On April 12, the County officials of Oneida County hosted a Townhall meeting to allow the public to bring their questions, concerns, and ideas into a public forum.  County departments all hold public meetings which are open to anyone to attend, but often must be held during business hours for a number of practical reasons.  This evening townhall gave an opportunity to those unable to attend morning and afternoon meetings to share their opinions.

In attendance were County Clerk Lon Colton, Commissioners Bill Lewis, Ken Eliason, and Brian Jeppsen, Treasurer Leigh Love, County Assessor Kathleen Atkinson, County Attorney Cody Brower, Probation Officer Gabe Jimenez, Hospital Director John Williams, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rhonda Neal, Road and Bridge Director Dianna Dredge, and Sheriff Arne Jones.

The meeting lasted several hours, and at times dealt with individual concerns rather than general questions.  The questions tended to fall into one of a few categories: Planning and Zoning (Development Code) issues, Law Enforcement issues, and a number of other miscellaneous concerns.  Without a doubt, questions about the recently implemented Development Code dominated the meeting.

One of the first questions of the evening highlighted a number of related issues. As one citizen asked, “why has the development code gone from 30 pages to 300?”  At heart, the question gets at some of the purposes of the revised Planning and Zoning approach over the last two or so years, as well as some of the headaches that have come along with it.  As Cody Brower explained, “in the past, we’ve had struggles with loopholes and inaccuracies.  A lot of the additions are devoted to definitions, which were missing in the prior version.”  The previous 30 page development code left a lot of questions ambiguous as a result of not clearly defining the terms governing the ordinances that could be applied to various building situations.  The current code, it was stated, provides a stronger basis for making decisions on the basis of how the various terms involved are defined legally.

Many of the issues raised by individuals questioners at the townhall have been raised in separate meetings over the last year or so with the Planning and Zoning and County Commission bodies deliberating them.  The point was made during the meeting that “it seems a lot easier to deal with a question like this once to 150 people than 150 times to different people,” and that certainly captured the value of an exercise like the townhall.  County officials were able to address widely shared concerns in a more efficient way than through the individual results of multiple smaller meetings.

County Clerk Lon Colton, however, stressed that he “would be happy to meet with 150 people if that’s what it took to answer their questions.”

Chairman Lewis explained that the Development Code was an attempt to keep the county’s overall vision in line with the Comprehensive Plan, which lays out the vision for the county’s growth.  Concerns such as “protecting agricultural space,” “avoiding sprawl,” and maintaining the general values of the community were all parts of the original Comprehensive Plan that were deemed important to preserve.  

Nonetheless, a number of specific questions about the internal elements of the Development Code were raised, including the Zoning of particular parts of the county, the “grandfathering” of residents who had understandings with the county about building issues, and density requirements.  While some of the issues could not be resolved in a public forum, as they pertained to specific cases, county officials generally acknowledged the value of public input on policy making moving forward, and invited those members with further concerns to attend the scheduled public meetings.

The question of why the Code had been contracted out to an external firm was raised.  Attorney Brower explained that the code itself was outside his area of expertise, and required a trained set of individuals to make it as comprehensive and legally sound as possible.  

Sheriff Jones was asked about some traffic issues in town, as well as the possibility of a public shooting range.  While traffic is always an issue on some level, the Sheriff mentioned that as a department they had been trying to obtain funding for a public shooting range for years.  A number of people from the audience offered suggestions for funding, and volunteered to help with the project.

A question from the audience examined whether there could be a full-time resource officer located at the high school.  It was felt that such a presence could decrease illegal activity and improve behavior.  Jones affirmed that a resource officer is always a welcome presence, but that manpower and funding had made such a move difficult in the near term.

A concern was raised about the city and county’s “Age-Friendly Community” designation, and how it might tie the entities into an arrangement with the AARP which would be outside the county’s ability to determine decisions.  Commissioner Jeppsen explained that those concerns had been considered at the time the agreement was entered into, and there did not appear to be any legal constraint over the city or the county to discontinue the partnership if it was deemed necessary in the future.

A request was made to hold County Commissioner meetings later in the day to allow for greater attendance.  Chairman Lewis explained that many of the guests and presenters at the meetings would have to be paid overtime outside of work hours, and that the meetings often last five or six hours, meaning that a meeting begun at 6 p.m. would end as late as midnight.  IT was reported that Zoom and other teleconference options for the meetings had not been attended in the past.

Norm Jaussi mentioned that he has too many raccoons and wants them gone.

Many people began their questions with a nod of appreciation to the county for hosting such a meeting.  Even those who disagreed with elements of the county administration expressed gratitude for the opportunity to engage in a public forum of this type.

The next public townhall of this type has not been announced yet, but based on the high level of participation and the expressed desire on the part of many of the attendees for further events, the county seemed interested in continuing the meetings as a matter of public discourse.