HomeMy WebLinkAboutBozeman Economic Development Plan6 Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders
Andrew Epple
Chris Kukulski
SUBJECT: Review and approval of the draft Bozeman Economic Development Plan
MEETING DATE: Monday, July 20, 2009
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Make a motion to approve the draft of the Economic Development
plan with amendments as deemed appropriate by the Commission and direct Staff to return an
adopting resolution.
BACKGROUND: The City’s previous growth policy, the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan,
called for the preparation of a free standing economic development plan as one of its
implementation policies. In 2008, the City of Bozeman entered into a contract with Prospera
Business Network to prepare an Economic Development plan for the City. The plan has been
prepared and is now in the public review process. The City Commission set a date of July 20th
for a public hearing on the document.
A copy of the draft Economic Development plan was previously provided to the Commission
through the June 22nd packet materials. The Planning Board considered the draft plan at their
hearing on June 2nd. The minutes of that meeting are attached. No changes to the draft were
recommended at that time. No public comment was received at the meeting which was
applicable to the plan.
Should the Commission elect to adopt the plan as presented a formal resolution of adoption will
be placed on the Commission consent agenda for the following meeting.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The Economic Development plan has implementation tasks which will
require staff resources. No exact time commitment has yet been determined. Depending on
scheduling of actions and other workload the implementation tasks may be included in the
normal workload. If ordinance amendments or other policy changes result then there will be
additional costs for advertising and preparation of materials.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: Staff Report
Planning Board minutes and resolution
Report compiled on: July 15, 2009
1
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the
Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning
Cathy Costakis David Skelton, Senior Planner
Dawn Smith Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Erik Henyon, Vice President
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell, President
Chris Mehl
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Donna Swarthout Bob Hietala
Bill Quinn Dennis Foreman
Sally Hickey
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and not
scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion of
the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to approve the minutes of February 18,
2009 with corrections. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice
President Henyon, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those
voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REIVEW
1. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-09001 (Cardinal MiSub) - A
Minor Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application for a Second or Subsequent Minor
Subdivision from a Tract of Record on behalf of the owner, CHB Properties, LLC,
and the representative, Gaston Engineering, to allow the subdivision of 3.157 acres
into two lots for M-2 (Manufacturing and Industrial District) development. The
property is located at 1750 Evergreen Drive and is legally described as Tract B-1-
A of Certificate of Survey No. 156D, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana.
(Skelton)
278
2
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report on behalf of Senior Planner David
Skelton noting the location of the project and a description of what was being requested with the
application.
Dennis Foreman stated the application was a second or subsequent minor subdivision and
explained the proposed layout of the subdivision.
Vice President Henyon asked how the building had been permitted straddling the lot line.
Assistant Director Saunders responded the structure had been built when Building Permit
requirements allowed a lease agreement to be in place to allow the building to straddle the lot line.
Mr. Mehl asked the depth of the water table in that location and if any public comment had been
received regarding the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders deferred the depth of the water
table question to Mr. Foreman and responded that no public comment had been received for the
proposal. Mr. Foreman responded the depth of the water table was about 20 feet, several pits
dug on site show no ground water in them.
Vice President Henyon asked where access would be located. Assistant Director Saunders
responded the access would be off of Evergreen Drive.
Mr. Sypinski asked if Certificate of Appropriateness review would be included in the Site Plan
review for the proposal. Assistant Director Saunders responded that Certificate of
Appropriateness would be required.
President Caldwell noted that water/sewer could be financially guaranteed until Final Plat
approval and asked why the lift station had been included for financial guarantee. Mr. Foreman
responded the lift station had been required to be completed prior to Final Occupancy for an
existing building on the site.
President Caldwell opened the public comment portion of the meeting. Seeing no public
comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed public comment.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinksi seconded to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission with Staff conditions and the amendment suggested by Ms. Costakis if
she desired. Ms. Costakis declined to include her amendment. The motion carried 7-0. Those
voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms.
Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. A public hearing to present the draft Economic Development Plan prepared by
Prospera Business Partnership and City of Bozeman. Discussion on integration of
the Plan into the Growth Policy. (Saunders)
Assistant Director Chris Saunders noted that the meeting was a public hearing for the proposed
279
3
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
document.
Bob Hietala, Prospera Business Network, introduced Peter Bertleson and Cherlyn Wilcox. He
stated he would give a quick overview of the Plan and mention some of the integration techniques
planned for the document to be included in the Growth Policy. He noted the three outcomes of
the Economic Development Plan and stated the collaboration of public and private partnerships
would be mentioned throughout the document. He stated the Economic Development Advisory
Committee had met once or twice a month and they had been a diverse group which had
recognized the diversity in the community; he noted the research process utilized had been to
analyze comparable cities, had gathered local economic information, and had conducted a survey
to gauge Bozeman’s economic needs as well as conducted 34 in-person interviews. He stated the
introduction to the Plan included the impetus to create the Plan and discussed the economic
backdrop. He noted the past growth of Bozeman and recent economic downturn and that had
both been included in the document.
Mr. Hietala stated the second section contained the economic vision and values and the language
had been taken from the Growth Policy. He stated strengthening and diversifying the local
economy had been included as well as the creation of higher paying jobs. He stated the profile
was a snapshot of the local economy and contained demographics including; population,
employment and workforce trends, land use, etc. He stated the level of entrepreneurship in the
community had also been addressed. He stated industry sectors had been specific to Bozeman
and included technology, retail, tourism, hospitality, etc. He stated Gallatin Field had emerged as
an economic partner for the business community and had been recognized as an excellent level of
air service for the community. He stated construction was the third largest employer for the City
and had been hit hard by the recent down turn in the community. He stated MSU was the
economic anchor for the community with government being the largest employment sector. He
stated there were a surprising number of non-profit organizations providing employment within
the City. He stated an economic development analysis had been done as different factors
identified different impacts from businesses. He noted the economic development survey results
had been included in the document to provide service and amenity ratings. He stated a large
venue for statewide conferences was identified as a need for the community.
Mr. Hietala noted rankings from other questions from the survey and those ratings. He reiterated
the ratings for the final fifteen questions and added that the downtown business area had been one
of the top eight priorities for the community. He stated improvements to infrastructure,
technology transfer, and expanded vocational and certification job training had been among the
top eight priorities as well.
Mr. Hietala stated the next section of the Plan contained the SWOT analysis of the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in the community. He stated the development of the goals
and strategies had taken quite some time and noted what each goal was while noting that each
goal contained six to eight specific strategies. He stated there was a strong recognition that there
was a young population with a highly educated workforce. He stated the fourth goal was
included in most every Economic Development Plan and recommended looking at local, state, and
federal economic resources. He stated the fifth goal suggested collaboration between the business
280
4
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
community and the City and to see if there was a way to make the regulatory environment more
efficient. He stated the last goal was to maintain the high quality of life as it was an asset to the
business community.
Mr. Hietala noted the last section, section 8, contained the priorities and responsibilities for the
City.
President Caldwell opened the item for public comment. Seeing no public comment forthcoming,
President Caldwell closed public comment.
Ms. Smith asked for more information regarding the on-line survey; where it was located, who
responded to it, etc. Mr. Hietala responded notice had been placed in the Chronicle and the
Chamber of Commerce, MSU, and other groups had distributed the survey with no specific group
targeted so no specific demographic identified. Mr. Mehl added he had sent the survey to the
Planning Board as well as other groups. Ms. Smith suggested she would like to be certain that
people in other areas of the work force had been encouraged to participate and not just business
owners. Assistant Director Saunders responded a public service announcement had been sent out
and a link had been included on the City website. Mr. Hietala added that the TV had also done an
interview and there were slight differences in responses from different sources, but they were
generally pretty close.
Mr. Sypinski asked Mr. Hietala to expand more on the suggestion of a liaison from the City for
economic responsibilities and community development. He suggested his experience had been
that the City Manager or another member of City Staff had not historically been included. Mr.
