Chair Dooley Kiefer called the meeting to order at 2:07 PM.

II Planning Department

A Charter Changes

Dooley asked Ed to begin with the proposed changes to the Charter.  Ed said the draft provided would eliminate mention of the Planning Federation (PF) and include the Environmental Management Council (EMC).  The Planning Federation would be eliminated from the charter because (1) it is not functioning, (2) it is an organization of municipal government officials who  can come together to create a group for municipal planning board members if they choose to do so, and therefore need not be in the County Charter, and (3) there are other ways to accomplish the PF goals.

Peter asked about the education and training functions of the PF.  Ed said the Planning Department can do that and is committed to doing it, and can also check periodically with municipalities about topic ideas and needs.

Martha said we need to notify municipalities about the changes so they understand.  Ed said this was something he mentioned when he spoke to the Municipal Officials Association.

Frank mentioned the importance of geographic diversity.  He thinks the PF should remain, since municipalities appoint members.

Nancy asked if we have George Totman’s comments, as he had always supported PF.  Joan said George is aware of the proposal.  Ed said some people want the Planning Advisory Board to have members from the municipalities.  He feels Planning Department staff can do the PF functions that were most appreciated.

Martha said Don Barber wanted municipal officials to be notified if agenda items might be of interest to them.  She felt this is suitable for notification.

Dooley said she will announce the decision of this group at the BOR meeting tomorrow.  This also goes to the Charter Committee.  She summarized that there are four aspects of the PF for review today:  removal of Planning Federation from the charter, notification to municipalities of that move, having TCPD pick up the training & education, and establishing a website so people can submit questions.

Frank wanted to keep PF in the charter.  He felt municipalities lack resources and need an opportunity to bring comments to the group.  Ed said it is not solely a function of the County government.  Planning federations are difficult organizations to keep going.  We could have some organization without it being mentioned in the charter, and staff would respond to municipalities as needed.  He mentioned there will be a Forum on May 29th to gather input from municipal planning officials, and he expects to continue having them as needed to maintain communication.

Frank said it is important to formalize the group.  A website is a good tool, but sitting around a table and having individuals interact can contribute much more to understanding the needs of the municipalities.  Opportunity needs to be made to gather diverse views.  He always found the exchange interesting and informative.

Nancy asked about the attendance record.  Others agreed that it was poor.  Nancy asked if PF can exist in another format without being in the charter.

Martha asked how the PF purpose can be served without overburdening staff.  She speculated that the VCI Steering Committee could work on a comprehensive plan.  Ed noted that is the role of the PAB.  Martha feels a group functions better with specific projects.  There is a need for municipal diversity which is not present in PAB.  Ed pointed out there are at-large seats that can consider such balance.

Dooley said she feels the county should not be responsible for something that the municipalities do not support.  Frank said we need to make clear the PAB functions and the planning process for the comprehensive plan.  Ed said the comprehensive plan process would solicit input of the municipalities, but does not justify the existence of a Planning Federation.  Joan said the PF considered several options when they decided to quit meeting.  They couldn’t even find a chair.  The members themselves decided not to meet.  Their energy was depleted.

Peter felt the Municipal Official Assn. should address this.  They are more likely to generate interest.  Dooley said the consensus seems to be to remove PF from the charter.  She requested that Planning staff contact municipalities to get comments before this goes to the Charter Committee (6/26).

Ed reiterated that this is not anti-municipalities.  He wants to provide more effective support.  Having PF in the charter takes away flexibility.  We need to find best way to delivery services.

Dooley said another proposed revision was adding Environmental Management Council to the charter.  Frank asked why EMC should be elevated to charter mention.  Dooley said the County created its EMC many years ago and it has become an important adjunct.  Ed said PAB and EMC both exist in state law.  Looking at structure, budget, etc., it makes sense to support them over the long run.  Joan said EMC has its own budget and functions, and has been in existence for over 20 years.

Peter said he had no problem including EMC, but he was unclear about how much detail was needed.

Frank asked if Ag & Farmland Protection Board is in the charter.  AFPB is mandated by state law because of Ag. Districts.  Joan said AFPB is not in the charter.  Martha asked if Water Resources Council should be included.  Dooley said each county is supposed to have a Water Quality Coordinating Committee.  Joan said many organizations are funded but not in the charter.  Dooley agreed it is worth considering adding mention of the AFPB to the Charter.

Peter had some comments about content in the EMC section.  He wondered if wording put too much burden on TCPD to get things to happen.  He suggested charging EMC with certain tasks and having assistance provided by Planning staff.  Dooley suggested proposed changes go to EMC for comments.

Members agreed to proceed to other items and return to charter changes.

C Aquifer Study

Kate Hackett provided new information about study of aquifer reaches from USGS.  On April 5 Ed, Dooley, and Kate met with USGS.  Subsequently USGS  produced a draft proposal, which has been revised into a “Needs Assessment” proposal.  Kate said by the end of July we could have information from USGS on the recommended study components and cost for each aquifer reach.  The total cost of this Needs Assessment is $7,500, and USGS expects to provide 30% in matching funds.  Joan said this is not in capital funds, and Peter said it would be contingent funds.

Frank said if the Water Resources Council has the information by September, they can use it in their aquifer prioritization and organize funding needs for what they choose to address in 2003.  Joan said the Budget/Capital Committee would then have some sense of scale for 2003.

Motion by Frank to seek funding from contingency fund for identification of aquifer reaches in the amount of $5,250.  Seconded by Nancy and passed 5:0.

Dooley asked for confirmation that we are not partners yet with Dryden and Caroline.  Kate said that is correct.  Resolution will be sent to Budget & Capital Committee next week.

B Purchase of Development Rights

Ed provided a memo, Ag & Farmland Protection Board draft minutes, and copies of the consultants’ final report.  He said the numbered (1 to 6) items in the memo are consistent with comments of AFPB, referring members to bullets on page 2 of the draft minutes.  He noted the Department memo is not recommending implementation due to funding constraints.

Ed feels that requests for support of the state PDR program can be reviewed by AFPB using criteria in the report.  The criteria also help evaluation of property that crosses municipal boundaries.  Basically, Ed feels the County can’t pursue PDR now, but should continue to consider ways to help implement it.

Dooley said she does not see plans for TCPD to work towards PDR with AFPB.  Ed said Cooperative Extension does the staffing.  As Planning Commissioner, he serves on AFPB.  The Planning Department does the mapping for AFPB.

Dooley asked if the county BOR needs to “accept” this report.  According to the study criteria, they produced the report for TCPD and made one presentation to the BOR (Jan.); the Planning Department considers the contract fulfilled, and there is no need for Committee or Board action.

Frank left 3:40 PM.

A Charter Changes (con’t)

Members returned to making language revisions to the draft charter changes.

Nancy left at 4:00.

Dooley asked members if they felt the changes were ready to go to the Charter Committee.  Peter and Martha concurred.

III Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:07 PM.