HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Commission Meeting of Bozeman, Montana Agenda Packet 2008-01-28 18-00THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
AGENDA
Monday, January 28, 2008
A. Call to Order – 6:00 pm – Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311
West Main Street
B. Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence
C. Public Service Announcement - Snow Plowing Procedures (Van Delinder)
D. Consent
1. Authorize Payment of Claims (LaMeres)
2. Authorize Mayor to sign the Bozeman Certified Local Government (CLG)
Grant Application for 2008-2009 (Bristor)
3. Approve Sub-Committee Appointments of Crs. Bryson and Krauss to
review Depository Bonds and Pledged Securities through December 31,
2007 (Clark)
4. Finally adopt Ordinance No. 1737, Amending the Bozeman Municipal
Code by Revising Section 2.04.040F, Providing for the Setting of Time
and Location for Policy Meetings by Resolution (Kukulski)
*Consider a motion approving Consent items 1-4 as listed above.
E. Public Comment - Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice
for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling
within the purview of the Bozeman City Commission. There will also be an
opportunity in conjunction with each agenda item for comments pertaining to that
item. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
F. Action Items
1. Vandalism and Graffiti in the City of Bozeman (Fontenot)
*Consider the presentations from the Bozeman Police, Parks, Facilities, and
Neighborhoods departments.
AND
* Consider creating and staffing a Vandalism and Graffiti Task Force consisting of one
staff liaison, one representative of the Downtown Partnership, one representative of the
Bozeman Police Department, one representative of the local business community, one
representative of the INC, and one representative of the Bozeman School District to
1
1
direct and perform public outreach and education, study possible mitigation measures
and long-term solutions, and make future recommendations to the City Commission.
AND
*Consider authorizing departmental allocation of funds through the appropriate
budgetary process to create and implement an aggressive, city-wide program focusing on
deterrents such as cameras and/or the planting of appropriate shrubbery and the
purchase of supplies and materials to aid in rapid abatement of vandalism and graffiti in
and on public property.
2. Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) Project
Presentation and Discussion, opened and continued from January 22,
2008 (Murray)
*Consider the presentation and discussion regarding the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan (2007 Update).
AND
*Consider a motion directing staff to bring back a Unified Development Ordinance
amendment to 18.44.060 D. Level of Service Standards.
3. West Babcock Park Master Plan (White)
*Consider a motion approving the West Babcock Park Master Plan as proposed by
Bozeman Baseball Incorporated.
4. East Gallatin Recreation Area Master Plan (Dingman)
*Consider a motion approving the East Gallatin Recreation Area Master Plan as
proposed by the Bozeman Sunrise Rotary Club for the East Gallatin Park Recreational
Area.
5. Meadow Creek Subdivision Payback Agreement for Water Improvements,
Traffic Signal Improvements, and Sanitary Sewer Improvements (Murray)
*Consider a motion authorizing the City Manager to sign the Meadow Creek Subdivision
Payback Agreement for Water Improvements and Traffic Signal Improvements as
proposed and to sign the revised Sanitary Sewer Improvements to include the entire
drainage zone in the district.
6. Consideration of Reclaiming Review Authority of the Greek Way
Apartments Site Plan Application #Z-07270 (Krueger)
*Consider a motion reclaiming review authority of the Greek Way Apartments Site Plan
2
2
Application #Z-07270.
7. Alternative Energy Systems Presentation (Knight)
*Consider the presentation and make suggestions as needed.
AND
*Consider directing staff to continue working towards the City of Bozeman adopting
standards and/or programs for such energy systems.
8. (Re)Appointments to the Wetlands Review Board (Delaney)
*Consider a motion (re)appointing up to three members to the Wetlands Review Board.
9. (Re)Appointments to the Cemetery Advisory Board (Delaney)
*Consider a motion (re)appointing up to three members to the Cemetery Advisory Board.
10. Appointments to the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board
(Delaney)
*Consider a motion appointing up to three members to the Bozeman Historic
Preservation Advisory Board.
11. Selection of Commissioner Liaisons to Boards and Appointment of
Commissioner Voting Members to Boards (Delaney)
*Consider a motion selecting and confirming which Commissioner will be the liaison to
each of the boards, voting on any that have two interested Commissioners.
AND
*Consider a motion appointing a voting Commissioner member(s) to the Audit
Committee (2), Local Water Quality District Board, Prospera Business Network
Revolving Loan Fund Committee, and the Public Transit Stakeholders’ Advisory Board.
G. FYI/Discussion
H. Adjournment
City Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (TDD 582-2301).
Please note that agenda submissions must be received by the City Manager the Wednesday before the
Commission Meeting. For further information please see the City of Bozeman webpage at
www.bozeman.net.
Monday Commission meetings are televised live on cable channel twenty. Repeats are aired at 5 pm on
Wednesday and Friday and 1 pm on Sunday.
3
3
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian LaMeres, City Controller and
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
BACKGROUND: Section 7-6-4301 MCA states that no claim may be paid by the City until that
claim has been first presented to the City Commission. Claims presented to the City Commission have
been reviewed by the Finance Department to ensure that all proper supporting documentation has been
submitted, all required departmental authorized signatures are present, and that the account coding is
correct.
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission approve the claims for payment.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The total amount of the claims to be paid is presented at the bottom of the
Expenditure Approval List.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian LaMeres, City Controller
Approved by:
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Report compiled January 23, 2008
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Laurae Clark, Treasurer and
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Appointment of Sub-Committee to Review Pledged Securities
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
BACKGROUND: Section 7-6-207 (2) MCA requires the City Commission to approve
pledged securities on at least a quarterly basis. Two commissioners will be appointed quarterly
on a rotating basis.
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the appointment of Commissioner Bryson &
Commissioner Krauss to review the depository bonds and pledged securities as of December 31,
2007.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ ____________________________
Laurae Clark, Treasurer Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: None
16
DEPOSITORY BONDS AND SECURITIES
December 31, 2007
RATE MATURITY RECEIPT NO. TOTAL AMOUNT
FIRST SECURITY BANK
Repurchase Agreement Account
Federal Home Loan Bank 5.020% 03/28/2012 462008414 $ 1,680,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank 5.000% 11/05/2014 393069550 $ 2,000,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank 6.030% 05/07/2008 341000117 $ 800,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank 3.320% 03/30/2009 476001526 $ 1,000,000.00
Sub-Total $ 5,480,000.00
All Other Accounts
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation $ 100,000.00
Federal Home Loan Bank 3.375% 07/21/2008 392017747 1,000,000.00
Sub-Total $ 1,100,000.00
TOTAL - First Security Bank $ 6,580,000.00
This is to certify that we, the Commission of the City of Bozeman, in compliance with the provisions of
Section 7-6-207, M.C.A., have this day certified the receipts of the First Security Bank, for the Depository
Bonds held by the Director of Finance as security, for the deposit for the City of Bozeman funds as of
December 31, 2007, by the banks of Bozeman and approve and accept the same.
_____________________________________________
KAAREN JACOBSON, Mayor
_______________________________________ _______________________________________
SEAN BECKER, Commissioner ERIC BRYSON, Commissioner
_______________________________________ _______________________________________
JEFFREY K. KRAUSS, Commissioner JEFFREY K. RUPP, Commissioner
17
PLEDGED SECURITIES AND CASH IN BANK
All Accounts, including Repurchase Agreement Account
as of
December 31, 2007
___ First Security Bank _______
Repurchase All other
Agreement Accounts Total
Cash on Deposit
at December 31, 2007 $ 4,004,833.66 $ 390,532.48 $ 4,395,366.14
FDIC Coverage $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
Amount Remaining $ 4,004,833.66 $ 290,532.48 $ 4,295,366.14
Pledges required
104% for Repo
50% for all other accts $ 4,165,027.01 $ 145,266.24 $ 4,310,293.25
Actual Amount of Pledges
at December 31, 2007 $ 5,480,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 6,480,000.00
5,480,000.00
Over (Under) Pledged
at December 31, 2007 $ 1,314,972.99 $ 854,733.76 $ 2,169,706.75
REFERENCE: Section 7-6-207, M.C.A.
18
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Final adoption of Ordinance No. 1737, Amending The Bozeman
Municipal Code by Revising Section 2.04.040F, Providing for the Setting
of Time and Location for Policy Meetings by Resolution.
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Finally adopt Ordinance No. 1737, Amending The Bozeman
Municipal Code By Revising Section 2.04.040F, Providing for the Setting
of Time and Location for Policy Meetings by Resolution.
BACKGROUND: On Monday, January 14, 2008 the Commission provisionally approved the
proposed language amending the language within Ordinance No. 1727 regarding Section
2.04.040, F. Policy Meetings, striking “The Commission may hold a policy meeting on the
second and fourth Thursday of the month. The policy meetings shall be held in the City
Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 411 East Main Street Bozeman, Montana from 12:30
P.M. to 2:00 P.M. or other time designated by the Commission”, and replacing the statement
with “The Commission may periodically hold Policy Meetings. The frequency, time, and location
of such will be determined by the Commission as set forth in resolution”.
FISCAL EFFECTS: No impacts were identified.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
19
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 1737
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN, MONTANA PROVIDING THAT THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL
CODE BE AMENDED BY REVISING SECTION 2.04.040F OF SAID CODE;
PROVIDING FOR THE SETTING OF TIME AND LOCATION FOR POLICY
MEETINGS BY RESOLUTION.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana:
Section 1
That Section 2.04.040F of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that Bozeman Municipal
Code Section 2.04.040F shall read:
“ F. Policy Meetings: The Commission may hold a policy meeting on the second and fourth Thursday
of the month. The policy meetings shall be held in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 411 East
Main Street, Bozeman, Montana from 12:30 P.M. to 2:00 P.M or other time designated by Commission.
The Commission may periodically hold Policy Meetings. The frequency, time, and location of such will be
determined by the Commission as set forth in resolution. Policy meetings provide an informal setting for
discussion of policy issues for which no formal action is immediately required. At the Commission’s
discretion, public comment may be received during the policy meeting. The Commission is not bound by
Robert's Rules of Order during policy sessions.”
Section 2
Repealer
All resolutions, ordinances and sections of the Bozeman Municipal Code and parts thereof in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 3
Savings Provision
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred or
proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 4
Severability
If any portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this ordinance which may be given effect without
the invalid provisions or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be
severable.
Section 5
20
- 2 -
Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, on first reading at a regular
session thereof held on the 14th day of January, 2008.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the _________ day of _____ 2008.
__________________________________________
KAAREN JACOBSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
STACY ULMEN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
PAUL J. LUWE
City Attorney
21
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brit Fontenot, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Vandalism and Graffiti in the City of Bozeman
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) Listen to brief presentations regarding vandalism and graffiti from the following staff
perspectives:
a) Bozeman Police Department
b) Parks
c) Facilities
d) Neighborhoods
(2) Consider creating and staffing a Vandalism and Graffiti Task Force consisting of one
staff liaison, one representative of the Downtown Partnership, one representative of the
Bozeman Police Department, one representative of the local business community, one
representative of the INC and one representative of the Bozeman School District to direct
and perform public outreach and education, study possible mitigation measures and long-
term solutions and make future recommendations to the City Commission.
(3) Consider authorizing departmental allocation of funds through the appropriate
budgetary process to create and implement an aggressive, city-wide program focusing on
deterrents such as cameras and/or the planting of appropriate shrubbery and the purchase
of supplies and materials to aid in rapid abatement of vandalism and graffiti in and on
public property.
BACKGROUND:
Vandalism and graffiti continue to cost the taxpayers of Bozeman thousands of dollars a
year in repair, abatement costs and FTE time spent repairing, repainting and cleaning public
property. Unabated vandalism and graffiti sends a message that the community is not concerned
about the appearance of its business districts and neighborhoods. These acts generate
neighborhood fear and instability, signal an increase in crime, lower property values, hurt
business revenue, are economically detrimental to the City, and are signs of urban decay.
In an effort to educate and increase public awareness and support, staff has conducted at
least two public service announcements on the effects of vandalism and graffiti in the City of
22
2
Bozeman. Additionally, the City has partnered with the Gallatin Association of Realtors (GAR)
to increase exposure and outreach. In the summer of 2007, GAR launched a two-week property
crime awareness program which included the production of two, 30-second radio public service
announcements designed to raise awareness of this problem. In the spring of 2008, the
Downtown Bozeman Partnership will launch a new program called the Downtown Bozeman
Graffiti Removal Project to address the growing problem of vandalism, tagging, and graffiti in
the Downtown area. Graffiti removal programs have been successfully adopted everywhere
from New York City to Portland to Billings.
The National Crime Prevention Council reports that studies have determined that if
vandalism and graffiti is repaired or removed within 24 – 48 hours, there is little recurrence.
This early removal will prevent vandals from receiving the recognition they desire. By repairing
vandalism and covering graffiti as soon as possible, the vandal is deprived of the effort and time
it took to vandalize or tag property.
The Commission has stated, on numerous occasions, that vandalism and graffiti is
unacceptable. Through Commission action and commitment to programs focused on deterrent
and abatement as well as information, education and outreach the Commission delivers the
community-wide message that “vandalism and graffiti will not be tolerated in our City”.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Currently undetermined.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________ ____________________________
Brit Fontenot, Assistant to the City Manager Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
23
Entire drinking fountain at Bozeman pond was knockedoff the wall. The repairrequired retrofitting newpipes which was very costly.Vault vandalismat East Gallatin Recreation Area24
Here’s an example of what happens in our City’s parks on a regular basis.Vandals set the East Gallatin Park vault toilets on fire 4 times last summer. The last time vandals struck, the heat generated from the firemelted the toilet.25
26
27
28
29
Downtown Bozeman Graffiti Removal Project
Downtown Business Improvement District
Bozeman Montana
Statement of Objective
Bozeman is fortunate to have a very vital downtown area, something that seems
increasingly rare on the American urban landscape. The rising level of graffiti
vandalism in our downtown is an eyesore that threatens the vivacity of downtown and is
an affront to our entire community. A recent survey counted over 180 separate tags in
the downtown district. The downtown Bozeman graffiti removal project will eliminate the
existing graphic vandalism afflicting the historic district in a concerted weekend-long
community effort.