Hietala responded he was not sure if the model had occurred in Montana but thought someone
should be the main contact for the City and sit on the Economic Board.
Ms. Costakis stated the document had included that one of the more positive things was the
quality of life with the parks and recreation being one of the more positive things as well. She
suggested there was some language missing as quality of life had not been specifically identified.
She suggested differentiating the aspects of quality of life by including the necessity of planning to
maintain the quality of life. Mr. Hietala stated the Planning & Development process was seen as
needing addressed, but the Plan did not detail how those items would need to be addressed as it
should be dealt with in a separate process. Ms. Costakis suggested seeing what Planning was
seen to be inhibiting would have been helpful.
Mr. Sypinski stated there was a lot of discussion regarding tax increment finance districts in place
already in the City and asked if the current processes had been found successful. Mr. Hietala
responded that those specific incentives had not been discussed and had been left general.
Vice President Henyon stated he found the report very informative with a lot of good detail that
he enjoyed reading. He noted the document seemed to need to go one level deeper to answer the
“how” goals would be accomplished. He noted on page 2-1 the vision was discussed and then the
values; he asked how higher paying jobs would be created for example. He stated on page 3-30
he thought there should be another bullet point at the bottom to include the language “green job
training” such as solar or wind technology. He stated on page 3-36 the workers compensation
281
5
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
rates were of great concern, but no method on how to accomplish those goals had been included.
Mr. Hietala responded workman’s compensation was a great example of framing the issue
without specifically citing the issue as the City’s responsibility.
Vice President Henyon stated the TIF districts should be better utilized but no guidance had been
included. Mr. Hietala responded that a fair amount of time, resources, and development would
have to go into that level of specificity for those types of projects; he noted the Committee had
concurred that those items would need addressed and had identified that there should be a Board
or Committee in place to deal with each individual issue. Vice President Henyon stated health
care had been mentioned and had included expansion of the emergency room, raising the trauma
level, etc. which would take money; he noted all of the ideas would go back to the Planning
process but should include ways to facilitate those changes. Mr. Hietala responded that on the
job certification and training side there would be opportunities, but that was as far as the
discussion had gone. Vice President Henyon stated one weakness in the survey results was that
the Planning process had ranked as one of the lowest priorities and suggested there should be a
clear and predictable planning process evident in the Plan. He asked how the micromanagement
at the Commission level could be halted to provide for a predictable way for businesses to come
to the City. Mr. Hietala referred Vice President Henyon to page 7-5, goal 5, which was the
Committee’s language that had been included as the method of intent to address possible
micromanagement issues. Mr. Mehl added that proper planning would enhance long term value,
but a process would need to be clear, consistent, and concise so a blend would need to be
accomplished. Vice President Henyon stated that Legends @ Bridger Creek had been approved
by Staff and the Planning Board while the City Commission had ultimately modified the design of
the infrastructure at the cost of the applicant. Mr. Mehl responded that particular issue had been
addressed in the document.
Vice President Henyon asked if there was any way to measure the implementation of the
document and suggested the use of timelines and benchmarks throughout the document. Mr.
Hietala responded timelines had been included in implementation, but there was no real way to
make specific recommendations on general goals. Vice President Henyon asked if there had been
any ordinances that had stood out that should be modified to encourage businesses to come to
Bozeman. Mr. Hietala responded that level of detail had not been included but some ordinances
had been identified. Vice President Henyon suggested making North 7th Avenue an impact fee
free zone or giving leases to businesses on Mandeville lane to relocate businesses and encourage
development. He stated the Chamber of Commerce had developed an Economic Development
Committee and had proposed to bring together the business neighborhood that should be
recognized by the Commission, provided a Commission liaison, and would provide
recommendations to the City. He stated the implementation matrix included the City Manager’s
Office and should instead reflect that the City be the supporting partner and the primary partner
be the community members. Mr. Hietala responded the Economic Development Council language
included in the Plan was the intent of the recommendation.
