HomeMy WebLinkAboutG083-Master Plans -Bozeman Area Growth Study(1975) 0
00
w
G1 g
z
O CA
M
� m
�n r
C Z
v
O
m
D
Z
D
m -
D
i.
Bozeman Area Grakr,-/t 6tud .-
BOZEMAN AREA GROWTH STUDY
A Report to the City of Bozeman
Bozeman City--County Planning Board
Bozeman, Montana
July, 1975
The preparation of_' this plan was financed in part:
through an urban planning grant from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, under the provisions
of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 as amended.
CITY COMMISSION
Ed Sedivy, Sr. , Mayor
James Vollmer, Vice, Mayor
Milton Vaadeventer
Carl Lehrkind, III
Robert Taylor
Harold A. Fryslie, City Manager
CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
William Grabow, Chairman
Richard Boylan, Vice Chairman
Jane Fitch
George Sager
Robert Taylor
Mary Ellen McMillan
Gerald Goldenstein
Arthur Van't Hul
CITY-COUNTY PLANNING STAFF
Paul Bolton, Planning Director
David Fackler, Associate Planner
Robert Holje, Assistant Planner
Peter Avenali, Assistant Planner
James Yeagley, Student Intern
Yolonda McCready, Secretary
-i-
THE CITY OF BOZEMAN
411 E. MAIN S`['. P.O. BOX 1407 PHONE (406) 506-2366
E30ZEMAhf, MONI"ANA 59715
7
" tH co.�!� G July 31, 1975
The planning staff is pleased to present the Bozeman Area Growth Study
to the city's citizens and public officials. This effort parallels the attempts
by many communities throughout the United States that are questioning the nature
of growth. Although environmental concerns have been reviewed, the major emphasis
in this study has concentrated on the cost-revenue implications associated with
Bozeman's expansion.
Using population forecasts to 1990, a series of alternative physical
forms were designed to estimate land use requirements. Fiscal evaluations of
each growth alternative were then constructed to note the degree of variance be-
tween them.
The impact of rapid growth presents a number of choices: for Bozeman re-
sidents. The study raises a series of questions on this issue that should evoke a
reappraisal on the part of the reader -- whether a private citizen or a community
official -- for a personal commitment to Bozeman's future.. To aid this process,
attitudes and ideas expressed in a number of recent meetings have been incorporated
with the staff's findings.
The study does not recommend the "optimum" growth pattern, for the word
"optimum" needs to be defined for the specific community that is being discussed.
However, several possible growth patterns are examined. With each form are
certain associated costs which should be weighed against the perceived value to
be gained. Depending on the specific growth pattern, it can be seen that costs
vary greatly and therein lies the basis for a growth pattern selection. For the
residents of Bozeman, it would appear that certain trade-offs will have to be made,
mainly because a transformation of community identity is underway which will re-
sult in not only a change in, but a mix of lifestyles new to the Bozeman area.
Individual values and governmental decisions will be key determinants in shaping
the eventual_ Bozeman growth pattern.
The planning staff is grateful to the contributions of Mr. Jim Cummings
of Thomas, Dean and Hoskins Inc. and Berg, Grabow and Associates, both of Bozeman,
for their input in the design and information for the cost-revenue criteria.
Also, the staff sincerely appreciates the input received from the City 11anager's
Office, City Engineer's Office, the finance Office, the Police and Fire Departments,
the Building Inspector's Office and the Parks and Recreation Department as well
as guidance and information received from the City Commission, the City-County
Planning board, and the Bozeman City Zoning Commission.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Bolton
Planning Director
HOME OF MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
PAGE
I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT--w---------------------------------------------- i
11. INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------- ii
III. GROWTH OF BOZEMAN------------------------------------------------- 5
Early Development----------------------------------------------- 5
GrowthCycle --------------------------------------------------- 5
RecentTrends--------------------------------------------------- 5
General Problems------------------------------------------------ 7
Sprawl Type Development Within The Planning Area---------------- 7
Loss Of Prime Agricultural Land---------------------- 7
Inflated Land Costs--------------------------------------------- 11
Development On Soils Of Poor Suitability- ------ -------- 11
Health Hazards-------------------------------------------------- 12
Limited Economic Opportunities-----------------'------------------- 12
IV. THE IMPACT OF URBAN GROWTH---------------------------------------- 13
Municipal Services----------------------------------------------- 13
V. COST AND REVENUE - AN OVERVIEW ----------------------------------- 17
VI. GROWTH STUDY COST ANALYSIS----------w------------------------------- 18
Approach--------------------------------------------------------- 18
Description Of The Four Growth Pattern Alternatives------------ 18
Assumptions And Limitations-------------------------------------- 21
Analytical Basis------------------------------------------------ 21
Services As A Function Of Population Alone----------------------- 23
Services As A Function Of Population And Area------------------- 23
Projection Of Future City Costs---------------------------------- 25
consistant expenditures------------------------------------- 25
Projecting Cost Of Consistant Expenditures---------------------- 25
complex expenditures--------------------------------'--------- 26
A) Police Protection (and costs)--------------------------------26-27
B) Fire Protection (and costs)----------------------------------27-28
C) Library Department (and costs)-------------------------------28-29
D Sanitary Disposal System and costs ---------------29-30
E) Sewer Lines (and costs)--------------------------------------30-31
F) rater (and costs)--------------------------------------------32-33
G) Parks (and costs)--------------------------------------------33-34
H) Streets (and costs)------------------------------------------34-35
I Street Lights and costs ---------------------35-36
Prototype Subdivision------------------------------------------- 36
Low Density - Prototype Subdivision----------------------------- 37
A) Street" Costs--------------------------------------------- 37
B) Storm Sewer Costs---------------------------------------- 38
C) Sanitary Sewer Costs------------------------------------- 38
D) Water Costs----------------------------------------------- 38
-iii-
PAGE,
High Density - Prototype Subdivision-------------------------- 38
A) Street Costs------------------------------------------- 39
B) Storm Sewer Costs-------------------------------------- 39
C) Sanitary Sewer Costs----------------------------------- 39
D) Water Costs-------------------------------------------- 39
Prototype Subdivision - Four Alternatives---------------------- 39
A) Low Population - Contained Growth----------------------39--40
B) High Population - Contained Growth---------------------40-41
C) Low Population - Peripheral Growth---------------------- 41
D) High Population - Peripheral Growth -------------------41-42
Findings - Summary Of Costs, re: Alternatives----------------- 42
VII. GROWTH STUDY REVENUE ANALYSIS --------------------------------- 44
Approach------------------------------------------------------ 44
RevenueUses--------------------------------------------------- 44
Projections------------------------------------------------------- 45
Revenues And Land Use----------------------------------------- 45
User Charges-------------------------------------------------- 45
Fees, Fines, Permits, Etc.------------------------------------ 45
State Shared Revenue-------------------------------------------- 45
Federal Revenue Shari.ng-----------------------------------.---- 46
Property Taxes------------------------------------------------ 46
Per Capita Tax Load - 1990------------------------------------- 48
Revenues Neede For Four Alternatives--------------------------- 48
1. Low Population - Contained Growth------------------------ 48
2. High Population - Contained Growth--------------------- 52
3. Low Population - Peripheral Growth--------------------- 55
4. High Population - Peripheral Growth------------------- 58
Findings - Summary of Revenues-------------------------------- 61
Summary-------------------------------------------------------- 61
VIII. THE CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES------------------------------- 65
Natural Constraints--------------------------------------------- 65
Example1----------------------------------------------------- 65
Example2----------------------------------------------------- 65
Man Made Constraints-------------------------------------------- 66
VI. ALTERNATIVE PHYSICAL FORMS-------------------------------- ___ 68
Parameters--------------------------------------------------- 68
Land Use Inventory-------------------------------------------- 68
1. Low Population - Contained Growth---------------------- 70
2. High Population - Contained Growth---------------------- 70
3. Low Population - Peripheral Growth--------------------- 71
4. High Population - Peripheral Growth---------------------- 71
5. Gross Sprawl------------------------------------------- 72
X. FINDINGS------------------------------------------------------ 73
XI. CHOOSING AN ALTERNATIVE--------------------------------------- 74
XII. GROWTH ALTE,RNATIVES-------------------------------------------- 77
Alternative A - Contained Growth------------------------------- 77
Alternative B - Peripheral. Growth----------------------------- 77
Alternative C - Selective Growth--------------------------------- 78
-iv-
PAGE
XIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RE COMMENDAIhIONS----------------------------_--_- 79
Conclusions----------------------------------------------------- 79
Reco€rneadations------------------------------------------------- 81
Growth Program Policies and Methods--------------------------- 81
MAPS
No. 1 Vicinity Map Southwest Montana---------------------------- 3
No. 2 -- Vicinity Map Bozeman-------------------------------------- 4
No. 3 Bozeman Area Subdivision Patterns--------------------------- g
No. 4 -- Bozeman Area Subdivision Chrono.Logy-------------------------- 9
No. 5 -- Bozeman Area Agricultural Base---------------------------- 10
No. 6 -- Population and Growth Area--------------------------------- 20
TABLES
No. 1 -- Average Prices, Land Only, 40-Acre Tract-s-------------------- 11
No. 2 -- Development Units A --w------------------------------------ 70
No. 3 --- Development Units B --------------------------------------- 71
No. 4 -- Development Units C -------------------------------------- 71
No. 5 -- Development Units D ------------------------------------------ 72
No. 6 - Population Increase -------------------------------------- 72
FIGURES
No. 1 -- Growth of Boulder, Colorado--------------M-------------- 14
No. 2 -- Growth of Municipal Governments, U.S.A.-------------------- 15
No. 3 -- Per Capita Expenditures By Local Governments-------------- 16
No. 4 -- Growth Model Brackets-------------------------------------- 19
No. 5 -- Growth Space---------------------------------------------- 22
No. 6 Cost Analysis Methodology ----------------------- 24
No. 7 -- Flow Chart - Required Revenue------------------------------ 47
No. 8 - - Summary of Costs And Revenues--------r.-------------------- 62
No. 9 -- Cost - Revenues------------------------------------------ 64
No. 10 -- Contained Growth Alternatives----------------------------- 70
No. 11 -- Peripheral Growth Alternatives------------------------------ 71
No. 12 ---- Gross Sprawl---------------------------------------------- 72
-v-
x
INTRODUCTION
"QulL centiLat conceh.n hay, been wi :h the use o4 .hand as it- a66ect.6
o.th✓L concGiVons o6 ti6e: what happened to .the envvionmenrt we
nety on and enioy, wh.en.e we eive and 6h.op and wo1Lh, who oc)L n.ei.ghbou
and ouA ch,itdnen',s ctcussma_te.b a)Le. We have Looked bon ,the point o6
tevotage at which pub tic poticy might .impuve ciacumstancm and 6,kee
prt.iva,te eneltgim to eomtAibute to, not wo4k aga,iu t, .the b)LoadeA pubic
.inteAest."
From a report on The Use of Land
sponsored by the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund.
The bumper sticker read, "We have studied the problem and it is us."
In the broad context of over-crowded cities that have failed to solve
their problems of growth, the humor is lost on the adrenalin-coated
comuter or city dweller, who has indeed become the problem. And, as
major cities struggle for survival, citizens start asking the question
how they got where they are and how they can change the situation.
Residents of such cities have few good choices to improve their
condition, and intoday's market place those choices more than ;Likely
are pie- in-the-sky dreams because they are too expensive. Citizens are
then forced to opt for less.
But here in Bozeman, we have the opportunity to direct our future
land use learning from the mistakes and failings of other communities.
It is a unique opportunity, offered only once. Now is the time to
choose . And the best choice may not be the easiest to follow.
The decisions to be made in Bozeman will not be simple because with
land use, the solutions and problems are evasive and far more complicated
then those associated with cleaning our water or purifying our air. For their
is no physical idea of "pure land" as there is a concept of pure crater.
or pure air to guide us or to tell us we are making progress.
And yet the exhaustible supply of land - our life support system
which can be destroyed - must be considered an environmental tissue.
Humanity cannot deny itself the right to its.._future::axistence'..by ruining
that which provides for its existence. Therefore, man has a right to
protect himself. He has a right- to breath clean air, to drink clean
water, and live in a healthy environment.
There choices were guaranteed the cave man and the American Indian
before technology and the Industriai Revolution threatened their
availability. If once there was plenty of clean air and water and
open land and a fairly natural and simple system to utilize it, thatall
has since changed. We now lead very complicated lives in extremely
complicated situations, and are beginning to realize that all our
air, water, and land is limited.
z
To program rational uses of patural resources, communities are
now making greater use of the art of planning and planning-related dis-
cipliaes. This has enabled local citizens to have a more direct role
in determining the character of their cities. The mandate of these
actions is the basic rights a person has to live in a secure, healthy
community.
This study has been prepared to offer guidelines as possible solutions
for those Bozemanites who feel dissatisfaction with the way their community
is growing or the way the land surrounding them is being used. The growth
study is not offered as a panacea but serves as a format from which enlight-
ened business and governmental decisions might be made, knowing full well
the legal limitations.
No government can save our souls. That we must do ourselves. Legis-
lation cannot bind the wounds of the human condition, cannot prevent crime,
create jobs or promote honesty. Therefore, any study by its very nature
must be considered a tool, an aid to assist those making the hard decisions
about Bozeman's future.
Nevertheless, the study hopefully will show that Bozeman can improve
upon its development process and in so doing protect our natural, cultural
and aesthetic resources, for indeed, there are many. Balanced urban
development in designated locations needs accommodations because it affects
so many vital aspects of a person's life from transportation, recreation,
and housing to job opportunities and to total personal development.
The Bozeman Growth Study deals with polictical constraints, strategies
for development and a discussion of what can and cannot be influenced.
The study goes beyond first generation reports (local and national community
master plans, zoning ordinances, etc. ) that exposed a good deal of moralizing
and second generation reports (local and national community land use
reports) that were cautious and reflective. The study is designed to
be a positive report for the interested citizen - environmentalist or
developer - presenting an honest picture of Bozeman's growth with a look
to future residents and the resources needed to serve expanded populations.
Bozeman is going to grow. We cannot stop that from happening. But
we can ask for quality growth which might mean saying "stop" or "wait"
to some developments because of structured priorities. Growth foreseeable
by the end of the century must be managed without destroying what we value.
And we must not confuse value with net worth.
CL
I:.•. ................
..
i= I`'
� I
CD
0
N I
J
tU) f
ZCL
cU
0 ESL
LL
cr, _.:
•............... -�
cl
o ;VZ
N.
•.J
i
i
� �f I A
Oorth
9o. r Ma hattan
r
� I I
F
INatio na! Forest
aelra e
t
VM/ y
•!
5 289 us 191
4 e6 ners
0 man 9c ,
1 �
O
� I ,
cc
c
t
Ilatil�
aC Gate a �tional Fq st
<" 4 r.. a
t° U
ac o
U
_4 0 .�g
r
t
I
I
—1
t
Spanish
Peaks ra
Primitive a Mar) 2
5
GROWTH OF BOZEMAN
Early development
Growth in Bozeman must be considered against the background of early
development throughout Gallatin County. The natural resources of the
county - both past and present -- provided the inducements for early
pioneers to come to this area and subsequently led to the founding and
development of Bozeman.
The first whi.tt-, man known to have explored this region was Sieur
de la Varendry around 1743.* He didn't stay, leaving this "Valley of
the Flowers" to roaming tribes of Indians. It was not until after the
Lewis and Clark expedition in 1805 that settlers began moving into
this vicinity (particularly during the 1850-1860's) in significant num-
bers. Bozeman immediately assumed the role as the focal point of county
activity and was named the county seat in 1867. The highly productive
soils throughout the county produced a variety of agricultural products
with Bozeman serving as a major distribution point to national markets.
The fertile valley surrounding Bozeman gave rise to the title for Gallatin
County as "The Egypt of America". The later development of the Bozeman
Trail - a more expedious route for travelers from the midwest to the
gold camps of the west - enhanced the position of Bozeman as a major
trading post. Recognizing the importance of the city's strategic lo-
cation, the United States Army established a military outpost, Fort Ellis,
three miles east of Bozeman in 1867. This location is used today by
a religious organization as an educational complex. The extension of
railroads of railroads to Bozeman in the 1880's and the development
of many local area flour mills shaped Bozeman's destiny into a strong
agricultural marketing hub, a vital service point and a center for
governmental administration.
Growth Cycle
Historically, growth has occurred in Bozeman gradually, without
the "boom-bust" cycles witnessed by other Montana communities (Butte,
Red Lodge, Virginia City, etc. ) . Population increases were not signi-
ficant until the last half of the 1960's. It is in this context then,
that rapid growth has become an important local issue. The news media
daily .conveys to Bozeman residents the growth-related problems faced by
many American communities. This, in turn, has stimulated a recognition
that these problems know no geographic limitations. Hence, the City
of Bozeman and the surrounding planning area must now or in the very
near future deal with these same problems.
