HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-24 SB Agenda and Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 PM
B. Disclosures
C. Changes to the Agenda
D. Approval of Minutes
D.1 Approve the January 10, 2024 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes.(Chipouras)
E. Public Comments
THE SUSTAINABILITY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
SB AGENDA
Wednesday, February 14, 2024
General information about the Sustainability Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository.
If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to
agenda@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the
meeting.
Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate
agenda items.
As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the
City on cable channel 190.
For more information please contact Jon Henderson, jon.henderson@bozeman.net
This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online videoconferencing system. You
can join this meeting:
Via Video Conference:
Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit.
Click Join Now to enter the meeting.
Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in-
person
United States Toll
+1 346 248 7799
Access code: 934 9305 9514
This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Sustainability Board.
There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that
item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any
item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil
and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state
your name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your
1
F. Special Presentations
F.1 Engineering Design Standards Update - Compact Development White Papers (Ross)
G. FYI/Discussion
G.1 2024 - 2025 Work Plan Introduction (Henderson)
H. Adjournment
comments to three minutes.
General public comments to the Board can be found on their Laserfiche repository page.
This board generally meets on the second Wednesday of the month 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
Citizen Advisory Board meetings are open to all members the public. If you have a disability that
requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Mike Gray, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
2
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Sustainability Board
FROM:Ali Chipouras, Sustainability Program Specialist
Natalie Meyer, Sustainability Program Manager
Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director
SUBJECT:Approve the January 10, 2024 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes.
MEETING DATE:February 14, 2024
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:Approve the January 10, 2024 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes.
STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the
community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from
the community and stakeholders.
BACKGROUND:In accordance with Commission Resolution 5323 and the City of Bozeman's
Citizen Advisory Board Manual, all Boards must have minutes taken and
approved. Prepared minutes will be provided for approval by the board at
the next scheduled meeting. Staff will make any corrections identified to the
minutes before submitting them to the City Clerk's Office.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Board.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Attachments:
01-10-24 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes.pdf
Report compiled on: February 9, 2024
3
Bozeman Sustainability Meeting Minutes, 1/10/24
Page 1 of 2
THE SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MINUTES
1/10/24
General information about the Sustainability Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository.
A) 00:42:50 Call to Order - 6:00 PM
B) 00:45:34 Disclosures
Present: Isabel Shaida, Emma Bode, Rebecca Kurnick, Kristin Blackler, Nathan Gracey, Kalani
Goodhard, Terry Cunningham
Absent: Brooke Lahneman
C) Changes to the Agenda
D) 00:45:46 Approval of Minutes
D.1 Approve the December 13, 2023 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes.
12-13-23 Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes.pdf
00:45:59 Motion to approve
Kristin Blackler: Motion
Isabel Shaida: 2nd
00:46:47 Vote on the Motion to approve The Motion carried 6 - 0.
Approve:
Isabel Shaida
Emma Bode
Rebecca Kurnick
Kristin Blackler
Nathan Gracey
Kalani Goodhard
4
Bozeman Sustainability Meeting Minutes, 1/10/24
Page 2 of 2
Disapprove:
None
E) 00:51:35 Public Comments
F) Special Presentations
F.1 00:51:57 Bear Smart Missoula Overview
• Due to technical difficulties the Bear Smart Missoula presentation was unable to
proceed.
F.2 01:27:58 Overview of the Proposed Water Efficient Landscape and Irrigation
Performance and Design Standards Manual
• Water Conservation Program Manager Jessica Ahlstrom presented on the City’s
proposed water efficient landscape and irrigation performance standards and design
standards manual.
G) 00:46:36 FYI/Discussion
• Strategic Services Director Jon Henderson provided and FYI that Sustainability Program
Manager Natalie Meyer will be providing the City Commission with a triannual report for
the Bozeman Climate Plan on 1/23/24.
• Sustainability Advisory Board Chair Emma Bode welcomed the new board members who
attended the meeting.
H) 02:32:04 Adjournment
This board generally meets on the second Wednesday of the month 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
5
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Sustainability Board
FROM:Nicholas Ross - Director of Transportation and Engineering
Shawn Kohtz – City Engineer
SUBJECT:Engineering Design Standards Update - Compact Development White Papers
MEETING DATE:February 14, 2024
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION: Review and discuss Compact Development White Papers Scoped as Part of
the Engineering Design Standards Update.
STRATEGIC PLAN:4.3 Strategic Infrastructure Choices: Prioritize long-term investment and
maintenance for existing and new infrastructure.
BACKGROUND:The City is updating its Design Standards and Specifications Policy and the
City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard
Specifications. The overarching function of these engineering design
standards is to protect public health and safety, provide for clear design
criteria, provide review procedures and inspection requirements, and
generally promote operational efficiency while minimizing cost of public
infrastructure. More specifically, City standards are intended to assure the
following:
Infrastructure design and construction within the City meet applicable
federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances
Infrastructure design and construction within the City is consistent
with respective facility plans
Uniform materials and methods of construction for efficiency of
repairs and maintenance
The high cost and short supply of housing in the City of Bozeman is a
dominant topic within the community. To address this issue, the City is
exploring ways to reduce upfront costs of infrastructure construction that
enable a higher density of housing and reduce need for additional impact to
the environment. One method of addressing this has been “compact
developments”. To assist the City in its project to revise Engineering Design
Standards, the analysis in the attachment titled “Life Cycle Costs – Compact
Development Infrastructure” has evaluated several infrastructure design
elements associated with compact land uses against its current design
standards from the perspective of life cycle cost. Life cycle cost was chosen
as the metric of importance due to its connection to providing affordable
housing.
6
It should be noted that compact land use and the compact development
infrastructure evaluated within this analysis can be mutually exclusive.
Compact land uses do not inherently require compact infrastructure. While
compact infrastructure can be successfully implemented and has been
demonstrated to varying degrees in other cities across the country, the
attached analysis evaluates the additional operating costs associated with
maintaining said infrastructure in the type of winter climate and specific
conditions for which the City exists. Compact infrastructure may reduce
initial capital costs; however, the reduced upfront infrastructure cost is often
offset by long-term increased cost of operation and maintenance (O&M) of
that infrastructure.