Mr. Becker stated that a lot of what had been addressed by the Planning Board had been
addressed during the process of compiling the Economic Development Plan and a lot of the
282
6
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
implementation would depend on the economic advisory body. He stated things change and there
was a dynamic economy so the Plan would need to provide the ability for the City to decide how
to implement those goals. He stated social capital, with the role of volunteerism, seemed to be
missing from the Plan and there were a significant number of community members involved in
non-profit organizations. He stated he was not sure the City should be the lead on economic
issues, but if they didn’t, then who would. He stated the adoption and motion tonight would
reflect the Board’s concerns.
Ms. Smith asked where the service industry would fit in to the Plan; she noted she meant low level
daily services such as lawn care, beauty salons, etc. Mr. Hietala responded that under
employment and workforce those services were included and the industry sectors focused more
on retail, healthcare, technology, etc. Ms. Smith stated that left her wondering where the entry
level workforce was in the Plan and stated that element of the workforce was missing. Mr.
Hietala responded the economic profile and unemployment information addressed that element of
the workforce and noted the labor statistics had changed dramatically. He noted entry level
workers seemed to be something that was being taken care of in Bozeman. Ms. Smith stated she
thought it was unfair to put so much of the responsibility on the City of Bozeman; she noted the
City and County were not part of their hurdles when she and her husband had purchased their
business and the most difficult thing for them had been financing.
Mr. Mehl thanked Prospera for presenting the Plan. He stated a variety of groups had been
contacted and had not decided to participate. He stated the Economic Development Plan’s
concern was for the whole of Bozeman and individual task forces would be more specific as to
methods and implementation strategies. He noted the balance between the City and the
community would be hard to achieve and the Plan was to encourage the City to promote the Plan
as a whole.
President Caldwell thanked everyone for their time in review and thanked Prospera for their
diligent work and time on the taskforce. He noted it was incumbent on the Board for them to
track the Community Plan and the implementation strategies with outreach to the public and
private sectors to provide methods by which the goals could be implemented. He stated that
without a clear indication that the City was ready to promote economic development, it would be
difficult to encourage people to participate.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for the Economic Development Plan with detailed Planning Board
minutes.
Mr. Sypinksi suggested implementing the Economic Plan as an appendix to the Growth Policy,
but as that was not possible he suggested references to the Plan be included throughout the
document. He suggested discussing the implementation of the Plan into the Growth Policy.
President Caldwell asked if the edits as part of the three bullet points in the Staff Memo had been
approved by the Commission. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would explain which
283
7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
edits would need to be discussed after the motion had been formalized.
Ms. Costakis asked how the objectives in chapter 8 of the Community Plan and the Economic
Development Plan would relate. Assistant Director Saunders responded the goals and objectives
in the Economic Plan were specific to that Plan and the Growth Policy goals and objectives would
meld the two together, though there would be some differences; he added that some crossover
language had been proposed.
Mr. Becker suggested the resolution of adoption include language for the immediate organization
of an advisory board for the Economic Development Plan. Vice President Henyon asked if the
Commission would be amenable to the existing Chamber of Commerce committee being that
advisory board. Mr. Mehl stated he was in favor of forming the advisory board, the City should
form it, and he thought it would be a mistake to highlight that advisory board specifically as the
Plan should stand as a whole. The Board concurred that none of the advisory bodies should be
specifically required to immediately organize. The motion carried 6-1. Those voting aye being
President Caldwell, Ms. Smith, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski.
Those voting nay being Vice President Henyon.
Mr. Sypinski suggested the Economic Development Plan should be included as an appendix to the
Growth Policy. Assistant Director Saunders responded the Commission had voted on some of
the language to be included in Chapter 8 of the Growth Policy and listed those items. He stated
that the missing pieces in the Growth Policy to further integrate the Economic Development Plan
would be included as a formal amendment to the Growth Policy to include those items and it
would have to go through the Commission review process as some of the items had not been
included in their previous action.
Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of why all of the changes had not been presented to the
Commission. Assistant Director Saunders responded the modifications the Commission had
approved were amendments that the Commission themselves had requested and listed those
amendments; he added that the Planning Board had not reviewed all of the proposed edits in the
Economic Development Plan and Staff was allowing time for those to be reviewed as well. The
City Commission had not yet received the Economic Development Plan.
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Vice President Henyon seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for the proposed edits to Chapter 8, including clearly identifying
the Economic Development Plan, the Downtown Plan, the North 7th Avenue Plan, and the
inclusion of TIF’s map and any other extraneous changes staff deems necessary. The motion
carried 6-1. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Vice President Henyon, Mr.
Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being Ms. Smith.
President Caldwell stated he had a problem with specific references to the Economic
Development Plan sections and chapters throughout the document. Mr. Sypinski suggested
referencing the document as a whole instead of sections and chapters. Mr. Mehl suggested a link
could be provided to the document for reference instead of distinct chapters and sections.
284
8
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
Mr. Sypinski stated the Downtown Neighborhood Plan had not been included in either the
Growth Policy or the Economic Development Plan. Vice President Henyon responded references
to the Downtown Plan had been included as well as other renewal districts and the North 7th Plan.
President Cladwell suggested clearly referencing all the Plans in the front of the Growth Policy.
Vice President Henyon stated he was supportive of the proposed amendments.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
President Caldwell reminded the Board that Thursday, June 18, 2009 there would be a
presentation of the Downtown Plan and suggested members attend. He stated he thought it
would be a great opportunity to understand how to help downtown businesses. He noted there
would be other presentations and he would forward times and locations to the Board. He
reminded the Board of the roundtable discussion with the Commission on Thursday, June 4, 2009.
Mr. Mehl asked President Caldwell to poll the members on what they would like to discuss.
Vice President Henyon stated he would like feedback on what the future mayor’s agenda would
be and suggested it was a matter of predictability. President Caldwell suggested the Board focus
their time with the Commission regarding implementation policies of the Growth Policy related to
UDO edits. Ms. Costakis asked who had called the meeting. President Caldwell responded he
had requested the meeting some time ago. Assistant Director Saunders responded there would be
two items on the agenda and he was not sure which item would be first. President Caldwell
suggested communication between the City Commission and the Planning Board should be the
main topic.
Ms. Costakis suggested the meeting should have been discussed quite a while ago if the Planing
Board had instigated the meeting; she suggested she would like to discuss in-fill development and
the importance of design to make sure the development would fit in and be well done. She added
in-fill done right could be a positive; otherwise backlash from the community would be inevitable.
President Caldwell concurred that those dialogs would be good for discussion; he noted there
would be an opportunity to see how other changes to the code could promote and encourage the
Growth Policy. Ms. Smith concurred that the UDO should more strongly support the Growth
Policy and should be discussed with the Commission.
Ms. Costakis suggested parking be discussed. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff had
already been looking into parking.
Mr. Mehl asked for clarification on how the Growth Policy had been adopted; he suggested it
seemed that 99% of the document had been approved. Assistant Director Saunders responded
Mr. Mehl was close with the 99% adoption and stated there had been a few changes to the map
on the east and west ends of Main Street. He noted there had also been a change to rename
future urban to present rural. He stated the definition of suburban residential had been changed to
include subdivision outside of the City “80% or more built-out”. He stated the Commission had
285
9
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of June 2, 2009.
decided that the supermajority vote was too small for a proposed amendment. Mr. Mehl added
Mr. Rupp and Mayor Jacobsen had added language. Assistant Director Saunders noted that none
of the goals or objectives from the Planning Board had been modified. Mr. Mehl asked Mr.