This graffiti removal project will also serve as the catalyst for the Business
Improvement District’s new Graffiti Removal Program, an annually funded program that
will clean-up all reoccurring vandalism free of charge. The annual program, beginning
in 2008, will operate on the premise that prompt removal of graffiti is the most effective
deterrent.
Description
The majority of the graffiti in downtown Bozeman exists in the alleyways
paralleling historic Main Street. Recently, some vandals have tagged the front of Main
Street buildings—a disturbing trend. Some instances of graffiti are located on the
second level exterior walls of buildings.
- 1 -
30
The downtown Bozeman graffiti removal project will dispel the current paradigm
that graffiti is apathetically accepted in downtown Bozeman. The project will set a new
standard that graphic vandalism will no longer be tolerated, and therefore,
systematically removed. This message will be well publicized serving as a part of a
larger community education effort.
The primary activities of the grant-supported removal project will include: 1) a
massive clean-up of existing graffiti from a variety of surfaces; 2) a paint-brush mural on
one of Bozeman’s historic buildings; and 3) a media campaign publicizing the graffiti
problem and removal project.
If awarded, the grant monies will primarily fund the purchase of materials
including painting supplies, graffiti cleaning products, and the rental of several pressure
washers. The grant would also support any costs associated with advertising the
project, although in-kind publicity will be requested.
Partnerships
The downtown Bozeman Business Improvement District (BID) will be the primary
project sponsor. The BID represents the interests of over 150 downtown property
owners whose buildings have been vandalized and therefore, enthusiastically support
this effort. The BID will seek partnerships with the Montana Conservation Corps and
AmeriCorps as the community-base volunteer component of the project. Another
exciting partnership will be with Artsplot, an artistic workshop that administers an
extensive K-12 art program which would allow the project to involve children of all ages.
The project’s government partner will be the City of Bozeman, in particular the
- 2 -
31
Department of Planning and Community Development, which will provide a wide-range
of assistance.
Measurement
Digital photos will be taken before and after the removal of each tag to document
the project. Subsequent photo documentation will be taken every three months
throughout the downtown district.
A comprehensive graffiti removal log will document reoccurrences ultimately identifying
problem areas. The log will record the number and location of tags, the types of
surfaces damaged, the methods of removal, and the hours of labor invested.
Communications
The downtown Bozeman graffiti removal project will be featured in numerous
print publications including: The Bozeman Daily Chronicle (daily circulation 16,000), the
Tributary (area alternative paper with a monthly distribution of 7,000 copies), the Big
Sky Sun newspaper (weekly circulation 6,000). The project will also be publicized in the
Downtown Bozeman Partnership newsletter which is sent to over 500 members of the
community.
- 3 -
32
EXAMPLES OF GRAFFITI IN DOWNTOWN BOZEMAN MONTANA
Multiple-layer of spray paint on brick buildings along an alley
- 4 -
33
Typical marker and spray paint tags on metal surfaces in Downtown Bozeman
Spray paint tag on concrete surface
- 5 -
34
Extensive graffiti on concrete walls of underground parking level
- 6 -
35
Downtown Bozeman Partnership
Business Improvement District
GRAFFITI REMOVAL PROGRAM
The Graffiti Removal Program is a new initiative of the downtown Business Improvement District
[BID] to address the growing problem of vandalism, tagging, and graffiti. Preventing vandalism
is difficult at best. The costs associated with patrolling downtown or instituting sophisticated
surveillance systems are prohibitive and quite often ineffective. Graffiti removal programs have
been successfully adopted everywhere from New York City to Portland to Billings.
Initially, the BID Graffiti Removal Project will concentrate on cleaning the existing
tags during an organized comprehensive graffiti cleaning event tentatively scheduled for
late April or early May of 2008.
Once the initial clean-up has been completed, property owners, merchants, and residents may
submit a Graffiti Removal Request Form or call the Downtown Bozeman Partnership at 586-
4008 to report new graffiti on their property. The graffiti removal service will be performed by
the BID Graffiti Removal Team at no charge within the Business Improvement District. If a
particular location is frequently targeted by taggers, the BID encourages property owners,
merchants, and residents to remove the graffiti themselves.
Possible volunteer resources: members of the downtown community (for the continual small
jobs), MSU groups (planned medium sized jobs), Montana Conservation Corps (for a large-
scale initial clean-up effort).
The most effective way to prevent graffiti is to remove it promptly. While this may be difficult,
studies show that removal within 24 to 48 hours results in a nearly zero rate of reoccurrence.
All vandalism should be cleaned or covered as soon as possible for several reasons:
• Most types of paint and ink are easier to remove when it is fresh.
• Immediate removal provides the vandal with little to no exposure time.
• While true that the vandalism may reoccur if provided with a clean slate, the constant
cost of supplies and risk posed by re-tagging is an important deterrent.
Depending on the type of structure, there are generally three methods of removing graffiti:
• For painted cinderblock and concrete walls the team will use paint and try to match
the existing color as closely as possible.
• High-pressure water will be used to clean unpainted porous surfaces such as brick,
curbs, sidewalks, and cinderblock.
• Chemical removal is used on metal surfaces such as light poles, street signs, traffic
control boxes and utility boxes.
Graffiti removal work will be done by the BID maintenance staff and volunteers. The BID owns
a high-pressure power washer. Supplies [paint, brushes, rollers, solvents, rags] will be provided
by the BID and through donations by downtown businesses.
36
Detailed Graffiti Treatment Guidelines
Metal Surfaces:
• With a rag, emove graffiti with any common paint thinner (ex: mineral spirits, lacquer
thinner, acetone), or try graffiti removal products such as "Goof Off." Sometimes wiping
the graffiti with light penetrating oil such as "WD-40" or "Three-in-One" will remove it.
o Always read product labels and follow all manufacturer instructions and
recommendations. Most of the products identified above are flammable. It is
recommended that each product is tested on a small, conspicuous spot.
• If graffiti remains, try to remove it by rubbing with steel or bronze wool, or light
sandpaper.
• If graffiti still remains, try power-washing it with a 3000psi pressure washer.
• If none of these methods work, paint over the graffiti.
Masonry Surfaces:
• The best option for this type of surface is to power-wash the graffiti with a 3000psi-
pressure washer. Use a tip that will deliver a fan angle of 15-50 degrees.
• Sand-blasting is another removal option. As with pressure washing, be careful not to
allow the sandblasting tip to remain in one spot too long as it can permanently scar the
surface. Keep the tip moving over the painted area and the surrounding area so as to
blend in the entire surface.
• If power-washing or sand-blasting does not remove the graffiti, the next best option is to
paint over the graffiti.
Glass Surfaces:
• The best method for removing painted graffiti from glass is to use a razor blade to
carefully scrape it off. This method is 99% effective. Use the razor blade in a holder and
scrape at a 30-degree angle to the glass.
• If the paint does not come completely off after using the razor blade, use ultra-fine bronze
wool with water to gently rub the remaining paint off.
• You can use paint thinners on glass, however the razor blade method is much quicker
and more environmentally friendly.
Wood Surfaces:
• If the wood is not weathered and is sealed with paint, stain or sealer, try to remove it by
wiping it with mineral spirits. If the wood is weathered or untreated, do not use this
technique, as the mineral spirits will be absorbed by the wood, driving the paint further
down into the wood.
• Power washing with a 3000psi pressure washer can be used, however, proceed carefully
to make sure the pressure is not driving the paint deeper into the wood grain.
• If these methods do not work, sand the wood and re-paint or simply paint over the graffiti.
37
Plastic Surfaces:
• Try wiping graffiti with a light, penetrating oil such as "WD-40" or "Three-in-One." Do not
use paint thinners as they can soften the plastic and can cause clouding (if clear plastic)
or permanent tackiness of the surface.
• Sometimes a light rubbing with ultra-fine steel or bronze wool will remove the paint.
• If these methods don not remove the graffiti, paint over it.
Possible material and supplies sources:
Charlie Finch
Charlie’s Healthie Paints 209-1919
Charlie is putting a “green” protective coat over the Heeb’s mural and supplying Heebs with
“green” graffiti cleaning supplies
Urban Restoration Group
“World’s Best Graffiti Removal System” www.graffitiremovers.biz
Adam Kopcho 805-969-2688
For additional information:
Graffiti Hurts www.graffitihurts.org/community_resources/removal.cfm
National Park Service Graffiti removal guide www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief38.htm
Downtown Business Improvement District
Chris Naumann, Executive Director
224 East Main Street
Bozeman MT 59715
406-586-4008
38
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Bob Murray, Project Engineer
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) – Project
Presentation and Discussion
MEETING DATE: January 22, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Listen to presentation; ask questions for clarification, discussion.
Motion and vote to direct staff to bring back a UDO amendment to 18.44.060.D Level of Service
Standards.
BACKGROUND: Jeff Key from Robert Peccia & Associates will be present to discuss the
“Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update)” project. The purpose of the
presentation is twofold. First, it will serve as the second of four scheduled meetings before the
commission to provide and update on the overall project. Progress to date will be discussed as
well as the future activities that are planned. The second issue to be discussed is the current and
proposed level of service standards to be used in the plan, as well as for future developments.
Currently the City and State have different standards for acceptable level of service at
intersections. This has created conflicts between the two agencies when looking at new
development proposals. This issue was discussed at the December meeting of the TCC, and
although there was not a quarum present, the recommendation was for the Plan to utilize the
MDT standard. If the commission decides to change the City standard to match that of MDT,
then a UDO amendment will be necessary.
FISCAL EFFECTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: None
110339
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ ____________________________
Robert J. Murray Jr., Project Engineer Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Presentation Materials
Report compiled on 1/15/2008
110440
1/15/2008 1
Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan
(2007 Update)
Bozeman City Commission
Project Update
January 22nd, 2008
Bozeman City Commission
Project Update
January 22nd, 2008
110541
1/15/2008 2
Today’s Meeting Goal
Give the City Commission a general project update
Review some of the items that are
being discussed at the TCC level
Discuss level of service definitions and criteria currently in effect in the planning area
Discuss next steps
110642
1/15/2008 3
General Project Update
Project is going well and is on
schedule
Presently a little over half way
through the contract.
{First third –data collection & outreach
{Second third –analysis & traffic modeling
{Remaining third –recommendations
development & additional outreach
Have held 10 TCC meetings
(monthly) with 8 remaining
Have held two formal public meetings
{Meeting 1 (06/27/07) –65 citizens
{Meeting 2 (11/28/07) –70 citizens
Have held over twenty (20) “other”
outreach activities to date
110743
1/15/2008 4
Some Issues Brought about at
TCC Level
Complete Street Policy
Context Sensitive Design
A true “multi-modal”Transportation
Plan
Desire for a mix of Transportation System Management (TSM) and Major Street Network (MSN) projects that can be implemented going forward
Identify and incorporate roundabouts, at select intersections, as a form of intersection traffic control
Desire to identify alternate and/or parallel routes to some congested facilities
Further review and/or definition of
“level of service”standards
110844
1/15/2008 5
Level of Service -Defined
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure developed by the transportation profession to quantify driver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles.
It provides a scale that is intended to match the perception by motorists of the operation of the intersection.
Level of service provides a means for identifying intersections that are experiencing operational difficulties, as well as providing a scale to compare intersections with each other.
The level of service scale represents the full range of operating conditions. The scale is based on the ability of an intersection or street segment to accommodate the amount of traffic using it.
The scale ranges from “A”which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to “F”which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion.
110945
1/15/2008 6
Level of Service
(Signalized Intersections)
111046
1/15/2008 7
Level of Service
(Unsignalized Intersections)
111147
1/15/2008 8
Level of Service
(Graphic Portrayal)
111248
1/15/2008 9
Level of Service
(Graphic Portrayal)
111349
1/15/2008 10
MDT LOS Criteria
MDT Traffic Engineering Manual (Figure 30.2B)
111450
1/15/2008 11
Gallatin County LOS Criteria
Gallatin County does not have a formal LOS standard as part of their Subdivision Regulations and/or adopted Growth Policy
Gallatin County uses its discretion on a
case-by-case basis to decide what an
acceptable level of service would be.
111551
1/15/2008 12
City of Bozeman LOS Criteria
Defined by the Unified Development
Ordinance
“Streets and intersection level of service “C”shall be
the design and operational objective, and under no conditions will less than level of service “D”be accepted. All arterial and collector streets, and movements on intersection approach legs designated as arterial or collector streets, shall operate at a minimum level of service “C”. The design year for necessary improvements shall be a minimum of fifteen years following construction of said improvements.”
111652
1/15/2008 13
City of Bozeman LOS Criteria
Current application of the UDO
Scenario 1
Existing intersection operation is a LOS D and
development traffic impact continues the LOS at a D
then------no mitigation is being required.
Scenario 2
Post-development analysis shows intersection
operations to fall below LOS D, then------intersection
mitigation (i.e. improvements) must achieve a LOS
of C over the next fifteen years.
So what is the issue?
111753
1/15/2008 14
LOS Needed Discussion
Different jurisdictions have different approaches to
level of service
Can the Transportation Plan provide a consistent
approach to level of service that can accommodate
every jurisdictions operational objectives?
Apply level of service criteria to the intersections as
a whole? Or apply to individual turning
movements?
What is acceptable should be defined in the
Transportation Plan.
Should the LOS criteria be a LOS C or better for the
intersection as a whole, with the allowance that some
individual turning movements can be worse than a
LOS C?
111854
1/15/2008 15
Conclusion/Next Steps
We are just now defining different modeling
scenarios to assess their value
Will begin the “typical section”discussion over the next two months
Start developing the Transportation Plan recommendations
{Policy level
{Facilities (Road, intersections, non-motorized)
{Programs
{Etc.