There are many types of high-density developments that do not deviate
from the City’s existing engineering standards, such as certain small-lot and
shared-lot developments, apartments, townhomes, and condominium
developments. In these cases, the City’s existing engineering standards can
be met.
Non-standard infrastructure strategies that have been implemented under
the “compact development” concept using deviations from the current
engineering standards include:
Reduced right of way
Reduced road width
Reduction or elimination of curb and gutter, boulevard, and sidewalk
requirements
Reduction in minimum off-street parking requirements
Non-standard water and sewer service locations
While these strategies may reduce the initial cost of public infrastructure
construction, they often increase ongoing operational and maintenance
costs and create long-term challenges for the City and residents in these
developments. These costs are typically passed on to property owners and
renters through HOA fees and rents.
The goal of this work session is to review and discuss the compact
development white papers developed as part of the engineering standards
update.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None
ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the board.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None
Attachments:
DOWL_Peer_Cities_White_Paper_2-7-24
Engineering Standards White Paper 1_12-14-23
7
Engineering Standards White Paper 2_2-7-24
Report compiled on: February 7, 2024
8
01
Local Standards Review –
A Comparison of Peer
Cities
Read Stapleton, Land Use Planning Group Manager
February 7, 2024
Introduction
As a component of the on-going design standards update for the City of Bozeman,
DOWL has been contracted to research, review and summarize the efforts of three peer
cities that currently have housing action, climate action and/or over-arching
sustainability plans and are currently evaluating code updates to remove barriers to
housing affordability and sustainable development. This paper summarizes DOWL’s
findings.
Peer Cities
To complete this white paper, DOWL sought to
identify cities with corollary characteristics to
Bozeman with regard to geography, growth
trends, housing price pressures, and policy
initiatives focused on housing affordability and
climate change/sustainability. The communities
identified for this peer review study are Vancouver
(WA), Bend (OR), and Flagstaff (AZ).
Vancouver, WA
Community Profile
Vancouver is located on the Columbia River in
Southwest Washington immediately north of the
City of Portland, Oregon. According to the
Washington Municipal Research Center’s 2023
population estimate, the City has a population of
199,600. The City has seen significant growth in
the last 20 years, with a 30 percent population
increase since 2000. As the community has
grown, the City has continued to see significant
upward pressures on housing prices as housing
production has failed to keep up with demand. In
June 2023, Vancouver issued a report indicating
that the City has a current deficit of 5,600 housing
units and would need to ensure housing
production of at least 2,500 units per year over
the next 10 years to meet demand. For
comparison, the City has averaged 1,600 units per
year in each of the last three years.
With an influx of residents arriving from other
areas of the west coast, including the Portland
metropolitan area, Vancouver’s policy has also
trended towards greater awareness and concern
regarding climate change and reducing
9
02
dependency on fossil fuels. For example, in 2018
Tesoro-Savage abandoned plans for a fossil fuel
storage terminal at the Port of Vancouver after
significant community concern was raised about
the safety of the rail transport of the crude oil as
well as overarching concerns about the climate-
altering effects of fossil fuel usage.
Policy Framework
Vancouver’s land use policy has sharpened its
focus on housing affordability and climate change
in recent years and it is currently working on
multiple initiatives to combat these challenges.
The City is in in the process of kicking off it’s 2025
comprehensive plan update that will involve a
holistic review and update of its land use and
infrastructure policies. One of the key
components of that update will be the
implementation of House Bill (HB) 1220, recent
Washington state legislation that requires each
City in the state to ensure that land use plans
accommodate the range of affordability
experienced in the community. Washington cities,
including Vancouver, will be required to determine
ranges or “bands” of affordability within their
jurisdiction and ensure that sufficient lands are
zoned to allow development that can meet those
affordability targets. In addition, jurisdictions are
required to evaluate the infrastructure service to
all residential lands and ensure that, if lands are
targeted to accommodate affordability needs, City
capital facilities plans are developed to identify
and prioritize capital facility service needs for
residential properties.
With regard to environmental policy, the City of
Vancouver took a bold step in 2022 with the
adoption of a Climate Action Framework. The
framework identifies a broad framework of
policies collectively designed to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2040.
Policy Implementation Status
The City of Vancouver is in the very early stages of
implementing operational and code changes to
respond to its current housing and
environmental/sustainability policy framework.
They are currently in the process of an internal
review of City codes and policies that could
facilitate greater housing production and
efficiency. Per a discussion with Chad Eiken, City
of Vancouver Community Development Director
on July 17, 2023, various strategies are being
considered. These include (1) adopting new State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) categorical
exemption thresholds that would allow multi-
family development projects to avoid SEPA review,
thereby minimizing the risk of an appeal, which is
often a delay/obstruction tactic of project
opponents, (2) making multi-family housing a Type
1 land use review, a 30-day review process rather
than the current 120-day Type 2 land use review
process, (3) zone changes to allow greater density
in areas that can be supported by transportation
and utility infrastructure, including transit.
In advance of determining specific actions to
address the City’s Climate Action Framework, the
City has taken steps in recent years to address
sustainability policies. These include: (1)
implementation of a Tree Canopy Achievement
Program (CAP) that is striving for a 28% of the City
to be covered by tree canopy by the year. Goals of
the program are to improve neighborhood
livability, reduce the heat island effect of paved
surfaces and minimize stormwater runoff. (2)
focus on implementing “complete streets”
throughout the City including in new
developments. This policy is to establish a “safe,
accessible street system that benefits all users,
ages, and abilities, regardless of how they choose
to travel; a convenient and interconnected
transportation network that improves
accessibility.” In practice, the City is working on
projects to retrofit specific segments of their
network to focus on multi-modal cross sections
10
03
that provide greater pedestrian and bicycle
accessibility to ensure complete non-motorized
transportation systems throughout the City. The
City is implementing multiple multi-modal
supportive transportation projects throughout the
City and is requiring complete-street-compliance
cross sections for new privately-implemented road
projects throughout the City.
Bend, OR
Community Profile
Like Vancouver, Bend has seen significant
population growth over in recent years as
residents have been attracted to the City due
to its outdoor recreation opportunities,
beautiful scenery, culture, food and sunny
weather. The City has nearly doubled in size
over the last 20 years, from a population of
approximately 52,000 in 2000 to over 102,000
residents today. With this growth, the City
has seen significant upward pressures on
housing prices and political change over this
period reflective of the emerging
metropolitan attraction of the City.
