On May 12, 2011 the Scott County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to adopt the Scott County Sustainability Plan in order to influence fiscal policy to achieve behavior change in Scott County.
The Resolution voted upon was not posted until hours before the Board meeting on May 12th.
Resolution posted May 12th: http://www2.scottcountyiowa.com/board/pub/enclosures/2011/20110512_Board%20Meeting/07_Sustainability_Plan.pdf
Public comments by:
- Robin Priestly - Definitions of ROI not in Plan, will be costly to taxpayers without them
- Todd McGeevy - Central planning failures, violation of Oath, False premises for need & purposes, Conflict of interest for Treasurer of Bi-State to vote on the budget increase to pay for Plan
- Jesse Anderson - Standards being adopted would preclude his new home from being built in LeClarie and the homes of Supervisors would not meet the very standards they are voting in, one supervisor has 5000sf home, on 3.5 acres, with in-ground pool, outbuilding
- Diane Holst - Citizen participation was less than 25 people in a pop of 166,000 or .015% participation, Plan being voted on is Agenda 21 driven by the very definitions in the Plan, Sustainability Council that this Plan will go to is made up of countries we would never allow to influence us otherwise
- Larry Bell -Three strikes with increased budget, SECC911 and now Plan -- voting yes to this will mean a lost election in the future
- Michael Elliott - Sustainable Development grants privileges and does not protect individual rights and civil violations are turned into criminal acts
- Roger Mahl - Cautions that vagueness of Plan will provide opportunity for abuse by future supervisors and staff, please table for more review
- David Hartsuch - Sustainability is a term not a policy that means different things to different people. Plan would put extensive restrictions on private property development.
- Joe Venhorst - Shame on this board for adopting a United Nations Agenda 21 driven Plan
Hancock, Minard, Sunderbruch - NO
Cusack, Earnhardt - YES
Motion to Approve Resolution by Minard, Seconded by _______ . Votes:
Hancock, Minard, Sunderbruch - YES
Cusack, Earnhardt - NO
[Note: A split vote on this board is highly unusual. No member of the mainstream media was present, including the typically present reporter from the Quad City Times.]
The board allowed public comment prior to the vote -- which they rarely do as a Resolution does not require a public hearing -- and nine people addressed the board. There were approximately 30 people from the private sector, citizens in the county, also in attendance.
For more info, on the challenges with the County adopting this Plan, visit this page at the Scott County IFA Website