It’s an unfortunate conundrum that this year’s most important local story is also, for most people, the least compelling. I speak, of course, of the growth policy, which Jefferson County has committed to fully revising for the first time in 21 years.
With that riveting introduction, half of you may already have tuned out and flipped to “Savvy Senior.” (This week: Dental care products!) As one person who has been involved with planning told me: “The growth policy is a pretty dull subject until someone wants to put a subdivision in your back yard.” They were joking, sort of.
But stay with me.
A growth policy is defined by Montana statute. It is meant to describe a community’s goals and objectives, and to lay out the policies, regulations and other measures needed to achieve those ends, along with a strategy and timetable for implementation.
While not technically required, a growth policy is — or should be — critical in informing the county’s decisions regarding the construction or alteration of public roads, structures and utilities and the adoption of zoning ordinances. It must be in sync with subdivision regulations — which the county also will update. An up-to-date policy can provide the county legal back-up in the event of litigation from developers or those opposed to development. And it often is a prerequisite for getting government or private grants — an increasingly important source of funding.
What’s more important, in my view, is that a growth policy articulates a plan. It provides a singular opportunity for our community to come together and agree (or not) on what the future should look like.
How will we steward the tension between an imperative for economic growth and the desire for rural quality of life? Are we content becoming a string of bedroom communities serving Helena and Bozeman? Do we want to develop a recreation economy? How should we manage open space? What about the needs of our aging population?
I could go on. In 2003, when the current growth policy was produced, the Montana Developmental Center was a central economic driver in Boulder; the Golden Sunlight and Montana Tunnels mines employed hundreds in Whitehall and Jefferson City, respectively. Those are gone, but the county’s population has grown by at least 25%, developers are piling into the north county, and infrastructure needs are changing. The 21-year-old policy, says Planning Director LaDana Hintz, “doesn’t match the reality of today.”
A growth policy should be a narrative of where our community is today, and what comes next. That narrative should inform policy and help people understand what’s coming, and why. Beaverhead County, for example, is facing a growing need to produce zoning ordinances. In its excellent growth policy, produced in 2022, “that was discussed quite a bit,” says Robert Macioroski, the county’s land services director. “When we make a move toward zoning, the policy [will have] set expectations.”
Jerry Grebenc, the senior planner at Great West Engineering who is advising the Planning Board in this work, has worked with plenty of other counties on their growth policies. He says that “in counties where things are really quiet, a growth policy is more important for infrastructure and services. In busier counties [like Jefferson], it’s going to be that plus land use guidance. If there are things that residents and commission want to address in terms of land use, it should be addressed in that document.”
He and others who have worked on growth policies provided insights on what has worked well — and how the county might approach the considerable effort it will take on over the next nine months:
Listen to citizens. The plan proposed by Great West includes the development of a public survey that will be disseminated this spring, as well as three public forums, probably over the summer. These are huge — a chance for the Planning Board, and by extension the County Commission, to understand how people see their community.
“Retrospectively,” says Bryher Herak, who authored the county’s 2003 policy, “I would have worked more with the villages. I think we needed to look more at the specific parts of the county and what changes might happen in that place.”
The survey will be the county’s first opportunity to explore public opinion. Custer County cast its net wide for this exercise, using both traditional paper-based surveys and social media to engage people. The result, according to Commissioner Jeff Faycock, was productive: “We were able to tap into some very interested citizens — especially seniors, who were without senior center. They were very passionate about that. And we had a large percentage of young people turn in surveys. There was a lot of buy-in across different age groups.” Beaverhead County’s survey — plus 37 public meetings (Yes! 37!) — surfaced a desire for greater connectivity between subdivisions, a need that was described in the final document.
Of course, it’s on citizens to actually participate in this exercise. People: When you get the survey, spend 15 minutes to fill the thing out! Your government wants to hear what you think. “If you don’t get active in the growth policy in your neighborhood,” says Karen Davidson, a former Jefferson County Planning Board member, “it’s kind of like not voting.”
Make it concise, and action-oriented. The county’s 2003 policy is a piece of work. Like, it took a tremendous amount of work. And it totals 86 pages, including appendices. It proposes goals for transportation, wildfire and fire protection, water quality, working landscapes, wildlife habitat, land use, economic development and housing; and enumerates 74 different objectives. Wow. But also, whoa — it’s a lot.
In what amounted to a kick-off meeting on Feb. 13 for the growth policy process, Grebenc advised the Planning Board to start fresh, and to rationalize. Effective policies produced by other counties are more compact, and they focus on opportunities and issues, with concrete action plans. “Focus on land use, economics, infrastructure and local services,” Grebenc advised. And on implantation: “We want to be sure this plan is achievable, so pick projects the county can get done. You and your residents want to see a result from this project.”
Stick to the plan. There could be the temptation to treat this as just a tick-box exercise — something the county needs to do for legal protection and to get grant funds. The growth policy is written, a pretty slide deck gets passed around, and it promptly goes in the archive, unheeded by all (except, perhaps, reporters, 20-odd years later).
“There are communities that have been told they need to do growth policies, and they never use them,” Grebenc says. “That’s unfortunate.” Because it can be much more: A clear, actionable plan informed by public opinion that actually guides policy and action — and by identifying who’s responsible and who’s going to pay for it, ensures accountability to citizens.
A growth policy is not a panacea. Counties and municipalities are limited by law as to what they can actually do when it comes to land use, not least by a Legislature that increasingly tends toward as little regulation on development as possible. But as we confront a growing population, a more diverse economy and new demands for infrastructure and services, our community needs to come to agreement on a path ahead.
This is the moment.