Policy Framework
Much of the policy framework for the City of
Bend’s housing and sustainability initiatives
stems from State of Oregon legislation that
has emerged in recent years. Specifically, the
State of Oregon has passed multiple
legislative bills in recent sessions intended to
encourage greater housing production across
the state. Those measures include:
HB 2001: This bill, passed in 2019, requires
jurisdictions with a population of greater than
25,000 to allow 2-4 unit multiplexes
(townhomes) and cottage clusters, i.e.
“missing middle housing types” in all single
family residential zones.
HB 2003: In 2019, the Oregon Legislature
passed House Bill 2003 which requires Oregon
cities with a population over 10,000
population to study the future housing needs
of their residents and to develop strategies
that encourage the production of housing
their residents need.
SB 458: In 2021 the Oregon state legislature
passed Senate Bill (SB) 458, which expedited
the process to subdivide properties for
missing middle housing projects.
Code Evaluation Status
In response to HB 2001, Bend adopted code
updates directed from a stakeholder advisory
group consisting of members of City Council,
Planning Commission, Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee, Neighborhood
Leadership Alliance and others.
Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities
(CFEC) Rulemaking: In March 2020, Kate
Brown, then governor of Oregon, signed into
law Executive Order 20-04, which directed
state agencies, including the Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
to take actions to reduce and regulate
greenhouse gas emissions. In response, the
Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC), the body overseeing
DLCD, has adopted interim rules that apply to
the state’s eight most populated areas,
including Bend. The rules are intended to
address the goals posed by Executive Order
20-04, which seeks to reduce carbon
emissions in the state to at least 45 percent
11
04
below 1990 emissions levels by 2035 and at
least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Policy Implementation Status
Since the adoption of HB2001 and HB2003,
the City has been actively updating its codes
to better accommodate missing middle
housing types and has made other procedural
changes to attempt to facilitate more housing
and, in particular, affordable housing.
Through discussions with Brian Rankin, Long
Range Planner at the City of Bend, DOWL has
obtained a preliminary list of these changes,
which include:
Removal of parking requirements to
enhance infill and middle housing.
Not much time has passed to
evaluate its effectiveness, but it is
expected this will yield new housing
projects.
Duplex, triplex, quadplexes and
cottage clusters have all now been
allowed outright in standard
residential density areas.
System Development Charges (SDCs)
for ADUs have been reduced.
100% affordable housing projects
receive streamlined permitting.
The city has instituted multi-
departmental teams focused on
solving infrastructure issues to move
big housing projects. Collaboration
across departments has focused on
getting things done faster and better
for the sake of creating more housing
of all types.
The City has updated land division
standards to better allow missing
middle housing types.
The City has increased the buffer
between allowable short term rentals
from 250-feet to 500-feet to preserve
more housing and reduce conversions
to short term rentals.
The City pro-actively worked with the
state in the formation of HB 3450
which allowed a one-time expansion
of the City’s urban growth boundary
(UGB) and developed code that
allows 40 acres of the expansion area
designated for Commercial use to be
developed for multi-family residential
without going through a standard
review process under statewide land
use planning Goal 9 (Economic
Development).
The City amended code to allow
accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
without the need for a conditional
use permit, allowed an increase in the
unt size and removed a requirement
for adjacent sidewalks
The City created micro units and small
dwelling unit development standards.
The City adopted requirements for
new UGB expansion areas in which a
minimum mix of residential product
types and densities are now required
to avoid large developments
defaulting to single family residential
(SFR)-only residential developments.
The City changed code to allow mixed
use with a 65-foot height limit in
commercial zones and has seen
12
05
significant mixed use development
since this change in 2016.
The City has a construction excise tax
(CET) which is collected and used to
fund matching for affordable housing
projects. This financial instrument
has been successfully implemented
and leveraged many times over to
create deed-restricted affordable
housing.
Flagstaff, AZ
Community Profile
Flagstaff is located in North-Central Arizona,
approximately 180 miles north of Phoenix
and, as of the 2020 US Census, had a
population of approximately 77,000 residents.
The City is located just south of the San
Francisco peaks and sits at an elevation of
approximately 7,000 feet. Like Vancouver
and Bend, Flagstaff has seen significant
population growth over the last 20 years, with
a population in 2000 of approximately 53,000
residents. Located at the edge of the largest
contiguous Ponderosa Pine forest in the
United States, the City is acutely aware of the
implications of climate change on the
environment and the increasing threat of
wildfires that result. Similar to Bozeman,
Flagstaff is home to a major state university,
Northern Arizona University.
Nearly half (47%) of Flagstaff households are
considered low-income, earning no more than
$55,350 annually. The cost of living is 13%
higher and the cost of housing is 29% higher
than the national average. Since 2012, the
median sales price of a home in Flagstaff rose
by 166%, while the Area Median Income rose
by only 36.5%. Currently, the median sales
price of a home is $615,000, and the area
median household income is $77,400.
Additionally, 27% of homeowners and 57% of
renters spend more than 30% of their
monthly income on housing costs, meaning
that 22,073 Flagstaff community members
are housing cost burdened. Most of the
housing production in Flagstaff has focused
on low- and high-density extremes—detached
single-family homes and mid-to-high-rise
apartment buildings. These extremes are
exacerbated by second homes (approximately
4,000 units), short term rentals
(approximately 535 units), and the fluctuating
student populations -- all of which create
competition for the existing housing supply.
Policy Framework
The City of Flagstaff has been focused on
climate action since 2007, when it adopted
the first community-wide climate plan in
Arizona, and has committed to carbon
neutrality by the year 2030. The City’s
commitment to sustainability is supported by
its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2018),
Carbon Neutrality Plan (2022), and its
conservation-based Regional Plan (2014).
On June 23, 2020, the Flagstaff City Council
declared a climate emergency, a measure that
was driven by community members who
began a petition for a Climate Emergency
Resolution and then organized hundreds of
community members to provide hours of
public comment illuminating the need for an
emergency declaration. Flagstaff residents
asked the City to act more quickly than
outlined in the 2018 Climate Action and
13
06
Adaptation Plan (available upon request) and
to adopt a goal for carbon neutrality.
