:37] work and the county board to approve
[1:16:40] that contract with Northwest Regional
[1:16:42] Planning.
[1:16:45] And typically, I think what we've done
[1:16:48] with other counties is have a more
[1:16:49] condensed version of this scope of work,
[1:16:53] like sort of a one page for the
[1:16:55] contract,
[1:16:56] and then we internally have this longer,
[1:17:00] more comprehensive document to work with
[1:17:03] um between the committee and the staff
[1:17:05] members at Northwest Regional Planning.
[1:17:07] If that sounds reasonable,
[1:17:13] » that means to me that we'll need this
[1:17:14] contract approved at the county board
[1:17:16] meeting next month.
[1:17:18] >> Otherwise, we'll have be delayed.
[1:17:20] » Otherwise, we'll have be delayed.
[1:17:20] >> So,
[1:17:23] » So,
[1:17:23] I think we have an expedited process. Uh
[1:17:26] there'll be an amendment to the already
[1:17:27] approved public participation plan at
[1:17:30] the county board meeting tomorrow. And
[1:17:32] either an amendment will pass or not
[1:17:35] pass. and then either the public
[1:17:37] participation plan will pass or not
[1:17:38] pass. Hopefully the county board will
[1:17:40] approve it and then we'll be able to
[1:17:42] move forward with the contract based on
[1:17:44] the scope of work and hopefully in
[1:17:46] August the county board will approve
[1:17:48] that contract. Erica,
[1:17:50] >> quick question just as to timeline. Will
[1:17:53] » quick question just as to timeline. Will
[1:17:53] we meet with Northwest Regional to talk
[1:17:56] about the scope of work at least as a
[1:17:59] subgroup of us to actually delineate
[1:18:02] verbiage and requirements
[1:18:05] and then bring it back to this committee
[1:18:09] as a whole to vote yes or no and then
[1:18:11] take it to the county board.
[1:18:14] >> I think that's I would prefer not to go
[1:18:17] » I think that's I would prefer not to go
[1:18:17] that route because I think it takes too
[1:18:18] much time.
[1:18:20] I think I would be looking to the county
[1:18:22] administrator to determine how it would
[1:18:26] be most expeditious to put the contract
[1:18:29] in place so that the work of the
[1:18:30] committee with boardwise regional
[1:18:32] planning can go forward. If we become
[1:18:35] too legalistic and bureaucratic, we're
[1:18:37] just not going to move forward.
[1:18:40] participation.
[1:18:41] >> Go ahead.
[1:18:42] » Go ahead.
[1:18:42] >> Would it be reasonable for me to send
[1:18:45] » Would it be reasonable for me to send
[1:18:45] the scope of services in a contract form
[1:18:49] for that smaller group to review?
[1:18:54] So, it talks about what Northwest
[1:18:56] Regional Planning will be responsible
[1:18:59] for, what Ashlin County will be
[1:19:01] responsible for, and is that certain
[1:19:05] that the county is interested in doing
[1:19:07] the public opinion digital survey
[1:19:11] with a um summary report of key
[1:19:15] findings? Should that be included?
[1:19:19] Why don't you send that to
[1:19:22] >> You could send that to
[1:19:24] » You could send that to
[1:19:24] um Dan Grady,
[1:19:28] Gary Merte,
[1:19:31] George Buset
[1:19:34] and we will take a look at it and I will
[1:19:36] disseminate it to the rest of the
[1:19:38] committee for comment and we will
[1:19:41] integrate our comments. uh and
[1:19:44] I think the focal point subject to his
[1:19:47] agreement will have to be the county
[1:19:48] administrator for the preparation and uh
[1:19:52] legal review to get legal review of the
[1:19:54] contract. So yes, that'll be fine.
[1:19:56] Please do so.
[1:19:58] >> All right, we'll plan to do that.
[1:20:03] » Okay.
[1:20:04] >> The other the scope of work you're
[1:20:05] » The other the scope of work you're
[1:20:05] talking about today at this meeting can
[1:20:08] be a working document as well.
[1:20:11] >> Thank you.
[1:20:13] » Thank you.
[1:20:13] So moving on, uh the next agenda item is
[1:20:16] to discuss um 5F which is township
[1:20:20] inputs to planning.
[1:20:23] So the question is how we're going to
[1:20:26] how would we do that? The idea was to go
[1:20:29] out to the towns
[1:20:33] and ask them to include this in their
[1:20:35] town meeting agendas.
[1:20:38] And I don't know.
