1. Master Plan Discussion with County CommissionersREPORT TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 . Teiephone (406) 758-7700 - FAX (406) 758-7758
Honorable Mayor and City Council
PJ Sorensen, Zoning Administrator
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Kalispell City -County Master Plan Update Public Review Process
MEETING DATE: February 14, 2000 (workshop)
BACKGROUND: A joint work session between the Kalispell City Council and the Board of
County Commissioners has been scheduled for the purpose of establishing a review process for
the Kalispell City -County Growth Policy Update (prior to legislative changes, the policy was
known as the Master Plan). As you are aware, the Planning Board has forwarded a draft
document to the governing bodies that they are recommending for adoption.
In order to adopt the Policy, both the City and County must adopt the same document.
With that in mind, it would be our suggestion that any public hearings be held jointly by the City
and County. Joint hearings will not only save time, but more importantly, allow the Council and
the Commissioners to be involved in all formal public input on the process. There are several
alternatives that the Council and Board may want to consider as a process for review and
adoption of the document.
Alternative 1: The City and County hold a joint public hearing, after which they will
decide if they are prepared to adopt the Policy as it was presented by the City/County Planning
Board. If so, the Policy would then be adopted by both entities. If not, the City and County
could meet with the chairman of the Planning Board as well as the chairman of each of the formal
committees formed during the Board's review process. Following that meeting, a joint public
hearing or hearings would take place. If multiple hearings are held, different sections of the
Policy could be addressed at each meeting (perhaps three or four chapters at a time) or the
hearings could be held at different locations for focus in specific neighborhoods. At the
conclusion of the hearing(s), a work session could be held to consider changes, if any. The Policy
would then be put forth for adoption
Alternative 2: A joint meeting could be scheduled with the Planning Board to discuss the
Policy and any concerns the Board may have. It would be possible to also meet with interested
members of the consensus committee and other formal committees established during the Board's
review process. The meeting(s) would be followed by a joint public hearing or hearings along the
lines of the process described in Alternative 1, possibly followed by a work session. After
considering changes, if any, the Policy would then be put forth for adoption.
Alternative 3: After (a) a joint public hearing; (b) a joint meeting with the Planning Board;
or (c) a joint meeting with the chairman of the Planning Board and the chairmen of the formal
committees established as part of the review process, the Council and Commissioners could
prepare a list of issues which they feel may need more discussion. Once issues are identified, the
City and County could address each issue as a whole or could establish committees to look at the
issues separately. Once the issues are addressed, a joint public hearing or hearings along the lines
of the process described in Alternative 1 would be held, possibly followed by a work session.
After considering changes, if any, the Policy would then be put forth for adoption.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
PJ Sorensen Chris Kukulski
Zoning Administrator City Manager
Report compiled February 10, 2000