Saunders to explain the contrary votes. Assistant Director Saunders responded the change to
residential from future urban near Story Mill Road had prompted two Commissioners to vote in
opposition.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting
at 9:28 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
286
Bozeman Economic Development Plan #P-07006.2 1
RESOLUTION #P-07006.a
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE BOZEMAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the
Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-1-106(1), M.C.A. states that the Planning Board is responsible for
preparing growth policies, if requested by the governing body; and
WHEREAS, The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan originally adopted on October 22, 2001
by Resolution 3486 contained an implementation policy to develop an Economic Development
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman entered into a contract with Prospera Business Network
to prepare an Economic Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, Prospera Business Network conducted the work to prepare the plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board had earlier been directed to prepare an
update to the City’s growth policy; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board undertook a variety of public outreach events and practices
to gather information, including that related to economic development during drafting of the
update; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update to
the adopted growth policy and all related documents and materials were properly submitted and
reviewed, and all public hearings and public meetings were advertised in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 76-1-602, M.C.A and those materials included Chapter 8, Economic
Development.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman City Commission held public hearings and otherwise took
all necessary steps prior to passing Resolution 4163 on June 1, 2009 which adopted the Bozeman
Community Plan, a growth policy for the City of Bozeman; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on June 2, 2009 before the City of
Bozeman Planning Board to consider the draft Economic Development Plan and consider its
integration into the City’s growth policy; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board opened the public hearing, received a
presentation of the Economic Development Plan from Prospera Business Network, and after calling
for public comment received none in either oral or written form during the public comment period
at their public hearings on Tuesday, June 2, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board closed the public hearing; and
287
Bozeman Economic Development Plan #P-07006.2 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the draft document and its relative merits and
content; and
WHEREAS, a motion was made to recommend approval of the Economic Development
Plan as presented; and
WHEREAS, a revised draft of Chapter 8 of the Bozeman Community Plan was discussed as
a means of incorporating the Economic Development Plan into the growth policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Planning Board, on a
vote of 6 to 1, recommends adoption by the Bozeman City Commission of the Economic
Development Plan as prepared by Prospera Business Network; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Planning Board on a vote of 6 to
1, recommends adoption by the Bozeman City Commission of the revised Chapter 8, Economic
Development to further integrate the Economic Development Plan in the City’s growth policy.
DATED THIS 2nd DAY OF JUNE 2009, Resolution #P-07006.2
_____________________________ ____________________________
Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Brian Caldwell, President
Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board
288
STAFF REPORT
BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN GROWTH POLICY ADOPTION NO. #P-07006a
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 1
Item: Application #P-07006a, to adopt an Economic Development plan and
corresponding revisions to Chapter 8, Economic Development in the
Bozeman Community Plan.
Applicant: City of Bozeman
PO Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Representative: Department of Planning and Community Development
City of Bozeman
PO Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, July 20, 2009 at 6:00
p.m. in the City Commission room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue,
Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Recommendation: Approval
__________________________________________________________________________________
PLAN LOCATION AND MAP
The documents under consideration are matters of general policy and are not specific to individual
properties. The two items under consideration give information and guidance related to economic
development. The planning area of the City of Bozeman is shown on Figure 3-1 of the adopted growth
policy. The planning area on the map shows the City limits as of the date of adoption and a surrounding
area which influences Bozeman. Any regulatory outcome through subsequent implementation of these
documents will only apply within the City’s municipal area as the City does not regulate beyond its
boundaries. The City has an area of economic influence much larger than its physical jurisdiction.
Decisions about economic development will influence many people outside of Bozeman.
PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City conducts long range planning to:
1. Protect the public health and safety and advance the well being of the community at large, while
respecting and protecting the interests of individuals within the community.
2. Provide a supportive framework for private action which balances the rights and responsibilities
of many persons.
3. Facilitate the democratic development of the public policies and regulations that guide the
community.
289
#P-07006a BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 2
4. Improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities, more
functional, beautiful, healthful, and efficient.
5. Coordinate technical knowledge, political will, and long-range thinking in community
development in both short and long term decisions.
6. Identifies the citizen's goals and priorities for their community and how they wish to carry out
those ideals.
7. Encourage efficiency and effectiveness by government through coordinated policies and
programs.
8. Serves as a reference bench mark for community priorities, physical attributes such as size, and
social and economic information such as housing and jobs. A growth policy is an abstract of a
community.
