Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-18 Public Comment - S. Duncan - Strategic PlanFrom:susan duncan To:Agenda Subject:Comments on Bozeman Strategic Plan Date:Thursday, April 05, 2018 4:48:10 PM Attachments:Strategic Plan.docx Gallatin Valley Irrigation Canals.png Attached are my comments on the Bozeman Strategic Plan Susan Duncan From Susan Duncan, • Board member Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators and Board member of Greater Gallatin Watershed Council since 2005 • Big Sky Watershed Sustainable Solutions Forum AGAI representative (stakeholder) to the ( June 2016- Jan 2018) • Gallatin Valley Tomorrow Visioning Initiative. Active for a year (1996) on the Agriculture/Environment and Economic Development Committees. • Open Space Bond Initiative and FOR Parks, a group looking for Open Space Bond funding for a regional park. (2000) • Gallatin County resident since 1976. Comments on Bozeman’s Strategic Plan: This plan does not address several issues that are critical to Bozeman’s future. That’s because these issues relate to forces and trends beyond the current city limits. This plan seems to avoid looking beyond city limits and I don’t understand why. Is it because Bozeman does not feel it have any effect on those forces or because it is outside its jurisdiction? I agree with Joe McCarty, Headwaters Economics in an OP ED “Is Gallatin County Planning inside a bubble?” Bozeman Chronicle Feb 24, 2018 . Not only is Gallatin County Planning in a bubble. Bozeman’s Strategic Plan confirms that Bozeman is too. McCarty says: ‘Watching our neighbor Park County plan for its growth shows much of what is lacking in Gallatin County’s approach. Park County’s recently completed growth plan lists as its first objective to complete a joint planning exercise with the City of Livingston to develop a shared vision for the unincorporated area around Livingston.” This kind of coordination needs to happen between Gallatin County, City of Bozeman and City of Belgrade. I hope it is the outcome of joint planning sessions that are upcoming in the next year. From my point of view, as a long time resident of Gallatin County, Bozeman has always been a major player in how this valley has evolved. That’s because Bozeman has the population and the money to push its agenda – as well as a long standing economic booster mentality, dating back to pioneer days. Economic Generators of Growth and Development City of Bozeman, MSU, and Big Sky are all economic generators of demand for growth and development. Bozeman seeks to capitalize on high tech, innovation, quality of life, tourism, and regional services (health care). MSU pushes for ever larger student enrollment. Big Sky is moving toward a year round residential town as well as a year round destination resort. None of these entities seem to be willing or able to supply housing/services to meet the needs of the new residents they attract. The County is forced to absorb the growth without the means to pay for or regulate it to make it sustainable growth. Growth in population in Bozeman, MSU, and Big Sky cannot be uncoupled from its effects on the County and vice versa Underestimate of Population Dave McCarson, Three Forks, Letter to the Editor Bozeman Chronicle, March 28, 2018 “Bozeman’s Strategic Plan Misses the Big Picture” noted the unrealistic population assessment in the plan. If you base your plan only on a count of full time tax paying residents within the city limits, you totally underestimate the impact Bozeman has on the rest of the County. McCarson identifies three undercounted populations: MSU students, Big Sky-Bridger-Yellowstone tourists, commuters for Bozeman jobs or services. All three populations are growth engines for Bozeman. And Bozeman has actively encouraged and rejoiced in that growth. Do you know how the student numbers fluctuate throughout the year? How many of them have jobs in town? How many tourists come to town and when do most of them come? How many Out of Towners come for services or supplies? How many Out of Towners commute to Bozeman for work? Where do they come from? How far do they travel? Impacts of these Populations Bozeman is a University town. It has profited from growth in MSU enrollment in terms of innovation and flexible, low cost labor for service industries. Students numbers fluctuate seasonally. Housing needs for them fluctuate seasonally. Despite growing enrollment, MSU and City of Bozeman did not build more housing. Instead they funded Streamline, so that students could find affordable housing in Belgrade, Four Corners, or Livingston and still get to school. Bozeman is regional hub and an amenity driven town. Bozeman has attracted new jobs that hire low wage workers (service industry) and high wage workers (doctors, high