HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-24 CDB Agenda and Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 pm
B. Disclosures
C. Changes to the Agenda
D. Approval of Minutes
D.1 Approval of Minutes.(Sagstetter)
E. Special Presentations
E.1 Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project (Chipouras)
F. Action Items
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
CDB AGENDA
Monday, November 18, 2024
General information about the Community Development Board is available in our Laserfiche
repository.
If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to
comments@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the
meeting. At the direction of the City Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to
the Board or staff.
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 Chris Saunders, csaunders@bozeman.net
This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online video conferencing 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: 954 6079 2484
Approve.
1
F.1 Review and Recommendation for the 2024 Impact Fee Service Area Report for
Transportation(Saunders)
F.2 Cancellation of December 2, 2024, Community Development Board Meeting.(Saunders)
G. FYI/Discussions
H. Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board
I. Adjournment
Consider the Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff presentation, draft service area report,
public comment, and all information presented, I hereby find the 2024 service area report for
Transportation meets all requirements and recommend approval.
Information only, no action required.
This is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the Community
Development 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 Community Development Board cannot take action on any item which does not
appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Community Development Board shall speak in a
civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please
state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner within the
city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes.
General public comments to the Board can be found in their Laserfiche repository folder.
This board generally meets the first and third Monday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
City Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, David Arnado, at 406.582.3232.
2
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Community Development Board
FROM:Sam Sagstetter - Community Development.
SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes.
MEETING DATE:November 18, 2024
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Legislative
RECOMMENDATION:Approve.
STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver
information to the community and our partners.
BACKGROUND:None.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:Approve with corrections.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Attachments:
110424 CDB Minutes.pdf
Report compiled on: November 13, 2024
3
Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 11/4/24
Page 1 of 5
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 4, 2024
General information about the Community Development Board is available in our Laserfiche repository.
Present: Nicole Olmstead, Henry Happel, Padden Guy Murphy, Chris Egnatz, Jennifer Madgic, Jason
Delmue, Ben Lloyd, Mark Egge
Absent: None
Excused: None
A) 00:03:03 Call to Order - 6:00 pm
B) 00:04:04 Disclosures
C) 00:04:11 Changes to the Agenda
D) 00:01:37 Public Service Announcements
E) 00:01:39 Approval of Minutes
E.1 00:01:41 Approval of Minutes
102124 CDB Minutes.pdf
00:01:47 Motion to approve Approve.
Jason Delmue: Motion
Jennifer Madgic: 2nd
00:05:06 Vote on the Motion to approve Approve. The Motion carried 8 - 0.
Approve:
Nicole Olmstead
Henry Happel
Padden Guy Murphy
4
Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 11/4/24
Page 2 of 5
Chris Egnatz
Jennifer Madgic
Jason Delmue
Ben Lloyd
Mark Egge
Disapprove:
None
F) 00:05:32 Consent Items
F.1 00:05:41 Turnrow Subdivision Preliminary Plat application to subdivide three lots
zoned REMU into a major subdivision for residential, commercial, park, and open space
uses. 146 buildable lots along the east side of the property are proposed with the phase
1 development that totals 15.22 acres. 20 restricted development lots will require
additional subdivision review to west of Phase 1 and total 83.53 acres.
Generally located southwest of the corner of East Valley Center Road and Davis
Lane. Application 23366 (Quasi-Judicial)
23366 CDB Staff Report.pdf
00:07:42 Motion to approve Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report
for application 23366 and move for the Community Development Board in its capacity as the Planning
Board to recommend approval of the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code
provisions.
Henry Happel: Motion
Mark Egge: 2nd
00:07:53 Vote on the Motion to approve Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public
comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for
application 23366 and move for the Community Development Board in its capacity as the Planning Board
to recommend approval of the subdivision with conditions and subject to all applicable code provisions.
The Motion carried 8 - 0.
Approve:
Nicole Olmstead
Henry Happel
Padden Guy Murphy
Chris Egnatz
Jennifer Madgic
Jason Delmue
Ben Lloyd
Mark Egge
Disapprove:
5
Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 11/4/24
Page 3 of 5
None
H) 00:08:17 Action Items
H.1 00:08:28 FY26-30 Transportation Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan
FY26-30_CIP_TranspoProjectPages_CDB.pdf
01:10:45 Motion to approve Perform duties of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee.
Jason Delmue: Motion
Jennifer Madgic: 2nd
01:21:31 Vote on the Motion to approve Perform duties of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The
Motion carried 7 - 1.
Approve:
Nicole Olmstead
Henry Happel
Padden Guy Murphy
Chris Egnatz
Jennifer Madgic
Jason Delmue
Ben Lloyd
Disapprove:
Mark Egge
H.2 01:22:06 Staff Recommendations for Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2026-2030
Utilities Project Pages-CDB
02:19:33 Dan Carty provides public comment.
02:21:20 Motion to approve Staff Recommendations for Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Capital
Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2026-2030.
Padden Guy Murphy: Motion
Chris Egnatz: 2nd
02:57:36 Vote on the Motion to approve Staff Recommendations for Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2026-2030. The Motion carried 6 - 2.
Approve:
Henry Happel
Padden Guy Murphy
Jennifer Madgic
6
Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 11/4/24
Page 4 of 5
Jason Delmue
Ben Lloyd
Mark Egge
Disapprove:
Nicole Olmstead
Chris Egnatz
H.3 03:03:06 Recommend approval of the 2024 Wastewater Collection System
Facility Plan Update ? Public Hearing
Wastewater Facility Plan Executive Summary
CITYOFBOZE- Newspaer Notice Ad 566663
CD Board Presentation WWCSFP_OCT 21, 2024_FINAL
Bozeman WWCSFP_Graphical Executive Summary
03:39:33 Motion to approve Consider the motion: “Having considered the draft update to the
wastewater collection system facility plan, all public comment, and information received, I move to
recommend approval of the draft as submitted.”
Henry Happel: Motion
Nicole Olmstead: 2nd
03:42:58 Vote on the Motion to approve Consider the motion: “Having considered the draft update to the
wastewater collection system facility plan, all public comment, and information received, I move to
recommend approval of the draft as submitted.” The Motion carried 8 - 0.
Approve:
Nicole Olmstead
Henry Happel
Padden Guy Murphy
Chris Egnatz
Jennifer Madgic
Jason Delmue
Ben Lloyd
Mark Egge
Disapprove:
None
G) 03:44:04 Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and
Jurisdiction of the Board
I) 03:44:45 FYI/Discussions
I.1 03:44:52 Upcoming scheduled events for the update to the Unified Development
Code, Chapter 38, Bozeman Municipal Code
7
Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 11/4/24
Page 5 of 5
I.2 03:45:07 Upcoming Items for the November 18, 2024, Community Development
Board Meeting.
J) 03:52:58 Adjournment
This board generally meets the first and third Monday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
8
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Community Development Board
FROM:Ali Chipouras, Sustainability Specialist
SUBJECT:Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project
MEETING DATE:November 18, 2024
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:Information only, no action required
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:Solution N. of the Bozeman Climate Plan highlights the critical importance of
a robust local food system to reduce emissions while supporting a more
equitable and resilient community. Additionally, supporting a robust local
food system aligns with themes identified in the Bozeman Community Plan
including:
Theme 1: A Resilient City
Theme 4: A City Influenced by Our Natural Environment, Parks, and
Open Lands
Theme 6: A City Powered by it’s Creative, Innovative, and
Entrepreneurial Economy.
The City identified that to implement Solution N. Cultivate a Robust Local
Food System, City staff, the Citizen Advisory Boards, and City Commission
needed to deepen their understanding of the local food landscape. On
November 9, 2022, and March 8, 2023, the Sustainability Citizen Advisory
Board discussed strategies to better understand the local food landscape and
the appropriate role of the City. The Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board
and City staff acknowledged the importance of learning directly from
community members who are actively engaged in the local food system. To
do so, the Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project was incepted in
Spring 2023 with the following project goals:
Learn about the local food landscape
Cultivate partnerships
Identify opportunities for how the City can support a robust local food
system
The core of the Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project was a series
of discussions and interviews with constituents representing many different
9
facets of our local food system. Six core topics were identified to focus the
conversations around:
Food Access
Resilience in the Face of Disruption
Community Wellness, Education, and Culture
Production
Food Pathways
Ecological Sustainability
Over the 2023-2024 winter, more than 80 individuals participated and
provided input. These individuals represented various dimensions of the
local food system, including farmers, ranchers, food processors, distributors,
composters, community organizations, entrepreneurs, and more. The
project team analyzed and distilled the information gathered through the
process into key themes and takeaways.
Actionable opportunities for how the City can support a robust local food
system were developed. The opportunities involve leadership and support
from multiple City departments, in collaboration with community partners
and food system practitioners. The Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping
Project report outlines these opportunities, along with an overview of the
project process and a summary of the key findings.
Sustainability Program Specialist, Ali Chipouras, will provide an overview of
stakeholder engagement and the future opportunities identified through the
process. The presentation will include an outline of near-term action items
that the City of Bozeman plans to implement. The project report,
appendices, and additional resources can be found under the City of
Bozeman Sustainability Division's Local Food webpage.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:None.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Attachments:
LFSPMP_REPORT_Final_ADA.pdf
Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping
Project_APPENDIX_07.15.24.pdf
Report compiled on: November 14, 2024
10
Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project
July 2024
Photos: Potato Fields at Gallatin Grown taken by Project Steering Committee Member Melissa Stuber (left);
Project Kickoff Workshop (right, top); Chance Farms taken by Project Participant Josh Chance (right, middle); MSU
Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Capstone Students (right, bottom)
11
1 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 2
II. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 4
III. Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ 7
IV. Key Terms ............................................................................................................ 10
V. Project Approach ................................................................................................. 13
VI. Key Takeaways ..................................................................................................... 19
VII. Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 23
VIII. Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 32
Appendix Table of Contents (separate document)
Appendix A: Assets and Challenges
Table A 1: Food Access and Resilience Asset List (Organizations and Programs)
Table A 2: Authorized Retailers for EBT (SNAP and WIC)
Table A 3: Local Farms that Accept WIC and SFMNP Vouchers
Table A 4: Community Wellness, Education, and Culture Asset List
Table A 5: Community Gardens in the Greater Bozeman Area
Table A 6: Local Producers
Table A 7: Food System Pathways Infrastructure Assets
Table A 8: Meat Processing Plants
Appendix B: Intersection of Existing City Plans with the Local Food System
Appendix C: Indicators To Consider
Appendix D: Assorted Data
Table D 1: Area Population and Housing Units, 2010 – 2023
Table D 2: City of Bozeman Demographics and Economic Growth Sectors
Table D 3: USDA Gallatin County Agricultural Census Data
Table D 4: USDA Census: Gallatin County Percent of Farms
Table D 5: USDA: Gallatin County Census Data, 2002 – 2022
Table D 6: Existing Land Use in Gallatin County
Table D 7: Gallatin Valley Food Bank Annual Data
Table D 8: Bozeman Public Schools Free & Reduced Meals Eligibility
Table D 9: City of Bozeman Park Acreage Data
Table D 10: Registered Cottage Food Businesses and Food Business Licenses in Gallatin County
Figure D 1: Household Food Insecurity in Gallatin County, 2020
Figure D 2: Gallatin County Food Access and Nutrition
Figure D 3: Affordability of Food & Groceries
Figure D 4: Greater Bozeman Area Crop Map
Appendix E: Resources + References
Appendix F: Asset List
12
2 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
I. Executive Summary
Surrounded by mountains at the headwaters of the Missouri River,
Gallatin Valley has long been known for its abundance of wild
foods, rich soils, and agricultural heritage. Today, Bozeman is a
rapidly growing city within a dynamic local and regional food
system, where an extensive network of individuals, businesses,
nonprofit organizations, institutions, and agencies have built the
foundation for a robust local food system.
The Bozeman Climate Plan, adopted by the City of Bozeman in
2020, identifies Solution N. Cultivate a Robust Local Food System,
which highlights the role of a resilient, sustainable, and equitable
local food system in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
enhancing community resilience.
In 2023, the City initiated the Local Food System Preliminary
Mapping Project to deepen its understanding of the local food
landscape, build partnerships, and identify opportunities to
implement Solution N. The project’s focus was a series of
interviews and discussions with key players across various sectors
of the local food system. This approach was used to identify the
potential role of local government and explore opportunities for
the City of Bozeman to collaborate with local partners to better
support a robust local food system.
From September 2023 to April 2024, over 80 people participated in group discussions, one-on-one interviews,
surveys, and follow-up conversations. The project team, an external Steering Committee, and City staff from
multiple departments collaborated to identify six Core Topics to focus discussions on:
More than 150 individuals who play integral roles within the local food system were identified and contacted as
potential interviewees. Although not all could participate during this phase, the project aimed to spark
conversations, serve as a catalyst for ongoing relationship building, and explore the City’s role in the local food
system.
Food Access
Resilience in
the Face of
Disruption
Community
Wellness,
Education,
and Culture
Production
Food
Pathways and
Systems
Ecological
Sustainability
Figure 1: Photo by Project Participant Josh Chance, Chance Farms
80+
participants
8
group
discussions
15
individual
interviews
Interview Highlights
13
3 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
Insights gathered through this process were compiled, analyzed, and distilled. Additionally, the project team
conducted a review of City policies and plans to understand existing intersections with the food system. Existing
assets, gaps, challenges, and barriers were identified to develop a preliminary understanding of the local food
system. Through the analysis, the following themes emerged, and Key Takeaways related to each theme were
identified.
Leadership
Participants encouraged the City of Bozeman to step up in its role as a community leader by
championing local food policies, leveraging resources, and integrating a commitment to local food
systems and community food security into City initiatives and community planning.
Land Access + Collaboration
Accessing land for food production is a challenge that continues to intensify in the Gallatin Valley.
Participants expressed interest in identifying land that could be retained or made available for local food
production. They also emphasized the importance of collaboration and innovative solutions to make land
available for food production and community programming.
Awareness + Outreach
There is strong interest in increasing the awareness of locally grown foods, empowering community
members to grow their own food, and expanding urban community members’ connection to the diverse
agricultural heritage and ecological significance of the Gallatin Valley.
Housing + Resilience
The housing and affordability crisis is having a significant impact on local farms, food businesses,
educators, resource providers, and community wellness.
Infrastructure + Sector Development
Resilient local food systems involve a wide range of individuals, businesses, organizations, and
infrastructure that operate at multiple scales to facilitate and support production, processing,
distribution, marketing, eating, and waste management. Support for social and physical infrastructure at
all levels is essential.
For each theme, corresponding Opportunities for how the City can support a robust local food system were
developed. The 33 Opportunities involve leadership and support from multiple City departments. Collaboration
with community partners and food system practitioners is essential to implementing the Opportunities.
From the Opportunities, 14 Next Steps were selected as specific actions that the City of Bozeman plans to
implement in the near-term. Next Steps were selected based on their potential impact and feasibility. These
specific action items were identified as feasible by considering factors such as staff capacity, financial resources,
alignment with existing work or adopted City plans and policies, existing collaboration, and interested partners.
In addition to implementing the Next Steps, the City will continue to assess, prioritize, and collaborate on the
Opportunities.
“The City should very much embrace the opportunity to be a
pioneer of local food system development in Montana.”
- Project Participant
14
4 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
II. Introduction
Understanding Our Role in the Food System
The food system encompasses a range of interconnected
components that facilitate the flow of food from production to
consumption, spanning from local to global levels. Its function is
shaped by natural elements such as climate and soil quality,
alongside societal elements such as economic policies, cultural
practices, and community structures. These elements influence
the system at various levels, resulting in complex networks of
interactions and dependencies. One thing is certain: everyone is
impacted by the food system in one way or another.
Local food systems play a role in enhancing community resilience,
local economic stability, environmental sustainability, and overall
community wellness. This project was designed to provide the
City of Bozeman with deeper insights into the local food
landscape of Gallatin Valley, in order to help the City better
understand its role within the system.
Although a specific area boundary was not set for the purpose of this project, the Local Food System Preliminary
Mapping Project is centered on the local food system operating within the Gallatin Valley, with an understanding
that these systems are connected to farms, assets, and communities beyond the valley. The project took a
comprehensive approach to gain a deeper understanding of the local food system’s inner workings by connecting
with people from many dimensions of the food system, including farmers, ranchers, food processors,
distributors, composters, community organizations, entrepreneurs, and more.
A Changing Landscape
In the past 20 years, the population of Gallatin County has increased 71%.1 From 2000-2021, 67,520 acres of
land in Gallatin County were converted to housing.2 This rapid growth and development, combined with factors
like climate change, disruptions experienced through the COVID-19 pandemic, and increasing costs have created
significant challenges for local farmers, food system entrepreneurs, and community members. A report by
Headwaters Economics found that from 2001-2016, farming was the only sector that lost jobs in the Gallatin
Valley while every other industry continued to grow.3
1 Gallatin County Growth Policy (2021). Pg. 1-3
2 Headwaters Economic (2024)
3 Headwaters Economics, Gallatin County's Economy, Growth, and Open Space (2018)
Figure 3 Potato Fields at Gallatin Grown, Photo by Project Participant Melissa Stuber
Figure 2 Lentil Table Dinner, Photo by Project Participant, Claudia Krevat, Claudia's Mesa
15
5 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
Agriculture and Land Use
Although agriculture in the region has shown a
decline over time, there is still significant
agricultural activity in Gallatin County. The
2022 Census of Agriculture found that there
were 1,009 operating farms in Gallatin
County4. In Gallatin County, agriculture is the
second most common land use (37%), behind
State/Federal land (40%).5 The majority of
agricultural land in the county is found in and
around the Gallatin Valley.
Within the 19 square miles that make up
Bozeman City Limits, land use is
predominantly residential and commercial,
with a small amount of agricultural
production. Although agricultural production
within the City is minimal, Bozeman still serves
an important role within the local food system
as a vital economic driver and hub.
The City of Bozeman is home to many key
functions of the local food system such as
distribution infrastructure, point of sale
locations, and consumers. There are also many
opportunities to increase food production
within the City limits through various forms of
urban agriculture. However, in order to foster a robust local food system, the City cannot focus solely on urban
agriculture. It is essential to also support the broader food system in the Gallatin Valley and consider the City's
connection to agricultural production beyond City limits.
Natural Resources and Climate
Fertile soil and accessible water have long sustained agriculture in the Gallatin Valley and continue to make it a
desirable location for farming. Well before colonial settlement, people from many different Native Nations
frequented these lands as a gathering place to hunt, collect foods and medicines, and support a vibrant
Indigenous food system. However, the land and native species are increasingly at risk due to a changing climate
and ongoing development that threatens the loss of fertile soil and impacts water resources.
The City of Bozeman’s municipal water supply is facing heightened challenges due to increasing demand and less
reliable supply driven by shifting climate patterns. It is essential to consider the City’s water availability when
planning for urban agriculture within the City. Beyond providing water for Bozeman residents, the City’s water
supply is part of a broader water system and is interconnected with a network of over 1,000 miles of ditches and
canals that provide water for a variety of uses, including drinking water and irrigation for agriculture, throughout
the Gallatin Valley. Development and water use within and around the City impact the water system in a variety
of ways, including groundwater recharge and the flow of water through irrigation ditches. It is important to
4 USDA Census of Agriculture, Gallatin County (2022)
5 Gallatin County Envision Gallatin, Gallatin County Land Use Profile (2023)
Figure 4 Existing Land Use in Gallatin County, Envision Gallatin Land Use & Housing Strategy
16
6 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
consider these factors during urban planning for sustainable
growth and fulfilling the agricultural needs of the valley.
Agriculture in Montana has always navigated climate variability
and occasional extreme events. With a changing climate, this
variability and the frequency of extreme events is intensifying.
According to projections from the Montana Climate Assessment6,
average monthly temperatures are expected to increase in all
seasons, with summer and winter experiencing the greatest
warming. Potential consequences include shifts in growing
seasons, reduced snowpack diminishing water availability for
irrigation, and an increase in crop diseases and pests.
Although it is unclear exactly how climate change will impact
agriculture in Gallatin Valley, it is evident that farmers, ranchers,
and gardeners will need to continue to adapt. In addition to
adapting to ensure successful production, agriculture can also
play an important role in mitigating climate change. Agricultural
operations can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by adopting
more sustainable agriculture practices, including practices that
increase carbon sequestration and decrease food miles by displacing the need to import foods that can be
produced locally.
Community Resiliency
A resilient community is one that has the capacity to anticipate, adapt to, and recover from various stressors,
such as the housing affordability crisis, and shocks, such as the Bridger Canyon Fire and COVID-19 pandemic. A
fundamental characteristic of a resilient community is self-reliance, including the ability to produce and
distribute food locally. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of self-reliance when national and
global supply chains were disrupted. Enhancing our local food system not only bolsters resilience during times of
disruption, but also contributes to community health and wellness by providing access to nutritious foods and
creating opportunities for improved mental health and social cohesion.
As housing and living expenses continue to increase, more community members are at risk for or are already
facing food insecurity and become even more vulnerable during shocks and stressors. In 2023, the Gallatin Valley
Food Bank reported a 34% increase in households receiving help for the first time from the previous year.7
Bozeman Public Schools also reported an increase in students eligible for free and reduced lunch from 20.7% of
Bozeman students in 2023 to 24.3% in 2024.8
The local food system must have the social and physical infrastructure needed to respond and adapt effectively
during times of disruption. There must be redundancy built into the system to ensure that if one component
fails, the entire system does not collapse.
Food can serve as a powerful connector that brings together community members throughout Bozeman and the
Gallatin Valley, fostering community connections and a deeper sense of place. Shared meals, community
gardens, and local food markets not only provide sustenance, but also create opportunities for cultural exchange
and mutual support. By investing in a robust local food system, we can build a community that is more inclusive,
cohesive, and prepared to face future challenges together.
6 Montana Climate Assessment, 2017
7 HRDC Food & Nutrition Programs of HRDC Annual Report, 2022 - 2023; See Appendix D: Table D7: Gallatin Valley Food Bank Annual Data
8 Appendix D: Table D8: Bozeman Public Schools Free & Reduced Meals Eligibility.
“Every component of agriculture—
from prices to plant pollinators and
crop pests—exhibits complex
relationships to climate, depending
on the location, weather variability,
and agricultural and economic
practices and policies.
Social and economic resilience to
withstand and adapt to variable
conditions has always been a hallmark
of Montana farmers’ and livestock
producers’ strategies for coping with
climate variability.”
– MT Climate Assessment, 2017
17
7 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
III. Acknowledgments
The Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project would not have been possible without the community
members who dedicated their time, knowledge, and expertise to help deepen the City’s understanding of our
local food landscape. Representing multiple facets of the food system, each participant brought a unique
perspective and a wealth of experience. Sincere appreciation is extended to each participant for their invaluable
contributions.
Project Team
• Ali Chipouras – City of Bozeman Sustainability Specialist
• Natalie Meyer – City of Bozeman Program Manager
• Kate Burnaby Wright – Consultant
• Maclaren Latta – Latta Consultants, Consultant
External Steering Committee
• Christina Angell – Root Cellar Foods, Owner
• Jake Feddes – Feddes Family Meats/Amsterdam Meat Shop, Owner
• Laurie Little Dog – Lived Expert; Bozeman Health Family Birth Center; MSU Student
• Mary Stein – Montana State University (MSU) Sustainable Food Systems and Bioenergy Systems,
Program Leader (retired); Buffalo Nations Food System Initiative, Program Manager
• Matt Rothschiller – Gallatin Valley Botanical/Rocky Creek Farm, Co-Owner/Farmer
• Mattie Griswold – Regenerative Food Systems Consultant
• Melissa & Travis Stuber – Gallatin Grown Farms, Co-Owners/Farmers
• Rachelle Sartori – MSU Extension Nutrition Education Program Director
• Sam Blomquist – Prospera Business Network, Food & Agriculture Program Director
City of Bozeman
• Addi Jadin – Parks & Recreation
• Alex Nordquest – Forestry
• Anna Mack – Water Conservation
• Brian Heaston – Engineering
• Brit Fontenot – Economic Development
• Chris Saunders – Community Development
• Dani Hess – Communication and Engagement
• Jesse DiTommaso – Economic Development
• Jesse Philips – Parks & Recreation
• Jessica Ahlstrom – Water Conservation
• Nakeisha Lyon – Planning
• Sarah Rosenberg – Planning
• Takami Clark – Communication and
Engagement
Sustainability Advisory Board
• Brooke Lahneman
• Douglas Fischer
• Emma Bode
• Isabel Shaida
• Kalani Goodhard
• Kristin Blackler
• Lumay Wang Murphy
• Nathan Gracey
• Rebecca Kurnick
• Mayor Terry Cunningham – City Commission
Liaison
• Jon Henderson – Staff Liaison, Director of
Strategic Services
18
8 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
Project Participants
Each individual and organization listed below engaged with the Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project
through various interactions, including group discussions, one-on-one interviews, online surveys, and direct
correspondence. Their insights have been instrumental in shaping the direction and outcomes of this project. It
is important to note that this list is not exhaustive; there are additional contributors who provided input, and
many others whose work in the local food system contributed to this report.
• Adam Paccione - Red Tractor Pizza, Owner
• Ali Moxley - A.Moxley Consulting
• Ali Thornton - Gallatin Valley Farm to School
• Alyssa Freese
• Aysha Carter - Roots Nature School, Owner
• Becky Weed - Thirteen Mile Farm, Rancher &
Owner; Gallatin County Cattlewomen
• Ben Dueling - SporeAttic, Owner
• Ben Frentsos - Greater Gallatin United Way
• Bill Stoddart - 45North Partners, Business
Consultant
• Brendan Weiner - Gallatin Valley Land Trust
• Brianna Routh, PhD, RDN – MSU, Assistant
Professor and Extension Specialist
• Brittany Selvig - Bozeman School District
(BSD7)
• Bruce Maxwell - MSU Agroecology
Researcher
• Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)
• Claire Luby - MSU Assistant Professor
• Claudia Krevat - Claudia's Mesa, Private Chef
and Food Advocate
• Clearwater Credit Union
• Dr. Alison Brennan - MSU Department of
Human Development and Community Health
Assistant Professor and Extension Mental
Health Specialist
• Dr. Brianna Routh
• Dr. Colette Kirchhoff - WWAMI Farm to
Clinician Course
• Dr. Dilpreet Bajwa - MSU Professor,
Department Head Mechanical & Industrial
Engineering
• Elizabeth Swank
• Emily Stifler Wolfe - Facilitator & Coach,
Former Journalist
• Erik Nelson - Nest Partners
• Erik Walnum - Unwaffle, Owner; Private Chef
• Esther Smith - Health in Motion Physical
Therapist and Wellness
• Gallatin College Culinary Arts Program
• Heather McDonnell Babineau-Z - Whole and
Nourished, Owner
• India Maxwell – Together Bakery, Co-Owner
• Jacob Zimmerer - Buffalo Nations Food
Systems Initiative
• Jason & Yvonne Kimm - Kimm Seed Potatoes
& Kimm’s Organic Potatoes
• Jennifer Boyer - Gallatin County
Commissioner, Farmer
• Jeremy Nadison - Rhythm Project, Finance
• Jill Holder - HRDC, Gallatin Valley Food Bank,
Food and Nutrition Director
• Jonquil Nelson - Sage Gardeners, Founder &
Executive Director
• Josh Chance - Chance Farm, Owner & Farm
Manager
• Kara Landolfi - MSU Culinary Services, Supply
Chain Manager
• Kareen Erbe - Broken Ground, Owner &
Design Consultant
• Karin & Matt Broughton - Organic Vegetable
Farmers
• Karl Johnson - YES Compost, Owner
• Kathleen Williams - USDA Rural
Development, Montana State Director
• Kirsten Pfannmuller - Bozeman School
District (BSD7)
• Kris Nichols - American Red Cross
• Mac Burgess - Townes Harvest Garden;
Associate Professor Plant Sciences and Plant
Pathology
• Meara Cassidy – Kokoro Flowers
• MSU Sustainable Bioenergy and Food
System Capstone Course Students
• Michal DeChellis - AERO, Program Manager
• Pat Weaver - Community Food Co-op
19
9 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
• Peter Brown - Arthur M. Blank Family
Foundation
• Rachael Hicks - Three Hearts Farm
• Randy Lindberg - Quality Foods Distributing
• Roland Ebel - MSU, Assistant Research
Professor
• Ryan Green & Adrienne Huckabone - Happy
Trash Can Curbside Composting
• Sarah Friedrich - Career Transitions, Gallatin
Valley Farmers' Market Manager
• Serena Rundberg - Inspired Madness (Feed
Cafe, Steep Mountain Tea), Owner
• Susan Duncan - Small Scale Ag Entrepreneur,
Local Grass Fed Beef; Association of Gallatin
Agricultural Irrigators, Board Member
• Tammy Howard - National Center for
Appropriate Technology, Agriculture Specialist
• Wyatt Nelson - Montana Local Food
Distribution LLC, Owner
Figure 5 Project Participant Esther Smith (right); Project Participants Melissa & Travis Stuber, Gallatin Grown (middle); Photo by Project
Participant Josh Chance, Chance Farms (top right); Photo by Project Participant Jonquil Nelson, Sage Gardeners (bottom right)
“We need something akin to a common vision of what we want in our
food system. That won’t emerge from one person or one institution, and
neither government nor the private sector will succeed alone.”
– Project Participant
20
10 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
IV. Key Terms
Many words and phrases have various meanings and can be interpreted differently, depending on the context.
The definitions provided below are intended to clarify how key terms are used in this report.
Agriculture + Urban Agriculture 9
Agriculture: The cultivation or tilling of soil or use of other growing mediums for the purpose of
producing vegetative materials for sale or for use in a commercial operation and/or the raising or tending
of animals for commercial sale or use. Agriculture does not include gardening for personal use, keeping
of house pets or animals, service animals as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or
landscaping for aesthetic purposes.
Urban Agriculture: The cultivation, processing, and distribution of agricultural products in urban and
suburban areas.10 Urban agriculture refers to practices such as: micro-farms, community gardens,
vertical and rooftop gardens, food forests, ancestral gardens, edible landscaping, native habitat for
foraging, apiculture, backyard poultry, and other intensive small-scale production practices.
Urban Farm: A facility where food crops or nonfood, ornamental crops such as flowers are cultivated,
processed, and distributed. Urban farming is generally practiced for profit or food-producing activities.
Urban Farming System: Glass-enclosed framed structure used for the production of fruits, vegetables,
flowers, and any other plants that require special conditions of temperature. Examples: greenhouse,
planthouse.
Agritourism: Agritourism is where agriculture and tourism intersect, as farms, ranches and production facilities
invite the public onto their property to get a taste of the country and enjoy great agricultural products.11 It is a
way to diversify income, connect people to the land and a brand, and requires that each farm, ranch, or facility
has the capacity to manage another enterprise within the overall operation.
Ancestral Gardens: This term refers to land where Native peoples grow ancestral foods and seeds, including
Indigenous teaching gardens, Indigenous-managed gardens or ‘landscaping’, and other plots. Buffalo Nations
Food Systems Initiative and Montana Indigenous Food Sovereignty Initiative manage several ancestral gardens in
the greater Bozeman area.
Asset: An asset in the context of this report refers to any resource, entity, or factor that significantly contributes
to the strength and resilience of local food systems. These can include natural resources, community
organizations, individual contributions, businesses, community values, infrastructural elements that support the
production, distribution, and consumption of local foods, and more.
Community Gardens: An area of land managed and maintained by a group of community members used to grow
and harvest food crops and/or nonfood, ornamental crops such as flowers, for personal or group use,
consumption, donation or sale, or for educational purposes.12 Community gardens may be private or public,
managed as individual plots or collectively as a whole.
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a model connecting
individuals and local farms in mutually supportive relationship, allowing people to share in both the risks and the
rewards of farming. CSA members, or subscribers, purchase a share, which is commonly known as a membership
9 Definitions adapted from the City of Bozeman Unified Development Code
10 USDA
11 https://agr.mt.gov/Topics/A-D/Agritourism
12 City of Bozeman Unified Development Code Update Proposed Language
21
11 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
or subscription. In return, they receive a share of produce and/or other farm products, most commonly on a
weekly basis. In addition to the foods received, CSA members have the opportunity to develop relationships with
the farm and its farmers, learn more about how food is grown, and try new or less familiar types of foods, which
their kids may be less likely to resist eating because the foods come from a known source. For farmers, the CSA
model provides funding early in the growing season to support planning and cashflow, a chance to get to know
the people who eat the food they grow, and less time spent marketing during the long days of growing season.13
Food Access: The ability of people to obtain fresh, healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate foods through
market and non-market resources.14 Characteristics of a food environment that impact food access include
affordability, availability, convenience, promotion, quality, and sustainability properties.15
Food Security: Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient,
safe and nutritious food that meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.16
Incubator Farm: An incubator farm provides new farmers with access to land, resources, and training to develop
their skills and launch their businesses. There are varying formats and structures for incubator farms.17
Indigenous Food Sovereignty: The ability of an indigenous nation or community to control its own food system
and food-producing resources free of control or limitations put on it by an outside power (such as a
settler/colonizer government). Food sovereignty includes creating access to healthy food resources of one’s own
choice, assuming control over food production and distribution, and integrating cultural practices and values
concerning diet, food production, distribution, and the entire food system.18
Local Food: For the purpose of this report, ‘local food’ refers to foods that are grown, raised, and gathered within
the Gallatin Valley and adjacent communities to be eaten locally.
Local Food Council: Local food councils or policy advisory boards work to address food systems issues and needs
at a local (city/municipality or county), state, regional, or tribal nation level. They represent multiple stakeholders
or sectors, can take various forms, and may be sanctioned by a government body or exist independently of
government. Different councils address food systems issues in unique ways and adopt various goals, depending
on the needs of the community. Councils typically work by shaping and helping enact policies, leveraging
resources, coordinating efforts, engaging community members, building relationships, and/or working to
influence practices.19
Nutrition Security: Nutrition security refers to consistent access, availability, and affordability of foods and
beverages that promote well-being, prevent disease, and, if needed, treat disease.20 The use of this term reflects
a growing recognition that while some foods provide sufficient calories to satiate appetites, not all foods provide
the nutrients required to nourish physical and mental health.
Practitioners + Project Participants: In this report, “practitioners” refer to community members who actively
work in local food systems in our area, have expertise in various facets of the food system, and/or have directly
13 Sources: CSA Innovation Network; The National Agricultural Library; Local Harvest.
14 MSU Extension, Nutrition Education Program, Community Food Security Important Definitions.
15 World Food Summit, 1996
16 World Food Summit, 1996
17 Springfield, Missouri Community Gardens
18 Montana Office of Public Instruction, Indian Education Division: Finding Our Roots: Indigenous Foods and the Food Sovereignty Movement in the
United States.
19 Definition compiled from: John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, the National Agricultural Law Center, Montana Food Matters, and Community
Food Strategies
20 National Institutes of Health
22
12 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
relevant experience, such as individuals who have lived experience with food insecurity. Practitioners
interviewed during this project are also called project participants.
Resilience: The capacity of a system, be it an individual, a forest, a city or an economy, to deal with change and
continue to develop.21 Building resilience is not about preventing disruption to a system or making something
“fail-safe,” but making sure that it is “safe to fail” – meaning that although a failure or disruption in the system
occurs, it is contained and minimized and presents opportunities for learning.22
Resilience assumes disruptions will occur. Disruptions can be natural or human-made, and they are commonly
described as either shocks or stressors.
• Shock: Sudden disturbance to a system. For example, in an urban food system, this might be a flood or
civil demonstration that prohibits trucks from distributing food to grocery stores.
• Stressor: Gradual eroding of a system. In the food system, examples of this are increasing average
temperatures from climate change altering the growing seasons in a region, or high levels of food
insecurity.
Robust Local Food System: As envisioned in the Bozeman Climate Plan, a robust local food system embodies
resiliency, sustainability, and equity. It is a system that can adapt and thrive in the face of challenges, such as
climate variations, disruptions to the food system, and economic shifts, all while ensuring long-term
environmental and community health. It prioritizes equity in access, benefits, and opportunities for all
participants, from food producers to consumers.
21 The Stockholm Resilience Centre sourced from Food System Resilience: A Planning Guide for Local Governments
22 John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Food System Resilience: A Planning Guide for Local Governments, pg. 15
23
13 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
V. Project Approach
Project Timeline
24
14 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
2020: Bozeman Climate Plan Adopted
In 2020, the City of Bozeman adopted the Bozeman
Climate Plan. The plan was developed through a
collaborative process involving a variety of community
partners. Through this process, community members
identified the critical importance of a robust local food
system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build
climate resiliency, as reflected in Bozeman Climate Plan
Solution N. Cultivate a Robust Local Food System.
As envisioned in the Bozeman Climate Plan, a robust local
food system is a system that embodies resiliency, sustainability, and equity. It is a system that can adapt and
thrive in the face of challenges, such as climate variations, disruptions to the food system, and economic shifts,
all while ensuring long-term environmental and community health. It prioritizes equity in access, benefits, and
opportunities for all participants, from food producers to consumers.
Fall 2022 – Spring 2023: Project Inception
The City identified that to implement Solution N. Cultivate a Robust Local Food System, City staff, the
Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board, and City Commission needed to deepen their understanding of the local
food landscape.
On November 9, 2022, and March 8, 2023, the Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board discussed strategies to
better understand the local food landscape and the appropriate role of the City. The board and City staff
acknowledged the importance of learning directly from community members actively engaged in the local food
system. The Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project was incepted to learn about the local food
landscape, cultivate partnerships, and identify opportunities for how the City can support a robust local food
system.
•Learn About the Local Food Landscape: Deepen the City of Bozeman’s understanding of the current local food system landscape and how City activities intersect. Identify gaps, opportunities, and potential barriers to food production, processing, distribution, access, and waste recovery.
•Cultivate Partnerships: Build relationships and identify potential partnerships and collaborations with diverse constituents across the local food system.
•Identify Opportunities: Distill practitioner insights into recommendations for potential next steps that the City could pursue, establishing a basis for future projects and actions.