9. Support economic development by providing basic information about the community to
prospective citizens and employers. A well done, and implemented, plan shows that a community
is actively trying to improve their area.
The formal term for a community’s comprehensive plan is ‘growth policy’. The development of a growth
policy is guided by Sections 76-1-601 through 76-1-606, MCA. Bozeman has had a formal comprehensive
plan since 1958. Careful planning by individuals and small groups prior to that time created the historic
areas of the community. Since 1958, Bozeman has had six comprehensive plans. Most recently, the City
adopted the Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) on June 1, 2009.
The growth policy sets broad policy standards and coordinates between many municipal functions.
Certain subjects are required to be addressed in a growth policy. One of the required elements is
economic conditions. The degree to which each item is addressed is left to the discretion of the local
governing body.
The City contracted with Prospera Business Network to prepare a free standing economic development
plan. This plan is similar in nature to the facility plans for city services such as fire protection or provision
of water. The development of this plan was an action item from the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan
adopted in 2001.
The Bozeman Community Plan focuses on seven broad themes. These are: Neighborhoods, Sense of
Place, Natural Amenities, Centers, Integration of Action, Urban Density, and Sustainability. These
themes are described in Chapter 3 of the Bozeman Community Plan.
A draft of the Economic Development plan document was made available for public review in May 2009.
Notice of its availability was provided by email, posting on the City website and Prospera website, press
release, and publication in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. After proper public notice a public hearing was
held by the Planning Board on June 2, 2009. No public comment was received related to the plan at the
hearing. After consideration of the document the Planning Board recommended approval of the draft to
the City Commission on June 2, 2009. A separate public hearing was held the same evening to consider
possible revisions to Chapter 8, Economic Development, of the Bozeman Community Plan to
incorporate recommendations and information from the free standing Economic Development Plan as a
growth policy amendment. The Planning Board recommended specific changes to Chapter 8 to the City
Commission. Please see the attached minutes, resolution, and draft documents.
290
#P-07006a BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 3
REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 76-1-601 MCA specifies the required contents of a growth policy. The same section also allows
for a number of voluntary items. The section specifically states that the degree to which any required
element of a growth policy is addressed is at the discretion of the governing body. There are some
required steps for the process to adopt or revise a growth policy. For this application, the Planning Board
has conducted the required public hearing after proper notice, has forwarded a recommendation of
adoption by resolution, the City Commission has adopted a resolution of intent to adopt the Economic
Development Plan and amend Chapter 8 of the Bozeman Community Plan, and the City Commission’s
hearing for July 20th has been given proper notice.
There are no specific statutorily required review criteria for a growth policy. The present growth policy,
the Bozeman Community Plan, contains locally developed criteria for amending the plan. These criteria
are from Chapter 17 of the Bozeman Community Plan. The description below is a summary. The
complete intent and compliance with criteria may be obtained by reviewing the full document. In the
following summary, item 1 is the response as it relates to the Economic Development Plan and item 2 is
the responses as it relates to amending Chapter 8, BCP.
A. The proposed amendment must cure a deficiency in the growth policy, or improve the
growth policy, to better respond to the needs of the general community.
1. The new economic development plan provides updated information regarding economic
conditions which was not available at the time the growth policy as a whole was prepared. The
health of the overall economy affects land use patterns, community quality of life, and other items
of concern to the general community. The provision of this information improves the growth
policy.
2. The revisions to Chapter 8, BCP incorporate issues and concerns which were not included in
the original adoption of the growth policy. This makes the chapter more accurate and descriptive
of present community conditions. Additional policy direction is also provided so that efforts
towards economic development are better focused and more effective. This improves the growth
policy.
B. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy,
either between the goals and the maps or between different goals and objectives.
1. The adoption of the Economic Development Plan does not appear to conflict with other
adopted policy documents of the City.
2. No inconsistencies have been created within the BCP by the edits to Chapter 8.
C. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy.