[1:20:40] I think we're not doing that quite yet.
[1:20:43] Listen, have you had any progress on
[1:20:45] that?
[1:20:47] >> Um, no, not yet.
[1:20:49] » Um, no, not yet.
[1:20:49] >> So, that we'll have to figure out who's
[1:20:51] » So, that we'll have to figure out who's
[1:20:51] going to do that at our I think our
[1:20:53] August meeting is going to have to be
[1:20:56] nuts and bolts. Figure out who's going
[1:20:57] to do what meeting
[1:21:00] and that would be part of it.
[1:21:02] So if there's nothing on township
[1:21:04] inputs, then we move to um discussion of
[1:21:07] communication vehicles,
[1:21:10] anybody?
[1:21:16] Paul, how about your computer, Charlie?
[1:21:19] I I guess I kind of thought that would
[1:21:22] be
[1:21:23] that Northwest Regional will tell us
[1:21:25] what they're where they're going to have
[1:21:27] these documents and how we can feed back
[1:21:29] on them or just look at them cuz we're
[1:21:33] not going to have them somewhere. Right,
[1:21:37] >> Erica?
[1:21:38] » Erica?
[1:21:38] >> So, we have a SharePoint site set up and
[1:21:42] » So, we have a SharePoint site set up and
[1:21:42] Emily referred to it. I assume that
[1:21:44] Emily's referring to our SharePoint
[1:21:46] site. Um, are people able to access that
[1:21:50] yet? I have talked with Dan about this
[1:21:53] many times and I don't know how many
[1:21:56] times he's contacted it about it, but I
[1:22:00] mean there is already a lot of documents
[1:22:02] on there, surveys that Lisa has done,
[1:22:06] surveys of staff that I have done, um,
[1:22:09] old documents, other input, it's all
[1:22:12] there and it should be accessible to
[1:22:15] everyone. Um, I think last time George
[1:22:18] you said you couldn't access it. There
[1:22:22] was at least once that Dan himself
[1:22:24] couldn't access it on his iPad or on,
[1:22:28] you know, whatever other technology
[1:22:31] other than his desktop. So I I just need
[1:22:33] to know and if I need to go straight to
[1:22:35] it and like somehow figure this out
[1:22:38] because we have that set and I'd really
[1:22:41] like for people to be able to get to it
[1:22:43] cuz I have put many many hours into it
[1:22:46] already. Um yeah I mean I think the
[1:22:49] other things here we should definitely
[1:22:51] talk about but I think as like as a
[1:22:53] clearing house of information for us we
[1:22:56] have that.
[1:23:00] » Okay. And this is Emily from Northwest
[1:23:02] Regional Planning. I don't believe we've
[1:23:04] seen or have access to that SharePoint
[1:23:06] either.
[1:23:07] >> Okay.
[1:23:12] » What's the address to it?
[1:23:14] >> Uh, it was sent to everyone on the
[1:23:16] » Uh, it was sent to everyone on the
[1:23:16] committee at least twice.
[1:23:18] >> Okay.
[1:23:18] » Okay.
[1:23:18] >> I can send it again. I do need to double
[1:23:22] » I can send it again. I do need to double
[1:23:22] check though, Emily,
[1:23:25] if the county will add Northwest
[1:23:27] Regional to it. um because it it is
[1:23:31] within the administration drive and so
[1:23:34] then you would have access to kind of
[1:23:36] >> a bunch of other documents that you
[1:23:37] » a bunch of other documents that you
[1:23:37] probably shouldn't have access to.
[1:23:40] >> Um so I'll
[1:23:41] » Um so I'll
[1:23:42] >> if that's the case we could utilize
[1:23:44] » if that's the case we could utilize
[1:23:44] Northwest Regional Planning SharePoint
[1:23:47] for any sort of draft materials.
[1:23:49] >> Okay. I'll talk to Dan about that
[1:23:51] » Okay. I'll talk to Dan about that
[1:23:51] tomorrow and see what the best course of
[1:23:53] action is.
[1:23:55] >> Okay.
[1:23:59] uh comment on that is that um Erica did
[1:24:02] send me that I wasn't I've haven't been
[1:24:03] able to get into SharePoint yet, but
[1:24:05] Erica sent me copies of all the county
[1:24:08] departments inputs and it's terrific
[1:24:11] material. We all have feedback from all
[1:24:13] of the county departments
[1:24:16] on their views of input to the the
[1:24:18] comprehensive plan and it's it's great
[1:24:20] stuff. See, we just really all need to
[1:24:23] be able to get into SharePoint and look
[1:24:24] at this stuff because when we start
[1:24:26] getting the feedback from the towns,
[1:24:28] that'll be in the same location and a
[1:24:31] lot of our committee work will be in the
[1:24:32] same location. So, Charlie, you had to
[1:24:34] come in.