In response, the City adopted the Flagstaff
Carbon Neutrality Plan in June 2021 that
created three fundamental goals:
(1) Achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 through
a combination of dramatic emissions
reductions and significant investments in
carbon dioxide removal.
(2) Prepare Flagstaff's communities, systems,
and resources to be more resilient to climate
change impacts.
(3) Address climate change in a manner that
prioritizes those most impacted and ensures
the costs and benefits of climate adaptation
and mitigation are equitably distributed.
To address the two major challenges facing
the City right now, housing affordability and
climate change, the City is now kicking off a
buildable land study and code evaluation
process to identify measures that the City can
take to reduce barriers to affordable housing
and bring the City closer to its goal of carbon
neutrality by 2030.
Preliminary Code Diagnosis Results
To address procedural and code impediments
to achieving carbon neutrality and greater
housing affordability, the City is in the process
of conducting a diagnostic code evaluation
and improvement project. DOWL is currently
leading this effort with a partnering firm,
Cascadia Partners. The first phase of this
project has involved a code and process
diagnosis in which preliminary code and
procedural hurdles to improving housing
production and reducing carbon emissions
have been identified. To help organize the
different challenges and potential
improvements, the team has created a matrix
of “Key Outcomes” that reflect policies that
align with the City’s Climate Neutrality Plan
and 10-year Housing Plan. The Key Outcomes
that embody the goals of the code evaluation
effort were grouped into Housing outcomes
and Climate outcomes as follows:
Housing
Abundant Housing Supply: Support
an abundant supply of housing of all
times and income levels.
Diversity of Housing Types: Produce a
diversity of housing types to meet the
needs of all segments of the
population.
Lower Cost Market Rate Housing
Production: Produce sufficient
market-rate housing that could be
affordable to households with lower
or moderate incomes.
Income-Restricted Affordable
Housing Production: Produce
sufficient housing that is restricted in
price or rent level to be affordable to
households with lower or moderate
incomes.
Mixed Use Development and
Neighborhoods: Produce sufficient
housing that is in close proximity to
commercial uses that support the
daily needs of residents.
Infill Development and Compact
Land Use Patterns: Provide flexibility
and appropriate density in residential
neighborhoods to provide more
14
07
diverse and attainable housing
opportunities.
Equity and Fair Housing: Encourage
housing and development that
reduces inequities in access to
housing including access in particular
neighborhoods or the inability to
continue to live in one’s current
neighborhood.
Climate
Community Resilience, Health and
Safety: Increase the ability to
anticipate, accommodate, and
positively adapt to changing climate
conditions while enhancing quality of
life, reliable systems, economic
vitality and conservation of
resources.
Walkable Neighborhoods: Support
development patterns that support
networks for walking and biking.
Safe and Inclusive Networks for
Walking and Biking: Support
networks for walking and biking that
are continuous, attractive, safe,
comprehensive, and convenient.
Transit-Oriented Development and
Transit Ridership: Support
development patterns that
encourage transit ridership and
transit efficiency.
Clean Air Status: Proactively invest
to protect Flagstaff’s clean air status,
such as through the creation of anti-
idling loading zones, among other
factors.
Adaptive Reuse and Preservation of
Existing Housing Stock: Encourage
the adaptive reuse of existing
buildings and expand efforts to
preserve existing housing stock in
order to prevent the carbon
emissions associated with new
construction.
Inclusive Recreation: Ensure
abundant and equitable access to
recreational opportunities, parks,
and open spaces.
Electric Mobility: Encourage electric
micro-mobility devices as legitimate,
healthy, affordable, and low-carbon
modes of transportation.
Clean Electricity: Flagstaff will
obtain as much of its electricity as
possible from sources that do not
produce greenhouse gas emissions.
Building Fuel Switching: Shift
building fuel sources from fossil fuels
to renewable sources and electricity
for applications including space and
water heating, cooking, and perhaps
even industrial processes
Reduced Building Energy Use:
Significantly reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from heating, cooling, and
powering buildings.
Sustainable Consumption: Move
towards sustainable consumption,
divert more organic and other
materials from the landfill through
reuse and recycling, and then reduce
emissions from the landfill.
Water Security: Ensure that water
resources are distributed equitably
and sustainably, the community is
empowered to use water efficiently,
and water and wastewater
15
08
treatment minimizes greenhouse gas
emissions.
Healthy Forests and Open Spaces:
Support thriving local ecosystems
that are resilient to climate change,
publicly accessible, and store carbon
dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide Removal: Develop a
portfolio of local and regional carbon
dioxide removal initiatives to meet
Flagstaff's commitment to carbon
neutrality.
While a preliminary draft of potential code
and procedural improvements has not yet
been issued, the diagnosis effort is well
underway. Through a thorough examination
of the city’s policies, procedures and codes as
well as through outreach with development
stakeholders and City staff, the DOWL team
has identified the following challenges and
opportunities as areas for areas for further
study and potential improvements:
Reduce barriers to allowing more
dense building types including
cottage clusters, triplexes and
quadplexes.
Allow greater densities in the City’s
Medium Density Residential zone,
which is currently limited to a
maximum density of 14 units per
acre.
Consider reduced parking standards,
particularly in the High-Density
Residential zone.
Minimize barriers to providing
housing in commercial districts,
including providing greater allowance
for residential-only structures,
allowing greater residential densities
and reduced minimum parking
standards.
Eliminate discretionary processes
(e.g. Conditional Use Permit) for high
occupancy housing projects and
create more administrative pathways
for residential development.
Consider adjustments to City tree and
slope protection requirements may
be overly restrictive and interfere
with efficient site design.
Mandatory use of development
agreements and prescriptive site plan
requirements with zone changes have
introduced discretionary processes
(risk) and have limited future
flexibility in implementing residential
projects.
Preliminary subdivision requests are
required to go through City Council
review, extending the length of time
to obtain local approvals and
introducing additional uncertainty to
the entitlement process.
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
scoping can be a very lengthy process
and significantly prolong the
development schedule.
The absence of an impact fee
program, places greater burden on
individual developments to identify
and remedy off-site mitigation needs
on a project-by-project basis.
