Public engagement made clear. Share plans, collect comments, map feedback, surveys, updates, and results in one place.

Tortoise Intelligence

Behind the Plan

How planning teams turn public input into next steps.

The project below is the Creosote Valley 2045 demonstration. The records, comments, survey answers and map feedback it draws on are sandboxed, and every output on this page is invented for the demonstration. Nothing here is read from a live project, and none of it is an agency decision.

Illustrative AI-assisted demonstrationSandboxed records

Step 01

Project status and input summary

The project's own record, read before anything is drafted. Nothing in this block comes from a model.

Creosote Valley 2045

Creosote Valley, Arizona · Draft Plan · Public comment open

An area plan for a valley growing faster than its infrastructure, with a connected desert tortoise habitat running through the middle of it.

Public comments184

Map feedback96

Survey answers412

Meetings held6

Plan documents12

Goals and actions14

Project updates9

Sources in the library23

Recorded decisions11

Step 02

Identified unresolved issues

The questions the input raises and does not answer. Each one carries how many records it rests on.

How much development can the northern corridor take before the habitat link is severed?
Comments in favour of growth and comments about tortoise movement both cluster along the same two miles of the corridor.
Cited · 31 records
Is trail access a benefit or a pressure on the protected open space?
Trail comments and habitat comments name the same trailheads from opposite directions.
Cited · 24 records
Which infrastructure improvements is the plan actually able to fund?
Nine comments ask for drainage and road upgrades without naming a funding source, and no document in the library resolves it.
Cited · 9 records
Should the valley's western edge stay open space or be designated for future development?
Survey answers split almost evenly, and no meeting has put the question directly.
Cited · 47 records

Step 03

AI-generated meeting agenda

A draft package for a draft plan workshop, proposed by Tortoise Intelligence and editable by the team.

Meeting purpose

Put the northern corridor and the western edge in front of the community together, so the trade-off between growth and connectivity is discussed as one question rather than two.

AI-generated draft

10 min
Welcome and where the plan stands
Where the draft sits in the process and what this workshop changes.
15 min
What we heard
Themes from 184 comments, 96 map points and 412 survey answers.
25 min
The northern corridor
Growth capacity against the habitat link, with both sides of the evidence shown.
20 min
The western edge
Open space or development, using the survey split and the map feedback.
20 min
Table exercise
Mark the corridor on the framework sheet and explain the trade-off.
15 min
Where the plan goes next
What staff will do with tonight's input, and by when.

105 minutes total · nothing scheduled

Step 04

Suggested polls and map exercises

Draft activities for the room. They reach nobody until the whole package is approved.

Live polls

Which should the draft plan prioritise along the northern corridor?
- Growth capacity
- Habitat connectivity
- Both, with a narrower link
- Not sure yet
What is the strongest reason to protect the western edge?
- Habitat
- Views and character
- Flooding
- It should be developed instead

Map exercise

Mark the corridor

Draw the narrowest line you think could carry both a wildlife connection and the road improvements. Explain your line in one sentence.

Sensitive topics

Property owners along the corridor
The discussion can turn into a question about individual parcels rather than the corridor as a whole.
Handling · Keep the exercise at the scale of the sheet, and take parcel questions in writing.
The western edge survey split
Presenting the split as a mandate for either side.
Handling · Show both halves of the split and say plainly that it is a split.

Step 05

Potential planning strategies

Three approaches to the same issue, kept different on purpose, with the conflicting input left in.

Issue · Habitat connectivity through a growing corridor

AI-generated draftCited · 38

A narrower link with a wider buffer

Hold the wildlife link at its current width but require a continuous buffer of native planting on both sides of any new road improvement.

Benefits

· Keeps the connection intact
· Allows the road upgrade to proceed
· Cheaper than acquiring land

Trade-offs

· Fewer parcels can be developed at full density
· The buffer needs maintenance the plan does not currently fund

Supporting input

· Comments asking for the road upgrade
· Map points marking tortoise crossings

Conflicting input

· Comments from owners inside the buffer

AI-generated draftCited · 12

Move the link north of the corridor

Realign the connection to the north, away from the development pressure, and protect it with an easement.