tech) and older people (rich and poor) with income that is not wage dependent. The richer amenity buyers and high wage workers jack up the home prices. The low wage workers and social security dependent seniors can’t find affordable housing. Some of this population intends to put down roots, if they can find affordable housing. Otherwise, they live outside of Bozeman and commute - from Whitehall, Manhattan, Belgrade, Four Corners, Livingston. That impacts transportation infrastructure. What kind is needed? How much traffic does it get? What areas need to be served? Bozeman has developed as a regional hub for services – health care, entertainment, recreation, education. People come from all over the State to shop, take in a concert, attend a high school tourney or college game, get needed health care. go to school. These are short term visitors that need a different type of housing and services. Bozeman has suggested taxing them for use of its roads. Do you want them to come to Bozeman or go someplace else? Bozeman is a tourist town. Significant numbers of workers in tourist towns do not live where they work. In Big Sky 83% of the workforce does NOT live in Big Sky. Tourist towns have “seasons” where workforce housing needs balloon with the influx of tourists – far beyond their capacity to provide it. Similarly, Bozeman has a significant number of people who commute from outside of town to Bozeman for work of all kinds but it is not necessarily seasonal. Tourist towns typically have a 4 lane highway to them to accommodate the daily commute of their workers (Aspen). Jackrabbit Lane is working on becoming 4 lanes wide. Parts of the 191 through the canyon are 3 lanes. Bozeman has I-90 and Huffine Lane. Big Sky wants to develop affordable housing – for firefighters, doctors, teachers – but not hotel maids, construction workers, and retail sales workers. Bozeman has yet to develop significant housing for its lower paid service workers – but it needs those workers to provide the services. *** Bozeman, MSU, and Big Sky spur demand for increased full time and seasonal residents and significant visitor populations. They are not prepared to supply the needs of the volume of demand they create. The scope of these needs are underestimated in the Bozeman Strategic Plan – in terms of housing, transportation. Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport- Ignored The airport is key to the prosperity of Bozeman’s newer industries, tourism in Big Sky and Bozeman, and MSU. Due to lack of foresight in the last couple of decades, the area around the airport has filled in with housing, limiting how much the airport can expand in the future. That may curb growth. What other alternatives are possible? Affordable Housing and Water and Sewer Infrastructure The dire need for affordable housing has pushed development far beyond the infrastructure. It seems cheaper to build out in the county. But we all pay for it in the long run and that day is approaching. Government – city and county- refused to take the lead to provide or set standards for water and sewer infrastructure in the areas the city was likely to move into as it grew. Government is supposed to take along term view with an eye toward maintaining orderly growth that matches up with existing infrastructure. It didn’t. Private enterprise (Utility Solutions), seeing the need, stepped in so that growth could expand beyond the Bozeman’s existing services. As a business, Utility Solutions has no obligation to set standards or look for long term sustainability. It merely provides the means to go beyond existing infrastructure. The only remaining force is for the public to demand a uniform plan for water and sewer. The need for a lot of cheaper housing led to lots of housing on individual well and septic. Whole subdivisions on well and septic or subdivisions on a community well and individual septic, and split estates – where the indoor water comes from Rae Water and Sewer or Utility Solutions and outdoor water from an irrigation canal company. ***Each subdivision evolved its own water and sewer arrangements. That will cause enormous and expensive administrative problems for any municipality that wants to annex these areas into it city limits. How do you make these systems compatible? McCarty ( Headwaters Economics)says that Park County’s plan obligates the county “to coordinate with the existing water and sewer districts to update water and sewer facilities.” Farther out in the county, extensive development based on septic tanks poses the dilemma of trying to figure out where to land apply septage on that scale, especially if we choose to continue that practice. Re-plumbing areas of the county to the west for water and sewer or at least regional sewage treatment will