[1:24:35] >> Yeah, but I have a different one now.
[1:24:37] » Yeah, but I have a different one now.
[1:24:37] Uh, so the when we say feedback from the
[1:24:40] townships, are we looking for that in
[1:24:42] their updates to their plans or their
[1:24:45] direct input to this plan
[1:24:48] or both? Well, I think we're looking for
[1:24:50] their input to the county's perspective,
[1:24:52] but obviously that's going to have a lot
[1:24:54] to do with what they think about their
[1:24:56] own townships.
[1:24:57] >> Yeah.
[1:24:57] » Yeah.
[1:24:58] >> But they they may have comments about
[1:25:00] » But they they may have comments about
[1:25:00] county roads, things that they aren't
[1:25:01] responsible for that, but that that
[1:25:03] affect them.
[1:25:04] >> Okay.
[1:25:05] » Okay.
[1:25:05] And then the SharePoints, I I assume
[1:25:08] that
[1:25:11] our SharePoint is for inputs to their to
[1:25:16] NWRPCs. will then add them to that do
[1:25:19] their document or not or somehow and
[1:25:22] then that that'll be on the the rewrites
[1:25:26] going to be on on the NWRPC share points
[1:25:30] right the actual
[1:25:31] >> we have not figured that out yet that's
[1:25:33] » we have not figured that out yet that's
[1:25:33] what I'm going to try to figure out okay
[1:25:35] tomorrow for the fourth
[1:25:37] >> all right thank you
[1:25:42] okay anything further on communications
[1:25:45] Pat
[1:25:45] >> this is Liz I got to leave. I'm going to
[1:25:48] » this is Liz I got to leave. I'm going to
[1:25:48] work. All right. Thank you everybody.
[1:25:50] Byebye.
[1:25:51] >> Take care, Liz.
[1:25:52] » Take care, Liz.
[1:25:52] >> Bye.
[1:25:52] » Bye.
[1:25:52] >> Bye. You too.
[1:25:54] » Bye. You too.
[1:25:54] >> Yeah.
[1:25:55] » Yeah.
[1:25:55] >> You know, it occurs to me from um from
[1:25:58] » You know, it occurs to me from um from
[1:25:58] when I was teaching and we started
[1:26:01] putting lots of stuff online. I taught
[1:26:03] lots of online and ITV courses is I
[1:26:06] always tried to keep things really
[1:26:07] organized and not be redundant. Um and
[1:26:11] so there was a logical place to find
[1:26:13] stuff. I would keep those documentes
[1:26:15] those documents updated and current and
[1:26:18] I wouldn't have a bunch of what I call
[1:26:20] clutter that people had to wade through.
[1:26:21] I wouldn't have the same thing in
[1:26:23] multiple places. Some instructors say,
[1:26:24] "Oh, they can always find it here. You
[1:26:26] can find it there." And what I think
[1:26:28] about is when we get to this time of
[1:26:30] year and we started preparing for
[1:26:32] semester,
[1:26:34] um some people would say, "Oh, I got to
[1:26:36] update this and that." It was like, "Why
[1:26:37] do you have in so many places?" And of
[1:26:38] course, they don't remember to update
[1:26:40] everything. the more stuff you have out
[1:26:42] there, the more vehicles of
[1:26:43] communication, the more things that have
[1:26:46] to be updated, the more things that you
[1:26:48] have to take data information from one
[1:26:49] place and then stick it somewhere else.
[1:26:51] If you're saying, "I'm going to make all
[1:26:52] this available." So, the more places you
[1:26:55] have stuff and the more it has to be
[1:26:56] coordinated and transferred to and the
[1:26:58] more it has to be updated, not only is
[1:27:01] it a lot of work and it's what I call
[1:27:04] self-inflicted wounds because people
[1:27:05] have too much in too many places
[1:27:07] because, oh, I'm going to do it on
[1:27:08] social media. I'm going to do it all
[1:27:09] these other places. It sounds great
[1:27:12] until someone has to coordinate and do
[1:27:13] the work and keep it current, but it
[1:27:15] also means it's harder for, you know, in
[1:27:18] this case, the public to find stuff
[1:27:19] because now they're waiting through in
[1:27:21] different places looking for stuff and
[1:27:23] it all can't be current and updated at
[1:27:25] the same time because, well, somebody's
[1:27:27] got to do that. So, I actually think
[1:27:29] there's a lot of merit to to
[1:27:32] being concise both with the
[1:27:36] types of communications and how it's
[1:27:39] stored, how it's organized, how it's
[1:27:41] presented, you know, as we go through
[1:27:43] this process because too much in too
[1:27:44] many places. And then somebody might
[1:27:46] say, "Oh, I've seen three places I could
[1:27:48] give input, so I'm going to give input
[1:27:49] in all three places." Well, that isn't
[1:27:51] really statistically valid either
[1:27:53] because it's the same person doing it
[1:27:55] multiple times just because they can.