Will start outreach activities again
Will be working towards a preliminary
recommendations “technical
memorandum”for review by the TCC and
in anticipation of the third public meeting
{Shooting for late March/early April
Questions?
111955
GREATER BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN
(2007 UPDATE)
Public Informational Meeting Number 2
November 28, 2007
Meeting Summary
The second public open house informational meeting for the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan (2007 Update) was held on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 in the Bozeman High School
Cafeteria at 205 North 11th Avenue. The meeting took place between 6:30 and 9:00 p.m. and
included a PowerPoint presentation beginning at approximately 6:40 p.m.
The meeting was attended by the following agency and Consultant Team members:
Debbie Arkell City of Bozeman
J.P. Pomnichowski Bozeman Transportation Coordinating Committee
Chris Scott Gallatin County
Rob Bukvich MDT Bozeman
Carol Strizich MDT Helena
Al Vander Wey MDT Helena
Jeff Key Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena)
Scott Randall Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA - Helena)
An estimated 70 people attended the meeting. Forty-six (46) people signed the attendance sheets for
the meeting, although others joined the meeting as it progressed. Copies of the sign-in sheets from
the meeting are on file with RPA.
Meeting Purposes
The purposes of the public meeting were to:
• Review the project status and schedule for the Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan
(2007 Update).
• Review the transportation system “existing conditions”.
• Review the non-motorized survey highlights.
• Review land use forecasting and socioeconomics.
• Have a general discussion about the project with those in attendance.
Meeting Presentation
Jeff Key of RPA began the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Mr. Key used a PowerPoint presentation to present
project information. The presentation began with a review of the project status and schedule. A
graphic of the project schedule was shown and discussed. A review of the transportation system
“existing conditions” followed with separate discussions for the motorized and non-motorized
portions. Graphics from the existing conditions memo were presented and discussed. Graphics for
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) 1 of 6
Summary of Public Meeting No. 2 – November 28, 2007
112056
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) 2 of 6
Summary of Public Meeting No. 2 – November 28, 2007
motorized transportation were shown for traffic volumes, corridor size, intersection operation and
crash statistics. The non-motorized system was discussed with graphics shown for the bicycle
network, bicycle collisions, pedestrian facilities, and pedestrian crashes. A very brief review of the
non-motorized survey was given, including a discussion about the results of the survey and specific
comments stemming from the survey. Finally, a review of the land use forecasting and
socioeconomics results and processes were discussed. The presentation lasted about 45 minutes.
Public Comments/Questions
Following the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Key opened up the meeting for general comments and
questions from the audience. The following comments and/or questions were heard during this part
of the meeting:
Does this plan consider the use of impact fees and how they affect where future
businesses locate? Jeff Key explained that it is difficult to analyze how impact fees will
affect business locations because we don’t have the tools necessary to directly asses this issue
via the transportation plan. It was also mentioned that impact fee studies look at the
transportation plan for guidance on future transportation system needs, and as such the plan
serves as the basis/justification for the impact fee assessments.
Does the transportation plan guide development? Mr. Key stated that the plan should
provide the blueprint for transportation in the area, but that it is not a land use plan. It was
explained that the plan should be in general compliance with accepted documents, including
adopted plans such as Growth Policies, Neighborhood Plans, and zoning densities.
Does the study address unnecessary trips or distances due to the lack of development
diversity and options? Mr. Key explained that while mixed land uses are desirable, it is
difficult to analyze the “cause and effect’ relationship of providing complementary land uses
through a regional transportation plan. He also explained that some of the newer and future
developments on the horizon are trying to accomplish the mixed land use development goal.
Does the plan use tools to discourage traffic on certain routes? Mr. Key explained that
there is traffic calming guidance in the plan which can be used to help deter or provide safer
travel on roadways. He also explained that roadways can be designed to discourage traffic if
there is a safe alternative elsewhere.
What is the objective of the plan and how is it used? Mr. Key explained that the
transportation plan is intended to be used on a daily basis by city staff, planners, elected
officials, development community and the public at large. He mentioned that the plan
shows where needed work should happen and when to implement certain actions contained
in the plan in accordance with land use changes. The future roadway classifications and
typical sections defined in the transportation plan are also important. It was also mentioned
that conflicts within the plan should be limited to help ensure a quick adoption process and
to encourage use.
112157
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) 3 of 6
Summary of Public Meeting No. 2 – November 28, 2007
Does the plan address site specific or broad recommendations for non-motorized
improvements? Mr. Key explained that Alta Planning and Design will be making both
policy and specific recommendations for the area under study. He also mentioned that
guidance on how to implement and fund the recommendations will also be within the plan.
What can you do to help city and county cooperate? Mr. Key explained that RPA’s role
with regards to the transportation plan is to develop the plan under guidance of the TCC
and public and to make the plan easy to implement for city and county officials.
Does the plan address interaction concerns between various planning agencies
during construction phases? Simultaneous construction projects can cause
additional traffic congestion during construction. Mr. Key stated that during the
development of the plan, RPA works with the TCC which encourages coordination of
projects and provides opportunities for coordination during the development of the plan.
He also explained that due to the nature of construction in the Bozeman area (i.e. high
growth, short construction season) it is often times difficult to limit the affect that
construction has on traffic. He also said that other communities will be looked at to see if
there is a better way to coordinate construction projects amongst the various jurisdictions
and will try to implement guidance into the plan.
Does the plan address non-motorized funding issues? Mr. Key talked about how the
funding source discussion is the last part of the plan, but that funding historically has always
fallen short. He mentioned that Alta brings a national perspective on non-motorized
funding to the project and may have ideas with regards to innovative funding sources.
How does the plan address maintenance issues on bike lanes? Mr. Key explained that
Alta is addressing this concern and that the standard maintenance guidelines/solutions can
be addressed in the plan.
Is there a list of current planned projects for the Bozeman area? Mr. Key explained
that a preliminary list was provided by the City, County and the MDT, but that changes need
to be made to that list. The revised list may be available at the next TCC meeting.
What is the website for information on the transportation plan? Mr. Key gave
www.rpa-hln.com as the main website for information. It was also mentioned that links
from the city and county websites exist for the project website.
A comment was made with regards to how street sweeping causes unsafe conditions
along bike lanes, especially at choke points, and that the county and city don’t have a
good communication on priority for maintaining bike lanes.
Will the new plan make new recommendation for typical sections or will there be
carried over from the previous plan? Mr. Key stated that the city and county would like
RPA to have fewer typical sections in this plan, and that they need to be revisited. He said
that this issue has not been addressed yet, but it will be visited over the coming months.
112258
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) 4 of 6
Summary of Public Meeting No. 2 – November 28, 2007
There is a state law that says local areas can enact a 2 cent gas tax that has not been
used; could the law be changed so that this could be applied to help with the non-
motorized network? Mr. Key stated that while it is feasible, it would require an advocate to
push a bill through the state.
Are there any alternatives to chip sealing with regards to the unsafe conditions it
causes on bike lanes? Mr. Key said that he would research this issue through Alta, and
that he knows that in Wyoming only the driving lanes are chip sealed (i.e. not the shoulders).
Will overhead lighting recommendation be part of this plan? Mr. Key stated that
lighting on NHS routes must be done in accordance with the national standard set in place.
He also stated that urban areas can have lower impact type lighting and that the city just
passed a “dark skies” ordinance to help reduce lighting in the city, but that the county does
not have guidance. He mentioned that more research needs to be done to help address this
concern, but that the city development ordinance has requirements within the city area.
Has the study area in this plan grown since the last plan? Mr. Key state that the study
area boundary has changed and the current study area boundary is located on the website.
How can more comments be made to RPA? Mr. Key said that the website provided has
a 1-800 number, as well as a link to his e-mail and the city’s e-mail. He also said that
questions concerning bicycles, pedestrians, and transit can be sent to Alta.
Does the plan include more information for motorists about cyclists? Mr. Key stated
that the existing conditions memo that Alta provided does address this, and has suggestions
for additional signage. He also mentioned that the safe routes to schools program addresses
this concern.
Will Alta address the number of people using non-motorized facilities for tax
purposes? Mr. Key said that if Alta has good ideas about how to implement taxes to pay
for non-motorized facilities, that it will be put into the plan. He said that funding sources
will be addressed in the plan.
A comment was made that as a bicyclist, he would be happy to pay a license for his
bike, and that bike licensing is not a new idea and was previously implemented in
the 60’s.
Is there a value to having fewer cars on the road? Mr. Key stated that reductions in
vehicle miles of travel due to recommended network improvement is looked at and is a
criterion for identifying network improvements. He also mentioned that different changes
to the system are tested to see how they affect the system and overall vehicle miles of travel.
A citizen comment was made about how encouraged he was on how much energy
has been put into non-motorized transportation to help reduce vehicle traffic. Mr.
Key stated that while it is important to look at non-motorized transportation, there are still
traffic issues that need to be addressed and that will still exist. He also mentioned that it was
112359
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) 5 of 6
Summary of Public Meeting No. 2 – November 28, 2007
a requirement set forth by the city, county and MDT to have an expert on board with this
project to assist with the non-motorized aspects of the transportation system.
How does mass transit figure into the transportation plan? Mr. Key said that he has
spoken with the board of directors for Stream Line Transit, and that they do a yearly
coordination plan for the transit system. He said that RPA has a good handle on the routes
and timing of the transit system and that the route system will not be revisited. Stream Line
contracts with an engineer with specialty in transit systems (Current Transportation
Solutions) and that dialogue with that entity has been occurring on this transportation plan
development.
A comment was made about needing a coordination plan for Streamline for people
who have equipment like bikes, and/or ski equipment. Mr. Key stated that Bridger
Bowl does have a shuttle service that accommodates people going skiing or working at
Bridger Bowl and that it coordinates with employees hours, vacation times for kids, and with
Streamline.
A comment was made about how if people are afraid to bike, and bike sales are
increasing (which indicates more people want to bike), then the plan isn’t working.
Mr. Key said that people not biking isn’t only about being scared, but that it is about safety,
timing, distance, and other factors. He also mentioned that Missoula is often looked at as
having a great bike/ped system, but that the “being scared” comment is still heard there as
well.
A comment was made by Jeff Key that the third public meeting will include Alta
Planning and Design, and will include workstations to promote continued
interaction between the public and the Consultant team.
The meeting concluded at about 9:00 p.m.
Other Comments Made After the Meeting
Gooch Hill Road / US 191: This is a “tee” intersection. There are grade issues on Gooch
Hill Road as it ties into US 191. Also, a southbound left-turn is needed, but it may create
issues with the northbound lane.
There should be some language in the plan that discusses the health benefits of non-
motorized travel, and the dire conditions of our nations youths regarding obesity and
inactivity. Maybe tie it into the Safe Routes to School (SRST) work that ALTA is doing?
The Gallatin Gateway community has brainstormed on very modest, though realistic traffic
concerns and needs as part of their community planning forum. They will summarize and
mail to Jeff and/or Warren Vaughn.
112460
Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007 Update) 6 of 6
Summary of Public Meeting No. 2 – November 28, 2007
The downtown “one-ways” are not needed. This is a golden opportunity to revitalize the
downtown with aggressive land use visioning and changes. This can start with the roadways.
Why not remove one of the lanes on the two-lane one-way and install a protected diagonal
parking area. There is more than enough capacity with one single one-way lane. Then,
redevelopment can occur with friendlier streetscape, good parking, and appropriate scale to
the downtown.
Meeting summary prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc.
F:\TRANS\BOZEMAN\Minutes\Public_mtg_2_minutes.doc
112561
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Thom White, Park and Cemetery Superintendent
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: W. Babcock/ Aashiem fields Master Plan
MEETING DATE: January, 28, 2008
BACKGROUND: Proposed master plan brought forth by Bozeman Baseball Inc., to add four
small baseball fields and a concession/restroom facility to the park. The Recreation and Parks
Advisory Board (RPAB) on December 13, 2007, recommended that the proposal be
recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission approves the West Babcock
Master Plan as proposed.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The City’s Park Division’s already maintains the park. Bozeman Baseball
is proposing 100% financing of the project, with possible help from the City’s Park Improvement
Grant program. (PIG)
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ ___________________________
Thom White, Park and Cemetery Superintendent Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
62
Attachments:
Report compiled on :
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Thom White, Park and Cemetery Superintendent
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: East Gallatin Master Plan
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
BACKGROUND: Master Plan proposal brought forth by the Bozeman Sunrise Rotary Club for
the East Gallatin Park Recreational area. On December 13, 2007 the proposed plan was
recommended for approval by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board. (RPAB)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission approves the plan as
proposed.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Currently City maintained, with the proposed infrastructure improvements
funded primarily by Bozeman Sunrise Rotary Club. Supplemental money may be available
through the Park Improvement Grant (PIG) program.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ ____________________________
Ron Dingman, Park and Recreation Superintendent Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments:
Report compiled on :
72
East Gallatin Park
Master Plan
Bozeman, Montana June 2006
Prepared for:
Bozeman Recreation and Park Advisory Board
Initial Draft Prepared by:
Alex Hallenius and Doug Chandler
Allied Engineering Services, Inc.
(406) 582-0221
74
History
East Gallatin Park is located along Manley Road, in the northern portion of the City of Bozeman.
The core land for the park was donated by the late Glen Hash, a long-time resident of Gallatin
County, and founder of Bozeman Sand and Gravel. The current lake was once a gravel pit, and
the land surrounding the lake includes a reclaimed
borrow area and the capped City of Bozeman landfill
on the North. The site was initially adopted by a
small group of volunteers and was later adopted by
the Bozeman Sunrise Rotary Club as a club project.
The Bozeman Sunrise Rotary has made numerous
improvements to the site since that date including
several shelters, beach grading and retaining wall,
trail work including a boardwalk across wetlands, and
this park master plan to guide future projects.
