Joint Meeting of Land Conservation and Planning Zoning and Land Records Committees

Jt Meeting LCC & PZLR March 2011 Minutes (89 KB)

Joint Committee Meeting
 

Planning, Zoning and Land Records Committee Members Present: Lehman, Ashford, Gaalswyk, Halfen, and
Nobs.

Land Conservation Committee Members Present: Wiese, Murray, Borleske, Puttkamer, and Kriegl.

Planning, Zoning and Land Records Committee Members Absent: None.

Land Conservation Committee Members Absent: Zowin.

Others Present: Kathy Schauf, Marty Krueger, Michelle Posewitz, Mark Steward, Brent Bergstrom, Gina
Templin, Penny Pohle, Brian Simmert.

Vice Chair Ashford called the PZLR Committee to order at approximately 9:00 a.m.

Chair Wiese called the LC Committee to order at approximately 9:00 a.m.

Schauf certified compliance with open meetings law.

Motion by Borleske, seconded by Halfen to elect Judy Ashford Joint Committee Chair. Motion carried.

Motion by Murray, seconded by Halfen to adopt the agenda as provided. Motion carried.

Public Comment: None.

Discussion of transition to a Conservation, Planning and Zoning Department
Schauf appeared and provided packets of information for the joint committee, which contained information
from the Adhoc Study Committee such as a Historical Analysis/Background, program review forms from each
department and copies of the 2011 Form 1 for Planning and Zoning, Board of Adjustment and Land
Conservation Department.
She spoke of work to be done on missions and program summaries that bring the two departments together as
one. She also spoke of the timetable and stated that the recruitment for the Director of the combined department
has taken place with 1st round interviews scheduled for Monday, March 14th and second round interviews
taking place the following week. At the time the process is finalized the joint committee will have a closed
session to review an appointment and then it will move onto the county board. She spoke of the integrity of the
departments as well as emphasis on all 3 areas of the departments.
Murray asked about the sets of programs and which belongs with each department.
Gaalswyk asked about a committee doing interviews and who would take part in them. Schauf stated there are
2 separate panels that will have as many board members as feasible, with members from each committee
participating in the process. Halfen stated he was involved in reviewing applicants but is not part of the
interview committee.
Halfen asked the number of applicants to be interviewed. Schauf stated there are 10.
Nobs stated he has not been asked to be part of the interview process and asked if members of the oversight
committee can attend the interview process. Schauf stated they typically do not ask for members to attend.
Nobs stated legally you can’t bar members from attending. Schauf stated that it is not an open meeting. Nobs
questioned the legality of baring members of the board from certain meetings. Schauf requested that board
members not attend if they are not on the interview panel.
Schauf summarized the Adhoc study committee information and a summary of programs and priorities, which
tie closely to the Form 1, and spoke of the budget process.
Schauf then reviewed the changes proposed by the State and that both Departments rely heavily on State and
Federal grants as their source of revenue.
She spoke of the staff working together in the past and the Director will work on the initiatives and alignment of
the combined Department. At the time the program and priorities are reviewed and committees get further in
that process they will be able to work on the staffing levels that are needed to meet the goals and criteria of the
program and priorities.
Ashford asked if the program and priorities agenda item be on each meeting agenda. Schauf stated it should
and be addressed in the monthly reports provided by the Departments and committees should review the
efficiencies and monitor them as changes are made.
Ashford asked about ranking. Schauf stated there is a change in the rankings and explained the changes in the
budget process.
Krueger suggested that Land Conservation Committee members review the Planning programs and vice versa
so that they can get familiar with the programs and discussions can take place with an understanding of where
efficiencies and overlaps occur. He spoke of mandates and things happening at the State level and how that
affects programs in both departments and to explore whether the mandates are being serviced at the minimum
or more. He spoke of an appearance by WCA legislative team to address state changes and answer questions
from the Board.
Murray spoke of reading and understanding the information. He asked if the budgets are cut on mandated
operations if the work flow will go down. Schauf stated she cannot make that statement and feels the county
board will have to make serious decisions about service levels based on funding that is disappearing.
Murray asked about open positions in the departments and if any of those position will be allowed to be filled.
Schauf stated that there be an understanding within the committees that the consolidation takes place and then
filling of positions can take place. She spoke of LTE positions for projects in LCD that will be filled. Murray
feels that the consolidation is important, but customer service is as well. He also stated that he doesn’t take
Schauf’s response as the position will not be filled, but merely on hold for now.
Borleske asked what the committees should be doing between meetings. Schauf stated they should familiarize
themselves with the information they received and schedule a new meeting and then dig into the program and
priorities, mandated or not mandated, at what level service is provided and do they want to continue to provide
at that level.
Murray suggested that as the programs are reviewed, they write questions and send to Mark/Brent to have them
answered at the next meeting. The committees agreed.
Halfen asked about mandated or not mandated notation on each form. Schauf stated the committees need to go
back to the mandated item and scrutinize it.
Halfen asked who is going to provide the mandate language. Schauf asked Department heads to provide that
information. Halfen spoke of the mapping program under planning and the Board of Adjustment, that don’t
specifically state whether or not they are mandated, but he understands that they are, and asked that the forms
be more identical and get updates.
Krueger stated that the work would begin as soon as possible on the programs and getting an understanding of
such and the sooner the committee members start this, the better prepared they will be for the merger, but to
also preserve and continue as many processes as possible when you get to budget time.
Wiese spoke of being on both committees throughout his service and some programs that are closely related.
Puttkamer spoke of the working lands program and looking at the potential funds to be brought into the county
which also creates a work load, as well as the conservation practices required of the farmers and could possibly
generate income for the county.
Lehman spoke of working lands funds being cut, as well as USDA wetland money getting cut and animal health
funds getting cut as well.
Gaalswyk spoke of the programs in both departments and he supports everything he sees, but there are some
things that will have to fall.
Kriegl stated that mandates are from the state and we have the responsibility at the local level to determine what
is important and doesn’t feel the mandate should dictate the decisions made here. He also spoke of the desire to
offer services that are not mandated. He stated it has to be thought about in context with all services in all
departments, as opposed to reducing service at one of these two departments to make up for the lack of funding.
He spoke of the study committee and the merger to not necessarily generate cost savings and encouraged the
committee members to recognize that the levy dollars the Planning and Zoning and Land Conservation
departments use, added together, is far less than other departments.

Motion by Murray, seconded by Nobs to adjourn. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted:  Joel Gaalswyk, Kathy Zowin