Recent Trends
Between 1960 and 1970 the population of the City of Bozeman has grown
from 13,361 to 21,700, a rate of more than twice the United States
Early History of Gallatin Count , Montana. Houston, Mrs. E. Lina, Page
3 Copywriglzt 1933, Bozeman, Montana.
6
growth rate. Accompanying this growth has been significant changes in
the economic, social and environmental fabric of Bozeman and Gallatin
County. Among these changes are:
1. The traditional. economic functions have shifted from primarily agri-
culture ones to those of retail trade, professional services, tourism
and land development.
2. band use patterns have changed from wide open agricultural and mountain
lands into both year-round and seasonal building lots for new arrivals.
3. Different and varied life styles have emerged, and are influencing
the present and future fabric of economic, social, environmental, and
political structures.
4. Problems associated with rapid urban and regional growth, (land
use conflicts, groundwater pollution, delivery of municipal services,
etc. ) have emerged and must be reckoned with.
Between 1975 and 1990 the population of Bozeman and its surrounding
4� mile jurisdictional area is expected to gain an additional 9,720 to
25,300 people. The unique and high quality natural resources of the
area combined with a relatively crime free, pollution free, and pleasant
way of life, plus a high-quality university, and a reasonably viable
economic situation has combined to attract more and more people to this
area. This type of growth phenomena has already taken place in California,
Hawaii, Colorado, and numerous other high amenity areas. Now people are
seeking the "good life" in Bozeman, Montana.
The Lipper Midwest Economic Study on Recent Trends/Future Prospects
predicts that the increased activity in the Bozeman area will center
primarily in manufacturing, construction, retail trade, services, and
government. Recreation and tourism are expected to play the largest
role in future economic growth and prosperity in Bozeman. The extent
of this growth and activity will be influenced by local receptivity
to industry, state policies towards growth, the size and makeup of the
local labor force, the national economy, the availability of land at
reasonable pr.`_ces, economic opportunity within the area, and the hope
for a better quality of life.
The question, then, facing residents of the Bozeman area is not
whether the city and its planning area should grow or . should not grow,
but how it should grow in order to maximize potential benefits and min-
imize hidden costs. The growth--inflicted probel.ms encountered by
other communities provides a unique opportunity to Bozeman to evaluate
and chart a comprehensive strategy for future development.
7
The General Problems
In order to resolve: the question, "How should Bozeman grow?", the
critical problems associated with rapid development must be identified.
In the initial rapid growth stages (currently being experienced by
Bozeman) the problems are not readily identified. Through extensive
research, however, the: Bozeman growth pattern has been studied and seems
to exhibit characteristics of a development pattern that has plagued a
number of communities in a similar period of their development.
I. Sprawl Type Development Within the Planning Area
A look at the following maps show the development trend in the Bozeman area.
The maps show subdivisions dispersed throughout the. Bozeman planning
area. Growth which takes place in this manner has been traditionally
labeled "urban sprawl" in other communities throughout the country and
is generally associated with "leapfrog" development. In many cases
over the long run, this has proven too be a costly urban form. The maps
indicate two distinct "growth Modes": (1) the Four Corners Area;
generally east of the Highway 191-Jackrabbit Lane intersection and,
(2) the foothills near the Hodgeman Canyon-Hyalite Canyon vicinity south
of Bozeman. Although both areas are beyond the scope of city services
for the foreseeable future, the continued concentration of people in
these areas ultimately presents opportunities for new commercial and
industrial. developments. Conceivably, this would remove potential. revenue-
generatiiig developments from the tax base of Bozeman. Reviewing national
trends, the future impacts of scattered growth such as exhibited in the
Bozeman area, results in relatively large suburban neighborhoods, semi-
independent of the central city, separated by large tracts of undeveloped
land that escalate in price beyond the means of prospective developers.
Whether or not this phenomena is desirable is a matter of individual
values, however it's possible that "sprawl type development", '(rather than a
relatively compact community surrounded by extensive open spaces) , could
destroy the very amenities which make Bozeman a desirable and attractive
community in the eyes of its residents.
II. Loss of Prime Agricultural Land
Associated with sprawl-type development, especially in the Bozeman
situation, is the loss of prime agricultural land. It is to be expected
that eventually agriculture lands must convert to urban uses if new
:areas are to be provided for a growing city. However, this transition
of agriculture land could be more rationally determined by influencing
growth adjacent to the city limits or on marginal agriculture land. The
exact amount- and classification (prime, secondary, marginal.) of agricultural
land lost to development has not been determined. Rough estimates show
there areapproximately 25,000 acres of prime and good agricultural Ja"rl wi.thin
the 55,000 acre jurisdictional area. the map on the following page indicates
the areas of prime i,nd hood agricultural lands in the Bozeman area. A
number of existing subdivisions have been developed on highly productive
agricultural land.
. r
Epp ly =
� f
( �«
1
E
As
_ S
3
E
i
M LL
r.
■ tee
f
Ef
RUlL m Lamm
_..s
PEA
+ I
As
1. •.atv:;
f?EAR
CANYCKt
s.« E AgfA
Zoning Boundary
c parcels
M Existing Subdivisions
l3ozeman
E Jiirisdictioiiat 'Area
- �� ,:: - Ate• Bridger Canyon
- F ; Planning District
' x
le
AT£WAY - t:g rn
area
_. subdivision
pa Ip
-terns
Map 3
:
:W ----'ice` • � '
t [ `> \
tf AS
i �R' E
raV-1
t,
Ru
RS-I'80
RN673: AS
EA
INA ,
I
i
•may .. •� �_ �.. ��-- --- - ---- "�' j-
#,......_
4
CANYON 1
SUBDIVISION HISTORY
prior to 1960 _—
7f rom 1960 to 1965
from 1965to1969`
1=1 from 1969to1972
EM from 1972to present I
`
..__.....�.„ —Jurisdictional Area
? -* Bridger Canyon-. �.
GALLAT/N .....„„.Planning District
6.47'E-WAY I .___Zoning Boundary
bowman area
chronology
p$�•per•, pyi���
We � ii r n l
Map 4
: r Mrry
1
I
i
R 5?'
i
ii
4.
s
xaanns olzshs� I ' I t r
S
FOUR ,
ARE�a BOZE Mg
t141.
q _ u
! Prime and Good
-
i
Agricultural land
' y
20klkb OFST k0 R
'
'R
Jurisdictional Area
�GALLAT/N .'
;,GATEWAY..
oz 6 area
F
---- -- . ' - __ ap
i
11
The implications of this trend are not widely understood. In many
cases, this land is worth much more for residential development than
for agricultural uses and it is not realistic to believe that many-
farmers will keep their land in farm production if they can make a large
profit by selling to developers. But who does this situation benefit
in the long run and what are the other alternatives? If by some chance
increased food production is required in the future, the cost of bringing
marginal land into production will increase as will the cost of the
finished food product to the consumer. In the next section of this
report it will be shown that certain forms of development could destroy
the potential use of much of the 25,000 acres of prime and good agri-
cultural land within the planning area.
III. Inflated Land Costs
In the past ten years land prices in the study area have skyrocketed
because of accelerated demand for small to medium tracts of land with
a high level of natural amenities in and around Bozeman and surrounding
towns. This phenomena has resulted in a shortage of reasonably priced
building sites and homes for the prospective home buyer. As a result,
a large number of people are being forced out of the local housing
market and into the country where lot prices are somewhat lower. This
pressure reinforces urban sprawl.
Average Prices and Trend, Land Only, of Tracts of Less Than 40 Acres,
Gallatin County, 1965-1972, From Price Effects of Changes in Land Use
in Gallatin County, Montana: Research^Report 44, August 1973, Montana
State University.
TABLE 1
Number of Trend Price
Year Sales Per Acre Average Price Per Acre
1965 (38) $2,172.22 1965 - $2,340.00
1966 (43) $2,451.42 1966 - $3,061.00
1967 (81) $2,730.62 1967 - $3,015.00
1968 (106) $3,009.82 1968 - $2,778.00
1969 (105) $3,289.02 1969 - $2,976.00
1970 (100) $3,568.22 1970 $3,035.00
1971 (127) $3,847.42* 1971 - $4,282.00
1972* $4,126.62
*The study covers the years 1965-1971. The 1972 trend indicates an in--
creasing price for land in Gallatin County, although economic conditions
may affect the average price per acre from year to year.
IV. Development on Soils of Poor Suitability `
Owing to the development limitations of soils in the Bozeman area and
the lack of adequate protective measures and proper planning, several
12
local residential developments have encountered serious problems. One
of the main difficulties is with mortgage financing. F.H.A. and local
lending institutions have refused to finance housing in one development
because a high water table limits septic disposal with little likelihood
of central sewage system being provided. Several ground floor apartments
and residential basements have been flooded because of poor design and
location with respect to the seasonal high water table and location within
or near flood plain areas. According to the local County Sanitarian
there have been numerous septic tank failures due to poor locations for
residential development relative to the natural limitations (a high
water table, flood plain area, agricultural irrigation, poorly suited
soils) .
Costs of overcoming local soil and water table .problems add additional
financial burdens to the buyer of the already expensive building lots
These added expenses could probably be avoided if developments were
directed to those areas better suited for subdivisions.
V, Health Hazards
Although there may not yet be any serious health hazards in the Bozeman
area, the County Sanitarian reports that a number of individual wells
are showing signs of contamination. Dye tests conducted within several
local subdivisions indicate that waste effluents are being discharged
into nearby streams. As more people move into the planning area it
will become increasingly important that close attention be paid to
soil limitations, the ground water table, and sound planning principles
with respect to increased use of individual sewage disposal systems
and wells if serious..health problems are to be avoided.
VI. Limited Economic Opportunities
Within the Bozeman area there is an increasing demand for non-agri-
cultural jobs as young people graduate from schools and enter the job
market. The added competition from newcomers to the area often results
in an out migration of native talent.
This problem is further compounded by the lack of low-cost housing
or moderate priced building sites. Rising land prices, although continuing
to escalate beyond the reach of the average wage-earner, seem to be
easily afforded by upper-income people who are searching for a retreat
from the pressures of large metropolitan areas; these are people most
likely to become future Bozemanites. The trend over the long run could
make Bozeman less of an open community for all prospective residents
on the income spectrum.
These are only several of the noticeable trends that have surfaced
as Bozeman enters into a transitional period - going from an isolated
rural community to a more diversified economic base with a new emerging
identity. The following section discusses in greater detail some of
the impacts of a rapid growth.
13
111E IMPACT OF URBAN GROWTH
Since the earliest days of this country, growth, both physical and
economic, has been equated with prosperity. City officials, chambers
of commerce, service organizations, local business groups have been
and, inmany cases, still are doing everything possible to attract in-
dustries and people to their areas to maintain or to strengthen the
economic opportunities and overall vitality of their communities.
Municipal Services
While growth unquestionally benefits many people and through them
society as a whole, it has its costs. The following statement points this
out:
"A growing body of evidence clearly indicates that growth is
by no means the unmixed blessing it is generally advertised to
be. The costs of growth may be heavy, long term, and burdensome
for the taxpayer as well as the environment. In the past, most
arguments favoring growth have been based on economics. State-
ments like, 'We must grow in order to bring in more revenues' , or,
'We must grow in order to broaden our tax base' , typify this
point of view. If more people are added to the tax rolls, the
theory goes, more funds will be available for needed public ex-
penditures.'.'*
There is, of course, a catch to this line of thinking: The new
taxpayers require services - roads, utilities, sewers, schools, police
fire protection, etc. - and the municipality is obligated to provide
these services. Just how much these new services and facilities will
cost is determined by a number of factors - the most significant
being the physical form and size of the city. The cost differentials
associated with these two factors are discussed later in this report.
Relatedly, a basic question often asked is, "Does growth lead to greater
efficiency in local government and hence to net savings for the city
and its residents?" And more importantly, citizens are asking what will
urban growth add to the quality of their lives. As the following graphs
show, growth puts additional financial burdens on everyone. (figures 1,
2, 3)
The effects on rapid growth on municipal expenditures in Boulder,
Colorado, during the decade of the 1960's is shown in Figure 1. Boulder
grew rapidly during that period, its population increasing from 37,718
to 66,870, a gain of about 77%. Per capita costs for providing municipal
services for Boulder not only increased but doubled in ten years.
In observing growth in many cities throughout America, a general
trend begins to emerge: growing cities become more, rather than less,
*The Costs of Urban Growth: Observations and Judgement, Pikes Peak Area
Council of Governments, 1973.
14
expensive per capita to operate as they get larger. figure 2 shows
the relationship between total expenditures per capita and total tax
revenues per capita as a function of population size. The line "a" shows
average tax rates in, and line "b" shows average per capita public ex-
penditures by, all cities and municipalities in the United States (some
18,050 of them) grouped by population size. This statistical data
was supplied by the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1967 Census of Governments.
Cities with larger populations cost their residents more. However,
it must be remembered in very large metropolitan situations, the core
urban dwellers pay for public services the larger city provides to
outsiders who pay less than their share as suburbanites. In essence,
a subsidy is provided to the suburbanite at the expense of the inner
city resident. (Figure 3)
FIGURE 1: Boulder Colorado, 1960-1970. (a) City of Boulder population;
(b) City of Boulder per capita costs at constant dollars; (c) Colorado
personal income per capita at constant dollars.
2.0
r
1.5 f
i
i
(a / 1A
1
1.0 r---
1960 1965 1970
15
FIGURE 2: United States Municipal Governments, 1966-67. (a) Totai
general expenditures per capita; (b) Total tax revenues per capita;
as a function of population size.
400
300
(a) O
200 O
0
Q
(b
100 X X XI
0 -- - _
1000 10,000 100,000 1 'Million 10 Million
5
The above graph indicates that small cities are relatively less
expensive per capita to operate than big cities, that small sparsely
populated counties are relatively more expensive, and that all things
considered, county areas having a population of about 25,000 people
cost their residents the least amount of money per capita. One con-
clusion from the above data may be that there are some economics of
scale in local governeents for communities smaller than 25,000, but
apparently none whatever for communities larger than this.*
*Observation and Judgements, Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments, 1973.
16
FIGURE 3: Total general expenditures per capita by local governments
in the United States as a function of population size (1967) (a) Municipal
Governments; (b) County governments; (c) Local governments of count
size areas, and (d) Local governments of Standard Metropolitan Statis-
tical ,Area.
400
300
(c) (d)
200
(a)
100
(b)
0
1000 10,000 100,000 1 Million
10 Million
People, their numbers and where they will live, are the crux of this
growth study. It is this concern then, to which the implications of
growth are addressed. In other sections of this study, development lim-
itations within the Bozeman area are discussed. Overcoming these lim-
itations such as a high groundwater table or unstable soils requires
considerably more money than if this development occurred in areas that
were suitable.
New residents mean a greater demand for services and subsequently
added costs for municipal development. For any community wishing
to adopt a fiscally conservative pattern of development, it would seem
that investment dollars should be "optimized" according to maximum pro-
ductive service provided.
In subsequentsections of this study, several basic growth policy al-
ternatives are presented by which citizens can influence community
development. Residents do have the opportunity to institute policies
and determine what the future of Bozeman will be. The individual citizen
might make his chioc.e by asking himself the: question future generaAons
might ask, "What did you know and when did you know it?"
:1.7
COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS -- AN OVERVIEW
Before beginning this detailed section of the growth study, an
overview may be helpful to assist the reader in utilizing this infor-
mation.
This section breaks down the COST of city services in order to pro-
vide an economic picture of the effect growth will have on Bozeman in
1990 as regards four growth alternatives - estimated high and low pop-
ulations as they apply to two possibilities for city development: sprawl
and contained. These alternatives were chosen because they represent
brackets within which future Bozeman area development is likely to fall.
Once the cost of services is found, then this section looks at how
citizens will pay for these services, in other words, REVENUES.
This financial investigation projects fiscal trends, that is, what
Bozemanites can expect alternative types of development to cost. This
section, then provides an indicator of what a resident of the city
may pay for city services in 1990 in terms of higher taxes and other
associated expenses.
Findings and summary of costs associated with alternative growth
patterns can be found starting on page 42. Findings and summary of
revenues associated with alternative growth patterns are found on page
61. Summary of cost and revenue section is found starting on page. 61,
18
GR0WT€t STUDY COST ANALYSIS
Approach
The basis of this growth study deals with the dollars and cents
issue of what the citizenry will have to pay for municipal services:
how much it is going to cost each individual to live in Bozeman.
To study what future expansion is likely to cost the city, and
therefore the taxpayer, growth was examined as to two variables: the
size of the population and the area in which those people will 'live (or
the area the city will eventually service) .
To define parameters of population size and growth areas, ex-
tremes of each were projected resulting in four distinct and separate
growth pattern alternatives, each a cornerstone marking the boundaries
of the population/growth area.
The alternatives are:
1. Low Population •- Contained Growth
2. High Population - Contained Growth
3. Low Population - Peripheral Growth
4. High Population - Peripheral Growth
These alternatives were chosen not because one might represent
a future growth pattern, but because together they heuristically define
the range of a very large percentage of possible growth patterns. In
other words, they represent the extremes of probable development in
Bozeman using projected population figures and available land. As such,
future patterns of city growth have a good chance of falling within the
boundaries the alternatives define. (see figure 4.)