Present Condition and Needs
Figure 1 is an aerial map of the park area, which shows the existing layout, in addition to the
network of trails surrounding the park. The park presently has three small picnic shelters, one
large pavilion, two vault-type toilets, two volleyball courts, horseshoe pits, a handicap-accessible
fishing dock, and a gravel parking area. In addition, the park has approximately 400 linear feet of
sandy beach, with a retaining wall to separate the grassy areas from the beach. Approximately
3.2 miles of Gallatin Valley Land Trust trails are immediately accessible from the park, with
future expansion destined to link the park to the valley-wide “Main Street to the Mountains”
Trail System.
Visitors to the park enjoy vistas of the Bridger Mountain Range to the North and East, as well as
distant views of the Gallatin, Madison, and Tobacco Root Ranges to the South and West.
Although the park borders industrial areas to the
South and West, the East Gallatin River lies to
the to the North and East, and the North side of
the park borders agricultural and residential
lands.
Park visitors are as varied as Gallatin Valley’s
residents. A summer afternoon or evening often
plays host to volleyball games, barbecues,
school or company picnics, fishing, sunbathing,
swimming, boating, or a stroll around the lake.
75
As the seasons change, so do recreational activities. East Gallatin Park is a wintertime favorite
for ice-skating, and die-hard fishermen and women can be spotted virtually year-round.
Although the City presently doesn’t control ice access or monitor the ice thickness or safety, the
pond is well- used in the winter by skaters and ice fishers. This plan recommends that the
bathrooms be constructed for year-round use and include a changing room/warming hut. This
plan acknowledges some liability and management issues go along with this approach, but
suggest that the issues could be addressed in worst case by locking and closing the restrooms for
winter if necessary.
Although East Gallatin Park serves thousands of visitors each year, park facilities are primitive
compared to the rest of the city’s parks. There is currently no drinking water service or sewer
service available and parking during the busiest times (summer afternoons) can be limited.
Gravel roads mean that dust is always a concern during the hot summer months, and poor site
drainage leaves pools of water in the middle of the parking lot. In the winter, ice-skaters are
literally left out in the cold with no place to warm up and be sheltered from the wind.
In order to bring East Gallatin Park closer to its full potential as a significant focal point of the
community, the following priorities, listed in no particular order, have been identified:
• Provide water and sewer service to the park with drinking water and flush toilets.
• Provide a changing room with potential for year-round use.
• Expand existing beach area to accommodate more visitors.
• Provide more grass/landscape area between the parking lot and the existing shelters.
• Provide a shallow wading area of the pond with a defined (boulder) boundary.
• Provide a landscaped (shady) and grassy terrace between the rest room and the beach.
• Provide a toboggan hill/berm.
• Provide volleyball courts with berms for ball containment and spectators.
• Provide a large, new pavilion on the east side of the park.
• Update the park with more landscaping.
• Develop paved roads and parking.
• Encourage use of the extensive Gallatin Valley trail system by providing a link to the
“Main Street to the Mountains” Trail Network.
• Ensure that the park maintains its identity as a community-supported, family-oriented
recreational area.
76
Master Plan Recommendations
The Park Master Plan overlaid on an aerial photo of the existing park is shown in Figure 2. The
proposed changes to the park will meet the priorities listed above, and allow the park to function
as a better planned, more beautiful, more accessible community space. Landscaping will
specified at a later date, and will be designed to add to the natural beauty of the park. Figure 3
provides the same master plan without the air photo base.
Another important aspect of the park is its integration with the local Trail Network. Figure 1
shows the existing trail system, along with the proposed connection to the “Main Street to the
Mountains” Trail Network. By adding only a few hundred feet of trails, East Gallatin Park can be
linked by walking or biking path to the City of Bozeman, Montana State University, and the
Bridger Mountain Range trail system.
Project Development
The East Gallatin Park is maintained by the City of Bozeman Parks Department. Development
of planned park features is by cooperative effort between the City of Bozeman and the Bozeman
Sunrise Rotary Club. Early cost estimates to implement the proposed improvements illustrated
in this master plan were on the order of $1,000,000. The Bozeman Sunrise Rotary Club has
successfully completed several major projects using limited club funds, matching grants, and
volunteer labor and in-kind donations by club business people and other local businesses. The
Sunrise Rotary Club has initiated a major, annual fund raising project (Golf in the Dark for East
Gallatin Park) in 2005 and expects to continue the program in 2006. These funds, together with
other private and public in-kind or cash donations, matching grants, etc. are the presently
conceived funding mechanisms for the proposed improvements.
77
The Bozeman Sunrise Rotary Club would like to install water and sewer service and construct a
restroom in the summer of 2006. This would require either expedient approval of this somewhat
brief (conceptual) master plan, or perhaps simply approval of those particular elements (i.e. the
water and sewer services and the restroom location). The timing and even sequence for the
other improvements is not yet decided and would proceed on a funds available basis. Review of
final designs of each major element depicted in this plan would be coordinated between the
Bozeman Sunrise Rotary Club and the City of Bozeman Parks Department.
View to the west of parking/vault toilet. View to the east of parking in foreground
and playground equipment & pavilion back.
View of main parking area with shelters View of existing pavilion
and vault toilet in background. This parking
area would be re-configured to provide more
landscape area between parking and shelters.
78
79
80
81
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Bob Murray, Project Engineer
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Meadow Creek Subdivision
MEETING DATE: 11/28/08
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to sign the water & signal payback
agreements as proposed and sewer payback revised to include the entire
drainage zone in the district.
BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the partially executed water, sewer, and signal
payback agreements for the above referenced project. The proposed
districts are to cover offsite improvements that were installed as part of the
subdivision. In all cases the sizes of the improvements were dictated by
the City’s facility plans and will serve a much lager area than just the
Meadow Creek Subdivision. The signal payback is for signals that were
installed at 19th and Stucky, and 19th and Graf. Engineering staff has
reviewed the proposed boundary and costs for the signal payback and
found it to be acceptable.
Water improvements for the project included the master planned 24”
diameter main on 19th between Kagy and Graf and a 16” main in the
future extensions of 11th and Blackwood were installed to provide a
looped system. Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed boundary
and costs for the water payback and found it to be acceptable.
82
The trunk sewer main improvements were the most extensive of the three.
They included a 24” main in Davis/Fowler from Cattail to Baxter, a 21”
main in Davis/Fowler from Baxter to Oak, a 24” main on Fowler from
Durston to Baxter, a 21” main in Fowler from Baxter to Huffine, a 21”
main in Fowler from Garfield to Stucky, a 27” main in Stucky from
Fowler to 27th, and a 15” main from there into the subdivision.
Engineering staff is recommending a change to this district boundary. As
proposed they have only included the undeveloped properties within the
drainage zone that is defined by the wastewater master plan. Staff’s
recommendation is that the district should include all of the property
within the drainage zone so that the undeveloped property do not have to
carry all of the costs. This would mean that those developed properties
would be sunk costs to the developer.
FISCAL EFFECTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: Disapprove.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ ____________________________
Robert J. Murray Jr., Project Engineer Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Payback Agreements
Report compiled on 1/22/08
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Commission Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Greek Way Apartments Site Plan Application #Z-07270
MEETING DATE: Monday, January 28, 2008 at 6:00 PM.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission consider reclaiming review authority for the
Greek Way Apartments Site Plan Application #Z-07270.
BACKGROUND: The property owner, SAAM Real Estate, Inc. and their representative Prugh
and Lenon Architects, P.C. have submitted a site plan application for Lots 4 & 5 of the Greek
Way Subdivision, also known as 1811 Greek Way, to allow the construction of 27 residential
dwellings (6 fourplex units, one duplex unit, and one manager’s dwelling unit), a community
building, and related site improvements. The site plan application has completed the
Development Review Committee and staff review and is ready for final review and decision.
The standard review authority for the application is the Planning Director.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As requested by Commissioner Rupp and informally affirmed by
four Commissioners at the January 22, 2008 regular Commission Meeting, staff would like to
inquire whether the Commission would like to formally reclaim review authority for the site plan
application per section 18.64.010 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. This section allows that the
Commission may, by an affirmative, simple majority, vote of its members at a regularly
scheduled meeting reclaim to itself the final approval of a development normally subject to the
approval of the Planning Director. The project could be considered on the next available
Commission agenda on February 4, 2008. If the Commission chooses not to reclaim the project
a staff report will be forwarded to the Planning Director.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The Department of Planning is not aware of any fiscal effects for the
proposed development at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please email Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net if you have any questions
prior to the public hearing.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
Report compiled on January 23, 2008
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Martin Knight, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Alternative Energy Systems in Bozeman
MEETING DATE: Monday, January 28th, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department is open to suggestions from the City
Commission. If so desired, the Planning Department is prepared to continue working towards the
City of Bozeman adopting standards and/or programs for such energy systems.
BACKGROUND: With recent increases in energy costs and overall concerns for our climate
gaining momentum, the City of Bozeman has recently had numerous inquires regarding the
installation of Photovoltaic (PV) solar cells, both in residential and commercial districts in the
City. Currently, the City of Bozeman does not have standards that specifically address the use
any such alternative energy systems. Thus, as directed by the City Commission, Planning Staff
has been researching both the use of and regulatory standards for alternative energy systems in
other communities.
This report attempts to outline the technologies of solar and wind energy as they exist today;
discusses the feasibility of utilizing such systems in our community; and, highlights examples of
regulatory standards, incentives, and programs being utilized by a few other communities in our
region.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The Department of Planning is not aware of any unresolved issues
regarding at this time.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Any potential fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Martin Knight at mknight@bozeman.net if you have any
questions.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
131
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ALTERNATIVE ENGERY SYSTEMS
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 1
Item: An overview as to feasibility of utilizing solar and wind energy systems
in the City of Bozeman; The technologies as they exist today; state and
local incentive programs; and examples of regulatory standards and
programs from other communities in the region are discussed.
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, January 28, 2008 at
6 pm, in the Community Room, Gallatin County Courthouse, 311 West
Main Street, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Martin Knight, Planner I
____________________________________________________________________________________
RENEWABLE ENERGY
With the effects of climate change being felt worldwide, the “green” movement as it’s become known has
begun to reach a state of critical mass rather than the “niche for the rich” that it has been in the past. The
effects of a hotter, drier climate, including prolonged droughts, excessive heat waves, reduced snow packs,
increased snowmelts, decreased spring runoffs, altered precipitation patterns, more severe forest and
rangeland fires, widespread forest diseases, and such impacts are being felt throughout Western North
America. A scientific consensus has been reached that increasing emissions of human-caused greenhouse
gases (GHG’s), including carbon dioxide, methane, and other GHG’s that are released into the atmosphere
are directly correlated to the alterations in the Earth’s climate that is being experienced. With the wide
ranging implications of global warming becoming apparent, many individuals and organizations have begun
to explore the utilization of alternative energy systems.
Figure 1: Breakdown of worldwide renewable energy production
Alternative energy systems, also known as renewable energy effectively uses natural resources such as
sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat, which are naturally replenished. Renewable energy
technologies range from solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity, biomass and biofuels for
132
transportation. About 13 percent of the world primary energy comes from renewables, with most of
renewable energy coming from traditional biomass, like wood-burning. Hydropower is the next largest
renewable source, providing 2-3%, and modern technologies like geothermal, wind, solar, and marine
energy together produce less than 1% of total world energy demand. The technical potential for their use
is very large, exceeding all other readily available sources.
While there are many large-scale renewable energy projects, such as hydroelectric and geothermal
power plants, renewable technologies are also suited to small scale applications, sometimes in rural and
remote areas, where cheap and reliable energy is often crucial. For instance, Kenya has the world's
highest household solar ownership rate with roughly 30,000 small (20-100 watt) solar power systems
sold per year. Bozeman is not Kenya; however, climate change concerns coupled with high oil prices
have spurred increased interest in small-scale alternative energy systems. This report will attempt to
outline the technologies as they exist today; discuss the feasibility of utilizing such systems in our
community; and, will highlight a few examples of regulatory standards, incentives, and programs being
utilized by other communities in the region.
Regional & Local Initiatives
a) Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS): Enacted in April 2005 as part of the Montana
Renewable Power Production and Rural Economic Development Act, this requires public
utilities and competitive electricity suppliers to obtain a minimum of 15% of their retail
electricity sales from eligible renewable resources by 2015. Approximately 27 other states have
similar RPS programs.
b) Montana Climate Change Advisory Committee (CCAC): In December 2005, Governor
Brian Schweitzer directed the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to
establish a Climate Change Advisory Committee (CCAC). Under this initiative, the CCAC
evaluated state-level greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction opportunities in various sectors of
Montana’s economy while taking into consideration the Governor’s charge to develop policy
recommendations that would “save money, conserve energy, and bolster the Montana
economy.” In November 2007, this committee presented its findings and recommendations to
Governor Schweitzer in the Montana Climate Change Action Plan.
c) Western Climate Initiative (WCI): On January 4, 2008, Montana joined the Western Climate
Initiative (WCI). This initiative is a collaboration of the Western Governors Association (WGA)
with a goal of reducing regional emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. Issues such as clean
tailpipe standards and higher RPS minimums for each state are to be considered. Participating
states include Washington, Utah, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, California, British Columbia,
and Manitoba.
d) U.S Mayors Climate Protection Agreement: In November 2006, the City of Bozeman signed
the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement, a national effort by local governments to
decrease greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement sets the goal of taking baseline
measurements of how much greenhouse gas individual cities emitted in 1990, and by 2012
reducing those numbers by 7 percent. Shortly there after, the Bozeman City Commission
appointed a 15-member task force to draft an environmental action plan for the City of
Bozeman. This plan will establish a baseline of environmental impacts by the City of Bozeman
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 2133
by examining records of things such as fuel consumption and energy use by City Departments
and facilities. With a measurable quantitative baseline established, the plan will then include a
variety of recommendations to the Bozeman City Commission as to measures that should be
enacted to reduce the City of Bozeman’s greenhouse gas emissions. Tentatively, the task force is
scheduled to present its environmental action plan to the Bozeman City Commission in May
2008.
SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS
Solar energy refers to energy directly from the Sun. Heat and light from the sun, along with solar-based
resources such as wind power, hydroelectricity, and biomass account for most of the available flow of
renewable energy. The harnessing of solar energy dates back to the early Greeks and Native Americans,
who warmed their buildings by orienting them towards the sun. Modern solar technologies have further
advanced this by providing solar power through the conversion of sunlight into electricity. These solar
cells that produce electricity, referred to as photovoltaic’s (PV), currently provide ~0.04% of the world’s
energy usage.
Figure 2; available solar energy greatly exceeds both potential wind
power and global energy consumption.
PV solar cells will only produce electricity when the sun is shinning. In a stand-alone system, batteries
are used to store the energy, thus providing un-interrupted service. Such small-scale PV systems can be
found in variety of places, such as on roads in construction signs, emergency phones, or flashing lights
for schools. In a grid-connected system the PV use an inverter to change the electricity to alternating
current (AC) and connect with the utility grid. If the PV is producing more electricity than the facility is
using, typically during the day, power goes out to the utility grid for others to use. When the
photovoltaics are not producing power, the house uses electricity from the utility grid. Energy created
from a PV system produces no pollution to make that electricity and once you have a system you never
have to pay for the electricity that it creates. However, the initial cost of the system can be rather
expensive.
Costs
The total cost of a system depends on how big it is and how much peak-power it produces. Typically, a
two-kilowatt system would produce enough power needed to run an average 2,000 square foot home.
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 3134
The purchase and installation of such a system would cost a Bozeman resident from $18,000 to $20,000.
In addition to this, a solar heating system could cost anywhere from $6,000 to $10,000.
Rebates & Incentives
The following rebates and incentives are currently available for installation of solar energy systems:
1) Northwestern Energy Universal System Benefits (USB) Program: This program, developed in
1997, annually collects about $8.6 million; of which, about $700,000 is used for renewable energy
projects. In 2006, NorthWestern Energy provided funding for approximately 50 renewable energy
projects for wind and solar systems for residents and businesses. Most of the projects included a
public education or demonstration component to increase awareness of renewable energy.
Incentives of $3.50/watt are offered for private solar PV installations up to a maximum of
$7,000 per customer;
2) Alternative Energy Systems Credit (State of Montana) is a tax credit against income tax liability
for the cost of purchasing and installing an energy system in a Montana resident's principal home
that uses (1) a recognized nonfossil form of energy such as, but not limited to, solar energy, wind
energy, solid waste, and organic waste or (2) a low emission wood or biomass combustion device
such as a pallet or wood stove. The credit cannot exceed $500 and any unused balance of the
credit can be carried forward and applied to future income tax liabilities for a period of four
succeeding tax years.
3) Residential Solar and Fuel Cell Tax Credit: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a 30% tax
credit up to $2,000 for the purchase and installation of residential solar electric and solar water
heating for a property. An individual can take both a 30% credit up to the $2,000 cap for a PV
system and a 30% credit up to a separate $2,000 cap for a solar water heating system.
For example, if you were to install a 2.45kw system on the roof of your home; this system would be
approximately 10 feet tall and 18 feet wide; under ideal conditions, would produce roughly 270kwhrs
(kilowatt hours) of energy a month (which for an average consumer in an average 2,000 square foot
home would constitute approximately 50%-80% of their electrical needs); and would cost the consumer
approximately $20,000. With the rebates & credits noted above, approximately $9,500 of this $20,000
would be refunded; thus, the final customer cost would be approximately $11,500. In addition, net
metering (excess energy produced by a photovoltaic system that’s put back into the grid and “credited”
to the producer) would produce further savings during peak production times.
WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into useful form, such as electricity, using wind turbines. At
the end of 2006, worldwide capacity of wind-power produced just over 1% of world-wide electricity use.
Globally, wind power generation more than quadrupled between 2000 and 2006. Wind power is produced in
large scale wind farms connected to electrical grids, as well as in individual turbines for providing electricity
to isolated locations. The advantage of wind energy, as with solar, is that it creates no pollution, uses an
abundant energy supply, is inexpensive, and ultimately reduces greenhouse gas emissions when it displaces
fossil-fuel derived electricity.
The urban environment has unique challenges to the development of wind energy systems. Wind profiles in
urban areas tend to be more turbulent and not along a single axis. The presence of buildings increases the
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 4135
turbulence of the flow and the wind flowing over the building is accelerated in the same manner that air is
when it flows over the top of an airplane wing. This also changes the direction of the flow from horizontal
to slightly upward. Aesthetics are a concern. Many people find the design of a conventional wind turbine
unattractive. There is concern for the safety of birds and other wildlife. To be effective, these systems must
be easy to integrate with the architecture of urban environments. The conventional horizontal axis wind
turbine does not integrate easily with architectural designs.
Micro-wind
Wind generation within the City of Bozeman would be classified as a “micro-wind” energy system. Micro
wind is generally used to describe a wind energy generator that could be purchased and used by a household
or business to provide or contribute to domestic or onsite electricity consumption. Such systems generally
produce less than 3.5 kilowatts; have a diameter of less than 13 feet; and a rotor area of less than 47 square
feet. Basically, the size and height of a micro-wind turbine could be compared to a short-wave radio antenna
or a telephone pole (~25’ tall).
The Technology
There are two main types of wind turbines; horizontal axis turbines and vertical axis turbines. They operate
on the same simple principle. The energy in the wind turns two or three propeller-like blades around a rotor.
The rotor is connected to the main shaft, which spins a generator to create electricity. Wind turbines are
mounted on a tower to capture the most energy. Wind turbines are generally most effective at 100 feet (30
meters) or more above ground, were they can take advantage of faster and less turbulent wind; however, as
discussed above, micro-wind turbines have been found to be effective as well.
Figure 3: Common wind turbine configurations
Horizontal Axis
Recently several companies have conducted research and development into making horizontal axis micro
wind turbines more efficient. There are several problems with these conventional systems: 1) they can be
noisy if not designed correctly, 2) they may pose a danger to birds and other wildlife, and 3) they do not
efficiently convert wind energy that is not parallel to the axis or is turbulent.
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 5136
Figures 4 and 5: Examples of micro-wind horizontal axis turbines in California. The turbines are elevated above the level of the roof to catch the
horizontal wind flow; however, these systems are not good at catching the accelerated wind flowing over the building.
It also uses minimal land area, because even though the wires holding up the tower go out a ways, all
the land underneath the tower can still be used for open space or yard areas. Disadvantages are that wind
can be very intermittent so you must store the energy somehow and many locations that have good wind are
hard to use such as ridgelines or mountaintops. In addition, some people don’t like to see wind turbines in
these natural locations and think they are a source of visual pollution, while others fear that birds will be
hurt by the blades.
Vertical Axis
Windside, a Finnish company, has recently developed some innovative vertical axis wind turbines that are
highly effective in urban environments. These turbines are very quiet, produce power at low wind speeds (5
mph) and are not harmful to birds and wildlife. The turbines respond to wind in all directions and are able
to handle turbulent and gusty wind conditions. Typical size for a turbine is 3 feet (1 meter) in diameter and
13 feet (4 meters) tall. These turbines, because of their unique vertical design, can be used in places not
previous considered for wind energy such as: 1) cell phone towers, 2) posts for street and traffic lights, 3)
flag poles, or 4) vertical columns in parks and landscaping. These turbines have been found to produce
~50% more electricity in a year than traditional horizontal axis models.
Figures 6 & 7: examples of vertical axis turbines in urban environments. Figure 8: Cottage in Finland Figure 9: Wind & Solar in Illinois
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 6137
Future turbine technology
AeroVironment, an innovate tech-company, has design architecturally integrated micro-wind systems.
These turbines have the advantage of being able to rotate and be pointed down; thus, enabling the system to
catch a variety of wind directions and accelerated wind as it passes over buildings. These turbines are 6 feet
in diameter and can generate up to 400 watts with ideal conditions.
Figure 10: roof-top system Figure 11: roof-top system capturing variety of wind directions
Aerotechture, a Chicago based tech-company, has recently developed turbines using light weight plastic
materials; thus, allowing the turbines to be horizontally or vertically strung together. These turbines
produce power at low speeds, generate very little noise and vibration, are generally safe for birds and
wildlife, and can withstand high wind velocities.
Figures 12: system atop a residential development in Chicago Figure 13: Schematic of roof-top system
Gallatin County wind
The economic viability of urban wind energy systems is dependent upon the price of the system, the cost of
electricity, and the local wind velocity. A large-scale wind facility generally requires average wind speed in
excess of 20 mph; which areas such as Livingston, Bozeman Pass and Springhill have. While a smaller
micro-wind size facility could be economically viable in an area with an average daily wind speed of as low
as 10 mph. Furthermore, the presence of topographical variations (i.e. buildings, walls, etc.) tends to
accelerate wind in urban environments; thus, slightly increasing wind speeds in dense urban areas. As seen in
the figure below, the potential for wind power varies greatly within Gallatin County. The Bozeman area
generally has an average daily wind velocity of 9-10mph. Furthermore, it has been noted and debated that
climate change has, and will continue, to increase winds speeds across many parts of Northern Rockies.
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 7138
Figure 14: Average annual potential wind power for Gallatin County, MT
Costs
The cost of wind turbines varies greatly; depending on the size and type of turbine, any site constraints, etc.
A horizontal axis micro-wind system could range in cost from $3,000 - $40,000. For example, a turbine that
could produce up to 1.5 kilowatts might cost around $6,000; while a turbine that could produce up to 20
kilowatts could cost up to $40,000. Vertical axis systems range anywhere from $8.00 - $10.00 per watt;
so a 1.5 kilowatt system might cost between $12,000 - $15,000.
Rebates & Incentives
The following rebates and incentives are currently available for installation of wind energy systems:
1) Northwestern Energy Universal System Benefits (USB) Program: This program, developed in
1997, annually collects about $8.6 million; of which, about $700,000 is used for renewable energy
projects. In 2006, NorthWestern Energy provided funding for approximately 50 renewable energy
projects for wind and solar systems for residents and businesses. Most of the projects included a
public education or demonstration component to increase awareness of renewable energy. The
incentive for wind is $2/watt to a maximum of $10,000 per customer.
2) Alternative Energy Systems Credit (State of Montana) is a tax credit against income tax
liability for the cost of purchasing and installing an energy system in a Montana resident's
principal home that uses (1) a recognized nonfossil form of energy such as, but not limited to,
solar energy, wind energy, solid waste, and organic waste or (2) a low emission wood or biomass
combustion device such as a pallet or wood stove. The credit cannot exceed $500 and any
unused balance of the credit can be carried forward and applied to future income tax liabilities
for a period of four succeeding tax years.
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 8139
BOZEMAN REGULATORY STANDARDS
Solar
Currently, through a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) and/or building permit, the City of Bozeman
does permit the installation and utilization of Photovoltaic (PV) systems. All PV systems are required to
comply with applicable regulatory standards, such as height limitations and setbacks. Furthermore, through
review of a COA, issues such as neighborhood compatibility, impacts to adjacent properties, impacts to
historic structures, setbacks, height, etc. are considered. COA’s are only required for properties located
within an entryway or historic overlay district. A building permit is required prior to the installation of any
PV system. From the Planning Department, a standard COA with a Building Permit for a PV system would
cost $100. The cost of a building permit is based on the valuation of the system; for example, a building
permit for a $10,000 system (materials & labor) would cost approximately $169 (which includes a $66.30
plan review fee & a $102.00 building permit fee).
The City of Bozeman Historic Preservation Officer finds that “PV systems can most certainly be allowed in
the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District if they do not damage significant historic fabric, and if
their design is compatible in size, scale, color, and material, and character of the property and historic
district if applicable. PV rooftop additions should be designed so that they are inconspicuous from the
public right-of-way, set back from the primary elevation of the building, and doesn’t damage character-
defining features of the historic building. If a building is determined to be too historically significant, so that
the installation of PV systems cause too much damage to character-defining features, then preservation staff
would encourage the installation of such systems on accessory structures (sheds, garages, etc.).”
Currently, there are over 350 “grid-tied” solar electric systems in Montana. The City of Bozeman Building
Division has permitted approximately 16 solar systems in the past 4 years.
Wind
Through interpretation of the City of Bozeman’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), the Planning
Director has found wind turbines to generally not be in compliance or permissible under current regulatory
standards. As seen below, this position seems to be consistent with other communities throughout the
region. Issues such as setback encroachments, height restrictions, view-sheds, and noise have been
considered throughout.
REGULATORY STANDARDS & PROGRAMS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES
1) BOULDER, COLORADO
A) SOLAR
The City of Boulder encourages the use of PV and solar-thermal systems
through a variety of ordinances, rebates, incentives, and energy credits. All systems
need to comply with zoning provisions related to setback & height standards. These
programs include:
1) Solar Rebate program: implemented by ordinance, the rebate is available to
residences or businesses who install photovoltaic or solar thermal systems in
the City of Boulder. Rebates are based on City of Boulder sales and use tax
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 9140
paid on any materials and/or permits necessary for the system. The rebate is
approximately 16% of the City taxes paid. A rebate application process has
been established through the office of Planning and Development Services.
2) Solar Ordinance: This ordinance establishes certain dimensional standards
and application procedures. Included in this ordinance are both language
and a procedural process that protects the degree that structures can shadow
and/or impact an adjacent property.
This document has been attached at the end of this report for your reference.
3) Solar Access Guide (or Solar Shadow Analysis): To supplement the
ordinance, this guide has been developed by the City of Boulder Building
Services Center; this user-friendly document details requirements for shadow
lengths, system siting in new construction, exemptions, etc.
This document has been attached at the end of this report for your reference.