Avoidance of significant off-site
requirements may drive developers
to actually retreat on development
yield in certain instances.
16
09
Transit recognition as a component of
the local network is largely absent in
the local long-range transportation
planning, resulting in less certainty
regarding when and how
development projects support transit
and vice versa.
Lack of stand-alone transportation
plan and policy in the City (separate
from the regional transportation plan)
creates a situation in which no device
or funding mechanism exists to
connect the vision to the execution of
street function and design. As a result
street types are often wider than
necessary, rely on developer to build
them out, and don’t support transit.
Requirement for a conceptual plat as
a preliminary step to allowing a
preliminary plat adds additional
review time and expense to
developers.
Next Steps
As a part of the LASS-CAP project, the next
steps will involve completing the diagnosis of
all codes and policies affecting the land
development process, followed by
preliminary code recommendations. It is
anticipated that the preliminary diagnosis
effort will conclude in April of 2024 and that
final code recommendations will be
presented to City Council in late 2024.
17
memo
Page 1
TO: Shawn Kohtz, PE
FROM: Brad Hammerquist, PE
DATE: 12/14/2023
JOB NO.: 0417.088
RE: Engineering Standards and Compact Development
CC: James Nickelson, PE
Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply For Your Use
Introduction
Morrison-Maierle is assisting the City of Bozeman (COB) with updating the Design Standards and
Specifications Policy (DSSP) and the City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard
Specifications (City Modifications). The overarching function of these engineering design standards is to
protect public health and safety, provide for clear design criteria, provide review procedures and
inspection requirements, and generally promote operational efficiency while minimizing cost of public
infrastructure. More specifically, City of Bozeman standards are intended to assure the following:
· Infrastructure design and construction within the COB meet applicable federal, state, and local
laws, regulations, and ordinances
· Infrastructure design and construction within the COB is consistent with respective facility plans
· Uniform materials and methods of construction for efficiency of repairs and maintenance
Compact development has been identified by the City of Bozeman as one of the tools to help achieve a
diversity of housing opportunities in the community. High density, or compact development, is often
associated with reduced housing costs and preserving open space as it is considered to promote
efficient use of land and infrastructure. Another desired effect of increasing density is to contribute to
housing supply.
Engineering design standards dictate how public infrastructure such as transportation, water, sewer,
and storm drainage systems are designed, approved, and constructed within the City of Bozeman. The
purpose of this memo is to explore how the City’s goals for compact development and affordable
housing relate to engineering standards.
The following topics are discussed:
· Best practices for making engineering decisions
· How public infrastructure fits within the cost of housing
· Ongoing City efforts and development trends related to compact development
18
Engineering Standards and Compact Development
Page 2
How are infrastructure costs evaluated?
The initial construction cost of public infrastructure is often a central focus when planning, designing,
and constructing projects. However, it is necessary to consider life cycle cost to understand the full cost
of ownership of a facility over its useful life. The cost of ownership is paid for by the users of the
infrastructure in one form or another (i.e. purchase price of home, property taxes, maintenance fees,
HOA dues, etc.).
Life cycle costs of public infrastructure can be divided
into the following categories:
Initial Cost is often referred to as capital cost. This is the
initial cost of construction.
Operations Cost could include electrical consumption
for traffic lighting and pump stations, fuel for backup
generators, chemicals for treatment systems, and water
for landscape irrigation.
Maintenance Cost could include snow removal,
repainting of street striping, trimming of trees within the
City right-of-way, and small repair costs.
Replacement Cost could include disposal and
replacement of entire systems or components of
systems such as road surfacing or lift station pumps.
Engineering best practices call for making decisions based on which project alternative provides the
lowest overall cost of ownership while also meeting the required and desired functional and
performance goals (i.e. level of service goals). As illustrated Figure 1, the cumulative cost of operations,
maintenance, renewal/repairs over the life of a system can be significant. These costs can be equal to, or
greater than, the initial capital cost.
Figure 1
(Source: Graphic adapted from EPA Fundamentals of Asset Management Session 4 – Determine Life Cycle &
Replacement Cost)
19
Engineering Standards and Compact Development
Page 3
How does public infrastructure relate to the cost of housing?
There are numerous components that contribute to the cost of purchasing a new home. The cost of
undeveloped land, the entitlement process, installing utilities, and building roads varies depending on
the proposed use, project complexity, and proximity to public services. Figure 1 shows examples of the
expected cost distributions for a 2,300 square foot single-household home on a 0.1 acre lot and a 1,650
square foot condominium in newly developed subdivisions in Bozeman. The costs were estimated based
on house and lot price information found online, City of Bozeman’s impact fee calculator, “rule of
thumb” feedback from developers, and engineering judgement. Both scenarios yielded similar cost
distributions with higher density development having a reduced overall cost per residence.
House Construction
The cost of building the home can be the largest expense, often constituting up
to 80% of the total cost of a finished home. This is primarily driven by material
costs, labor rates, and home design. Compact development (smaller homes)
results in lower overall home costs.
Undeveloped Land
The price of purchasing undeveloped land can be one of the other larger cost
components and is primarily driven by the market. Compact development
(smaller lots) results in lower land costs. The cost of land per home decreases
with higher densities.
Financing/Holding Financing and holding costs are partially related to the time it takes to bring a
property to market after purchasing undeveloped land.
Entitlement & Impact
Fees
The entitlement process (planning, engineering, permits and other approvals) is
related to the time and effort needed to proceed through the approval
processes.
Impact fees are a one-time fee used to increase capacities of water, sewer,
fire/EMS, and transportation systems for those who need new services. The fees
recover the cost of construction only and are necessary to limit cost increases on
existing property owners. Impact fees are primarily based on square feet of
living area, however fees for multi-household homes are slightly less than single
household homes.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure cost per home decreases with higher densities. Of the cost
components identified above, the infrastructure construction cost is most
directly related to the engineering and construction standards but is not a
primary driver of home prices.
Housing Cost Components
Figure 2 – Housing Cost Components
80%
10%
2%
3%5%
Single Household Home
Total Cost $830,000
77%
11%
3%
5%4%
Condominium
Total Cost $485,000
20
Engineering Standards and Compact Development
Page 4
City of Bozeman Ongoing Affordability Efforts and Development Trends
Community Housing Plan
The City of Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan (updated April 2020) identifies “Removal of
Regulatory Barriers” as one of 17 action strategies to address Bozeman’s community housing needs.