[1:27:57] So, you know, all these ways that we're
[1:28:00] going to engage the public have bearing
[1:28:02] on how many ways we're going to
[1:28:04] communicate and who's going to do the
[1:28:05] work of organizing synthesizes and
[1:28:07] keeping it up to date. They tie
[1:28:09] together. And it's nice to be ambitious,
[1:28:12] but that doesn't always translate to
[1:28:14] clarity and ease of use.
[1:28:18] >> Other comment, Erica?
[1:28:21] » Other comment, Erica?
[1:28:21] >> Sorry, this doesn't refer to Pat's
[1:28:23] » Sorry, this doesn't refer to Pat's
[1:28:23] comment. Just going back to the township
[1:28:25] inputs. Oh, just just wanted to ask I
[1:28:28] mean at what point are you imagining
[1:28:33] this George? Is it is it that we should
[1:28:36] take the first draft of the full comp
[1:28:39] plan to each of the townships
[1:28:42] or
[1:28:44] make efforts at the subcommittee level
[1:28:46] to include township feedback within
[1:28:49] their sections? Or is that what we're
[1:28:53] figuring out today? I'm just trying to
[1:28:55] >> Yeah. I know I'm against
[1:28:58] » Yeah. I know I'm against
[1:28:58] We're going to attempt to do with the
[1:28:59] townships the same thing we did with the
[1:29:01] county departments. That was as simple
[1:29:03] as that.
[1:29:09] Moving on.
[1:29:11] Is there anything more on communications
[1:29:13] to discuss
[1:29:21] » which is review of progress versus
[1:29:24] calendarized work plan which is
[1:29:25] basically laid out in
[1:29:30] I kind of check whether
[1:29:35] we're behind schedule or not behind
[1:29:38] schedule. This is at the end of the
[1:29:39] scope of work in a grid format.
[1:29:42] Going there you go.
[1:29:47] So in this layout which is just a
[1:29:50] typical kind of 18month scenario that
[1:29:54] was provided in the Bernett County
[1:29:57] example basically. So, Northwest
[1:30:00] Regional Planning provided us a c uh
[1:30:02] Paul a copy of another county's planning
[1:30:06] and the scope of work basically comes
[1:30:08] out of that. So, in our scope of work,
[1:30:11] there is this timetable. It's kind of a
[1:30:14] checklist of whether we're keeping up or
[1:30:16] not, and it's an 18-month cycle. So,
[1:30:21] if we're going to be done by the end of
[1:30:22] 2026, this would be the first month of
[1:30:24] the cycle.
[1:30:26] It'd be July. And uh so month one would
[1:30:29] be established steering committee
[1:30:32] um and internal plan review to identify
[1:30:35] content and revisions. I don't know that
[1:30:38] we've all really done that, but
[1:30:41] hopefully each uh subcommittee element
[1:30:45] is looking at their individual elements
[1:30:47] and reviewing it and taking that as
[1:30:49] input.
[1:30:51] And as far as I can see, that's where we
[1:30:53] are right now. And then in pre-planning
[1:30:56] month two here is revise and adopt
[1:30:59] public participation plan. So I think
[1:31:02] I'd say we're on schedule. And then in
[1:31:04] month three which would be August.
[1:31:07] No should be actually September would be
[1:31:10] you know set up plan update web page.
[1:31:12] Maybe we'll be able to do that maybe
[1:31:13] not. Engage local units of government
[1:31:17] and to issue press releases. So if we're
[1:31:20] get the public participation plan in
[1:31:23] place uh as of August, I think we're on
[1:31:26] target and then if on month three we
[1:31:28] have some some objectives to work for.
[1:31:30] Is there discussion?
[1:31:36] I mean to me looks to me like we're all
[1:31:38] doing okay.