Project Goals
25
15 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
Fall 2023: Interview Strategy Development
In July 2023, the City hired consultants Kate Burnaby Wright and Maclaren Latta to guide the Local Food System
Preliminary Mapping Project.
Establish Steering Committee and Kick-off Workshop
An external Steering Committee with diverse food system expertise was established to provide guidance for the
project. In September 2023, a collaborative project kick-off workshop involving the project team, external
Steering Committee members, and City staff from various departments was held to identify focus areas for the
interviews. Six Core Topics and five Key Questions were identified to guide the interview process.
Core Topics
1. Food Access
Consistent physical and economic access to nutritious foods is foundational to an equitable and resilient
community. Access to nutritious food supports healthy, active lifestyles and overall well-being.
2. Resilience in the Face of Disruption
During disaster events the ability to provide the community with an adequate food supply is critical. The
COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vulnerabilities in the food system and the importance of
strengthening local food systems. Understanding the current capacity to produce and supply food through
disruption is an important component of resilience planning.
3. Community Wellness, Education, and Culture
Food systems do not exist in a vacuum. Social and cultural factors influence local food systems, and local
food systems influence norms, behavior, and social cohesion. Understanding the connections between local
food systems and wellness, education, community norms, different lived experience, and diverse cultural
perspectives will help increase resiliency, sustainability, and equity.
4. Production
Farmers, ranchers, and growers are the foundation of local food systems and have an intimate understanding
of the challenges related to food production. The City of Bozeman seeks to be informed by their experience
responding to shifts in demand for local food, navigating housing and workforce challenges, addressing
distribution and processing barriers, pursuing funding opportunities, barriers to land access, adapting to
climate change, and collaborating with private, public, and nonprofit partners.
5. Food Pathways and Systems
Processors, distributors, institutions, restaurants/chefs, grocers, financers, and other food system experts
hold essential knowledge and experience with the ecological, social, and economic factors that influence
food systems — and visa-versa. Interviewing a broad range of practitioners actively working in our
community will result in grounded findings and practical recommendations.
6. Ecological Sustainability
It is widely understood that agriculture influences soil health, carbon cycles, and other ecological systems.
The City of Bozeman seeks to understand how local food systems in the Gallatin Valley can contribute to
reaching Bozeman’s climate goals and supporting environmental health in the region.
26
16 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
Potential Interview Populations
During their November 2022 and March 2023 meetings, the Bozeman Sustainability Advisory Board identified
initial categories of local food system practitioners from a wide range of disciplines, sectors, and lived
experiences. The project team worked with Steering Committee members to expand this list and establish an
initial group of interviewees in Fall 2023.
Categories included:
Farmers,
ranchers,
producers
Processors Distributors
Small
businesses, food
entrepreneurs Retail, grocers
Restaurant,
catering
professionals
Food bank,
food assistance
Compost,
waste
management
Nutrition, health
professionals
Institutional
culinary
professionals
Education (pre-
K, K-12,
experiential)
Research and
higher
education
Government
(Extension, City,
County)
Agricultural
organizations
(AGAI, FFA, 4-H,
etc)
Conservation
professionals
(TPL, GVLT, etc)
Economic
development
(Prospera, etc)
Concerned,
engaged
community
members
Financial
professionals,
economists
Key Questions
A. Assets. What exists? What are important assets in our community?
B. Challenges & Opportunities. What are the gaps, barriers, vulnerabilities, and opportunities
related to the key topics identified?
C. Role of the City of Bozeman. Which gaps, barriers, vulnerabilities, and opportunities connect to
City activities?
D. Next Steps. What next steps can the City of Bozeman take to address the gaps, barriers,
vulnerabilities and opportunities related to the key topics identified? How can the City support
ongoing progress and success of private, nonprofit, and public partners? How will the City determine
and prioritize the opportunities that will have the most impact?
E. Metrics. What key performance indicators would be the most valuable to better understand the
current local food system, help inform City priorities, and track ongoing progress?
27
17 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
Fall 2023: Montana State University
Student Partnership
Since 2021, the City has collaborated with the
Sustainable Foods and Bioenergy Systems (SFBS)
Capstone Course at Montana State University.
Each year, the City and students select a topic that
focuses on a specific project the City is working on
or a challenge facing the community. The students
assess the City’s challenges, research approaches
from other communities, and propose solutions for
moving forward.
The 2023 capstone project, Municipal Government
Strategies for Nurturing a Robust Local Food System
in Bozeman, aligned with the goals of the Local Food
System Preliminary Mapping Project and
contributed valuable information to the project.
MSU Sustainable Foods and Bioenergy Systems (SFBS) Capstone Courses (SFBS 499):
• Dec 2021. Community Garden Expansion in the City of Bozeman.
• Dec 2022. Challenges and Opportunities Facing New-Entrant Farmers in the Gallatin Valley.
• Dec 2023. Cultivating Community: Municipal Government Strategies for Nurturing a Robust Local Food
System in Bozeman.
Winter 2023 – 2024: Interviews
The list of potential interviewees evolved as practitioners identified
additional individuals in the community with experience and
knowledge valuable to understanding the Core Topics and Key
Questions. This process included group discussions and individual
interviews, supplemented by follow-up online surveys that allowed
for further contributions. While the initial target was to interview 25
individuals, the process ultimately gathered input from over 80
participants.
Group Discussions
Group discussions were organized based on the six Core Topics. Since farmers, ranchers, and growers are the
foundation of our local food system and are intimately familiar with trends and shifts in the local system, two
discussions were hosted with producers to ensure sufficient input from this population. Food Pathways and
Systems was broken into three group discussions to capture the broad range of perspectives: food chain
(institutions, grocers, restaurants/chefs, entrepreneurs, etc.), finance, and food system specialists. Resilience in
the Face of Disruption was woven into all conversations.
Interview Highlights
Input from over 80 individuals
8 group sessions
15 individual interviews
Follow-up via email
11 survey responses
Outreach to over 150 people
Figure 6: MSU SFBS 2024 Capstone Course
28
18 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
March – April 2024: Analysis
Document Review
As part of the project, the consultants and the City reviewed existing City plans and policies and identified
existing and potential intersections with the local food system.
Distillation of Insights
Given the parallels and intersectionality of the assets, challenges, opportunities, and potential next steps
identified by practitioners across all Core Topics, insights from all group discussions and one-on-one interviews
were analyzed by the Key Questions. Findings were then organized into 5 key themes: Leadership, Land Access +
Collaboration, Awareness + Outreach, Housing + Resilience, and Infrastructure + Sector Development.
For each theme, corresponding Opportunities for how the City can support a robust local food system were
developed. The Opportunities involve leadership and support from multiple City departments in addition to
collaboration with community partners and food system practitioners.
April – May 2024: Community Review
Community Review
Early drafts were shared with the external Steering Committee and the Sustainability Advisory Board for review
and feedback in early April. Refined findings were presented and discussed with project participants for
additional feedback in late April. In early May, the final draft was compiled and shared with the Steering
Committee, the Sustainability Advisory Board, project participants, and the public for additional community
review and input prior to finalizing the report.
Next Steps
From the Opportunities, 14 Next Steps were selected as specific actions that the City of Bozeman plans to
implement in the near-term. Next Steps were selected based on their potential impact and feasibility.
Core Topics
1. Food Access
2. Resilience in the Face of Disruption
3. Community Wellness, Education, & Culture
4. Production
5. Food Pathways
6. Ecological Sustainability
Key Questions
A. Assets
B. Challenges & Opportunities
C. Role of the City of Bozeman
D. Next Steps
E. Metrics
Key Takeaway Themes
• Leadership
• Land Access + Collaboration
• Awareness + Outreach
• Housing + Resilience
• Infrastructure + Sector Development
29
19 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
VI. Key Takeaways
Group discussions and one-on-one interviews included a
diverse range of food system practitioners to incorporate
expertise specific to each of the Core Topics (Food
Access; Resilience in the Face of Disruption; Community
Wellness, Education and Culture; Production; Food
Pathways and Systems; Ecological Sustainability) was
included. As findings were reviewed by the Key
Questions (Assets, Challenges and Opportunities, Role of
the City, Next Steps, and Metrics), several themes began
to emerge. Through comprehensive analysis, the insights
of project participants were distilled into Key Takeaways
and organized into five themes:
1. Leadership
2. Land Access + Collaboration
3. Awareness + Outreach
4. Housing + Resilience
5. Infrastructure + Sector Development
These Key Takeaways, organized by theme, are a summary of the findings from the engagement process. The
Key Takeaways guided the development of the Opportunities and Next Steps.
1. Leadership
Participants encouraged the City of Bozeman to step up in its role as a community leader by championing local
food policies, leveraging resources, and integrating a commitment to local food systems and community food
security into City initiatives and community planning.
• While most production and a significant proportion of local food system infrastructure occurs outside of
City limits, Bozeman serves as a central driver for the local food economy.
• Due to the dynamic and interconnected nature of the local food system, advancing policies and
initiatives necessitates a collaborative approach that incorporates a network of public, private, and
nonprofit entities. Collaboration between Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman is critical for land use
and transportation planning.
• Involving farmers and food system practitioners in the development of policies, initiatives, and programs
increases the likelihood of effectively addressing fundamental challenges, gaps, and barriers.
• To gain a thorough understanding of the local food system, City staff and leadership must actively engage
in firsthand learning experiences within the community.
• The purchasing power of large organizations in the community like schools, universities, and healthcare
providers can generate a stable demand for local food. These organizations also serve as important food
access points. Although the City of Bozeman does not routinely purchase large quantities of food,
developing and implementing internal practices that prioritize local food would allow the City to lead by
example and encourage others to adopt similar policies.
Figure 7: The project team hosting a public presentation of the Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project draft report.
30
20 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
• Local food councils work to address food systems issues and needs at a local (city/municipality or
county), state, regional, or tribal nation level. They represent multiple stakeholders or sectors, can take
various forms, and may be sanctioned by a government body or exist independently of government.
Participants made clear that if a local food council were created, a collaborative effort including Gallatin
County, other local municipalities, nonprofit organizations, agencies, and private sector entities would be
the most effective.
• It is vital for Indigenous people living here today to guide the inclusion of their cultures, foods, and
Indigenous food sovereignty into City initiatives and educational programming. As the City explores how
to authentically recognize the heritage of the Indigenous peoples for whom this valley is ancestral
territory, it needs to take an intentional approach to building relationships, listening, and partnerships.
As one project participant cautioned, “Do not reach out if you are not serious about putting in the time,
offering space, giving those voices a seat at the table.”
2. Land Access + Collaboration
Accessing land for food production is a challenge that continues to intensify in the Gallatin Valley. Despite the
mounting pressures of development, there is still farmland with available water and rich soil suitable for small-
and mid-sized operations in and around Bozeman. There are also smaller plots of land in and around Bozeman
that could support other forms of urban agriculture. Participants expressed interest in identifying land that could
be made available for local food production and emphasized the importance of collaboration and innovative
solutions to make this land available for food production and community programming.
• New entry farmers cannot afford land without taking on significant risks or relying on pre-existing assets.
• Access to community-owned farmland, incubator farms, and longer-term affordable farm leases would
help support new entry farmers and experienced-but-landless farmers.
• Urban agriculture can take many forms, including community gardens, ancestral gardens, micro-farms,
greenhouses, edible landscaping, native habitat for foraging, and aggregation and storage facilities. It
does not require large acreage.
• The City is interested in expanding the existing community garden program and exploring other
opportunities for urban agriculture on City-owned parkland. However, the City lacks the necessary
capacity to effectively manage and grow these initiatives on its own. The most viable model that
emerged would be to partner with community organization(s) that could lead new initiatives and
manage the community garden program and new urban agriculture initiatives.
• Numerous individuals and organizations within the community are actively engaged in food production
and are currently supporting farmers, ranchers, entrepreneurs, and gardeners at various scales. Given
capacity constraints facing all these entities, the community would benefit from an entity that adds
capacity, supports collaboration, and is dedicated to implementing a shared vision for community
gardens, diversified urban agriculture, and supporting local farmers who grow food for local markets.
The City could play a role in bringing together partners to expand collaboration, develop this vision, and
identify next steps.
31
21 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
3. Awareness + Outreach
There is strong interest in increasing the awareness of locally grown foods and expanding urban community
members’ connection to the diverse agricultural heritage of this valley.
• As the community continues to grow, there is an increasing need to help bridge the urban-rural divide
and foster connections to our land, water, and heritage. Cultivating a deeper sense of place and
connecting people to the origins of their food (where food is produced, who is producing it) naturally
strengthens community relationships, as well as supporting local food systems.
• The City is well positioned to help institutions, residents, visitors, and other community members
understand the significance of local food in supporting community resilience, the local economy,
community wellness, and ecological sustainability.
• There is a need to increase both (a) awareness of foods grown locally in the Gallatin Valley and (b)
understanding of how individuals, institutions, and funders can support the local food system.
• A creative and multi-layered approach to education and outreach is essential to effectively engage a
diverse array of community members. By embracing varied educational methods and outreach
strategies, the City could potentially broaden participation and deepen connections within the
community.
• In recent years, wildlife conflicts, especially with bears, have become increasingly common in Bozeman.
Managing wildlife attractants should be a focus of educational efforts, especially when expanding urban
agriculture and composting. Wildlife considerations are expected to include using bear-proof containers
or designated spaces for compost, strategically planting fruit trees away from areas known to be
frequented by bears, removing fallen fruits and harvesting ripe fruits promptly, etc.
4. Housing + Resilience
The housing and affordability crisis is having significant impacts on local farms, food businesses, educators,
resource providers, and community wellness.
• As the City seeks housing solutions and focuses on infill and compact development, there is an
opportunity to seek innovative solutions that can ensure residents have access to natural assets such as
outdoor spaces, native landscapes, and urban agriculture. These natural assets within the City can
provide residents with a connection to wild and cultivated foods as part of our daily lives while also
supporting health and wellbeing in multiple ways. For instance, natural environments support mental
health and child development, enhance social cohesion through community interaction in meaningful
spaces, and enhancing food security through access to community-grown foods.
• There is interest and potential to work with landowners and community partners to establish sites that
provide space for both urban agriculture and affordable housing. Creative projects seeking to merge
agriculture with development can be complex, however, and project participants expressed the need for
creative financing and coaching to navigate concept development so project design is pragmatic, capable
of supporting food production, and truly benefits the community.
• There is opportunity for the City to actively promote awareness of existing community resources and
programs that reduce barriers to accessing local, nutritious foods.
32
22 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
5. Infrastructure + Sector Development
Resilient local food systems involve a wide range of individuals, businesses, organizations, and infrastructure to
facilitate and support production, processing, distribution, marketing, eating, and waste management. They
operate at multiple scales, involve food chain coordination across dynamic food pathways, and help communities
withstand both consistent stressors and shocks to the system. Yet margins are extremely tight for many local
farms and food businesses, increasing stress and impacting sustainability.
• Although critical aggregation and distribution assets currently exist, there is interest in expanding the
capacity for aggregation, storage, distribution, and value chain coordination in collaboration with existing
hubs such as Root Cellar Foods, HRDC Market Place, and Quality Foods Distributing.
• Project participants identified a permanent, year-round farmers market facility as a valuable asset. A
consistent location, adjacent storage, standardized processes, and additional resources would benefit
farmers, shoppers, and food recovery efforts.
• A grower co-op that could support value chain coordination, cooperative space, and/or collective
farming could be an effective tool to support farmers, who currently ‘do it all’ including growing produce,
raising crops, animal husbandry, marketing, repairs, accounting, permitting, grant-writing, income-
diversifying activities (e.g. agritourism), and more.
• Affordable, licensed commercial kitchen space is scarce and navigating existing spaces can be
challenging. This creates barriers for entrepreneurs developing and producing value-added local food
products.
• While many resources exist, local food entrepreneurs expressed a need for comprehensive technical
assistance and mentoring. This support could help entrepreneurs navigate product development details
(packaging, licensing, storage, labeling, invoicing, etc.), financing and funding opportunities, and
regulatory processes.
Figure 8: City Staff tour the Spring Creek Communal Garden
33
23 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
VII. Opportunities
Actionable Opportunities for how the City of Bozeman can nurture a robust local food system were identified for
each theme (Leadership, Land Access + Collaboration, Awareness + Outreach, Housing + Resilience, and
Infrastructure + Resilience). Opportunities involve leadership and support from multiple City departments.
Collaboration with community partners is essential to implementing the Opportunities.
From the Opportunities, 14 Next Steps were selected as specific actions that the City of Bozeman plans to
implement in the near-term. Next Steps were selected based on their potential impact and feasibility. These
specific action items were identified as feasible by considering factors such as staff capacity, financial resources,
alignment with existing work or adopted City plans and policies, existing collaboration, and interested partners.
Next Steps are highlighted in color within each theme and are compiled into one list in section VIII. Next Steps.
Figure 9 Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Process
34
24 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
1. Leadership Opportunities
Key Takeaways: Participants encouraged the City of Bozeman to step up in its role as a
community leader to champion local food policies, leverage resources, and integrate a
commitment to local food systems and community food security into City initiatives and
community planning.
1.1 Continue communication with Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project participants
and additional potential partners to discuss findings and feedback, implement next steps, and
prioritize and pursue Opportunities.
1.2 Develop and adopt a City of Bozeman local food procurement policy for internal operations
and City-hosted events. Actively share this resource with institutions, businesses, and
community members.
1.3
Provide opportunities for City staff and leadership to participate in site visits and educational
programs, fostering engagement with community partners and firsthand learning about the
local food system. Potential site visits include:
• Nonprofit organizations working to enhance local food security and Indigenous food
sovereignty resources (e.g. Ancestral gardens, Ancestral Seed Cooperative, MSU
American Indian Hall).
• Community gardens, food forests, and other community food production sites that
use different management models (e.g. Garden City Harvest sites in Missoula, 6th
Ward Garden Park in Helena).
• Local farms with different models such as mixed production, hydroponic, ‘mobile’
infrastructure, organic businesses nested within commodity operations, and farms
actively transitioning to regenerative practices (e.g. Corner Farm Village LLC in
Missoula).
• Sector assets and infrastructure (e.g. food processing facilities, distribution, cold
storage).
• Community volunteer opportunities (e.g. local community gardens, when farms invite
volunteers, Gallatin Valley Food Bank).
1.4
Build relationships with members of the Indigenous peoples’ community living in Bozeman.
Begin exploring the potential for partnerships related to resilient food system development
and strengthening community members’ connection to the diverse agricultural heritage of
this valley.
• Use respectful channels and processes to set up a conversation with MSU Native
American Studies/Buffalo Nations Food Sovereignty Initiative students and staff about
Indigenous food sovereignty.
1.5 Share the results of this report with Gallatin County and engage with the County on their
Future Land Use Map, Housing Strategy, and future agriculture preservation planning.
35
25 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
1.6
Identify incentives and other financial mechanisms used by other similar municipalities and
local governments to support food access, especially related to accessing local and nutritious
food. Determine what creative mechanisms and incentives Bozeman could establish to
support the purchase and procurement of locally grown foods. Examples suggested during
this project:
• Provide or help secure a match for Double SNAP Dollars and Food Rx programs.
• Offer incentives for local organizations to access, serve, and teach with locally
produced foods (e.g. Child Care Connections, care facilities, schools, etc.).
• Underwrite farmers’ market vendor booth fees for local growers and added-value food
businesses that use locally grown ingredients.
1.7 Incorporate Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Incentives or “market bucks” for local
farms and farmers markets into wellness and employee appreciation programming for City of
Bozeman employees.
1.8
Initiate dialog with key partners and peer communities about the potential to develop a Local
Food Council in this area.
• Learn about different Local Food Council structures and the role these councils play in
other communities. Connect with Missoula County for a discussion and/or a learning
visit with multiple stakeholders who are involved in their City-County Food Policy
Advisory Board that was established in 2020.
• Explore the potential development of a Local Food Council by identifying community
needs that could be addressed through a Local Food Council. Consider different
formats for Local Food Councils and what scale, structure, and potential goals would
be most effective at addressing community needs.
• Key partners to co-lead this exploration may include Gallatin County, the Open & Local
Coalition, Human Resources Development Council (HRDC), Gallatin Valley Land Trust
(GVLT), MSU Extension, Buffalo Nations Food System Initiative, local farmers, and local
food business leaders.
1.9 Collaborate with partner organizations and the State Legislature to promote policies and
initiatives that support and enhance our local food economy.
36
26 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
2. Land Access + Collaboration Opportunities
Key Takeaway: Accessing land for food production is a challenge that continues to intensify in
the Gallatin Valley. Participants expressed interest in identifying land that could be retained or
made available for local food production. They also emphasized the importance of
collaboration and innovative solutions to make land available for food production and
community programming.
2.1
Continue working to strengthen and expand the City of Bozeman’s community garden
program.
• Complete necessary maintenance and upgrades to City-managed gardens.
• Evaluate how Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland grants could support the expansion of the
community garden program and help increase the capacity of leading organizations to
guide this initiative.
• Convene an initial facilitated conversation with nonprofits and agencies that could be
potentially interested in partnering to manage and develop the City’s community
garden program.
• Reach out to partners interested in helping the City add raised beds to existing garden
sites, making these sites more accessible for seniors and individuals with mobility
considerations.
2.2 Work with partners, including farmers, to identify City-owned or City-managed lands that
would be appropriate for community gardens and other forms of urban agriculture.
2.3
Explore the formation of an entity or ‘urban agriculture collaborative’ that can partner with
the City to manage, develop, and expand urban agriculture initiatives, such as community
gardens. This entity could serve as a central hub for resources, education, and community
engagement in urban agriculture.
• Convene community organizations and knowledge holders to discuss interests,
barriers to collaboration, and potential next steps.
• An urban agriculture collaborative could support:
o Management and expansion of public growing spaces (e.g. community
gardens, food forests/edible landscaping, lease-able micro-farm spaces,
ancestral gardens, therapy/teaching gardens, tool library, gleaning, etc.).
o A volunteer network, with the potential to “tag” individuals with specific skill
sets (e.g. master gardener, native plants, horticultural therapy, youth at risk,
trauma-informed mentoring/leadership).
o An education calendar making clear which constituents are served by whom,
when, and where.
o Resources to help people connect with programs, navigate resources, and
connect with local food access and mutual aid opportunities.
37
27 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
2.4
Invite key partners such as Gallatin County and MSU to consider a broader evaluation of lands
in or near the City, including properties owned by other public entities and interested private
landowners. Working with these partners, identify spaces that could be appropriate for:
• New entry farm incubation and small- to mid-scale long-term agricultural leasing.
• Urban agriculture and infrastructure, such as: micro-farms, community gardens,
ancestral gardens, edible landscaping, native habitat/foraging, greenhouses,
aggregation, and storage. Work to make these lands available for local food
production.
• Innovative partnerships for larger creative projects that could include affordable
housing.
2.5 Work with community partners including Gallatin County, neighboring local governments,
farmers, nonprofits, agencies, MSU, and relevant private sector entities to develop a long-
term shared vision for diversified agricultural production in and around Bozeman.
38
28 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
3. Awareness + Outreach Opportunities
Key Takeaway: There is strong interest in increasing the awareness of locally grown foods,
empowering community members to grow their own food, and expanding urban community
members’ connection to the diverse agricultural heritage and ecological significance of the
Gallatin Valley.
3.1 Transition the “Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project” webpage into a central City
location for “Resilient Local Food System” information and resources.
3.2
Expand existing City planting incentives and outreach programs to include food-bearing
species. Coordinate with partners and experts to address wildlife concerns.
• Incorporate resources about edible plants, low water use gardening strategies, and
climate resilient native edible plants into existing Water Conservation and Forestry
programs and outreach (e.g. drought tolerant plant guide, landscaping classes,
demonstration gardens, turf replacement, etc.).
• Initiate vegetable starts program in partnership with local produce growers.
3.3
Strengthen the sense of place and the connection between community members and our
natural environment by building a strong connection to our local food system and natural
environment.
• Incorporate diverse agricultural heritage into historic preservation planning and
programming.
• Partner with local organizations to incorporate art, signage, or other informational
methods that highlight the valley's natural resources and diverse agricultural heritage.
If development occurs on land that has a strong tie to agricultural heritage, ensure
that the story of the place is told through interpretive signage or other methods.
• Highlight the significance of the area’s natural resources through art installations and
interpretive signage (e.g. Mountain Time Arts Revitalise Relatives) .
• Coordinate with Tribal Agencies and MSU Native American Studies program to explore
community educational opportunities around historic and contemporary Indigenous
land stewardship and agriculture practices.
• Offer educational opportunities and events to the community on the heritage and
history of Gallatin Valley's food systems and agriculture.
• Coordinate with Gallatin County 4-H and MSU College of Agriculture students around
agricultural heritage and making connection between current and past agricultural
practices.
• Identify potential participants for an oral history program exploring contemporary
agricultural practices and local food systems.
• Incorporate local food systems and agricultural heritage into children’s summer camps
and programming.
39
29 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
3.4 Once developed, actively share Bozeman’s local food procurement policy with businesses and
institutions as a reference for adopting their own policies.
3.5
Evaluate and prioritize outreach strategies that encourage residents, visitors, and institutions
to participate in meaningful ways in Bozeman’s resilient local foods culture and “buy local.”
• Utilize city communication channels to share information about local food such as
advertising for farmers markets, sharing stories about local food happenings, etc.
3.6
Partner with local educators to develop outreach and education programs that empower
community members to grow their own food, incorporate creative approaches to engage a
wide range of community members.
• Establish programs that appeal to renters and community members who may not
have access to gardening space (e.g. hosting a class on growing herbs inside and in
smaller spaces).
• Offer programing that covers the full cycle: growing food, preparing nutritious food,
canning and storing food, composting, purchasing local food (e.g. the difference
between local, organic, etc.).
• Create multi-generational programs (e.g. parent and child gardening workshop).
3.7 As Bozeman expands its compost program, consider how incentives to reduce food waste
could support successful implementation.
40
30 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
4. Housing + Resilience Opportunities
Key Takeaway: The housing and affordability crisis is having a significant impact on local
farms, food businesses, educators, resource providers, and community wellness.
4.1 Continue to prioritize developing and improving multimodal transportation options that
facilitate access to local food sources such as HRDC’s Market Place facility, community
gardens, etc.
4.2 Host a working session with food system practitioners and interested MSU students to review
Unified Development Code (UDC) updates from an agriculture perspective before a final draft
enters the process for adoption. Consider enhancing urban agriculture within the City, and
how urban development can potentially impact agricultural lands in the County and
workforce housing.
4.3
Define the City’s role in ensuring community food security during emergencies and planning
for community food resilience.
• Collaborate with partners focused on food access, food security, and mutual aid.
Identify strategies that the City can deploy to expand awareness of these programs,
reduce barriers to their use, and increase people’s ability to navigate food access
opportunities.
4.4
Develop resources about urban agriculture to share with developers, neighborhood
associations, property management companies, and residents.
• Develop an “Urban Agriculture for Homeowners and Developers” guide. This could
include edible food forest “template”, edible native species for low water use
landscaping, best practices for developing community gardens, etc.
• Proactively share the Model Homeowners Association (HOA) covenants.
4.5 Explore the potential to work with partners (e.g. Headwaters Community Housing Trust,
HRDC, etc.) and others to establish creatively financed affordable housing projects that
incorporate urban agriculture assets (e.g. edible native landscaping, community gardens,
etc.).
4.6 Continue to support efforts to establish affordable workforce housing. Expand efforts to
support creative projects that incorporate urban agriculture assets with affordable housing.
4.7 As the City reviews and updates City codes, policies, and plans, use a resilient local food
systems lens.
41
31 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
5. Infrastructure + Sector Development Opportunities
Key Takeaway: Resilient local food systems involve a wide range of individuals, businesses,
organizations, and infrastructure that operate at multiple scales to facilitate and support
production, processing, distribution, marketing, eating, and waste management. Support for
social and physical infrastructure at all levels is essential.
5.1
Collaborate with partners on community infrastructure projects that enhance the local food
system such as a permanent farmers market location, community kitchen space, etc.
• Engage food system practitioners to identify gaps and areas of improvement within
community infrastructure.
• Incorporate these insights into planning for future City assets and improvements to
existing City facilities.
5.2 Convene business development and support resource providers to map various programs
available for different business sizes and types and identify gaps. Develop communication and
information about the resources available.
5.3
Work with partners to pursue grant opportunities related to local food system development
that are open for municipalities or strengthened by municipal partnership.
5.4
Learn what workforce needs exist throughout the local food system and develop or support
opportunities for intentional engagement with students across K-12 and higher education.
These initiatives can build awareness of future career opportunities, foster relevant skills
development, and build relationships between students and individuals working in the food
sector.
• Identify education gaps related to local food systems and facilitate opportunities to
address these gaps. For example, facilitate externships for teachers to learn about
careers in agriculture and mentorships for students to work with individuals in the
food sector.
5.5
Track reports of municipal barriers to the development of local food system infrastructure. On
an annual basis, or as plans are reviewed, cross-reference this resource to ensure real and
perceived barriers are evaluated and addressed.
• Facilitate opportunities for networking, collaboration, and shared learning among
food system practitioners that also help the City identify ways it can support local food
systems.
• Share resources such as funding and financing opportunities, resources to navigate
regulations and compliance, and mentorship programs.
42
32 City of Bozeman - Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project
VIII. Next Steps
Leadership 1.1 Continue communication with Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project
participants and additional potential partners to discuss findings and feedback,
implement next steps, and prioritize and pursue opportunities.
Leadership 1.2 Develop and adopt a City of Bozeman local food procurement policy for internal
operations and City-hosted events. Actively share this resource with institutions,
businesses, and community members.
Leadership 1.3 Provide opportunities for City staff and leadership to participate in site visits and
educational programs, fostering engagement with community partners and firsthand
learning about the local food system.
Leadership 1.4 Build relationships with members of the Indigenous peoples’ community living in
Bozeman. Begin exploring the potential for partnerships related to resilient food system
development and strengthening community members’ connection to the diverse
agricultural heritage of this valley.
Leadership 1.5 Share the results of this report with Gallatin County and engage with the County on their
Future Land Use Map, Housing Strategy, and future agriculture preservation planning.
Land Access +
Collaboration 2.1
Continue working to strengthen and expand the City of Bozeman’s community garden
program.
Awareness +
Outreach 3.1
Transition the “Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project” webpage into a central
City location for “Resilient Local Food System” information and resources.
Awareness +
Outreach 3.2
Expand existing City planting incentives and outreach programs to include food-bearing
species. Coordinate with partners and experts to address wildlife concerns.
Awareness +
Outreach 3.3
Strengthen sense of place and the connection between community members and our
natural environment by building a strong connection to our local food system and natural
environment.
Housing +
Resilience 4.1
Continue to prioritize developing and improving multimodal transportation options that
facilitate access to local food sources such as HRDC’s Market Place facility, community
gardens, etc.
Housing +
Resilience 4.2
Host a working session with food system practitioners and interested MSU students to
review the Unified Development Code.
Housing +
Resilience 4.3
Define the City’s role in ensuring community food security during emergencies and
planning for community food resilience.
Infrastructure +
Sector
Development 5.1
Engage food system practitioners to identify missing elements and areas of improvement
within community infrastructure that could enhance the local food system. Incorporate
these insights into planning for future City assets and improvements to existing City
facilities. Collaborate with partners on community infrastructure projects when the
involvement of the City can help advance the project.
Infrastructure +
Sector
Development 5.2
Convene business development and support resource providers to map various programs
available for different business sizes and types and identify gaps. Develop communication
and information about the resources available.
43
Draft Updated 7/15/24
1 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project
Appendix
Table of Contents
Appendix A: Assets and Challenges .................................................................................................................3
Universal Assets + Challenges .................................................................................................................................3
Food Access ............................................................................................................................................................5
Table A-1: Food Access and Resilience Asset List (Organizations and Programs) ...............................................7
Table A-2: Authorized Retailers for EBT (SNAP and WIC) ................................................................................ 11
Table A-3: Local Farms that Accept WIC and SFMNP Vouchers (2023) ........................................................... 13
Resilience in the Face of Disruption .................................................................................................................... 14
Community Wellness, Education, and Culture .................................................................................................... 15
Table A-4: Community Wellness, Education, and Culture Asset List ............................................................... 18
Table A-5: Community Gardens in the Greater Bozeman Area ....................................................................... 22
Production ........................................................................................................................................................... 25
Table A-6: Local Producers in the Greater Bozeman Area ............................................................................... 27
Food Pathways and Systems ................................................................................................................................ 31
Table A-7: Food System Pathways Infrastructure Assets ................................................................................. 32
Table A-8: Meat Processing Plants ................................................................................................................... 37
Ecological Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix B: Intersection of Existing City Plans with the Local Food System .................................................... 40
Appendix C: Indicators To Consider ............................................................................................................... 43
Potential Indicators for Opportunities ................................................................................................................. 43
Additional Indicators to Consider by Core Topic.................................................................................................. 47
Appendix D: Assorted Data ........................................................................................................................... 49
Assorted Data Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Table D-1: Area Population and Housing Units, 2010 – 2023 .......................................................................... 49
44
Draft Updated 7/15/24
2 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Table D-2: City of Bozeman Demographics and Economic Growth Sectors .................................................... 50
Table D-3: USDA Gallatin County Agricultural Census Data ............................................................................. 51
Table D-4: USDA Census: Gallatin County Percent of Farms that: ................................................................... 51
Table D-5: USDA: Gallatin County Census Data 2002 – 2022 .......................................................................... 52
Table D-6: Existing Land Use in Gallatin County .............................................................................................. 53
Table D-7: Gallatin Valley Food Bank Annual Data .......................................................................................... 54
Table D-8: Bozeman Public Schools Free & Reduced Meals Eligibility ............................................................ 55
Table D-9: City of Bozeman Park Acreage Data ............................................................................................... 56
Table D-10: Registered Cottage Food Businesses and Food Business Licenses in Gallatin County ................. 56
Assorted Figures .................................................................................................................................................. 57
Figure D-1: Household Food Insecurity in Gallatin County, 2020 .................................................................... 57
Figure D-2: Gallatin County Food Access and Nutrition .................................................................................. 58
Figure D-3: Affordability of Food & Groceries ................................................................................................. 59
Figure D-4: Greater Bozeman Area Crop Map ................................................................................................. 60
Appendix E: Resources + References ............................................................................................................. 61
Appendix F: Asset List .................................................................................................................................. 63
45
Draft Updated 7/15/24
3 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Appendix A: Assets and Challenges
Group discussions and one-on-one interviews included a diverse range of food system practitioners to ensure
expertise specific to each of the Core Topics (Food Access, Resilience in the Face of Disruption, Community
Wellness, Education and Culture; Production; Food Pathways and Systems; Ecological Sustainability) was
included.
In the context of this report, an “asset” refers to any resource, entity, or factor that significantly contributes to
the strength and resilience of local food systems. Assets may include natural resources, community
organizations, individual contributions, businesses, community values, and/or physical infrastructure that
supports the production, distribution, and consumption of local foods, and more.
The following sections summarize the assets and challenges identified through the interview process. These
assets and challenges are organized by Core Topics, while also recognizing the intersections and overlaps among
them. For a comprehensive list of the organizations, agencies, and other entities named as supporting or
involved in local food systems, see Appendix F: Asset List. Please note this is a summary and does not include
everything that was discussed during the process; additional notes and resources are available.
Universal Assets + Challenges
Universal Assets
In the context of this report, "universal assets" refer to elements universally recognized by participants as
foundational in supporting and sustaining the local food system.
Key Assets: soil and water, local farmers, community, social infrastructure
Gallatin Valley has long been known for its abundance of wild foods, rich soils, and agricultural heritage.
Surrounded by mountains at the headwaters of the Missouri River, the valley also experiences relatively reliable
annual precipitation and runoff. When asked what assets support this area’s local food systems, nearly all project
participants recognized soil and water as essential assets.
Local farmers were identified as the most critical asset. Without farmers to produce food for local markets, the
local food system could not exist. The role local farmers and ranchers play extends far beyond food production.
They possess extensive knowledge and expertise about the local food system, serve as stewards of the land, and
often take on the role of educators within the community. Producers’ insights and practices are vital for the
preservation of the valley's agricultural heritage and the enhancement of a robust local food system.
The community in and around Bozeman was widely recognized by food system practitioners as a valuable asset.
Participants emphasized that many residents share a commitment to health, environmental sustainability, and
supporting local growers. There are a significant number of residents with the financial capacity to support a
strong local food economy, and the larger community is notably generous in supporting those who are facing
food insecurity, especially students and youth. Participants recognized significant potential to increase
community investment in the physical, social, and coordination infrastructure needed to support a robust local
food system.
Relationships and the extensive network of individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions, and
government entities supporting the local food system is another fundamental asset. Throughout this network
there is a wealth of knowledge, social capital, motivation, and entrepreneurial energy.
46
Draft Updated 7/15/24
4 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Universal Challenges
Key Challenges: affordability, land access, food insecurity, development patterns
Affordability was the most significant and consistent challenge identified by project participants. The price of
land, the cost of living, and labor all increase stress, decrease feasibility, and lead to a lack of sustainability. This is
consistent with Bozeman Health’s 2023 Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA)1, which identified the #1
priority as access to affordable housing, and the #2 priority as access to healthy produce at an affordable price.
The loss of existing farmers and lack of new farmers is strongly attributed to affordability. Business owners and
MSU staff reported multiple instances of new hires and students who chose not to come or decided they
couldn’t afford to stay due to the cost of living.
“We moved because we wanted to relocate for our families and other work at the time. It was a benefit to have
lower costs moving but not the sole reason. However, we were able to find our own facility with reasonable rent
in Kalispell, and I’m doubtful we would have ever found that in Gallatin. We always had a shared space when
located in the Bozeman area.”
— Vanessa Walston, co-founder of Farmented Foods, MSU graduate
An increase in food insecurity is another universally recognized challenge in the community. The Human
Resources Development Council (HRDC) reports that the need is growing. From FY21-22 to FY22-23, the number
of households receiving help for the first time increased by 34%. See Table D7: Gallatin Valley Food Bank Annual
Data. Bozeman Public Schools also reported an increase in students eligible for free/reduces lunch from 20.7% in
2023 to 24.3% in 2024. See Table D8: Bozeman Public Schools Free & Reduced Meals Eligibility.
