Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-24 Correspondence - Gallatin County Commission - PCC Meeting May 14 PLANNING COORDINATION COMMITTEE Location: County Courthouse Community Room 311 West Main St, Bozeman Tuesday, May 14, 2024 – 3:30-5:00 pm Questions? Contact: Department of Planning, 311 West Main Street, Rm.108, Bozeman, MT 59715 Phone: 406-582-3130 Email: planning@gallatin.mt.gov AGENDA 3:30 1. Call to Order – Introductions – 2 min 2. Minutes Jan. 2024 – 2 min AV Capture All 3:35 3. ULI Report – 20 min  PCC actions / priorities 4. Wastewater management – GWC / Water Collaborative – 20 min 4:15 5. Understanding Ag in the Triangle – 10 min  Goals - understanding different scales and types of ag  Draft questions - Nicole start and get input on shared document  List of landowners / stakeholder contacts -- Nicole create a group document  Garrett - feedback from landowners / producers: focus on the Triangle sub-area. 6. Update / Discussion – COUNTY FLUM – 20 min 4:45 7. Regional Initiatives & Jurisdiction Updates - 10 min 8. Public Comment – 5 min 2024 Meeting Schedule – September 10 FLUM Work session, November 12 Zoom link: Planning Coordination Committee | Gallatin County, MT (gallatinmt.gov) From:Boyer, Jennifer To:Boyer, Jennifer; Planning Subject:[EXTERNAL]PCC Meeting May 14 Date:Monday, May 6, 2024 3:34:59 PM Attachments:PCC Agenda May 14 , 2024.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Looking forward to our meeting next week! Agenda attached. ULI report here - uli_asp_gallatin_valley_final.pdf (gallatinmt.gov) Jennifer Boyer Gallatin County Commission 311 W. Main St. Room 306 Bozeman, MT 59715 406-582-3000 406-548-5856 (cell) From: Boyer, Jennifer Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 1:55 PM To: Boyer, Jennifer <Jennifer.Boyer@gallatin.mt.gov> Subject: ULI Report and PCC notes Greetings, The ULI report is here! Our next PCC meeting is May 14 3:30-5:00pm I will send out the agenda a couple weeks in advance. March 5, 2024 Friday, February 23, 2024 8:58 AM PCC Notes 3:30 1. Call to Order – Introductions - Mike, Jennifer, Chris S., Garrett, Nicole, Randy. 2. Minutes Jan. 2024 (link below) - approved. AV Capture All 3. Opening Discussion on Ag in the Triangle – Listening session approach for feedback to inform: future zoning, open space, supporting ag, greenbelt / park, mix of ag and residential? Nicole: Held a series of conversations with PCC members on how do we captureag interests in the Triangle to know their current desires and goals. 1. Approach A - establish relationships through a very informal effort. PCC / staff members reach out to see if ag operators are willing to have a conversation to understand obstacles, pressures and goals they have on the horizon. There was interest in this and one constraint was staff time and availability. We can also show up to events and be available to have a conversation. What does it take to support agriculture - ditch companies, MSU? 2. Approach B - formalizing ag operator input and connection, could we create a new position on the PCC and create a position on board. Is there a specific deliverable for this outreach effort? A summary report? TheFarmland Protection Plan is part of the County Growth Policy ImplementationTable and can we integrate feedback into that future effort as well. Who are we targeting? Larger and smaller ag landowners? Be sensitive to input fatigue. Next steps: Goals - understanding different scales and types of ag MSU Extension / MSU landowners Ditch Companies / AGAI Draft questions - Nicole start and get input on shared document List of landowners / stakeholder contacts -- Nicole create a group document Garrett - feedback from landowners / producers: focus on the Triangle sub-area. 4. 3:50 Workshop Session Belgrade Planning efforts – discussion and high level direction aligning goalsand mapping exercise Master Plan - SWAT analysis in 2022 and identified that our plans were notintegrated and so this effort is working to create a system of plans that areintegrated -Master plan effort includes: transportation, stormwater, parks,planning, utilities, sidewalk improvements, downtown design, water and sewer,land use (14 plans to be integrated). Beheardbelgrade.com - Recent public openhouse was well attended. Goal is to have all the plans and elements of ourcommunity in one place and are online and available to staff and the public. $1Minvestment. Goal - De-Conflict our plans. Updating our zoning districts - 15 districts. QUESTION: stay with existing districts or our newly defined districts QUESTION: Belgrade planning area - where is the appropriate boundary -where do we want Belgrade to have oversight? QUESTION: Grand Divorce? Support bringing plans together How prepared are you to deliver services in an expanded boundary? Do we want to overlap other jurisdictions? Having no gaps between jurisdictions may be good - i.e. abutting Manhattan's jurisdiction Advantages of having consistency - ie building codes. What is the fate of the airport property? Airport uses municipal services but their own police force. West of the river is very different What is the school district boundary? Have some alignment with school district? Look at Amsterdam Churchill planning area - where does that area end? Consider 4 corners water and sewer district Residents outside the city were most concerned about transportation (fixing problem intersections, transportation for multimodal options) and parks. RASE Grant for improvement to Jackrabbit intersection - Looking for connectivity over interstate and RR. 5. 4:40 Regional Initiatives & Jurisdiction Updates UTD - Working through paperwork and also re-assessing our routes and service.New website includes UTD information. Service updates includes a shuttledowntown, walmart and the HRDC Marketplace which is going well and is calledNE Bozeman including Bozeman Beach, Story Mill Park and even the M. Addingsome illumination for better visibility in winter. MPO Update is up and running and officially formed. Nick Ross is heading thisup. County Housing Plan - we have our base data together and our outreach willwork to validate through lived experiences. Regional Housing Council Update - Last meeting focused on unhoused populationwith presentations from HRDC, Family Promise and Haven. 