Description of the Four Growth Pattern Alternatives
In developing the four growth pattern alternatives for Bozeman, two
factors were considered to be variable: population and land area. The
two population totals used were those projected in a report to the
City-County Planning Department by T.A.P.• Inc. , Bozeman economic con-
sultants, entitled "Gallatin County and Gallatin County Census Divisions
Population Projections". In the year 1990 the T.A.P. study projects
Bozeman to have an upper population limit of 42,379 and a lower limit
of 29,558. These two population levels provide the high and low levels
for our 1990 alternatives. Each population level has been placed in
two differexit possible growth areas. The contained alternative assumes
all growth will take place within the present city limits. Whereas,
the peripheral alternatives place all growth within the present proposed
sewer service area as delineated in the Thomas, Dean, & Hoskins
"Facility Plan for the City of Bozeman" dated November 1974 . (see fig. 5) °
1.9
tHigl. Popu ation Hig Popu ation
aired Growth eripheral Growth
ra
Futurq population size
�+ and gIrea.--
owth rea ar lilts y
z to fal somewhere within
0 this
H
a4
0
w
Low Popul Lion Low Po ul tion
Cont
on ained Growti Peripheral Growth
GROWTH AREA
Figure 4 Growth Model Brackets
2
r
34 35 36 .31
tX
�r
:•
w..•.' .'�::::':.:: 'xz'•^ 'i'+�w.w.rw.r-+.ixn;.�d...w.a.-.x_
e.r
7 .,
s
c
Asa
xx : .
F. o
rr3�t
Y f:titiY:"a•::•..
•-•.•-•. •r:v. :.,,
�. t
qq v�
.r
f:
{'
Ened
A � Qnt a
t:•.tie..:.. ..:...:.:.... r ent
r
b:
;•.;
ee•:
,t,�� �•.
.. .....
h•Y{r i
......-. .... e$:
9
P
t5
/
,.
f„
w
4
M1i P
xl
tl�
t• -t�•:w�
Wu,
r`•�t::° .•:-�•r•:-d`?^�°vi'r'rErF'�•}�i�v�.�n'Eti...
ri^`Y•:-:^rri•: r rr:^:Y•' •r•?iro"- y�
t:
t•
Y �S
.f:::;'���.�.�•��[..'tiro•
4L
{
:C•:
.S`:
E5
.::
22
_2
- •' •''"
21
..
.'.
Future ' ewer Service Area
and
7 .........` - Area of Peripheral
2bevelo ment
Map
3 3S 36 .51 32 33
I
21
Assumptions and Limitations
This analysis focuses on the costs and the revenues inherent in the
four alternative growth patterns. Because of this, certain assumptions
and limitations must be kept in mind:
1. The study's objective is to compare and contrast the four growth
alternatives which deal with a range of population and amount- of land
needed to accommodate such populations.
2. The projections are made on the assumption the City of Bozeman will
provide municipal services in the growth area--be it contained or
peripheral.
3. Generally, capital costs are projected to include all municipal services
required for Bozeman's expected population increases. Capital expenditures
needed to upgrade present services have not been taken into account. This
assumes that the current level of services now provided by the City will
be extended to new residents.
4. Operating costs consist of money spent to provide municipal services
to the entire City population. Future operating costs were determined
by using 1974 as a per capita base and applying a "smoothing" formula
to obtain usable results.
5. All projections are made in 1974-75 dollars. No provision has been
made for inflation since it is assumed any rise in this economic indicator
would affect all four alternatives equally. Also, there does not seem
to be a method to predetermine a rate of inflation that would reasonably
fit the cost-revenue situation in the future.
6. Higher per unit costs for various municipal services, a trend seen
in other growing cities, was not taken into account here.
7. Capital costs for projected facilities are estimated and amortized
over the payback period of each. No consideration is made for replacement
of existing facilities.
Analytical Basis
In order to project the City's potential costs to 1990, it was
necessary to examine past expenditures for each municipal service. Past
departmental costs . from 1966 to 1974 were used to formulate a "smoothed"
cost curve--what each service theoretically would have cost if unexpected
windfalls and pitfalls had been eliminated--to the year 1974. The
results were used to determine 1974 per capita costs for each municipal
service by dividing the "smoothed" figure by the number of Bozemanites
for that year as established by T.A.P. Inc.
To achieve as complete and true cost projections as possible, each
service's costs were described as being a function of either the City's
population alone, such as health or planning, or the City's population
and area, such as the fire department - the cost of which will vary as
substations are needed to meet response time limits to fires.
22
High
1990
0
4-J
a.
ro
ti
Low
1974
Area
Contained Peripheral
GrOWLII in Bozeman is more than a function of population and city size. Time is also a factor.
Thestudy's four alternatives can be pictured asacube, the corners of which are the brackets of the par—
ameters reflecting high and low limits of growth. Somewhere within these boundaries Boz'emanIs
growth is likely to take place. This is represented by the dark line that co
the "growth space". urses through
Figure 5 Growth Space
23
Services as a Function of: Population Alone
1. Law
2. Police Court
3. Building Inspection
4. Parking ;deter
5. Finance
6. Cemetery
7. Band
8. Library
9. Health
10. Garbage
11. Airport
12. Planning
13. Engineering
14. Police
15. Park
Services as a Function of Population and Area
1. Fire
2. Water
3. Sanitary Disposal System
4. Sewer Lines
5. Streets
6. Street Lights (varies as to number of streets)
To provide a sound basis for the cost of city services, an effort
was made to remove capital expenditures from operating costs in each
department. Then expodential smoothing was applied to each department's
operating costs under this formula:
F = Dt + (1-oc) F = Dt + (1-oc)Ft-1
Where F is the smoothed value for any period
oc is .5
Dt is the actual expenditure for that period
Ft-1is the smoothed value for the previous period.
Applying this technique to past municipal operating costs resulted
in a smoothed value for 1974. That is, the smoothed 1974 value is comprised
of 50% of the actual expenditure fox• 1974 and 50% of the smoothed value
of 1973, which in turn is comprised of 50% of the actual expenditure
.for 1973 and 50% of the smoothed value for 1972. This is carried back
to the year 1966. This means most of the erratic bahavior in the record
of expenditures - that is, peaks and valleys in the graphs resulting from
unusual situations - have been removed providing a clearer picture of
thy; actual general trend of expenditures. This 1974 smoothed value
of operating costs then served as the base-year figure. (see figure 0)
0
ro u P C�
$ 24
4
Ls $ a d
r1 a. C Cs a
3 0 •0 3 Pi .o
ro 4j
u
a oo a o p
LO
1G�• '�L
W
a co
a ro �
o -w a
-0 •r-+ ;:: 4j
W co .p p
p U iJ ro N
3 �+ W o
O cd
m s4 R. 4J �j
—roi 3 v 1
a o ro cn
anal H
ir. *IZ' ri 4
Cd p � ro o' p -00
a. 0 � b°
oro •H a �
44
o w a mw
co C W M w C.'
r. o o 0
w
o �4 m u
•n a •rI •r4 •r1
a�
Q� ?4 ttd v7 cd O ,°X1
>O P4 .n a CJ 44
L
4
n .a Qy
vro <
)
10 (U
� <
ro w o
•�was •� aui ,�
to -= •� P.•n
0
,r4 $4
m Figure 6 � : 0 � 0 0)
25
Projection of Future City Costs
Generally, the base-year operating cost figure for each service
was divided by T.A.P. 's estimated 1974 population of 21,100 to yield
a dollar per capita operating cost. This per capita operating cost
could then be used to calculate the operating cost for any service
at a given population level. Additional capital costs for .each population
and growth area level are considered for each service in all municipal
departments.
Services were grouped into two categories: the first category
grouped those services that were similar because capital expenditures
were fairly consistent and the second category grouped those services
represented by complex capital expenditures.
I. The following services fall under consistent expenditures
Per Capita Operating Costs Per
General Services Individual for Year 1974
Law $ .595
Police Court .486
Building Inspector 1.189
Parking Meter 1.165
Finance .709
Cemetery 2.869
Band .228
Health .238
Garbage . 6.642
Airport Insignificant
Planning .954
Engineering 2.189
Total Per Capital Operating Costs $17.264
Projecting the cost of these services to 1990:
Low Population Total Cost of Consistent Expenditures
$17.264 X 29,558= $510,289 (1-3)*
High Population
$17.264 X 42,379= $731,631 (2-4)
It is assumed that at the high population level the City Hall Building will need
5,000 square-feet of additional office space, which would consist of
a second story addition to the present city hall. This capital expen-
diture was placed under the police department because they expressed
the most definite need for added space, although other municipal depart-
ments would be using the space.
*Numbers in parenthesis following totals refer to alternate growth
patterns as numbered on page 18,.
26
II. The following se vices fall under complex capital expenditures:
Generally, the per capita operating costs for services in this
category were determined using the same method in determining costs
for consistent services. However, each remaining service has been
considered separately because of the complexity of its related
capital expenditures.
Per Capita Operating Costs In Dollars
Services Per Year 1974.
Police $14.009
Fire 10.161
Library 2.292
Sanitary Disposal System. 4.785
Sewer 1.736
Water 15.786
Park 5.293
Streets 8.460
Street Lights-- figured as $540/street mile
A) Police Protection
The $14.009 per capita operating costs per year reflects the present
level of police manpower: 24 officers, 5•civilian staff members and 8
patrol cars.
To maintain the same service level (the ratio of officers to population
in 1974 terms) in 1990, some 34 officers will be required at the low
population level and 48 officers at the high population level.
Also at the high population level, a second story on the city hall
will be needed to provide locker rooms for officers and additional space
for storage of records. (other departments would presumably use some
of this additional space)
Projecting the cost of police protection to 1990:
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs For Police Department
$14.009 X 29,558 = $414,078 per year (1)
b) Capital Expenditures*
None at this level.
2. High Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Cost for Police Department
$14.009 X 42,379 = $593,687 per year (2)
* For purposes of this study, patrol cars for the police department are
included in operating costs.
27
b) Capital Expenditures �
Second floor to City Hall: $125,000h
($125,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $10,030 per year (2)
3. Low Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For Police Department
$14.009 X 29,558 = $414,078 per year (3)
b) Capital Expenditures
None at this level.
4. High Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For Police Department
$14.009 X 42,379 = $593,687 per year (4)
b) Capital Expenditures
Secondd floor to City Hall: $10,030 per year (4)
B) Fire Protection
The $10.161 per capita operating costs per year reflects the present
level of operation of 1.09 firemen per 1,000 persons. This is very close
to the national standard of 1 fireman per 1,000 citizens.
Capital expenditures -- fire stations and apparatus -- are assumed
to vary with both population and area in order to maintain current response
times from fire stations to fires.
Projecting the cost of fire protection to 1990:
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs For Fire Department
$10.161 X 29,588 = $300,339 per year (1)
b) Capital Expenditures
1 ladder truck: $145,000
($145,000 amortized over 5 years at 5%) _ $33,491 per year (1)
2. High Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs For Fire Department
$10.161 X 42,379 = $430,613 ( �
per year ��)
b) Capital Expenditures
1 ladder truck: $145,000
1 pumper truck: $80,000
($225,000 amortized over 5 years at 5%) _ $51,971 per year (2)
*Second floor construction figures supplied by Berg, Grabow and Partners
of Bozeman, architects of the present City Hall.
28
b) Capital Expenditures cone.
1 fire station: $175,000*
Site for station: $15,000
($190,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $15,247 per year (2)
3. Low Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For Fire Department
$10.161 X 29,558 = $300,339 per year (3)
b) Capital Expenditures
1 fire station: $175,000
Site for station: $15,000
($190,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $15,247 per year (3)
1 ladder truck: $145,000
1 pumper truck: $80,000
($225,000 amortized over 5 years at 5%) _ $51,971 Der year (3)
4. High Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For fire Department
$10.161 X 42,379 = $430,613 per year (4)
b) Capital Expenditures
2 fire stations: $350,000
Sites for stations: $30,000
($380,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $30,491 per year (4)
1 ladder truck: $145,000'
3 pumper trucks: $240,000
($385,000 amortized over 5 years at 5%) _ $88,927 per year (4)
C) Library Department
The $2.292 per capita operating costs per individual per year
reflects the 1974 library operation.
Capital expenditures assume a new library will be built at the high
population level. Tha 33 ,5CO sq. ft. size of a future library is based
on the proposed city-county library in Helena. It is also assumed
that a new library for Bozeman will be built on a new site.
Projecting library costs to 1990:
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs For The Library
$2.292 X 29,558 = $67,747 per year (1)
*Cost for new fire station supplied by Berg, Grabow and Partners of
Bozeman, and City of Bozeman Finance Department. Cost figures
on new fire apparatus supplied by Bozeman Fire Department.
Cost figures for new fire station sit(, determined by Bozeman Planning
Department.
29
b) Capital Expenditures
None at this level.
2. High Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs For The Library
$2.292 X 42,379 = $97,133 per ,ear (2)
b) Capital Expenditures*
1 new library (33,500 sq. ft. @$35/sq. ft.
_ $1,172,500)
New site downtown Bozeman: $100,000
(1,272,500 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $102,105 per year (2)
3. Low Population --- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For The Library
$2.292 X 29,558 = $67,747 per year (3)
b) Capital Expenditures
None at this level.
4. High Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For The Library
$2.292 X 42,379 = $97,133 per year (4)
b) Capital Expenditures
1 new library: $1,172,500
New site downtown Bozeman: $100,000
($1,272,500 amortized over 20 years at 5%) - $102,105 per year (4)
D) Sanitary Disposal System
The $4.785 per capita operating costs per year reflects the 1974
disposal operation.
Capital expenditures reflect the assumptions of Thomas Dean and
Hoskins (TDH) , consulting engineers, in their "Facilities Plan, an
Engineering Report on the Sanitary Sewer System for the City of Bozeman,
November, 1974". TDH states in the report that the design capacity of
the present system is for 38,360 persons, which is 4,019 short of the
projected high population level.
However, the Bozeman City Engineering Staff believes that the present
facilities could service the high population totals if existing sewer
lines are sealed, i.e. preventing infiltration of ground water into the
system.
This would probably be a stop-gap measure at best and sometime
in the future, when the projected capacity is reached more sewage fa-
cilities will be needed. The new facilities haven't been projected
*Square foot costs for a new library supplied by Berg, Grabow and Partners,
Bozeman architects. Square foot estimate provided by Ms. Margaret
Hileman, Head Librarian, Bozeman Library.
30
here because that future time may be after 1990.
Projecting Sanitary Disposal System to 1990: m
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs of Disposal System
$4.785 X 29,558 = $141,438 per year (1)
b) Capital Expenditures
Expansion of secondary treatment: $3,047,000
Renovation to meet 1983 standards: $1,821,000
($4,868,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $390,608 per year (1)
2. High Population --- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs of Sewer System
$4.785 X 42,379 = $202,784 per year (2)
b) Capital Expenditures
Same as 1. $390,608 per year (2)
3. Low Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs of Sewer System
$4.785 X 29,558 = $141,438 per year (3)
b) Capital Expenditures
Same as 1. and 2. above. $390,608 per year (3)
4. High Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs of Sewer System
$4.785 X 42,379 = $202,784 per year (4)
b) Capital Expenditures
Same as 1. , 2. , and 3. above $390,608 per year (4)
E) Sewer Lanes
The $1.736 per capita operating costs per year reflects lines already
installed.
Capital expenditures reflect the report of TDH's "Facility Plan for
the City of Bozeman". Reducing groundwater infiltration by sealing
a portion of existing sewer lines plus the construction of an interceptor
(to collect sewage from New Hyalite View Subdivision) is assumed necessary
to all four projected alternative growth patterns.
For the High Population -- Peripheral Growth alternative, it is
assumed that Thomas, Dean and Hoskins planned system of trunk lines are
built to service the designated sewer service area. Also, to meet
31
extended capacity the City of Bozeman's Engineering Department's recommend-
ation of sealing tines is assumed to work and therefore eliminate the
need for sewer plant expansion.
For Lae Low Population -- Peripheral Growth alternative, it is
assumed that: 70 percent of TDII's proposed trunk lines will have to be
built.
Disposition of costs of local lines that feed trunk lines is discussed
under the section titled "Prototype Subdivision".
Projecting Sewer Line Costs to 1990:
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs of Sewer Lines
$1.736 X 29,558 = $51,304 per year (1)
b) Capital Expenditures
Reduction of infiltration.: $83,000
Hyalite interceptor: $107,000
($190,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $15,246 per year (1)
2. High Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs of Sewer Lines
$1.736 X 42,379 = $73,570 per year (2)
b) Capital Expenditures
Reduction of infiltration: $166,000
Hyalite interceptor: $107,000
($273,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $21,960 per year (2)
3. Low Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs of Sewer Lines
$1.736 X 29,558 = $51,304 per year (3)
b) Capital Expenditures
Reduction of infiltration: $83,000
Hyalite interceptor: $107,000
($190,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $15,246 per year (3)
70% of planned trunk line expansion: $929,830
($929,830 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $74,610 per year (3)
4. High Population --- Peripheral Growth
a) 0-),,_ratiug Costs of Sewer Lines
$1.736 X 42,379 = $74 ,610 per year (4)
b) Capital Expenditures
Reduction of infiltration $166,000
Hyalite interceptor: $107,000
($273,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $21,906 per year (4)
100% of planned trunk line expansion:
($1,328,329 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $106,585 per year (4)
32
F Water
The $15.786 per capita operating costs per year reflects the service
as of 1974 .
