'Majority' rule not always clear

Growth-policy criteria confuse neighborhood planning efforts

What constitutes a "clear majority" when it comes to support of neighborhood plans?

The answer to that question is the crux of controversy surrounding not only the Somers neighborhood planning effort but also a similar effort under way in Lakeside.

The majority argument was used to slap down an Evergreen neighborhood planning effort before it got off the ground. And to a lesser extent, opponents of the newly adopted Bigfork Neighborhood Plan also questioned whether a "clear majority" of affected property owners supported it.

At a recent informational meeting in Somers that was shut down when audience members became unruly, the question many demanded be answered was: Who gave the county planning office the authority to conduct informational meetings before a majority of landowner support was documented?

The Flathead County Growth Policy states "a clear majority of the landowners and residents desiring a neighborhood plan in lands under the county's jurisdiction … may develop a neighborhood plan."

But it's unclear how to determine that clear majority.

Although organizational steps for the neighborhood planning process are outlined in the growth policy, there's no requirement for a petition as proof that a majority of people support a plan.

Members of the American Dream Montana property-rights group and even several county Planning Board members contend that a petition containing the signatures of a majority of the affected property owners should be submitted to the county before the planning office can offer any assistance.

"The process is not clear," Planning Board member Jeff Larsen said at the board's June 10 meeting. "Where is the genesis supposed to come from?"

Planning Board member George Culpepper Jr. also asked why the planning office is assisting with the Somers effort if a clear majority has not yet been determined.

American Dream alleges that in the Somers effort, the planning office instigated the neighborhood planning effort. The assumption is based partly on a Somers planning timeline that notes that in January 2009 planning staffers contacted community members to determine interest in beginning the planning process.

County Planning Director Jeff Harris said Somers residents asked his office for help prior to January 2009.

The same timeline indicates that a year earlier, in January 2008, Somers residents held an organizational meeting to discuss the process of creating a new neighborhood plan under the guidelines of the new growth policy. It also notes that due to the planning office workload, planners were unable to commit time and resources to the planning effort and the process stalled.

THE ISSUE of when the county gets involved in a neighborhood planning effort is a kind of "which comes first, the chicken or the egg" quandary.

"We need to determine whether there's an appetite to do a plan," Harris told the Planning Board recently. "We need to determine if there's support."

To make that determination for Somers, the planning office paid for a mailing to property owners in the greater Somers area. Critics argue, however, that using taxpayer money to notify landowners is wrong because a clear majority hasn't been determined. Money for the mailings and other planning assistance isn't a line item in the county budget; it's simply part of the planning budget.

The other side of the argument, though, is how can the county determine a majority without first notifying property owners?

The county growth policy lists six general steps for county staff assistance, including notification, an initial organizational meeting, creating a baseline of existing conditions, drafting the community vision and goals, preparing a draft plan, and approving the final plan.

County Commissioners Dale Lauman and Jim Dupont agree that there's a need for clarification in the growth policy.

"I'd like to see a clearer approach," Dupont said. "It needs to be pretty well lined out" what steps should be done before the planning office gets involved.

Lauman said a petition would be a clear indication of support.

"Some of the perception is we're feeding that interest" in a neighborhood plan, Lauman said.

The commissioners will meet with the county Planning Board at noon on Wednesday in the commissioners' meeting room to talk about issues, including the neighborhood planning process.

Some of the confusion over the neighborhood planning process stems from several drafts of the county growth policy that included different language on the majority requirement, Assistant Planning Director BJ Grieve said.

The planning office's original draft chapter in the growth policy for neighborhood plans was general, stating that all lands under the county's jurisdiction, where the neighbors and communities desire a neighborhood plan, will have an approved plan that complies with state law and is consistent with the growth policy.

Then the Planning Board drafted its version, putting in a requirement that a minimum of 60 percent of landowners represented within the established boundaries must sign a petition. The board didn't require the petition as a starting point, however, but rather suggested it be done prior to the plan being finalized.

Much of the Planning Board's language on neighborhood plans was taken out when the county commissioners fine-tuned the growth policy draft. They removed the petition requirement, although they left in language that allows consideration of a petition after a neighborhood plan has been adopted.

If 40 percent of the landowners in the plan area or landowners representing 50 percent of the acreage protest the plan within 90 days of adoption by the county, the plan is thrown out.

What ended up in the fourth and final draft of the growth policy is the "clear majority" dictate without any real direction of how to establish that majority from the get-go.

"The criticism seems to be rooted in understanding" the growth policy as it relates to petition requirements, Grieve said.

Commissioner Joe Brenneman said that in the past, petitions haven't always been a clear indication of widespread support for a plan because proponents tended to "cherry pick" who signed the petitions.

"We said we'll send out information to everyone in an area, and the people who respond will be our best attempt" at determining the level of support, Brenneman said. "Then we authorize county staff to get involved. I don't want [a neighborhood plan] to get to the county commissioner level and then we discover there's not a clear majority."

Based on the responses that followed the mailing to Somers property owners, there is community support for a neighborhood plan, Harris maintained. The notification drew a 32 percent response, and of those, almost 70 percent favor a plan; 24 percent asked for more information and 6 percent were opposed.

"That's a first gut reaction saying there's interest," Harris said in a recent interview.

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