become necessary. Nitrate levels are rising. Especially, in the area along the West Gallatin corridor where the soil is rocky, infiltration rates are high, and well depths of 50-75 feet are common. That is where the growth is going next. The potential for groundwater contamination is high. *** Bozeman’s well being is threatened by the administrative costs of annexing areas with incompatible infrastructure. The Gallatin Valley could lose its attractiveness if it becomes clear that inadequate infrastructure has led to polluted groundwater and inadequate sewage treatment. This is not just a county problem. Gallatin Valley’s Agricultural Irrigation System Key to Bozeman’s Success *** Many of the amenities that Bozeman takes for granted depend on the 3000 miles of irrigation canals that carpet the Valley floor (see ATTACHED MAP FROM Bureau of Mines)– a high water table to support creeks, wetlands, and ponds in the Reginal Park, support for exempt wells for homes and subdivisions, and return flows to the East Gallatin to support the fishery and dilution water for Bozeman’s treated effluent. Forty percent of the flow in the East Gallatin in August comes from treated effluent. And this massive network of ditches can divert up to 1200 cfs of runoff to lessen spring flooding. These are side benefits of agricultural irrigation. If agriculture is forced out of the Bozeman- Belgrade-Four Corners Triangle, will these benefits cease to exist? MAJOR EAST SIDE DIVERSIONS FROM THE WEST GALLATIN: occur between the mouth of the Canyon near Spanish Creek to Four Corners. The return flows from these ditches go to the EAST GALLATIN and do not return to the West Gallatin. Miner’s Inches per ditch (40 miner’s Inches = 1 CFS) Total CFS Name of the Ditch General Location 151 West Gallatin Canyon mouth Parallel to and South of Huffine Lane, 280 Farmers Canal Gallatin Gateway -Parallel to and South of Huffine Lane, 123 Lower Middle Creek Supply S of 4 Corners – Love Lane north 54 Beck and Border S of 4 Corners – NE cross Jackrabbit at McHenry 121 Spain-Ferris S of 4 Corners – NE cross Jackrabbit at Graden Const. 74 Mammoth S of 4 Corners – Parallel Jackrabbit thru Belgrade Total 800 CFS diverted northeasterly from the River to the area west of Bozeman, north to I-90 and the East Gallatin Auxialliary benefits: Groundwater recharge (wells, ponds, drought resilience), effluent dilution City of Bozeman outfall, flood control The key ditches are West Gallatin and Farmers’s Canal that parallel Huffine Lane. They carry 18,000 miners inches – 450cfs. That is 75% of the flow in the Big Ditch in Billings that goes from Laurel to Huntley – 40 miles. This is 75% of the volume spread along 11 miles not 40. These ditches provide a massive boost to the water regime west of Bozeman to the East Gallatin River IN ADDITION TO that provided by the natural streams in the area – Hyalite, Cottonwood, Aajker, McDonald, Baxter etc. Do you still wonder why the water table is so high that contractors have trouble putting in basements in Loyal Gardens, Woodland, and Norton Ranch subdivisions? Growth in Big Sky and climate change can also have significant effects on the water regime. As a member of the Big Sky Collaborative for 18 months, I know Big Sky is aware of its limitations on water. It cannont damage the ecological health of the river or it will affect tourism. It has to accept that they have no water rights to compete with downstream users. And they are willing to explore all options for wastewater treatment and re-use. Bozeman has not acknowledged the relationships for water beyond their city limits. However, they have sought to buy up agricultural rights in Hyalite Reservoir. If all the Hyalite water is going over to Sourdough, how can the water reclamation plant handle that volume? And what does that mean for streamflow in Hyalite Creek, irrigation on the Cottonwood Bench, and irrigation of the landscaping at MSU – all tied to Hyalite water. Bozeman is also exploring the opportunity for a bank of wells somewhere in the area served by Farmer’s Canal for an additional water supply. If Farmer’s Canal dries up, that option becomes unavailable. Expansion of the Water Reclamation plan on Springhill Road cannot go on forever. I hear that growth on the West side of Bozeman is straining its capacity to treat the amount of sewage. What to do with the volume of wastewater in Big Sky was the number one limiting factor for growth as of January 2018, Wastewater treatment seems to be the most critical limiting factor in the lower valley as well. HOW WE CHOOSE TO SHARE THE WATER WE HAVE AMONG MULTIPLE COMPETING USES (URBAN AND RURAL) WILL DEERMINE WHAT THE FUTURE OF OUR VALLEY WILL LOOK LIKE. IT’S TIME TO SET THAT PROCESS IN MOTION WITH THE FULL SPECTRUM OF STAKEHOLDERS.