One of the proposed actions associated with this action strategy is to revisit the Engineering Design
Standards and Specifications Policy to allow more compact development standards.
Community Plan
The City of Bozeman’s 2020 Community Plan identifies numerous goals that are related to supporting
higher densities and compact development. Most of these goals are related to planning, zoning, and
policy decisions, however there is a common thread of locating higher density developments in
appropriate locations such as near schools, services, transportation corridors, and public transit routes.
The following Community Plan goals are related to increased development density:
· N-1.11 Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time.
· N-2.2 Revise the zoning map to support higher intensity residential districts near schools,
services, and transportation.
· N-3.7 Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially through
mechanisms such as density bonuses.
· N-3.8 Promote the development of "Missing Middle" housing (side by side or stacked duplex,
triplex, live-work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouses/ townhouses, etc.) as one of the
most critical components of affordable housing.
· DCD-2.2 Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility street
corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses.
· DCD-2.3 Review and update minimum development intensity requirements in residential and
nonresidential zoning districts.
· DCD-2.7 Encourage the location of higher density housing and public transit routes in proximity
to one another.
· DCD-3.5 Encourage increased development intensity in commercial centers and near major
employers.
Municipal Code
Section 38.360.120 of Bozeman Municipal Code includes criteria for Cottage housing subdivisions which
are a form of compact development. The code primarily addresses lot size, lot coverage, lot
configuration, and architectural building elements.
The City is in the process of revising Bozeman Municipal Code to implement the vision and goals
established in the city’s guiding documents such as the 2020 Community Plan (aka Growth Policy), the
Climate Plan, and strategic priorities like affordable housing.
Development Trends
Development in Bozeman has become increasingly dense in recent years. Home construction trends
have seen a decrease in single household homes and increase in multi-household and townhomes. See
Figure 3 for home construction permit history from 2014 to 2022.
21
Engineering Standards and Compact Development
Page 5
Figure 3 – Home Construction Permit History
Conclusions
The City’s goal of increasing development density is being realized. Single dwelling unit subdivisions are
no longer the norm. The City should continue to work with the community to refine the Unified
Development Code to meet its strategic priorities.
Public infrastructure costs are a small portion of the overall cost of a home but do have an impact on
initial costs and operations and maintenance costs. It is recommended that infrastructure design
elements associated with compact development be analyzed in further detail to better understand the
relationship between initial construction and long-term infrastructure costs.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Number of Units PermittedYear
Bozeman Home Construction Permit History
Single Dwelling Units Multi-Dwelling Units Townhome Units
22
memo
Page 1
TO: Shawn Kohtz, PE
FROM: Brad Hammerquist, PE
DATE: 2/2/2024
JOB NO.: 0417.088
RE: Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure
CC: James Nickelson, PE
Urgent For Review Please
Comment Please Reply For Your Use
Introduction
The high cost and short supply of housing in the City of Bozeman is a dominant topic within the
community. To address this issue, the City is exploring ways to reduce upfront costs to land and
infrastructure construction that enable a higher density of housing and reduce need for
additional impact to the environment. One method of addressing this has been “compact
developments”. To assist the City in its project to revise Engineering Design Standards, this
analysis has evaluated several infrastructure design elements associated with compact land uses
against its current design standards from the perspective of life cycle cost. Life cycle cost was
chosen as the metric of importance due to its connection to providing affordable housing. It
should be noted that compact land use and the compact development infrastructure evaluated
within this analysis can be mutually exclusive. Compact land uses do not inherently require
compact infrastructure. While compact infrastructure can be successfully implemented and has
been demonstrated to varying degrees in other cities across the country, this analysis evaluates
the additional operating costs associated with maintaining said infrastructure in the type of
winter climate for which the City exists. Compact infrastructure may reduce initial capital costs;
however, the reduced upfront infrastructure cost is often offset by long-term increased cost of
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of that infrastructure.
There are many types of high-density developments that do not deviate from the City’s existing
engineering standards, such as certain small-lot and shared-lot developments, apartments,
townhomes, and condominium developments. In these cases, the City’s existing engineering
standards can be met.
Non-standard infrastructure strategies that have been implemented under the “compact
development” concept include:
· Reduced right of way
· Reduced road width
· Reduction or elimination of curb and gutter, boulevard, and sidewalk requirements
· Reduction in minimum off-street parking requirements
· Non-standard water and sewer service locations
23
Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure
Page 2
While these strategies may reduce the initial cost of public infrastructure construction, they often
increase ongoing operational and maintenance costs and create long-term challenges for the City
and residents in these developments. These costs are typically passed on to property owners and
renters through HOA fees and rents.
This paper describes and compares infrastructure life cycle cost differences between
infrastructure development types that meet existing City engineering standards and those types
of infrastructure that do not. The purpose is to determine if the reduced initial cost of
construction associated with not meeting existing engineering standards also reduce the overall
life-cycle cost of the infrastructure upon incorporating ongoing operations and maintenance
costs. This paper does not attempt to refute compact land uses nor their benefit to
environmental sustainability. The City has demonstrated through numerous and recent
developments that compact land uses can be served by its existing design standards and therefor
is not a matter that is required for study under this project to revise Engineering Design
Standards.
Development comparisons of projects that meet existing City engineering standards to those that
do not meet existing City engineering standards are impacted by development configuration, site
constraints, housing product type, and densities which vary widely throughout the City of
Bozeman. Four existing developments have been chosen for evaluation. It is understood that
each type of development has various qualitative pros and cons and that a diversity of housing
options is important to the community.
Maintenance and Operational Challenges
The following challenges are associated with infrastructure that does not meet existing City
engineering standards. This list has been compiled from public comment received by the City as
well as the experience of the City’s operating divisions. These challenges result in higher life cycle
costs and reduced level-of-service for residents.
· The City does not maintain (remove snow, seal cracks, resurface) streets that do not
meet City standards due to increased time and equipment requirements that cannot be
met under existing levels of taxation. Therefore, residents in subdivisions that have
substandard road sections have an additional maintenance cost burden when compared
to residents that receive this service from the City. City staff have reported numerous
requests from residents to take over these services from their HOA due to perceived
poor service and high costs of private contractors.