The pattern and rate of development was recognized by every discussion session as a crucial challenge.
Participants noted that the valley, known for its prime farmland, is rapidly being developed. From 2000-2021,
67,520 acres of land in Gallatin County were converted to housing.2 Participants emphasized the importance of
collaboration between the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County and the need for county-wide planning efforts to
protect farmland.
Project Participants commented:
“[Gallatin Valley has] the best farmland in the state, which is currently getting covered at an astounding
rate with houses and chain stores.”
“I think there's a barrier that we've done a Triangle Growth Plan instead of a county-wide growth plan.”
“We need people in the community who can help us break the zoning logjam. Unless we do — unless we
find new, unconventional methods to achieve land access for farmers — we’re going to be limited.”
“We need to seek a time when City, County Commissioners — Bozeman, Belgrade alike — filter every
decision they make through this lens of food security and a healthy landscape. As long as people
fundamentally believe that high profit developments are and will continue to be the driver of Montana’s
economy, I don’t think we’re going to make progress.”
1 https://www.bozemanhealth.org/about-us/community-benefit/, summary:
https://res.cloudinary.com/dpmykpsih/image/upload/bozeman-health-site-
321/media/e7bcb741dd824cb9a8f8c2c75a822e44/dec2023_bh_chna-executive-summary.pdf
2 Headwaters Economic (2024)
47
Draft Updated 7/15/24
5 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Food Access
Assets: Food Access
Key Assets: food access points (schools, food pantries, grocery stores, youth and senior programs), Human
Resource Development Council (HRDC), financial assistance programs, local farms and distribution channels
It is essential for all community members to have consistent and affordable access to food, particularly
nutritious, local, and culturally appropriate options. Bozeman hosts a broad selection of grocery stores. Of these,
the Bozeman Co-op and Town and Country were identified by participants as locations that consistently have
local food available for purchase.
For community members facing food insecurity due to barriers such as affordability and difficulties accessing
food sites, it is crucial to have resources that can aid in overcoming these challenges. Key food access points for
community members experiencing food insecurity include schools, food pantries, grocery stores that accept
supplemental nutrition benefits, and youth and senior programs.
Human Resources Development Council (HRDC)
The Human Resource Development Council (HRDC) offers a variety of resources that support food access for
multiple vulnerable populations across the region. In 2023, HRDC distributed 1,667,276 pounds of food to help
families and seniors offset their cost of living.3 Related HRDC programs include:
• Gallatin Valley Food Bank (GVFB)
• Fork & Spoon Homestyle Kitchen (Montana’s first pay-what-you-can restaurant)
• Summer Lunch
• Kids Pack
• Senior Groceries Program
• Grow-A-Row
In 2023, HRDC opened Market Place, a new facility that offers significantly expanded food aggregation, storage,
distribution, and processing capacity. Through this facility, Gallatin Valley Food Bank (GVFB) helps supply Big Sky
Community Food Bank, Headwaters Area Food Bank, West Yellowstone Food Bank, Bounty of Bridgers at MSU,
Cat in the Bag at Gallatin College, and pantries at both Belgrade and Bozeman Public Library. Gallatin Valley Food
Bank also provides food to Blueprint (a transitional youth-centered housing program), schools, churches, and
occasionally to other youth programs, senior centers, and programs like Meals on Wheels.
Financial Assistance Programs
Government financial assistance programs such as SNAP (Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program) and WIC
(Women, Infants and Children) help families facing food insecurity afford groceries. There are 35 retail locations
within the City of Bozeman that are authorized to accept WIC and/or EBT (SNAP). Many of the locations that
accept EBT do not accept WIC. See Table A2: Authorized Retailers for EBT and WIC.
Schools
Schools from pre-kindergarten through university were identified as important food access points. Lunch is
available at all Bozeman School District (BSD7) schools; and breakfast is available at most. BSD7 staff noted that
they purchase local food when possible and are interested in doing so more often. Free and reduced lunch
assistance is available to support financially burdened families. See Table D8: Bozeman Public Schools Free &
Reduced Meals Eligibility. Participants noted that the community is strong and has proved to support each other
3 Human Resources Development Council, 2023 Impact Report
48
Draft Updated 7/15/24
6 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
during times of need. Residents recently raised $25k in 2 days to pay school lunch debt. Montana State
University provides resources for students facing insecurity including an on-campus food pantry, food security
scholarships, and more.
Local Farms and Food
Many local farms are registered to accept Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) vouchers and/or
WIC farm-direct vouchers (see Table A3: Local Farms that Accept WIC and SFMNP). In addition, local farms such
as MSU Towne’s Harvest Garden and local aggregator Root Cellar Foods have partnered with pilot ‘produce
prescription’4 programs designed to get local produce to people facing both food insecurity and diet related
diseases.
Many local farms donate surplus harvest directly to pantries. In addition to accepting direct donations, HRDC
accepts food from Hunters Against Hunger Program, a Montana Food Bank Network program that enables
hunters to donate legally harvested game, and Grow-A-Row, a HRDC program accepting home-grown produce.
Many local farms also share foods through private channels and work-share arrangements. For example,
Amaltheia Organic Dairy invites volunteers to help on Sundays, in exchange for produce. MSU Towne’s Harvest
Garden, a five-acre diversified farm supporting a student-run community supported agriculture program, has
offered students work share opportunities and runs a mobile farm stand located at Legion Villa, a Section 8
housing complex that serves low income, elderly members of the community.
Other entities identified include Hopa Mountain, which worked with partners to launch the Local Food for Local
Families, a cooperative effort to support and connect producers, food hubs, food pantries and others to increase
access to Montana grown and processed agricultural products. Montana Food Bank Network is another
resource, and while a majority of the foods they source and distribute through their Helena warehouse come
from national commodity channels, members of their staff are exploring ways to increase the amount of locally
grown foods they offer.
The network of organizations and volunteers working to increase food and nutrition security is significant. This
section has offered just a thumbnail sketch of assets and activities in the Bozeman area.
Challenges: Food Access
Key Challenges: affordability, transportation and accessibility, perceptions and stigma
Affordability was identified as a primary challenge to food access that continues to grow. Housing costs
increasingly consume a larger portion of family incomes, and other rising living costs further exacerbate the
issue. Nutrition benefit programs exist to increase the affordability of both local and mainstream food supplies,
yet these programs can be difficult to navigate for families and individuals with limited resources. An increasing
number of Spanish speakers is a growing barrier for community members seeking to navigate these programs.
Physical barriers to access food and nutrition benefit programs were identified, such as a lack of multi-modal
transportation options. Participants noted that insufficient transit options make it difficult to reach community
farms, HRDC's new Market Place, and other food access sites.
Organizations offering nutrition benefits face challenges in establishing and maintaining programs due to
insecure funding and technical barriers. As an example, schools are interested in providing free healthy local
4 Montana Produce Prescription (‘Food Rx”) Collaborative
49
Draft Updated 7/15/24
7 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
meals to all students, but sustainable funding remains a challenge. HRDC was identified as an invaluable
resource, but it was noted that no single organization can address these issues alone.
The availability of local food was also identified as a challenge due to a short growing season. Participants
identified a need for resources and connections to freeze, dehydrate, can, ferment, and otherwise add value to
local produce so that it can be utilized year-round.
Additional barriers relate to the understanding of food security. Participants noted that food security is complex
and often misunderstood with simplistic stereotypes or unconscious bias. Stigma associated with needing help
deters many from seeking assistance. It’s important to note that this avoidance can be about more than stigma.
Participants noted that some parents fear that struggling to provide for their families might attract the attention
of child protective services, further discouraging them from seeking help.
Table A-1: Food Access and Resilience Asset List (Organizations and Programs)
The following table lists food access programs and organizations working on food and nutrition security named
during this project. This is an excerpt of the complete list of organizations and entities identified as assets during
this project (Appendix F. Asset List).
Human Resources Development Council
Nonprofit,
Bozeman
Fork and Spoon Montana’s first pay-what-you-can restaurant.
Nonprofit,
Local
Gallatin Valley Food Bank Primary food bank location. Helps to supply Big Sky Community
Food Bank, Headwaters Area Food Bank, West Yellowstone Food
Bank, Bounty of Bridgers at MSU, Cat in the Bag at Gallatin
College, and pantries at both Belgrade and Bozeman Public
Library. Provides food to Blueprint, schools, churches, and
occasionally to other youth programs, senior centers, and
programs like Meals on Wheels.
Nonprofit,
Local
Grow-A-Row Gallatin Valley Food Bank accepts home-grown produce from
community members.
Nonprofit,
Local
Kids Pack Provides nutritionally balanced, kid-friendly foods to area
students in grades K -12 every Friday for them to eat during the
weekend.
Nonprofit,
Local
Senior Groceries Program Provides nutrition assistance for eligible older adults.
Nonprofit,
Local
Summer Lunch Free, healthy meals are available at sites across the Gallatin
Valley.
50
Draft Updated 7/15/24
8 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Financial Assistance/Supplemental Nutrition Programs
Federal Federal Distribution
Program of Indian
Reservations
Although designed to serve only American Indians living on
reservations, this program is part of Montana’s food security
network
State Senior Farmers Market
Nutrition Program
(SFMNP)
A tool for seniors on limited incomes to access fresh local foods.
Seniors redeem coupons directly with approved farmers.
Farmers work directly with the Community Food and Agriculture
Coalition (CFAC) for authorization, then are reimbursed for the
value of the coupons they collect by a local agency. (This avoids
the delay of mailing coupons to the program managers for
reimbursement.) Local Agency sites where farmers redeem
coupons: Bozeman Senior Center, Gallatin Conservation District
(Manhattan), Western Sustainability Exchange (Livingston)
Federal Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program
(SNAP)
Helps families facing food insecurity afford nutritious groceries
essential to health and well-being
Federal Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF)
Helps low-income families with children achieve economic self-
sufficiency.
Federal Women, Infants and
Children (WIC)
Helps to provide supplemental foods, health care referrals, and
nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and
non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and
children up to age 5 who are found to be at nutritional risk
State Double SNAP Dollars A tool to allow people facing food insecurity to extend
supplemental nutrition benefits to purchase healthier food,
usually produce
Food Rx A tool for individuals facing both food insecurity and diet-related
medical conditions to shift toward healthier diets. Two pilot
programs have taken place in our valley: one run by Bozeman
Health in partnership with Root Cellar Foods in 2023, and one
run by Bar1Wellness in 2022.
Federal Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) Farm
Direct Program
A tool allowing mothers of young children to access nutritious
local produce.
51
Draft Updated 7/15/24
9 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
School Resources
Bozeman Public School
District (BSD7)
Breakfast is available at most schools, and lunch is available at
every school; BSD7 has storage available and two large trucks
Federal Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACF)
Similar to National School Lunch Program (NSLP) for child and
adult care institutions and family or group daycare
Federal Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP)
Offsets the cost of nutritious foods served at child care, day care,
aftercare, and adult care facilities
State MT Office of Public
Instruction School
Nutrition Programs -
National School Lunch
Program (NSLP)
NSLP is a USDA program that provides funding for nutritious
meals in schools; Funding is based on family income
State National Center for
Appropriate Technology
(NCAT) - Harvest of the
Month
Montana State University
MSU Bounty of the Bridgers Campus food pantry
Regional Buffalo Nations Food
Systems Initiative (BNFSI)
Partnership with Indigenous Food Lab launching in 2024
MSU Cat in the Bag Food
Closet
Supplemental and emergency food assistance for Gallatin
College Students
MSU Food Security
Scholarships
Provides a 25-pass commuter meal plan to eligible students
facing challenges in accessing nutritious food
MSU MSU Extension Multiple resources, expertise; Researched-based university
resources for the people of Montana; Skill building/how to
garden
MSU MSU Montana Dietetic
Internship
Applied learning in clinical, community, and food service
environments
MSU MSU WWAMI Culinary
Medicine course
Also serves nursing and dietician students
52
Draft Updated 7/15/24
10 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Montana State University
MSU Towne's Harvest Garden Five-acre diversified farm supporting a student-run community
supported agriculture program; Students work share
opportunities; Mobile farm stand located at Legion Villa, a
Section 8 housing complex that serves low income, elderly
members of the community
Community Resources
Local Farmers markets
Local Community
Organizations Active in
Disaster (COAD)
Nonprofit,
Statewide
AERO (Alternative Energy
Resources Organization) -
Abundant Montana
Supports resilient and reliable MT food systems through building
consumer demand, market channels, and community
knowledge/networks; Includes food pantries and community
meals in local food promotion
Local Bozeman Public Library Seed Library; Demonstration kitchen; Onsite food pantry; Food
donation drop site; Community navigator office; Education
opportunities
Business,
Local
Broken Ground Permaculture, education on how to grow food;
advising/partnering with the Community Garden at Story Mill
Nonprofit,
Statewide
Community Food and
Agriculture Coalition
Farm Link; Food access programs; New entry farmer programs
Local Community Gardens See Table A3
Nonprofit,
Local
Gallatin Gardeners Club Inclusive group of gardening enthusiasts who grow home
gardens and also plant, harvest and sell fresh produce from our
market garden located at the MSU Horticulture farm; the
Club returns all proceeds to the community in the form of grants
Nonprofit,
Local
Haven Confidential support for anyone experiencing domestic abuse
Nonprofit,
Statewide
Hopa Mountain - Local
Food for Local Families
Rural and tribal leader focus; Cooperative effort to support and
connect producers, food hubs, food pantries and others to
increase access to Montana grown and processed agricultural
products
53
Draft Updated 7/15/24
11 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Community Resources
Nonprofit,
Livingston
Livingston Food Resource
Center
Food access resource for the Livingston Community, key player in
emergency response feeding
Nonprofit,
Statewide
Montana Food Bank
Network
Nonprofit,
Regional
Montana Food Bank
Network - Hunters
Against Hunger Program
In conjunction with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, hunters
who legally harvest big game during the hunting season can
donate all or part of their meat
Nonprofit,
Regional
Montana Indigenous
Food Sovereignty
Initiative (MIFSI)
Seeds, resources for food preservation, community gardens and
resources for growing food
Nonprofit,
Statewide
Montana Partnership to
End Childhood Hunger
Nutrition Security dashboard in development
Nonprofit,
Local
Sage Gardiners Provides raised beds and garden-based therapy for aging seniors
in Gallatin County
Business,
Local
Town & Country Foods Local worker-owned grocery, carries local and Montana products
Table A-2: Authorized Retailers for EBT (SNAP and WIC)
Montana Department of Health & Human Services, 2024
Helping Americans Find Help, 2024
Store Address Authorized Retailer for:
Albertsons 2006 200 S 23rd Ave EBT WIC
Big Kmart 7027 1126 N 7th Ave EBT
Blue Basket Markets 4 1035 Reeves Rd EBT
Caseys Corner Store 1 81855 Gallatin Rd EBT
Caseys Corner Store 2 1211 E Main St EBT
Caseys Corner Store 3 1420 N 7th Ave EBT
Caseys Corner Store 5 4135 Valley Commons Dr EBT
54
Draft Updated 7/15/24
12 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Store Address Authorized Retailer for:
Community Food Coop 908 W Main St EBT
Co-op Downtown 44 E Main St EBT
Costco Wholesale 0096 2505 Catron St EBT
CPI Zip Trip 46 1210 E Main St EBT
CVS Pharmacy 8621 115 N 19th Ave EBT
Dollar Tree 4897 1607A W Main St EBT
Gallatin Valley Farmers Market 901 N Black Ave EBT
Holiday Station Store 305 1951 Durston Rd EBT
Loaf N Jug 728 717 W College St EBT
Loaf N Jug 729 1910 W Main St EBT
Meat Shopp 722 N Rouse Ave EBT
Montana Harvest Bozeman 33 S Willson Ave EBT
Papa Murphys Pizza 1735 Oak St EBT
Rosauers 40 3255 Technology Blvd W EBT WIC
Safeway 2999 1735 W Main St EBT WIC
Smiths Food & Drug Center 170 1400 N 19th Ave EBT WIC
Target Stores T-1237 2550 Catron St EBT
Thriftway Super Stop 8 8192 Huffine Ln EBT
Town & Country Foods 219 N 19TH AVE EBT WIC
Town & Country Foods 1611 S 11th Ave EBT WIC
Town & Country Foods East Main 200 Highland Blvd EBT WIC
Town Pump Bozeman #5 1915 29001 Norris Rd EBT
Town Pump Of Bozeman #2 8927 2607 W Main St EBT
55
Draft Updated 7/15/24
13 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Store Address Authorized Retailer for:
Town Pump Of Bozeman 7 1871 Baxter Ln EBT
Town Pump Of Bozeman 8 5050 S Cottonwood Rd EBT
Townes Harvest Garden 121 Pre Complex EBT
Wal-Mart SC 2084 1500 N 7th Ave EBT WIC
Winco Foods #160 2913 Max Avenue WIC
Table A-3: Local Farms that Accept WIC and SFMNP Vouchers (2023)
Farm Name Town County WIC Farm-Direct SFMNP
Amaltheia Organic Dairy Belgrade Gallatin 2023
Spain Bridge Farm Belgrade Gallatin 2023
3 Fiddles Farm Bozeman Gallatin 2023 2023
Bear Canyon Farm Bozeman Gallatin 2023 2023
Chance Farm Bozeman Gallatin 2023
Cook's Honey Bozeman Gallatin 2023
Gallatin Gardeners Club Bozeman Gallatin 2023 2023
Gallatin Valley Botanical
at Rocky Creek Farm Bozeman Gallatin 2023
Three Hearts Farm Bozeman Gallatin 2023
Towne's Harvest Garden Bozeman Gallatin 2023 2023
Terra Greens Produce Manhattan Gallatin 2023 2023
Hettinger Household Three Forks Gallatin 2023
New Pioneer Farm Three Forks Gallatin 2023
Gallagher's Natural Beef
and Produce, LLC Clark Park 2023
56
Draft Updated 7/15/24
14 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Farm Name Town County WIC Farm-Direct SFMNP
D&D West Greenhouses Emigrant Park 2023
High Ground Farm Emigrant Park 2023
Borrowed Acre Produce Livingston Park 2023
Gasparakis Household Livingston Park 2023
Highland Harmony Farm Wilsall Park 2023 2023
Resilience in the Face of Disruption
Assets: Resilience in the Face of Disruption
Key Assets: local relationships, local food system (businesses + individuals), Community Organizations Active in
Disaster (COAD), the ability to produce and distribute food locally, educational resources for resilience
preparedness
The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated the inherent risk associated with heavy reliance on national and global
supply chains. The pandemic drove home how fragile these supply chains can be and demonstrated how quickly
food chains can be disrupted. Participants commented that grocery stores only have 3-4 days worth of food on
hand and that when the supply chain was disrupted “‘Just in time’ wasn’t just in time anymore.” One participant
commented that it was scary “not being able to get the basics: flour, yeast, eggs, milk.”
“The local food system filled gaps when conventional supply chains failed.” – Project Participant
The Southwest Montana COAD (Community Organizations Active in Disaster) helps communities in Gallatin,
Madison, and Park County respond to disasters such as wildfire, floods, COVID-19, etc. The COAD is responsible
for communicating with emergency responders and mobilizing local non-profit organizations during disasters.
The American Red Cross, a COAD member organization, is responsible for emergency food response. The Red
Cross relies on local vendors with commercial kitchens for feeding, and in larger scale disasters goes outside of
the region to have food delivered. Several key players that support food response by providing food storage,
meal preparation, transportation, and more include the Livingston Food Resource Center, the Salvation Army,
and the Gallatin Valley Food Bank.
The pandemic highlighted the importance of local relationships and the impact of smaller, locally-owned
businesses in responding to community needs. Participants cited Bozeman’s restaurant network as a valuable
example. Many restaurants reached out directly to the Bozeman School District to offer their inventory, while
others prepped food for front-line workers.
COVID-19 highlighted that our ability to produce and distribute food locally is an asset. Grocery stores, such as
the Community Food Co-op, that had previously been sourcing local food had significantly more inventory and
diversity of products due to their existing local relationships.
Educational resources, specifically on how to preserve foods, emerged as another asset in building community
resilience. MSU Extension offers several trainings and resources; Montana Indigenous Food Sovereignty Initiative
57
Draft Updated 7/15/24
15 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
has a manual on how to dry foods; and the internet provides access to a wide range of ‘how to’ videos. See Table
A4: Community, Wellness, Education, and Culture Assets for other education-based assets.
Looking towards long-term community food resilience and nutritional security, several participants mentioned
that food resilience planning and resilience assessment tools exist and could be researched and used to enhance
food resilience in the Bozeman area.
The assets listed in Table A1: Food Access and Resilience Asset List (Organizations & Programs) are related to
community resilience during times of disruption. During disasters the most vulnerable populations become even
more vulnerable. Consistent and affordable access to nutritious, local, and culturally appropriate food options
help to mitigate the impact of crises on community members facing food insecurity.
Challenges: Resilience in the Face of Disruption
Key Challenges: Risk of supply chain disruptions, increasing risk of future disruption, and lack of community
resilience planning
The pandemic exposed the vulnerability of food supply chains. Participants also identified potential future
disruptions, including extreme weather events, climate change, global conflicts, and technology breakdowns.
Participants noted the need to improve community resilience planning to reduce our vulnerability. They felt
there are currently no adequate answers to critical questions such as: How do we address crisis situations? What
investments in our local food system will mitigate vulnerabilities to regional, national, or global shocks? What is
the City’s role?
“The recent pandemic exposed the supply chain fragility, but the seemingly rapid post-pandemic recovery
diffuses the alarm in many peoples’ eyes.” – Project Participant
“When you think about [it], why does local government exist? To provide services for basic living in a community.
What is more basic than clean water and adequate food? And clean air. We need a few basic things, housing...
and food.” – Project Participant
Community Wellness, Education, and Culture
Assets: Community Wellness, Education, and Culture
Key Assets: Educators and organizations that provide education resources, physical spaces for access to nature
and growing/harvesting food
Participants identified a range of assets that offer ways to support a culture of growing and eating nourishing
local foods, building relationships, and enhancing individual and community wellbeing.
Sense of Place and Connection to Food
Participants highlighted the importance of connecting community members to their food and deepening their
sense of place and connection to the greater Gallatin Valley. Opportunities for fostering this connection include
physical spaces that provide access to nature and potential to harvest food (habitat along the Gallagator Trail and
other public trails and parks, etc.) and local farms that offer community access (Rocky Creek Farm, Towne’s
Harvest Garden, the farm stand at Three Heart Farms, etc.). Several participants highlighted the Revitaliseʌᴉʇɐlǝɹ,
a See Bozeman Creek artwork, that was created by Mountain Time Arts as a unique way to inspire people to
think about water.
58
Draft Updated 7/15/24
16 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Community Gardens and Growing Spaces
There are many resources that support people in growing their own food, including spaces to grow and
education opportunities. Community growing spaces such as Story Mill Community Learning Gardens and Food
Forest, City of Bozeman community gardens, American Indian Hall ancestral gardens, Hannon Hall gardens, and
raised beds built by Sage Gardeners provide opportunities for seniors to grow their own food. These spaces also
create opportunities for education, mental health benefits, and social cohesion. Community gardens and
growing spaces take a variety of forms and management structures. Table A5: Community Gardens in the Greater
Bozeman Area includes a list of 38 community gardens identified during this process.
The City of Bozeman manages four community gardens. Three of these gardens host a total of 87 individual
plots. Each plot is designated to a community member to manage on their own. The Learning Garden at Story
Mill Community Park is managed in partnership with the Gallatin Valley Food Bank. In 2022, The Gallatin Valley
Food Bank distributed 817 pounds of produce from the Story Mill Learning Garden and an additional garden
onsite at the food bank.5
Knowledge and Education Resources
A broad range of organizations are involved in the management of raised beds and community gardens.
Participants identified many organizations and businesses that provide educational opportunities and support
related to growing gardens, modern homesteads, preserving and cooking food, nutrition, and more. All are seen
as a valuable support network for community members seeking to grow, raise, gather, or process local foods. The
presence of knowledge in our community and the implementation of both formal and informal educational
programs were seen as valuable.
Access to Local Food
Locations and businesses that promote or offer access to local food were seen as important to support a culture
of local food. Participants named:
• Produce Prescription programs, Gallatin Valley Food Bank, other local food access programs. See: Table
A1: Food Access and Resilience Asset List
• Schools and care facilities that source local when feasible (ex. BSD7).
• Farm to table restaurants and caterers.
• Farmers’ Markets, see Open and Local’s Local Farm’s Flyer.
• Businesses that help convert lawns to food.
• Value-added food businesses seeking to educate using Montana-grown ingredients:
o to support soil health and community, e.g. Timeless Foods lentils (Claudia’s Mesa)
o to promote regenerative agriculture, e.g. ancient grains (Together Bakery)
o to reduce food waste and add value, e.g. by using “ugly vegetables” (Farmented)
• Local nurseries that offer native plants and educational seminars.
• Gallatin Valley Food Bank, called out for supporting a lot of connections.
• Bozeman School District, which is trying to source local.
5 https://gallatinvalleyfoodbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/HRDC-FN-Annual-Report-22-23.pdf
59
Draft Updated 7/15/24
17 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Challenges: Wellness, Education, and Culture
Key Challenges: Food Access, barriers to growing food, and understanding of Indigenous food sovereignty
Food Access
Conversations on this topic often began with challenges associated with food access, which are detailed in the
Food Access section above. Participants noted that assumptions and a lack of understanding of the local and
global food systems contribute to these challenges. Several expressed frustration that people often believe food
security is solely about hunger relief. One participant pointed out that “people believe our food will continue to
show up in the grocery stores from places like California,” despite food security being increasingly impacted by
climate change and shifting precipitation patterns.
Participants also highlighted the perception that eating healthy and local is always more expensive, countering
that “locally grown, nurturing foods should be accessible to everyone.” They shared that there are opportunities
to help people eat healthier and more locally while on a budget, thus making nutritious, locally sourced food
more accessible to all community members.
Barriers to Community Members Growing their Own Food
Participants noted that growing food is a highly beneficial activity for community members’ physical health,
mental health, and overall wellbeing. Barriers to growing food mentioned during this project included:
• Access to Land for Renters: 55% of Bozeman’s residents are renters (see Table D2: City of Bozeman
Demographics and Economic Growth Sectors). Rentals often don't encourage gardening, and renters are
reluctant to invest in a garden at a rental property.
• Access to Community Gardens: Community gardens have limited slots, and expanding them can be
difficult. Although the City is interested in expanding its community gardens, there is a lack of capacity to
run the programs, and partner organizations will be necessary for significant expansion. A member of
the City’s park staff commented, “It comes up a lot, ideas about doing more within parks, expanding or
tripling what we do at Story Mill Park… community ag… but who’s the partner/parent organization to go
get the grants? Who’s the volunteer coordinator? And how many staff people are needed to start
amplifying it, and making it productive and useful?” Multi-modal and transit routes to access garden
space are also limited.
• Covenants: Covenants, such as those adopted by homeowner associations were identified as another
barrier, restricting opportunities to grow food and raise animals and instead requiring yards to be
maintained.
• Time and Affordability: Whether you’re a student, a parent, a career professional, or someone juggling
multiple jobs, finding the time to plant and maintain a garden is challenging. Individual plots at home or
within a community garden can be a bigger commitment than many people can manage on their own.
• Culture: In Bozeman, cultural and conversational norms have tended to focus on activities other than
agriculture and growing food. The increased reliance on technology and shifts in cultural interaction
since COVID-19 were cited as reasons why people are less familiar with growing food, less likely to attend
educational programs, and less likely to volunteer.
• Knowledge and Education: Many people do not know how to garden, have lost that knowledge, or have
never had the opportunity to learn. Participants noted a need for education beyond growing food such
as how to cook and preserve food. For offering educational programming and volunteer opportunities,
communication and engagement is a challenge locally. Participants expressed difficulty in getting the
word out and attracting attendees. One practitioner described a program with 30 registrants but only 4
participants showed up. Participants noted that finding out about events and education opportunities
60
Draft Updated 7/15/24
18 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
can be difficult and frustrating. With many events happening in Bozeman, it can be challenging to
effectively publicize individual events.
Understanding of Indigenous Food Sovereignty
One interviewee observed that Indigenous food sovereignty is becoming popular, but it risks being co-opted into
a cultural pluralism trend rather than being respected as a way of life and a responsibility. They stated, “Suddenly
it’s like really cool. And that’s sweet, there’s this growing awareness, but it can get really swept into this foodie
culture, where it’s like kind of a cultural pluralism type of thing, rather than a way of life and a way of being and
a responsibility."
Participants stressed the importance of seeking input and learning from Indigenous people to gain a better
understanding of Indigenous food sovereignty and that Indigenous food sovereignty work should be led by
Indigenous people.
Table A-4: Community Wellness, Education, and Culture Asset List
This is an excerpt of the complete list of organizations and entities identified as assets during this project
(Appendix F. Asset List)
Type/Region Asset Notes
Nonprofit,
Statewide
AERO (Alternative Energy
Resources Organization) -
Abundant Montana
Supports resilient and reliable MT food systems through
building consumer demand, market channels, and
community knowledge/networks; Includes food pantries
and community meals in local food promotion
Local Bozeman Public Library Seed Library; Demonstration kitchen; Onsite food pantry;
Food donation drop site; Community navigator office;
Education opportunities
Local Bozeman Public School District
(BSD7)
Breakfast is available at most schools; lunch is available at
every school; BSD7 has storage available and two large
trucks
Business,
Local
Broken Ground Permaculture, education on how to grow food,
advising/partnering with the Community Garden at Story
Mill
Regional Buffalo Nations Food Systems
Initiative (BNFSI)
Indigenous-led and builds collective, collaborative, and
proactive capacity for Indigenous food sovereignty.
Partnership with Indigenous Food Lab launching this year
Nonprofit,
Local
Cancer Community Support
Montana
Garden beds on site for informal therapy and nutrition
programming
Business,
Local
Cashman Nursery Nursery, gardening supplies, education opportunities and
gardening support
61
Draft Updated 7/15/24
19 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type/Region Asset Notes
Federal Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACF)
Similar to NSLP for child and adult care institutions and
family or group daycare
Business,
Local
Claudia's Mesa Community dinners, education about lentils and other
sustainable, local crops
Nonprofit,
Statewide
Community Food and
Agriculture Coalition (CFAC)
Farm Link; Food access programs; New entry farmer
programs
Local Community Gardens See Table A3
Nonprofit,
Local
Eagle Mount Quality therapeutic recreational opportunities for people
with disabilities and young people with cancer, including
horticulture programs
Business,
Local
Farmented Value added business, fermented vegetables
Local Farmers markets
Local Foraging Walks led by Jacob
Zimmerer
Jacob is an MSU/BNFSI student who leads foraging walks in
the community
Local Gallatin City-County Health
Department
Food safety information and resources, licenses and
permitting, registration for cottage food businesses
Local Gallatin Conservation District Community garden and education opportunities on
gardening, resources for producers
Nonprofit,
Local
Gallatin Gardeners Club Inclusive group of gardening enthusiasts who grow home
gardens and also plant, harvest and sell fresh produce from
our market garden located at the MSU Horticulture farm;
The Club returns all proceeds to the community in the form
of grants
Business,
Local
Gallatin Valley Botanical at
Rocky Creek Farm
Farm stand open to the public, hosts many events and
opportunities for community members to come to the farm
Local Gallatin Valley Farm Fair
Nonprofit,
Local
Gallatin Valley Farm to School Connecting children and families with local foods in the
garden, classroom, cafeteria, and community
Gallatin Water Quality District Water resources education, water quality monitoring
62
Draft Updated 7/15/24
20 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type/Region Asset Notes
Gallatin Watershed
Collaborative
Collaborating on the future of water in the Gallatin
Valley. Stewardship through partnerships, education,
restoration, and individual empowerment
Nonprofit,
Local
Haven Confidential support for anyone experiencing domestic
abuse
Nonprofit,
Statewide
Hopa Mountain - Local Food
for Local Families
Rural and tribal leader focus. Cooperative effort to support
and connect producers, food hubs, food pantries and
others to increase access to Montana grown and processed
agricultural products
Nonprofit,
Bozeman
HRDC - Fork and Spoon Montana’s first pay-what-you-can restaurant
Nonprofit,
Local
HRDC - Gallatin Valley Food
Bank
Primary food bank location. Helps to supply Big Sky
Community Food Bank, Headwaters Area Food Bank, West
Yellowstone Food Bank, Bounty of Bridgers at MSU, Cat in
the Bag at Gallatin College, and pantries at both Belgrade
and Bozeman Public Library. Provides food to Blueprint,
schools, churches, and occasionally to other youth
programs, senior centers, and programs like Meals on
Wheels.
Nonprofit,
Local
HRDC - Grow-A-Row Gallatin Valley Food Bank accepts home-grown produce
from community members
Nonprofit,
Livingston
Livingston Food Resource
Center
Food access resource for the Livingston Community, key
player in emergency response feeding
Livingston Hospital Sourcing local foods
MSU Montana Farm to School
Institute
Collaborative program with Montana Office of Public
Instruction, housed within Team Nutrition at MSU
Nonprofit,
Regional
Montana Indigenous Food
Sovereignty Initiative (MIFSI)
Intertribal collaboration of Indigenous young professionals
and elder-mentors committed to working as relatives to
build shared capacity for Indigenous food sovereignty;
Seeds, resources for food preservation, community gardens
and resources for growing food
Nonprofit,
Statewide
Montana Partnership to End
Childhood Hunger
Nutrition Security dashboard in development
63
Draft Updated 7/15/24
21 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type/Region Asset Notes
Nonprofit,
local
Mountain Time Arts Engaging public art projects and programs; Indigenous and
environmental awareness
MSU MSU Extension - Gallatin
County
Master gardener program and other horticulture education
resources, 4-H Program, resources and education
opportunity for agriculture
MSU MSU Extension - Montana
Master Gardener Program
Education and service organization for gardening (part of
Gallatin County Extension)
MSU MSU Extension Multiple resources, expertise; Researched-based university
resources for the people of Montana; Skill building/how to
garden
MSU MSU Montana Dietetic
Internship
Applied learning in clinical, community, and food service
environments
MSU MSU Sustainable Food &
Bioenergy Systems (SFBS)
Academic program; Interns/workforce
MSU MSU WWAMI Culinary
Medicine course
Also serves nursing and dietician students
Nonprofit,
National
National Center for
Appropriate Technology
(NCAT)
Helping people build resilient communities through local
and sustainable solutions that reduce poverty, strengthen
self-reliance, and protect natural resources
Statewide NCAT - Harvest of the Month
Nonprofit,
local
Open & Local Coalition Collaboration toward stronger community food systems
and conserved agricultural lands
Nonprofit,
Local
Sage Gardiners Provides raised beds and garden-based therapy for aging
seniors in Gallatin County
State Senior Farmers Market
Nutrition Program (SFMNP)
A tool for seniors on limited incomes to access fresh local
foods. Seniors redeem coupons directly with approved
farmers. Farmers work directly with CFAC for authorization,
then are reimbursed for the value of the coupons they
collect by a local agency. (This avoids the delay of mailing
coupons to the program managers for reimbursement.)
Local Agency sites where farmers redeem coupons:
Bozeman Senior Center, Gallatin Conservation District
(Manhattan), Western Sustainability Exchange (Livingston)
64
Draft Updated 7/15/24
22 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type/Region Asset Notes
Three Hearts Farm Farm stand
Nonprofit,
Local
Tinworks Art Food-related installations and conversation series
Business,
Local
Together Bakery Bakery making bread with ancient grains grown in Montana
MSU Towne's Harvest Garden Five-acre diversified farm supporting a student-run
community supported agriculture program; Students work
share opportunities; Mobile farm stand located at Legion
Villa, a Section 8 housing complex that serves low income,
elderly members of the community
Table A-5 Community Gardens in the Greater Bozeman Area
This table includes 38 community gardens in the greater Bozeman area that were identified through the Local
Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project. Although this list may not encompass all community gardens in
Bozeman, it showcases various models and management structures of community gardens in the area. It can
serve as a tool to support the City of Bozeman and partners in their efforts to strengthen and expand community
garden programs and consider collaborative solutions to support garden access, management, and production.
This is also available as a map online: Community Gardens - Local Food System Prelim Mapping 2024
65
Draft Updated 7/15/24
23 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Management Type Name Status, Notes, Comments
Public - Individual
Plots
City of Bozeman - City Hall Garden Active, 24 plots, In need of
improvements
Public - Individual
Plots
City of Bozeman - Langhor Garden Active, 42 plots
Public - Individual
Plots
City of Bozeman - Westlake Garden Active, 21 plots, In need of
improvements (behind Darlington
Manor)
Public - Managed City of Bozeman - Story Mill Community
Garden + Food Forest
Active, partnership with HRDC
Managed at MSU
American Indian Hall
(AIH)
Heritage Gardens at American Indian Hall,
MSU
Managed at MSU
Horticulture Farm
Gallatin Gardner’s Club plots Active
Managed at MSU
Horticulture Farm
MIFSI plots at Towne's Harvest Garden Active – Includes Montana Food
Sovereignty initiative plots
Public - Managed Manhattan Community Garden at
Gallatin Conservation District
Active
Nonprofit Cancer Support Community MT -
Bozeman
Nonprofit Eagle Mount Raised beds, Greenhouse
Nonprofit Unity Garden at HRDC Warming Center Active
Church Hope Lutheran
Church Peace Lutheran Active — Belgrade Middle School
helps maintain
School Anderson School Passive solar greenhouse
School Belgrade High School
School Emily Dickenson Elementary 2024: Managed by MSU Extension
Gallatin County Horticulture Agent
66
Draft Updated 7/15/24
24 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Management Type Name Status, Notes, Comments
School Great Beginnings Montessori (ECE) Active
School Hawthorn Elementary
School Headwaters Academy Active
School Irving Elementary Raised beds
School Longfellow Elementary Raised beds (inactive?)
