goals were fiscally realistic, what type of economic development was appropriate, and
how to best maintain the quality of life residents enjoyed.
5. BOARD COMMENTS / QUESTIONS
Following the EAR report presentation, discussion ensued among the Board, Mr.
Balter, and Mr. Klepper who provided clarification and priorities in the
Comprehensive Plan (CP) for staff to consider in the coming year. It was noted that
the community’s top three concerns were infrastructure, the impact of growth on the
environment, and transportation/traffic.
Transportation and traffic management were among residents’ top concerns, and
discussion began with aligning the Urban Service Boundary (USB) with the
Comprehensive Plan’s growth strategies. Commissioner Moss received information
regarding how traffic impacts from new subdivisions were communicated to the
public, and if a cumulative impact could be provided.
Urban planning discussions focused on the balance between urban sprawl and infill
development. Commissioner Loar addressed concerns about development, and
implications for traffic management, and long-range transportation plans. Staff
responded with information on the need for intergovernmental coordination, and
identifying timely updates to Interlocal Agreements, some of which are over 20 years
old. County Administrator John Titkanich agreed effective communication between
municipalities and the County was important for comprehensive planning efforts.
Vice Chairman Flescher received information on how to evaluate sprawl and its
impact on the Board’s policy decisions regarding growth. Additional discussion was
had among the Commissioners regarding how the different reports layer to work
together, discussion of County road standards, and the importance of effectively
communicating traffic definitions to avoid public misunderstandings.
The conversation acknowledged that while the comprehensive plan provided
guidance, macro decisions would be tackled at a lower level and address issues such
as traffic congestion and the shape of housing developments. County Administrator
Titkanich responded to the Board’s question about the approval procedure by
providing insight into the State’s process of evaluating Comprehensive Plans, with
noted deference to the County’s decisions regarding priorities.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tom Sullivan discussed the congestion caused by new developments which have only
one main exit, and are located along a main thoroughfare. He was concerned with the
backup created when many residents exited at the same time along a road such as US
Highway 1. He requested the Board consider diversifying the design of these