Benefits

· Takes the conflict off the corridor entirely
· Creates one clear protected line

Trade-offs

· Needs land the county does not own
· Depends on a landowner who has not been approached

Supporting input

· Habitat survey in the source library

Conflicting input

· Northern landowners' comments

AI-generated draftCited · 19

Fund the link before the growth

Sequence the plan so the corridor protection is adopted and funded in phase one, and the road improvements follow in phase two.

Benefits

· Protects the connection while it still exists
· Makes the sequence explicit rather than implied

Trade-offs

· Delays improvements the corridor needs now
· Requires a funding commitment before the plan is adopted

Supporting input

· Comments asking for sequencing to be stated

Conflicting input

· Comments asking for the drainage work to start this year

What the data shows

Growth and habitat comments cluster along the same two miles of the northern corridor.
The western edge survey split is 51 to 49 and has not narrowed across three rounds.
Nine comments ask for drainage work and none names a funding source.

What AI suggests

Putting the corridor and the western edge in front of the community as one question.
Sequencing protection before improvements, so the choice is visible.

What the planner decides

Whether the county is willing to fund protection ahead of improvements.
Whether the northern landowner will discuss an easement.
How much of the western edge the plan is prepared to leave undecided.

Step 06

Staff review of recommendations

A person accepts, revises or rejects each proposal, and the reason is kept with it.

ApprovedStrategy 1 · A narrower link with a wider buffer
Planning lead · Carry forward. The buffer requirement needs a cost note before it goes to the commission.
Under reviewStrategy 2 · Move the link north
Planning lead · Cannot be assessed until the landowner is approached. Not for public material yet.
ApprovedStrategy 3 · Fund the link before the growth
Project manager · Sequencing goes into the draft as the preferred approach, with the funding gap stated.
ApprovedMeeting package · corridor workshop
Engagement lead · Agenda and table exercise approved. Poll questions edited to remove the leading phrasing.

Strategy 2 is under review and is not offered to the public view. A rejected or unreviewed proposal never appears in a public Shell.

Step 07

Approved action-plan example

Approved work becomes an action with an owner and a date. Progress is counted from what people completed, never estimated.

IN PROGRESSHigh priorityDue 28 February 2026
Publish a plain-language corridor evidence summary
Owner · Communications · From · Meeting package · follow-up task
APPROVEDHigh priorityDue 7 March 2026
Request a drainage cost range for the two corridor segments
Owner · Project manager · From · Approved strategy · Fund the link before the growth
BLOCKEDMedium priorityDue Not set
Approach the northern landowner about an easement
Owner · Project manager · From · Strategy 2 · under review
PROPOSEDMedium priorityDue 14 March 2026
Run the corridor question as a survey for those who could not attend
Owner · Engagement · From · Meeting package · follow-up task
COMPLETEDHigh priorityDue 21 March 2026
Add the buffer requirement to the draft plan with a cost note
Owner · Planning lead · From · Approved strategy · A narrower link with a wider buffer

Step 08

Draft public follow-up explanation

What the team would tell the community, drafted from the approved material and reviewed before it goes out.

What we heard, and what happens next

AI-generated draft

Thank you to the 184 people who commented, the 96 who marked a point on the map, and the 412 who answered the survey. Your input is in the draft.

Two questions came up more than any others: how much development the northern corridor can take before the wildlife connection is lost, and whether the western edge should stay open space.

The corridor and the western edge will be the subject of the next workshop. Both sides of the evidence will be on the table, including the survey split on the western edge, which is close to even.

Staff will publish a plain-language summary of the corridor evidence within two weeks, and will ask the county engineer for a drainage cost range before the next workshop.

If you could not attend, the corridor question will be open as a survey afterwards.

What this demonstration is

This is an illustration of a workflow, using sandboxed records and outputs written for the demonstration. It shows the shape of the work: what a team reads, what a model drafts, what a person decides, and what follows. It is not a real agency's record, and it is not a planning decision.

Talk to us about a pilot See what Shell does