The Dunning-Kruger effect – a framework for explaining cognitive bias – captures the paradoxical nature of learning: the more you know, the more you realize how much you actually don’t.
That has been the experience of The Code Rights Project, a citizen-led effort launched in July to examine La Plata County’s planning, building and code enforcement processes.
The group, backed by anonymous residents and developers, argue that the system has stifled business and restricted economic development in the region. They point to a planning and building process they see as overly complex, and time-consuming – driving up costs.
Now, several months and more than $6,000 later – hundreds of county records combed through – the group has yet to pinpoint any answers or solutions to the aforementioned problems.
What the research has provided, however, is sharper questions.
Namely questions about the role of the county’s legal department in the planning process.
Jack Turner, project director hired by the group, said the scope of attorney involvement raises concerns about efficiency and accountability.
According to Community Development Director Lynn Hyde, the complicated mix of overlapping codes, regulations and policies often requires legal guidance to ensure consistency and fairness.
“When we have questions, we do use the county attorney for support,” she said. And attorney review is not required for every project, she added.
The county was unable to immediately provide data on what percentage of projects require attorney input.
Another question the Code Rights Project work has raised: Why is the per-resident cost of the planning and attorney department so high in La Plata County? And do the high staff numbers in the legal and planning department indicate a waste of resources and added inefficiencies?
As part of its first phase, the project commissioned a seven-page fiscal review of county spending. The report calculated that the cost per resident for the planning department, with 14 employees, was $48.28, while the legal department, with nine employees, cost $33.28. Those numbers were compared to nine other “similar” counties.
“I just think it’s pretty easy to conclude that we’re spending more on government here per person than, you know, a lot of places,” Turner said.
Turner shared the report with county officials to verify its accuracy. While officials did not flag factual errors, County Commissioner Elizabeth Philbrick said the analysis lacked the depth needed to support conclusions.
“I went back and forth with Jack asking, first and foremost, I was like, Jack, I need to see your methodology, and I need to see your references. Where are your resources? Where are you getting these numbers, right?” Philbrick said. “If you’re doing analysis, it is exceptionally important that your methodology is understood.”
She noted that the data simply calculated cost per full-time employee per taxpayer but did not account for the scope of services delivered.
Philbrick also pointed out that La Plata County’s legal department is larger than those in other counties because of the presence of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. As a sovereign government, the tribe requires extensive intergovernmental agreements with the county – agreements that demand specialized legal expertise.
As for planning staff, Philbrick said higher numbers reflect the workload, not waste. Hyde agreed, noting that fewer than 10 planners handle all current applications, and while she praised her team, she acknowledged they are stretched thin.
At present, about 160 projects are in the queue, Hyde said, not including long-range code amendments, statutory requirements, building permit reviews and code enforcement.
But the county does recognize the cost and complexity of the land-use code and building regulations as a problem that requires massive overhaul, officials say.
“I am not a person who is going to ever make the case that government does everything super-well, super-efficiently in the most affordable way, right? I think there is incredible room for improvement,” Philbrick said.
In the past few weeks she said the county has put together a task force to actively work on code amendments to make development easier and more efficient.
One example: Revisiting the “10% rule.”
In the county, if someone changes 10% of anything on their project, the rule is that it immediately triggers a whole new reassessment of the project. It’s costly and time-wasting Philbrick said, and may soon be on the chopping block.
“If what you are asking for is change, change is already happening,” she said.
But for Turner and supporters of the Code Rights Project, the bottom line remains the same: Residents feel the county’s system for planning, building and development is slow, costly and unpredictable.
The group has spent $5,231 on public records requests, receiving 227 documents related to easements and rights-of-way as conditions of permit approvals. They have also received 195 records detailing planning applicants who were forced to update parts of their property retroactively to align with new land-use code standards before their applications could even be considered.
“The real question is, is the system we have actually fixable?” Turner said. “Because it’s not working. I just don’t see how anybody can say our system is working down here.”
Turner’s work will continue, likely for many more months, he said. Soon, he hopes to hire an analyst to sift through the detailed documents.
jbowman@durangoherald.com
