Peer-review team probes Planning Office

The Flathead County Planning Office should find ways to step up communication with the public, the county commissioners and the development community, a statewide peer-review team has recommended.

The Montana Association of Planners sent a team of four top planners from around the state to study the Planning Office and provide recommendations about how to improve its operation. Flathead County was the first to participate in the new program.

“They offered and we accepted, so we could be evaluated by professional peers,” County Planning Director Jeff Harris said. “We were the first ones out of the gate.”

Harris said he wondered at first if the timing was right for a peer review, “given all the controversy” his department has been subjected to in recent months, but he quickly decided the review would be beneficial.

“It can be a little bit frightening to open yourselves up to critique and criticism,” he said. “But you have to work through that to make yourselves responsive to the community. They recommend ways to do our jobs better. It’s very positive.”

Harris and the Planning Office are the focus of an independent investigation under way by Moonlighting Detective Agency at the request of the county commissioners. Harris also is named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Somers and Lakeside property owners challenging the neighborhood planning process and alleging violations of open meeting laws.

Planning officials from Missoula, Billings, Sanders County and Lewis and Clark County conducted the review between Dec. 2 and 4. The goal is to provide planning directors and elected officials the opportunity for a periodic review of department staffing, policies and procedures by a planning team from comparable communities.

Reviewers met with the planning staff, county commissioners and members of the development community. Developers and business leaders were selected by the Flathead Business and Industry Association.

“We didn’t want to be accused of jury-rigging,” Harris said, “so we asked [association director] Denise Smith to pick the [development] people.”

The review team suggested a number of steps the Planning Office can take to enhance communication, such as holding weekly planning status meetings with the commissioners and working with the commissioners to establish an ongoing outreach program regarding the benefits of planning.

The planning director should host a monthly meeting with business and industry representatives to provide a forum for addressing emerging issues, the team recommended.

“Evidence exists of a ‘bunker mentality’ often found in the planning departments of rapidly changing communities,” the report said. “Management needs to do more to discourage an ‘us against them’ attitude and foster a customer service-based outlook. This can be difficult to accomplish when the department is under attack from fringe elements in the community.”

The review identified a wide range of issues in current and long-range planning, code enforcement, department operations and administration and public process and agency coordination.

For example, the report noted that regulations are outdated and disjointed due to numerous text amendments and modifications.

Among the other issues identified were:

n The threat of lawsuits and public scrutiny dictates the need to improve regulatory procedures and documentation.

n Staff reports are not always fact-based and tend to vary in content and format between planners.

n Subdivision review process can be unnecessarily drawn out and cumbersome.

n Input from affected agencies and departments is not consistently solicited or received and included in the review process.

In addition to a number of suggestions on ways to improve the department, the team noted the Planning Office “is a well-managed organization staffed with dedicated professionals.

“Staff is well-educated and is being cross-trained to enhance service delivery,” the report noted.

Harris said Assistant Planning Director BJ Grieve will take the lead in drafting an action plan that will detail how and when the department will implement the recommended changes. It should be submitted by mid-January to the commissioners for their approval.

If a recommendation has a financial impact, it would have to be considered in next year’s budget, Harris said.

The review didn’t cost Flathead County taxpayers anything, he stressed. Participating counties and the state association split the cost. In a reciprocal agreement, Harris will be a part of the state association’s next peer review.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by e-mail at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com