4) Climate Action Plan (CAP): The Boulder City Council adopted a goal to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 and in 2006 adopted the Climate
Action Plan (CAP) and CAP tax to fund implementation. The tax is
sometimes referred to as the carbon tax, and its passage by Boulder voters
garnered global recognition as Boulder was the first city to enact a carbon tax
to address climate change. Boulder County established environmental
sustainability goals in 2005 which include energy and greenhouse gas
emissions reduction targets which are funded through a dedicated tax. In
Boulder, the City’s Environmental Affairs office administers progress on the
implementation of this plan and provides a quarterly progress report and
greenhouse gas inventory to the City Council.
5) Climate Smart program: As a recommendation from the Climate Action
Plan, the Climate Smart program (and website; www.beclimatesmart.com)
was developed. Organized through collaboration between the City of
Boulder’s Office of Environmental Affairs, Boulder County, and other local
municipalities, this program focuses on helping individuals, families and
businesses increase their energy efficiency and reduce their carbon footprint.
The primary strategies are reducing energy use through conservation and
efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy sources and reducing
emissions from transportation. ClimateSmart's energy and transportation
programs are designed to benefit residents and businesses throughout
Boulder County. Everything from calculating your carbon footprint,
information on available programs, examples of what other community
members are doing, to what you can do in your home is available on the
programs website. Furthermore, through this program, education and
outreach programs are occasionally offered to residents and businesses. The
program is administered by the City’s Environmental Affairs staff.
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 10141
B) WIND
Wind powered energy systems are permitted within the City of Boulder. They must
comply with all applicable regulatory standards, such as height and setbacks; no special
exceptions are granted for wind energy systems. Furthermore, ground-mounted
turbines are considered accessory structures and must comply with height regulations
and setbacks for accessory structures (20’ maximum height). Other concerns, such as
viewshed obstructions, noise, trees & shrubs that would limit the efficiency of wind
systems, etc. were discussed.
2) ASHLAND, OREGON
A) SOLAR
Residential and commercial utility customers are encouraged to participate in
programs that support clean, renewable energy. The City of Ashland encourages the use of
PV and solar-thermal systems through a variety of ordinances, rebates, incentives, and
energy credits. All systems need to comply with zoning provisions related to setback &
height standards. These programs include:
1) City of Ashland Conservation Division: The City of Ashland
Conservation Division was established more than 20 years ago and is
responsible for operating water, recycling, and air quality and energy
conservation programs. The Division works with the Ashland School
District, Southern Oregon University, Ashland businesses, and homeowners
to increase the efficiency of their resource usage. Through this program,
numerous rebates are available to City utility customers; these rebates include
appliance rebates (dishwasher, refrigerator, washing machines, furnaces, and
toilets). These rebates are available for all appliances that are of a Energy Star
or higher efficiency. The City of Ashland Conservation Division reviews the
rebate applications, does on-site inspections, and issues rebates based on the
rated efficiency.
Furthermore, this division offers a variety of home energy, water, and air
analysis’s. These are generally provided as a free service to City Utility
customers. A variety of other rebates are available through some of these
home analysis’s. For example, as part of an air quality analysis, the City of
Ashland will remove any woodstoves being utilized, and, provide a $50
rebate upon doing so. For more information, please visit the City of Ashland
Conservation Program website (www.ashland.or.us).
2) Solar Electric (PV) Rebate Program: This program is designed to
encourage Ashland citizens and businesses to invest in photovoltaic
generation installations by paying rebates for qualifying installations. Cash
incentives offered by the City of Ashland for grid-connected solar electric
systems are $2.25 per Watt of the system up to a maximum of $10,000 per
site. This rebate program is administered through the City of Ashland
Conservation Division.
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 11142
3) Ashland Renewable Pioneers Program: Ashland utility customers can
support clean, renewable energy by purchasing Green Tags, also known as
renewable energy certificates, from the Bonneville Environmental
Foundation (BEF), a regional non-profit organization that focuses on
developing renewable energy sources. Each time an Ashland resident buys
Green Tags, BEF will direct a portion of the purchase to local renewable
energy projects such as installation of solar electric systems. Each Green Tag
represents the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that occurs when clean
renewable energy replaces polluting energy sources. When you buy a Green
Tag, your money is used to support the production of electricity at wind and
solar facilities in Ashland and the Pacific Northwest. For example, there are
currently 5 wind co-op’s in Western Montana that have been supported
through the purchase of green tags (www.greentagsusa.org/renewables.com)
For more information on this program please visit their website at
www.GreenAshland.org.
B) WIND
In 2002, the City Council discussed the City’s potential to maximize their energy
independence by utilizing alternative energy sources. During this discussion, wind generation
was briefly discussed. It was concluded that larger wind generators need a constant supply
of wind energy at 20- 40 mph's; of which Ashland and the Rogue Valley do not have. The
potential for micro-wind turbines was not discussed. It appears no ordinances, regulations,
or otherwise have been discussed regarding wind turbines in Ashland.
3) FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
A) SOLAR
Fort Collins encourages the use of PV and solar-thermal systems through a variety of
ordinances and regulatory standards. All systems need to comply with zoning provisions
related to setback & height standards. These programs include:
1) Ordinance No. 44, 1984: This ordinance amended certain sections of zoning
and subdivision regulations to eliminate possible barriers to solar energy
utilization. These amendments included provisions for solar energy systems in
sections regarding setbacks, height limitations, accessory structures, and review
processes.
This document has been attached at the end of this report for your reference.
2) Green Energy Program: Residents and businesses in Fort Collins can purchase
clean, renewable energy for an additional 1 cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh).* This
option is for customers who are willing to pay a little more for their electricity to
guarantee that it comes from the cleanest sources available.
3) Land Use Code Section 3.2.3 Solar Access, Orientation, Shading: This
section of the land use code sets standards for the use of both active and passive
solar energy systems. It’s applicable to all residences and businesses in the City,
as long as natural topography, soil or other subsurface conditions or other
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 12143
natural conditions of the site are preserved. Examples of these standards
include: 1) that at-least 65% of lots less than 15,000 square feet in area in single-
and two-family residential developments must conform to the definition of a
“solar-oriented lot”; 2) the elements of a development plan must be located and
designed to protect access to sunshine for planned and/or future solar energy
systems; and 3) the physical elements of a development plan shall be located and
designed so as not to cast a shadow onto adjacent properties, with exceptions.
Please find a copy of the exact language found in this land use code attached at
the end of this report for your reference.
This document has been attached at the end of this report for your reference.
B) WIND
1) Wind Power Pilot Program: Started in 1997, this city-initiated program
(provided by Fort Collins Utilities) offered customers the opportunity to
subscribe to wind power for an additional $0.02/kWh, or an estimated average
increase of $12/month on utility bills. Through the initial subscription
program, over 600 residential customers and 13 commercial customers signed
up to buy all their electrical power from wind. From these subscriptions, two
600 kW and one 65 kW turbines were installed at the Medicine Bow, Wyoming
wind farm. As phase II of this program, in 1999, the Fort Collins Utility
committed to adding 2.5 more turbines to the existing two turbines at the wind
farm site.
4) MONTANA COMMUNITIES
A) KALISPELL
The City of Kalispell permits both roof-and ground-mounted solar panels. Roof-
mounted systems must not exceed the standard height limitations and ground-
mounted systems must be located exclusive of required setbacks. Wind energy
systems are addressed similarly; turbines are limited by the height of the zone and are
treated as structures with regard to setbacks. No municipal incentive and/or rebate
programs exist.
Furthermore, the City of Kalispell Planning Department noted that wind & solar
systems are more of a non-issue in NW Montana than compared to other regions.
The lack of consistent sun and relatively calm wind patterns generally do not make
such systems economically feasible in NW Montana.
B) WHITEFISH
Currently, the City of Whitefish has no regulatory standards or municipal
incentive/rebate programs relating to wind or solar systems. Current code has
permitted solar systems; just like Bozeman, these systems are required to comply
with zoning standards for setbacks, height, etc. Wind energy systems have not been
considered and/or addressed.
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 13144
As noted in Kalispell, wind & solar systems are more of a non-issue in NW Montana
than compared to other regions. The lack of consistent sun and relatively calm wind
patterns generally do not make such systems economically feasible in NW Montana.
C) MISSOULA
Attempts at contacting officials from the City of Missoula were unsuccessful;
however, in reviewing both the City’s zoning code and website, it appears that no
specific regulations regarding solar or wind facilities exist.
SUMMARY
As discussed, numerous communities have taken steps to encourage the use of alternative energy systems.
Many of the ordinances and regulations noted in this report, from comparable communities, could be
applied & implemented in the City of Bozeman. The City of Bozeman Planning Department is open to
suggestions from the City Commission regarding; and, if so desired, the Planning Department is prepared to
draft ordinances and/or resolutions regarding.
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 14145
SOURCES
1. “North Carolina Solar Center.” Renewable Energy Incentives. North Carolina Solar Center Online. College
of Engineering, North Carolina State University. 2007. North Carolina Solar Center.
http://www.ncsc.ncsu.edu/information_resources/renewable_energy_incentives.cfm
2. “MT Climate Change Advisory Committee”. Final Report of the CCAC. Dept. of Environmental Quality.
November 9, 2007. http://www.mtclimatechange.us/CCAC.cfm
3. “Bozeman Climate Protection Task Force”. City of Bozeman.
http://www.bozeman.net/commission/u_s_mayors_mayors_climate_protection_agreement_task_force.asp
x
4. “City of Fort Collins Colorado”. 'Greening' Your Home: Reducing Your Environmental Footprint. Fort Collins
Utilities, Natural Resources, Transportation and City Manager’s Office.
http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/eps.php
5. “City of Boulder Colorado”. Energy and Climate Change Portal. City of Boulder's Office of Environmental
Affairs. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1058&Itemid=396
6. “City of Ashland Oregon”. Discussion of the potential to maximize the City's energy independence by utilizing
alternative energy sources. 2002. City of Ashland Electric and Telecommunication Departments.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=973\
7. “Wikipedia.” Wikipedia Online. 2007. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Energy
8. “Bellingham Environmental Learning Center Solar Project”. Setting a National Example for Sustainability.
October 30, 2007. City of Bellingham, Puget Sound Energy, The Bonneville Environmental Foundation,
Sustainable Connections. http://www.sconnect.org/energy/energy/solardemo/document_view
9. “DSIRE”. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. 1995.
http://www.ncsc.ncsu.edu/information_resources/renewable_energy_incentives.cfm
10. “NRIS”. Natural Resource Information System. April 19, 2007. Forest Service.
http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nris/
11. “GreenBuilding.com”. Everything You Want to Know and More About Green Building. 2005.
GreenBuilding.com.http://greenbuilding.com/
12. “bwea.com”. 2007. BWEA.. http://bwea.com/
13. “UC Davis Extension Service”. Green Building and Sustainable Design. 2006. University of California.
http://extension.ucdavis.edu/unit/green_building_and_sustainable_design/
14. “Aerotecture”. Aertecture International, Inc. 2007. http://www.aerotecture.com/
15. “AeroVironment”. AeroVironment, Inc. 2007. http://www.avinc.com/
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 15146
16. “Windside”. Wind Energy Solutions for Extreme Conditions. 2006. Oy Windside Production Ltd.
http://www.windside.com/
17. Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF), https://www.greentagsusa.org/renewables/index.shtm
18. City of Kalispell Planning Department
19. City of Whitefish Planning Department
20. Sage Mountain Center, http://www.sagemountain.org/
Alternative Energy Systems Staff Report 16147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Wetlands Review Board (Re)Appointments
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: (Re)appoint members to the Wetlands Review Board.
BACKGROUND: Three terms on the Wetland Review Board expired on December 31, 2007:
plant scientist, biologist, and hydrologist.
The Wetlands Review Board is established to prepare functional assessments of regulated
wetlands that may be impacted by proposed regulated activities, evaluate the impacts proposed
regulated activities may have on delineated wetlands and to provide wetlands protection,
mitigation and/or enhance recommendations regarding such proposals to the Planning Director
and City Commission. The Wetlands Review Board will be convened as necessary to review
proposals that involve regulated activities and may impact regulated wetlands based on the
provisions contained in Chapter 18.56, BMC.
In selecting the members, the City Commission shall give preference to residents of the
City of Bozeman. However, where a qualified resident is not available to serve, the City
Commission may appoint a member who practices professionally, owns property or
owns a business within the City.
The WRB shall consist of six members. An appointment to a term of service on the
WRB is for two years. Members shall be degreed in their respective disciplines and/ or
otherwise licensed or certified by their respective professional authorities.
Members shall consist of at least
one biologist,
one soil scientist,
one plant scientist,
and one hydrologist.
163
FYI: The three current/ongoing members on the board (with terms that expire on December 31,
2008) are serving as a biologist, a soil scientist, and a weed consultant.
This board has three applicants and three vacancies. It is up to the Commission to decide if these
applicants are qualified to fill one of the vacancies that requires a hydrologist or a plant scientist.
In terms of the third vacancy (which had been held by a biologist), since there is already one
current member serving as a biologist, that vacancy can be designated for a different role or
specialist.
