Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bonner County commissioners agree to draft resolution to consider third‑party peer review of comprehensive plan after Planning Commission recommends workshop
Summary
After a lengthy discussion and extensive public comment, the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution that would define scope, funding and oversight for a possible third‑party peer review of the county comprehensive plan; the Planning Commission recommended the board hold a workshop with the commission first.
Bonner County commissioners signaled support for preparing a resolution that would define scope, schedule and funding options for a possible third‑party peer review of the county comprehensive plan. The board’s action was procedural: staff was directed to work with legal and others to draft a resolution so the full board can later consider the details and any grant match the county would commit.
The topic resumed from prior meetings after Project 7B and Kinixu Land Trust requested financial support for a consultant to perform a limited peer review. Planning staff and the chair of the Planning Commission provided a written memorandum and the commission’s recommendation: receive the planning commission’s recommendation and hold a workshop before deciding whether to hire a consultant. Planning Commission Chair Alan Songstad thanked the planning commissioners for the extensive public outreach and cautioned that a brief consultant review may not be able to add value given the commission’s existing record of public meetings, agency input and hundreds of written comments.
Supporters of a third‑party peer review — including members of Project 7B, several residents and speakers representing conservation and subarea planning interests — said a limited outside review could catch inconsistency and ambiguous language before county code updates and implementation are finalized. Public commenters cited prior experience with a consultant-drafted comprehensive plan that county critics said produced inconsistent outcomes and urged a peer review that focuses on clarity, consistency and legal sufficiency. Project 7B representatives told the board they had solicited budget estimates from consultants and expected a limited scope review to cost in the range of $10,000–$15,000; Project 7B also said it had applied for a small grant and was prepared to provide matching funds if the county chose to accept an award.
Opponents on the Planning Commission and some commissioners warned against the appearance of special‑interest influence and urged caution; the planning commission’s memorandum described retention of a consultant as "at best premature" given the Planning Commission’s work product and the remaining steps on the land‑use component. Commissioners and staff agreed the decision requires a clear scope, a transparent selection process overseen by the board, and legal and audit review before the county accepts any outside funds or contract services.
No contract was authorized at the meeting. Instead the board directed staff to prepare a resolution with a clear scope of work, funding options including any potential grant or match timeline, and explicit guardrails for oversight so the board can make an informed decision at a future meeting. The board also asked staff to include the planning commission memorandum and any grant details in the resolution packet for full board consideration.