Capital expenditures for water service include increasing the
capacity at all growth levels. This is accomplished by the construction
of a reservoir on Bozeman Creek.
The High Population growth alternatives include complete treatment
for 15 million gallons. The Low Population growth alternatives reflect
complete treatment for 10 million gallons.
In the Peripheral growth alternatives, extra trunk lines are
included in the cost analysis.
Additional local line costs have been dealt with under the section
titled "Prototype Subdivision".
Projecting Necessary Water Costs to 1990:
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs of Water Service
$15.786 X 29,558 = $466,602 par year {1)
b) Capital Expenditures*
Reservoir/Bozeman Creek: $2,000,000
2 million gallons ready for city use: $150,000
10 million gallons treatment: $500,000
Distribution Improvements: $784,200
($3,434,200 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $27'5,560 per year (1)
2. High Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs For Water Service
$15.786 X 42,379 = $668,995 per year (2)
b) Capital Expenditures
Reservoir/Bozeman Creek: $2,000,000
2 million gallons ready for city use: $150,000
15 million gallons treatment: $1,000,000
Distribution Improvements: $784,200
($3,934,200 amortized over 20 years at 5%) w $315,680 per year (2)
3. Low Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For Water Service
$15.786 X 29,558 = $466,602 per year (3)
*Cost figures for water service expansion have been supplied by the
Engineering Department of the City of Bozeman.
33
b) Capital Expenditures
Reservoir/Lozeinan Creek: $2,000,000
2 million gallons ready for city use: $1.50,000
'10 million gallons treatment: $500,000
Distribution Improvements: $784,200
Trunk Lanes: $750,000
($4,184,200 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $355,740 per year (3)
4. High Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For Water Service.
$15.786 X 42,379 = $668,995 per year (4)
b) Capital Expenditures
Reservoir/Bozeman Creek: $2,000,000
2 million gallons ready for city use: $150,000
15 million gallons treatment: $1,000,000
Distribution Improvements: $784,200
Trunk Lines: $750,000
($4,684,200 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $375, 860 per year (4)
G) Parks
The $5.293 per capita operating costs per year for parks and recrea-
tion is based on 1974 data.
Capital expenditures for parks reflect development costs only
for previously acquired land through subdivision park dedications. It
was assumed Bozeman would meet national standards of park acreage
development at each population level. (10 acres per 1,000 residents)
Two types of parks were considered: neighborhood and community.
Neighborhood parks are assumed to have landscaping at $3,500 per acre
and play equipment at $2,500 per acre. Community parks in addition to
landscaping and play equipment are assumed to have organized recreation
facilities at $3,400 per acre.
Projecting park costs to 1990:
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs For Parks
$5.293 X 29,558 = $156,450 per year (1)
B) Capital Expenditures
18 acres of neighborhood parks
($108,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $8,666 per year (1)
50 acres of community parks
($470,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $37,713 Per year (1)
2. High Population -- Contained Growth
34
a) Operating Costs For Parks
$5.293 X 42,379 = $224,312 per year (2)
b) Capital Expenditures
42 acres of neighborhood parks
($252,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $20,220 per year (2)
92 acres of community parks
($864,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $69,327 per year (2)
3. Low Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For Parks
Same as in 1. _ $156,450 per year (3)
b) Capital Expenditures
Same as in 1. _ . $8,666 per year (3)
`$37,713 per year (3)
4. High Population -- Peripheral Growth ,
a) Operating Costs For Parks
Same as in 2. _ $224,312 per year (4)
b) Capital Expenditures
Same as in 2. above = $20,220 per year (4)
$69,327 per year (4)
H) Streets
The $2,664 per mile per year 1974 operating cost was deemed a more
appropriate reference unit than a per individual per year figure.
Capital expenditures necessary for expansion of the street system
are discussed under the section titled "Prototype Subdivision". (see
page 37 )
However, street miles in the Prototype Subdivision were used to de-
termine future yearly operating costs at the four alternative levels.
The methodology to calculate these costs was as follows: from the 1974
Bozeman City Directory it was determined the city had 67 miles of streets.
This mileage figure was divided into the 1974 smoothed base year operating
costs for street maintenance of $178,503. This yielded a base cost per
mile of $2,664. Next, the total street mileage was determined at each
growth alternative by adding the projected mileage to the 67 mile
base figure. The result was multiplied by the base cost per mile to
obtain the yearly operating cost of street maintenance for each of the:
four alternative growth patterns.
Projecting per mile street costs to 1990:
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
35
a) Operating Costs For Streets
ft./preps.*
67 miles + G409 5280 ft./mile X 12.9 preps. = 77.8 miles
(77.8 miles X $2,664 per mile) = $207,260 per year (1)
2. High Population --- Contained Growth
a) Operating Costs For Streets
67 miles + 4409 ft./prtps. X 32.4 preps. = 94.1 miles
5280 ft./mile
(94.1 miles X $2,644 per mile) _ $250,682 per year (2)
3. Low Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For Streets
67 + 5732**ft./proms. X 38.6 preps. = 108.9 miles
5280 ft./mile
(108.9 miles X $2,644 per mile) = $290,110 per year (3)
4. High Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Operating Costs For Streets
67 + 5732 ft./preps.5280 ft./mile X 97.2 preps. = 172.5 miles
(172.5 miles X $2,664 per mile) _ $459,540 per year (4)
1) Street Lights
Street light costs have been figured as a function of the miles
of City streets rather than as a function of population or the City's
area.
Also taken into consideration is the arrangement between the City
of Bozeman and Montana Power Company, where Montana Power assumes all
costs of the City street lights, including capital expenditures and
then bills the City for its services.
Therefore, the City's annual expenditures represent both operating
and capital costs. Using the 1974 smooth base year costs for street lights
and dividing that figure by the miles of streets in 1974 gives the cost
per mile of street lights for 1974.
*4409 is the number of feet of local streets platted in Figgins 2nd
Addition Subdivision to the City of Bozeman used as prototype. Prtps.
is abreviation meaning prototype units.
**5732 is the number of feet of local and arterial streets assumed to
be needed for peripheral growth. This was calculated by taking 30%
of 4409 and adding it to 4409.
36
$36,170 = City's payment to Montana Power in 1974
67 = Miles of streets in City in 1974 .
($36,170/67 = $540 - 1974 cost of street lights/mile of street)
The same methodology used to figure future yearly operating costs
at the four alternative growth levels for streets is also used to determine
yearly operation costs for street lights (see ll, page 34) .
Projecting street light per mile costs to 1990:
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
a) Payment To Montana Power (Capital and Operating Costs)
67 + 4409 ft./prtps. X 12.9 prtps. = 77.8 miles
5280 ft./mile
(77.8 miles X $540 per mile) = $42,012 per year (1)
2. High Population -- Contained Development
a) Payment To Montana Power (Capital and Operating Costs)
4409 ft./prtps.
67 + 5280 ft./mile X 32.4 prtps. = 94.1 miles
(94.1 miles X $540 per mile) _ $50,814 per year (2)
3. Low Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Payment To Montana Power (Capital and Operating Costs)
5732 ft./prtps.
67 + 5280 ft./mile X 38.6 prtps. = 108.9 miles
(108.9 miles X $540 per mile) = $58,806 per year (3)
4. High Population -- Peripheral Growth
a) Payment To Montana Power (Capital and Operating Costs)
5732 ft./prtps,
67 + 5280 ft./mile X 97.2 prtps, = 172.5 miles
(172.5 miles X $540 per mile) M $93,150 per year (4)
III. Prototype Subdivision
To determine the costs of housing and servicing the increased
population at the four alternative growth levels, subdivision development
costs were studied.
Two prototype subdivisions were used to project costs on arterial
and local streets, storm sewers, neighborhood water and sewer lines and
residential hook-ups.
Generally, both prototypes are ba;;ed on Figgins 2nd Addition Subdi-
vision to the City of Bozeman. This subdivision was determined to be a
reasonable approximation of the typical city subdivision. That is, the
37
physiographic conditions in this subdivision were representative of
the overall land area immediately adjacent to Bozeman. Approximately
1./3 of the streets will require base stabilization, and the cost of
storm sewer construction and sewer and water are in the medium range.
A low density prototype of 3.3 units per acre was used for the
peripheral growth alternatives. This is the density presently found in
I:iggins 2nd Addition. It is assumed future peripheral development
around Bozeman will approximate this density.
A high density prototype of 10 units per acre was used for the
contained growth alternatives. This density can be identified with
the City's R-3 zoning district that permits a range of residential units
from single-family to multi-family. It is assumed future contained
development in Bozeman will reflect this density.
Low Density - Prototype Subdivision Per Unit Costs For Development That
Contains 73 Dwelling Units on 22 Acres.
A) Street Costs:
1. Local Streets --
4409 ft./prtps.* X $47.12 per ft.** = $207,752
2. Arterial Streets --
1323 ft./prtps.* X $59.52 per ft.** = $78,745
3. Total projected costs for prototype subdivision = $286,497
Assumptions:
a. Arterial streets needed tb serve area of peripheral
development must be provided.
b. An additional 30 feet of arterial street is needed to
serve every 100 feet of local street. This is based on
the current ratio of arterial to local streets in Bozeman
as of 1974.
Local Street Criteria:
Width of street (back curb to back curb)= 37 feet.
Manhole adjustment every 300 feet.
Pavement cross section: 2 inches surface asphalt
4 inches asphaltic base
6 inches gravel section
Compacted subgrade
Monument box every 200 feet.
Base stabilization of 1 foot deep pit run gravel will
be needed for 1/3 of the local streets.
*4409 is the number of feet of local streets platted in Figgins 2nd Addition
to the City of Bozeman which has been used as a guide to the study's proto-
type subdivision. Prtps. is abbreviation meaning prototype units. 1323 is
the tlumbeg of feet of arterial streets anticipated as being needed in the
prototype subdivision. Arterial street feet is figured by taking 30 percent
of total number of feet of local streets.
**The dollar cost per foot of subdivision street was supplied by Thomas,
Dean, and Hoskins, engineering consultants, Bozeman, Montana.
38
Arterial Street Criteria:
Width of street (black curb to back curb) = 40 feet.
Manhole adjustment every 300 feet.
Pavement cross section: 3 inches surface asphalt
5 inches asphaltic base
6 inches gravel section
Compacted subgrade
Monument box every 200 feet.
Base stabilization of 1 foot deep pit run gravel will
be needed for 1/3 of the arterial streets.
B) Storm Sewer Costs:
Storm sewer costs have been figured on the total street
footage in the prototype subdivision multiplied by the per
foot cost estimated by Thomas, Dean and Hoskins of constructing
a storm sewer in an average situation where there exists some
drainage surface runoff on uniform topography.
1. 5,732 ft./prtps. X $14,44 per ft. _ $82,770
C) Sanitary Sewer Costs:
Sanitary sewer costs have been figured on the total number
of feet of sanitary sewers in the prototype subdivision times
the per foot cost estimated by Thomas, Dean and Hoskins
assuming: An 8 inch sewer line is used.
Manhole spacing is at 300 foot intervals.
Lines are buried to 8 feet in open areas.
Average lothas80 foot frontage.
1. 3,620 f't./prtps. X $17,48 per foot = $63,278
D) Water Costs:
Water costs have been figured on the total number of 10 inch
lines and 6 inch lines needed to serve the prototype subdivision
multiplied by the per foot cost of each estimated by Thomas,
Dean and Hoskins assuming:
Average lot has 80 feet frontage.
There are two gate valves per 400 ft.
There is one hydrant every 520 feet.
Top soil to 1 foot depth is saved and replaced.
1. 960 feet/prtps. of 10" line X $22.20 = $21,312
2,950 ft./prtps. of 6" line X $18.00 = $53,100
Total cost of lines = $74,412
High Density -- Prototype Subdivision Per Unit (,,)sts For Development
That Contains 219 Dwelling; Units on 22 Acres Within
The City Limits.
Cost Assumptions for high Density Prototype Are the
Same as For Low Density Prototype.
39
A) Street Costs:
1. Local Scraets --
4,407 ft../prtps X $47.12 per ft. - $207,752
2. Arterial Streets --
It is assumed the arterial streets needed to serve the
prototype subdivision within the city limits are already
in place and available.
B) Storm Sewer Costs:
1. 4,407 ft./prtps. X $14.44 per ft. = $63,666
C) Sanitary Sewer Costs:
1. 3,620 ft./prtps. X $17.48 per ft. = $63,278
D) Water Costs:
1. 960 ft./prtps. of 10" line X $22.20 = $21,312
2,950 ft./prtps. of 6" line X $18.00 = $53,100
Total costs of construction of lines = $74,412
IV. Prototype Subdivision^--Four Growth Pattern Alternatives
To obtain future yearly operating costs for the City of Bozeman with
regard to population and possible growth patterns, the low and high
density prototype subdivision cost figures pertaining to services was
multinli_ed by the number of prototype developments needed to house the
additional residents.
The future increases in city population have been determined by
subtracting the present population from the low and high population fore-
casts for 1990. The low density prototype subdivision figures were
used to obtain peripheral growth costs. The high density prototype
subdivision figures were used to obtain contained growth costs.
A) Low Population -- Contained Growth
1. Low population growth by 1990 is estimated to provide an
additional 8,458 persons. (29,558 projected population
minus 21,100 estimated 1974 population)
2. 1970 federal census figures for the City of Bozeman revealed
there is an average of three persons per dwelling unit.
3. Number of new dwelling units needed is:
8,458 new residents = 2,819 additional units
3 persons per dwelling unit
4. Number of high density prototype subdivisions needed is:
40
2,819 new dwelling; units _ _
219 dwelling units per prototype subdivision - 12.9 developments*
STREETS -- $207,752 development costs X 12.9 high density prototype
subdivisions = $2,680,000 to build streets.
($2,680,000 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $215,043 per year (1)
STORM
SEWER -- $63,666 development costs X 12.9 high density prototype
subdivisions = $821,291 to build storm sewers.
($821,291 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $65,900 per year (1)
SAID I TARY
SEWER -- $63,278 development costs X 12.9 high density prototype
subdivisions = $816,286 to build water sanitary sewers.
($816,286 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $65,499 per year (1)
WATER -- $74,412 development costs X 12.9 high density prototype
subdivisions = $959,914 to build water service.
($959,914 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $77,024 per year (1)
B) High Population -- Contained Growth
1. High Population growth by 1990 is estimated to provide an
additional 21,279 persons. (42,379 projected population
minus 21,100 estimated 1974 population)
2. Three persons per dwelling unit.
3. Number of new dwelling units needed is:
21,279 new residents = 7,093 additional units
3 persons/dwelling unit
4. Number of high density prototype subdivisions needed is:
7,093 new dwelling units _
219 dwelling units/prototype subdivision - 32.4 developments.
5. The annual costs to provide local streets, storm sewers,
sanitary sewers and water service to these persons (using
high density prototype per unit costs) are:
STREETS -- $207,752 development costs X 32.4 high density prototype
subdivisions = $6,731,165 to build streets.
($6,731,165 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $540,109 per year (2)
STORM _
SEWER - $63,666 development costs X 32.4 high density prototype
subdivisions = $2,062,778 to build storm sewers.
($2,062,778 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $165,517 per year (2)
SANITARY
SEWER -- $63,278 development costs X 32.4 high density prototype
subdivisions = $2,050,207 to build sanitary sewers.
($2,050,207 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $164,509 per year (2)
*12.9 new developments of the high density prototype are needed.
41
WATER -- $74,412 development costs X 32.4 high density prototype:
subdivisions = $2,4; 0,949 to provide water service.
C) Low Population -- Peripheral. Growth
1. Low population growth by 1990 is estimated to provide an
additional 8,458 persons.
2. Three persons per dwelling unit.
3. The number of new dwelling units needed is 2,819.
4. Number of low density prototype subdivisions needed is:
2,819 new dwelling units _
73 dwelling units/prototype subdivision — 38.6 developments*
5. The annual costs to provide arterial and local streets, storm
sewers, sanitary sewers and water service to these persons
(using low density prototype per unit costs) are: .
ARTERIAL __
STREETS $78,745 development costs X 38.6 low density prototype
subdivisions = $3,039,557 to build arterial streets.
($3,039,557 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $243,894 per year (3)
LOCAL
STREETS $207,752 development costs X 38.6 low density prototype
subdivisions = $8,01.9,227 to build local streets.
($8,019,227 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $643,463 per year (3)
STORM
SEWER -- $82,700 development costs X 38.6 low density prototype
subdivisions = $3,192,220 to build storm sewers.
($3,192,220 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $256,144 per year (3)
SANITARY
SEWER $63,278 development costs X 38.6 low density prototype
subdivisions = $2,442,531 to build sanitary sewers.
($2,442,531 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $195,989 per year (3)
WATER -- $74,412 development costs X 38.6 low density prototype
subdivisions = $2,872,303 to build water service.
