Grant County Commission at regular meeting hears public input and discussion on comprehensive land use plan.

[Editor's Note: This is part 4 of a multi-part article series on the Grant County Commission work session and regular sessions on June 13, 3017 and June 15, 2017.]

By Mary Alice Murphy

At the work session on June 13, 2017, the resolution adopting the comprehensive plan met with some resistance during the discussion, after the presentation, which Aaron Sussman, Bohannon Huston planner, had presented in http://www.grantcountybeat.com/news/news-articles/37443-grant-county-commission-hears-reports-on-land-plan-061317 with Commissioners Harry Browne and Alicia Edwards asking for more time to allow additional public input.

In public input at the regular meeting, Donna Stevens of the Upper Gila Watershed Alliance said she was presenting comments from her organization and from Allyson Siwik of the Gila Conservation Coalition, who was unable to attend.

"We feel like the comprehensive plan needs more public input, because it doesn't address the community's needs," Stevens said. "From May 220June 2, the plan was on the county website, but the public wasn't notified. Conservation organization weren't invited to participate.

"Our first concern is that Bohannon Huston did the plan," she continued. They are a subcontractor with AECOM on the Gila Diversion. It is a conflict of interest. This plan includes using extra water. We have considerable questions. The county should be supporting subjective comments. Why is there no support for the regional water plan?"

She also expressed concerns on the off-highway vehicle plan, which says the vehicles will be used in the forest. "The Gila National Forest Travel Management plan left open enough miles—3300—to drive from San Diego to Maine. County residents who are concerned ask for support of the TMP. The plan considers providing areas for off-highway vehicle use. We shouldn't take on maintaining more miles in the Gila National Forest."

M.H. "Dutch" Salmon said he thinks the comment period for the plan should be extended. "I am particularly concerned with water. The diversion project is deal in the water. We should dedicate the funding to harmonious water projects."

Dean Jarosh, too, asked for an extension. "I didn't hear anything about the plan nor the survey for the plan."

Commission Chairman Brett Kasten asked at the work session for County Planner Michael "Mischa" Larisch to determine how much it would cost for additional work on the plan.

Larisch came back to the regular session to say an estimate would be from $15,000 to $17,000 to extend the public time frame a month, which "would push it to after the August meeting. We would have to have a special meeting or not meet the grant requirements."

He continued that Bohannon Huston has been doing planning since the 1960s. "The firm gave us a certified planner, Aaron Sussman, who has been doing planning for eight years. Another person on the team has 22 years experience, and the planner who did a lot of the outreach has four years."

Commissioner Harry Browne asked what assumptions went into the cost estimates. "Our discussion was vague. I suggested two weeks to add in comments. That shouldn't cost $17,000."

Larisch said one public meeting was held, per state requirements, with all the documentation of the meeting input and all advertising, paid by the county. The estimate would have Bohannon Huston attend the meeting and prepare 10 copies of the revised draft. He also said the plan is needed for future grant applications.

Browne said: "If it is only two weeks extension of public input, and another draft with comments, it shouldn't be that expensive."

"We started the process in July 2016 to get the proposal grant awarded in September," Larisch said.

Commissioner Gabriel Ramos said the process was approved in a public Commission meeting.

Commissioner Billy Billings said the document may be amended at any time. "It's a living document."

Edwards said she has heard from her constituents that input on the draft was not given enough time. "If we open it for two weeks of comments, we can approve it in July."

Billings reiterated that because it is a living document, people have an indefinite amount of time to comment. "I encourage them to do it."

Browne said, even with the potential of lost grants, "one additional month is a small price to pay for the good. Once the plan is in place, it will be hard to mobilize for change."

"The plan itself is what we have to have when we apply for grants," Larisch said. "The grant awarded to pay for this revision has a drop dead date of September."

A motion was made to approve the plan.

Edwards continued the discussion by saying: "The public does not buy into this plan. I have heard from at least 13 constituents and nine organizations that have no buy in."

"This is not like the forest plan," Billings said. "It can be amended. I believe in public buy in, but we can consider this one on its merits."

Ramos said: "We have been elected, sometimes by wide margins, to make decisions to do the best for our constituents. We have the same people, the same groups fighting us on controversial issues. We try to do what is best for the county."

"Why not wait?" Browne said. "I'm trying to create commissioner congeniality."

The motion passed three to two, with Browne and Edwards voting against it.

The final article in the series will cover county and elected officials' report.