I thought our last discussion helped to develop some new and interesting ideas. I'd like to try and summarize what we've discussed and to extend the ideas to frame the next meeting's agenda.

	We changed the topic of Areas of Critical State Concern to Areas of Greater Than Local Concern. The switch in focus puts the emphasis on the local government concerns rather than on the state concerns. These areas are those where there are multi-jurisdictional agreements and regulatory authority to conserve and protect important state interests including: substantial health and safety issues; ensure essential public facilities and unwanted land-uses are sited; protect critical environmental and natural resources; conserve valuable energy resources; and mediate cross-jurisdictional impacts on ecosystem resources.
	We focused on how we can consolidate state agency input and responsibilities on the local level. Our idea was to have state agencies consolidate their environmental and land-use planning efforts on consistent local jurisdictional areas. Currently, state agencies have multiple service areas. These service areas would be formed under the choice of local governments, with an emphasis on multi-jurisdictional planning areas. The process for formation would be voluntary with incentives to develop greater state agency cooperation. The process would be similar to the multi-countywide planning policies. There would be a focus on watersheds and shared environmental and land-use concerns.
	Agency rule-making in areas of greater than local concern would be done under a cooperative joint rule-making process with the chosen local government jursidictions and consistent with state and federal policies and guidelines. The rule-making would be consistent with a "one-size does not fit all" approach and negotiated with each "Area of Greater Than Local Concern". Areas that did not develop a cooperative approach could be subject to overall state rules after a certain period of time say three years. Existing rules would stay in place until new rules were negotiated.
	Areas that are completely local where there would be no state guidelines or required negotiated rule making would include areas such as planning or permitting where local government has the primary responsibility to implement land-use and environmental ordinances. It still includes areas consistent with state laws and frameworks, but interpretations are completely local.
	I think the process of requiring state agencies to work with locally defined areas of concern is an elegant, but difficult proposition. Agencies will have difficulty negotiating with so many jurisdictions. However, in essence they do that now. What will be forced is the effort to have agencies coordinate between themselves first to develop a coherent state position.
	Issues:

1. What would be the process for determining Areas of Greater Than Local Concern?
2. What would be the requirements of the planning process?
3. How can we assure the integration of the planning and regulatory elements?