($2,872,303 amortized over 20 years at 5%) _ $230,474 per year (3)
A) High Population Peripheral Growth
1. High population growth by 1990 is estimated to provide an
additional 21,279 persons.
2. Three persons per dwelling unit.
3. The number of dwelling units needed is 7,093.
4. Number of low density prototype subdivisions needed is:
*38.6 new developments of the low density prototype are needed.
42
7,093 new dwelling units = 97.2 developments
73 dwelling units prototype subdivision
5. The annual costs to provide arterial, and local streets,
storm sewers, sanitary sewers and water service to these
persons (using low density prototype per unit costs) are:
ARTERIAL
STREETS -- $78,745 development costs X 97 .2 low density prototype
subdivisions =_ $7,654,014 to build arterial streets.
($7,654,014 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $614,158 (4)
LOCAL
STREETS -- $207,752 development costs X 97.2 low density prototype
subdivisions = $20,193,494 to build local streets.
($20,193,494 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $1,620,326 (4)
STORM
SEWER -- $82,700 development costs X 97.2 low density prototype
subdivisions = ,r8,038,440 to build local streets.
($8,038,440 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $645,004 (4)
SANITARY
SEWER -- $63,278 development costs X 97.2 low density prototype sub-
divisions = $6,150,622 to build sanitary sewers.
($6,150,622 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $492,526 (4)
WATER -- $74,412 development costs X 97.2 low density prototype
subdivisions = $7,232,846 to build water service.
($7,232,846 amortized over 20 years at 5%) = $580,364 (4)
V. Findings - Summary of Costs Associated With Alternative Growth Patterns
Reviewing each of the four alternative growth patterns with established
parameters for high and low population sizes (either contained or
peripheral development) plus the total annual costs for services associated
with a specific growth pattern, it can be calculated what the city will
have to spend for providing municipal services.
To determine the total costs of municipal facilities and services
in 1990 for each of the four growth alternatives, departmental costs for
each were added . For example, under.- Low Population -- Contained
Growth (Alternative 1) , operating costs and capital expenditures for
police, fire, library and streets etc. were totaled. For the reader's
convenience, all cost items d�-_sivnated with a (1) are identified with
the Alternative 1 category. Other numbers represent the other growth
pattern possibilities. For example, police department capital expendi-
tures of $10,030 (4) , refers to Alternative 4 or High Population --
Peripheral Growth.
Total municipal costs under Alternative 1
Low Population -- Contained Growth is $3,542,269 per year
Total municipal costsunder Alternative 2
High Population -- Contained Growth is $5,384,905 per year
43
Total municipalcosts under Alternative 3
Low Population -- Peripheral Growth is $4,976,928 per year
Total municipal costs under Alternative 4
High Popualtion -- Peripheral Growth is $8,743,853 per year
Generally speaking, the more people living within the city the
more it costs the city to provide municipal services. However, as
the figures presented in this section show, these costs vary with the
land area used (density) in accommodating a given population level.
This is shown in the differences in total municipal costs for each of
the contained and peripheral growth situations. Development at higher
densities consumes less land, therefore requires shorter distances
for providing sewer and water lines, streets, street lights, etc.
For development at lower densities, the reverse of this would apply.
Also, it may be interesting to note what each individual will
have to pay for city services under each of the four alternatives.
Alternative 1: Each person would pay $119.84 per year for municipal
services in 1990. For a household of three, a number
established as average in Bozeman by the U.S. Census
Bureau, the cost of services is $459.52 per year.
Alternative 2: Each person would pay $127.06 per year for municipal
services in 1990. For a household of three, the annual
cost would be $381.19.
Alternative 3: Each person would pay $168.37 per year for municipal
services in 1990. For a household of three, the annual
cost would be $505.13.
Alternative 4: Each person would pay $206.32 per year for municipal
services in 1990. For a household of three the annual
cost would be $618.97.
These individual cost figures are not intended to portray any actual
payment in the year 1990. They are presented here only as an indicator
of the range of possibilities. In the following section, an analysis
of the City's revenue sources is presented. The study will later present
what the combined cost/revenue implications are for each of the four
growth pattern alternatives.
44
GROWTH STUDY REVENUE ANALYSIS
Determining ghat certain growth patterns may cost the City of
Bozeman in I.990 is only half of the future development question. The
other half is who is going to pay for growth? A look at revenues will
help answer that question.
Approach
In order to cal.cuI_ate city finances in the year 1990, the various
sources of revenue have been divided into five general categories for
analysis. The categories are:
1. User Charges (under some circumstances assessments are included
in user charges). The charge for street lights is an example.
2. Fees, Fines, Permits, etc.
3. State Shared Revenues.
4. Federal Shared Revenues.
5. Taxes.
User Charges are those monies collected for water, sewer and street
light service.
Fees, Fines, Permits etc. include all various revenues collected
in the form of business licenses, building permits, police court fines
and the like.
State Shared Revneues are monies collected by state government and
distributed to cities. These revenues are generated by liquor and beer
taxes, gas taxes, and motor vehicle license fees and title fees.
Federal Shared Revenues are monies distributed to cities by federal
revenue sharing programs.
Property taxes include all monies collected through general property
tax assessments.
Revenue Uses
City revenues are generally divided into two categories according
to use:
1. Capital expenditures.
2. Operating Costs.
For this study, capital expenditures are the costs associated with
new facilities: streets, sewers, sewer plants,, new municipal buildings
and the like.
45
On the other hand, operating costs here are the costs associated
with maintenance and operation of existing facilities: salaries,
supplies, administration costs and the like.
Projections
In order to determine each of the five revenue sources in the
year 1990, it was necessary to project 1974 revenues with an appropriate
mathematical function for each particular revenue source.
Revenues in the form of fees, fines, permits and state and federal
revenue sharing are described as a per capita function: a specific
population total is going to generate a certain amount of money. Other
revenue sources are figured on the amount of money needed to run a mun-
icipal service. The costs are divided among the population in the form
of a user fee. A water bill is an example of this. Taxes are another
revenue generating source. In this instance the amount of money needed
by the city is best figured as a product of the taxable value of all
properties times a mill levy.
Revenues and Land Use
Revenues vary less with land use patterns than do capital and operating
costs. Most of the revenue sources can be said to be a function of the
population level. An exception to this is taxes, which are best described
as a function of the assessed value of a parcel of land and improvements
and the mill levy. This would be true for the four alternative land use
plans discussed under the Growth Study Cost analysis.
User Char es
Revenues needed to cover service costs for water, sewer and street
lights are generally acquired by billing each user a proportionate amount.
Thus, user charges are a direct function of cost. This is in contrast
to other revenue categories that operate independent of costs, such as
fees, fines, licenses and so forth.
Fees, Fines, Permits, Etc.
This category of revenue is assumed to be best described as a function
of the population level. It is assumed in this report that all revenues
in this category are applied to operating costs.
State Shared Revenue
State shared revenues are assumed to vary with the population. It
is further assumed that all state shared revenues are applied to operating
costs.
46
Federal Revenue SharJa.A'
Federal revenue sharing can be considered a highly variable item,
since the amount of money available to the city in any one year is
dependent on the many variables inherent in the federal government`-:.
administration. One of the greatest variables is Congress, which has to
vote the funds each year subject to ever-changing priorities.
However, for the purposes of this study, it is assumed federal
funds will continue at the same per capita rate as for the 1974 base
year.
Property Taxes
Property taxes are based on the assessed and taxable valuation of
land and improvements. The Montana State Department of Revenue and
Taxation is charged with the responsibility of classification and appraisal
of all real property (land and buildings) throughout the state. Estimated
market values of real property are the basis from which assessed and
taxable valuations are determined. Subsequent local mill levies are then
used to arrive at property taxes for each parcel of land and its attached
improvements.
Total property taxes paid in any one year are comprised of varying
portions of agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial taxes.
Without knowing what each of these categorie's particular contribution is
to the property tax total this study has used a residual method of cal-
culating what the total amount of property taxes will be to complete
the revenue equation. All other sources of revenue can be somewhat
reasonably estimated as outlined in Figure 4 and described below:
1. It is assumed the City of Bozeman will acquire sufficient
revenues to provide the current level of services through 1990.
2. Total expenditures are then separated into operating costs and
capital expenditures.
3. User charges are subtracted from both capital and operating
costs.
4. Generally, the operating revenues are subtracted from the
result of total operating costs minus user charges. It
must be .remembered that in reality, federal revenue sharing
funds can be applied to either operating costs or capital
costs or both. In this study, it is assumed all federal sharing
funds would be applied to operating costs.
Also, all items generally paid for through special improvements
districts are subtracted from the result of total capital costs
minus user charges.
5. The remaining expenses of both capital and operating, costs
would then have to be covered by property taxes.
4'7
Total Cost
Each Alternative
rI
Operatin; Cost Capital Cost
Minus User Charges Ziinus Ust-r Charges
Minus other
Total User C,zarges
projectab1a minus SID revenue
revenue sources
-streets
*storm sewer
*fees, fines, *narks
permit
*state shared
revenue sharing
Cbytaxes.
ing oDarating Remaining capital
o be covered costs covered by
taxes.
Total Tax Revenua
Required
Figure 7 Flowchart - Revenue, Required
48
Per Capita. Tax Load 1990
Property taxes presently supply the bulk of tax revenue to the
city operating budget.
Therefore, the method for determining the per capita tax Load in
1990 for the .four alternative growth patterns mentioned in the Cost
Analysis Section follows the same procedure used to determine property
taxes as indicated by the flow chart on the preceeding page. (figure 4 )
The per capita tax load and the per capita dollar user charges for
1990 for the four alternative growth patterns are estimated by:
1. Separating total costs into 1990 operating costs and capital
costs as itemized in the Cost Analysis Section.
2. The per capita dollar user charges for 1990 are estimated for
both operating and capital costs. This is done by dividing
the total costs for each department financed by user charges
by the population level for each alternative.
3. To obtain the operating costs which must be covered by property
taxes, revenues obtained from fees, fines, permits, state
sharing and federal revenue sharing are subtracted from
the remaining operating costs in item 2.
4. To obtain the capital costs which will have to be financed
by general obligation bonds and therefore, taxes, capital
costs covered by special improvement districts are subtracted
from the remaining capital costs in item 2.
5. The tax dollars necessary to cover operating costs .are added
to those necessary to cover capital expenditures and this
total is divided by the population levels of each alterna-
tive growth pattern in the Cost Analysis Section. This yields
the per capita tax load in the year 1990.
Revenues Needed for the Four Alternatives
1. Low Population -- Contained Growth
DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES
Department Operating Costs Capital Costs
General Services $510,289 (0) � ---
Police $414,078 (0) ---
Fire $300,339 (0) $33,391 engines (B)*
Library $67,747 (0) ---
SDS* $141,438 (UC)* $390,608 (UC)
Sewer $51,304 (UC) $15,246 - sealing lines (UC)
Water $466,602 (UC) $275,560 (UC)
Parks $156,450 (0) $8,666 - neighborhood (SID)*
*Abbreviations $37,713 - Community (B)
SDS - Sanitary Disposal System UC - Financed by User Charges
SID - Special Improvement District B - General Obligation Bonds
0 - Other Sources: Fees, Fines, Permits, State Shared Revenue
and Federal Revenue Sharing.
49
Streets $;07,260 (0) ---
Street Lights $42,012 (UC) ---
Prototype Subdivision
Local Streets -- $215,043 (SID)
Storm. Sewer --- $65,900 (SID)
Sanitary Sewer $65,499 (SID)
Water --- $77,024 (SID)
TOTALS $2,257,519 $1,184,750
Total reveuue needed for Alternative 1 Operating + Capital Costs.
a) Operating Costs $2,257,519
b) Capital Costs $1,184,750
c) Total $3,342,269
50
ALTERNATIVE 1
Total Cost
$3,1542,269
Total Cost is separated
Into operating and
capital costs.
Operatin, Costs Capital Costs
$2�519 rl,l_84,750
Minus User Charges Minus User Charges
$2,357,519 User Charges User Charges $1,184,750
701,356 $701,356 $681,414 - 681,414
$1,656il,163 $503,335
Operating and Capital
Remaining Costs User Chsr;es are totaled Remaining Costs
$1,656,163 $ 701,356 $503,336
681,414
Minus other sources $1,382,770 Minus SID revenues
$1,656,163 $503,336
- 415,290 Total -215,043
- 333,710 User Charges - 65,900
- 262,179 $1,382,770 - 8,666
$ 644,984 - 65,499
Total User Charges are 77,024
Remaining divided by the population $ 71,204
Operating Costs to beyield--.a per capita User Charge
covered by taxes $1,382,770 ��` Remaining
$644,984 29,558 $46'78 Capital Costs to be
covered by taxes
Total the remaining costs Per Capita $71,204
$644,984 User Charge $46.78
+ 71,204 or $11.70 per month
$716,188 per household of 3
Total
remaining costs
to be covered by taxes
$716,188
Divide by the 1990 population
to yield the per capita tax load
$7162188 24.23
29,558
Per Capita
tax load 1990
$24.23
* Footnotes to flow diagram Alternative 1 on the following page
51
Footnotes to flow diagram for Alternative 1.
A) Minus Other Sources -- Fees, Fines, Permits, State Shared Revenues
and Federal Revenue Sharing.
1. $1,656,163 = Remaining costs after operating costs financed
by user charges have been removed.
2. $415,290 = Revenues generated by Fees, Fines and Permits (FFP) 1990.
a. $296,368 revenue generated by FFP 1974
21,100 estimated population 1974 W $14.05*
b. $14.05 revenue generated by FFP per individual 1974 times
29,558 estimated low population 1990 $415,290 FFP 1990.
3. $333,710 = State Shared Revenues 1990.
a. $238,167 state shared revenues 1974 $11.29*
21,100 estimated population 1974
b. $11.29 per capita state shared revenues 1974 times 29,558
estimated low population 1990 = $333,710 state shared money 1990.
4. $262,179 = Federal Revenue Sharing money 1990.
a. $187,231 federal revenue sharing 1974 = $8.87�
21,100 estimated population 1974
b. $8.87 per capita federal revenue shared funds 1974 times 29,558
estimated low population 1990 = $262,179 federal sharing 1990.
B) Minus SID's for streets, storm sewers, neighborhood parks, sanitary sewer
and water.
- 1. $503,336 = Remaining costs after capita costs financed by user
charges have been removed.
2. $215,043 = Streets in prototype subdivision financed by SID's: :
3. $65,900 = Storm Sewers in prototype subdivision financed by SID's.
4. $8,666 = Neighborhood Parks in prototype subdivision paid by SID's.
5. $65,449 = Sanitary Sewer in prototype financed by SID's.
6. $77,024 = Water service in prototype subdivision financed by SID's.
C) User Charges per month 1990 for household of three = $11.70
1. $46.78 = User charges per individual low population 1990 times
*These 1974 base year per individual figures are the same for all alter-
native growth patterns and have been used to determine revenues for 1990
in the remaining alternatives.
52
3 persons in household = $140.34 annual user charges for household
of 3.
2. $140.34 annual user charges for household of 3 -- $11.70
12 months per year
2. Nigh Population -- Contained Growth
DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES
Department Operating Costs Capital Costs
General Services $731,631 (0) ---
Police $593,687 (0) $10,030 (B)
Fire $460,613 (0) $15,247 new sites (B)
$51,971 engines (B)
Library $97,133 (0) $102,105 (B)
SDS $202,784 (UC) $390,608 (UC)
Sewer $73,570 (UC) $21,906 (UC)
Water $668,995 (UC) $305,680 QC)
Parks $224,312 (0) $20,220 -- neighborhood (SID)
$69,327 -- community (B)
Streets $250,682 (0)
Street Lights $50,814 (0) ----
Prototype Subdivision
Streets --- $540,109 (SID)
Storm Sewer ---- $165,517 (SID)
Sanitary Sewer --- $164,509 (SID)
Water --- $193,454 (SID)
TOTALS $3,324,221 $2,060,683
Total revenue needed for Alternative 2 = Operating Costs + Capital Costs.
Operating Costs = $3,324221
Capital Costs = $2,060:683
Total = $5,384,904
53
ALTERNATIVE 2
1990
Totial Cost
$5,384,904
. Total Cost separated
into Operating and Capital Costs
Operating Costs Capital Costs
$3,324,221 $2,060,683
Minus User Charges Minus User Charges
$3,324,221 User Charges User Charges $2,060,683
- 996,163 $996,163 $728,194 - 728,1.94
$2,328,058 $1,332,489
Total Operating and
Remaining Costs Capital User Charges Remaining Costs
$2,328,058 $ 996,163 $1,332,489
+ 728,194
Minus Other Sources $1,724,357 Minus SID Revenues
$2,328,058 $1,332,489
- 595,425 Total - 540,109
- 478,459 User Charges - 165,517
- 375,902 $1,724,375 - 20,220
$ 878,272 A 164,509
454
Total User Charges - 284,680
CLper
emaining Divided by Population $ 284,6$0
ng Costs to be Yields Per Capita
red by Taxes User Charge Remaining
878,272 $1,724,357 = $40.69 Capital Cost to be
42,379 C Covered by Taxes
Total Remaining Costs $24$,680
$878,272 Per Capita User
+248;680 Charge $40.69 or
$1,126,952 $10,17 per month
Per Household of 3
Total Remaining Costs to
be Covered by Taxes
$1,126,952
Divided by the 1990 Population
to Yield the Per Capita Tax Load
$1,126,952 $26.59
42,,279
Per Capita
Tax Load 1990
$26.59
* rootnotes to Tlow daagMn Alternative 2 on the following page
54
Footnotes to flow diagram for Alternative 2.
