2. City-County Growth Policy Plan UpdateREPORT TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758
Kalispell Mayor and City Council
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Kalispell City -County Growth Policy Plan Update
MEETING DATE: May 8, 2000
BACKGROUND: As you are aware, a joint work session was held between the Kalispell City
Council, Board of County Commissioners and the Kalispell City -County Planning Board on
February 21, 2000 to discuss the proposed Kalispell City -County Growth Policy Plan. At that
meeting, the Council and Commissioners agreed to have the legal staff review the plan for
compliance with recently adopted state law outlining the required contents of a growth policy plan.
In discussion with the Kalispell City Attorney, he believes that the plan is complete with regard to
the required technical aspects of the plan, many of which are contained in Appendix A, the Resource
and Analysis Section. It maybe more understandable in a comprehensive manner to include portions
of this appendix in the body of the document, particularly the sections that relate to population and
demographic trends, economic trends as well as an inventory of existing services.
In consideration of review and adoption of the growth policy plan, the governing bodies have not
clearly outlined a process for review. In part the state statutes declare that "The Planning Board shall
prepare and propose a growth policy for the entire jurisdiction area. The plan may propose
ordinances or resolutions for possible adoption by the appropriate governing body." The statutes also
state that prior to forwarding the plan to the governing bodies, the board shall hold a public hearing.
A public hearing was held on the proposed growth policy plan before the Kalispell City County
Planning Board on November 9, 2000. A work session was held by the Planning Board on
November 16, 2000 to consider the comments from the public hearing. On December 14, 2000 the
Planning Board passed a resolution recommending the draft Kalispell City -County Growth Policy
Plan dated November 23, 1999.
The statutes further state (in part) that "The governing bodies shall adopt a resolution of intention
to adopt, revise or reject the proposed growth policy or any of its parts." In essence, the Planning
Board is charged with preparing the plan, and the governing bodies with reviewing the plan and
either adopt it, amend it or reject it in whole or in part. During our Spring Priority Session, the City
Council expressed a desire to accept the Growth Policy as presented by the Planning Board and
handle any amendments to the document between the City Council and County Commissioners.
In following the direction presented at the priority session, there are several alternatives that the City
and County could implement for considering the adoption of the growth policy plan. A suggestion
of the alternatives which might be available are summarized below:
Alternative 1: Adopt Draft Plan - Without further significant discussion or changes, adopt the
Kalispell City County Growth Policy Plan as proposed by the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
with few if any revisions. As a consideration to the public, a joint public hearing between the City
Council and County Commissioners should be held.
This process would be the most expeditious process and would take less than one month to
accomplish provided that there were few revisions to the document. In reviewing the discussions
surrounding this issue, it seems obvious that this alternative is not acceptable to the majority of the
City Council.
Alternative 2: Series of Neighborhood Meetings - In order to encourage a broader participation
within the planning jurisdiction, neighborhood meetings could be held at locations within the
community to provide the opportunity to review and make comments on the plan. Locations such
as the Evergreen Jr. High, the Justice Center, the State Lands Office or elsewhere in the county. A
joint public hearing between the City Council and County Commissioners would be held after the
neighborhood meetings have concluded. The City Council and/or Commissioners may also want
to hold work sessions to discuss potential amendments to the plan as a result of the neighborhood
meetings or because of special concerns members may have regarding certain issues.
This process would likely take place over several months depending on the level of interest. In the
past it has been difficult to generate interest based on a board plan for the jurisdiction probably
because the residents don't see the impact it could have on their immediate neighborhood.
Page 2
Alternative 3: Chapter by Chapter Review - Joint work sessions with the City Council, County
Commissioners and Planning Board or just with the City Council could be scheduled to review the
proposed growth policy plan by chapter. For instance, three or four chapters of the plan could be
reviewed at each work session and potential modifications to the plan could be considered by the
members. Modifications to the various sections of the document could be made as well as
formatting, layout and policies. Generally speaking, the public would not be invited to participate
in the work sessions, but a joint public hearing would be held upon completion to solicit comment.
This process would likely take several months and would involve regular work sessions. This could
prove to be a tedious process and one that the Planning Board has engaged in over the past year
which has produced the document that has been forwarded to the governing bodies for consideration.
Alternative 4: Review by Area and Related Issues - Joint work sessions with the City Council and
County Commissioners could be scheduled to review "area -wide issues." For instance, the planning
jurisdiction could be broken down into specific neighborhoods such as Evergreen, Greenacres,
Airport, Northwest Kalispell, etc. and the issues which are specific to those discussed. The
governing bodies could review proposed specific policies that relate to those areas and identify if
these areas have been adequately addressed. Work sessions could also be held on specific issues that
continue to arise such as development on the urban fringes, an urban growth boundary defined, big
box development, mall development, the fairgrounds or other issues of concern. These work
sessions could be held with or without public participation depending on the wishes of the members
of the governing bodies.
This type of approach may generate more public interest than a broad based approach to reviewing
the proposed plan. This type of review would also entail a series of work sessions that would
involve months of time.
Alternative 5: Staff Review - Direct City and County department heads to review the plan and list
issues for consideration from both the text and the map. This information would then by brought
to the City Council and County Commissioners for consideration. In general, this was how the plan
was last updated.
This approach would generally be relying on the expertise of the professional staff to provide a
critique of certain issues with which they would be familiar. It would reduce the amount of time the
members would have to spend at work sessions and would probably reduce the review time overall.
Page 3
Alternative 6: Issues and Priorities from Council / Commissioners - Ask each of the Council
members and Commissioners to list issues they may have concerns with in both the text and the map.
The issues could be prioritized during one or more work sessions and then work through them to
some type of resolution.
This approach would probably not involve the number of issues and time it would take to address
the plan section by section, but would limit discussion to specific issues.
I feel that strong public support is essential to the success of the growth policy. We will never satisfy
all of the different opinions, yet we are obligated to get the majority of the community behind the
new plan. If we don't, the document is doomed for failure within the first year of adoption. The
fourth alternative is the most comprehensive and time consuming option, however, it has the
potential to bring the public closer to the process. For this reason, I am recommending we go with
the forth alternative. Second, would be alternative five, which is similar to what was done when the
current plan was put in place.
RECOMMENDATION: The Council needs the County's support to accept the plan and handle
any amendments between the City Council and County Commissioners. Second, the Council needs
to decide if alternative four is the approach the group wants to take.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Unknown.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council.
Chris A. Kukulski
City Manager
Page 4