HomeMy WebLinkAboutA4. MOA PCC
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor’s signature on a Memorandum of Agreement
between the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, and City of Belgrade to
establish a Planning Coordinating Committee.
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2016
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission authorize the Mayor’s signature on the
Memorandum of Agreement. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: 1) Having considered the information provided by staff, considered public comment, and the
Memorandum of Agreement, I hereby move to authorize the Mayor’s signature on the
Memorandum of Agreement between the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, and City of Belgrade to establish a Planning Coordinating Committee.
2) I move to appoint [Name of Commissioner] as the City Commission representative in the
City’s membership on the committee.
BACKGROUND: The City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, and City of Belgrade coordinated on the Gallatin Triangle Planning Study. The report was prepared by Sanderson Stewart. It was
completed in September 2014. The purpose of the study was to consider opportunities and
alternatives for coordination between the three local governments.
The report identified numerous existing interlocal agreements and other cooperative measures in the section on Intergovenmental Cooperation, beginning on page 5. The report identified several
benefits from local governments cooperating.
One of the recommendations was the creation of a Planning Coordinating Committee (PCC) modeled on the Transportation Coordinating Committee. The purpose of the PCC is to provide a regular forum for the three local governments to exchange information and discuss issues of
common interest. The area of interest for the PCC is focused on the “triangle” generally
described with the two cities and Four Corners as the corners. The Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) provides the formal structure for the PCC. The City’s growth policy in 2001 and 2009 encouraged this kind of cooperative effort. Chapter
14, Bozeman Community Plan includes the following goals:
521
Goal RCC-1: Coordinate policies and actions between public entities to increase effectiveness
and efficiency of implementation of the Bozeman Community Plan.
Rationale: Contradictory county and municipal policies will cause uncertainty and confusion. Lack of coordination increases conflict and resulting expense to all parties.
The growth policy presents the City’s vision. Working with other affected parties is the
most effective means to ensure that the vision is carried out as intended. Bozeman and
Gallatin County have numerous points of agreement in policy. Working together meets
our obligations to our citizens.
Goal RCC-2: Utilize inter-local agreements and similar mechanisms to establish formal
coordination mechanisms so intent, scope, and functions are well defined to advance
cooperation.
Rationale: Elected and appointed officials change membership over time. Having a formal inter-local agreement ensures continuity and consistency of policy over time.
Development of agreements facilitates discussion of issues so that pitfalls can be avoided
and success is more likely.
Gallatin County and the City of Belgrade have already acted to approve the MOA. The membership of the PCC is comprised of one elected official, one planning board member, and
one staff member from each jurisdiction. The PCC is a discussion and information exchange
tool. The PCC does not have a regulatory role.
It is anticipated that the Planning Board would appoint its representative to the PCC. However, the City Commission could choose to appoint the planning board and staff representatives for the
City. A formal schedule for meetings has not yet been established.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Accept the MOA as written.
2) Reject the MOA. 3) As suggested by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: There is no specific budget assigned to this work. It will be included in
the standard work program for Community Development. It is expected that the Gallatin County
Planning Office will take the lead in providing administrative support to the PCC. Any requests for funding support for specific projects will occur through the standard budgeting process.
Attachments: Memorandum of Agreement
2014 Gallatin Triangle Planning Study
Report compiled on: May 13, 2016
522
523
524
525
526
527
GALLATIN TRIANGLE
PLANNING STUDY
Recommendations for Regional Planning Cooperation for
Gallatin County
City of Belgrade
City of Bozeman
September 17, 2014
528
Acknowledgements
Project Stakeholder Group
Joe Skinner Gallatin County Commission
Sean O’Callaghan Gallatin County, Planning and Community Development
Randy Visser Gallatin County Planning Board
Russ Nelson Mayor, City of Belgrade
Jason Karp City of Belgrade, Planning Department
Elizabeth Marum Belgrade City-County Planning Board
Jeff Krauss Mayor, City of Bozeman
Chris Saunders City of Bozeman, Community Development
Trever McSpadden City of Bozeman Planning Board
Randy Carpenter Sonoran Institute, Program Director
Jason Lavey Sonoran Institute, Land Use Planner
Envision Tomorrow Scenario Maps
Ralph Johnson Montana State University, Department of Architecture
Kali Jirasko Montana State University, Graduate Student, Architecture
Consultant
Sanderson Stewart
Lauren Waterton, Land Planner/Project Manager
Paul Hutchison, Planning Intern
529
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………………………….1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 2
REGIONAL COOPERATION ........................................................................................................ 4
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION ..................................................................................... 5
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................................... 11
EXISTING SERVICES .................................................................................................................. 15
GROWTH POLICIES ................................................................................................................. 19
SCENARIO MAPS ..................................................................................................................... 23
GROWTH POLICES AND SCENARIOS ....................................................................................... 26
FUTURE SERVICE NEEDS .......................................................................................................... 34
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION ............................................................ 36
ADDENDUM: REGIONAL EXAMPLES ......................................................................................... 38
RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 42
SCENARIO MAPS ..................................................................................................................... 44
530
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Montana Department of Commerce estimates that in less than three years, the population of
Gallatin County will exceed 100,000. That is double the population of 1990. Any Google search for
Bozeman or Gallatin County and “best places to live” is inevitably part of the results. And for good
reasons: access for public lands and unlimited recreational activities, a growing tech industry, a world
class university and a quaint downtown. Old west meets modern lifestyles.