A) Minus Other Sources -- Fees, Pines, Permits, State Shared Revenues
and Federal Revenue Sharing.
1. $2,328,058 = Remaining costs after operating costs financed
by user charges have been removed.
2. $595,425 = Revenues generated by fees, Fines and Permits (FFP) 1990.
a. $14.05 revenue generated by FFP per individual 1974 times
42,379 estimated high population 1990 c $595,425 FFP 1990.
3. $478,459 = State Shared Revenues 1990.
a. $11.29 per capita state shared revenues 1974 times 42,379
estimated high population 1990 = $478,459 state shared funds 1990.
4. $375,902 = Federal Revenue Sharing money 1990.
a. $8.87 per capita federal revenues shared funds 1974 times
42,379 estimated high population 1990 = $375,902 federal
sharing 1990.
.B) Minus SID's for streets, storm sewers, neighborhood parks, sanitary
sewer and water.
1. $1,332,489 = Remaining costs after capital costs financed by user
charges have been removed.
2. $540,109 = Streets in prototype subdivision financed by SID's.
3. $165,517 = Storm Sewers in prototype subdivision financed by
SID's.
4. $20,220 = Neighborhood Parks in prototype financed by SID's.
5. $164,509 = Sanitary Sewer in prototype financed by SID's.
6. $193,454 = Water service in prototype subdivision financed by SID's.
C) User Charges per month 1990 for household of three = $10.17.
1. $40.69 = User Charges per individual high population 1990
multiplied by 3 persons in household = $122.07 annual user
charges for household of 3.
2. $122.07 annual user charges for household of 3 = $10.17
12 months per year
55
3. Low Population Peripheral Growth.
DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES
Department Operating Costs Capital Costs
General Services $510,285 (0) ----
Police $414,078 (0) ---
fire $300,339 (0) $15,247 --- new sites (B)
$51,971 -- engines (B)
Library $67,747 (0) ---
SDS $141,438 (UC) $390,608 (UC)
Sewer $51,304 (UC) $15,246 -- sealing; lines (UC)
Water $466,602 (UC) $355,740 (UC)
Parks $156,450 (0) $8,666 -- neighborhood (SID)
$37,713 -- community (B)
Streets $290,110 (0) ---
Street Lights $58,806 (UC) ---
Prototype Subdivision
Arterial Streets --- $243,894 (SID)
Local. Streets --- $643,463 (SID)
Storm Sewer --- $256,144 (SID)
Sanitary Sewer --- $195,989 (SID)
Water --- $230,474 (SID)
TOTALS $2,547,163 $2,519,474
Total revenue needed for Alternative 3 = Operating = Capital Costs
a. Operating Costs = $2,457,163
b. Capital Costs $2,519,765
c. Total $4,976,928
AI.,TET'v'VATIVf? 3
56
k990
Total Cost
$4,876,928
Total Cost Separated
Into Operating and Capital. Costs
Operating Costs Capital Costs
$2,457,163 $2,319,765
Minus User Charges Minus User Charges
$2,457,163 User Charges User Charges $2,519,765
- 718,150 $718,150 $836,204 -- 836,204
$1,739,013 $1,683,561
Total Operating And
Remaining Costs Capital User Charges Remaining Costs
$1,739,013 $ 718,150 $1,683,561
+ 836,204
Minus Other Sources $1,554,354 Minus SID Revenue Sources
$1,739,013 $1,683,561
- 415,290 Total - 243,894
- 333,710 User Charges - 643,463
- 262,179 $1,554,354 - 256,144
$ 727,834 A - 195,989
Total User Charges Divided - 230,474
Remaining Operating; by Population Yields - 8,666 ®*
Costs to be Per Capita User Charge $ 104,931
Covered by Taxes $1,554,354
$727,834 29,558 - $52.59 Remaining Capital
Cost to be
Total Remaining Costs Per Capita User
Covered by Taxes
$727,834 User Charge is $5?.59 $104,931
+104,931 or $13.15 per month
$832,765 Per Household of' 3
Total Remaining Costs
to be Covered by Taxes
$832,765
Divided by the 1990
Population to Yield
The Per Capital Tax Load
$832,765 = $28,17
29,558
Per Capita
Tax Load 1990
$28.17
*Footnotes to flow d em Alternative 3 on they following page.
57
Footnotes for flow diagram for Alternative 3.
A) Minus Other Sources -- Fees, Fines, Permits, State Shared Revenues
and Federal. Revenue Sharing.
1. $1,739,013 = Remaining costs after operating costs financed
by user chargers have been removed.
2. $415,290 = Revenues generated by Fees, fines and Permits (FFP) 1990.
a. Calculations identical to those in Alternative 1.
3. $333,710 = State Shared Revenues 1990.
a. Calculations identical to those in Alternative 1.
4. $262,179 = Federal Revenue Sharing money 1990.
a. Calculations identical to those in Alternative 1.
B) Minus SID's for streets, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water, and
and neighborhood parks.
1. $1,683,561 = Remaining costs after capital costs financed by
user charges have been removed.
2. $243,894 = Arterial Streets in prototype subdivision financed
by SID's.
3. $643,463 = Local Streets in prototype subdivision financed
by SID's.
4. $256,144 = Storm Sewers in prototype subdivision financed by SID's.
5. $195,989 = Sanitary Sewer in prototype subdivision financed by SID's.
6. $230,474 = Water service in prototype subdivision financed by SID'd.
7. $8,666 = Neighborhood Parks in prototype subdivision financed by SID's.
,C) User Charges per month 1990 for a household of three = $13.15
1. $52.59 = User Charges per individual low population 1990 multiplied
by 3 persons in household = $157.77 annual user charges for
household of 3.
2. $157.77 annual user charges for household of 3 = $13.15
12 months per year
58
01 4. Nigh Population - Peripheral Growth
DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSES
Department Operating Costs Capital Costs
General Services $731,631 (0) ---
Police $593,687 (0) $10,030 (B)
Tire $430,613 (0) $30,491 -- 2 new sites (B)
$88,927 -- engines (B)
Library $97,133 (0) $102,105 -- new library (B)
SDS $202,784 (UC) $390,608 (UC)
Sewer $73,570 QC) $21,906 (UC)
$106,585 -- plant expansion (UC)
Water $668,995 (UC) $375,860 (UC)
Parks $224,312 (0) $20,220 -- neighborhood (SID)
Streets $69,327 ---community (B)
$459,540 (0}
Street Lights $93,150 (0) ---
Prototype Subdivision
Arterial Streets --- $614,158 (SID)
Local. Streets --- $1,620,326 (SID)
Storm Sewers --- $645,004 (SID)
Sanitary Sewer --- $492,526 (SID)
Water —- $580,364 (SID)
TOTALS $3,575,415 $5,168,437
Total revenue needed for Alternative 4 = Operating Costs + Capital Costs
a. Operating Costs = $3,575,415
b. Capital Costs = $5,168,437
c. Total = $8,743,852
59
ALTERNATIVE 4
1990
Totjll Cost
$8,743,852
Total Cost Separated
Lnto Operating and Capital Costs
Operating Cost Capital Costs
$3,575,415 $5,168,437
Hinus User Charges Minus User Charges
$3,575,415 User Charges User Charges $5,168,437
--1,038,499 $1,038,499 $894,959 -W 894,959
$2,536,916 $4,273,478
Operating and Capital
Remaining Costs User Charges are Totaled Remaining Costs
$2,536,916 $1,038,499 $4,273,478
+ 894,959
Minus Other Sources $1,933,458 Minus SID Revenues
$2,536,916 $4,273,478
- 595,425 Total - 614,158
- 478,459 (Ujser Charges --1,620,326
375,902 1,933,458 - 645,004
$1,087,130 A - 492,526
Total User Charges - 580,364
Remaining Divided by the Population
- 20,220 �
Operating Costs' to be Yields Per Capita $300,880
Covered by Taxes User Charge ,
$1,087,130 $1,933,458 Remaining
42,379 w 45.62 ^ Capital Costs to be
Total the Remaining Casts
�,r Covered by Taxes
$1,087,130 =is
$300,$80
+ 300,880 Us2$1,388,010 o
Total Remaining Costs
To be Covered by Taxes
$1,388,010
Divided by the 1990 Population
To Yield the Per Capita Tax Load
$1,388,010 W $32.75
42,379
Per Capita
Tax Load 1990
$32.75
* Footnotes to flow diag'razn Alternative 4 on the following page
60
Footnotes for flow diagram for Alternative 4.
i
A) Manus Other. Sources -- Fees, Fines, Permits, State Shared Revenues
and Federal Revenue Sharing.
1. $2,516,916 = Remaining costs after operating costs financed by
user charges have been removed.
2. $595,425 = Revenues generated by Fees, Fines and Permits (FFP) 1990.
a. Calculation identical to those in Alternative 2.
3. $478,459 = State Shared Revenues 1990.
a. Calculations identical to those in Alternative 2.
4. $375,902 = Federal Revenue Sharing money 1990.
B) Minus SID's for streets, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, water and
neighborhood parks.
1. $4,273,478 = Remaining costs after capital costs financed by
user charges have been removed.
2. $614,158 = Arterial Streets in prototype subdivision financed
by SID's.
3. $1,620,326 = Local Streets in prototype subdivision financed
by SID's.
4. $645,004 = Storm Sewer in prototype subdivision financed
by SID's.
5. $492,526 = Sanitary Sewer in prototype subdivision financed
by SID's.
6. $580,364 = Water service in prototype subdivision financed by SID's.
7. $20,220 = Neighborhood Parks in prototype subdivision financed
by SID's.
C) User Charges per month 1990 for a household of three - $11.40.
1. $45.62 = User Charges per individual high population 1990 times
3 persons in household = $136.86 annual user charges for household
of 3.
2. $136.86 annual user charges for household of 3 = $11.40
12 months per year
61
Findings - Summary of Revenues /Associated With Alternative Growth Patterns
As noted in the section discussing municipal costs, it was shown
that costs vary with population and land area. Correspondingly revenues
are found to vary in a similar manner. . Projected revenues are summarized
in Figure 8.- Projected capital expenditures are estimated to rise at
a greater rate than projected operating costs. As a result, the largest
burden is going to be placed on the methods of financing these capital
expenditures, especially special improvement districts. In fact, under
Alternatives 3 and 4 (Low and High population -- Peripheral Growth) ,
SlD's are the largest source of revenue - $1,578,630 and $3,972,598
respectively.
To date it has been a city policy that the cost of all municipal
improvements in a developing area such as streets, storm drains,
sanitary and water sewers are financed by SID's and therefore the pro-
perty owners of the district. If this is true in 1990, it means that
a property owner building in the peripheral gLoti.th area will have an
average SID assessment of $560 a year for 20 years or a total of $11,200
for the two decades. That could be considered high. This compares with
a SID assessment of $153 per year under the contained alternatives or
a total of $3,060 for the two decades.
For the individual homebuyer, an additional $11,,'200 added to the
price of a single family home in the peripheral growth area may prove
to be very prohibitive. In fact, it is questionable whether it will
be possible to use SID's as the sole means of financing peripheral
growth improvements. Tax dollars could finance some of these improve-
ments, with the cost of this type of development being financed by city-wide
bond issues. Development of other alternative financing:_techniques may .be
necessary to provide additional municipal services plus some adjustments
to the SID financing mechanism may be warranted.
Summary
At the beginning of the cost analysis section, parameters for growth
were defined with the assumption that future Bozeman development would
fall somewhere within those boundaries. Below are discussed some con-
clusions based on the findings of this section.
Basically, peripheral growth is going to cost more than contained
development, and the more people residing in the city the more it is going to
cost i_o provide city services. The density at which these residents are
accommodated will influence the degree of cost variance. It is important
to know who pays for municipal services. Money to pay for improvements
comes from many sources as has been shown in the revenue analysis.
But, one of the most startling realizations is that with growth there is
a large increase in special :improvement district financing. This is
especially true in the financing of road development.
Streets are by far the most expensive of all the city's capital
expenditures, and these capital costs rise dramatically in a sprawl or
peripheral growth situation. However, subdivision roads are financed by
special improvement districts, which means those who benefit by the roads-
62
Gr �D G, l0
t-- t-• cG
r-E C
o
N GN C) 47
r-q co V,
N M co N
® m oo t-- t—
t O tr\ a\
r )
W t-- U�1 l! N
t M M -C
n
L. L- aC\l N In M
un G1
n w
CD N try O
CJ
r-i CT h G
n
Vr C\j CO
(� l0 N
> ^ t- H � CO
v
cz
CO H CD
�l (z r O tf�
W � n n e n
>
N
c
cz C\j Lr\ N
o CV M CJ M
o � o
U Tom' C `V .� Cl) d a 4-
4 0 O O � 41 O
+> C7 > -3 > a!
W Cs � P; v coFa P WA
O a r1 O C) r. O
� t4Q4 � w P4 • j�
63
the district's residents - pay for their installation. The general
population is spared the burden of providing roads for residential devel-
opments, although the city assumes the long term obligation of maintenance.
The same is true to a certain extent for water service, storm drains,
and sanitary sewers. Initial installation of these improvements is
accomplished through SID's From the graph (fig. 9)* SID costs rise dram-
atically from Alternative l through Alternative 4. Without SID's the cost
of providing these improvements would fall on the city and a substantial
increase in taxes would probably result.
Some of the projected revenues are vulnerable to legislative whim.
This is especially true with Federal Revenue Sharing. These funds are
voted by Congress and although they account for less than 5 percent of
the total 1974 city budget, the loss of these funds would either have to be re-
placed through increased taxes or accepted with a reduction in some city services.
Itmust also be remembered that the 1990 figures in the cost analysis
section are structured on 1974 base costs and do not take into account
inflation or other market trends. Capital expenditures needed to upgrade
and/or replace present services have not been taken into account. For
crystal ball gazers, what city services will actually cost the taxpayer
in 1990 is subject to wide interpretation. This study provides base line
estimates from which future municipal obligations and taxpayer consid-
erations can be more thoughtfully considered.
Whatever growth pattern the city assumes, limitations on the provision
of services by the city are going to exist. It must also be considered
that people can only spend so much for roads, sewers, water lines, etc. ,
before bond issues begin to be continually defeated. The cost of SID's
in new residential developments are becoming options afforded onlyi.by the top
income groups. And if federal and state regulations persist:, the quality
of municipal services (sewer, water, air pollution standards) will have
to be continually upgraded. , Compliancewith these standards will certainly
result in higher costs.
Also, legislative trends at the s.tate-and federal levels are increasingly
shaping the decision-making framework for local governments to encourage
ef f icient operations. A variety of land use tools are available to munici-
palities to more systematically consider the total "growth" issue and its
fiscal impact. Zoning ordinances, subidvision regulations, and new land-
use legislation are mechanisms that assist local officials in laying
ground rules for future growth.
The question at every level of government is no longer what do we
want, but is instead what can we afford. In analyzing the cast-revenue
alternatives for Bozemai, that iE; -)roviding the best service for the least
cost under the most favorable funding circumstances without relying
exclusively on federal or state funds, the city should consider Alternative
1. However, this alternative may not be realistic in that Bozeman cannot
'build a wall"around the city and allow in only 8,00.0 or more people during
the next 15 years. Considering recent trends and current forecasts, IL
seems more likely that between 25-35,000 people will be living in Bozeman
by 1990 and that alternatives 2 and 4 should be viewed as possible growth
patterns for the future. This would also dictate that future municipal expen-
ditures should be-planned accordingly.
3
64
Alternative 1
Low Population
Contained Growthr;::::::;:
4
.�
kiternative 2
High Population
Contained Growtho
4
kiternative 3
1
�ow Population
?eripheral Growth
o:
5
4
3 •
2.
k1ternative 4
1
iil;li Pormiation
'cripherai Growth o
User
Operating Capital Taxes Charges SIA's Other
C '
0
65
THE CRITICAL ENVIRMIENTAL ISSUES
Natural Constraints
Owing to physical circumstance, the City of Bozeman and the surrounding
planning area sits on not only some of the best agricultural land in
the county, but was on soils which "for the most part have severe
limitations for urban dLvelopm ent. Because of a high water table
(the short distance from ground level to ground water) and the
nature of the soil, there are many potential problems related
to septic disposal, construction of building foundations, and road and
street development throughout much of the total planning area. Close
attention should be given to these limitations by developers or land
owners because certain uses may not be suitable on all land parcels.
This is not to say that a secondary use cannot be located in an area
of severe limitation. But it does mean that development should be based
on detailed studies. Initially, the cost will be greater to develop
land with limitations properly, but corrective action at the inception
of a project rather than later when a problem arises is almost always
cheaper to both builder and consumer. The following local examples will
demonstrate how the costs of development can rise owing to physiographic
.constraints.
