HomeMy WebLinkAboutE3 u Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple,Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Update
MEETING DATE: Monday May 8, 2006
BACKGROUND: The City Commission adopted a growth policy in October 2001. A growth
policy compliant with state law is required in order to have zoning regulations. The City uses its
growth policy to address many issues relating to development within the community.
Section 76-1-607, MCA requires that a growth policy be reviewed at least every five years.
Bozeman has seen significant growth since the adoption of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan.
The plan needs to be brought current with the background data it contains and to set forth future
growth areas for the community. There are several different approaches to achieve the required
review. All require funding and staff resources, estimates are included.
Existing Plan Options.
Option 1. Rewrite. This would likely take 18-24 months and assumes fundamental changes in the
core policies contained in the plan as well as updating background data and designating
future growth areas. Resources required would be either 2 additional full time staff and
$50,000 materials or $250,000 in consulting fees.
Option 2. Review and Update. An independent review of the plan, coupled with updating of key
chapters to reflect changed conditions and designate future growth areas. Estimated
time for the work would be 6-8 months. Resources required would be $40,000
consultant fee, 1 additional staff, and$35,000 materials.
Option 3. In house update. Keep the policies, goals, and principles the same. Update key chapters
to reflect changed conditions and designate future growth areas. Estimated time for the
work would be 4-6 months. Resources required would be $30,000 materials and
$20,000 for funding contract plan review to free regular staff to perform the work.
Option 4. Outside update. Keep the policies, goals, and principles the same. Update key chapters
to reflect changed conditions and designate future growth areas. Estimated time for the
work would be 4-6 months. Resources required would be $70,000 for consultant and
materials.
Option 5. No action. Leave the plan as is with no effort to update. This would directly limit the
ability of the City to plan for and accommodate growth as well as threaten the ability to
continue existing development regulations. This option is not recommended. Resources
Report compiled on May 3, 2006
4
Commission Memorandum
required would transfer from the planning function to legal defense of actions without
adequate basis. Costs are unknown.
Additional Options
These additional options could be explored either simultaneously or sequentially with the general
revision option selected.
Option 6. New chapters — in house. Preparation of any new or substantially revised chapters
other than those addressing land use and baseline information. Depending on the
number to be prepared and the complexity the Commission wishes to address this is a
substantial effort. The time commitment is unknown but would likely add 3-6 months to
any other effort.
Option 7. New Chapters —outside. Preparation of any new or substantially revised chapters other
than those addressing land use and baseline information. Depending on the number to
be prepared and the complexity the Commission wishes to address this is a substantial
effort. Depending on the nature of the work specific consultants may be needed for each
chapter. An estimate of cost is $20,000 per chapter. The time commitment is unknown
but would likely add 3-6 months to any other effort.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
• Which option or combination of options to select.
• Preference for work to be performed in house or by consultants.
• Whether an outside review is desirable.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve for funding in FY07 a combination of Options 2 and 7.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Direct costs will be incurred to carry out the project. A well founded and
executed growth policy will reduce long term expenses and continue to encourage quality growth
that provides a greater revenue stream than would otherwise be available.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Respe%tfull submitted,
Andrew Epple,Planning dir etor � Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: None
Report compiled on May 3, 2006