School Middle Creek Montessori (ECE) Farm
School Morning Star Elementary Greenhouse (inactive?)
School Quail Hollow (ECE) Active
School Whittier Elementary Passive solar greenhouse, raised beds
Private Bozeman Cohousing Mixed infrastructure, located within
development
Private Norton Ranch subdivision 16 plots
Private Spring Creek Communal Garden Active
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Chequamegon Village Neighborhood
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Churchill Retirement Community
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Darlington Manor Assumed to be raised beds, separate
from the City’s public community
garden plots
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Hamilton House
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
High Gate Senior Living
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Legion Villa Apartments
67
Draft Updated 7/15/24
25 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Management Type Name Status, Notes, Comments
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Mountain View Care Community Decommissioned
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Parkhaven retirement community
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Spring Run Apartments
Private - Senior, built
by Sage Gardiners
Summer Wood Apartments
Production
Assets: Production
Key Assets: Farmers, Market for Local Food, Technical Expertise, Financing
Farmers were identified as the most essential asset, alongside soil and water, categorized under Universal Assets.
Participants highlighted the diverse experience and expertise among producers, coupled with a strong
entrepreneurial spirit. As one project participant noted, “There is lots of entrepreneurial spirit here. People are
willing to solve problems, make it work, and persevere.” Producers identified local market and ability to sell food
locally as an essential asset. They highlighted that the community is supportive and interested in purchasing local
foods. Local restaurants also provide value by sourcing local food.
Participants also named assets that make it possible to purchase local food, from farmers markets and grocery
stores that carry locally sourced food to the organizations like Abundant Montana working to promote and
market Montana-grown foods. Other tangible assets ranged from the businesses where farmers purchase
equipment and supplies to seed companies and veterinarians. See the next section Food Pathways and Systems
Producers noted the importance of technical expertise and resources that offer support for agriculture practices
and innovation such as MSU specialists and organizations like ATTRA (Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural
Areas), NCAT, AERO, and Barn Door.
Access to financing, whether through traditional lending institutions or newer private investment models like
HomeStake Venture Partners and Dirt Capital, was seen as vital. Grant opportunities, such as Montana
Department of Agriculture’s Growth Through Agriculture program, Specialty Crop Block Grants, and other
funding sources, provide valuable capital for improvements and operations. Although USDA funding was
mentioned, participants noted the challenges individual operations face in navigating the “alphabet soup” of
USDA programs (e.g. AMS, NIFA, GusNIP, NRCS, FSA, FNS, Rural Development State Offices, APHIS, and FSIS).
Challenges: Production
Key Challenges: land access, cost, lack of growers, marketing, misunderstanding of agriculture, and operational
challenges
68
Draft Updated 7/15/24
26 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Land Access
The most prohibitive barrier to farming in the Gallatin Valley is the high cost of land. Participants noted that new-
entry farmers struggle to secure land without taking on considerable risk or leveraging existing assets, which has
led to a reduction in the number of farmers and few new entrants. In 2022, an MSU Sustainable Food and
Bioenergy Systems (SFBS) capstone class surveyed agriculture students, finding that while 48.1% were interested
in farming in the Gallatin Valley after graduation, only 3.8% believed they would realistically start a farming
operation there. This highlights the perception that farming is not a viable career option. One producer observed
that “people don’t view the prospect of farming seriously.”
Financial Feasibility
The financial feasibility of farming is a major challenge due to high costs and difficulty competing with larger
markets. Specific costs include energy (from vehicles to heating greenhouses), labor, property taxes, and the
pace of inflation. Farmers find it challenging to keep up with rising costs, leading many to rely more on direct
sales. Meanwhile, buyers are becoming more sensitive to price increases. Growers specializing in controlled
environment agriculture sometimes find it more lucrative to grow high-value crops, like marijuana.
“We need to change this and created a diversified system: land access, perception of farming, financial
feasibility—all of it.” – Project Participant
Marketing and Awareness
Raising awareness and marketing local food is another challenge. Farmers expressed a strong interest in help
with promotion and increasing awareness of local farms and foods. As one farmer noted, “It’s really just the
demand for our products that drives it all. If the City can help facilitate the demand for local food, it’s going to
help us out a lot.” Another farmer added, “Customers won't try to purchase locally grown food if they don't know
it is available.”
Misunderstanding of Agriculture in the Community
Participants highlighted the nuanced perceptions surrounding local food system development within the
community. One rancher highlighted a common misconception about farming. People often view farmers as
either "evil big ag" entities that disregard environmental concerns or as idealized, nostalgic figures from paintings
like "American Gothic" or books like Laura Ingalls Wilder’s "Farmer Boy." In reality, no two operations are the
same, and farms in the valley vary widely in size and practices. Even among those selling to local markets, the
diversity in operations is substantial.
Several producers expressed skepticism about the feasibility of integrating micro-farms or urban agricultural
features into new developments. They pointed out a general lack of understanding of agricultural requirements.
Key considerations for evaluating the potential of a piece of land for agriculture include: Is there water available?
Is there infrastructure? Will the farmer be able to gain equity in the property and/or live on site? What if
neighbors don’t like the mess, the smells, the dust, noise at odd hours, the greenhouse lights, or the coming and
going of workers or customers? Is it financially viable? What if someone sprays and contaminates fields or
orchards? What happens when neighborhood pets wreak havoc in a field or chicken coop? What happens if the
management arrangement falls apart, who can step in?
Producers also expressed concern about the long-term viability of irrigation systems and water delivery to
agricultural operations. There’s a prevailing sense that those without agricultural experience do not fully
understand the consequences of compromising the valley’s irrigation system, such as lower water levels in wells,
reduced hay for livestock, and the inability to grow crops.
Operational Challenges
69
Draft Updated 7/15/24
27 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Farmers face a variety of operational challenges that can vary from farm to farm and over time. Challenges
include:
• Operations that require large equipment are facing increasing isolation as development spreads around
them, this can make operational tasks like moving equipment more difficult.
• Accessing key resources like hay, minerals, and processing is becoming more challenging as development
drives farming operations out of the valley and costs continue to increase.
• Managing and preventing disease. One participant shared the following observations: “We need to be
buying our seed potato from people HERE in Montana. We’re more careful about disease control, with
the MSU lab, all of that put together. But there are so many people in the valley who have no idea [about
possible diseases], and they’re ordering their seed potatoes and probably other seed too — same issues
— from who knows what catalog, from who knows where— bringing in diseases and other stuff that we
don’t want here.”
• Liability insurance and exemptions.
• Shortage of large animal veterinarians.
• There are multiple farmers markets; navigating all of the different locations, organizers, fees, and
processes is a timely and costly challenge.
• Availability and access of cold storage.
• Need for meat processing, especially for smaller operations.
• Unpredictable weather, hail damage, etc.
• It can be difficult to scale up operations and find the appropriate scale for sustainability.
• Transitioning to organic or regenerative methods can be difficult and costly.
• Stress and mental health challenges. This can be hard to discuss, and this project wasn’t designed to
explore any one challenge deeply. However, resources like “Beyond The Weather” provide a glimpse at
the seriousness of this challenge. Even comments like this quote from 2022, when a group of farmers
came together to talk about the challenges facing farmers and opportunities to support farmers, can
offer a sliver of insight into the depth of frustration: “There are superheroes in this valley that have spent
their lives trying to make it work, but it’s just not working. There should be a way to be a farmer, a hard
worker, and be able to make ends meet.”
Table A-6: Local Producers in the Greater Bozeman Area
This table includes 68 farms, ranches, and growers in the greater Bozeman area that produce food for local
markets. This is not a comprehensive list of all local producers, but it includes producers that were identified
through the Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project and illustrates the diversity of producers in the
area.
Producer Primary Product Location
3 Fiddles Farm Produce Bozeman
4 Daughters Farm Berries U-pick Bozeman
Albrecht WIC (micro) Manhattan
Amaltheia Organic Dairy Whole Farm Belgrade
70
Draft Updated 7/15/24
28 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Producer Primary Product Location
Barney Creek Livestock Beef Livingston
B-Bar Ranch Beef Big Timber
Bear Canyon Farm Produce Bozeman
Belcrest Farms Beef Bozeman
BiOmega3 Camelina Oil Bozeman
Black Dog Farm Pork, Poultry Livingston
Black Robin Farm + Orchard Orchard Bozeman
Bodhi Farms Agritourism Bozeman
Border Farm Agritourism Bozeman
Borrowed Acre Produce SFMNP (micro) Livingston
Bos Farm Dairy Bozeman
Bridger Berries Agritourism Belgrade
Chance Farm Produce Bozeman
Chicken Creek Homestead Lamb Livingston
Cloud Nine Farm Salad Mixes Wilsall
Cook’s Honey Honey Bozeman
Crazy Mountain Garlic Garlic Big Timber
Crooked Yard Hops Hops Bozeman
D&D West Greenhouses Farm Stand Emigrant
Farm 51 Goats Bozeman
Farm Fresh Eggs Eggs Manhattan
Feddes Family Meats Meat Manhattan
Gallatin Gardeners Club Produce Bozeman
71
Draft Updated 7/15/24
29 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Producer Primary Product Location
Gallatin Grassfed Meat Bozeman
Gallatin Grown Potatoes Manhattan
Gallatin Valley Botanical at
Rocky Creek Farm Whole Farm Bozeman
Gasparakis Household SFMNP (micro) Livingston
Good Mama Farm Produce Harrison
GroEat Garlic Farm Garlic Bozeman
Hettinger Household SFMNP (micro) Three Forks
High Ground Farm Ancient Grains, Honey Emigrant
Highland Harmony Farm Beef Wilsall
Highline Meat Beef, Pork Manhattan
Ike Dyk’s corn field Sweet Corn Amsterdam
Irish Dexter grass-fed beef Meat Belgrade
Kimm’s Organic Potatoes Potatoes Churchhill
Knowhere Farms Raw Milk Willow Creek
Kokoro Farm Flowers, Produce Belgrade
Lockhorn Orchard and
Garden Cider Bozeman
Milkmaid Meats Beef, Pork Livingston
Montana Red Devin Beef Harrison
Montana Roots Microgreens Livingston
Montana Wagyu Beef Belgrade
New Pioneer Farm Produce Three Forks
Nightinggreens Microgreens Bozeman
72
Draft Updated 7/15/24
30 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Producer Primary Product Location
Norris Hot Springs Restaurant Affiliated Norris
North Bridger Bison Meat Wilsall
Old Town Farmstand Poultry, Bake Shop Three Forks
Peyson's Produce Produce Manhattan
Pure Leaf Gardens Microgreens Belgrade
Rainbow Creek Farm Hens, Eggs Bozeman
Rathvinden Farm Stand Springhill
Serenity Sheep Farm Lamb, Wool Belgrade
Shields River Farm &
Nursery Nursery, Produce Wilsall
Shields Valley Ranchers Beef Wilsall
Spain Bridge Farm Produce Belgrade
SporeAttic Mushrooms Bozeman
Square Deal (Little Star
Diner) Restaurant Affiliated Bozeman
Synchronicity Agroforestry
Center Agritourism Three Forks
Terra Greens Produce Produce Manhattan
Thirteen Mile Lamb & Wool Lamb Belgrade
Three Hearts Farm Produce Bozeman
Three Seed Farm Seeds Belgrade
Towne's Harvest Garden Produce Bozeman
73
Draft Updated 7/15/24
31 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Food Pathways and Systems
Assets: Food Pathways and Systems
Key Assets: demographics, technical resources, and infrastructure
Participants identified that the Bozeman community is enthusiastic about local food and supporting local
growers. They commented that Gallatin County has various resources and capacities that put it at an advantage
compared to other communities in the state, including non-profits, businesses, academic institutions, retailers,
distributors, healthy soil, and residents with disposable income.
Many infrastructure assets support the local food system, as detailed in Table A7: Food System Pathways
Infrastructure Assets. Critical assets include storage, aggregation, and distribution facilities, such as cold storage,
the Community Food Co-op, Root Cellar Foods, and QFD.
Organizations like AERO, Abundant Montana, and Open & Local support local producers and other aspects of the
food system by raising awareness and marketing local food. Additional resources that help small businesses
establish, grow, and become sustainable include the MSU Food Product Development Lab, Prospera Food and
Agriculture Development Center (FADC), and Montana Cooperative Development Center. Institutional buyers
such as schools, universities, and hospitals also play an important role in the market for local food.
Challenges: Food Pathways and Systems
Key Challenges: supply chain coordination, scale, and infrastructure
Participants expressed frustration about the amount of food dollars that are going out of state. Purchasing local
food can be challenging for businesses and institutions due to several factors:
• The volume of local produce or meat is often not at the necessary scale.
• Supply can be inconsistent. Availability can be uncertain, making it harder to pivot and create unique
specials with tight staffing.
• Ordering can be time-consuming when there are not direct channels to purchase easily from. Farmers
can be hard to reach and different farms work on different ordering schedules.
• Costs can be an issue, especially as labor costs increase. Even small price increases can be hard to absorb
given tight margins.
Entrepreneurs working in value added businesses noted additional challenges:
• Scaling a business to be sustainable in the long term can be difficult.
• Storage is a significant issue for local foods, especially cold storage. Preparing for the summer influx
requires loading up before peak demand.
• Licensed commissary kitchen space is challenging to find. Developing shared kitchen facilities is
logistically and financially challenging, with significant initial project development, design, construction,
and implementation costs. Managing multiple users, time slots, equipment needs, storage, maintenance,
and other services requires ongoing staffing.
• Navigating technical support and finding the right resource with the specific information needed takes
time. Start-ups continue adapting and changing as they develop. Having a mentor to shorten the learning
curve helps.
• Value chain coordination is valuable for establishing and maintaining food pathways, yet there is limited
capacity for this.
74
Draft Updated 7/15/24
32 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
• While resources like Edible Bozeman and Abundant Montana are appreciated, some entrepreneurs
expressed concern that these resources reach people who are “already converted” and may not be
effective in broadening their clientele.
Meat processing has received significant attention and investment since COVID-19. Participants shared the
following observations:
• For smaller operations with sporadic processing needs, securing slots can be extremely challenging, with
processors booked over a year in advance.
• Given recent droughts and lower herd sizes, one mid-sized operation with consistent processing needs
(e.g. less than 10 head monthly) reported that “there’s enough slots for now.”
• Sustaining staffing for meat-cutting and slaughter operations is challenging due to the required skill and
demanding physicality of the work. However, recent efforts to expand in-state training opportunities are
hopeful.
• Significant investment in meat processing infrastructure and equipment has been made, but “short-term
infusions of cash don’t get us over these barriers.” Without parallel investment in other aspects of the
system, such as finding employees or value chain coordination and product marketing, the infusion of
dollars won’t overcome other challenges.
Financing was a significant challenge identified:
• “Farming always has a high barrier to entry, in terms of capital.”
• In large-scale production agriculture, capital is available. At the scale of small farms and ‘mid-tier’
infrastructure, financing can be more challenging.
• New investment models that leverage longer-term investment of private capital are needed. Innovations
in revenue-based financing, collaborative finance, community investment, patient capital, and other
tools are promising but still gaining momentum. Currently, investors tend to hold a high return, shorter-
term, "grow-and-sell" mindset. More investment in planning and collaboration to pull together private,
public, and non-profit funding for complex projects is needed.
During COVID-19, disparities were exacerbated, and people experienced the pandemic differently depending on
income. Individuals involved in value-added food businesses, whether production or restaurant, had to increase
staffing; redundancy helped ensure operations were supported when employees called in sick.
Table A-7: Food System Pathways Infrastructure Assets
This table includes assets and infrastructure named by local food system practitioners as important to this area’s
local food systems and their operation. This is a preliminary list and includes only the infrastructure and assets
identified during this project. Please note: organizations and agencies are listed separately, in Appendix E.
Type Business Name City County State
Cold Storage Dermer Refrigeration; Cold
Storage Enterprises
Bozeman Gallatin MT
Compost City of Bozeman Compost Bozeman Gallatin MT
75
Draft Updated 7/15/24
33 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Business Name City County State
Compost Happy Trash Can Curbside
Compost
Bozeman Gallatin MT
Compost Logan Landfill Three Forks Gallatin MT
Compost YES Compost Belgrade Gallatin MT
Distributor Azure Standard
OR
Distributor Quality Food Distributing
Gallatin MT
Distributor Western Montana Growers Co-
op
Missoula Missoula MT
Distributor - Meat Montana Local Foods
Distribution
Bozeman Gallatin MT
Distributor - Meat Range Market Cardwell Jefferson MT
Distributor - Meat ReGen Market Big Sky Gallatin MT
Distributor - Meat The Meat Up Livingston Park MT
Distributor +
Produce
Processing
Root Cellar Foods Belgrade Gallatin MT
Finance - Bank First Interstate Bank Bozeman Gallatin MT
Finance - Bank Manhattan Bank Manhattan Gallatin MT
Finance - Creative Crowdfund Montana
MT
Finance - Creative Dirt Capital
NY
Finance - Creative HomeStake Venture Partners Bozeman Gallatin MT
Finance - Creative Iroquois Valley Farmland REIT
IL
Finance - Creative Prospera revolving loan fund Bozeman Gallatin MT
Finance - Creative Steward
OR
Finance - Credit
Union
Clearwater Credit Union Butte (Bozeman,
2024)
MT
76
Draft Updated 7/15/24
34 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Business Name City County State
Finance - Credit
Union
Rocky Mountain Credit Union Bozeman Gallatin MT
Finance - Federal USDA 'alphabet soup of
opportunities': AMS, NIFA
(GusNIP), NRCS, FSA, FNS, Rural
Development State Offices,
APHIS, FSIS, etc.
Finance - Private
Foundations
Finance - State Montana Department of
Agriculture: Growth Through
Agriculture (GTA), Specialty Crop
Block Grant, marketing grants,
other
Kitchen Space Bozeman Public Library Bozeman Gallatin MT
Kitchen Space Bridger Kitchens Bozeman Gallatin MT
Kitchen Space BSD7 Support Services Bozeman Gallatin MT
Kitchen Space HRDC Marketplace Bozeman Gallatin MT
Kitchen Space Livingston Food Resource Center Livingston Park MT
Kitchen Space MSU Hannon Hall Bozeman Gallatin MT
Kitchen Space MSU Reid Hall Bozeman Gallatin MT
Nursery Cashman Nursery Bozeman Gallatin MT
Nursery Gallatin Valley Garden Center Bozeman Gallatin MT
Nursery Hillside Nursery Bozeman Gallatin MT
Nursery Oak Gardens Belgrade Gallatin MT
Nursery Shields River Farm & Nursery Wilsall Park MT
Nursery Visser Greenhouses Manhattan Gallatin MT
Other Gallatin County Fairgrounds Bozeman Gallatin MT
77
Draft Updated 7/15/24
35 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Business Name City County State
Other MSU Food Production
Development Lab
Bozeman Gallatin MT
Other MSU Meat Science Lab Bozeman Gallatin MT
Processing - Dairy Darigold Processing Bozeman Gallatin MT
Processing - Malt Gallatin Valley Malt Co. Manhattan Gallatin MT
Processing - Mill Cold Spring Organics -
anticipated mill opening: June
2024
Belgrade Gallatin MT
Processing - Mill Montana Gluten Free Belgrade Gallatin MT
Processing -
Produce
Root Cellar Foods Belgrade Gallatin MT
Spring Starts Amaltheia Organic Dairy Belgrade Gallatin MT
Spring Starts Gallatin Valley Botanical Bozeman Gallatin MT
Spring Starts Kokoro Flower Farm Belgrade Gallatin MT
Spring Starts Old Town Farmstand Three Forks Gallatin MT
Supplies - Seeds Circle S Seeds (Three Forks) -
cereal, grass, and forage seed
(local business, seed from
multiple source locations)
Three Forks Gallatin MT
Supplies - Seeds Montana Survival Seed (out of
region: Bitterroot Valley, MT)
Florence Ravalli MT
Supplies - Seeds Three Seed Farm - bio-regionally
adapted vegetable and flower
seeds here in the Gallatin Valley
Belgrade Gallatin MT
Supplies - Seeds Triple Divide Seeds (out of
region: Ronan, MT)
Ronan Lake MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Ace Hardware Bozeman,
Belgrade
Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Ag Depot Bozeman Gallatin MT
78
Draft Updated 7/15/24
36 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Business Name City County State
Supplies /
Equipment
Alpine Greenhouses Three Forks Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Aquatech Inc. (Belgrade) Belgrade Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Churchill Equipment Co.
(Manhattan)
Manhattan Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Frontline Ag Solutions (Belgrade) Belgrade Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Home Depot/Lowes Bozeman Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Kamp Implement Co. (Belgrade) Belgrade Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Kenyon Noble Bozeman,
Belgrade
Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Montana Energy Alliance (Dillon)
propane for irrigation pump.
Dillon Beaverhead MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Murdoch’s Ranch & Home
Supply
Bozeman,
Belgrade
Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Rocky Mountain Supply -
“locally-owned, full-service
cooperative”
Belgrade Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Spur Line
Park MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Story Distributing (+ Casey’s
Corner; acquired by Parkland
Corp. 2020-21)
Bozeman Gallatin MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Watson Irrigation (Townsend) Townsend Broadwater MT
Supplies /
Equipment
Yellowstone Tractor (Belgrade) Belgrade Gallatin MT
79
Draft Updated 7/15/24
37 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Business Name City County State
Veterinarian Intermountain Veterinary
Hospital (large animal)
Belgrade Gallatin MT
Veterinarian Skyline Veterinary Hospital
(small animal, formerly Sorensen
Small Animal Hospital)
Skyline Gallatin MT
Table A-8: Meat Processing Plants
USDA, State, and Custom Exempt meat processing plants in the area or used by ranchers contacted during this
project. Montana Department of Livestock State and Custom Exempt certification: 11/16/2023. USDA
certification: 3/25/2024.
(Explore this map online: Meat Processors • Local Food System Preliminary Mapping 2024)
Name Certification Certification Description Location
Amsterdam Meat Shop &
Feddes Family Meats
State Slaughter + Processing Manhattan
Belgrade Custom Meats &
Butcher
Custom
Exempt
Processing Belgrade
Black Dog Farm Poultry
Exempt
Slaughterhouse + Processing Livingston
Central Park Meats Custom
Exempt
Processing Belgrade
Chalet Market Inc USDA Meat Processing; Poultry
Processing; Voluntary
Belgrade
80
Draft Updated 7/15/24
38 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Processing - Meat; Voluntary
Processing - Poultry
Daniel's Gourmet Meats USDA Meat Processing; Poultry
Processing; Voluntary
Processing - Egg Products;
Voluntary Processing - Meat
Bozeman
Flying Fur Custom Meats Unknown
Belgrade
Grotto Meats State Processing Bozeman
Happel's Clean Cut Meats
LLC
Custom
Exempt
Processing Bozeman
Hook 'em + Skin 'em Custom
Exempt
Processing Three Forks
Matt's Butcher Shop + Deli Custom
Exempt
Processing Livingston
Miller Custom Meats Custom
Exempt
Processing Three Forks
Old Salt Meat Company Custom
Exempt
Processing Helena
Pioneer Meats USDA Meat Processing; Meat
Slaughter; Poultry Processing;
Voluntary Processing - Meat;
Voluntary Slaughter - Meat
Big Timber
Producer Partnership USDA Meat Processing; Meat
Slaughter; Voluntary Processing
- Meat; Voluntary Slaughter -
Meat
Livingston
Quality Meats USDA
Aberdeen, ID
Ranchland Packing Co USDA Meat Processing; Meat
Slaughter; Poultry Processing;
Voluntary; Processing - Meat;
Voluntary; Slaughter - Meat
Butte
Stillwater Packing Co. USDA Meat Processing; Meat
Slaughter; Poultry Processing;
Voluntary; Processing - Meat;
Columbus
81
Draft Updated 7/15/24
39 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Voluntary; Processing - Poultry;
Voluntary; Slaughter - Meat
Whalen’s Meat Packing Unknown
Belgrade
Ecological Sustainability
Assets: Ecological Sustainability
Key Assets: soil and water
Participants highlighted that Gallatin County boasts some of the best prime soils in the state and benefits from a
well-watered valley due to both natural and man-made systems. The area has relatively consistent precipitation
and clean water. The changing climate is extending the growing season, while also providing more inconsistent
weather patterns and challenges.
Montana State University (MSU), a land grant university that includes MSU Extension, is a significant asset,
providing extensive research focused on ecological well-being, addressing local producers’ questions, and
connecting Montanans with this information. Additional support comes from agencies like Western SARE, NRCS,
and the Gallatin Conservation District. Organizations such as the Gallatin Watershed Council, ATTRA, NCAT, and
AERO also contribute resources and support.
The agricultural water system, including irrigation infrastructure and water rights, is crucial for water distribution.
There is a complex tradeoff between wetlands and agriculture, as wetlands are key for carbon sequestration, and
converting them to agricultural land can have negative impacts.
Challenges: Ecological Sustainability
Key Challenges: development and climate change
Participants identified development as the biggest challenge. The loss of prime soils, the conversion of
agricultural lands into build environments, and the potential for permanent impairment of agricultural irrigation
systems were all named as threats to food and crop production in this valley. A related threat is the increasing
demand for limited water in a closed basin. One participant observed that too many people are disconnected
from the importance of water and take for granted that clean water will come from the tap. The resulting lack of
respect, understanding, and connection makes it challenging to get beyond basic water conservation messages.
One person put it this way: “You are at the top of the watershed. You have responsibilities to perform. If you love
this place so much - identify your impact, reduce your impact, engage in pro-active positive ways. Eat local food…
keep the water clean.”
Ecologists also noted that while the growing season may be growing longer, shifting precipitation patterns and an
increase in extreme weather events increases risks.
82
Draft Updated 7/15/24
40 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Appendix B: Intersection of Existing City Plans with the Local Food System
The Local Food System Preliminary Mapping Project offered an opportunity to consider where and how the work
of the City of Bozeman intersects with local food systems as outlined in its existing plans, strategies, and
recommendations. Although there are other relevant documents, including several developed by Gallatin
County, the Planning Coordination Committee, and other local and regional entities, this project focused on
current City of Bozeman plans and policies. The table below is designed to give a high-level overview of the
intersections between the City’s existing plans with the local food system.
Table B-1: Intersection of City Plans with the Local Food System
City Document Detail
Bozeman Climate
Plan (2020)
Solution N. Cultivate a Robust Local Food System
• 6.N.1. Support the Formation of a Local Food Council
• 6.N.2. Help Develop a Food System Assessment and Security Plan
• 6.N.3. Encourage Local Agriculture and Preservation of Working Lands
• 6.N.4. Support Local Food Production, Processing, and Distribution
Bozeman Strategic
Plan
Strategic Plan Goals that align/intersect with this project include:
• 1. Engaged Community: 1.3 Public Agencies Collaboration, 1.4 Business and
Institutional Partnerships
• 2. Innovative Economy: 2.1 Business Growth, 2.3 Workforce Development
• 4. Well-Planned City: 4.2 High Quality Urban Approach, 4.5 Housing and
Transportation Choices
• 5. Creative, Learning Culture: 5.3 Partnerships for Education and Learning
• 6. Sustainable Environment: 6.3 Climate Action, 6.5 Parks, Trails, and Open
Space
Parks, Recreation,
and Active
Transportation
(PRAT) Plan
• 1.1 Create a Consistent Set of Basic Elements Across Neighborhoods; Add
park assets that were identified as in high demand by the community in
new and existing spaces (pg. 52)
• In the statistically valid community survey, community gardens/food
forests ranked as “low need, high demand” (pg. 43)
• Community Gardens were listed as a top 10 priority for investment in
recreation facilities (pg. 36)
Unified
Development
Code (UDC)
The UDC is currently in the process of being updated. The process is on-hold while
a community engagement plan is created. Below is from the draft UDC:
• 38.300.020 Add agricultural uses to allowed uses in individual zoning
districts.
83
Draft Updated 7/15/24
41 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
City Document Detail
• 38.320.110 Add standards to expand allowances for agriculture within the
community.
Recycling and composting
• 38.710.070.A.2 Add recycling and composting facilities as items for
depiction on site plans
Relevant UDC Definitions:
• Agriculture: The cultivation or tilling of soil or use of other growing
medium for the purpose of producing vegetative materials for sale or for
use in a commercial operation and/or the raising or tending of animals for
commercial sale or use. Agriculture does not include gardening for
personal use, keeping of house pets or animals as authorized under
chapter 8, service animals as defined by the Americans with Disabilities
Act, or landscaping for aesthetic purposes.
• Agricultural water user facility: Those facilities, which include but are not
limited to ditches, pipes, and other water-conveying facilities, which
provide water for irrigation and stock watering on agricultural lands, with
said lands being defined in MCA 15-7-202.
• Community garden: An area of land managed and maintained by a group
of community members used to grow and harvest food crops and/or
nonfood, ornamental crops such as flowers, for personal or group use,
consumption, donation or sale, or for educational purposes. The private
use of private land (not intended to benefit the community at large) does
not constitute a community garden.
• Farm stand: An accessory table, area, structure, or kiosk for the sale of
food crops, products, and/or nonfood items such as ornamental crops (i.e.
flowers). See 38.320.120.C for related standards.
• Urban farm: A facility where food crops or nonfood, ornamental crops such
as flowers are cultivated, processed, and distributed. Urban farming is
generally practiced for profit or food producing activities.
Model HOA
Covenants
• The City developed Model Homeowners' Association (HOA) covenants that
included provisions for gardens, urban chickens, greenhouses/garden
sheds, and farm stands. The City Commission adopted Resolution 5555 to
adopt the Model HOA Covenants.
Economic Vitality
Strategy (April
2023)
• Goal 1.1 Provide Opportunity for Gallatin Valley Residents; Enhance the
small business development ecosystem
• Goal 2 Support a Diverse Economy
84
Draft Updated 7/15/24
42 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
City Document Detail
• Goal 3 Build a More Resilient Region; Develop a sustainable city, foster a
culture focused on climate change and resilience
Belonging in
Bozeman – Equity
and Inclusion Plan
Childcare & Youth Programming Goals and Recommendations:
• Goal 1 Reduce barriers to out-of-school opportunities and programs for
underserved children
o 1.1 Evaluate and address barriers around participation in out-of-
school programs, including transportation and cost.
o 1.3 Explore opportunities to integrate Indigenous food systems,
languages, and culture into summer and after school programs.
• Goal 2 Increase capacity of after-school and summer programs
o 2.2 Establish and continue partnerships with governmental and
non-profit organizations for free use of space access, subsidies, and
other mechanisms to support youth programming within Gallatin
Valley.
Community Resiliency Programming Goals and Recommendations:
• Goal 3 Respond to the disproportionate impacts to vulnerable community
members due to climate change and extreme weather
o 3.1.d Develop emergency preparedness programs that identify
ways to provide food access during supply chain disruptions.
o 3.2 Work with partners to ensure investments in the urban tree
canopy are equitably distributed across neighborhoods.
• Goal 5 Prioritize food access for low-income communities
o 1 Work with partners to improve access to healthy local food and
nutrition programs through the sharing and celebration of cultural
and indigenous foods.
Community Safety + Civic Health Programming Goals and Recommendations:
• Goal 2 Deepen engagement with underserved communities
• 2.3 Establish a Community Engagement Compensation Policy that outlines
ways in which community members who face barriers to participation may
receive compensation for providing input on city initiatives.
85
Draft Updated 7/15/24
43 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Appendix C: Indicators To Consider
Potential Indicators for Opportunities
Below are potential indicators that could be used to track Opportunities, depending on what the City of Bozeman
decides to prioritize.
Opportunities Indicators
Leadership Opportunities Indicators
1.1 Continue communication with Local Food System
Preliminary Mapping Project participants and
additional potential partners to discuss findings and
feedback, implement next steps, and prioritize and
pursue opportunities.
Number of community partners or engagement
opportunities with project participants.
Memo or adoption of prioritization of opportunities,
timeline for implementation, and funds or potential
funding sources needed to pursue priorities.
1.2 Develop and adopt a City of Bozeman local food
procurement policy for internal operations and City-
hosted events. Actively share this resource with
institutions, businesses, and community members.
Local food procurement policy adopted.
1.3 Provide opportunities for City staff and leadership
to participate in site visits and educational programs,
fostering engagement with community partners and
firsthand learning about the local food system.
Number of City staff and leadership who have
participated in local food system educational
opportunities and tours.
Number of educational opportunities/tours offered.
Number of partners and interested parties who have
participated in educational opportunities/tours.
1.4 Build relationships with members of the
Indigenous peoples’ community living in Bozeman.
Begin exploring the potential for partnerships related
to resilient food system development and
strengthening community members’ connection to
the diverse agricultural heritage of this valley.
Engage in conversations with MSU Native American
Studies/Buffalo Nations Food Sovereignty Initiative
students and staff.
Potential partnerships discussed, identified, and/or
initiated.
1.5 Share the results of this report with Gallatin
County and engage with the County on their Future
Land Use Map, Housing Strategy, and future
agriculture preservation planning.
Engage with Gallatin County.
1.6 Identify incentives and other financial
mechanisms used by other similar municipalities and
local governments to support food access, especially
related to accessing local and nutritious food.
Number and impact of creative mechanisms and
incentives established.
86
Draft Updated 7/15/24
44 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Opportunities Indicators
Determine what creative mechanisms and incentives
Bozeman could establish to support the purchase and
procurement of locally grown foods.
1.7 Incorporate Community Supported Agriculture
(CSA) incentives or “market bucks” for local farms and
farmers markets into wellness and employee
appreciation programming for City of Bozeman
employees.
Amount of CSA incentives or “market bucks”
dispersed through employee appreciation
programming.
1.8 Initiate dialogue with key partners and peer
communities about the potential to develop a Local
Food Council in this area.
Number of conversations hosted specific to
developing a local food council.
1.9 Collaborate with partner organizations and the
State Legislature to promote policies and initiatives
that support and enhance our local food economy.
Number of policies and initiatives to support and
enhance our local food economy that the City has
supported.
Land Access + Collaboration Opportunities Indicators
2.1 Continue working to strengthen and expand the
City of Bozeman’s community garden program.
Number of community gardens and number of
community gardener users.
Total square feet of raised beds added to community
gardens.
Completed maintenance and upgrades.
Number of facilitated conversations initiated with
potential partners to establish short-term
collaborations and long-term vision for sustainable
management of community gardens.
2.2 Work with partners, including farmers, to identify
City-owned or City-managed lands that would be
appropriate for community gardens and other forms
of urban agriculture.
Map or list of City-owned or City-managed lands that
could be used, or are used, for community gardens
and other forms of urban agriculture.
2.3 Explore the formation of an entity or ‘urban
agriculture collaborative’ that can partner with the
City to manage, develop, and expand urban
agriculture initiatives, such as community gardens.
This entity could serve as a central hub for resources,
education, and community engagement in urban
agriculture.
Evaluation as to whether or not an ‘urban agriculture
collaborative’ or new non-profit entity to support
community gardens is feasible.
87
Draft Updated 7/15/24
45 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Opportunities Indicators
2.4 Invite key partners such as Gallatin County and
MSU to consider a broader evaluation of lands in or
near the City, including properties owned by other
public entities and interested private landowners.
Map or list of lands in or near the City that could be
appropriate for community agriculture (e.g. leasing,
urban ag, or mixed ag/housing projects).
2.5 Work with community partners including Gallatin
County, neighboring local governments, farmers,
nonprofits, agencies, MSU, and relevant private
sector entities to develop a long-term shared vision
for diversified agricultural production in and around
Bozeman.
A long-term shared vision for diversified agricultural
production in and around Bozeman.
Awareness + Outreach Opportunities Indicators
3.1 Transition the “Local Food System Preliminary
Mapping Project” webpage into a central City location
for “Resilient Local Food System” information and
resources.
Number of webpage visitors to the “Resilient Local
Food System” online resource.
3.2 Expand existing City planting incentives and
outreach programs to include food-bearing species.
Coordinate with partners and experts to address
wildlife concerns.
Number of people reached through programs or
initiatives.
Number of fruit and food-bearing species available
through City planting programs.
3.3 Strengthen the sense of place and the connection
between community members and our natural
environment by building a strong connection to our
local food system and natural environment.
Incorporation of this valley’s diverse agricultural
heritage into historic preservation planning.
New art installations or interpretive signs.
3.4 Once developed, actively share Bozeman’s local
food procurement policy with businesses and
institutions as a reference for adopting their own
policies.
Distribution of local food procurement policy.
List of entities that have adopted a similar policy.
3.5 Evaluate and prioritize outreach strategies that
encourage residents, visitors, and institutions to
participate in meaningful ways in Bozeman’s resilient
local foods culture and “buy local.”
Evaluation and prioritization of outreach strategies.
Number of people reached.
Number of times city communication channels are
used to promote local foods.
3.6 Partner with local educators to develop outreach
and education programs that empower community
members to grow their own food, incorporating
creative approaches to engage a wide range of
community members.
Number of outreach and education programs
developed.
Number of participants in these programs.
88
Draft Updated 7/15/24
46 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Opportunities Indicators
3.7 As Bozeman expands its compost program,
consider how incentives to reduce food waste could
support successful implementation.
Housing + Resilience Opportunities Indicators
4.1 Continue to prioritize developing and improving
multimodal transportation options that facilitate
access to local food sources such as HRDC’s Market
Place facility, community gardens, etc.
Map showing intersections between food access
locations and multimodal transportation options.
New multimodal transportation options to facilitate
access to local food sources.
4.2 Host a working session with food system
practitioners and interested MSU students to review
Unified Development Code (UDC) updates from an
agriculture perspective before a final draft enters the
process for adoption. Consider enhancing urban
agriculture within the City, and how urban
development can potentially impact agricultural lands
in the County and workforce housing.
Number of participants in working session with
partners to review Unified Development Code (UDC)
from urban agriculture perspective.
4.3 Define the City’s role in ensuring community food
security during emergencies and planning for
community food resilience.
Clearly defined role in emergencies and planning for
community food resilience.
Identification of key performance indicators
evaluating resiliency of local food system.
4.4 Develop resources about urban agriculture to
share with developers, neighborhood associations,
property management companies, and residents.