Applicant seeking Reappointment:
Steve O’Neil (had been serving as a hydrologist)
New Applicants:
Brian Sandefur
Debra Zarnt
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Board Applications
164
r j 200
CITY OF BOZEMAN MONTANA
APPLICATION FOR lHE WETLANDS REVIEW BOARD
Name TC Vi U IV EK
Physical Address 7 3V L IWu SL tU1I1 foZ tvw
5 7 tJ
Mailing Address if different
EmaiJ STtuf 0 eu @ t4JtflttJ L U
Phone s 50 f to f3c
Length oftime in the Bozlman area b 7rtJA
Occupation t i bJiL lL r Employer 0 Jr iA s tlO JM T1N
Have you ever served on a City or County board circle one QEiNoIfsowherewhatboardandhowlong
L u EnqrJt f rn 6jI
5 VVtrn Vvt I TrJ 2 v llS
Applicants should apply as one of the following biologist soil scientist plant
scientist hydrologist or member at large
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
tCCL Il v I t t nvJ r2 0 VIGt orA
J Cl Iti t l J d O tJI c fM ilLL Uv cYstT1 o fVr z J1
rt rc srJ J 1U JJ tfL LVZV fVcrl IJrZJAl iz sju jdN
Dr f TLc vJftur
References Individual orOrganization
Name Phone
ff Ii J jfuo12J IfiJ f5 JjyJu 5574 41
JvJ l1ldL l fJTifUHMtL jlm t l6J fJJ 313
CJItvr NvJt ov LLS tf 1f bv1t D f C G 1 7 StO
165
Page 1 of 1
Cynthia Delaney
From Brian Sandefur bsandefur@confluenceinc com
Sent Monday September 24 2007 944 AM
To Agenda
Subject Wetlands Review Board Application
Fill out the following information and click send to apply for this board
Name Brian Sandefur
Physical Address 1330 S Church Ave
Mailing Address if different same
Email bsandefur@confluenceinc com
Phone 406 600 2286
Length of time in the Bozeman 1 year
Occupation Wetland Scientist
Employer Confluence Consulting Inc
Have you ever served on a City or County board No
if so where what board and how long
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences BS Forestry MS Plant and Soil Science
Numerous years 8 as Environmental Consultant Kentucky North Carolina Idaho and Montana Wetland
Training Institute delineation certified trained in Levell and II NC Stream Restoration Institute
References Individual or Organization Please include name and phone for three references
Jim Lovell P O Box 1133 Bozeman MT 59771 406 585 9500
John Vilas 3764 Rominger Rd Banner Elk NC 28604 828 297 6958
Iunderstand that sending this email is the same as signing my name yes no yes
9 24 2007 166
Wetlands Review Board Application Page 1 of 2
Cynthia Delaney
From Zarnt Debra dzarnt@montana edu
Sent Tuesday April 17 2007 12 06 PM
To Agenda
Subject Wetlands Review Board Application
Fill out the following information and click send to apply for this board
Name Debbie Zamt
Physical Address 109 S G St Livingston MT 59047
Mailing Address if different Work Address PO Box 170575 Bozeman MT 59717
Email dzarnt@montana edu
Phone 406 994 1684
Length of time in the Bozeman Ive worked in Bozeman for three years
Occupation Water Educator Community Outreach Coordinator
Employer Montana Watercourse at the Water Center Montana State University
Have you ever served on a City or County board
if so where whatboard and how long No But Ihave served in a leadership capacity on many other occasions
Forest Service Hydrologic Technician Peace Corps Volunteer in Bolivia developing rural water systems and
whitewater instructor with National Outdoor Leadership School
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
Ireceived an M S in Watershed Science from Colorado State University This program was a rigorous course of
4 2012007 167
Wetlands Review Board Application Page 2 of2
study that provided mewith a solid background in hydrology and watershed science For the past two and a
half years I have managed the community program of a state wide water education organization Iimplement
many different types of water resource workshops and programs for watershed groups local governments real
estate agents builders associations general community groups and others With my job I learn about the
complexity of water resource management water science and policy and local involvement Ialso serve as the
Chair for the Fall Training Work Group of the Montana Watershed Coordination Council MWCC MWCC is a
statewide all volunteer organization that serves water resource professionals and local watershed groups for
networking information exchange training and stewardship recognition This group is active throughout the
state and has provided me with ample opportunities to learn about different water issues and workwith the
people who are trying to solve some of these issues I believe that Icould contribute not only a solid scientific
background to this board but also a broad perspective on the intersection between community policy and
science
References Individual or Organization Please include name and phone for three references
Frances Graham Director Montana Watercourse 994 1910
Gretchen Rupp Director Montana Water Center 994 1771
Janet Bender Kiegley Program Manager Montana Watercourse 994 6671
Iunderstand that sending this email is the same as signing my name Yes
4120 2007 168
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Cemetery Advisory Board (Re)Appointments
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: (Re)appoint members to the Cemetery Advisory Board.
BACKGROUND: Three terms on the Cemetery Advisory Board expired on December 31,
2007.
The Cemetery Board is created pursuant to Section 7-35-4101, M.C.A. and Chapter 2.76 of the
Bozeman Municipal Code. This board is comprised of five members, serving staggered three-
year terms. A majority of the members shall be residents of the City, and one member shall be a
representative of an active recognized veteran’s group.
The Board is advisory to both the City Commission and the Director of Public Service, making
recommendations regarding operation of the Sunset Hills Cemetery.
This board has three vacancies and five applicants.
Applicants seeking Reappointment:
Russ Tuckerman
Katherine Ball
Betsy Fordyce
New Applicants:
R. Thomas Dundas
Joyce Schmidt
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
169
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Board Applications
170
Russ Lisa Tuckerman
43 Gardner Park Drive
Bozeman MT 59715
phone fax 406 587 6068
email 11 1 I AQmll ntMlftti8Laet
pUlk P IJ @J Gvet1 V
v LMAN
Sf AL ulMAN
C ntkia lln
City Clerk
City ofBozeman
411 East Main Street
Bozeman MT 59715
September 4 2007
To Whom It May Concern
Please accept this letter as notification ofmy intent to continue as Chairperson of the
Cemetery Advisory Board for an additional term beginning January 1 2008
IUt
Russell C Tuckerman
fs l cc J15 hR k j jy f CVJpJfX
171
CITY OF BOZEMAN MONTANA
APPLICATION FOR THE CEMETERY BOARD
C tJ jl
A 01
S1 III
6 S 2JNamef2fJ1kIINt
Physical Address 1 itV ie f Ck ly
Mailing Address if different
Email J G b 1 1
Phone s 1 t b flS t 1 C
0 J t s I g vI
Length oHime in the Bozeman area 1 L
Occupation cA Sf f r Employer
Have you ever served on a City or County board circle one NO
If so where what board and how long
rCo3t1I etY Z aoo
6f II Ki J AliILA i J c 7 A lS cvlr 1 J Z o 0
U f It CO C 01 CeMvI C O 6 oQ Qt fl 5 Svelfl i d c O
1 I l I A V tjo n3
A majority of the members shall be residents ofthe city and one member shall be a
representative ofan active recognized veterans groupl
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
nQJ OlrAi Sol 10 0 jCjY bv h J crfY I1ArJ
t AJJ I 5 k 1A r A ls lII 5 s LAjkZ
qE41 L 30 o 66ljl f0c @ f1A f 51 J
l f n r SYrC 1 R 2 J Lj 16 j AS l j I e
References Individual or Organization
Name
G Sr e JVLclJJV1jnX C
UlOg C0
16vjiTu g CO j0 A fA
rYll elSI 6rlnlllSk NJ ZOu L
Phone
C 7 LIJ
O Z30b
y 7 7L
Co rs n O VY
j
172
November 8 2007
City Clerk
P O Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Dear Bozeman City Clerk
I understand that my term on the Cemetery Board is about to expire
1 would like to continue as a Cemetery Board Member for another term unless there is
another community member wishing to participate on the Cemetery Board
Please let me know ifthere is anything else you need from me
Sincerely
77i h J a LJ
Katherine Ball
173
I 8 0r
CITY OF BOZEMAN MONTANA
APPLICATION FOR THE CEMETERY BOARD
Name e
Physical Address 23
6tLi
S IWallaAI
Mailing Address if different
Email J1IlCJP t @ fU n CoW
Phone s lJlP S 8 Z2
Length oftime in the Bozeman area 2f S
Iwu
Occupation ottKtPJ PIOyer
Have you ever served on a City or County board circle one@ o
If so where what board and how long
y Co f CY r kt I o
3g J
A majority ofthe members shall be residents of the city and one member shall be a
representative of an active recognized veterans group
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
rfurIr PtLCr
U 5 oat
1Zu 4 1 J r
v tV
1WI4
References Individual or Organization
Name Phone
j rtl
IU ku u 7n
6B 7 0155
2150
ft7 2jpS
174
l L 8 0 7
cT5 wJtiJn Y lJ
J I Pf
t u te n
J3 J2
I
M
c20 7 5t 25tR AIfJ
2e 7 Y S Cj 7
fOra 5 ad lIe D 25
bi fOnjJL@y Jrn
175
No eJ I tr01
CITY OF BOZEMAN MONTANA
APPLICATION FOR THE CEMETERY BOARD
Name E beYl fs J ce
Physical Address d 07 S uJ v fVe IMailing Address if different
Email heJs Th r J 5e J @ yaho 0 L6
Phone s 00l 70 0
Length oftime in the Bozeman area Y S
Occupation Wr f itA 10 r Employer Yl S 11
Have you ever served on a City or County board circle one@ NO
If so where what board and how long
dOOS dOO 7
A majority ofthe members shall be residents ofthe city and one member shall be a
representative ofan active recognized veterans group
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
ct3 Lfl
References Individual or Organization
Name
J c I e C va tJ ref
9tavon B fz
Jk P I Wr h YlI G
Phone
if 3 S
176
1 0 7
CITY OF BOZEMAN MONTANA
APPLICA TION FOR THE CEMETERY BOARD
Physical Address
IJC1UD 4
JUli SiA fl
Mailing Address if different 2 71141
Email f fiJ AjJ @Iv S1 C tJ11
J riClH As
I
Name
r7 i tJ 9 0
Phone s 1 F1719 ud l
Length oftime in the Bozeman area
Occupation t TtR f
Jj jrzs 1
Employer 0Tf rz
Have you ever served on a City or County board circle one YES @
If so where what board and how long
A majority ofthe members shall be residents ofthe city and one member shall be a
representative ofan active recognized veterans group
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
L TIf r 7f jI L
T O UAfi U j vfl O llj I7tTr C Clll ruIA IA
l1i J 1 Ilfc fA A r 1 fOZfZ JhvFL V tCI7 IV lt TO
1 0 u r fI Jf 0
lL t r C 1t1 1 4j11L 1 N f1IP rI Nfllt fr IOUK O f MJY
7 L LIv tf7 6 Jf r
IN tf I PftJ AlY utlfEf lrIfL KI I IfvrL Y
TIre C r Ii Ic v11 t hn 1 Vu 1Tr qIUIJ r ZOIL
f fU s CI 4 ys t I1i J 7I1 eKrI I r LNJ 7rl rd Ie
Gl cel V or 0 1 T I If C f Fe LJ hadr f JfUh TZ1 5i 1 1 lYy CJJ
References IndIvIdual or rgamzatlOn1 tor l1IJIIF 5 r411 jU l1 Ifl r l 1L
Name i1M7 1nlc I J r I Cl 11 II LlJI p f Phone
G D KOlJ t 0 2J114J AI1 J
2cir 4f7Y t LIA 1 Clt pr IL
rQIH I 1 f U I2C lt IV rz I 1 IJ
177
Date January 8 2008
To Bozeman City Commissioners JjRThomasDundasUJ1tttiI
Application for appointment to the Sunset Hills Cemetery Board
From
Subject
In November 2007 I submitted an application to be considered for appointment to theBozemanSunsetHillsCemeteryBoardThisisafollowupletterwithacopyofthe
application to the Cemetery Board
I have looked at the City ofBozeman website reviewed the Sunset Hill CemeteryportionreviewedtheCemeteryBoardrequirementsandhavedeterminedthatIam
eligible to be considered for appointment to this board
l My name is R Thomas Dundas
2 I am a resident of Bozeman Montana
3 My address is
3 22 Augusta Dr
Bozeman Montana
Tel 406 582 0056
4 I am retired
5 I am a graduate of MSU with a BS in ME and attended graduate school in Austria
6 I owned several businesses in Montana for many years The second company is nowlocatedinEuropeandisoperatedbyoneofmydaughtersandherhusband
For references you may contact the following
Gigi and Chuck Swenson daughter and son in law
0 1 Churn Lane
Bozeman MT 597 5
Tel 406 586 1770
Dr Durward Sobek
1013 East Olive
Bozeman MT
Tel 406 522 7545
406 994 7140
Bob Foreman
737 Aster Ave
Bozeman MT 59715
Tel 406 586 9084
178
CITY OF BOZEMAN MONTANA
APPLICAnON FOR THE CEMETERY BOARD
J Ut 0UAf1S
j fj AUt7usriJ rut
Mailing Address if different 3cr 5 MA Ai f1 r jq 7
oHiJCJAJf 5 @ N SJJ nl1
L06 j CJtJ JI
1 Yll
Name
Physical Address
Email
Phone s
Length oftime in the Bozeman area
Occupation TI fl EJ Employer
Have you ever served on a City or County board circle one YES
Ifso where what board and how long
A majority of the members shall be residents ofthe eity and one member shall be a
representative ofan active recognized veterans group
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
l Ase gfl ATIAT I O 7TL
References Individual or Organization
Name Phone
179
7
CITY OF BOZEMAN MONTANA
APPLICATION FOR THE CEMETERY BOARD
Name YtC tlMz crr
Physical Ad ess 3 IIoJ7l ISro A I ilr 591s
Mailing Address if different
Email
Phone s Ycb D9 3f9S efiZL
Length of time in the Bozeman area jt ec 196
Occupation AL Employer dzes d2ee Of be
Have you ever served on a City or County board circle one YES @
If so where what board and how long
r b C 7b Axd7
A majority ofthe members shall be residents ofthe city and one member shall be a
representative ofan active recognized veterans group
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
04 e 5ZDB A rq T 7T
O reDH L ecnePCJtJ4 7s 1 mr A r
I lAtJe evtcreD 7k fj J7cr 30 AJA7tfZAL ltAAD AMOtE
7sJ CIL MAu cr uJ0lCb 5 H
ro 5 rtk yc ee dO 7
References Individual or Organization
Name Phone
A 01 yn
sei 13
Se1 B4B
sB It
do s t or o
RAY
57eVE
AJU
JI
180
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Appointments
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint members to the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory
Board.
BACKGROUND: Two at-large terms expired on June 30, 2007, and one professional term will
expire on June 30, 2008, so there are currently three vacancies. Making appointments to this
board was postponed a few times last year in order to gather more applications and give BHPAB
members time to make a recommendation (please see attached email from Courtney Kramer and
BHPAB Minutes).