1. The Economic Development Plan provides background information on the employment and
commerce of the community. The policies and suggested implementation are contained in Section
7 of the document. A review of these items shows them to be consistent with the intent of the
growth policy as established in the vision statement and goals of the various chapters of the
growth policy. The economic health of the community is a matter of general interest and is
encouraged in the growth policy.
2. The revisions to Chapter 8, BCP are comparatively minor. They are to provide updated cross
references to planning work being prepared or completed. Also added are items identified in the
291
#P-07006a BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 4
Economic Development Plan which had not been already included in the chapter. As the
Economic Development Plan is consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy the
inclusion of elements of it in Chapter 8, BCP must also be consistent.
D. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or
significant portion by:
1. Significantly altering land use patterns and principles in a manner contrary to
those established by this plan.
1. The adoption of the Economic Development Plan does not alter figure 3-1 or the land
use principles of Chapter 3. The City has the authority to consider changes to both future
land use and zoning on a property. These are City programs and remain in City control.
2. The adoption of revised Chapter 8, BCP does not alter either figure 3-1 or the land use
principles of Chapter 3. The City has the authority to consider changes to both future land
use and zoning on a property. These are City programs and remain in City control.
2. Requiring unmitigated larger or more expensive improvements to streets, water,
sewer or other public facilities or services thereby impacting development of other
lands.
1 & 2. The growth policy coordinates between the various facility plans for maintenance
and expansion of the City’s services. The land use pattern and facility coordination
provides for cost containment in providing services. Some additional facilities will be
required to give service to an expanded population and commercial operations. The
related expenses should be mitigated by the City’s policies both existing and proposed.
Some of the new facilities are required by external mandates from regulatory agencies and
would be necessary regardless of growth. The two documents considered under this
application will not require services contrary to that shown in the facility plans.
3. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated
impacts on facilities and services.
1 & 2. The growth policy requires evaluation of development impacts and provision of
mitigation to off-set those impacts. The two documents considered under this application
will not require services contrary to that shown in the facility plans. The City’s active
facility planning and development review program should avoid this problem by
providing a means for mitigation of unexpected demands.
4. Negatively affect the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents.
The new growth policy puts primary emphasis on an expansive approach to public health
and safety. The first priority is problem avoidance then followed by mitigation of impacts.
This is consistent with commonly accepted planning practice for emergency and other
services. Provision of adequate water for fire suppression, safe travel because of adequate
street requirements, and emergency services coordination with other jurisdictions are
examples of ways the growth policy encourages the protection of public health and safety.
292
#P-07006a BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 5
1. A healthy economy is supportive of health and safety by providing resources for
emergency services. People with good employment can provide for medical care, cultural
event participation, and other quality of life activities which improve livability of the area
and general well being. The growth policy encourages provision of elements of
community design and development which support livability such as parks and open
spaces, a viable and vigorous economy, preservation of the historic built environment,
access to education and the arts, and encouragement for a socially active community. The
Economic Development Plan does not detract from these items.
2. The revisions to Chapter 8, BCP incorporate additional areas of emphasis relating to
economic development. The chapter remains a balanced approach recognizing the need to
protect environmental health and quality of life in the pursuit of economic health. This
balances the issues which will affect the livability of the area and will therefore protect the
health and safety of the residents.
STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
Planning staff has reviewed this application for a growth policy amendment against the criteria set forth
in Chapter 17 (Review and Amendment) of the Bozeman Community Plan. Staff found that this
proposal satisfies all of the required review criteria. The Bozeman Planning Board has also reviewed the
plan and has recommended approval of the Economic Development Plan and the revisions to Chapter 8,
BCP to the City Commission. Based on the evaluation of said criteria and findings by the Planning staff
and Planning Board APPROVAL of the growth policy is recommended.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment has been received on either item as of this writing.
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Board resolution P-07006a
Planning Board minutes of public hearing and recommendation on June 2, 2009
The draft document was provided to the Commission and public several weeks ago and is not an attachment to this report
cc: file
293