Example 1
Failure of a septic system drainfield in a high water table area,
unsuitable for proper absorption, necessitated the excavation of original
soil materials and construction of a semi-elevated drainfield in order
to comply with state sanitation laws. This in turn necessitated an
effluent holding tank and a submersible sump pump in order to transfer
the septic tank effluent to the elevated distribution lines. Materials
cost $699 and labor and equipment operation added $1,681 resulting in
a total cost of $2,380. Obviously the proper drainfield at construction
time, although costing more, would havesaved money in the long run. A
typical installation where no site problems are encountered would have
cost $600.*
Example 2
A Bozeman area church constructed in a high water table area on soils
of poor load bearing capacity required extensive foundation support
beyond what the original plans called for. Corrective materials and
the associated labors increased building costs by $11,700.*
These examples indicate that the cost of development within the Bozeman
area due to severe water table limitations pose a serious problem on
the availability of reasonably priced building lots and houses.
*Soils and Associated Natural Resources As Decision Parameters In The
Regional Planain Process. Leeson, Bruce Frank, PhD Thesis in Crop
and Soil Science, August 1972.
66
In other instances the potential home buyer is sometimes confronted
With overcoming soil problems. For example, a lot purchaser in a new
subdivision just south of Bozeman will have to incur at least $5,000
of Special Improvement District costs at premium interest rates to
provide himself with municipal services because loan agents recognize
site: development problems with the specific area. In another subdivision,
financing is difficult to obtain because of potential sewage disposal
problems associated with the soils.
Also, the cost of construction one mile of paved residential street,
38. 5 feet wide, in Bozeman is about $36,000 more when constructed on
a soil of severe limitations, that needs a greater depth of road bed
preparation, than when constructed on more suitable soil.*
Additionally locating houses on steep slopes, near creeks and/or in
areas with a high water table requires unique and expensive septic
tank absorption fields. Locating structures and roads on unstable or
silty soils necessitates very expensive construction and frequent
compromise of useability.
"Individuals and developers who insist upon utilizing poor sites
incur direct costs for themselves and indirect costs for the tax-
paying public by demanding public facilities which are corres-
pondingly more expensive to install. -Bozeman residents complain
about the poor conditions of a road but are apparently unaware
that they are continuing to demand and support new roads and
streets in areas of hazardous conditions which will require very
costly design if they insist on a road of high quality."*
What these examples point out then, is that close attention should
be directed to the dictates of nature when locating streets, houses
and other man-made necessities. Upon closer examination of some existing
developments, urban expansion in Bozeman has filtered into areas less
than appropriate for this use. This could be exemplified by the southern
expansion of the city in the Bozeman Creek drainage. The view, the
creek, and other special amenities which are sought, reveal upon closer
examination, often a higher development price than originally assumed.
These examples are not representative of all developments within
the area, but point to the need to designate land use appropriate to
the natural processes.
Man Made Constraints
In addition to natural constraints to development, there are a number
of man made influences which have been considered. Several of these
have been discussed in The Facilities Plan, An Engineering Report on The
Sanitary Sewer System For the City of Bozeman**,which was initiated to investigate
*Soils and_Associated Natural Resources As Decision Parameters In The
Regional Planning, Process. Leeson, Bruce. Frank, PhD Thesis in Crop and
Soil Science, august 1972.
**Thomas, Dean, and Hoskins, Inc. , Engineers, 1974.
67
the present capacities of various sectors of the existing sewage system
and to present findings and recommendations for the 1972 Bozeman Area
Plan. One important recommendation of this study was that "The city
should be encouraged to implement a land use plan giving priority to
the extension of city sewer and water services to areas designated as
most desirable for residential development."* This engineering; report
notes that the citizen advisory committees have recommended urban growth
be controlled in the western and southern areas of the planning area.
The map on page 20 indicates the extent of the existing and proposed
sewer system service areas. These areas as indicated, conform with the
projected land use plan prepared by the City-County Planning Board
staff as adopted in the Bozeman Area Plan.
Based on information presented in this plan, developers and city
officials should be able to determine if the existing sewer facilities
in an area are adequate to handle a proposed development, and more
importantly, they would know approximately when and what areas would
s be provided with sewer service.
The available information could encourage those residential
oL--velopments which maximize the efficiency of nearly all service
facilities.. By keeping systems optimally functional, costs to
the consumer can be reduced, ( especially in the areas of
Special Improvement Districts) , and possible environmental problems
can be avoided. This is another tool which could be used to influence
a growth pattern.
There are, of course, other factors contributing to the development
of land suitable and capable for residential uses. The cheapest
and most logical lots to develop may not always be the most desirable
because of a lack of trees, streams, mountains, views, and other
such amenities. However, the placement of future subdivisions must
face a basic question of trade-offs. Rising tax assessments can be
justified if development is oriented to areas which are aesthetically
desirable but economically and physically less suitable.
The inherent constraints of the land, then, are an important deter-
minant of urban form. If these constraints are identified, the
location of functional development areas can be more readily established.
*The Facilities Plan, An Engineering Report on The Sanitary Sewer
System For the City of Bozeman. Thomas, Dean, and Hoskins, Inc. ,
Engineers, 1974.
68
ALTERNATIVE PHYSICAL FORMS
f
Parameters
Since it has been assumed that Bozeman will continue to witness
substantial growth, this expansion raises two important questions. How
much will the population increase and what pattern will this growth
assume? To answer these questions, parameters have been established
within which the greatest number of possible growth alternatives are
likely to occur. For the purposes of this study, 1990 population
projections have been established to consider alternative growth patterns.
Using 1990 population estimates supplied by T.A.P. Inc. , Economic
Consultants of Bozeman, two .basic population totals were considered:
an upper population limit, and a population forecast most likely to
occur, which lies somewhere between the two extremes. These population
estimates were projected for the city of Bozeman and the city plus
the surrounding rural environs, which coincided closely with the City-
�* County Planning Board's 4 mile jurisdictional area.
To determine parameters of population size and land use, upper
and lower population limits were combined with growth patterns based
on selected densities within which these population estimates would most
likely be accommodated. This resulted in the following possible growth
alternatives.
1. Low population - contained growth.
2. High population - contained growth.
3. Low population - peripheral growth.
4. High population - peripheral growth.
5. Gross sprawl - a random, scattered growth.
Land Use Inventory
At present there are about 1,926 existing or potential lots outside
the city limits but within the jurisdictional area.* In addition,
there are 830 zoned but undeveloped acres of residential land within
the city.
The approximate breakdown of this land by zoning classifications is:
Residential 1 (R-1) : 207 acres
Residential 2 (R-2) : 288 acres
Residential 3 (R-3) : 157 acres
Residential 4 (R-4) : 178 acres
For the purpose of determining the holding capacity of this land
it is assumed that each category will be developed at the following densities:
*Potential - includes Story Mills development plan.
69
Residential 1 (11-1) 4 units per acre*
Residential 2 (R-2)
Residential 3 (R-3) 9 units per acre
Residential 4 (R-4)
Based on a constant household size of three people per unit an
additional 4,995people within the city limits and an additional 5,778
within the jurisdictional area could be accommodated.
The Bozeman Area Master Plan designates additional land for future
residential development as follows:**
Rural Suburban - 960 acres @ 1 DU/acre = 960 DU
Low Density - 320 acres @ 2 DU/acre = 640 DU
Medium Density - 1280 acres @ 5 DU/acre = 6400 DU
TOTALS 2560 acres 8000 DU
Again, using a constant household size of three people per dwelling
unit, these designated future residential areas could accommodate approx-
imately 24,000 people.
In total, then, there is land either now subdivided, zoned, or "Master
Planned" to accommodate between 30-35,000 additional residents. I£
the 1990 high-population forecast of 45,000 people for Bozeman and its
immediate area is realized, roughly 20-23,000 new residents would be
added. This information suggests that existing and "Master Planned" resi-
dential areas provide a reasonable supply of building sites in excess of
what might be needed, even assuming the high population forecast is realized.
This -example is presented only to indicate the relationship between the
potential demand (need) and the supply (either already subdivided, zoned,
or planned) of building sites and a subsequent urban form.
The following examples present five alternative .growth patterns and
the associated acreage demands for one of which may evolve as Bozeman's
future urban pattern.
*Development Unit (DU), is defined as an apartment, condominium, or single family home.
**Figures are estimated by the Bozeman City-County Planning Office.
70
1. Low Popul<lLi_on - Contained Growth
This alternative assumes utilization of the existing vacant lots within
the jurisdictional area and the 830 acres of zoned but undeveloped
land within the city limits at densities specified in the Bozeman Master
Plan.
DEVELOPMENT UNITS - A
TABLE 2
Population Increase Required Available Additional Additional Land Required
City 7,858 2,619 4,995 0 0
Jurisdictional
Area 1,862 620 1,926 0 0
Combined 9,720 3,239 692 0 0
Contained Growth
FIGURE 10
Alternatives
080- 'Polo
r •o
oor
® • P1
2. High Population - Contained Growth
This alternative assumes utilization of the 830 acres of zoned but un-
developed land within the city limits and partial (50%) utilization of
the 1,926 lots within the jurisdictional area. Additionally needed land
would be developed at 5.5 units per acre throughout the city and at 1
unit per 2 acres outside the city limits (Jurisdictional Area) .W
*5.5 units per acre was chosen because it represents the present average
density in the City of Bozeman. 1 unit per 2 acres was chosen because
it reflects the present average density of subdivisions within the
Jurisdictional area.
71
DEVELOPMENT UNITS - B
TABLE 3
Population Increase Re aired Available Additional Additional band Required
City 20,679 6,893 4,995 1,898 345 acres
Jurisdictional
Area 4,621 1,540 963 577 1,154 acres
Combined _ 25,300 8 433 5,958 2,475 1,499 acres
3. Low Population - Peri heral Growth
This alternative assumes partial (50%) utilization of the 830 acres
within the city and of the 1,926 lots in the jurisdictional area.
TABLE 4 DEVELOPMENT UNITS - C
Population Increase Required Available Additional Additional Land Required
City __ 7,858 2 61.9 2,498 1 121 22 acres
Jurisdictional
Area 1 g62 620 963 0 0
Combined r7?4 2 3 93,461 121 22 acres
FIGURE 11 Peripheral Growth
Alternatives
Ql
•
4. High Population - Peripheral Growth
This alternative assumes partial (50%) utilization of the 830 acres
within the city and of the 1,926 lots in the jurisdictional area.
Additionally needed land 'would be developed at one unit per 2 acres
in the jurisdictional area and at 3.3 units per acre around the city.*
*The average density of a new city subdivision on the edge of the city
limits (i.e. : Figgins Addition)
72
DEVELOPMENT UNITS -- D
TABLE' 5
PoRtiIatloa Incre,a ed Available Additional Additional Lend Required
2079 6,89^3 2,498 41395 1,332 acres
Jurisdictional T
Area 4,621 J.,540 963 577 1,154 acres
Combined _ 25r300 8,433 3,461 4,972 2,486 acres
5. Gross Sprawl
This alternative assumes that most of the projected growth for Bozeman'
and its jurisdictional area takes place outside the city limits but
within the jurisdictional area at the present average density of one
unit per 2 acres. Little of the available 830 acres or subdivided
land would be utilized.
POPULATION INCREASE
Jurisdictional. Area Additional Land Requirements
[ 'Low 9,720 6,480 acres
High 25,300 16,866 acres
FIGURE 12 Gross Sprawl
40 o
40
73
FINDINGS
As can be seen from the preceeding tables, the amount of land required
to "house" the projected population is relatively small except in the
Gross Sprawl alternative. The 41z mile jurisdictional area contains
approximately 55,000 acres of land. Currently around 4,400 acres are
within the City of Bozeman. Additionally, about 4,100 acres have already
been subdivided. This 8,500 acres equals roughly 15% of the total planning area.
The question, then, from a land utilization perspective comes down
to a choice of urban form. Two of the alternative growth possibilities
may destroy many of the aesthetic qualities of the Bozeman area and
create potential financial problems for the city. These alternatives
are "Gross Sprawl" and "High Population-Peripheral" development.
Gross sprawl could easily take place, much as it has in other parts
of the country, unless future land developments are guided by a growth
management program that encourages the use of smaller building sites
.-aad medium to high density development. At the present average juris-
dictional area density of one unit per 2 acres "gross sprawl" would re-
quire an addition 6,480 to 16,866 acres of land, a requirement which
could cover a substantial portion of the jurisdictional area with urban
development and further the decline of agriculture within the planning
area.
High- Population - peripheral development, although not consuming
as much land as the Gross Sprawl alternative, could result in checker-
board development throughout the planning area that may destroy the
agricultural economics of scale. Further, the provision of municipal
services to such a scattered development pattern becomes increasingly
expensive.
Both the Gross Sprawl and High Population - Peripheral alternatives
would likely create pressure for major rural school expansion' such as
is being experienced in the Monforton School District. Also, the
possibility of county wide sewer districts should be considered as an
alternative to individual septic systems. These suggestions would
involve large public expenditures but should be viewed as costs to
accommodate these patterns of development. They could be considered a
duplication of services that characterizes "non-planned" or "spread
city" types of growth. The alternative would be a pattern of development
that clusters the many activities people do, providing for efficient
use of public facilities.
Bozeman's projected sewer service area is designed to accommodate
approximately 40,000-45,000 people, which in light of problems encountered
with concentrations of septic sewage systems, should be a major influence
in shaping a growth pattern. However, it is obvious that there is no
land shortage in the Bozemaia sewer service area, and that sprawl type
development need not occur.
74
CHOOSING AN ALTERNATIVE
The preceeding parts of this report have presented some of the
growth related phenomena and problems within the Bozeman area. The
information reveals significant changes. It is now up to the in-
dividual as well as the respective governing bodies to utilize this
information and evaluate what is happening and what has already
taken place with an eye to formulating a viable growth policy.
Working within the framework of how our western democratic cul-
ture operates there are two ways in which we can deal with the
phenomena of growth in our area and choose an alternative:
1. Take no action but allow individual desires, goals, the
marketplace, and outside influence to determine the future
economic, social, and physical form of our community.
2. Select a specific growth alternative which will be development
in accord with a set of goals, objectives, and policies that will
provide the maximum in social, economic, and environmental
benefits.
The three alternatives to be presented in this section represent
a number of available choices. Within each alternative there is
a possibility for modification but essentially each one represents
a general direction which must be followed in order to accomplish the
desired goal.
The choosen alternative will serve as a broad base from which to
develop growth policies necessary to accomplish the desired results.
These policies should be designed recognizing the following growth
pattern determinants:
price of land city attractions and services
density economic opportunity
housing types environmental factors
transport facilities/roads desired lifestyles
These policies should be formulated after they have been discussed
and, if necessary, modified in response to public opinion. The policies
should then be assembled into a Growth Policy dement and put before
the respective governing bodies for official adoption. Once adopted
this element will provide a basis for local decision making on all
matters related to development and growth. It should be remembered
that from time to time these policies should be amended or replaced
in response to a change of public sentiment. The same process used
to adopt development policies can be used to change them.
75
Tliere are several things to be considered before choosing a growth
option:
Conditions For Choasi.� The Alternative
1. Spend a good deal of time and thought with family and friends
discussing the information and ideas presented in this ,report. Identify
the things which make: Bozeman a-desirable place to live and, if spoiled,
would detract from the present amenities.
2. Consider the following growth related goals and objectives of the
official 1972 Bozeman Area Master Plan to determine if they agree and
comply with a concept of what life in Bozeman should be.
Some pertinent Master Plan goals and objectives are:
a. All urban developments (residential, commercial and industrial)
should be on marginal or non-productive agricultural land..
b. Future planning and development should take into consideration
physical and natural limitations such as soil conditions,
hydrology, and geological conditions.
C. Transportation facilities in and near Bozeman should be con-
sciously designed to minimize the disruption of existing
community and neighborhood living patterns and values and
to minimize the removal of productive land from tax rolls
while providing the transportation needs of the community.
d. It is recommended that circulation (both traffic and pedestrian)
in the Bozeman central business district be improved to enhance
the attractiveness of the downtown area.
e. Pedestrian and/or bicycle paths should be provided adjacent
to streets and roads much more frequently than has been the
case.
f. Strip commercial development along major arterials of the city
should be curtailed.
g. Neighborhood convenience shopping areas should be provided in
strategic locations throughout residential sectors of the city.
h. Along Highway 191 west, only one peighborhood commercial
shopping area should be allowed between College Street exit
and Four Corners.
i. A study should be made to determine densities for the 41-2 mile
jurisdictional area. The density should be maintained through
zoning controls and by encouraging cluster developments
rather than row types of developments.
J . It is recommended that a district zone be created for mobile
home parks and travel trailer parks.
76
Any growth StraLugy will have little or no effect without sustained
commitment -- both from the local citizens and the political sector.