· Elimination of boulevards, defined as the strip of land 4’ or greater between curb and
sidewalk, reduces available snow storage for winter plowing operations. In many cases,
snow may even need to be hauled by truck to a different part of a development or off-
site. Loading and hauling snow in dump trucks is significantly more costly than pushing
snow into the boulevard.
· Reduced off-street parking not meeting demand results in more vehicles parked on
streets. The increase in on-street parking increases conflicts with street sweeping, snow
removal, and solid waste collection. These conflicts slow the pace of service and
therefore increase cost of services provided by the City.
24
Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure
Page 3
· Compact developments with houses that do not have direct access to water and sewer
mains within streets can result in long water and sewer services in locations that are
difficult to access. Longer water and sanitary sewer mains are expected to have higher
failure rates per residence due to the longer length of piping.
· Water and sanitary sewer services are the responsibility of the property owner
downstream of the curb stop or outside of the right of way. Installation of services below
landscaped areas, between houses, near foundations and hardscaped areas makes them
more costly to repair and replace when compared to standard locations. Accessing and
excavating in these areas can be very disruptive to residents.
Life Cycle Costs and Present Worth
The life cycle cost of an infrastructure facility includes the initial cost in addition to other costs
incurred during the life of the facility, such as operations, renewal, and maintenance costs. Since
many of these costs occur in the future, the Present Worth (PW) method is used to transform
these future costs to present amounts. This method accounts for the time value of money and
allows alternatives with different future cash flow patterns to be compared. The alternative with
the lowest present worth is the alternative with the lowest overall cost of ownership from an
economic perspective.
Life cycle cost items included in this analysis are summarized below.
Street Sections
Initial Construction Costs
· Pavement Section
· Curb and Gutter
· Sidewalk
O&M Costs
· Snow removal (annual)
· Crack Seal (periodic, 3 years)
· Chip Seal (renewal, 10 years)
Water and Sewer Services
Initial Construction Costs
· Water Service
· Sewer Service
O&M Costs
· Water and Sewer Service repair
(assumes 1 repair per 2,000 feet of
service pipe per 25 years)
25
Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure
Page 4
Life cycle cost items are depicted as expenses in cash flow diagrams below.
Development Summaries
Four existing residential developments were evaluated with respect to the life cycle cost items
described above. Characteristics such as density, home price, HOA fees, and amenities are also
summarized for context.
The evaluation includes two compact development types that do not meet existing City
engineering standards, a townhome development that meets existing City engineering standards,
and a condominium/apartment type development that also meets existing City engineering
standards. All of the developments have relatively high densities compared to existing city
subdivisions.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Year
Water and Sewer Service
Life Cycle Cash Flow Diagram
Service Repair
Initial Construction
Cumulative Cost
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Year
Street Sections
Life Cycle Cash Flow Diagram
Initial Construction Snow Removal
Crack Seal Chip Seal
Cumulative Cost
26
Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure
Page 5
C1 – Bridger View Subdivision
Type: Townhomes and single-family residential
homes in pocket neighborhood
Zoning: R-3
Number of Units: 57
Gross Density: 7.1 units/acre
Right-of-way and street widths do not meet City
Standards.
Real Estate Information*
Monthly HOA fees: $200 - $361
Amenities included: Clubhouse, Playground, Park,
Sidewalks, Trail(s)
Services included: Maintenance Structure, Road Maintenance, Snow Removal, Trash
$524,000 for 1,481 sf, 1 bed, 1 bath townhome ($354/sf)
$759,900 for 2,152 sf, 3 bed, 2 bath townhome ($353/sf)
C2 – Blackwood Groves Subdivision
Type: Leased Single Family Residences
Zoning: REMU
Number of Units: 49
Gross Density: 7.2 units/acre
External Right-of-way and street
widths meet City Standards. Water
and sewer services do not meet
standards.
Real Estate Information*
Monthly HOA fees: Assumed to be included in lease
Amenities included: Business Center, Clubhouse, Fitness Center, Lounge
Services included: Garbage, Internet, TV
$2,100/month for 690 sf, 1 bed, 1 bath residence ($376/sf with $260,000 mortgage)
$3,300/month for 1,226 sf, 3 bed, 2 bath residence ($367/sf with $450,000 mortgage)
*Real Estate Information gathered from internet listings and sell price estimates 12/2023
Infrastructure Initial Cost: $26,300 per unit
Infrastructure PW: $45,500 per unit
Infrastructure Initial Cost: $27,400 per unit
Infrastructure PW: $44,800 per unit
27
Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure
Page 6
S1 – Valley Meadow Subdivision
Type: Townhomes
Zoning: R-3
Number of Units: 61
Gross Density: 7.0 units/acre
Right-of-way and street widths meet City Standards.
*Real Estate Information
Monthly HOA fees: $65
Amenities included: Playground, Park, Sidewalks
Services included: Maintenance grounds, Snow Removal
$575,000 for 1,588 sf, 2 bed, 3 bath townhome ($362/sf)
$625,900 for 1,987 sf, 4 bed, 3 bath townhome ($315/sf)
S2 – Meadow Creek Subdivision
Type: Condominiums
Zoning: R-3
Number of Units: 56
Gross Density: 10.0 units/acre
Right-of-way and street widths meet City Standards.
*Real Estate Information
Monthly HOA fees: $165 - $250
Amenities included: Playground, Park, Sidewalks
Services included: Maintenance Grounds, Maintenance
Structure, Road Maintenance, Sewer, Snow Removal,
Water
$594,900 for 1,614 sf, 2 bed, 3 bath condo ($369/sf)
$705,100 for 1,958 sf, 3 bed, 3 bath condo ($360/sf)
*Real Estate Information gathered from internet listings and sell price estimates 12/2023
Infrastructure Initial Cost: $20,300 per unit
Infrastructure PW: $31,000 per unit
Infrastructure Initial Cost: $28,800 per unit
Infrastructure PW: $38,000 per unit
28
Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure
Page 7
Key cost items for each development are summarize below.