[1:31:41] Being no discussion, we move on to the
[1:31:43] question of publicity
[1:31:46] because right now I don't think the
[1:31:48] public has any sense that we're doing
[1:31:50] this at all. I don't know what people's
[1:31:53] ideas might be.
[1:32:05] » Any thoughts, comments, conversation on
[1:32:07] on publicity?
[1:32:10] If not,
[1:32:11] >> I do.
[1:32:12] » I do.
[1:32:12] >> Oh, Charlie. Okay, good.
[1:32:13] » Oh, Charlie. Okay, good.
[1:32:13] >> Didn't we just talk about that earlier?
[1:32:17] » Didn't we just talk about that earlier?
[1:32:17] And we were worried about the
[1:32:22] throwing out too many ways to get that
[1:32:25] publicity for it. Is that what you meant
[1:32:28] by this or not? Uh what I mean is
[1:32:32] raising public awareness that there's a
[1:32:34] comprehensive plan review going on and
[1:32:35] they're invited to provide input and I
[1:32:38] don't think the public has has a clue
[1:32:40] that we're doing this and we have to
[1:32:41] talk about ways of informing them that
[1:32:43] we're doing it.
[1:32:44] >> That's what I thought we're going to
[1:32:46] » That's what I thought we're going to
[1:32:46] address that we the Cadillac plan that
[1:32:49] isn't aren't those all ways we were
[1:32:52] going to try to generate publicity and
[1:32:53] we're just not there yet.
[1:32:56] >> Those are ways that we can engage but
[1:32:58] » Those are ways that we can engage but
[1:32:58] there could be other ways and other
[1:32:59] ideas. Okay, Erica.
[1:33:01] >> All right, I got you. I don't have any
[1:33:02] » All right, I got you. I don't have any
[1:33:02] additional, but thank you for that
[1:33:04] clarification.
[1:33:05] >> So, one thing I' uh we talked about this
[1:33:07] » So, one thing I' uh we talked about this
[1:33:07] really briefly last time, but I would
[1:33:09] like to say I I would be very happy to
[1:33:11] write a press release for us. I think
[1:33:14] maybe the best timing for that. So, it's
[1:33:16] in the pre-planning. It's in the month
[1:33:18] three, the next month thing. It's is
[1:33:20] listed. Um, but I think it would
[1:33:24] probably be good to have a signed
[1:33:28] uh agreement with Northwest Regional so
[1:33:30] that we announce that that we have the
[1:33:34] website fully operational with actual
[1:33:36] information on it and an email so that
[1:33:39] we can refer people. If you're
[1:33:41] interested in a subcommittee, if you're
[1:33:43] interested, then let us know through
[1:33:45] email, right? so that there's like one
[1:33:47] one portal to the county for um that uh
[1:33:52] but then I would also suggest that we
[1:33:54] use some sort of photo right we it it's
[1:33:58] people don't sort of focus in on a story
[1:34:01] if you don't include at least one image
[1:34:03] I think so if there are suggestions for
[1:34:05] photos if or if we want to do the tree
[1:34:07] planting before that you know I just
[1:34:09] think the the timing maybe needs to come
[1:34:12] just slightly later because we need to
[1:34:14] have things to declare there and places
[1:34:16] for people to go within that press
[1:34:19] release.
[1:34:35] Other thoughts and comments?
[1:34:38] Well, if you're going to plant a tree,
[1:34:39] you know, you can plant them spring or
[1:34:41] fall, but in the fall when things have
[1:34:43] gone dormant. So, don't, you know, in
[1:34:44] the middle of August, plant your tree
[1:34:46] because that would raise eyebrows, at
[1:34:49] least among some.
[1:34:52] >> So, the best time to plant a tree is in
[1:34:53] » So, the best time to plant a tree is in
[1:34:53] the spring.
[1:34:55] >> Most trees get planted in the spring,
[1:34:56] » Most trees get planted in the spring,
[1:34:56] but you can plant in the fall, too.
[1:34:58] Depends on the species to some extent
[1:35:00] and the size, but but certainly not in
[1:35:03] August.
[1:35:04] >> Okay.
[1:35:06] » Okay.
[1:35:06] Uh it strikes me that a pressure release
[1:35:09] at the time of the signing of the
[1:35:11] contract with Northwest Regional
[1:35:12] Planning would be a good announcement
[1:35:15] that county is as is launching his
[1:35:18] comprehensive plan effort and is uh
[1:35:20] contracted with Northwest Regional
[1:35:22] Planning to to assist with this work
[1:35:24] that worthy of a press release and and
[1:35:28] then other things could follow. I don't
[1:35:29] think we have to do it all at once.