Development of the “Urban Agriculture for
Homeowners and Developers” guide.
4.5 Explore the potential to work with partners (e.g.
Headwaters Community Housing Trust, HRDC, etc.)
and others to establish creatively financed affordable
housing projects that incorporate urban agriculture
assets (e.g. edible native landscaping, community
gardens, etc.).
Number of potential partners engaged.
Number of affordable housing projects incorporating
urban agriculture assets initiated.
4.6 Continue to support efforts to establish affordable
workforce housing. Expand efforts to support creative
projects that incorporate urban agriculture assets
with affordable housing.
Number of affordable workforce housing units
established.
Number of creative projects incorporating urban
agriculture assets with affordable housing.
4.7 As the City reviews and updates City codes,
policies, and plans, use a resilient local food systems
lens.
89
Draft Updated 7/15/24
47 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Opportunities Indicators
Infrastructure + Sector Development Opportunities Indicators
5.1 Collaborate with partners on community
infrastructure projects that enhance the local food
system such as a permanent farmers market location,
community kitchen space, etc.
• Number of partners convened.
5.2 Convene business development and support
resource providers to map various programs available
for different business sizes and types and identify
gaps. Develop communication and information about
the resources available.
Number of business development and support
resource providers convened.
Number of people reached by resources made
available.
5.3 Work with partners to pursue grant opportunities
related to local food system development that are
open for municipalities or strengthened by municipal
partnership.
Number of grant opportunities pursued.
Amount of funding secured through grants.
5.4 Learn what workforce needs exist throughout the
local food system and develop or support
opportunities for intentional engagement with
students across K-12 and higher education. These
initiatives can build awareness of future career
opportunities, foster relevant skills development, and
build relationships between students and individuals
working in the food sector.
Number of students participating in these initiatives.
Additional Indicators to Consider by Core Topic
In addition to what’s been noted above, below are indicators to consider.
Food Access and Resilience in the Face of Disruption
● Number of lives impacted by food assistance programming (HRDC Impact Report)
● Number of lives impacted as a % of population
● Pounds of food distributed to help offset cost of living (HRDC Impact Report)
● % of food distributed that is locally produced
● Amount of locally grown foods being donated
● # people served by programs supporting affordable access to locally grown foods (DSD, SFMNP, FoodRx)
● Number of people participating in SNAP, WIC, Senior Groceries, School Meal Programs, CACFP, TANF (and
FDPIR, if extended to urban populations)
● % of these people also accessing locally produced food via DSD, SFMNP, FoodRx and other local food
access programs
● Number of access points for emergency food
● Number of kitchens available for underhoused people to prepare food for themselves or their families
90
Draft Updated 7/15/24
48 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
● Assessment of public transportation system and ability to reach food outlets
● Food Security Dashboard, MT-PECH
Community Wellness, Education and Culture
● Number of schools with active farm-to-school (F2S) programs
● Number of CSAs
● Number of people participating in CSAs
● Number of workplace wellness programs involving local food
● Number of acres in or near the city used for agricultural purposes
● Number of facilitated opportunities for networking and collaboration
● Number of licensed kitchens available for teaching and community events
Production
● Number of new farmers
● Number of farms
● Number of acres in agricultural production
● Sales volume of direct purchase by consumers (non-commodities)
● Number of farmer/production cooperatives
● Number of days that farmers’ markets are held
● Number of food vendors participating in farmers’ markets
Food Pathways
● Number of commercial kitchens available for production and value-added food business incubation
● Number of small business food manufacturers
● Number of home processors
● Number of manufacturer place promotion of products
● Number of food manufacturer licenses by type
● Number of local distributors
Number of local products carried by national distributors
● Number of institutions/distributors purchasing local foods
Number of outlets using local foods
● Number of locally owned and operated food outlets
Ecological Sustainability
● A map of carbon losses vs. carbon captures
● List of irrigation ditches within the primary area (triangle) and water rights
● Soil maps for this region
● Water quality and quantity data
91
Draft Updated 7/15/24
49 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Appendix D: Assorted Data
Assorted Data Tables
• Table D 1: Area Population and Housing Units, 2010 – 2023
• Table D 2: City of Bozeman Demographics and Economic Growth Sectors
• Table D 3: USDA Gallatin County Agricultural Census Dat
• Table D 4: USDA Census: Gallatin County Percent of Farms that:
• Table D 5: USDA: Gallatin County Census Data 2002 – 2022
• Table D 6: Existing Land Use in Gallatin County
• Table D 7: Gallatin Valley Food Bank Annual Data
• Table D 8: Bozeman Public Schools Free & Reduced Meals Eligibility
• Table D 9: City of Bozeman Park Acreage Data
• Table D 10: Registered Cottage Food Businesses and Food Business Licenses in Gallatin County
Table D-1: Area Population and Housing Units, 2010 – 2023
Source: City of Bozeman, 2023 Economic and Market Update, pg. 2; (Source: US Census; ESRI Business Analyst;
Economic & Planning Systems)
Description 2010 2015 2020 2023
2010 -
2023
Total
2010 -
2023
Ann. #
2010 -
2023
Ann. %
Population
Bozeman 36,440 40,319 53,293 58,814 22,374 1,721 3.8%
Belgrade 7,281 7,738 10,460 11,314 4,033 310 3.4%
Manhattan 1,396 1,191 2,086 2,167 771 59 3.4%
Other/Unincorporated 44,541 51,491 53,121 56,671 12,130 933 1.9%
Gallatin County 89,658 100,739 118,960 128,966 39,308 3,024 2.8%
Bozeman % of County
Pop. 40.6% 40.0% 44.8% 45.6% 56.9%
Housing Units
Bozeman 16,761 18,293 23,535 26,189 9,428 725 3.5%
Belgrade 3,154 3,308 4,339 4,714 1,560 120 3.1%
Manhattan 574 653 872 914 340 26 3.6%
Other/Unincorporated 20,841 23,715 24,088 25,678 4,837 372 1.6%
Gallatin County 41,330 45,969 52,835 57,495 16,165 1,243 2.6%
Bozeman % of County
(HU) 40.6% 39.8% 44.5% 45.6% 58.3%
92
Draft Updated 7/15/24
50 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Table D-2: City of Bozeman Demographics and Economic Growth Sectors
Source: City of Bozeman, 2023 Economic and Market Update, pg. 6
Description Bozeman, MT
Demographics
Population 58,814
Median Age 28.2
% Renter Households 55.4%
Median Household Income
Owner $98,495
Renter $49,543
All Households $67,354
Employment (county level)
# of Jobs (2022) 58,482
Top 3 Sectors
#1 Retail
#2 Hotel/Restaurant
#3 Construction
Top 3 Growth Sectors ('17-
'22)
#1 Construction
#2 Hotel/Restaurant
#3 Retail
Higher Education
Major Colleges/Universities Montana State University
Enrollment (Fall 2022) 16,688
% of Total Population 28.4%
93
Draft Updated 7/15/24
51 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Table D-3: USDA Gallatin County Agricultural Census Data
Source: USDA 2017 Census Profile, USDA 2022 Census Profile
2017 2022 2017 (%) 2022 (%)
Number of Producers 1,969 1,867 - -
Sex
Male 1,144 1,128 58.1% 60.4%
Female 825 739 41.9% 39.6%
Age
<35 136 152 6.9% 8.1%
35 – 64 1,136 896 57.7% 48.0%
65 and older 697 819 35.4% 43.9%
Race
American Indian/Alaska Native 4 7 0.2% 0.4%
Asian - 1 - 0.1%
Black or African American - - - -
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander - - - -
White 1,957 1,845 99.4% 98.8%
More than one race 8 14 0.4% 0.7%
Other Characteristics
Hispanic, Latino, Spanish origin 17 14 0.9% 0.7%
With military service 166 149 8.4% 8.0%
New and beginning farmers 456 543 23.2% 29.1%
Table D-4: USDA Census: Gallatin County Percent of Farms that:
2017 2022
Have internet access 88% 88%
Farm organically 1% 1%
Sell directly to consumers 6% 6%
Hire farm labor 24% 24%
Are family farms 95% 93%
94
Draft Updated 7/15/24
52 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Table D-5: USDA: Gallatin County Census Data 2002 – 2022
Source: USDA Census
Gallatin County 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022
Number of farms 1,074 1,071 1,163 1,123 1,009
Land in farms (acres) 708,728 776,868 702,713 700,462 655,883
Market value of ag products
sold
95,000,000 95,148,000 105,970,000 112,104,000 163,081,000
Wheat for grain (acres) 50,645 51,271 51,836 39,501 57,127
Barley for grain (acres) 37,007 25,140 37,291 31,738 25,061
Vegetables harvested (acres) 43 5,401 4,125 6,368 6,198
Potatoes (acres) 5,010 5,355 4,078 6,286 5,990
Orchards (acres) 5 8 11 6 21
Number of broilers and other
meat-type chickens
24 71 153 32 124
Cattle and calves 52,350 48,268 50,089 41,043 33,714
Goats ** 877 459 890 714
Hogs and pigs 7 11 306 181 221
Layers 1,196 1,478 3,383 2,415 7,105
Pullets 234 238 ** 127 1,327
Sheep and lamb 5,025 3,329 1,996 3,115 2,459
Turkeys 46 ** 39 16 20
95
Draft Updated 7/15/24
53 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Table D-6: Existing Land Use in Gallatin County
Source: Gallatin County Envision Gallatin, Gallatin County Land Use Profile (2023)
Category Percentage Acres
Agriculture 36.92% 773,339.4
State/Federal Land 39.95% 836,815.1
Commercial/Industrial 15.14% 317,201.6
Municipalities 1.98% 41,548.3
Public/Semi-Public and Tax Exempt 0.46% 9,613.9
Open Space 0.85% 17,738.8
Mixed Residential 0.82% 17,178.5
Vacant 0.59% 12,367.2
Residential Single Family Large Lot 2.12% 44,400.5
Vacant Subdivision 0.56% 11,810.5
Residential Single and Two Family 0.41% 8,572.9
Mobile Home Parks 0.04% 868.2
Other 0.15% 3,192.4
96
Draft Updated 7/15/24
54 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Table D-7: Gallatin Valley Food Bank Annual Data
Source: HRDC Food & Nutrition Programs of HRDC Annual Report, 2022 - 2023
2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 % increase
2021-2022
to 2022-
2023
Total individuals 10,711 11,355 8,271 7,838 9,512 21 %
Total food boxes 14,331 13,921 11,796 13,688 17,532 28 %
Total pounds distributed 1,923,006 1,897,653 1,834,867 1,519,283 1,667,276 10 %
Average daily pounds
distributed 7,060 7,246 7,443 6,176 6,669 8 %
Average food boxes per
month 1,194 1,160 983 1,141 1,461 28 %
Households receiving help
for the first time 1,266 1,450 852 886 1,190 34 %
Total Kids Summer Lunch
meals 29,333 27,864 40,716 31,848 22,366 -30 %
Total Healthy KidsPack
packs 12,475 11,101 10,104 11,407 16,552 45 %
Total pounds of food
rescued 1,187,777 987,133 765,326 857,389 905,977 6 %
97
Draft Updated 7/15/24
55 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Table D-8: Bozeman Public Schools Free & Reduced Meals Eligibility
Source: Montana Office of Public Instruction, 2023; 2024 data provided by Bozeman Public Schools
School Entity Name
Students
Eligible For
Free/ Reduced Meals
(2023 NSLP
Count)
Total Students
Enrolled (2023)
2023 % Total
Eligible For
Free/
Reduced
NSLP
2024 % Total
Eligible For
Free/
Reduced
NSLP
% Increase
from 2023 to
2024 for
Total Eligible
for Free/
Reduced
NSLP
Bozeman High School 135 1276 11% 18% 7.0%
Chief Joseph Middle
School 137 771 18% 24% 5.6%
Emily Dickinson
School 132 531 25% 29% 4.1%
Gallatin High School 288 1500 19% 21% 2.0%
Hawthorne School 29 342 8% 9% 1.0%
Hyalite Elementary 213 552 39% 44% 5.0%
Irving School 93 192 48% 53% 5.0%
Longfellow School 48 278 17% 20% 3.0%
Meadowlark
Elementary 102 529 19% 26% 7.1%
Morning Star School 43 424 10% 11% 0.9%
Sacajawea Middle
School 204 828 25% 24% -0.5%
Whittier School 132 278 47% 50% 3.0%
All Bozeman Public
Schools 1556 7501 20.7% 24.3% 3.5%
98
Draft Updated 7/15/24
56 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Table D-9: City of Bozeman Park Acreage Data
Source: City of Bozeman, 2023 Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation Plan, pg 26
Number of City Parks 91
Number of Linear Parks 24
City-Owned Acres of Parks 895
Open Space Acres 390
County Owned Acres (within the city) 108
Private Owned Acres 41
Table D-10: Registered Cottage Food Businesses and Food Business Licenses in Gallatin County
Total numbers from Gallatin City-County Health Department, as of April 2024. Note: some cottage food vendors
may no longer be active. Some licensed businesses hold multiple food business licenses, so the actual number of
food establishments is less than the total noted.
Town Registered
Cottage
Food
Businesses
Permitted Food Businesses
Includes: schools, restaurants,
coffee shops, bakeries, bars,
caterers, manufacturers,
warehouses
Belgrade 10 122
Big Sky 0 43
Bozeman 41 546
Gallatin Gateway 0 23
Logan 0 1
Manhattan 11 24
Three Forks 5 29
West Yellowstone 3 71
Willow Creek 0 2
TOTAL: 70 861 (est. 792 with simple
duplicates removed, e.g.: 69 are
second permits of a different type
for the same entity at the same
location)
99
Draft Updated 7/15/24
57 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Assorted Figures
• Figure D 1: Household Food Insecurity in Gallatin County, 2020
• Figure D 2: Gallatin County Food Access and Nutrition
• Figure D 3: Affordability of Food & Groceries
• Figure D 4: Greater Bozeman Area Crop Map
Figure D-1: Household Food Insecurity in Gallatin County, 2020
Source: Feeding America, 2020
100
Draft Updated 7/15/24
58 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Figure D-2: Gallatin County Food Access and Nutrition
Source: 2023 Community Health Needs Assessment, Bozeman Health
“In 2019, 22.5% of Gallatin County…meet the limited food access measure from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Food Access Research Atlas. Gallatin County has low food access U.S. Census Tracts with low food
access including the area south of West Main Street and Cottonwood Road and South 19th Avenue in Bozeman.”
(Page 20)
101
Draft Updated 7/15/24
59 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
“The 2020 Bozeman Health CHNA identified low food access (do not live within one-half mile of a grocery store)
as an issue for 25,500 residents (22.5 percent) of the total service area. The CHNA findings also included food
insecurity, access to affordable healthy food, fruit/vegetable consumption, and rates of being overweight and
obese as areas of opportunity. As a result, two-thirds of area residents reported not consuming five or more
fruits and vegetables per day in 2020, which is a trend in the wrong direction (51 percent in 2011, 39 percent in
2014, 31 percent in 2017, and 33 percent in 2020). Only one-quarter (27 percent) of low-income residents
reported eating five fruits/vegetables per day in 2020. Black, Indigenous, People of Color populations also
reported eating less fruits/vegetables, which result in modifiable health risks.
At Bozeman Health, nutrition in the form of food insecurity is measured in Social Determinants of Health (SDOH)
screeners where the number of food insecure patients are identified, and patients are provided with Produce
Prescription Program (PPP) referrals that deliver fresh fruits and vegetables to their front door. The PPP is an
example of our nutrition-focused programing piloted in the summer of 2023 and includes a program evaluation
component that measures changes in biometrics and behaviors. Using a social determinants of health screener
within the electronic health record, Bozeman Health identified patient families who are food insecure and also
have a health condition that could be improved by eating fresh fruits and vegetables. These families received
local fruits and vegetables delivered to their door for 16 weeks. Similar programs across the state have seen
improvements in biometrics like A1C and cholesterol.” (Page 61)
Figure D-3: Affordability of Food & Groceries
Source: 2022 Community Needs Assessment, HRDC
“Food and groceries was the 3rd greatest individual need for Bozeman respondents, which is a significant
increase from the last assessment where it ranked 7th. At the community level, it also jumped up significantly
from the 7th greatest concern to 4th. HRDC’s Gallatin Valley Food Bank in Bozeman has seen this drastic spike in
need, with 137 new households accessing services just in March 2023. As of June 2023, over 1.5 million pounds
of food have been distributed.” (Page 20)
102
Draft Updated 7/15/24
60 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Figure D-4: Greater Bozeman Area Crop Map
Source: USDA, Cropland Data Layer, 2023
103
Draft Updated 7/15/24
61 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Appendix E: Resources + References
Regional Resources
• Community Needs Assessments
o Gallatin County Health Department
2022 Report
Gallatin County CHIP 2019-2021
o Bozeman Health
2023 Community Health Needs Assessment
o Human Resources Development Council
2022 Community Needs Assessment
2022 Impact Report
2019 Needs Assessment
o MSU Extension state-wide needs assessment/priorities for learning:
MSU Extension 2019 Health and Nutrition Statewide Needs Assessment
MSU Extension 2022 Statewide Needs Assessment Report
NEW, anticipated release fall 2024: Montana Local Food Systems survey findings. Part of
MSU Extension efforts to further increase efficacy and efficiency of food system
supports.
• Economic Value and Impact of Local Food in Montana. Sept 2022. Highland Economics.
• Gallatin County community food system capacity assessment: Indicators of change in development,
embeddedness, and integration. 2010. Robbins.
• Food Development Center Study for the Prospera Business Network and MT Department of Agriculture.
May 2021. Montana Manufacturing Extension Center.
• Housing and the Food System: A Seat at the Table. 2021. Open & Local Coalition, detailed discussion
notes.
• How can we better support beginning farmers & ranchers? 2022. Community Food and Agriculture
(CFAC), detailed discussion notes.
• MSU Sustainable Foods and Bioenergy Systems (SFBS) Capstone Course (SFBS 499) o Dec 2021. Community Garden Expansion in the City of Bozeman. o Dec 2022. Challenges and Opportunities Facing New-Entrant Farmers in the Gallatin Valley. o Dec 2023. Municipal Government Strategies for Nurturing a Robust Local Food System in
Bozeman.
• Perceptions and Responses of Diversified Farm Producers in the Northern Great Plains to the Early Stage
of the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2021. Ebel, Ahmed, Warne, Moxley, Grimberg, Jarchow, Menalled.
• Role of Wild Food Environments for Cultural Identity, Food Security, and Dietary Quality in a Rural
American State. 2022. Ahmed, Warne, Stewart, Shanks, Dupuis.
• Sustaining Farmers Market Success. The Economic Contributions of Farmers Markets in Montana. June
2022. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana.
Resources For Municipalities + Local Food Councils
• Data Resources for Food System Assessments. 2023. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach
• The Economics of Local Food Systems: A Toolkit to Guide Community Discussions, Assessments and
Choices. 2016. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service.
104
Draft Updated 7/15/24
62 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
• Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned. 2009. Harper, Shattuck, Holt-Gimenez, Alkon, Lambrick.
• Food System Resilience: A Planning Guide for Local Governments. 2022. John Hopkins CLF, Elsie Moore,
Erin Biehl, Meg Burke, Karen Bassarab, Caitlin Misiaszek, and Roni Neff.
• Food System Resilience Planning and the Climate Crisis. 2024. Center for Agriculture & Food Systems,
Vermont Law School, Harris and Nelson
• Lessons from Food Policy Council Governance. 2019. John Hopkins. Bassarab. Clark. Santo. Palmer.
• Municipal Zoning for Local Foods in Iowa: A Guidebook for Reducing Local Regulatory Barriers to Local
Foods. Iowa State University.
• Zoning for Urban Agriculture: A Guide for Updating Your Community’s Laws to Support Healthy Food
Production and Access. March 2024.
Community Resources
• Beyond the Weather: a resource for mental health and stress management. Montana Department of
Agriculture + Northern Broadcasting System.
• Gallatin Watershed Sourcebook - A Resident’s Guide
• Montana Team Nutrition Training and Resources
• Sourcing Montana Products, Montana Department of Agriculture
• Urban Grower Resources from USDA | Farmers.gov
105
Draft Updated 7/15/24
63 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Appendix F: Asset List
This table includes businesses, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, institutions, programs, and other
entities identified as assets throughout the project. The column highlighted in blue indicates whether the asset is
directly related or relevant to each of the Core Topics. This list is not exhaustive of all assets related to the local
food system but provides a snapshot of those listed by project participants.
Table F-1: Asset List
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Business -
Producer
3 Fiddles Farm X
Business -
Producer
4 Daughters Farm X
Business Ace Hardware X X
Nonprofit AERO (Alternative
Energy Resources
Organization) -
Abundant Montana
X X X X X Supports resilient and reliable MT food
systems through building consumer demand,
market channels, and community
knowledge/networks; Includes food pantries
and community meals in local food promotion
Business Ag Depot X
Business -
Producer
Albrecht X
Business Alpine
Greenhouses
X
Business -
Producer
Amaltheia Organic
Dairy
X
Business Amsterdam Meat
Shop & Feddes
Family Meats
X X
Business Aquatech Inc.
(Belgrade)
X
Nonprofit ATTRA (Appropriate
Technology
Transfer for Rural
Areas)
X X X Program of NCAT. Resources for producers,
technical assistance, Agri Solar, employee
clearing house for small farms.
Business Azure Standard X X Distributer based in OR. Delivers to Bozeman
once a month.
Business Barn2Door X X Resources for producers
Business -
Producer
Barney Creek
Livestock
X
Business -
Producer
B-Bar Ranch X
Business - Producer Bear Canyon Farm X
Business -
Producer
Belcrest Farms X
106
Draft Updated 7/15/24
64 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Business Belgrade Custom
Meats & Butcher
X
Business -
Producer
BiOmega3 X
Business -
Producer
Black Dog Farm X
Business -
Producer
Black Robin Farm +
Orchard
X
MSU Blackstone
LaunchPad
X X Fosters entrepreneurship and innovation.
Venture support and mentorship available for
free for MSU students and alumni
Business -
Producer
Bodhi Farms X
Business -
Producer
Border Farm X
Business -
Producer
Borrowed Acre
Produce
X
Business -
Producer
Bos Farm X
MSU Bounty of the
Bridgers
X Campus food pantry
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Bozeman Public
Library
X X X Seed Library; Demonstration kitchen; Onsite
food pantry; Food donation drop site;
Community navigator office; Education
opportunities
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Bozeman Public
School District
(BSD7)
X X Breakfast is available at most schools, lunch is
available at every school; BSD7 has storage
available and two large trucks.
Business -
Producer
Bridger Berries X
Business Bridger Kitchens X
Business Broken Ground X X X Permaculture, education on how to grow food,
advising/partnering with the Community
Garden at Story Mill
MSU Buffalo Nations
Food Systems
Initiative (BNFSI)
X X X X X Indigenous-led and builds collective,
collaborative, and proactive capacity for
Indigenous food sovereignty. Partnership with
Indigenous Food Lab launching this year.
Nonprofit Cancer Community
Support Montana
X Garden beds on site for informal therapy and
nutrition programming.
Business Cashman Nursery X X X Nursery, gardening supplies, education
opportunities and gardening support
MSU Cat in the Bag Food
Closet
X Supplemental and emergency food assistance
for Gallatin College Students
Business Central Park Meats X
Business Chalet Market Inc X
107
Draft Updated 7/15/24
65 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Business -
Producer
Chance Farm X
Business -
Producer
Chicken Creek
Homestead
X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Child and Adult
Care Food Program
(CACF)
X X Similar to NSLP for child and adult care
institutions and family or group daycare
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Child and Adult
Care Food Program
(CACFP)
X Offsets the cost of nutritious foods served at
child care, day care, aftercare, and adult care
facilities
Business Churchill
Equipment Co.
(Manhattan)
X
Business Circle S Seeds
(Three Forks) -
cereal, grass, and
forage seed (local
business, seed
from multiple
source locations)
X
Business City of Bozeman
Compost
X X
Business Claudia's Mesa X X Community dinners, education about lentils
and other sustainable, local crops.
Business Clearwater Credit
Union (opening in
Bozeman)
X
Business -
Producer
Cloud Nine Farm X
Business Cold Spring
Organics -
anticipated mill
opening: June 2024
X
Business Cold storage
enterprises
X
Nonprofit Community Food
and Agriculture
Coalition (CFAC)
X X X X X Farm Link, Food access programs, New entry
farmer programs.
Business Community Food
Co-op
X X Independent, community-owned grocery store
selling local and organic foods.
Misc. Community
Gardens
X X See Table A3
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Community
Organizations
Active in Disaster
(COAD)
X
108
Draft Updated 7/15/24
66 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Business -
Producer
Cook’s Honey X
Business -
Producer
Crazy Mountain
Garlic
X
Business -
Producer
Crooked Yard Hops X
Business Crowdfund
Montana
X
Business -
Producer
D&D West
Greenhouses
X
Business Daniel's Gourmet
Meats
X
Business Darigold Processing X
Business Dermer
Refrigeration; Cold
Storage Enterprises
X
Business Dirt Capital X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Double SNAP
Dollars
X A tool to allow people facing food insecurity to
extend supplemental nutrition benefits to
purchase healthier food, usually produce
Nonprofit Eagle Mount X Quality therapeutic recreational opportunities
for people with disabilities and young people
with cancer, including horticulture programs.
Business Edible Bozeman X Bozeman food magazine and local food guide
Business -
Producer
Farm 51 X
Business -
Producer
Farm Fresh Eggs X
Business Farmented X X Value added business, fermented vegetables
Misc. Farmers markets X X X X
Business -
Producer
Feddes Family
Meats
X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Federal
Distribution
Program of Indian
Reservations
X Although designed to serve only American
Indians living on reservations, this program is
part of Montana’s food security network
Business First Interstate
Bank
X
Business Flying Fur Custom
Meats
X
Misc. Food Rx X A tool for individuals facing both food
insecurity and diet-related medical conditions to shift toward healthier diets. Two pilot
programs have run in our valley: one run by
Bozeman Health in partnership with Root
109
Draft Updated 7/15/24
67 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Cellar Foods in 2023, and one run by
Bar1Wellness in 2022.
MSU Food Security
Scholarships
X Provides a 25-pass commuter meal plan to
eligible students facing challenges in accessing
nutritious food
Misc. Foraging Walks led
by Jacob Zimmerer
X Jacob is an MSU/BNFSI student who leads
foraging walks in the community
Business Frontline Ag
Solutions
X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Gallatin City-
County Health
Department
X X Food safety information and resources,
licenses and permitting, registration for
cottage food businesses.
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Gallatin
Conservation
District
X X X X Community garden and education
opportunities on gardening, resources for
producers
Business Gallatin County
Fairgrounds
X
Nonprofit Gallatin Gardeners
Club
X X Inclusive group of gardening enthusiasts who
grow home gardens and also plant, harvest
and sell fresh produce from our market garden located at the MSU Horticulture farm. The
Club returns all proceeds to the community in
the form of grants.
Business -
Producer
Gallatin Grassfed X
Business -
Producer
Gallatin Grown X
Business -
Producer
Gallatin Valley
Botanical at Rocky
Creek Farm
X X Farm stand open to the public, hosts many
events and opportunities for community
members to come to the farm
Nonprofit Gallatin Valley
Farm Fair
X
Nonprofit Gallatin Valley
Farm to School
X Connecting children and families with local
foods in the garden, classroom, cafeteria, and
community.
Business Gallatin Valley
Garden Center
X
Nonprofit Gallatin Valley Land
Trust (GVLT)
X X Land conservation. Trails, for access.
Business Gallatin Valley Malt
Co.
X
Nonprofit Gallatin Valley
Newcomers Club
X Active group that could potentially be an
opportunity to connect with new people in the
community (has not had a strong connection
to local food before)
110
Draft Updated 7/15/24
68 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Gallatin Water
Quality District
X X X Water resources education, water quality
monitoring.
Nonprofit Gallatin Watershed
Collaborative
X X X Collaborating on the future of water in the
Gallatin Valley. Stewardship through
partnerships, education, restoration, and
individual empowerment.
Business -
Producer
Gasparakis
Household
X
Business -
Producer
Good Mama Farm X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Grant
Opportunities -
Growth Through
Agriculture
X MT Department of Ag
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Grant
Opportunities -
Incumbent Worker
Training (IWT)
X MT Department of Labor & Industry. Off-set a
portion of skills-based training
Business -
Producer
GroEat Garlic Farm X
Business Grotto Meats X
Business Happel's Clean Cut
Meats LLC
X
Business Happy Trash Can Curbside Compost
X X
Nonprofit Haven X X Confidential support for anyone experiencing
domestic abuse.
Business -
Producer
Hettinger
Household
X
Business -
Producer
High Ground Farm X
Business -
Producer
Highland Harmony
Farm
X
Business -
Producer
Highline Meat X
Business Hillside Nursery X
Business Home
Depot/Lowes
X
Business HomeStake
Venture Partners
X Financing and venture capital, supporting local
business and Montana-based investors
Business Hook 'em + Skin
'em
X
Nonprofit Hopa Mountain -
Local Food for Local
Families
X X X Rural and tribal leader focus. Cooperative
effort to support and connect producers, food
hubs, food pantries and others to increase
111
Draft Updated 7/15/24
69 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
access to Montana grown and processed
agricultural products
Nonprofit HRDC - Fork and
Spoon
X X Montana’s first pay-what-you-can restaurant.
Nonprofit HRDC - Gallatin
Valley Food Bank
X X X Primary food bank location. Helps to supply Big
Sky Community Food Bank, Headwaters Area
Food Bank, West Yellowstone Food Bank,
Bounty of Bridgers at MSU, Cat in the Bag at
Gallatin College, and pantries at both Belgrade
and Bozeman Public Library. Provides food to
Blueprint, schools, churches, and occasionally
to other youth programs, senior centers, and
programs like Meals on Wheels.
Nonprofit HRDC - Grow-A-
Row
X X Gallatin Valley Food Bank accepts home-grown
produce from community members.
Nonprofit HRDC - Kids Pack X Provides nutritionally balanced, kid-friendly
foods to area students in grades K -12 every
Friday for them to eat during the weekend.
Nonprofit HRDC - Senior
Groceries Program
X Provides nutrition assistance for eligible older
adults.
Nonprofit HRDC - Summer
Lunch
X Free, healthy meals are available at sites across
the Gallatin Valley.
Business -
Producer
Ike Dyk’s corn field X
Business Intermountain
Veterinary Hospital
(large animal)
X X
Business -
Producer
Irish Dexter grass-
fed beef
X
Business Iroquois Valley
Farmland REIT
X X Organic farmland finance company
Business Kamp Implement
Co.
X
Business Kenyon Noble X
Business -
Producer
Kimm’s Organic
Potatoes
X
Business -
Producer
Knowhere Farms X
Business -
Producer
Kokoro Flower
Farm
X
Nonprofit Livingston Food
Resource Center
X X X X Food access resource for the Livingston
Community, key player in emergency response
feeding.
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Livingston Hospital X X Sourcing local foods.
112
Draft Updated 7/15/24
70 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Business -
Producer
Lockhorn Orchard
and Garden
X
Business Logan Landfill X
Business Manhattan Bank X X
Business Matt's Butcher
Shop + Deli
X X
Business -
Producer
Milkmaid Meats X
Business Miller Custom
Meats
X
Nonprofit Montana
Cooperative
Development
Center
X Fosters cooperative enterprises across various
sectors.
Business Montana
Department of
Agriculture:
Growth Through
Agriculture (GTA),
Specialty Crop Block Grant,
marketing grants,
other
X X
Business Montana Energy
Alliance (Dillon)
propane for
irrigation pump.
X
MSU Montana Farm to
School Institute
X Collaborative program with Montana Office of
Public Instruction, housed within Team
Nutrition at MSU.
Nonprofit Montana Food
Bank Network
X
Nonprofit Montana Food
Bank Network -
Hunters Against
Hunger Program
X In conjunction with Montana Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, hunters who legally harvest big game
during the hunting season can donate all or
part of their meat.
Business Montana Gluten
Free
X X Processing Facility
Nonprofit Montana
Indigenous Food
Sovereignty
Initiative (MIFSI)
X X X X X Intertribal collaboration of Indigenous young
professionals and elder-mentors committed to
working as relatives to build shared capacity
for Indigenous food sovereignty. Seeds,
resources for food preservation, community
gardens and resources for growing food
Nonprofit Montana Land
Reliance
X X Land conservation.
113
Draft Updated 7/15/24
71 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Business Montana Local
Foods Distribution
X
Nonprofit Montana
Partnership to End
Childhood Hunger
X X Nutrition Security dashboard in development.
Business -
Producer
Montana Red Devin X Restaurant Affiliated
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Montana Regional
Business Center
X Part of the newly formed Northwest & Rocky
Mountain Regional Food Business Center
(nwrockymountainregionalfoodbusiness.com).
Business -
Producer
Montana Roots X
Business Montana Survival
Seed (out of
region: Bitterroot
Valley, MT)
X
MSU Montana Team
Nutrition
Multiple resources, expertise:
montana.edu/team nutrition.
Business -
Producer
Montana Wagyu X
Nonprofit Mountain Time
Arts
X Engaging public art projects and programs.
Indigenous and environmental awareness
MSU MSU Culinary
Program
X
MSU MSU Extension -
Gallatin County
X X Master gardener program and other
horticulture education resources, 4-H Program,
resources and education opportunity for
agriculture.
MSU MSU Extension -
Montana Master Gardener Program
X Education and service organization for
gardening. (part of Gallatin County Extension)
MSU MSU Extension X X X X X Multiple resources, expertise. Researched-
based university resources for the people of
Montana. Skill building/how to garden.
MSU MSU Food Product
Development Lab
X Supports small food business via technical
product research development, testing, and
consulting.
MSU MSU Meat Science
Lab
X Basic + applied research, expertise for new
product development.
MSU MSU Montana
Dietetic Internship
X X Applied learning in clinical, community, and
food service environments.
MSU MSU Montana
Manufacturing
Extension Center
X Outreach and assistance center. Reported to
offer free facility audits. Relies on grant
funding to provide free services.
114
Draft Updated 7/15/24
72 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
MSU MSU Sustainable
Food & Bioenergy
Systems (SFBS)
X X X X Academic program. Interns/workforce.
MSU MSU WWAMI
Culinary Medicine
course
X X Also serves nursing and dietician students.
Agency,
Institution,
Government
MT Office of Public
Instruction School
Nutrition Programs
- National School
Lunch Program
(NSLP)
X NSLP is a USDA program that provides funding
for nutritious meals in schools; Funding is
based on family income
Business Murdoch’s Ranch &
Home Supply
X
Nonprofit National Center for
Appropriate
Technology (NCAT)
X X X X Helping people build resilient communities
through local and sustainable solutions that
reduce poverty, strengthen self-reliance, and
protect natural resources.
Agency,
Institution,
Government
NCAT - Harvest of
the Month
X X X
Business -
Producer
New Pioneer Farm X
Business -
Producer
Nightinggreens X
Business -
Producer
Norris Hot Springs X
Business -
Producer
North Bridger Bison X
Business Oak Gardens X
Business Old Salt Meat
Company
X
Business -
Producer
Old Town
Farmstand
X
Nonprofit Open & Local
Coalition
X X X X Collaboration toward stronger community food
systems and conserved agricultural lands.
Business -
Producer
Peyson's Produce X
Business Pioneer Meats X
Business Producer
Partnership
X
Nonprofit Prospera - Food &
Agriculture
Program
X X X Supports businesses in the diversified industry
of agriculture, including food product makers
and distributors.
Business -
Producer
Pure Leaf Gardens X
115
Draft Updated 7/15/24
73 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Business Quality Foods
Distribution
X X X Distributes local food. Has refrigerated and dry
storage in four corners; 6 refrigerator trucks,
operate in MT WY &ID
Business Quality Meats X
Business -
Producer
Rainbow Creek
Farm
X
Business Ranchland Packing
Co
X
Business Range Market X
Business -
Producer
Rathvinden X
Business ReGen Market X X
Business Rocky Mountain
Credit Union
X X
Business Rocky Mountain
Supply
X X
Business Root Cellar Foods X X X Source regional food, year-round
Nonprofit S.C.O.R.E. X Business support
Nonprofit Sage Gardiners X X Provides raised beds and garden-based
therapy for aging seniors in Gallatin County.
Nonprofit Senior Farmers
Market Nutrition
Program (SFMNP)
X X A tool for seniors on limited incomes to access
fresh local foods. Seniors redeem coupons
directly with approved farmers. Farmers work
directly with CFAC for authorization, then are
reimbursed for the value of the coupons they
collect by a local agency. (This avoids the delay
of mailing coupons to the program managers
for reimbursement.) Local Agency sites where
farmers redeem coupons: Bozeman Senior
Center, Gallatin Conservation District
(Manhattan), Western Sustainability Exchange
(Livingston)
Business -
Producer
Serenity Sheep
Farm
X Restaurant Affiliated
Business -
Producer
Shields Valley
Ranchers
X
Business Skyline Veterinary
Hospital (small
animal, formerly
Sorensen Small
Animal Hospital)
X
Business -
Producer
Spain Bridge Farm X
Business -
Producer
SporeAttic X
Business Spur Line X
116
Draft Updated 7/15/24
74 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Business -
Producer
Square Deal (Little
Star Diner)
X
Business Steward X
Business Stillwater Packing
Co.
X
Business Story Distributing
(+ Casey’s Corner;
acquired by
Parkland Corp.
2020-21)
X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Supplemental
Nutrition
Assistance Program
(SNAP)
X Helps families facing food insecurity afford
nutritious groceries essential to health and
well-being
Business -
Producer
Synchronicity
Agroforestry Center
X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Temporary
Assistance for
Needy Families
(TANF)
X Helps to help low-income families with
children achieve economic self-sufficiency.
