APB Meeting Summary 07302025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

z preservation, so our larger need is to establish a dedicated funding stream to support a position and fund future land conservation projects. Timing for presenting this back to the BOCC needs to be planned for late this year—December/January will be OK. Need to do more advocacy work with the BOCC to help them better understand the concepts. Could put this on agenda for a fall BOCC work session to prepare for getting them to approve, or as they say now, "accept" the plan. Hughes noted that the subcommittee revisited the draft after the BOCC input, to address their comments, then it went to the County attorney, who had lots of edits, then in Planning, Cy and Tom had other edits to suggest. Some changes requested had the effect of"dampening" some of the initiatives, such as the goal of paying directly for training or GAP certification. Ranells noted it was hard to see so much hard work go into the plan then to feel like we had to make adjustments that drifted away from the initial goals. Members agreed that overall, the current draft seemed pretty reasonable, with good goals. It's OK if the final plan makes recommendations that push the envelope. We need to make sure it represents the collective views and wishes of this group. Staff noted that there are other ways to obtain non-county funding for certain plan goals, from land trusts or the Farm Bureau, so let's leave the original goals but word differently to allow for outside funding. Some suggested an appendix listing some of the current/trending major ideas of the farmland preservation movement to make sure the BOCC and others see that there are additional tools being used or proposed by others. Ranells suggested that we need to reconvene the subcommittee, maybe with Jane included, to make sure that we're ultimately proposing our best ideas and making sure that we don't lose anything due to various review comments. All agreed that we need to ask for all we can get. Even if timing is bad, say with regard to asking for PUV recapture, we still need to make it clear that these programs are needed to meet our goals, and avoid getting in the weeds about where the money is coming from. When we next present to BOCC, we need a brief but thoughtful overview presentation to explain in simple terms "why we are here before you tonight" to help them focus on big picture. Some suggested a summary or conclusion to actually name/address the constraints that we're working with, let the summary be a clear statement of what we went through, and what we think will be needed to get real forward motion. There is a need for an executive summary, that tells where we are now, here is what's needed etc. Our summary now is essentially a short version of the plan. Might help to frame the issues in simple language in one place, as a preface or overview that will help orient the reader. Hughes suggests we bring the subcommittee together to discuss these issues, see if they can develop something a little less sensitive to the comments. We need to remind ourselves about our role for the BOCC: we are charged with advising them—they asked us for our advice, so here it is, representing so many hours by citizens and staff, devoted to generating our best goals/recommendations. Not unreasonable to remind them of the amount of work that's gone into this and remind them of their charge to the APB—to advise them on all things Ag. Need to capture hours of citizen/volunteer time. Remind them of who is on the APB/their backgrounds, and how much knowledge the group brings to bear