3 working groupshave been established 1) permanent affordability 2) unhoused population 3)communications. Next meeting in April in West Yellowstone. Manhattan isjoining the Regional Housing Council. Belgrade - 2 new planning staff and Master plan effort Bozeman - developing a public participation plan. We are updating our sewerplan and this will be a huge driver of where we can support urban leveldevelopment. Just started a new housing plan update (every 5 years is required). Gallatin County - Housing Plan and Future Land Use Map about to do the firstround of outreach. 7 base maps to explore based on the primary criteria, March19 in Bozeman and Big Sky 6-7:30 and March 20 in Gateway and Manhattan 6-7:30pm. Next Meeting Agenda – County FLUM workshop session – Ag conversations -ULI Report 2024 Meeting Schedule – May 14, September 10, November 12 PUBLIC COMMENT: GWC - We work on water quality, water supply and offer a forum to worktogether on shared priorities regarding water resources in the watershed. Whatare the concerns and questions you have about wastewater impacts? Request to GWC to send an email to get feedback - Nicole will coordinate. Thereis an opportunity to engage with the future land use map and the Belgrade masterplanning process. 1. What is the policy of Bozeman and Belgrade in regard to annexation of property that has a surface water right (irrigation/stockwater) right attached? Do you require the landowner to transfer the water rights to the city? 2. When do you require the transfer to be made? At time of annexation? 3. If the water rights are transferred to the city, what do you do with them? Check all that apply. (a) Just file the paperwork in a drawer for future reference. (b) Make sure the water right transfer is filed with DNRC so the legal owner is a matter of record. (Make sure the ownership transfers between farmer to developer to city are a matter of record.) © Apply to DNRC for a change of use from irrigation to mitigation or other beneficial use. (If this is not done and wet water does not continue to be delivered and used on the property, the water right is on a track to be abandoned in 10 years. Use it or lose it.) (d) Become an assessment paying member of the ditch company to insure the ability to deliver wet water into the future. (Holding a water right comes with responsibilities as well as privileges to use the water. A water right without a delivery system is no more than a piece of paper.) If developers do not legally decide who the surface water rights go to (an entity like a homeowners association, city, agency like FWP or non profit, they can inadvertently go to each individual lot owner in the subdivision without any records to show how much each got and how that tiny amount could be delivered to each lot. Essentially the right is shattered into many small pieces and cannot be re-united to be transferred to another land owner through water banking or even to instream flow for fish. Rainbow Subdivision south of 4 Corners has this problem. Each lot has a tiny amount of water and the landowners know it. They are reluctant to let go of the their water rights (even though they can’t really use them) and some might suggest that they should be paid for them. It is just chaos and causes no end of problems for Allison-Lewis Ditch and developers. Mountain View Subdivision on Frontage Road – Townsend (the developer) thought he kept the water rights. But they were not specifically withheld in the deeds so they went with the property. Each landowner in the subdivision has some share of the initial surface irrigation rights but none of that is a matter of record so DNRC can’t say if they do have water rights but cannot deny that they might have water rights. They are in limbo. But this is one way to lose senior water rights (1860-1890) and important junior water rights (1890 to 1910). Lose the water and you begin to lose agriculture and water for the East Gallatin to dilute Bozeman’s wastewater. If developers DO transfer ownership of the water to an entity, then that entity can become a member of a ditch and pay assessments for maintenance. And the water can stay in the ditch and be delivered so there is enough volume for water users at the end of the ditch to get their water. Too little volume and not enough water users to pay for maintenance of what is often 7-10 miles of ditch is critical to a healthy ditch company. Ditch water is seasonal and it is an on demand system – too little demand and it won’t be flowing anymore. If cities just file the paperwork and do not establish ownership and pay for maintenance and support of a ditch company to deliver it, when they chose to put that water to use again it might not be a valid right. In the process we can inadvertently lose old water rights and ditch infrastructure. And that does not support the ag economy, or owners of wells, or cities like Bozeman who need dilution of their waste water or fly fisherman and rafting companies. The water rights can be in limbo - not usable, not transferable – even back to the river for the fish. And that further dries up the Valley. Mammoth Ditch that flows through Belgrade is mostly pre-1890 water. Lower Middle Creek Supply (Love Lane area) is mostly pre-1890 water. Spain Ferris and Beck and Border (4 corners to East Gallatin, Jackrabbit to Love Lane) are about 50-50 senior and junior water rights – 1910 to 1860) From <https://gallatincountymt- my.sharepoint.com/personal/jboyer_gallatin_mt_gov/Documents/PCC%20Agenda%20Mar%205,%20%202024.docx > Created with OneNote. Jennifer Boyer Gallatin County Commission 311 W. Main St. Room 306 Bozeman, MT 59715 406-582-3000 406-548-5856 (cell)