Business -
Producer
Terra Greens
Produce
X
Business The Meat Up X
Business -
Producer
Thirteen Mile Lamb
& Wool
X
Business -
Producer
Three Hearts Farm X X Farm stand
Business -
Producer
Three Seed Farm X Bio-regionally adapted vegetable and flower
seeds here in the Gallatin Valley
Nonprofit Tinworks Art X Food-related installations and conversation
series
Business Together Bakery X X Bakery making bread with ancient grains
grown in Montana
Business Town & Country
Foods
X X X Local worker-owned grocery, carries local and
Montana products.
MSU Towne's Harvest
Garden
X X X Five-acre diversified farm supporting a
student-run community supported agriculture
program; Students work share opportunities;
Mobile farm stand located at Legion Villa, a
section 8 housing complex that serves low
income, elderly members of the community.
Business Triple Divide Seeds
(out of region:
Ronan, MT)
X
117
Draft Updated 7/15/24
75 City of Bozeman – Local Food Systems Preliminary Mapping Project Appendix
Type Asset Food access + resilience Wellness, education, culture Food pathways Production Ecological sustainability Notes
Agency,
Institution,
Government
USDA - Farm
Service Agency
(FSA)
X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
USDA - Natural
Resource
Conservation
Service (NRCS)
X
Business Visser Greenhouses X
Business Watson Irrigation
(Townsend)
X
Business Western Montana
Growers Co-op
X X They are farmer owned in northwest MT. Sell
locally to Town & County, Co-Op, Monforton
School, Lockhorn Cider, Bozeman Hilton
Garden Inn (according to website map)
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Western SARE (part
of USDA National
Institute for Food &
Agriculture)
Grants to advance innovations that improve
profitability, stewardship, and quality of life in
American agriculture.
Nonprofit Western
Sustainability
Exchange (WSE)
X X X Noted: resource guide, ranch practices, etc.
Business Whalen's Meat
Packing (Belgrade)
X
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Women, Infants
and Children (WIC)
X Helps to provide supplemental foods, health
care referrals, and nutrition education for low-
income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-
breastfeeding postpartum women, and to
infants and children up to age 5 who are found
to be at nutritional risk
Agency,
Institution,
Government
Women, Infants
and Children (WIC)
Farm Direct
Program
X A tool allowing mothers of young children to
access nutritious local produce.
Business Yellowstone Tractor
(Belgrade)
X
Business YES Compost X
118
119
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Community Development Board
FROM:Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager
Erin George, Community Development Interim Director
SUBJECT:Review and Recommendation for the 2024 Impact Fee Service Area Report
for Transportation
MEETING DATE:November 18, 2024
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Plan/Report/Study
RECOMMENDATION:Consider the Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff
presentation, draft service area report, public comment, and all information
presented, I hereby find the 2024 service area report for Transportation
meets all requirements and recommend approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN:7.5. Funding and Delivery of City Services: Use equitable and sustainable
sources of funding for appropriate City services, and deliver them in a lean
and efficient manner.
BACKGROUND:The City of Bozeman first adopted impact fees in 1996 and has used them
continuously ever since. The State of Montana authorizes local government
impact fees through Title 7, Chapter 6, Part 16, Montana Code Annotated
(MCA) [External Link]. An impact fee is defined as:
(5) (a) "Impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a
governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund
the additional service capacity required by the development from which it is
collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the
impact fee not to exceed 5% of the total impact fee collected.
(b) The term does not include:
(i) a charge or fee to pay for administration, plan review, or inspection
costs associated with a permit required for development;
(ii) a connection charge;
(iii) any other fee authorized by law, including but not limited to user
fees, special improvement district assessments, fees authorized under Title 7
for county, municipal, and consolidated government sewer and water
districts and systems, and costs of ongoing maintenance; or
(iv) onsite or offsite improvements necessary for new development to
meet the safety, level of service, and other minimum development
standards that have been adopted by the governmental entity.
120
Impact fees are authorized for specifically listed types of facilities including:
(7) "Public facilities" means:
(c) a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights-of-way,
traffic signals, and landscaping;
The transportation system is defined in 2.06.1630 BMC as: "Transportation
system means existing or planned collectors or arterial streets, including
associated non-motorized travel elements and which are either included on
the most current long range transportation plan or the city's impact fee
capital improvement program." The City follows its complete streets policy
(Resolution 4244 adopted in 2010) for all street construction, including for
projects funded by impact fees.
The City uses impact fees to advance the following purposes:
Equity in funding capital expansion of certain services
Public safety
Infrastructure concurrency
Remove barriers from development
Implement growth policy and facility plans by increasing capacity to
serve new development
Cost efficiency from coordinated projects
The Community Development Board has been assigned by the City
Commission the duties of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee [External Link]
to review calculation of fees. An element of this duty is to review and
recommend on the service area report (SAR).
A key part of the state authorization for impact fees is the requirement for a
local government to prepare a service area report for each fee type. The SAR
consolidates key information relating to the future needs for infrastructure,
expected means to provide the infrastructure, and the process by which the
cost of additional services are assigned to units of new development. A copy
of 7-16-1602 MCA that sets required documentation for an impact fee is
attached to this agenda item. In addition to the details of the SAR the City
also provides required documentation through its Transportation Master
Plan [External PDF] and annual capital improvement program and budgets
[External link].
The City updates the SAR at least every four years to help ensure the fees are
accurate, reflect current construction costs and service needs, and remain
roughly proportionate and logically connected to the development that pays
the fees. The City hired TischlerBise, a nationally prominent specialist in
impact fees, to support the City in updating the impact fee SAR.
Staff has reviewed the draft SAR prepared by TischlerBise on behalf of the
City and finds that the document meets the requirements of state law for a
SAR. The SAR is in writing, the document has been provided to the public for
review through the Engage Bozeman website [External Link] as well as the
121
agenda for the Community Development Board meeting and will be in the
City Commission agenda. The City has an annual process to update a capital
improvement program to schedule construction of public facility capital
improvements. As shown in the SAR, actual costs of construction and
reasonable estimate of costs have been used, forecast for future needs are
provided, necessary facilities to serve future growth are identified, and the
appropriateness of a single service area is established. No maintenance or
operational costs are included in the calculated fee. All other necessary
elements are also provided.
The City published formal notice in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on
10/26/2024, 11/09/2024, and 11/30/2024 of the public hearings before the
Community Development Board and City Commission. A news item was
included on the City's website, the Engage Bozeman impact fee update
project website was established, several publicly available work sessions and
training sessions regarding impact fees have been held during the project,
and direct notification to interest groups occurred at the beginning of the
project.
The action under this agenda item is specific to the Transportation impact
fee. The City also implements Fire/EMS, water, and wastewater fees. SAR for
water and wastewater fees are under development and will come forward
for public review, Community Development Board recommendation, and
City Commission action as they are completed. An updated SAR for Fire/EMS
was approved and adopted by the Commission on Oct. 1, 2024.
The City has adopted various fiscal policies to guide how revenues and
expenditures are made. These are included in the City’s adopted budget
[external link], see page 175. A relevant policy is:
5. User fees and charges will be used, as opposed to general taxes, when
distinct beneficiary populations or interest groups can be identified.
User fees and charges are preferable to general taxes because user charges
can provide clear demand signals which assist in determining what services
to offer, their quantity, and their quality. User charges are also more
equitable, since only those who use the service must pay--thereby eliminating
the subsidy provided by nonusers to users, which is inherent in general tax
financing.
Consistent with this policy the City uses impact fees to fund capital
improvements to expand service capacity. Also consistent with this policy,
impact fees are set only to the amount demonstrated as necessary in the
SAR to offset the costs due from new construction. Impact fee revenue can
be used to pay bonds for capital improvements that otherwise qualify as an
impact fee expenditure. All expenses for operations such as personnel and
supplies, maintenance, and capital replacement must come from other user
fees, assessments, and taxes as authorized by law.
122
Most elements of the 2024 Transportation SAR are very similar to previous
SAR although updated data has been used in the forecasts and other
calculations. The data requirements established by state law ensure
substantial consistency from one SAR to its successor. The primary change is
to expand the range of home sizes for which fees are calculated. As better
data has become available and a greater range of home sizes is being
constructed in the community it is appropriate to consider if an improved fit
between construction, expected service demand, and fees charged can be
established. It is also necessary to keep the range realistic and reasonably
descriptive of expected demand. For example, although there is a
demonstrated correlation between home size and occupancy the occupancy
of a home can never go below 1 regardless of its size.
The fee for residences has been based on home type since the beginning of
the program and a range of homes sizes as well since 2009. The current
range has been in place since 2019. Greater data availability has enabled this
SAR to consider a more refined range of home size and type. The City
Commission approved this expanded range with the recent Fire/EMS SAR
update and it has been carried forward with this SAR. The expanded range
more clearly ties a fee to the lower dwelling occupancy expected in smaller
units. Service demand is strongly influenced by occupancy therefore this
enables a lower fee to be charged for smaller homes. Bozeman has seen a
substantial increase in smaller sized homes, especially in the apartment type
configuration, over the past few years. Staff recommends adoption of the
range proposed in the Transportation SAR to maintain consistency with the
recently adopted Fire/EMS SAR which included the expanded size range and
maintain a best available fit between construction and fee characteristics.
Since the last SAR, the cost of construction and capital equipment has
increased substantially. See page 21 of the SAR. This large increase directly
raises the cost of constructing new or expanded streets. The lane cost is also
influenced by the nature of projects. The CIP includes several projects that
require substantial expense for purchase of right of way. With the rapid
increase in land prices in Bozeman that and the additional area for specific
projects costs have increased. Since the impact fee is a cost recovery
approach the cost of the impact must rise to reflect changing cost of inputs.
For context, a simple memo with information from other communities using
impact fees in MT is attached. Each community is distinct and cost of service
is not comparable from one community to another. Several community's
fees have not been updated recently and therefore do not reflect recent cost
escalation. Since the question of what other communities are doing comes
up every time the service area reports are updated staff provides this
information for reference.
Impact fees are only one component of a complete transportation funding
system. Operations and maintenance activities cannot be funded with
impact fees and no such projects are included in the service area report.
123
Operation and maintenance are funded through a combination of street
assessments, gas tax transfers from the state, and the arterial and collector
levy. See the attached PDF showing the makeup of total transportation
capital sources and amounts. The slide does not address non-capital such as
wages or contributions to the Streamline Bus system.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:1. Recommend approval of the service area report;
2. Recommend approval with modifications the draft service area report;
3. Reject the draft service area report; or
4. Open and continue the public hearing on the application, with specific
request to staff to supply additional information or to address specific items.
FISCAL EFFECTS:The service area report does not expend funds. It does update the costs per
unit of new development. Subsequent adoption of the SAR by the City
Commission will enable continued operation of the impact fee program to
offset capital costs from new construction for Transportation functions.
Attachments:
Bozeman, MT Impact Fee
Report_Transportation_10.17.24.pdf
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation
required -- ordinance or resolution -- requirements for
impact fees, MCA.pdf
Other Communities Memo 9-5-2024.pdf
FY26-30_TranspoFundingSources.pdf
Report compiled on: November 6, 2024
124
Transportation
Service Area Report and
Impact Fee Study
Prepared for:
Bozeman, Montana
October 17, 2024
4701 Sangamore Road
Suite S240
Bethesda, MD
(301) 320-6900
www.TischlerBise.com
125
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
126
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................3
Montana Impact Fee Enabling Legislation ..............................................................................3
Public Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 3
Service Area Report ......................................................................................................................... 4
Legal Framework .....................................................................................................................4
Methodology ..........................................................................................................................6
Conceptual Impact Fee Calculation .................................................................................................. 7
Evaluation of Credits ........................................................................................................................ 7
Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees ..............................................................8
Transportation Service Area Report .........................................................................................10
Service Area ................................................................................................................................... 10
Cost Allocation ............................................................................................................................... 10
Service Demand Units – Person Miles of Travel (PMT) ................................................................... 10
Vehicle Trip Length .................................................................................................................................. 10
Vehicle Trip Length Adjustments .............................................................................................................. 11
Percent of New Trips................................................................................................................................ 11
Trip Occupancy ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Calculation of Service Demand Units - Person Miles of Travel (PMT) .............................................. 14
Existing and Projected Growth in Service Area ............................................................................... 17
Planned Transportation Projects and Cost Components ......................................................19
Transportation Capital Cost per PMT ............................................................................................. 21
Credit for Other Revenues Sources .......................................................................................22
Transportation Personnel and Operations ............................................................................22
Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees ............................................................23
Projected Transportation Impact Fee Revenue .....................................................................26
Trip Exchange Districts ..........................................................................................................27
Capital Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................29
Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions .........................................................................................30
Population and Housing Characteristics ...............................................................................30
Building Permit History .........................................................................................................30
Base Year Housing Units and Population ..............................................................................31
Housing Unit and Population Projections .............................................................................34
Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area ............................................................35
Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections ......................................................35
Vehicle Trip Generation ........................................................................................................37
Residential Vehicle Trips by Housing Type ...................................................................................... 37
Residential Vehicle Trips Adjustment Factors ................................................................................. 38
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips .......................................................................................................... 38
Vehicle Trip Projections ........................................................................................................40
Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size .....................................................................................41
Bozeman Control Totals ................................................................................................................. 41
Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size ............................................................................................... 41
Persons by Dwelling Size ................................................................................................................ 42
127
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
ii
Person by Dwelling Size and Housing Type ..................................................................................... 43
Trip Generation by Dwelling Size .................................................................................................... 46
Vehicle Trip Ends by Dwelling Size .................................................................................................. 47
Vehicle Trip Ends by Dwelling Size and Housing Type ..................................................................... 48
Appendix B: Land Use Definitions ............................................................................................50
Residential Development ............................................................................................................... 50
Nonresidential Development ......................................................................................................... 50
128
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Bozeman, Montana, contracted with TischlerBise to document land use assumptions, prepare
the Service Area Report, and update impact fees within the applicable service areas pursuant to Montana
Code 7-6-16 (hereafter referred to as the “Enabling Legislation”). Governmental entities in Montana may
assess impact fees to offset infrastructure costs to the governmental entity for public facilities needed to
serve future development. For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental
entity shall prepare and approve a service area report. The impact fees must (1) be reasonably related to
and reasonably attributable to the development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made
necessary by the new development and (2) may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred
or to be incurred by the governmental entity in accommodating the development.
Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements needed to accommodate
future development, and the fee represents future development’s proportionate share of infrastructure
costs. Impact fees may be used for infrastructure improvements or debt service for growth-related
infrastructure. In contrast to general taxes, impact fees may not be used for operations, maintenance,
replacement, or correcting existing deficiencies.
This Service Area Report and associated update to its impact fees are for Bozeman transportation
infrastructure. In a tandem effort, TischlerBise is also updating the Service Area Reports for Fire/EMS,
Water, and Wastewater public facilities.
Montana Impact Fee Enabling Legislation
The Enabling Legislation governs how impact fees are calculated for governmental entities in Montana.
Public Facilities
Under the requirements of the Enabling Legislation, impact fees may only be used for construction,
acquisition, or expansion of public facilities made necessary by new development. “Public Facilities”
means any of the following categories of capital improvements with a useful life of 10 years or more that
increase or improve the service capacity of a public facility (§7-6-1601(7)):
1. a water supply production, treatment, storage, or distribution facility;
2. a wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facility;
3. a transportation facility, including roads, streets, bridges, rights-of-way, traffic signals, and
landscaping;
4. a storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment, or disposal facility or a flood control
facility;
5. a police, emergency medical rescue, or fire protection facility; and
6. other facilities for which documentation is prepared as provided in 7-6-1602 that have been
approved as part of an impact fee ordinance or resolution by:
7. a two-thirds majority of the governing body of an incorporated city, town, or consolidated local
government; or
8. a unanimous vote of the board of county commissioners of a county government.
129
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
4
Also, §7-6-1601(5a) states that "impact fee" means any charge imposed upon development by a
governmental entity as part of the development approval process to fund the additional service capacity
required by the development from which it is collected. An impact fee may include a fee for the
administration of the impact fee not to exceed 5 percent of the total impact fee collected.
Service Area Report
For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental entity shall prepare and
approve a service area report. The service area report is a written analysis that must:
1. describe existing conditions of the facility;
2. establish level-of-service standards;
3. forecast future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
4. identify capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service;
5. identify those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the
facility;
6. make a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is
necessary to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits;
7. make a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for
transportation facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits;
8. establish the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the
proportionate share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new
development within each service area;
9. establish the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and
maintenance costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee;
10. establish the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service
demand; and
11. have a component of the budget of the governmental entity that:
a. schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected
growth;
b. projects costs of the capital improvements;
c. allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and
d. covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 5 years.
Legal Framework
Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees as a legitimate form of land
use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. Land use
regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on
taking of private property for public use without just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment,
development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In
the case of impact fees, that interest is in the protection of public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring
development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The means to this end are also
important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to receive
130
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
5
community input (i.e., stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings) provides opportunities
for comments and refinements to the impact fees.
There are three reasonable relationship requirements for impact fees that are closely related to “rational
nexus”, or “reasonable relationship” requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the
term “dual rational nexus” is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity
of impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, we prefer a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three
elements: “need,” “benefit,” and “proportionality.” The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only
the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Dolan case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994). Furthermore, the plaintiff in the 2024
Sheetz v. El Dorado County U.S. Supreme Court case argued that the El Dorado County, CA impact fee
program failed to meet the Nollan/Dolan test. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case back to the
California Supreme Court for further proceedings on a stricter interpretation of the rational nexus,
specifically the extent impact fees can be “roughly proportionate.” Thus, is has been determined that
State courts will make judgements further similar cases. Individual elements of the nexus standard are
discussed further in the following paragraphs.
All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided
by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the
quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used
to recover the cost of development-related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is
a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle
that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon
which they are imposed. That principle clearly applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of
development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various
types of development and the demand for specific capital facilities, based on applicable level-of-service
standards.
The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the
U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality
is established through the procedures used to identify development-related facility costs, and in the
methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The
demand for capital facilities is measured in terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development
(e.g., a typical housing unit’s average weekday vehicle trips).
A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and
expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Impact fees must be expended in a timely
manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However,
nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee
revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to
a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and
expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as
substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the impact fees they are
131
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
6
required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees are separate from and
complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review.
As documented in this report, the City of Bozeman has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact
fees are proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development.
Specific costs have been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff,
TischlerBise identified service demand indicators for each type of infrastructure and calculated
proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of development. This report documents the formulas
and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each type of public facility. Impact fee
methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to various types of credits
to avoid potential double payment of growth-related capital costs.
Methodology
Impact fees for public facilities made necessary by new development must be based on the same level of
service provided to existing development in the service area. There are three basic methodologies used
to calculate impact fees. They examine the past, present, and future status of infrastructure. The objective
of evaluating these different methodologies is to determine the best measure of the demand created by
new development for additional infrastructure capacity. Each method has advantages and disadvantages
in a particular situation and can be used simultaneously for different cost components. Additionally,
impact fees for public facilities can also include a fee for the administration of the impact fee not to exceed
five percent of the total impact fee collected.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves two main steps: (1)
determining the cost of growth-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to
various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite
complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development
and the need for facilities within the designated service area. The following paragraphs discuss basic
methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods can be applied.
• Cost Recovery (past improvements) - The rationale for recoupment, often called cost recovery, is
that future development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities
already built, or land already purchased, from which future development will benefit. This
methodology is often used for utility systems that must provide adequate capacity before new
development can take place.
• Incremental Expansion (concurrent improvements) - The incremental expansion methodology
documents current level-of-service standards for each type of public facility, using both quantitative
and qualitative measures. This approach assumes there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or
surplus infrastructure capacity. Future development is only paying its proportionate share for
growth-related infrastructure. Revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as
needed, to accommodate future development. An incremental expansion methodology is best suited
for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments to keep pace with development.
• Plan-Based (future improvements) - The plan-based methodology allocates costs for a specified set
of improvements to a specified amount of development. Improvements are typically identified in a
132
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
7
long-range facility plan and development potential is identified by a land use plan. There are two
basic options for determining the cost per service demand unit: (1) total cost of a public facility can
be divided by total service demand units (average cost), or (2) the growth-share of the public facility
cost can be divided by the net increase in service demand units over the planning timeframe
(marginal cost).
Conceptual Impact Fee Calculation
In contrast to project-level improvements, impact fees fund growth-related infrastructure that will benefit
multiple development projects, or the entire service area (usually referred to as system improvements).
The first step is to determine an appropriate service demand unit for the particular type of infrastructure.
The service demand indicator measures the number of service units for each unit of development. For
example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for roadways is vehicle trips or vehicle miles of travel
that can be determined by development type. The second step in the impact fee formula is to determine
infrastructure improvement units per service demand unit, typically called level of service (LOS) standards.
In keeping with the roadway example, a common LOS standard is volume to capacity ratio. The third step
in the impact fee formula is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the roadway example,
this part of the formula would establish a construction cost per lane mile of road expansion.
The body of the report will detail these steps specific to the Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee analysis.
For reference, the service units can be found on page 14; LOS standards on page 10; and infrastructure
cost on page 19.
Evaluation of Credits
The consideration of credits is integral to the development of a legally defensible impact fee. There are
two types of credits that should be addressed in impact fee studies and ordinances. The first is a revenue
credit due to possible double payment situations, which could occur when other revenues expected to be
paid by future development may contribute to the capital costs of infrastructure covered by the impact
fee. This type of credit is integrated into the fee calculation, thus reducing the fee amount.
The second type of credit is a site-specific credit for system improvements that have been included in the
impact fee calculations. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for system improvements
are addressed in the ordinance that establishes the impact fees. However, the general concept is that
developers may be eligible for site-specific credits only if they provide system improvements that have
been included in the impact fee calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the
development approval process are not eligible for credits against impact fees. Site-specific credits are
addressed in the administration and implementation of the development fee program.
Below, Figure 1 summarizes service areas, methodologies, and infrastructure cost components.
Figure 1. Impact Fee Service Areas, Methodologies, and Cost Allocation
Transportation Citywide -Roadway
Expansion -Person Miles
of Travel
Cost
AllocationFee Category Service Area
Incremental
Expansion Plan-Based
Cost
Recovery
133
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
8
Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees
The following figures list the schedule of the maximum supportable impact fees by type of land use. The
fees represent the highest amount allowable for each type of applicable land use. The City may adopt fees
that are less than the amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an
increase in other revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of
service.
The maximum supportable impact fees for residential development will be assessed per housing unit,
based on the square footage of the unit. This study presents additional size bands. The current fee
schedule has 10 bands, while 19 bands are included in the update. Expanding the schedule allows for
further proportionately. Nonresidential impact fees will be assessed per square foot of floor area.
Figure 2. Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Schedule – Single-Unit Dwelling Including Townhomes
Residential - Single-Unit Dwelling including Townhomes
Residential (per housing unit)
Under 600 $5,517 $6,938 ($1,421)
600 to 800 $6,182 $6,938 ($756)
801 to 1,000 $7,248 $6,938 $310
1,001 to 1,200 $8,437 $6,938 $1,499
1,201 to 1,400 $10,142 $6,938 $3,204
1,401 to 1,600 $11,680 $7,728 $3,952
1,601 to 1,800 $13,159 $8,431 $4,728
1,801 to 2,000 $14,490 $9,032 $5,458
2,001 to 2,200 $15,737 $9,605 $6,132
2,201 to 2,400 (avg.)$16,970 $10,098 $6,872
2,401 to 2,600 $18,082 $10,562 $7,520
2,601 to 2,800 $19,186 $11,007 $8,180
2,801 to 3,000 $20,291 $11,411 $8,880
3,001 to 3,200 $21,273 $11,530 $9,743
3,201 to 3,400 $22,235 $11,530 $10,705
3,401 to 3,600 $23,178 $11,530 $11,648
3,601 to 3,800 $23,992 $11,530 $12,462
3,801 to 4,000 $24,968 $11,530 $13,438
4,001 or More $25,756 $11,530 $14,226
Dwelling Size
(square feet)
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Current
Fee
Increase/
Decrease
134
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
9
Figure 3. Transportation Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Schedule – Other Residential
Figure 4. Transportation Maximum Supportable Impact Fee Schedule – Nonresidential
Residential - Other Residential
Residential (per housing unit)
Under 600 $3,805 $4,311 ($506)
600 to 800 $4,270 $4,311 ($41)
801 to 1,000 $5,007 $4,311 $696
1,001 to 1,200 $5,588 $4,311 $1,277
1,201 to 1,400 $6,557 $4,311 $2,246
1,401 to 1,600 (avg.)$7,603 $4,806 $2,797
1,601 to 1,800 $8,521 $5,229 $3,292
1,801 to 2,000 $9,490 $5,610 $3,880
2,001 to 2,200 $10,246 $5,955 $4,291
2,201 to 2,400 $11,079 $6,264 $4,815
2,401 to 2,600 $11,744 $6,549 $5,195
2,601 to 2,800 $12,500 $6,816 $5,684
2,801 to 3,000 $13,243 $7,078 $6,165
3,001 to 3,200 $13,895 $7,148 $6,747
3,201 to 3,400 $14,464 $7,148 $7,316
3,401 to 3,600 $15,097 $7,148 $7,949
3,601 to 3,800 $15,633 $7,148 $8,485
3,801 to 4,000 $16,292 $7,148 $9,144
4,001 or More $16,738 $7,148 $9,590
Group Quarters (per person)
Group Quarters $3,760 $2,556 $1,204
Dwelling Size
(square feet)
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Current
Fee
Increase/
Decrease
Nonresidential
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Retail/Restaurant $19,115 $11,920 $7,195
Research & Development Center $6,027 $6,155 ($128)
Office $4,703 $4,087 $616
Hospital $5,136 $7,860 ($2,724)
Day Care (per student)$1,828 $688 $1,140
Secondary School $6,880 $5,256 $1,624
Elementary School $9,554 $7,287 $2,267
Lodging (per room)$1,583 $1,584 ($1)
Assisted Living (per bed)$1,137 $816 $321
Mini-warehouse $627 $429 $198
Warehouse $736 $729 $8
Manufacturing $2,067 $1,637 $430
Light Industrial $2,119 $2,074 $45
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Current
Fee
Increase/
DecreaseDevelopment Type
135
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
10
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AREA REPORT
The Bozeman Transportation Impact Fee Study includes roadway expansion for vehicle and multimodal
demand. The analysis uses an incremental expansion approach which is based on the adopted level of
service in the Transportation Plan and construction costs found in the Capital Improvement Plan. The
requirement and purpose of the service area report is explained on page 3.
Service Area
The transportation impact fee program funds collector and arterial improvements which provides a
networkwide benefit. As such, there is one, citywide service area in the analysis.
Cost Allocation
Costs for transportation improvements are allocated to residential and nonresidential development based
on average weekday person miles of travel (PMT) generated by type of development.
Service Demand Units – Person Miles of Travel (PMT)
Bozeman funds roadway improvements projects with impact fees that provides expanded service to
vehicle and multimodal demand. While vehicle trip rates or vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are typically used
as the demand unit for improvements purely addressing vehicle demand, using person miles of travel
(PMT) factors more accurately captures development demand for vehicle and multimodal expansion.
PMT factors are calculated with vehicle trip rate factors, vehicle trip length factors, and trip occupancy
factors. In Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions, residential and nonresidential vehicle trip rates, vehicle
trip rate adjustments, commuter trip adjustment, and adjustment for pass-by trips are detailed along with
trip rates for Single-Unit Dwelling and Other Residential units by the square footage of the dwelling. The
following section details the remaining factors used in the PMT calculation.
Vehicle Trip Length
Figure 5 displays the calculation of average vehicle trip length used in this study. The average trip vehicle
trip length on Bozeman collector and arterial roads is based on the lane miles in the system, capacity, level
of service, and vehicle trip total. First, there are 156.1 lane miles of collectors and arterials. The Bozeman
Transportation Master Plan indicates a capacity of 6,000 vehicle trips per day on a collector road and 8,000
vehicle trips per day on an arterial road. However, the City’s adopted level of service of 0.73 volume /
capacity (V/C) ratio1 reduces the capacity to be consistent with Bozeman capital planning.
The level of service capacities are combined with the lane miles to calculate the base year VMT. The
average trip length is found by comparing the base year VMT with the base year vehicle trips. As a result,
there is an average trip length on Bozeman collector and arterial roads of 2.77 miles (806,796 VMT /
291,139 vehicle trips = 2.77 miles, rounded).
1 The volume / capacity ratio compares the demand on the road to the capacity. As the ratio approaches 1.00 the
road network is approaching full congestion. Said another way, a lower ratio represents less congestion.
136
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
11
The impact fee analysis addresses demand only on collector and arterial roads. Thus, the trip length on
local roads and the interstate are not contemplated.
Figure 5. Average Vehicle Trip Length on Collector and Arterial Roads
Vehicle Trip Length Adjustments
The trip purpose is the primary factor used in traffic studies to determine trip lengths. Figure 6 displays
trip length adjustment factors by purpose as determined by the National Household Travel Survey (2017)
and a trip survey provided in the 2019 Bozeman Impact Fee Study.
Figure 6. Vehicle Trip Length Adjustment Factors
Percent of New Trips
Following a travel survey provided in the previous Bozeman impact fee study there is a reduction in
nonresidential trips to accurately capture the origin-destination of the trip since there are secondary and
diverted trips that would overestimate the primary purpose of the trip. The percent of secondary and
diverted trip is reduced from 100 percent to find the percent of new trips listed in Figure 7. The purpose
of the reduction is to ensure only the direct demand from developments are being included in the impact
fee analysis. For example, during travel surveys some counted trips may have been the result of a
diversion. In this case, that location was not the purpose of the trip, so a reduction needs to be included.
Total LOS V/C
Road Classification Lane Miles Capacity 0.73
Collector 71.8 6,000 4,380 314,484
Minor Arterial 36.6 8,000 5,840 213,744
Principal Arterial 47.7 8,000 5,840 278,568
Total 156.1 806,796
Base Year VMT 806,796
Base Year Vehicle Trips 291,139
Average Trip Length 2.77
Base Year
VMT
Trip Purpose Trip Length Adj.
Residential Trip [1]121%
Commercial Trip [1]66%
Other Nonres Trip [2]43%
[1] Source: National Household Travel Survey, 2017
[2] Source: 2019 Impact Fee Study trip survey
137
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
12
Figure 7. Nonresidential Percent New Trips Factor
Trip Occupancy
The last component to the PMT calculation is trip occupancy. Trip occupancy represents the number of
people on that trip. From the National Household Travel Survey (2022), the average vehicle trip occupancy
is 1.59 persons, which is an increase from the occupancy rate used in the previous study (1.30 persons).
This factor is applied without adjustments to all nonresidential land uses. The trip occupancy factor is
adjusted for Single-Unit Dwelling and Other Residential units based on the PPHH factors (see page 30 for
more detail on PPHH). As a result, Figure 8 shows an assumption of higher vehicle trip occupancy for
homes with larger PPHH factors. It is assumed that the trip occupancy cannot be lower than 1.00 person,
which is applied to the smaller dwelling units.
Since the prior impact fee study, Bozeman has seen an increase in smaller dwelling construction and has
improved detailed data available related to dwelling sizes. As a result, the new study includes 19 bands in
Figure 8 compared to 10 bands in the previous study allowing for more proportional fees.
Land Use
Percent of
New Trips
Retail/Restaurant 55%
Research & Development Center 89%
Office 71%
Hospital 78%
Day Care 73%
University 90%
Secondary School 80%
Elementary School 80%
Lodging 77%
Assisted Living 72%
Mini-warehouse 71%
Warehouse 71%
Manufacturing 71%
Light Industrial 71%
Source: 2019 Impact Fee Study trip survey
138
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
13
Figure 8. Residential Occupancy Rates
Number of Vehicle Trip Occupants
Under 600 1.00 1.00
600 to 800 1.00 1.00
801 to 1,000 1.00 1.00
1,001 to 1,200 1.04 1.00
1,201 to 1,400 1.15 1.08
1,401 to 1,600 1.24 1.17
1,601 to 1,800 1.32 1.24
1,801 to 2,000 1.39 1.32
2,001 to 2,200 1.45 1.37
2,201 to 2,400 1.51 1.43
2,401 to 2,600 1.56 1.47
2,601 to 2,800 1.61 1.52
2,801 to 3,000 1.66 1.57
3,001 to 3,200 1.70 1.61
3,201 to 3,400 1.74 1.64
3,401 to 3,600 1.78 1.68
3,601 to 3,800 1.81 1.71
3,801 to 4,000 1.85 1.75
4,001 or More 1.88 1.77
Dwelling Size
(square feet)
Single-Unit
Dwelling
Other Res.
Housing
139
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
14
Calculation of Service Demand Units - Person Miles of Travel (PMT)
The following figures lists the factors that are used to calculate the VMT by land use which is then transformed into PMT with the trip occupancy
rates. First, Single-Unit Dwelling PMT is calculated; Second, Other Residential PMT; Third, Nonresidential PMT.
Additionally, the PMT per unit from the 2019 study is listed for comparison. There has been an overall increase in PMT for residential development
besides the smaller dwelling sizes which have been added to the fee schedule. The increase in residential PMT follows the trend of increasing
PPHH, trip ends, and occupancy rate from the previous study. For example, the average size Single-Unit Dwelling is between 2,201 and 2,400
square feet and generates 26.27 PMT per day (9.27 trip ends x 0.56 trip end adjustment x 2.77 miles x 1.21 trip length adjustment x 1.00 new trips
x 1.51 vehicle trip occupants = 26.27 PMT).
Figure 9. Summary of Service Demand Units (PMT) – Single-Unit Dwelling including Townhomes
Single-Unit Dwelling
Square Feet Trip End
Trip
End Adj.
Trip Length
(miles)
Trip
Length Adj
Percent of
New Trips
Vehicle Miles
of Travel (VMT)
Occupants
per Trip
Person Miles
of Travel (PMT)
2019
Study PMT % Change
Under 600 4.55 56% 2.77 121% 100% 8.54 1.00 8.54 13.55 -37%
600 to 800 5.10 56% 2.77 121% 100% 9.57 1.00 9.57 13.55 -29%
801 to 1,000 5.98 56% 2.77 121% 100% 11.22 1.00 11.22 13.55 -17%
1,001 to 1,200 6.69 56% 2.77 121% 100% 12.56 1.04 13.06 13.55 -4%
1,201 to 1,400 7.27 56% 2.77 121% 100% 13.65 1.15 15.70 13.55 16%
1,401 to 1,600 7.77 56% 2.77 121% 100% 14.58 1.24 18.08 15.08 20%
1,601 to 1,800 8.22 56% 2.77 121% 100% 15.43 1.32 20.37 16.42 24%
1,801 to 2,000 8.60 56% 2.77 121% 100% 16.14 1.39 22.43 17.62 27%
2,001 to 2,200 8.95 56% 2.77 121% 100% 16.80 1.45 24.36 18.71 30%
2,201 to 2,400 (avg.)9.27 56% 2.77 121% 100% 17.40 1.51 26.27 19.70 33%
2,401 to 2,600 9.56 56% 2.77 121% 100% 17.94 1.56 27.99 20.61 36%
2,601 to 2,800 9.83 56% 2.77 121% 100% 18.45 1.61 29.70 21.46 38%
2,801 to 3,000 10.08 56% 2.77 121% 100% 18.92 1.66 31.41 22.24 41%
3,001 to 3,200 10.32 56% 2.77 121% 100% 19.37 1.70 32.93 22.46 47%
3,201 to 3,400 10.54 56% 2.77 121% 100% 19.78 1.74 34.42 22.46 53%
3,401 to 3,600 10.74 56% 2.77 121% 100% 20.16 1.78 35.88 22.46 60%
3,601 to 3,800 10.93 56% 2.77 121% 100% 20.52 1.81 37.14 22.46 65%
3,801 to 4,000 11.13 56% 2.77 121% 100% 20.89 1.85 38.65 23.46 65%
4,001 or More 11.30 56% 2.77 121% 100% 21.21 1.88 39.87 22.46 78%
140
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
15
Figure 10. Summary of Service Demand Units (PMT) – Other Residential
Other Residential
Square Feet Trip End
Trip
End Adj.
Trip Length
(miles)
Trip
Length Adj
Percent of
New Trips
Vehicle Miles
of Travel (VMT)
Occupants
per Trip
Person Miles
of Travel (PMT)
2019
Study PMT % Change
Under 600 3.14 56% 2.77 121% 100% 5.89 1.00 5.89 8.41 -30%
600 to 800 3.52 56% 2.77 121% 100% 6.61 1.00 6.61 8.41 -21%
801 to 1,000 4.13 56% 2.77 121% 100% 7.75 1.00 7.75 8.41 -8%
1,001 to 1,200 4.61 56% 2.77 121% 100% 8.65 1.00 8.65 8.41 3%
1,201 to 1,400 5.01 56% 2.77 121% 100% 9.40 1.08 10.15 8.41 21%
1,401 to 1,600 (avg.)5.36 56% 2.77 121% 100% 10.06 1.17 11.77 9.36 26%
1,601 to 1,800 5.67 56% 2.77 121% 100% 10.64 1.24 13.19 10.18 30%
1,801 to 2,000 5.93 56% 2.77 121% 100% 11.13 1.32 14.69 10.93 34%
2,001 to 2,200 6.17 56% 2.77 121% 100% 11.58 1.37 15.86 11.61 37%
2,201 to 2,400 6.39 56% 2.77 121% 100% 11.99 1.43 17.15 12.22 40%
2,401 to 2,600 6.59 56% 2.77 121% 100% 12.37 1.47 18.18 12.78 42%
2,601 to 2,800 6.78 56% 2.77 121% 100% 12.73 1.52 19.35 13.31 45%
2,801 to 3,000 6.96 56% 2.77 121% 100% 13.06 1.57 20.50 13.81 48%
3,001 to 3,200 7.12 56% 2.77 121% 100% 13.36 1.61 21.51 13.92 55%
3,201 to 3,400 7.27 56% 2.77 121% 100% 13.65 1.64 22.39 13.92 61%
3,401 to 3,600 7.41 56% 2.77 121% 100% 13.91 1.68 23.37 13.92 68%
3,601 to 3,800 7.54 56% 2.77 121% 100% 14.15 1.71 24.20 13.92 74%
3,801 to 4,000 7.68 56% 2.77 121% 100% 14.41 1.75 25.22 14.92 69%
4,001 or More 7.80 56% 2.77 121% 100% 14.64 1.77 25.91 13.92 86%
Land Use Trip End
Trip
End Adj.
