The Columbia Falls Planning Board on Tuesday opened a public hearing on the draft Public Participation Plan (referred to in the meeting as SP382) and voted to recommend the document to the City Council, while residents urged clearer definitions of who the plan covers and stronger, earlier public-notice practices.

At the outset of the hearing, several residents said the draft uses vague language such as 'community members' instead of clearly defining who counts as the public. "There was an amendment to eliminate the interlocal agreement between the city and the county that for the planning jurisdiction that has been in place for ten years," a resident told the board, asking staff to explain what the change means for county and city residents' participation. Staff responded that the draft is a framework and that jurisdictional transitions are driven by statute and local agreements; staff also noted a jurisdictional change timing around June 30.

Board and staff members repeatedly described the draft as a vision or framework rather than a project-level outreach plan. "This is a vision document that you could pull us to and say, you are not engaging the public," the presiding board member said, explaining that specific tactics and staffing will be developed later. Multiple commenters urged the board to identify a designated staff person to carry out outreach and to push communication beyond last-minute notices. "I think there needs to be a designated staff person ... who is going to make sure that the community is informed in a very timely manner, not just a couple of days before public hearing," one resident said.

The hearing included practical questions about statutory notice and online posting. Staff and residents discussed packet posting timelines, legal notice requirements for zoning actions and use of the city website and other channels, including a police department Facebook page used by the city for some notices. Staff acknowledged website vendor issues that have affected access to packets and said improvements and alternative notification tools are being explored.

After discussing specific suggested edits (page references), the board took a procedural vote. The presiding board member asked for a motion "to recommend approval of" the participation plan to the city council; a motion was made and Justin Gordon seconded. The board "recommended the approval of both participation" and the board noted that City Council still must approve the plan before it becomes city policy.

The next step is for the City Council to hold its own public hearing and consider the Planning Board's recommendation. The Planning Board reiterated that the draft is an initial framework and that more detailed implementation work — including outreach methods, designated staff responsibility and vendor tools — will be developed as projects advance.