Cost Summary
Development
Density
(units/acre)
Initial
Infrastructure
Cost Per Home
Life Cycle Cost
Per Home
(PW)
Home
Price Per
Square
Foot
Initial
Infrastructure
Cost as % of
Home
C1-Bridger View 7.1 $26,300 $45,500 $354 5%
C2-Blackwood Groves 7.2 $27,400 $44,800 $367 6%
S1-Valley Meadow 7.0 $20,300 $31,000 $362 4%
S2-Meadow Creek 10.0 $28,800 $38,000 $369 5%
Initial Infrastructure Costs
For the developments that were evaluated, relaxing existing City standards does not significantly
reduce initial infrastructure costs per home. Initial cost of infrastructure appears to be influenced
more by the configuration of the particular property. For instance, development S1 achieves the
same density of housing as the compact development types, while also meeting existing City
engineering standards and provides lower initial and life cycle costs to the homeowner. The
configuration of this development allows for an efficient layout of streets, water, and sewer
infrastructure.
Life Cycle Costs
The compact development types have higher overall life cycle costs. The cost increases are
attributable to higher street maintenance costs in the case of development C1, and higher
water/sewer costs in the case of development C2.
Parking
City of Bozeman Unified Development Code, Section 38.540.050, specifies the minimum number
of off-street parking spaces required for residential uses. The purpose is to assure that parking
availability is roughly proportional to parking demand. Parking requirements in the UDC are
complex, however, two off-street parking spaces are generally required for each residential unit
with more than one bedroom. Development C1 provides approximately half of the off-street
parking needed to meet the demand specified in the UDC. The internal private streets are not
sufficiently wide to allow for legal on-street parking adjacent to the homes. Excess parking
demand has been observed to induce illegal parking and otherwise will be pushed to the external
city standard streets that allow street parking, resulting in increased conflicts with City street
maintenance activities and conflicts with accessible pedestrian facilities. Reduced parking
requirements have not anecdotally induced a reduction in vehicle ownership or usage as
evidenced by the presence of illegal street parking where they exist. Absent of policies that
equate vehicle ownership to capacity of parking provided, it should be expected that current
rates of vehicle ownership will continue along with the observed impacts to the right of way.
Housing Costs
The cost of housing is most directly related to the size of the home and appears to be primarily
market driven. The home cost per square foot is relatively similar regardless of product type and
whether or not the development meets existing engineering standards.
29
Life Cycle Costs – Compact Development Infrastructure
Page 8
Conclusions
Developments that have implemented infrastructure design not meeting existing City
engineering standards appear to have higher life cycle costs for both the people in the
development and the City. The winter climate experienced in Bozeman demands maintenance
practices that require spatial capacity in the right of way not provided by compact infrastructure.
Further, the revealed preference of residents in these developments indicates that vehicle
ownership and usage has not adjusted elastically with reduced space provided for vehicles. The
combination of these observations has led to a conclusion that compact infrastructure practices
may increase cost of housing relative to existing City engineering standards. This conclusion
should not be interpreted as opposition to housing density and compact land uses, as the City has
demonstrated both methods of reducing cost of housing and impact to the environment can be
met with existing City engineering standards. However, the City should proceed with caution
when contemplating inclusion of compact infrastructure within their revision to engineering
design standards due to its potential to increase cost to residents.
30
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Sustainability Board
FROM:Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director
SUBJECT:2024 - 2025 Work Plan Introduction
MEETING DATE:February 14, 2024
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:2024 - 2025 Work Plan Introduction
STRATEGIC PLAN:6.3 Climate Action: Reduce community and municipal Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) emissions, increase the supply of clean and renewable energy; foster
related businesses.
BACKGROUND:On August 10, 2021 the City Commission adopted Resolution 5327
establishing the Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board to cultivate policies
that enhance the social and environmental livelihood of Bozeman citizens,
and make advisory recommendations regarding policies that promote a
modern, holistic approach to sustainability and resiliency.
On February 14, 2024 the Sustainability Board will begin discussing a Work
Plan for 2024 – 2025 to help focus efforts, consisting of a combination of
recommendations from the 2020 Bozeman Climate Plan and City
Commission priorities.
The 2024 – 2025 Work Plan will be similar in format to the approved 2022 –
2023 Work Plan. Furthermore, a summary of the 2022 – 2023 Work Plan
was reviewed on December 13, 2023, which provides a reference for any
items that might continue into the next two years (noted below with an
asterisk).
All Work Plan items must meet the following requirements:
Finite scope with a measurable outcome
Achievable in two years
Implementable with existing resources
Aligned with City Commission priorities
The Sustainability Board will be asked to provide feedback on the following
Climate Plan items:
*Cleanup Week (5.M.1, 6.P.4)
31
Green Power Program (2.E.1)
Electrification Campaign (1.C.1-3)
*Electric Mobility (4.K.1-3)
Engineering Design Standards (3.G.2)
*Composting Services & Collection (5.M.2)
*Food System Stakeholder & Priority Mapping (6.N.1-4)
Local Food & Nutrition Programs (6.N.1-4)
Extreme Heat & Wildfire Smoke (3.I.1)
Energy Efficiency & Weatherization (1.A.3, 1.A.6)
Urban Tree Equity (6.P.2)
On January 26, 2024 (at a timestamp of approximately 2:27:05) the City
Commission discussed provisional priorities for 2024 and 2025, as follows.
It’s important to note that City Commission priorities have not been
formally adopted, and thus subject to change. Additional details related to
the proposed priorities will be reviewed by the City Commission in the
weeks to come, at which point the Sustainability Board will consider any
amendments to the 2024 – 2025 Work Plan accordingly.
Rework and strengthen new Historic Preservation policy/program
Trees & landmark
ADU Incentive package
Bozeman Creek Management Plan
Develop Tenant Right-to-Counsel Program
Create and Adopt Comprehensive Plan on Home/Houselessness
Regionally
Ramp up SAFE Plan
Increase bike/ped safety Silver & Gold
Foster/build public trust, support & pride in local governance
Adopt an Affordable Housing Preservation Policy
Implement at least 8 recs from Belonging in Bozeman Plan
City staff will provide a brief presentation for each of the items listed above,
followed by a discussion with the Sustainability Board, after which details
will be further developed and finalized into a 2024 – 2025 Work Plan to be
considered for approval at a future date.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Report compiled on: February 8, 2024
32