The Historic Preservation Advisory Board is created under Chapter 2.80 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. This chapter is designed as a measure to establish a local historic preservation
program designed to promote the preservation of historic and prehistoric sites, structures,
objects, buildings, and historic districts by addressing historic preservation issues at the local
level and integrating them into local, state, and federal planning and decision-making processes.
The historic preservation program will include the identification, evaluation, and protection of
historic resources within the city. (Ordinance 1180 Section 2, 1985)
The Historic Preservation Advisory Board shall serve in an advisory capacity to the City
Commission, City-County Planning Board, Zoning Commission, and other staff members or
boards seeking advice on historic preservation issues. (Ordinance 1454 Section 2, 1998;
Ordinance 1180 Section 3, 1985).
Members are appointed to staggered two-year terms. It is to be comprised of up to fifteen
members:
(1) Three or four professional members with professional expertise in the disciplines of history,
planning, archaeology, architecture, architecture history, historic archaeology, or other
history preservation-related disciplines, such as cultural geography or cultural anthropology,
provided, however, that at least one member shall be an architect holding Montana or
181
NCARB registration.
(2) Two to four members from historic districts,
(3) One member from the Main Street commercial district, who “shall operate a business or
own property in the neighborhood described as Main Street,” and
(4) Four to six at-large representatives.
Residence within the City shall not be a prerequisite for professional members or at-large
representatives. This board is considered advisory, although it is generally responsible for
overseeing the operation of the Historic Preservation Office.
The Historic Preservation Advisory Board currently has three vacancies.
For Two At-large Vacancies:
New Applicants:
Todd Wilkinson
Lora Dalton
Charlotte Kress
Jody Hester
For One Professional Vacancy:
New Applicant:
Michael Fox
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Board Applications
182
183
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes
November 29, 6:00 p.m., HRDC boardroom
I. Meeting called to order, 6:00 p.m.
BHPAB members present: Jane Klockman, Bonnie Martin, Chair, Blake
Maxwell, Mike Neeley, and Ryan Olson, Anne Sherwood, Ed Sypinski, Vice-
Chair, Ed Ugorowski, Secretary, and Jim Webster
Not present: E.J. Engler, Tuli Fisher, and Mark Hueffsteller
Board Liaisons present: Courtney Kramer and Allyson Bristor, City Planner.
Guests present: Michael Delaney Ileana Indreland, Thomas Bitnar, Architect.
II. Minutes approved from BHPAB 10/24/07 meeting.
III. Tax abatement request 415 S. Wilson:
Ileana introduced project with a brief history or her growing up in the area
with a strong appreciation of the historic Southside homes and dreaming of
owning one. The homes restoration was taken to great lengths and expense,
such as:
• Bricks tuck pointed, existing lighting and wallpaper saved. The
windows were updated with Pella windows that are historic replicas of
the original design. The foundation was stabilized with structural
foam. The electrical wiring was updated.
• Thomas Bitnar explained how the addition was completed to be
symmetrical in true form to the Georgian Style, as it would have been
if the original design was of a similar size.
• The removals of the detached garage, together with the addition of the
new garden area were both aspects of the home originally.
BHPAB member discussion questions & answers:
• Ed S. discussed the window replacement and the altering of the
elevations caused by the mass of the addition.
• Courtney outlined a discussion she and Allyson had earlier, with either
yes or no qualifications (based on ten points set forth by the Secretary
of the Interior Standards): (1) Yes (2) Yes, due to garden (3) No (4)
Yes, garage removed and was not original (5) Yes (6) Yes, tuck
pointing (7) Yes (8) Yes (9) No “such extremes to match everything
done too well” (10) Yes
• Jim mentioned Mark’s email addressing specific concerns with the
project and for the precedence it will set for future tax abatement
projects.
• Courtney initiated a round table discussion on the State Standards
versus the Secretary of the Interior standards. Allyson noted that the
state standards are broad. Michael mentioned there have been several
lawsuits filed and won due to ambiguous language.
• Amount of tax abatement estimated to be $5,000 per year for five
years or approximately $25,000.
184
Ed S. motioned to recommend an approval for the tax abatement, Mike
seconded. Voting totals:
• Four votes in favor (Anne, Bonnie, Jane and Ryan)
• Five votes against (Blake, Ed S., Ed U., Jim and Mike)
Mark’s proxy vote against the project was discussed and noted as a mute
issue regarding this project. A future review of the by-laws regarding
allowing proxy votes is needed.
Note: Courtney voted in favor and Allyson voted against.
IV. Policy and Planning Committee recap:
• Armory- Demolition application submitted.
Anne and Ed S. are submitting an article for the Tributary along with
interior photographs (December 15submittal/publication date). It was
noted again that the city should have put restrictions/covenants on the
property prior to selling it.
• Convent- moving the building versus incorporating into new design
discussed. Ed U. had a meeting with Bill Hansen at Think One earlier
in the week and has renderings to be shown to BHPAB members only.
These will be reviewed at the retreat.
• Story Mansion (and Delaney tax abatement) scheduled to be reviewed
at the December 10th, City Commission meeting.
• Story Mill to be reviewed at the next Commission meeting; 1,100
residential units and 60 deviations requested.
• “Demolition by Neglect” ordinance discussed, tabled until retreat.
• Mike will be starting the PSA announcements in January.
V. New BHPAB member applications reviewed with nominations made and
approved for Mike Fox and Todd Wilkinson. Motion made and approved for
Bonnie to contact E.J. regarding attendance/interest in remaining a member.
VI. Education & Outreach projects discussed: Rialto, Love Inc. home tour,
nominations for preservation awards (Golden Rule), Preservation 365
calendar, Armory and Holy Rosary to be discussed at retreat.
VII. Upcoming meetings/events:
• No December board meeting.
• December 9 (1:30 pm to 6 pm)- Love Inc. home tours
• December 12 (6 pm) - Education & Outreach meeting [Jane’s house].
• December 13 (6pm) - Planning & Policy meeting [D.A. Davidson].
• December 16 (4:30 pm to 6 pm) - Year-end party [Anne’s house].
• January 12 (9am to 1pm) – annual Retreat [Beal Park Rec. Center].
185
186
StuartBernard
From LoraDalton lora d@bozemanyouthorgSentMondayOctober162006728PMToAgendaSubjectHistoricPreservationBoardApplication
FollowUpFlag FollowupFlagStatusRed
Filloutthefollowinginformationandclicksendtoapplyforthisboard
Name LoraDalton
PhysicalAddress 201S6thAvenue
MailingAddress ifdifferent same
Email lorad@bozemanyouthorg
Phone 4065863499
LengthoftimeintheBozeman 10yearsatthisaddress CooperParkHistoricDistrict
Occupation community volunteerEmployernotpresentlyemployed
Haveyoueverserved onaCityorCountyboard No
1
187
Cynthia Delaney
From
Sent
To
Subject
Lora 0 lora d@ycsLnet
Wednesday May 30 2007 5 26 PM
Agenda
Historic Preservation Advisory Board
Cynthia
As a resident of Bozeman and ofthe Cooper Park historic district 1 am very appreciative ofthe care this city
takes regarding its heritage I would like to support and participate in that effort
My family lives in a circa l900 home that we are slowly restoring As we are a low income family there are
many challenges but it is very important to us to take proper care ofthe venerable old girl Bozeman also has
challenges as the city grows and changes but we must work to preserve the distinctive character that makes
Bozeman a fine place to live work and visit
I have extensive experience in nonprofit and community organizations and an interest in period architecture and
restoration 1 think it is important for the city to work with homeowners to maintain the flavor of our
neighborhoods while supporting reasonable and necessary improvements It is also important to recognize the
efforts ofcommunity members in maintaining restoring and beautifying our historic neighborhoods and
buildings
Thank you for considering my application
Lora Dalton
lora d@ycsi net
Don t look back something might be gainin on ya
Satchel Paige
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
Toyota
1
188
Page 1 of 1
Cynthia Delaney
From Agenda
Sent Wednesday July 11 20077 54 AM
To Cynthia Delaney
Subject FW Historic Preservation Board Application
From cgk kress mailto cgk07usa@yahoo com
Sent Tuesday July 10 2007 10 22 PM
To Agenda
Subject Historic Preservation Board Application
Fill out the following information and click send to apply for this board
Name Charlotte G Kress
Physical Address 1438 Ash Dr Bozeman MT 59715
Mailing Address if different
Email k 07 lliJl II YllJIQ9mn
Phone 406w587w0150
Length oftime in Bozeman since 1970
Occupation homemaker bookstore employee
Employer MSU Bookstore
Have you ever served on a City or County board yes
if so where what board and how long Sr Citizen Advisory Board term ends 12 07
Please explain your relevant qualitications interests and experiences
Im a local citizen with an interest in helping make keep Bozeman a beautiful place to live work walk or
bike I have time to serve I m familiar with many historic places have done most ofthe local Historic
Preservation Tours over the years
References Individual or Organization Please include name and phone for three references
David Knickerbocker dept mgr MSU Bookstore 586 7987 home
Glenn Lehrer Pastor 587 3337
Mary Libbey 35 yr neighbor 587w2186
understand that sending this email is the same as signing my name yes
Got a little couch potato
Check out fun SUl1Jnl J activiti JQr kids
7111 2007 189
190
Page I of2
Cynthia Delaney
From michael fox mfox@montana edu
Sent Friday August 31 200710 57 AM
To Agenda
Subject Historic Preservation Board Application
Fill out the following information and click send to apply for this board
Name Michael Fox
Physical Address 2818 Case Street Bozeman MT 59718
Mailing Address if different Same
Email mfoX@montalJa edu
Phone 406994 5330
Length of time in the Bozeman 3 5 years
Occupation Curator of History
Employer Museum of the Rockies
Have you ever served on a City or County board No
if so where what board and how long
Please explain your relevant qualifications interests and experiences
Bachelor ofArts Degree in English from Humboldt State University Arcata CA
Master of Arts Degree in American Studies from the University of Wyoming Laramie
WY
My academic and professional studies focus on community building and social
conditions in the 19th and 20th century American west I received training in historic
preservation and the activities related to the national Park Service s National Register
of Historic Places program I have professional experience working with the Buffalo
Bill Historical Center in Cody WY The Autry Center for the Study of the American
West in Los Angeles CA Wyoming State Parks and Historic Sites the Smithsonian
institution and the Museum of the Rockies I am deeply interested in the study and
preservation of historic structures and in the possibilities that they provide for reuse
in commercial and residential settings It is my belief that intelligent planning can
serve to both preserve a community s historic environment while invigorating its
economic and livability features Bozeman is an exciting city that holds a deep
respect for its past while it embraces the challenges of future growth I believe that
my professional background and personal interests would be of great use to the city
government of Bozeman
8 312007 191
Page 2 of2
References Individual or Organization Please include name and phone for three
references
Sheldon McKamey Director and Dean Museum of the Rockies Bozeman MT 406
994 5283
Molly Holz Editor Montana The Magazine of Montana History Helena MT 406 444
4708
Neal Hetherington Media Specialist Bozeman MT 406 994 3566
I understand that sending this email is the same as signing my name yes no Yes
8 31 2007 192
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Selection of Commissioner Liaisons to Boards and Appointment of
Commissioner Voting Members to Boards
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2008
RECOMMENDATION:
• That the Commission selects and confirms which Commissioner will be the liaison to
each of the boards, voting on any that have two interested Commissioners.
• For the boards that have not yet had a voting Commissioner member(s) appointed (Audit
Committee, Local Water Quality District Board, Prospera Business Network Revolving
Loan Fund Committee, Public Transit Stakeholders’ Advisory Board), the Commission
needs to make a motion to appoint the voting member(s).
BACKGROUND: After doing more research, there were a few changes made to the list of
boards that the Commissioners used to make their initial liaison choices:
• The Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Association doesn’t have a liaison so it was taken off
the list below. None of the neighborhood associations has a liaison, but the Inter
Neighborhood Council has one liaison.
• The Board of Appeals was added to the list because it will reconvene soon and needs a
liaison.
• The Public Transit Stakeholders’ Advisory Board had been left off the list so it was
added below. It needs a voting Commissioner member, and the Commission forgot to
make the Commissioner appointment when it reappointed a citizen member at the
January 14, 2008 meeting. The County Commissioner’s office is waiting for the name of
the voting City Commissioner member.
Thus, here is the most current list of the boards and the Commissioners interested in serving as
the liaison to these boards (or in the case of a few boards, interested in serving as the voting
Commissioner member):
Audit Committee (two voting Commissioner members needed): Krauss, Becker
Band Board: Krauss, Rupp
193
Beautification Advisory Board:
Board of Appeals:
Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board (BABAB): Becker
Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board (BHPAB): Krauss
Cemetery Advisory Board: Rupp
City Planning Board (one voting Commissioner member): Becker was appointed on 1/22/08.
City-County Board of Health (one voting Commissioner member): Bryson was appointed on
1/14/08.
Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB):
Community Alcohol Coalition: Rupp, Bryson
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council: Becker, Bryson
Design Review Board:
Downtown Bozeman Improvement District/Tax Increment Finance (IDB/TIF): Bryson
Downtown Business Improvement District (BID): Jacobson, Bryson
Fire Board of Appeals: Rupp
Impact Fee Advisory Board: Bryson
Inter Neighborhood Council: Jacobson
Library Board of Trustees: Rupp
Local Water Quality District Board (one voting Commissioner member needed): Jacobson
Parking Commission: Rupp
Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Committee:
Prospera Business Network Revolving Loan Fund Committee (one voting Commissioner
member needed): Becker
194
Public Transit Stakeholders’ Advisory Board (one voting Commissioner member needed):
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board: Jacobson
Senior Citizens’ Advisory Board:
Story Mansion Task Force: Jacobson
Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC): Krauss
Tree Advisory Board: Krauss
Wetlands Review Board: Jacobson
Zoning Commission: Becker
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Cynthia Jordan Delaney, Deputy City Clerk Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
195