[1:35:31] Other ideas, comments?
[1:35:41] Item six on the agenda is the scheduled
[1:35:43] next meeting, which I have tenatively
[1:35:45] put down here for uh Monday, August 18.
[1:35:50] That's agreeable to folks. I think we
[1:35:52] just stick with that date
[1:35:56] and then we get to our second public
[1:35:58] comment period. I don't see anybody
[1:36:00] online for public comment. I don't see
[1:36:03] anybody present for public comment. So
[1:36:06] then
[1:36:07] we're down to item eight.
[1:36:09] >> George, I might have something August
[1:36:10] » George, I might have something August
[1:36:10] 18th, but I don't have my calendar here,
[1:36:12] so don't be surprised if I email you.
[1:36:14] >> Okay. Um,
[1:36:17] » Okay. Um,
[1:36:17] >> this is autumn at Northwest Regional
[1:36:19] » this is autumn at Northwest Regional
[1:36:19] Planning.
[1:36:20] >> Go ahead.
[1:36:21] » Go ahead.
[1:36:21] >> U, we have a standing meeting every
[1:36:22] » U, we have a standing meeting every
[1:36:22] third Monday at one. We actually me and
[1:36:26] Emily had to step out of that meeting
[1:36:28] today to attend this one. Um so that
[1:36:32] normally would provide a conflict um at
[1:36:37] 1:00.
[1:36:41] » Uh how about 2:00?
[1:36:48] » No. Hello. Uh potentially um our
[1:36:53] standing um meeting is actually out of
[1:36:56] the office. We normally would return
[1:37:00] on those at about 3:30.
[1:37:05] >> Okay. Maybe you could look at um at how
[1:37:07] » Okay. Maybe you could look at um at how
[1:37:07] flexible your your your operations are.
[1:37:10] It's very difficult to schedule this
[1:37:12] committee meeting
[1:37:13] >> and a lot of conflicts here. So, um, I
[1:37:16] » and a lot of conflicts here. So, um, I
[1:37:16] will look at alternatives, but for right
[1:37:18] now, I'm going to have to hold this date
[1:37:20] because it's very, very difficult to get
[1:37:22] this committee together.
[1:37:25] >> Okay. No.
[1:37:26] » Okay. No.
[1:37:26] >> Mhm.
[1:37:27] » Mhm.
[1:37:27] >> And so then, no public comment. Uh, and
[1:37:31] » And so then, no public comment. Uh, and
[1:37:31] there's committee review of public
[1:37:33] comments because we're required to do
[1:37:34] that. And then there's other business
[1:37:37] and future agenda recommendations.
[1:37:39] Anybody have an agenda item they want to
[1:37:41] put down for next time?
[1:37:46] And final round robin of comments.
[1:37:49] Anybody want to do a summary comment?
[1:37:54] Pat,
[1:37:56] >> you know, Bayfield County kind of kept
[1:37:58] » you know, Bayfield County kind of kept
[1:37:58] theirs shorter and they had some kind of
[1:38:00] nice display in materials and whatever
[1:38:02] that seemed to have caught people's
[1:38:04] attention more than the usual comp plan
[1:38:06] updates. There's something to be said
[1:38:08] for brevity. Um, I think Bayfield County
[1:38:12] benefited from that.
[1:38:14] You know, I grew up in Bayfield County,
[1:38:16] still have land there, so I actually saw
[1:38:18] more of what they did than what Ashlin
[1:38:21] County did. Um, people don't read long
[1:38:24] documents.
[1:38:27] Revity is
[1:38:29] >> Yeah, I concur with that observation.
[1:38:30] » Yeah, I concur with that observation.
[1:38:30] I'd really like to the city of Ashlin's
[1:38:32] comprehensive plan. It's much uh
[1:38:34] shorter, easier to read. So when we get
[1:38:37] to boiling things down, we might might
[1:38:39] consider that.
[1:38:41] Other summary comments. If not, a motion
[1:38:44] to adjurnn, please.
[1:38:47] Charlie moves to adjurnn. Second.
[1:38:52] Is that Gary?
[1:38:54] Oh, Paul. Paul seconds. Okay. Second.
[1:38:58] Okay.
[1:39:00] >> And all in favor of adjournment I post.
[1:39:04] » And all in favor of adjournment I post.
[1:39:04] I
[1:39:04] >> thank you everybody.