Trip Length
(miles)
Trip
Length Adj
Percent of
New Trips
Vehicle Miles
of Travel (VMT)
Occupants
per Trip
Person Miles
of Travel (PMT)
2019
Study PMT % Change
Group Quarters 3.10 56% 2.77 121% 100% 5.82 1.00 5.82 5.01 16%
141
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
16
Furthermore, there has been a variety of PMT changes in nonresidential land uses. As a reminder, the change in PMT rate is based on local and
national travel surveys detailed in this report. The largest exception to the nonresidential decrease is day care. The land use increased by only 1.48
PMT, but relative to the very small 1.35 PMT in the 2019 study the change is significant.
Figure 11. Summary of Service Demand Units (PMT) – Nonresidential
Land Use
per 1,000 Square Feet Trip End
Trip
End Adj.
Trip Length
(miles)
Trip
Length Adj
Percent of
New Trips
Vehicle Miles
of Travel (VMT)
Occupants
per Trip
Person Miles
of Travel (PMT)
2019
Study PMT % Change
Retail/Restaurant 37.01 50%2.77 66%55%18.61 1.59 29.59 23.35 27%
Research & Development Center 11.08 50%2.77 43%89%5.87 1.59 9.33 12.05 -23%
Office 10.84 50%2.77 43%71%4.58 1.59 7.28 8.00 -9%
Hospital 10.77 50%2.77 43%78%5.00 1.59 7.95 15.33 -48%
Day Care (per student)4.09 50%2.77 43%73%1.78 1.59 2.83 1.35 110%
Secondary School 14.07 50%2.77 43%80%6.70 1.59 10.65 10.31 3%
Elementary School 19.52 50%2.77 43%80%9.30 1.59 14.79 14.31 3%
Lodging (per room)3.35 50%2.77 43%77%1.54 1.59 2.45 3.09 -21%
Assisted Living (per bed)2.60 50%2.77 43%72%1.11 1.59 1.76 1.59 11%
Mini-warehouse 1.45 50%2.77 43%71%0.61 1.59 0.97 0.83 17%
Warehouse 1.71 50%2.77 43%71%0.72 1.59 1.14 1.43 -20%
Manufacturing 4.75 50%2.77 43%71%2.01 1.59 3.20 3.22 -1%
Light Industrial 4.87 50%2.77 43%71%2.06 1.59 3.28 4.07 -19%
142
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
17
Existing and Projected Growth in Service Area
With demand units by land use and development projections (page 30), the service area of the City’s
transportation network is detailed and future infrastructure demand projected in the following section.
As noted, the transportation impact fee program funds collector and arterial improvements which
provides a networkwide benefit. As such, there is one, citywide service area in the analysis.
Detailed in Figure 12, the base year housing and nonresidential estimates in the city are combined with
trip factors to calculate vehicle trips. Vehicle trips are converted to VMT and PMT based on the factors
detailed above. The figure lists projected VMT and PMT based on the ten-year growth projections in
residential and nonresidential development. In turn, the growth-related need for arterial and collector
lane miles is found by applying the 0.73 V/C level of service. As a result, there is a projected need for 25.8
new lane miles over the next ten years.
Although 9.04 lane miles are scheduled for construction in the next five years (35 percent of the ten-year
need), the City is committed to providing the additional 16.7 lane miles in the second half of the ten-year
horizon. Specifically, the five-year project list addresses shorter, but necessary capacity expansions in the
developed portions of Bozeman. While lengthier, capacity expansion projects are anticipated to address
greenfield, suburban development in the subsequent five years.
143
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
18
Figure 12. Projected VMT, PMT, and Lane Miles
City of Bozeman, MT
Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Total
Increase
Single-Unit Dwelling 14,654 14,882 15,110 15,338 15,566 15,794 16,022 16,250 16,478 16,706 16,934 2,280
Other Residential Units 11,928 12,694 13,460 14,226 14,992 15,758 16,524 17,290 18,056 18,822 19,588 7,660
Retail KSF 7,856 7,906 7,956 8,006 8,056 8,106 8,156 8,206 8,256 8,306 8,356 500
Office KSF 3,025 3,086 3,147 3,207 3,268 3,329 3,390 3,450 3,511 3,572 3,632 607
Industrial KSF 3,204 3,222 3,240 3,258 3,276 3,294 3,312 3,329 3,347 3,365 3,383 179
Institutional KSF 8,279 8,375 8,472 8,568 8,664 8,761 8,857 8,954 9,050 9,147 9,243 964
Single-Unit Trips 76,072 77,255 78,439 79,623 80,806 81,990 83,173 84,357 85,541 86,724 87,908 11,836
Other Residential Unit Trips 35,803 38,102 40,402 42,701 45,000 47,299 49,598 51,898 54,197 56,496 58,795 22,992
Residential Subtotal 111,875 115,358 118,841 122,323 125,806 129,289 132,772 136,255 139,737 143,220 146,703 34,828
Retail Trips 110,483 110,992 111,501 112,010 112,519 113,028 113,536 114,045 114,554 115,063 115,572 5,089
Office Trips 16,397 16,631 16,865 17,098 17,332 17,566 17,799 18,033 18,266 18,500 18,734 2,336
Industrial Trips 7,803 7,834 7,865 7,895 7,926 7,957 7,988 8,019 8,050 8,081 8,112 309
Institutional Trips 44,581 44,949 45,318 45,687 46,055 46,424 46,793 47,161 47,530 47,899 48,267 3,687
Nonresidential Subtotal 179,264 180,406 181,548 182,690 183,832 184,974 186,116 187,258 188,400 189,543 190,685 11,421
Total Vehicle Trips 291,139 295,764 300,389 305,013 309,638 314,263 318,888 323,513 328,138 332,763 337,388 46,249
Bozeman Art. & Coll. VMT 806,796 820,154 833,512 846,870 860,228 873,586 886,943 900,301 913,659 927,017 940,375 133,579
Bozeman Art. & Coll. PMT 976,823 994,508 1,012,193 1,029,878 1,047,563 1,065,248 1,082,933 1,100,618 1,118,303 1,135,988 1,153,673 176,851
Bozeman Art. & Coll. Lane Miles 156.1 158.7 161.3 163.8 166.4 169.0 171.6 174.1 176.7 179.3 181.9 25.8
144
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
19
Planned Transportation Projects and Cost Components
This Service Area Report defines the service demand units and the service area to be used in the impact fee calculations. The service area is used
to develop the transportation five-year capital improvement plan (CIP) shown in the following figures. This section includes details of the capital
plan, funding sources, and the method of calculating a transportation cost per service demand unit. The transportation cost per service demand
unit will be applied to the service demand units in Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11 to calculate the maximum supportable impact fees by land
use type.
The CIP listed in Figure 13 consists of 18 transportation projects, most that are planned for at least a portion of impact fee funding. The City of
Bozeman publishes an annual CIP with a larger project list that includes projects that are not impact fee eligible. The CIP included in this analysis
totals $104.7 million with $71.3 million in impact fee funding and $33.3 million from the Arterial & Collector District Fund. Note: the table continues
to the next page.
Figure 13. Bozeman Impact Fee Funding Transportation Capital Improvement Plan
Project
Code
Impact Fee Funded
Transportation CIP Project Name FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
FY25-FY29
Total
FY29+/
Unscheduled
SIF114 Fowler Avenue Connection: Huffine to Oak $5,463,600 $9,953,500 $4,715,100 $2,256,800 -$22,389,000 $2,813,400
SIF009 Kagy: 19th to Willson*-$3,000,000 ---$3,000,000 $0
SIF118 Babcock: 15th to 19th $2,250,600 $4,079,000 ---$6,329,600 $0
SIF112 Highland/Main Intersection Impr -$850,000 ---$850,000 $0
SIF188 Oak Street Intersections $150,000 $900,000 ---$1,050,000 $1,500,000
SIF191 Stucky: 19th to Fowler --$3,630,600 $5,849,300 -$9,479,900 $0
SIF159 Oak: 27th to 19th Widening ----$4,250,000 $4,250,000 $0
SIF149 Babcock: 11th to 15th $542,900 ----$542,900 $4,898,200
SIF152 N 27th: Baxter to Cattail $11,440,000 ----$11,440,000 $0
SIF193 Fowler: Cattail to E Valley Center ------$12,958,500
SIF195 Church: Garfield to Kagy ------$4,840,000
SIF194 Church: Story to Garfield ------$3,330,000
A&C014 S 19th/Blackwood Intersection Impr ------$2,445,000
SIF164 S 3rd: Kagy to Graf ------$4,890,000
A&C019 Huffine Lane Crossing ------$1,222,500
SIF190 N 15th: Tschache to Baxter ------$2,445,000
SIF156 Highland/Kagy Intersection Impr ------$3,760,000
A&C020 Cottonwood HAWK Signal ------$244,500
Total $19,847,100 $18,782,500 $8,345,700 $8,106,100 $4,250,000 $59,331,400 $45,347,100
*Project SIF009 is estimated to cost a total of $31.6 million. There is a variety of State and Federal funding sources for the project. The figure lists
the $3 million as the impact fee portion of the project.
145
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
20
The Transportation Impact Fee Study examines a planning horizon of 10 years. Although the unscheduled
projects in Figure 14 may be added to and revised over time based on the local market and priorities, the
plan provides an indication of impact fee verse Arterial & Collection District funding of the CIP.
Figure 14. Bozeman Impact Fee Funding Transportation Capital Improvement Plan cont.
Impact fees can only fund growth-related portions of infrastructure expansions. The non-impact fee
funding of the scheduled projects in the CIP is examined to understand the non-growth-related share of
roadway projects in Bozeman. Of the $68.5 million scheduled for the next five years, $17.1 million is being
funded by the Arterial & Collector District.
Figure 15. Bozeman Transportation Project Funding Sources
Project
Code
Impact Fee Funded
Transportation CIP Project Name
FY25-FY29
Total
FY29+/
Unscheduled
Impact Fee
Funding
A&C District
Funding
SIF114 Fowler Avenue Connection: Huffine to Oak $22,389,000 $2,813,400 $20,250,500 $4,951,900
SIF009 Kagy: 19th to Willson*$3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $0
SIF118 Babcock: 15th to 19th $6,329,600 $0 $4,118,800 $2,210,800
SIF112 Highland/Main Intersection Impr $850,000 $0 $850,000 $0
SIF188 Oak Street Intersections $1,050,000 $1,500,000 $750,000 $1,800,000
SIF191 Stucky: 19th to Fowler $9,479,900 $0 $6,735,200 $2,744,700
SIF159 Oak: 27th to 19th Widening $4,250,000 $0 $3,250,000 $1,000,000
SIF149 Babcock: 11th to 15th $542,900 $4,898,200 $3,856,900 $1,584,200
SIF152 N 27th: Baxter to Cattail $11,440,000 $0 $8,611,200 $2,828,800
SIF193 Fowler: Cattail to E Valley Center -$12,958,500 $12,958,500 $0
SIF195 Church: Garfield to Kagy -$4,840,000 $0 $4,840,000
SIF194 Church: Story to Garfield -$3,330,000 $0 $3,330,000
A&C014 S 19th/Blackwood Intersection Impr -$2,445,000 $0 $2,445,000
SIF164 S 3rd: Kagy to Graf -$4,890,000 $2,445,000 $2,445,000
A&C019 Huffine Lane Crossing -$1,222,500 $0 $1,222,500
SIF190 N 15th: Tschache to Baxter -$2,445,000 $1,222,500 $1,222,500
SIF156 Highland/Kagy Intersection Impr -$3,760,000 $3,260,000 $500,000
A&C020 Cottonwood HAWK Signal -$244,500 $0 $244,500
Total $59,331,400 $45,347,100 $71,308,600 $33,369,900
*Project SIF009 is estimated to cost a total of $31.6 million. There is a variety of State and Federal funding
sources for the project. The figure lists the $3 million as the impact fee portion of the project.
SIF009 Kagy (19th to Willson)$3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 1.70
SIF112 Highland/Main Intersection Improvement $850,000 $850,000 $0 0.00
SIF114 Fowler Avenue Connection (Huffine to Oak)$25,202,400 $20,250,500 $4,951,900 2.25
SIF118 Babcock (15th to 19th)$6,329,600 $4,118,800 $2,210,800 0.27
SIF149 Babcock (11th to 15th)$5,441,100 $3,856,900 $1,584,200 0.26
SIF152 N. 27th (Baxter to Cattail)$11,440,000 $8,611,200 $2,828,800 1.08
SIF191 Stucky (19th to Fowler)$9,479,900 $6,735,200 $2,744,700 2.98
SIF188 Oak Street Intersections $2,550,000 $750,000 $1,800,000 0.00
SIF159 Oak: 27th to 19th Widening $4,250,000 $3,250,000 $1,000,000 0.50
$68,543,000 $51,422,600 $17,120,400 9.04
Total
Project Cost
Amount from
Impact Fees
Amount from
A&C District
Lane-Miles
AddedProject Name
Project
Code
146
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
21
Transportation Capital Cost per PMT
Additionally, the five-year project list is adding 9.04 lane miles with $51.4 million in impact fee funding.
As a result, the plan averages $5.7 million per lane mile in impact fee funding. For comparison, the
previous study estimated a cost of $3.3 million per lane mile. The new CIP reflects a 74 percent increase
in growth-related construction costs. City staff has confirmed that there has been rapid and significant
inflation since 2019 including the right-of-way costs associated with roadway expansion.
Figure 16 details the calculation of capital cost per PMT. First, the 9.04 lane miles are multiplied by their
capacity to get the total new number of trips. Next, the new trips are multiplied by the City level of service
of 0.73 V/C. Finally, this is multiplied by the average of 1.32 persons per trip to determine that the CIP is
adding 61,887 PMT to the Bozeman transportation network (64,224 vehicle trip capacity x 0.73 V/C x 1.32
persons per trip = 61,887 PMT).
Dividing the cost of the capital improvements funded by impact fees by the total PMT results in the cost
per PMT of the capacity expansions in the capital plan. The project list is adding capacity to the roadway
network at an average of $831 per PMT ($51,422,600 / 61,887 PMT = $831 per PMT) in impact fee funding.
Figure 16. Transportation Impact Fee Funding per PMT
Lastly, based on the impact fee funding per lane mile of $5.7 million and the 25.8 new lane miles needed
to address projected growth, there is an estimated growth-related need of $146.8 million over the next
ten years (Figure 17).
Figure 17. Projected Impact Fee Funding of the 10-Year Roadway Expansion Need
Vehicle Miles of Capacity Added in CIP [1]64,224
Volume/Capacity LOS 0.73
Average Trip Occupancy [2]1.32
Person Miles of Travel (PMT) Added 61,887
Impact Fee Funding for Roadway Expansion $51,422,600
PMT Added in CIP 61,887
Cost per Person Miles of Travel (PMT)$831
[2] Based on a weighted average in the travel demand model
[1] Calculated from added lane miles and road classification
capacities
Bozeman, MT 10-Year Need
New Art. & Coll. Lane Miles 25.8
Impact Fee Funding per Lane Mile $5,688,000
Total Impact Fee Funding $146,750,400
147
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
22
Credit for Other Revenues Sources
Evaluation of other revenues funding capital expansion is necessary to ensure the impact fee is
proportionate and there are no double charging scenarios.
The City has an existing impact fee fund balance ($18.2 million) that will fund a portion of the CIP.
Currently, the CIP includes $71.3 million in impact fee funded road projects, thus, 26 percent of the CIP
has already been collected. A credit of this amount is included in the final impact fee calculation.
Figure 18. Existing Transportation Impact Fee Fund Balance Credit
Furthermore, City staff examines the non-growth-related share of each transportation project. The
portion that is considered to be non-growth-related is funded through other sources such as the Arterial
& Collector District and grants. In this case, impact fees are funding the growth-related portion, thus there
is no double charging concern and no need for another revenue credit.
Transportation Personnel and Operations
As described in the legal framework section of this report, impact fees are limited to capacity adding
capital expansion. No transportation personnel, operations, or maintenance expenses are allowed to be
included in an impact fee and all such expenses are excluded from the impact fee. All these expenses are
paid for with taxes or other non-impact fee revenue.
City of Bozeman
Streets
Impact Fee Fund
Existing Fund Balance $18,202,220
CIP Cost minus Grants and A&C District $71,308,600
Existing Balance Share of Funding Need 26%
148
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
23
Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees
The following figures shows the maximum supportable Bozeman Transportation Impact Fees for
residential and nonresidential development and includes an administration fee of five percent (§ 7-6-
1601(5a)). After reducing the fee for the existing fund balance credit, the net total cost per PMT is $646.
All fees are derived from the PMT per unit factors and capital cost per PMT. For example, the fee for 2,300
square foot Single-Unit Dwelling unit is $16,970 ($646 per PMT x 26.57 PMT = $16,970 per unit).
The fees represent the highest amount allowable for each type of applicable land use, which represents
new growth’s fair share of the cost for capital facilities. The City may adopt fees that are less than the
amounts shown. However, a reduction in impact fee revenue will necessitate an increase in other
revenues, a decrease in planned capital expenditures, and/or a decrease in levels of service.
Figure 19. Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fee Schedule – Single-Unit Dwelling
Cost per
PMT
Roadway Expansion $831
Gross Total $831
Credit for Existing Fund Balance (26%)($216)
Administrative Fee (5%)$31
Net Total $646
Residential - Single-Unit Dwelling including Townhomes
Residential (per housing unit)
Under 600 8.54 $5,517 $6,938 ($1,421)
600 to 800 9.57 $6,182 $6,938 ($756)
801 to 1,000 11.22 $7,248 $6,938 $310
1,001 to 1,200 13.06 $8,437 $6,938 $1,499
1,201 to 1,400 15.70 $10,142 $6,938 $3,204
1,401 to 1,600 18.08 $11,680 $7,728 $3,952
1,601 to 1,800 20.37 $13,159 $8,431 $4,728
1,801 to 2,000 22.43 $14,490 $9,032 $5,458
2,001 to 2,200 24.36 $15,737 $9,605 $6,132
2,201 to 2,400 (avg.)26.27 $16,970 $10,098 $6,872
2,401 to 2,600 27.99 $18,082 $10,562 $7,520
2,601 to 2,800 29.70 $19,186 $11,007 $8,180
2,801 to 3,000 31.41 $20,291 $11,411 $8,880
3,001 to 3,200 32.93 $21,273 $11,530 $9,743
3,201 to 3,400 34.42 $22,235 $11,530 $10,705
3,401 to 3,600 35.88 $23,178 $11,530 $11,648
3,601 to 3,800 37.14 $23,992 $11,530 $12,462
3,801 to 4,000 38.65 $24,968 $11,530 $13,438
4,001 or More 39.87 $25,756 $11,530 $14,226
Fee Component
Dwelling Size
(square feet)
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Current
Fee
Increase/
DecreasePMT
149
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
24
Figure 20. Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fee Schedule – Other Residential
Cost per
PMT
Roadway Expansion $831
Gross Total $831
Credit for Existing Fund Balance (26%)($216)
Administrative Fee (5%)$31
Net Total $646
Residential - Other Residential
Residential (per housing unit)
Under 600 5.89 $3,805 $4,311 ($506)
600 to 800 6.61 $4,270 $4,311 ($41)
801 to 1,000 7.75 $5,007 $4,311 $696
1,001 to 1,200 8.65 $5,588 $4,311 $1,277
1,201 to 1,400 10.15 $6,557 $4,311 $2,246
1,401 to 1,600 (avg.)11.77 $7,603 $4,806 $2,797
1,601 to 1,800 13.19 $8,521 $5,229 $3,292
1,801 to 2,000 14.69 $9,490 $5,610 $3,880
2,001 to 2,200 15.86 $10,246 $5,955 $4,291
2,201 to 2,400 17.15 $11,079 $6,264 $4,815
2,401 to 2,600 18.18 $11,744 $6,549 $5,195
2,601 to 2,800 19.35 $12,500 $6,816 $5,684
2,801 to 3,000 20.50 $13,243 $7,078 $6,165
3,001 to 3,200 21.51 $13,895 $7,148 $6,747
3,201 to 3,400 22.39 $14,464 $7,148 $7,316
3,401 to 3,600 23.37 $15,097 $7,148 $7,949
3,601 to 3,800 24.20 $15,633 $7,148 $8,485
3,801 to 4,000 25.22 $16,292 $7,148 $9,144
4,001 or More 25.91 $16,738 $7,148 $9,590
Group Quarters (per person)
Group Quarters 5.82 $3,760 $2,556 $1,204
Fee Component
Dwelling Size
(square feet)
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Current
Fee
Increase/
DecreasePMT
150
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
25
Figure 21. Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fee Schedule – Nonresidential
Cost per
PMT
Roadway Expansion $831
Gross Total $831
Credit for Existing Fund Balance (26%)($216)
Administrative Fee (5%)$31
Net Total $646
Nonresidential
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Retail/Restaurant 29.59 $19,115 $11,920 $7,195
Research & Development Center 9.33 $6,027 $6,155 ($128)
Office 7.28 $4,703 $4,087 $616
Hospital 7.95 $5,136 $7,860 ($2,724)
Day Care (per student)2.83 $1,828 $688 $1,140
Secondary School 10.65 $6,880 $5,256 $1,624
Elementary School 14.79 $9,554 $7,287 $2,267
Lodging (per room)2.45 $1,583 $1,584 ($1)
Assisted Living (per bed)1.76 $1,137 $816 $321
Mini-warehouse 0.97 $627 $429 $198
Warehouse 1.14 $736 $729 $8
Manufacturing 3.20 $2,067 $1,637 $430
Light Industrial 3.28 $2,119 $2,074 $45
PMT
Maximum
Supportable Fee
Current
Fee
Increase/
Decrease
Fee Component
Development Type
151
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
26
Projected Transportation Impact Fee Revenue
Revenue projections assume implementation of the maximum supportable transportation impact fees
and that future development is consistent with the land use assumptions described in Appendix A: Land
Use Assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or slows down, there will be
a corresponding change in the impact fee revenue. The fee for an average size Single-Unit Dwelling and
Other Residential unit is used in the revenue projections. As shown in Figure 22, transportation impact
fee revenue is expected to total approximately $114.8 million over the next 10 years, compared to
projected total transportation expansion cost of $146.8 million.
Importantly, the revenue gap is the result of the credit included in the analysis for the existing fund
balance.
Figure 22. Projected Transportation Impact Fee Revenue
Infrastructure Costs for Road Facilities
Growth Cost Impact Fee
Ten-Year Need at Current LOS $146,750,400 $146,750,400
Total Expenditures $146,750,400 $146,750,400
Projected Development Impact Fee Revenue
Single-Unit Other Res.Retail Office Industrial Institutional
$16,970 $7,603 $19,115 $4,703 $2,119 $5,136
per unit per unit per KSF per KSF per KSF per KSF
Year Housing Units Housing Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2023 14,654 11,928 7,856 3,025 3,204 8,279
1 2024 14,882 12,694 7,906 3,086 3,222 8,375
2 2025 15,110 13,460 7,956 3,147 3,240 8,472
3 2026 15,338 14,226 8,006 3,207 3,258 8,568
4 2027 15,566 14,992 8,056 3,268 3,276 8,664
5 2028 15,794 15,758 8,106 3,329 3,294 8,761
6 2029 16,022 16,524 8,156 3,390 3,312 8,857
7 2030 16,250 17,290 8,206 3,450 3,329 8,954
8 2031 16,478 18,056 8,256 3,511 3,347 9,050
9 2032 16,706 18,822 8,306 3,572 3,365 9,147
10 2033 16,934 19,588 8,356 3,632 3,383 9,243
Ten-Year Increase 2,280 7,660 500 607 179 964
Projected Revenue $38,691,600 $58,238,980 $9,557,500 $2,855,393 $378,393 $4,952,571
Projected Revenue $114,674,000
Projected Expenditures $146,750,400
Non-Impact Fee Funding $32,076,400
152
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
27
Trip Exchange Districts
This study continues the current trip exchange districts (TED) in the Bozeman transportation impact fee
program. As defined in 2.06.1630, BMC, a TED is a defined geographic area where there is a demonstrated
significant reduction in new vehicle trips below that established in the transportation service area report
for the majority of the service area. Based on local and national trip surveys, roadway demand is lower in
districts that are compact, mixed-use, and allow for pedestrian trips to substitute traditional vehicular
trips. This is also known as “internal trip capture.” Specific to the Downtown TED the following factors
contribution to the internal trip capture:
• Shared and consolidated parking.
• High degree of pedestrian and bicycle access to and throughout the TED.
• Public transit availability.
• Extensive trip capture between businesses. A person will make a single vehicle trip and visit
multiple establishments.
Consistent with national surveys and the 2019 Impact Fee Study, all development within the Downtown
TED is assumed to generate 29 percent less transportation demand, thus it receives a 29 percent reduction
in its transportation impact fee.
Figure 23. Downtown Trip Exchange District
153
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
28
In 2014, a transportation study was completed by the Western Transportation Institute which examined
the internal trip capture and travel characteristics in and around the Montana State University Campus.
The study found there was a reduction in transportation demand for the following land uses:
• On MSU Campus
o Office: 31 percent
o Academic: 46 percent
o Housing: 44 percent
o Group Quarters: 62 percent
• Private/Near MSU
o Non-Housing: 25 percent
o Housing: 35 percent
o Group Quarters: 59 percent
Based on this evidence, transportation impact fees are reduced in the University TED at the same rate as
the demand reduction.
Figure 24. University Trip Exchange District
154
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
29
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Per State of Montana enabling legislation (§7-6-1602(2)), the Service Area Report needs to identify capital improvements necessary to meet future
needs. The following figure lists the growth-related capital plans for transportation expansion included in this analysis. There are other non-growth-
related CIP projects that are not included in this analysis.
Figure 25. Transportation Growth-Related Capital Improvement Plan
Project
Code
Impact Fee Funded
Transportation CIP Project Name FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
FY25-FY29
Total
FY29+/
Unscheduled
Impact Fee
Funding
A&C District
Funding
SIF114 Fowler Avenue Connection: Huffine to Oak $5,463,600 $9,953,500 $4,715,100 $2,256,800 -$22,389,000 $2,813,400 $20,250,500 $4,951,900
SIF009 Kagy: 19th to Willson*-$3,000,000 ---$3,000,000 $0 $3,000,000 $0
SIF118 Babcock: 15th to 19th $2,250,600 $4,079,000 ---$6,329,600 $0 $4,118,800 $2,210,800
SIF112 Highland/Main Intersection Impr -$850,000 ---$850,000 $0 $850,000 $0
SIF188 Oak Street Intersections $150,000 $900,000 ---$1,050,000 $1,500,000 $750,000 $1,800,000
SIF191 Stucky: 19th to Fowler --$3,630,600 $5,849,300 -$9,479,900 $0 $6,735,200 $2,744,700
SIF159 Oak: 27th to 19th Widening ----$4,250,000 $4,250,000 $0 $3,250,000 $1,000,000
SIF149 Babcock: 11th to 15th $542,900 ----$542,900 $4,898,200 $3,856,900 $1,584,200
SIF152 N 27th: Baxter to Cattail $11,440,000 ----$11,440,000 $0 $8,611,200 $2,828,800
SIF193 Fowler: Cattail to E Valley Center ------$12,958,500 $12,958,500 $0
SIF195 Church: Garfield to Kagy ------$4,840,000 $0 $4,840,000
SIF194 Church: Story to Garfield ------$3,330,000 $0 $3,330,000
A&C014 S 19th/Blackwood Intersection Impr ------$2,445,000 $0 $2,445,000
SIF164 S 3rd: Kagy to Graf ------$4,890,000 $2,445,000 $2,445,000
A&C019 Huffine Lane Crossing ------$1,222,500 $0 $1,222,500
SIF190 N 15th: Tschache to Baxter ------$2,445,000 $1,222,500 $1,222,500
SIF156 Highland/Kagy Intersection Impr ------$3,760,000 $3,260,000 $500,000
A&C020 Cottonwood HAWK Signal ------$244,500 $0 $244,500
Total $19,847,100 $18,782,500 $8,345,700 $8,106,100 $4,250,000 $59,331,400 $45,347,100 $71,308,600 $33,369,900
*Project SIF009 is estimated to cost a total of $31.6 million. There is a variety of State and Federal funding sources for the project. The figure lists the $3 million as the impact fee
portion of the project.
155
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
30
APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
The following sections detail base year and projected demographic assumptions. These assumptions are
used in the Transportation impact fee calculations along with the tandem efforts in updating the Service
Area Reports for Transportation, Water, and Wastewater public facilities. In this case, there is data in the
following section that relates to the other efforts and not the Transportation calculations (i.e., trip
generation rates and the Transportation Service Area Report).
Note: definitions for the Single-Unit Dwelling and Other Residential housing types can be found Appendix
B: Land Use Definitions
Population and Housing Characteristics
Impact fees often use per capita standards and persons per housing unit or persons per household to
derive proportionate share fee amounts. Housing types have varying household sizes and, consequently,
a varying demand on City infrastructure and services. Thus, it is important to differentiate between
housing types and size.
When persons per housing unit (PPHU) is used in the development impact fee calculations, infrastructure
standards are derived using year-round population. In contrast, when persons per household (PPHH) is
used in the development impact fee calculations, the fee methodology assumes all housing units will be
occupied, thus requiring seasonal or peak population to be used when deriving infrastructure standards.
The City of Bozeman and the surrounding area is home to a significant number of second/vacation homes
and hosts many visitors throughout the year. Thus, TischlerBise recommends that fees for residential
development in Bozeman be imposed according to the persons per household.
Figure 26 shows the US Census American Community Survey 2021 5-Year Estimates data for the City of
Bozeman. Single-unit dwellings have an average household size of 2.48 persons and other residential
dwellings have an average household size of 1.92 persons. Additionally, there is a housing mix of 59
percent single-unit dwelling and 41 percent other residential.
The estimates in Figure 26 are for household size calculations. Base year population and housing units are
estimated with another, more recent data source.
Figure 26. Persons per Household
Building Permit History
In Figure 27, the past six years of building permit history is listed by housing type to understand the recent
growth trend in Bozeman. There has been a steady amount of single-unit dwelling development over the
Housing Persons per Persons per Housing
Housing Type Persons Units Housing Unit Households Household Unit Mix
Single-Unit Dwelling [1]31,140 13,355 2.33 12,534 2.48 59%
Other Residential [2]16,235 9,110 1.78 8,451 1.92 41%
Subtotal 47,375 22,465 2.11 20,985 2.26
[1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes
[2] Includes all other types
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
156
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
31
past years in Bozeman, while other residential development has been the driving factor in the elevated
construction trend. Housing development peaked in 2021 which included the largest apartment complex
ever built in the city. Housing activity leveled slowed in 2022 (consistent with the national trend with
increasing interest rates) while construction had a noticeable increase in 2023.
Overall, there has been an average of 228 single-unit dwellings and 766 other residential units constructed
annually.
Figure 27. Building Permit History by Housing Type
Base Year Housing Units and Population
Furthermore, the nature of the influx of seasonal population in Bozeman necessitates four types of
populations to be included in the impact fee study:
1) Permanent Residents
2) Seasonal Residents
3) On-Campus Students
4) Overnight-Visitors
Bozeman is a destination for vacationers, students, and seasonal residents and City facilities and services
have been sized to accommodate the additional demand. The peak population includes residents who
have second homes in the city, students living on-campus at Montana State University, and the seasonal
labor influx during peak tourism months. The MSU students living off-campus are captured in the
permanent housing population.
Bozeman permanent population is found by using the housing growth since the 2020 US Census. The 2020
decennial census estimated that there were 23,535 housing units and 49,298 household population in
Bozeman. Additionally, there were 663 single-unit dwellings and 2,384 other residential units constructed
since the survey. Based on PPHU factor, there has been an increase of 5,788 residents since the census.
By combining the 2020 US Census household population and estimated new residents since the Census,
a 2023 permanent population of 55,086 residents is estimated.
Housing Type 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Average
Single-Unit Dwelling [1]266 245 211 255 197 193 1,367 228
Other Residential [2]593 546 734 1,128 522 1,075 4,598 766
Total 859 791 945 1,383 719 1,268 5,965 994
Source: City of Bozeman
[1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes
[2] Includes all other types
157
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
32
Figure 28. Permanent Population
Seasonal housing population estimates are found by applying the PPHH factors for each housing type to
base year housing estimates to the percent of housing occupied for seasonal use. As a result, the seasonal
population estimate is 4,185 (Figure 29).
Figure 29. Seasonal Population
Shown in Figure 30, in a survey of hotel and motels in Bozeman, TischlerBise found 2,241 lodging rooms
in the city. Based on general peak seasonal lodging factors there are 4,258 overnight-visitors assumed.
Figure 30. Bozeman Visitors
Lastly, based on a news briefing from Montana State University in September 2023 there were 5,200
students living on-campus. The information above is summarized in Figure 31. Based on the four
population types, there is an estimated peak population of 68,729 residents along with 26,582 housing
units in Bozeman.
Bozeman, MT Housing Units [1] HH Population [2]
2020 Census 23,535 49,298
Housing Units 2020 Census Post Census 2023
Single-Unit Dwelling 13,991 663 14,654
Other Residential 9,544 2,384 11,928
Total 23,535 3,047 26,582
PPHU
Single-Unit Dwelling 663 2.33 1,545
Other Residential 2,384 1.78 4,244
Total 3,047 5,788
Household Population 49,298 5,788 55,086
[1] Source: US Census DP1 Table
Bozeman, MT
Units Built
Post Census
New Residents
Post Census
[2] Source: US Census DP1 Table. Household population excludes those in
group quarters. Group quarters is estimated with On-Campus Students in
another figure.
Bozeman, MT 2020 Census
New Residents
Post Census 2023 Estimate
Housing Units PPHH
Single-Unit Dwelling 14,654 7% 967 2.48 2,399
Other Residential 11,928 8% 930 1.92 1,786
Total 26,582 1,898 4,185
Seasonal
Residents
Seasonal
Units
% Seasonal
Units
2023
Housing Units
Total Lodging Rooms 2,241
Assumed Ave Occupancy 2
Assumed Occupancy Rate 95%
Total Overnight-Visitors 4,258
Source: TischlerBise survey of lodging property
and general peak season lodging factors
158
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
33
Figure 31. Base Year Housing and Population
Base Year
2023
Permanent Hsg Population [1]55,086
Seasonal Hsg Population [2]4,185
On-Campus Students [3]5,200
Overnight-Visitors [4]4,258
Total Peak Population 68,729
Housing Units [1]
Single-Unit Dwelling 14,654
Other Residential 11,928
Total Housing Units 26,582
Bozeman, MT
[1] Calculated based on 2020 US Census estimate
plus housing development since
[2] Assuming seasonal housing is fully occupied
during peak season
[3] MSU News Service (September, 2023)
[4] TischlerBise survey of lodging property and
general peak season lodging factors
159
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
34
Housing Unit and Population Projections
The ten-year residential projections are listed in Figure 32. Housing development in Bozeman is assumed to continue at its current pace over the
next ten years. Overall, over the next ten years, 2,280 new single-unit dwellings and 7,660 other residential units are assumed to be constructed.
As a result of the market supporting more non-single-unit dwelling development, by 2033 there will be more non-single-unit dwelling units than
single-unit dwellings in Bozeman.
Population growth is based on housing development and PPHH factors. Over the next ten years, housing development will support 18,841 new
permanent residents and 1,520 seasonal residents. It is assumed that visitors to Bozeman will grow at the same rate as the resident population.
Lastly, MSU has built a new dormitory every five years and is currently exploring another expansion. Conservatively, a 1 percent annual growth is
assumed for on-campus students. Overall, the peak population is estimated to grow from 68,729 to 91,099, a 32.5 percent increase.
Figure 32. Residential Development Projections
Importantly, the impact fee methodology does not rely on the growth projections to determine the fee amount. Rather, the current level of service
is used in the fee calculation. In this case, if the growth projections included in the report overestimate or underestimate the real development in
Bozeman, the fee collection is still accurate. For example, if growth is slower than the 10-year projection, less revenue will be collected, however,
the City will provide less capital expansion to keep up with the level of service.
Base Year
City of Bozeman, MT 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Permanent Hsg Population [1]55,086 56,970 58,855 60,739 62,623 64,507 66,391 68,275 70,159 72,043 73,928 18,841
Seasonal Hsg Population [1]4,185 4,337 4,489 4,641 4,793 4,945 5,097 5,249 5,401 5,553 5,705 1,520
On-Campus Students [2]5,200 5,252 5,305 5,358 5,412 5,466 5,521 5,576 5,632 5,688 5,745 545
Overnight-Visitors [3]4,258 4,404 4,551 4,697 4,843 4,989 5,136 5,282 5,428 5,574 5,721 1,463
Total Peak Population 68,729 70,964 73,199 75,435 77,671 79,907 82,145 84,382 86,621 88,859 91,099 22,369
3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5%32.5%
Housing Units [4]
Single-Unit Dwelling 14,654 14,882 15,110 15,338 15,566 15,794 16,022 16,250 16,478 16,706 16,934 2,280
Other Residential 11,928 12,694 13,460 14,226 14,992 15,758 16,524 17,290 18,056 18,822 19,588 7,660
Total Housing Units 26,582 27,576 28,570 29,564 30,558 31,552 32,546 33,540 34,534 35,528 36,522 9,940
[1] Permanent and seasonal population growth is based on housing development and PPHH factors
[2] On-campus residences are conservatively assumed to grow by 1 percent annually
[3] Visitor population is estimate to grow at the same rate as permanent and seasonal population
[4] Housing development is based on the recent building permit trends without the 2021 peak development year
Total
Increase
Percent Increase
160
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
35
Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area
The impact fee study will include nonresidential development as well. The base year employment
estimates are calculated from two sources. First, from the Montana Department of Labor & Industry there
is an estimated 34,569 total jobs in Bozeman. Second, from the U.S. Census Bureau OnTheMap web
application employment splits are found between retail, office, industrial, and institutional industries. As
a result, the institutional industries (which includes education and healthcare) account for the highest
share while retail industries employee over 10,000 jobs as well.