'The choice will likely require support and defense of individual goals
and values, rankers somewhat on an order of priorities. Compromise
of some values may be necessary depending on the desired growth alter-
native. The selection process should incorporate the following consid-
erations:
1. Bozeman will continue to grow, most likely at a fairly strong rate.
2. Growth in the past has taken place with little sensitivity to the
environment and to the general well being of the community.
3. future growth in the area can bring not only economic and social
benefits but also a host of problems which other areas have already
experienced.
4. It seems apparent that without specific growth policies the city
and it surrounding area may develop haphazardly.
Therefore, the growth alternatives discussed and presented in-the.nextsec-
tion are based on the findings of this study. They are offered as
reasonable options for "guided growth". There may be other options
that would have equal merit, and should be considered before a final
choice is made.
77
GROWTH, ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A - Contained Growth
This alternative postulates a relatively high density development
of the planning area. ExiSLing zoned residential land would be developed
at densities recommended in the 1972 Bozeman Area Plan. utilization
of existing subdivision lots would be encouraged by refusing to approve
new subdivisions unless the developer could demonstrate that a proposed
development would provide a needed addition to the available stock of
building lots or housing units as evidenced by price and variety or will
provide a different and unique living experience in the area which was
previously unavailable.
Contained growth assumes that the utilization of the natural environ-
ment will be carried out in a manner which takes great pains to minimize
undesirable impacts on open space, soils, agricultural land, vegetation,
natural wildlife habitats, and scarce energy supplies and to preserve
or enhance the physical qualities which make Bozeman such an attractive
place to live.
Contained growth policies do not. attempt to limit economic devel-
opment but would require that any industry or business enterprise
locating within the planning area be identified with high quality de-
velopment standards.
The contained growth alternative would require some trade-offs in
the choice of living accommodations. Traditional single-family
homes on large lots may not be consistent with the space limitation
of contained growth, but other forms of desirable shelter such as
planned unit developments, incorporating such features as tennis
courts, saunas, health clubs, day care centers, bikeways, lower main-
tenance requirements, and lower rental or purchase prices may offset
the sacrifices. The concept of the planned unit development and other
innovative housing forms, have yet to be explored in the Bozeman area.
The contained growth alternative would encourage a greater
variety in living accommodations and could generate rewards
such as more and better- community facilities, more leisure time, and
lower living costs.
Alternative R - Peripheral Growth
T' iis alternative is based on the assumption that development takes
place .at relatively low densities (the present trend and desirability
of single-family homes on large lots continues) and that there would
be no strong policies to promote the utilization of existing zoned
land within the city limits or the utilization of existing lots within
the jurisdictional area. Additional subdivisions would come under
some restrictions related to need and variety. However, the general
indication would be to let the marketplace decide what is avaiia.lbe
in terms of variety and prices.
78
Peripheral growth further assumes that although some consideration
is given to the natural environment in directing development, the
prime determinants would be interpretations of the "market", and
regardless of the type of growth that takes place, the city and its
environs will always have a pleasant appearance due to a large amount
of existing open space.
Peripheral growth, like the contained alternative, would not attempt
to limit ecomomic development yet would allow greater latitude: to the
types of industries which would locate in Bozeman. Premature road
development costs would have to be financed, and occasional pollution
of the ground water would have to be dealt with. This development
would be justified under the pretense that higher taxes from industrial
development would handle potential problems.
Peripheral growth further assumes that downtown Bozeman would cease
to be the economic and social heart of the city. Shopping centers
servicing outlying residential areas would proliferate and command the
bulk of the retail trade. Social and recreational facilities would
also be disbursed throughout the community on the basis of which areas
could afford them without adherence to a "plan".
If this alternative is chosen, residents may soon recognize that
Bozeman will be like "every other town in America" and consequently
that the city's personality and individuality will have been compromised
and seriously endangered.
Alternative C - Selective Growth
This alternative postulates a development .somewhere between
contained and peripheral growth. It is based on the assumption that
apartment living, condominium living and other forms of higher density
residential units are acceptable to present and future Bozemanites.
At the same time it assumes that citizens are very concerned about
the physical environment and wish to do everything possible to prevent
environmental degradation, to maintain open space, and to avoid the
unnecessary costs associated with development on poorly suited soils.
To accomplish this alternative, utilization of existing subdivisions
and zoned residential land within the city could be encouraged by
promoting activity centers in certain areas. (An activity center could
consist of local convenience stores, recreational and social facilities).
In addition, the city could encourage development of present subdivisions
and some land by providing good road systems and other services which
would be incentives for development.
As the existing building lots fill up and there is a need for addi-
tional development land, growth will be encouraged to take place in
locations where the natural constraints are at a minimum. This may
necessitate annexation of additional land to the city and 4� mile
jurisdictional area. The city would provide services to annexed areas.
The cost to accomplish this plan will be more than the cost of the
contained growth alternative, but then the citizens may be willing to
pay to have what they want while still preserving the environment.
The promotion of industrial development could provide additional
tax resources to provide for the additional expense.
79
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study has dealt with some of the basic issues associated with
growth in the Bozeman planning area. Not all the relevant questions
have been asked nor have all the viable solutions been proposed, for
the planning process is not static. The future involves many undeter-
mined social and governmental concerns that change in unpredictable
patterns. However, as can be seen from the information in this
study, the subject of growth management is a legitimate concern in
Bozeman.
The following statement. could appropriately apply to the Bozeman
situation:
"When growth generates costs faster than benefits, we find our-
selves in the position where 'the faster we run, the behinder
we get. ' Many people are beginning to recognize the futility
of solving growth-created probl.esns by further growth but,
strangely enough, there is as yet little attention to the possi-
bility of 'catching up by stopping. ' If we could slow the
growth of population and population density in a city while
adapting policies to generate continual renewal and revitalization,
it would be much easier to increase the standard of living and
the quality of life. But under the existing circumstances, im-
proving the services of a city after a while leads, not to im-
provement in quality of life, but instead, to larger size with
the additional services being swallowed up by more people who demand
more of the municipal administration."
The growth-management studies have revealed a number of rapid
growth symptoms in other cities similar to the Bozeman situation and
find that land developments in cities without a programmed strategy
for growth create expansion patterns burdensome to municipal govern-
ments. Bozeman is now beginning to show signs of a "scattered or
sprawled pattern" development that responsible planners are urging
towns to avoid.
It is easy to fall into the trap that poorly planned cities
have found themselves in because the nature of growth is somewhat
deceiving. Bozeman is a good example of rapid growth that apparently
caught the community by surprise, because the impetus for growth
came from outside the state's borders.
The recreational ;Land boom in Montana as seen in the late 1960's
and early 1970's, is reminicent of the story of the prospector who
approaches a person sitting; on a hunk of gold. "What ya sittin on
there?", the prospector asks. "Just a rock," comes the reply.
Montana for years has been just a rock. But now, because it is
rich in recreational amenities, clean cities and wide open spaces, the
*Control Of Urban Growth. Forrester, Jay W. , A.P.W.A. Reporter, October
1972, p. 15.
so
state is a gold mine. Montana has been discovered. There has been
an influx of new residents, and growth that was once spoken of casually
is now a reality.
Because growth has a way of creeping up on a city, lack of preparation
and Adequate measures to cope with expansion is almost always a given
factor. A failure to understand clearly the long-term consequences
of uncontrolled growth adds to random, unplanned development.
But that may be changing in Bozeman. Citizens are becoming more
concerned about undesirable expansion. For example, although a City-
County Planning Board has been in existance since 1957, a full-time
planning staff instituted in 1971 is a relative new addition to the
area planning efforts.
The growth alternatives discussed in this study clearly indicate
that land use patterns impose varying degrees of costs, not only
upon Bozeman and therefore its residents, but on the local environment.
The current land use ' pattern in Bozeman, judging from the subdivision
pattern, .resembles a form somewhat between the peripheral and sprawl -
forms. Undoubtedly, this trend has been influenced by the national
phenomena expressed by the desire of people for the benefits of a
large urban area combined with rural amenities. Consequently, homes
are built on Large lots located on the periphery of the city with
offices, shopping and education centers placed even further out. This
trend serves to extend urban sprawl rather than create a genuine rural
life environment. This is exemplified in the Bozeman area by the
residential developments at the Four Corners Area, the Riverside Country
Club -- Valley Center vicinity, and the area south of Bozeman in the
foothills of Hodgeman Canyon - Hyalite Canyon. Land use conficts
have occurred and will likely continue as speculators view land as
a marketable commodity and not as a finite resource.
For Bozeman, the alternative growth patterns seem to present rea-
sonable choices for a development strategy. The fiscal analysis of
growth was emphasized in this study since it seems to vividly portray
one major impact that can be realistically identified. Another important
item associated with the costs of development that was not reviewed
was the extent of public "subsidies" that Bozeman city residents provide
to rural-suburban clusters such as Four Corners and Hodgaman Canyon -
Hyalite Canyon. A recent study conducted for the City of Eugene, Oregon,
that reviewed the economic implications of serving fringe development
adjacent to major incorporated cities, disclosed that the City of Eugene
provided a net subsidy of approximately $571,000 dollars to residents
of a nearby unincorporated subdivision. In essence, the subsidy
results because non-residents use city facilities which are provided
at the expense of city taxpayers. To the extent that subsidies exist
in Bozeman is not known but it is not unrealistic to assume that this
is occurring as development spreads further away from Bozeman.
81
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Bozeman Area Master Plan should also be considered as proposing
a growth pattern choice. In reviewing the alternative forms of develop-
ment in this study, the land use plan prescribed by the Master Plan
resembles closely the contained or the selective growth options. A
number of recommendations coupled with the goals and objectives
incorporated within the Master Plan present a basic framework for
further refinement of a growth management strategy.
Bozeman must choose the type of city it wants to be. It does not
seem that a choice has been clearly made. No city can be all things to
all people. Never-the-lass, a choice must be made and policies must
be formulated to create the required combination of advantages and
disadvantages that a majority of the citizens feel are necessary.
However, the externalities involved in selecting one alternative
over another should be considered. If Bozeman should pursue a fairly
rigid position of growth management, then surely the growth pressures
would become displaced outside the planning area boundaries. As a
result, other areas such as Belgrade or Four Corners would be forced
to resolve the dilemma new residents pose for the area. Exclusionary
growth limiting measures will not address the regional significance
of all people expressing a desire to live in the Bozeman area. The
broader problems of land uses will likely expand beyond local impact
and exceed the abilities of individual local jurisdictions to handle
them.
. Since both Bozeman and Belgrade have City County Planning Boards,
consolidation of these two boards could be one method of dealing with
area wide growth pressures. Extention of existing planning board's
jurisdictional area to cover emerging growth pressure areas would
be another alternative worth considering. These suggestions are
proposed only to indicate that growth problems within Bozeman may be
comprised of those issues which are purely local in nature and those
which are not. 'If collective governmental growth management fails,
the result probably will be a continuing decline in the quality of life,
increased citizen frustration with inadequate and unpopular community
planning, and a virtual capitulation to or totally inadequate response
by government to development pressures."*
Growth Program Policies and Methods
The control and management of Bozeman's growth can occur both
equitably and successfully only if the selection of policy objectives
consider all possible planning options, even unlimited growth. Undoubtedly
these ideas expressed by concerned citizens that are embodied in the
*Volume III, Management and Control of Growth - No Growth: Panacea
Or Problem? Urban Land Institute, p. 446.
82
"Goals and Objectives" of the Bozeman Area Master Plan will be supplemented
before a specific growth strategy is chosen.
Any growth management planning process must be workable. A wide
array of tools is available to realize a particular strategy's objec-
tives. However. , these tools must be reviewed on the basis of Bozeman's
unique characteristics and should not be selected solely because they
have been used successfully elsewhere. The applicability of the
variety of land use management tools for a Bozeman managed growth
program will be explored in detail in a subsequent report to be
published in the fall, of 1975. Among the elements to be considered
will be recent Montana land use legislation, especially House Bill
672, "The Montana Economic Land Development Act", development rights
purchase, public acquisition of land, and utility extension policies.
Collectively, this future report and the Bozeman Area Growth Study
should then chart the path that will help answer the question, "How
shall we grow?"
For Bozeman, as well as other concerned Montana communities, the
fortunate circumstance of being "last in line" in terms of serious
growt-b-related problems can be viewed as opportunity to be capitalized
upon. Since the entire cycle of uncontrolled growth has manifested
itself in other areas throughout the United State an upsurge of new
land use controls has been created with more growth-management techniques
proposed. Hopefully the use of keen political and citizen foresight
and commitment will take this opportunity to selectively pick and
choosethose "tools" to rationally channel development based on a com-
prehensive planning strategy.
A statement by John Stuart Mill in his "Essays on Liberty"in 1859
seems to put the growth issue in Bozeman in the proper perspective;
"He who lets the world, or his own portion of it, choose his
plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the
ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself,
employs all his faculties. He must use observation to see,
reason and judgment to foresee, activity to gather materials
for decision, discrimination to decide, and when he has decided,
firmness and self-control to hold to his deliberate decision."
APPENDIX 1: BIBLOGRAPHY
Babcock, Richard F. and David L. Callies. "Modernizing Urban
Land Policy," Ecology and Housing: Virtues in Conflict.
Edited by Marion Clawson. Baltimore, Md. , The John Hopkins Press,
April 1972. `
Chan, Robert. "Where Do We Go From Here?" The Christian Science Monitor,
Boston, Ma. , 1973
Cameron, Juan. "Growth Is a Fighting Word in Colorado's Mountain
Wonderland", Fortune, LXXXVIII, No. 4, Time Inc. New York City,
NY. , October 1973.
Cassidy, Robert. "Open Land or Open Housing", The New Republic, Vol.
167, No.20, Issue 3020, New York City, NY. , November 25, 1972.
Downs, Anthony. "Alternative Forms of Urban Growth in the United States",
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXXVI, No. 1,
Montpelier, Vt. , January 1970.
Finkler, Earl. Nongrowth: A Review of the Literature, Planning Advisory
Service Report 289, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago,
March 1973.
Franklin, Herbert M. Controilina Urban Growth -- But for Whom?, The
Potomac Institute, Washington, D.C. , March 1973
Franklin, Herbert M. "Slow Growth and the Law", Analysis No. 4, .Tune 1973.
Franklin, Herbert M. Minutes from the Workshop on the Legal Limits to
Managed Growth, The National Conference on Managed Growth, Chicago,
September 1973.
Gallup, George, Jr. "What Do Americans Think About Limiting Growth?",
Address given at the National Conference on Managed Growth, Chicago,
1973.
Harriss, Lowell. The Good Earth of America, "Planning Our Land Use",
The American Assembly, Columbia University in conjunction with
Prentice Hall, Inc. , Englewood, NJ, 1974.
Hill, Gladwin. "Public Control Growing in a Land Use Revolution", New
York Times, New York City, NY, September 3, 1973.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD Newsletter, Washington,
D.C. : U.S. Government Printing Office, Vol. 4, No. 8, February 19, 1973.
Interim Growth Policies. Prepared by the City of Boulder, Colorado, Boulder
Report, April 1972.
Lamont, William. Minutes from the workshop on Boulder, Colorado,
the National. Conference on Managed Growth, Chicago, September
16-18, 1973.
Lauber, Daniel. Recent Cases in Exclusionary Zoning. Planning Advisory
Service, Report 292. Chicago: Ameriian Society of Planning Officials,
March 1973.
i
Lessons from a Greenbelt Program. A report from the City of Boulder,
Colorado, 1973.
Houston, Mrs. E. Lina, Early History of Gallatin County, Montana, Bozeman
Montana, 1933.
Managed Growth. Edited by Carolyn Turner. Chicago: Urban Research
Corporation, 1973.
Moore, Audrey, Richard Rypinski, and David Ca-lies. Minutes from the
the workshop on Techniques of Managed Growth. The National
Conference on Managed Growth, Chicago, September 16-18, 1973.
Moore, Audrey. Report on Fairfax County, Virginia. A written report
submitted to the National Conference on Managed Growth, Chicago.
16--18, 1973.
Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments. The Costs of Urban Growth:
Observations and Judgement, 1973.
Oser, Alan S. "Innovator in Suburbas Under Fire," The New York Times,
Real Estate, Section 8 (March 28, 1971) .
Scott, Randall W. Ramapo Repercussions. Washington: National Association
of Home Builders, August 15, 1972. (A newsletter)
Seelig, Michael and Julie Seelig. "Dissecting the Opposition to Growth,"
Planning, Vol. 29, No. 5 (June, 1973) , pp. 15-18.
Seides, Jerome M. , M.D. "Letters to the Editor," The New York Times,
March 30, 1971.
Stahl, David E. "Cost Repercussions of the No-Growth Movement," Urban
Land, Vol. 32, No. 11 (December, 1973) , pp. 17-20.
Stollman, Israel. "Editorial: Ramapo," Planning, Vol. 38, No. 6
July, 1972) pp. 108-113.
"Tommorow's Cities Go Up, Spread Out or Start Over?" Changing Times,
(April, 1970) .
The Urban Land Institute. Management and Control of Growth, "Issues-
Techniques-Problems-Trends", Vols. I, II, and III, 1975.
Winslow, Albert Jr. "Suburbia, Takes Charge", The Sunday Record, Section
D, October 25, 1970.