Furthermore, the floor area for the four industry types is summarized in Figure 33. Retail, office, and
industrial square footage is available from the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR). However, since
public education and healthcare facilities are tax exempt the DOR does not gather floor space for such
development. Instead, TischlerBise applied the average employee density factors (square feet per
employee) for schools and hospitals to the estimated institutional job total to estimate floor area. As a
result, there are 22.4 million square feet of nonresidential development in Bozeman. The majority being
institutional and retail industries.
Figure 33. Base Year Nonresidential Floor Area
Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections
The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 provides an in-depth analysis of the local market and buildout
capacity of the city. Through 2045, the Community Plan projected a growth of 6.3 million square feet of
nonresidential development broken down by retail, office, industrial, and institutional industries. The ten-
year growth projections from the impact fee studies relies on these projections along with employee
density factors from the Institution of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE). For the retail industry the Shopping
Center land use factors are used; for office the General Office factors are used; for industrial the Light
Industrial factors are used; for Institutional the Hospital factors are used.
Figure 34. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Employment Density Factors
Employment
Industries
Base Year
Jobs [1]
Percent
of Total
Floor Area
(sq. ft.) [2]
Percent
of Total
Retail 10,116 29% 7,855,849 35%
Office 7,798 23% 3,025,341 14%
Industrial 5,042 15% 3,204,452 14%
Institutional [3]11,612 34% 8,278,652 37%
Total 34,569 100% 22,364,294 100%
[3] Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
11th Edition (2021)
[1] Source: MT Employment Statistics - LAUS
[2] Source: Montana Department of Revenue Database
Employment ITE Demand Emp Per Sq Ft
Industry Code Land Use Unit Dmd Unit Per Emp
Retail 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 2.12 471
Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 3.26 307
Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 1.57 637
Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 2.86 350
Source: Trip Generation , Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021)
161
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
36
Shown in Figure 35, Bozeman is anticipated to grow by 6,075 jobs (17.6 percent) over the next ten years. Institutional, office, and retail industries
all have significant growth while industrial development is anticipated to taper off. Based on the employee density factors, the employment growth
will generate 2,250,000 million square feet of nonresidential floor area (10 percent growth from the base year).
Figure 35. Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections
Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Jobs [1]
Retail 10,116 10,222 10,329 10,435 10,541 10,647 10,753 10,859 10,966 11,072 11,178 1,062
Office 7,798 7,996 8,194 8,391 8,589 8,787 8,985 9,182 9,380 9,578 9,776 1,978
Industrial 5,042 5,070 5,098 5,126 5,154 5,182 5,210 5,238 5,266 5,295 5,323 280
Institutional 11,612 11,888 12,164 12,439 12,715 12,990 13,266 13,541 13,817 14,092 14,368 2,755
Total 34,569 35,176 35,784 36,391 36,999 37,606 38,214 38,821 39,429 40,036 40,644 6,075
1.8% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5%17.6%
Nonresidential Floor Area (1,000 sq. ft.) [2]
Retail 7,856 7,906 7,956 8,006 8,056 8,106 8,156 8,206 8,256 8,306 8,356 500
Office 3,025 3,086 3,147 3,207 3,268 3,329 3,390 3,450 3,511 3,572 3,632 607
Industrial 3,204 3,222 3,240 3,258 3,276 3,294 3,312 3,329 3,347 3,365 3,383 179
Institutional 8,279 8,375 8,472 8,568 8,664 8,761 8,857 8,954 9,050 9,147 9,243 964
Total 22,364 22,589 22,814 23,039 23,264 23,489 23,714 23,939 24,164 24,389 24,614 2,250
[1] Source: Bozeman Community Plan (2020)
[2] Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation , 2021
Industry
Total
Increase
Percent Increase
162
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
37
Vehicle Trip Generation
Residential Vehicle Trips by Housing Type
A customized trip rate is calculated for the single-unit dwellings and other residential units in Bozeman.
In Figure 36, the most recent data from the US Census American Community Survey is input into equations
provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers to calculate the trip ends per housing unit factor. A
single-unit dwelling is estimated to generate 9.27 trip ends and other residential units are estimated to
generate 5.36 trip ends on an average weekday.
Figure 36. Customized Residential Trip End Rates by Housing Type
Owner-Occupied 19,262 8,463 889 9,352 2.06
Renter-Occupied 20,735 4,071 7,562 11,633 1.78
Total 39,997 12,534 8,451 20,985 1.91
13,355 9,110 22,465
Persons in Trip Vehicles by Trip Average National Trip
Households4 Ends5 Type of Unit Ends6 Trip Ends Ends per Unit7
Single-Unit Dwelling 31,140 86,764 24,680 160,855 123,810 9.27 9.43
Other Residential 16,235 37,097 15,292 60,543 48,820 5.36 4.54
Total 47,375 123,861 39,972 221,398 172,630 7.68
7. Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021).
Local Trip
Ends per Unit
1. Vehicles available by tenure from Table B25046, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
3. Housing units from Table B25024, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
4. Total population in households from Table B25033, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
5. Vehicle trips ends based on persons using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2021). For single-family housing
(ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.89*LN(persons)+1.72). To approximate the average population of the
ITE studies, persons were divided by 3 and the equation result multiplied by 3. For multi-family housing (ITE 221),
the fitted curve equation is (2.29*persons)-64.48 (ITE 2017).
6. Vehicle trip ends based on vehicles available using formulas from Trip Generation (ITE 2021). For single-family
housing (ITE 210), the fitted curve equation is EXP(0.92*LN(vehicles)+2.68). To approximate the average number of
vehicles in the ITE studies, vehicles available were divided by 5 and the equation result multiplied by 5. For multi-
family housing (ITE 221), the fitted curve equation is (4.77*vehicles)-46.46 (ITE 2021).
2. Households by tenure and units in structure from Table B25032, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates.
Vehicles per
HH by Tenure
Housing Units3
Housing Type
Households by Structure Type2
Tenure by Units
in Structure
Vehicles
Available1
Single
Family Multifamily Total
163
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
38
Residential Vehicle Trips Adjustment Factors
A vehicle trip end is the out-bound or in-bound leg of a vehicle trip. As a result, so as not double count
trips, a standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to trip ends to calculate a vehicle trip. For example, the
out-bound trip from a person’s home to work is attributed to the housing unit and the trip from work back
home is attributed to the employer.
However, an additional adjustment is necessary to capture city residents’ work bound trips that are
outside of the city. The trip adjustment factor includes two components. According to the National
Household Travel Survey, home-based work trips are typically 31 percent of out-bound trips (which are
50 percent of all trip ends). Also, utilizing the most recent data from the Census Bureau's web application
"OnTheMap”, 40 percent of Bozeman workers travel outside the city for work. In combination, these
factors account for 6 percent of additional production trips (0.31 x 0.50 x 0.40 = 0.06). Shown in Figure 37,
the total adjustment factor for residential housing units includes attraction trips (50 percent of trip ends)
plus the journey-to-work commuting adjustment (6 percent of production trips) for a total of 56 percent.
Figure 37. Residential Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters
Nonresidential Vehicle Trips
Vehicle trip generation for nonresidential land uses are calculated by using ITE’s average daily trip end
rates and adjustment factors found in their recently published 11th edition of Trip Generation. To estimate
the trip generation in Bozeman, the weekday trip end per 1,000 square feet factors listed in Figure 38 are
used. The prior service area report used the 10th Edition of the Trip Generation. The latest edition includes
travel surveys since the previous edition ensuring changes in travel behavior is being captured in the
update.
Figure 38. Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Factors
For nonresidential land uses, the standard 50 percent adjustment is applied to office, industrial, and
institutional development. A lower vehicle trip adjustment factor is used for retail development because
Employed Bozeman Residents (2020)25,702
Residents Working in Bozeman (2020)15,447
Residents Commuting Outside of Bozeman for Work 10,255
Percent Commuting Out of Bozeman 40%
Additional Production Trips 6%
Standard Trip Adjustment Factor 50%
Residential Trip Adjustment Factor 56%
Source: U.S. Census, OnTheMap Application, 2020
Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters
Employment ITE Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends
Industry Code Land Use Unit Per Dmd Unit Per Employee
Retail 820 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 37.01 17.42
Office 710 General Office 1,000 Sq Ft 10.84 3.33
Industrial 110 Light Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 4.87 3.10
Institutional 610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.77 3.77
Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition (2021)
164
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
39
this type of growth attracts vehicles as they pass-by on arterial and collector roads. For example, when
someone stops at a convenience store on their way home from work, the convenience store is not their
primary destination.
In Figure 39, the Institute for Transportation Engineers’ land use code, daily vehicle trip end rate, and trip
adjustment factor is listed for each land use.
Figure 39. Daily Vehicle Trip Factors
Residential (per housing unit)
Single-Unit Dwelling 210 9.27 56% 5.19
Other Residential 220 5.36 56% 3.00
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Retail 820 37.01 38% 14.06
Office 710 10.84 50% 5.42
Industrial 110 4.87 50% 2.44
Institutional 610 10.77 50% 5.39
Land Use
ITE
Codes
Daily Vehicle
Trip Ends
Trip Adj.
Factor
Daily Vehicle
Trips
Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 11th Edition
(2021); National Household Travel Survey, 2009
165
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
40
Vehicle Trip Projections
The base year vehicle trip totals and vehicle trip projections are calculated by combining the vehicle trip end factors, the trip adjustment factors,
and the residential and nonresidential assumptions for housing stock and floor area. Citywide, residential land uses account for 111,875 vehicle
trips and nonresidential land uses account for 179,264 vehicle trips in the base year (Figure 40).
Through 2033, it is projected that daily vehicle trips will increase by 50,788 trips with the majority of the growth being generated by residential
development (69 percent).
Figure 40. Vehicle Trip Projections
Base Year
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033
Residential Trips
Single-Unit Dwelling 76,072 77,255 78,439 79,623 80,806 81,990 83,173 84,357 85,541 86,724 87,908 11,836
Other Residential 35,803 38,102 40,402 42,701 45,000 47,299 49,598 51,898 54,197 56,496 58,795 22,992
Subtotal 111,875 115,358 118,841 122,323 125,806 129,289 132,772 136,255 139,737 143,220 146,703 34,828
Nonresidential Trips
Retail 110,483 111,186 111,889 112,593 113,296 113,999 114,702 115,405 116,109 116,812 117,515 7,032
Office 16,397 16,726 17,055 17,385 17,714 18,043 18,372 18,701 19,030 19,359 19,688 3,291
Industrial 7,803 7,846 7,890 7,933 7,977 8,020 8,064 8,107 8,151 8,194 8,238 435
Institutional 44,581 45,100 45,619 46,138 46,658 47,177 47,696 48,215 48,735 49,254 49,773 5,193
Subtotal 179,264 180,859 182,454 184,049 185,644 187,239 188,834 190,429 192,024 193,619 195,214 15,950
Vehicle Trips
Grand Total 291,139 296,217 301,294 306,372 311,450 316,528 321,606 326,684 331,761 336,839 341,917 50,778
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation , 11th Edition (2021)
Total
IncreaseDevelopment Type
166
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
41
Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size
Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because averages per household,
for both persons and vehicle trip ends, have a strong, positive correlation to the square footage of the
dwelling unit, TischlerBise recommends residential fee schedules by the size of the unit (consistent with
the City of Bozeman’s current fee schedule).
Bozeman Control Totals
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Bozeman single-unit dwellings have an average household size of
2.48 persons and other residential units have an average household size of 1.92 persons.
Figure 41. Persons per Household
Trip generation rates are also dependent upon the average number of vehicles available per dwelling. Key
independent variables needed for the analysis (i.e., vehicles available, households, and persons) are
available from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), indicating an average of 1.90
vehicles per household in Bozeman.
Figure 42. Vehicles per Household
Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size
Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey
responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS).
PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons with Bozeman included in Public Use
Microdata Areas (PUMA) 400.
Housing Persons per Persons per Housing
Housing Type Persons Units Housing Unit Households Household Unit Mix
Single-Unit Dwelling [1]31,140 13,355 2.33 12,534 2.48 59%
Other Residential [2]16,235 9,110 1.78 8,451 1.92 41%
Subtotal 47,375 22,465 2.11 20,985 2.26
[1] Includes attached and detached single family homes and mobile homes
[2] Includes all other types
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Owner-occupied 19,262 8,463 889 9,352 2.06
Renter-occupied 20,735 4,071 7,562 11,633 1.78
Total 39,997 12,534 8,451 20,985 1.91
Single-Unit Dwelling [1]24,680 12,534 1.97
Other Residential [2]15,292 8,451 1.81
Total 39,972 20,985 1.90
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Vehicles per
HH by Tenure
Housing Type Vehicles
Available
Housing
Units
Vehicles per
Housing Unit
Households
Tenure Vehicles
Available
Single
Family Multifamily Total
167
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
42
Cells shaded yellow below are survey results for PUMA 400. Unadjusted persons per household (2.31),
derived from PUMS data for the PUMA listed above, are adjusted downward to match the control totals
for Bozeman (2.26), as shown above in Figure 41. Adjusted persons per household totals are shaded in
gray.
Figure 43. Persons by Bedroom Range
Persons by Dwelling Size
Average floor area and number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure 44 with a logarithmic
trend line derived from 2021 square footage estimates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau (West Region).
Dwellings with two bedrooms or less average 1,032 square feet of floor area—based on multifamily
dwellings constructed in the West Census Region. Three-bedroom dwellings average 2,118 square feet,
four-bedroom dwellings average 2,932 square feet, and dwellings with five or more bedrooms average
4,269 square feet—based on single-unit dwellings constructed in the West Census Region. Using the trend
line formula shown in the chart, TischlerBise derived the estimated average number of persons, by
dwelling size, using 19 size thresholds, expanding the low and high range of the fee schedule.
As shown in the upper-right corner of the table below, the smallest floor area range (under 600 square
feet) has an estimated average of 1.06 persons per dwelling. The largest floor area range (4,001 square
feet or more) has an estimated average of 3.08 persons per dwelling.
0-2 2,180 2,204 1,273 33% 1.71 1.68 1.73 1.46
3 3,508 3,443 1,471 38% 2.38 2.33 2.34 1.97
4 2,173 2,139 798 21% 2.72 2.67 2.68 2.25
5+ 1,070 958 327 8% 3.27 3.20 2.93 2.46
Total 8,931 8,744 3,869 100% 2.31 2.26 2.26 1.90
[1] American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for Montana PUMA 400 (2021 5-Year unweighted data).
[2] Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the average PUMS values match control totals for Bozeman based on 2021
American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
Unadjusted
PPHH
Adjusted
PPHH2
Unadjusted
VPHH
Adjusted
VPHH2
Bedroom
Range Persons1
Vehicles
Available1 Households1
Housing
Mix
168
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
43
Figure 44. Persons by Dwelling Size
Person by Dwelling Size and Housing Type
The PPHH factors in Figure 44 represents an average over all housing types in Bozeman. An equivalent
dwelling unit (EDU) analysis is completed to calculate the PPHH by size for single-unit dwellings and other
residential units.
Shown in Figure 45, one single-unit EDU is set to the average sized single-unit dwelling in Bozeman (2,201
to 2,400 square feet). The EDU factor for the other size thresholds is found by comparing the PPHH factors,
for example, a single-unit dwelling from 1,801 to 2,000 square feet is 0.92 EDUs (2.28 PPHH / 2.48 PPHH
= 0.92 EDUs).
Bedrooms Square Feet Persons Sq Ft Range Persons
0-2 1,032 1.68 Under 600 1.06
3 2,118 2.33 600 to 800 1.23
4 2,932 2.67 801 to 1,000 1.49
5+4,269 3.20 1,001 to 1,200 1.70
1,201 to 1,400 1.88
1,401 to 1,600 2.03
1,601 to 1,800 2.16
1,801 to 2,000 2.28
2,001 to 2,200 2.38
2,201 to 2,400 2.48
2,401 to 2,600 2.56
2,601 to 2,800 2.64
2,801 to 3,000 2.72
3,001 to 3,200 2.79
3,201 to 3,400 2.85
3,401 to 3,600 2.92
3,601 to 3,800 2.97
3,801 to 4,000 3.03
4,001 or More 3.08
Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted-Curve Values
y = 1.0498ln(x) -5.6504
R² = 0.9878
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000Person per HouseholdSquare Feet of Living Area
Persons per Household by
Square Feet of Dwelling
Average persons per household derived from
2021 ACS PUMS data for the area that
includes Bozeman. Unit size for 0-2 bedroom
is from the 2021 U.S. Census Bureau average for all multifamily units constructed in the
Census West region. Unit size for all other
bedrooms is from the 2021 U.S. Census
Bureau average for single-unit dwellings
constructed in the Census Mountain division.
169
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
44
The EDU factors for the size threshold is then combined with the average PPHH for single-unit dwelling.
For example, found with US Census ACS 2021 data (Figure 26) the average single-unit dwelling home in
Bozeman is 2.48 persons, thus a single-unit home from 1,801 to 2,000 square feet is 2.28 persons (0.92
EDUs x 2.48 persons = 2.28 persons per household).
Figure 45. Single-Unit Dwelling PPHH by Size
Shown in Figure 46, one Other Residential EDU is set to the average sized Other Residential dwelling in
Bozeman (1,401 to 1,600 square feet). The EDU factor for the other size thresholds is found by comparing
the PPHH factors, for example, a unit from 1,001 to 1,200 square feet is 0.84 EDUs (1.70 PPHH / 2.03 PPHH
= 0.84 EDUs).
The EDU factors for the size threshold is then combined with the average PPHH for other residential
dwellings. For example, found with US Census ACS 2021 data (Figure 26) the average other residential
dwelling home in Bozeman is 1.92 persons, thus a single-unit home from 1,001 to 1,200 square feet is
1.61 persons (0.84 EDUs x 1.92 persons = 1.61 persons per household).
Single-Unit Dwelling including Townhomes
Single-Unit
EDU Factor PPHH
Under 600 1.06 0.43 1.06
600 to 800 1.23 0.50 1.23
801 to 1,000 1.49 0.60 1.49
1,001 to 1,200 1.70 0.69 1.70
1,201 to 1,400 1.88 0.76 1.88
1,401 to 1,600 2.03 0.82 2.03
1,601 to 1,800 2.16 0.87 2.16
1,801 to 2,000 2.28 0.92 2.28
2,001 to 2,200 2.38 0.96 2.38
2,201 to 2,400 (avg. single)2.48 1.00 2.48
2,401 to 2,600 2.56 1.03 2.56
2,601 to 2,800 2.64 1.06 2.64
2,801 to 3,000 2.72 1.10 2.72
3,001 to 3,200 2.79 1.13 2.79
3,201 to 3,400 2.85 1.15 2.85
3,401 to 3,600 2.92 1.18 2.92
3,601 to 3,800 2.97 1.20 2.97
3,801 to 4,000 3.03 1.22 3.03
4,001 or More 3.08 1.24 3.08
Average 2.48
Dwelling Size
(squre feet)
Overall
PPHH
170
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
45
Figure 46. Other Residential PPHH by Size
Other Residential
Other Res.
EDU Factor PPHH
Under 600 1.06 0.52 1.00
600 to 800 1.23 0.61 1.16
801 to 1,000 1.49 0.73 1.41
1,001 to 1,200 1.70 0.84 1.61
1,201 to 1,400 1.88 0.93 1.78
1,401 to 1,600 (avg. other)2.03 1.00 1.92
1,601 to 1,800 2.16 1.06 2.04
1,801 to 2,000 2.28 1.12 2.16
2,001 to 2,200 2.38 1.17 2.25
2,201 to 2,400 2.48 1.22 2.35
2,401 to 2,600 2.56 1.26 2.42
2,601 to 2,800 2.64 1.30 2.50
2,801 to 3,000 2.72 1.34 2.57
3,001 to 3,200 2.79 1.37 2.64
3,201 to 3,400 2.85 1.40 2.70
3,401 to 3,600 2.92 1.44 2.76
3,601 to 3,800 2.97 1.46 2.81
3,801 to 4,000 3.03 1.49 2.87
4,001 or More 3.08 1.52 2.91
Average 1.92
Overall
PPHH
Dwelling Size
(squre feet)
171
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
46
Trip Generation by Dwelling Size
Rather than rely on one methodology, the recommended trip generation rates shown at the bottom of Figure 47, shaded gray, are an average of
trip rates based on persons and vehicles available for all types of housing units. In Bozeman, the average household is expected to yield 8.86 average
weekday vehicle trip ends (AWVTE), compared to the national weighted average of 7.45 trip ends per household.
Figure 47. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends by Bedroom Range
0-2 2,180 2,204 1,273 33% 1.71 1.68 1.73 1.46
3 3,508 3,443 1,471 38% 2.38 2.33 2.34 1.97
4 2,173 2,139 798 21% 2.72 2.67 2.68 2.25
5+ 1,070 958 327 8% 3.27 3.20 2.93 2.46
Total 8,931 8,744 3,869 100% 2.31 2.26 2.26 1.90
National Averages According to ITE
210 SFD 2.65 6.36 9.43 59%3.56 1.48
221 Apt 3.31 5.10 4.54 41%1.37 0.89
Weighted Avg 2.92 5.85 7.45 100%2.67 1.24
Recommended AWVTE per Household
0-2 4.91 8.54 6.73
3 6.80 11.52 9.16
4 7.80 13.16 10.48
5+ 9.34 14.39 11.87
Average 6.60 11.12 8.86
210 SFD 6.80 11.52 9.16 2.33 1.97
220 Apt 5.20 10.59 7.90 1.78 1.81
All Types 6.16 11.12 8.64 2.11 1.90
Unadjusted
VPHH
Bedroom
Range
AWVTE per
HH Based
on Persons3
AWVTE per
HH Based
on Vehicles4
AWVTE per
Household5
ITE Code AWVTE
per Person
AWVTE
per Vehicle
AWVTE
per HH
Unadjusted
PPHH
Unadjusted
PPHH
Adjusted
PPHH2
Unadjusted
VPHH
Adjusted
VPHH2
ITE Code AWVTE
per Person
AWVTE
per Vehicle
AWVTE
per HH
Housing
Mix
Persons per
Household
Vehicles per
Household
Bedroom
Range Persons1
Vehicles
Available1 Households1
Housing
Mix
1.American Community Survey,Public Use Microdata
Sample for Montana PUMA 400 (2021 5-Year unweighted
data).
2.Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the average PUMSvaluesmatchcontroltotalsforBozemanbasedon2021
American CommunitySurvey 5-Year Estimates.3.Adjusted persons per household multiplied by national
weighted average triprate perperson.
4.Adjusted vehicles available per household multiplied by
national weighted average trip rateper vehicle.5.Average trip rates based on persons and vehicles per
household.
172
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
47
Vehicle Trip Ends by Dwelling Size
To derive AWVTE by dwelling size, TischlerBise matched trip generation rates and average floor area, by
bedroom range, as shown in Figure 48, with a logarithmic trend line derived from 2021 square footage
estimates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau (West Region). Using the trend line formula shown in the
chart, TischlerBise derived the estimated average weekday vehicle trip ends, by dwelling size, using 19
size thresholds, expanding the low and high range of the fee schedule.
As shown in the upper-right corner of the table below, the smallest floor area range (under 600 square
feet) generates an estimated average of 4.70 trip ends per dwelling. The largest floor area range (4,001
square feet or more) generates an estimated average of 11.68 trip ends per dwelling.
Figure 48. Vehicle Trip Ends by Dwelling Size
Bedrooms Square Feet Trip Ends Sq Ft Range Trip Ends
0-2 1,032 6.73 Under 600 4.70
3 2,118 9.16 600 to 800 5.27
4 2,932 10.48 801 to 1,000 6.18
5+4,269 11.87 1,001 to 1,200 6.91
1,201 to 1,400 7.51
1,401 to 1,600 8.03
1,601 to 1,800 8.49
1,801 to 2,000 8.89
2,001 to 2,200 9.25
2,201 to 2,400 9.58
2,401 to 2,600 9.88
2,601 to 2,800 10.16
2,801 to 3,000 10.42
3,001 to 3,200 10.66
3,201 to 3,400 10.89
3,401 to 3,600 11.10
3,601 to 3,800 11.30
3,801 to 4,000 11.50
4,001 or More 11.68
Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted-Curve Values
y = 3.6254ln(x) -18.482
R² = 0.9986
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000Trip Ends per HouseholdSquare Feet of Living Area
Vehicle Trips by
Square Feet of Dwelling
Vehicle trips by dwelling size are derived
from 2021 ACS PUMS data for the area that
includes Bozeman. Unit size for 0-2 bedroom
is from the 2021 U.S. Census Bureau average
for all multifamily units constructed in the
Census West region. Unit size for all other
bedrooms is from the 2021 U.S. Census
Bureau average for single-unitdwellings
constructed in the Census Mountain division.
173
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
48
Vehicle Trip Ends by Dwelling Size and Housing Type
The vehicle trip end factors in Figure 48 represents an average over all housing types in Bozeman. An
equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) analysis is completed to calculate the trip ends by size for single-unit
dwellings and other residential units. Shown in Figure 49, one single-unit EDU is set to the average sized
single-unit dwelling in Bozeman (2,201-2,400 square feet). The EDU factor for the other size thresholds is
found by comparing the trip factors, for example, homes from 1,801 to 2,000 square feet are 0.93 EDUs
(8.89 trip ends / 9.58 trip ends = 0.93 EDUs).
The EDU factors for the size threshold is then combined with the average trip end factor for single-unit
dwellings to find the trip ends by size. For example, found with US Census ACS 2021 data (Figure 36) the
average single-unit dwelling in Bozeman generates 9.27 trip ends, thus a single-unit dwelling from 1,801
to 2,000 square feet has a trip end factor of 8.60 (0.93 EDUs x 9.27 trip ends = 8.60 trip ends per
household).
Figure 49. Single-Unit Dwelling Trip Ends by Size
Shown in Figure 50, one Other Residential EDU is set to the average sized Other Residential dwelling in
Bozeman (1,401 to 1,600 square feet). The EDU factor for the other size thresholds is found by comparing
the trip factors, for example, homes from 1,001 to 1,200 square feet are 0.86 EDUs (6.91 trip ends / 8.03
trip ends = 0.86 EDUs).
The EDU factors for the size threshold is then combined with the average trip end factor for other
residential dwellings to find the trip ends by size. For example, found with US Census ACS 2021 data
(Figure 36) the average other residential dwelling in Bozeman generates 5.36 trip ends, thus an other
Single-Unit Dwelling including Townhomes
Single-Unit
EDU Factor Trip Ends
Under 600 4.70 0.49 4.55
600 to 800 5.27 0.55 5.10
801 to 1,000 6.18 0.65 5.98
1,001 to 1,200 6.91 0.72 6.69
1,201 to 1,400 7.51 0.78 7.27
1,401 to 1,600 8.03 0.84 7.77
1,601 to 1,800 8.49 0.89 8.22
1,801 to 2,000 8.89 0.93 8.60
2,001 to 2,200 9.25 0.97 8.95
2,201 to 2,400 (avg. single)9.58 1.00 9.27
2,401 to 2,600 9.88 1.03 9.56
2,601 to 2,800 10.16 1.06 9.83
2,801 to 3,000 10.42 1.09 10.08
3,001 to 3,200 10.66 1.11 10.32
3,201 to 3,400 10.89 1.14 10.54
3,401 to 3,600 11.10 1.16 10.74
3,601 to 3,800 11.30 1.18 10.93
3,801 to 4,000 11.50 1.20 11.13
4,001 or More 11.68 1.22 11.30
Average 9.27
Dwelling Size
(squre feet)
Overall
Trip Ends
174
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
49
residential dwelling from 1,001 to 1,200 square feet has a trip end factor of 4.61 (0.86 EDUs x 5.36 trip
ends = 4.61 trip ends per household).
Figure 50. Other Residential Trip Ends by Size
Other Residential
Other Res.
EDU Factor Trip Ends
Under 600 4.70 0.59 3.14
600 to 800 5.27 0.66 3.52
801 to 1,000 6.18 0.77 4.13
1,001 to 1,200 6.91 0.86 4.61
1,201 to 1,400 7.51 0.94 5.01
1,401 to 1,600 (avg. other)8.03 1.00 5.36
1,601 to 1,800 8.49 1.06 5.67
1,801 to 2,000 8.89 1.11 5.93
2,001 to 2,200 9.25 1.15 6.17
2,201 to 2,400 9.58 1.19 6.39
2,401 to 2,600 9.88 1.23 6.59
2,601 to 2,800 10.16 1.27 6.78
2,801 to 3,000 10.42 1.30 6.96
3,001 to 3,200 10.66 1.33 7.12
3,201 to 3,400 10.89 1.36 7.27
3,401 to 3,600 11.10 1.38 7.41
3,601 to 3,800 11.30 1.41 7.54
3,801 to 4,000 11.50 1.43 7.68
4,001 or More 11.68 1.45 7.80
Average 5.36
Overall
Trip Ends
Dwelling Size
(squre feet)
175
Transportation Service Area Report and Impact Fee Study
Bozeman, Montana
50
APPENDIX B: LAND USE DEFINITIONS
Residential Development
Single-Unit Dwelling:
1. Single-family detached is a one-unit structure detached from any other house, that is, with open
space on all four sides. Such structures are considered detached even if they have an adjoining shed
or garage. A one-family house that contains a business is considered detached as long as the building
has open space on all four sides.
2. Single-family attached (townhouse) is a one-unit structure that has one or more walls extending
from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures. In row houses (sometimes called
townhouses), double houses, or houses attached to nonresidential structures, each house is a
separate, attached structure if the dividing or common wall goes from ground to roof.
3. Mobile home includes both occupied and vacant mobile homes, to which no permanent rooms have
been added, are counted in this category. Mobile homes used only for business purposes or for
extra sleeping space and mobile homes for sale on a dealer's lot, at the factory, or in storage are
not counted in the housing inventory.
Other Residential:
1. 2+ units (duplexes and apartments) are units in structures containing two or more housing units,
further categorized as units in structures with “2, 3 or 4, 5 to 9, 10 to 19, 20 to 49, and 50 or more
apartments.”
2. Boat, RV, Van, etc. includes any living quarters occupied as a housing unit that does not fit the other
categories (e.g., houseboats, railroad cars, campers, and vans). Recreational vehicles, boats, vans,
railroad cars, and the like are included only if they are occupied as a current place of residence. Such
living quarters are only allowed under Bozeman zoning under unusual temporary conditions.
Nonresidential Development
Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar average
weekday vehicle trip generation rates and employment densities (i.e., jobs per 1,000 square feet).
Retail: Establishments primarily selling merchandise, eating/drinking places, and entertainment uses. By
way of example, Retail includes shopping centers, supermarkets, pharmacies, restaurants, bars,
nightclubs, automobile dealerships, and movie theaters.
Industrial: Establishments primarily engaged in the production, transportation, or storage of goods. By
way of example, Industrial includes manufacturing plants, distribution warehouses, trucking companies,
utility substations, power generation facilities, and telecommunications buildings.
Office: Establishments providing management, administrative, professional, or business services. By way
of example, Office can include business offices, office parks, and corporate headquarters.
Institutional: Establishments providing education and healthcare services. By way of example,
Institutional includes universities, nursing homes, daycare facilities, and hospitals.
176
MCA Contents / TITLE 7 / CHAPTER 6 / Part 16 / 7-6-1602 Calculation of…
Montana Code Annotated 2023
TITLE 7. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 6. FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND TAXATION
Part 16. Impact Fees to Fund Capital Improvements
Calculation Of Impact Fees -- Documentation
Required -- Ordinance Or Resolution --
Requirements For Impact Fees
7-6-1602. Calculation of impact fees -- documentation required -- ordinance or resolution --
requirements for impact fees. (1) For each public facility for which an impact fee is imposed, the governmental
entity shall prepare and approve a service area report.
(2) The service area report is a written analysis that must:
(a) describe existing conditions of the facility;
(b) establish level-of-service standards;
(c) forecast future additional needs for service for a defined period of time;
(d) identify capital improvements necessary to meet future needs for service;
(e) identify those capital improvements needed for continued operation and maintenance of the facility;
(f) make a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area is necessary to
establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits;
(g) make a determination as to whether one service area or more than one service area for transportation
facilities is needed to establish a correlation between impact fees and benefits;
(h) establish the methodology and time period over which the governmental entity will assign the proportionate
share of capital costs for expansion of the facility to provide service to new development within each service
area;
(i) establish the methodology that the governmental entity will use to exclude operations and maintenance
costs and correction of existing deficiencies from the impact fee;
(j) establish the amount of the impact fee that will be imposed for each unit of increased service demand; and
(k) have a component of the budget of the governmental entity that:
(i) schedules construction of public facility capital improvements to serve projected growth;
(ii) projects costs of the capital improvements;
(iii) allocates collected impact fees for construction of the capital improvements; and
(iv) covers at least a 5-year period and is reviewed and updated at least every 5 years.
177
(3) The service area report is a written analysis that must contain documentation of sources and methodology
used for purposes of subsection (2) and must document how each impact fee meets the requirements of
subsection (7).
(4) The service area report that supports adoption and calculation of an impact fee must be available to the
public upon request.
(5) The amount of each impact fee imposed must be based upon the actual cost of public facility expansion or
improvements or reasonable estimates of the cost to be incurred by the governmental entity as a result of new
development. The calculation of each impact fee must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
(6) The ordinance or resolution adopting the impact fee must include a time schedule for periodically updating
the documentation required under subsection (2).
(7) An impact fee must meet the following requirements:
(a) The amount of the impact fee must be reasonably related to and reasonably attributable to the
development's share of the cost of infrastructure improvements made necessary by the new development.
(b) The impact fees imposed may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by
the governmental entity in accommodating the development. The following factors must be considered in
determining a proportionate share of public facilities capital improvements costs:
(i) the need for public facilities capital improvements required to serve new development; and
(ii) consideration of payments for system improvements reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of
the development in the form of user fees, debt service payments, taxes, and other available sources of funding
the system improvements.
(c) Costs for correction of existing deficiencies in a public facility may not be included in the impact fee.
(d) New development may not be held to a higher level of service than existing users unless there is a
mechanism in place for the existing users to make improvements to the existing system to match the higher level
of service.
(e) Impact fees may not include expenses for operations and maintenance of the facility.
History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 299, L. 2005; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 358, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 276, L. 2015.
Created by
178
MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
DATE: AUGUST 14, 2024
SUBJECT: IMPACT FEE USE BY OTHER MONTANA COMMUNITIES The Community Development Board expressed interest in the impact fees used by other communities in the state. Staff has surveyed likely communities and obtained information as follows.
Belgrade: Belgrade is currently working on an update to their impact fees. An RFP was issued in March and a consultant was selected. Belgrade has adopted impact fees for Parks, Water, Sewer, Streets, and Fire. Fees were most recently updated in 2019 and have not been inflation adjusted since then. They recently merged fire services with Central Valley Fire District. Fees are charged for both residential and non-residential uses. They do not divide fees as finely as Bozeman does. Fees for a single detached home (no specified size) are: Parks $1,139 Water $4,786 Sewer $2,709 Streets $5,238 Fire $272 Administration fee of 5% $707.20 Missoula: Missoula has adopted impact fees for Community Services (various governmental general functions, vehicles, and equipment), Parks and Open Space, Transportation, Police, and Fire. City-wide fees were updated in 2019. Fees are charged for both residential and non-residential uses. They divide fees similar to how Bozeman does with gradations for housing size but different size bands. Fees for a single detached home (2,400 sq. ft.) are: Community Services $1,406 Parks and Open Space $4,904 Transportation $1,602 Police $151 Fire $506
179
Page 2 of 2
Whitefish: Whitefish has adopted impact fees for Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Police, and Fire. Fees were most recently adopted in 2023. Fees are charged for both residential and non-residential uses. They divide some fees by square footage of home but less finely than Bozeman does. Water and sewer are set by meter size for all uses. Fees for a single detached home (2,400 sq. ft.) are: Parks & Recreation $419 Paved Trails $912 City Hall $1,138 Police $551 Fire $790 Water $3,903 Sewer $4,041 Kalispell: Kalispell has adopted impact fees for Water, Sewer, Stormwater, Police, and Fire. Fees were adopted in 2015-2019. They have recently begun inflation adjustments. Fees are charged for both residential and non-residential uses. They do not divide fees as finely as Bozeman does. Fees for a single detached home (no specified size) are: Water $2,138 Sewer $3,240 Stormwater $618 Police $41 Fire $438 Helena, Great Falls, and Billings have not chosen to use impact fees as part of their infrastructure funding approach.
180
FY26‐30 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFUNDING SOURCES181
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Community Development Board
FROM:Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager
Erin George, Community Development Interim Director
SUBJECT:Cancellation of December 2, 2024, Community Development Board
Meeting.
MEETING DATE:November 18, 2024
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:Information only, no action required.
STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning,
ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban
approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density,
connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods.
BACKGROUND:There are no items are presently scheduled for the December 2, 2024,
Community Development Board meeting. As there are multiple UDC update
open houses scheduled for the first two weeks of December it is suggested
that the December 2nd meeting be cancelled.
Scheduled open houses are:
12/2, 12-2 PM | MSU SUB Ballroom B, 751 W Grant St, Bozeman
12/4, 6-8 PM | Gallatin High School, 4455 Annie St, Bozeman
12/5, 6-8 PM | Hope Lutheran Church, 2152 W Graf St, Bozeman
12/9, noon | Online; register at
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_b1dkModnTCqJT3mis0r-
aQ#/registration(External link)
12/11, 6-8 PM | Gallatin County Fairgrounds, 901 N Black Ave, Bozeman
12/12, 6-8 PM | Sacajawea Middle School, 3525 S 3rd Ave, Bozeman
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
182
ALTERNATIVES:None.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Report compiled on: November 13, 2024
183