The “Triangle” area of the Gallatin Valley, generally described as the area between Bozeman,
Belgrade, and the unincorporated area of Four Corners, has seen a significant portion of this recent
population growth. It is anticipated that this trend will continue.
When growth and
development affect
multiple jurisdictions,
cooperation among those
affected communities can
have positive results. This
report examines existing
and potential opportunities
for regional cooperation by
Gallatin County and the
Cities of Belgrade and
Bozeman in order to
coordinate planning
activities regarding
infrastructure, land use and
public services within the
Triangle area.
Gallatin County, the City
of Bozeman and the City
of Belgrade have a long history of cooperative efforts, underscored by the extensive list of
intergovernmental agreements between these organizations. Yet, this cooperation has rarely
extended to the area of land use planning. Examining existing cooperative efforts and projected
impacts of future development, this report explores opportunities to expand cooperation to include
land use, infrastructure and public service planning.
BOZEMAN
BELGRADE
532
2
INTRODUCTION
This study identifies and provides recommendations to Gallatin County and the cities of Belgrade
and Bozeman regarding coordination of planning activities of infrastructure, land use and public
services in the “Triangle” area of the Gallatin Valley – generally the land area in and around
Bozeman, Belgrade and the unincorporated community of Four Corners. It is intended to provide a
framework for how the County and Belgrade and Bozeman can work effectively and efficiently
together in the future to meet the goals of their respective growth policies and ensure the public
health, safety and welfare of existing and future generations of the citizens of the Gallatin Valley.
The population of Gallatin County has steadily grown in the past 25 years, with 70% of the growth
attributed to in-migration. Increase in population due to migration indicates a growing and healthy
economy with increasing employment opportunities and growing personal incomes. It can also lead
to a higher quality of life, with more employment
opportunities, shopping and services. But
population growth can also mean a decline in
quality of life: higher crime, more traffic, loss of
rural lifestyle. Are there ways for communities to
grow without sacrificing quality of life?
The Gallatin Valley, roughly bounded by Bozeman
Pass, Gallatin Gateway, Manhattan and the
Bridger Mountains, is home to the majority of
Gallatin County residents. With relatively low
vacancy rates, the ability to absorb new residents is
predicated on the development of new housing and commercial areas. The demand for this new
development is met by the private industry, with services supporting the development provided by
local and state government, public districts and private enterprise. Growth pressures confronting
the valley do not represent exclusively municipal or county challenges; they are regional challenges.
Within the project area there are multiple jurisdictions, reviewing agencies and guiding documents
involved in the review and approval of new development. But impacts of development, for example
effects on water and air quality, don't fall neatly within jurisdictional boundaries. And, built
improvements like roads, cross jurisdictional boundaries, but need to provide a consistent level of
service to drivers.
Regional cooperation in a state with a strong tradition for private property rights and local land use
control can seem contradictory and impossible to implement. Regional cooperation does not mean
giving up local control or adding another unwanted layer of regulations, but it will require public and
private interests to work together, using the best information available, towards a common future.
533
3
Regional cooperation takes on many forms. In larger metropolitan areas, a formal governmental
district can be formed to address regional issues. Examples include the Denver Regional Council of
Governments, consisting of more than 50 local county and municipal governments, and Metro
Council in Portland, Oregon, serving 1.5 million people in three counties and 25 cities. Other
metropolitan areas have no formal agency overseeing regional issues, but choose to work
collabatively on issues. Envision Utah is one such organization, encompassing 10 counties, 88
municipalities and 157 special service districts. It works to bring public and private stakeholders
together to coordinate activities related to growth along the Wasatch Front.
In 2012, the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a non-profit research and education organization in the
area of land use and real estate development, asked its 31 district councils to convene meetings to
discuss a 10-question survey about trends and challenges to growth and development in their
regions. Although Montana does not have a district council, local reports from Idaho and Colorado
follow the national trends in the survey answers and those conclusions could be applied to Montana.
The report, What’s Next at the Local Level, summarized the responses of ULI members who
participated in the survey. Among the findings relevant to the Gallatin Valley, respondents
acknowledged,
» the greatest challenges facing the regions were a lack of age-in-place opportunities,
regional collaboration, and multimodal transportation (emphasis added).
As evidenced in the ULI survey of its members, the Gallatin Valley is not alone in thinking about
regional colloraboration and the difficulties in its implementation. Regional cooperation within the
context of the study area will have to be voluntary and include multiple interests in order to be
successful.
It is intended that the analysis and recommendations of this study be used by elected officials,
planning boards and citizens interested in the future of Gallatin County to understand existing
conditions of cooperation, opportunities to improve coordination of services and the value of
regional cooperation.
534
4
REGIONAL COOPERATION
As the population within the Triangle area grows, there will be an increase in demand for services
and infrastructure and increasing impacts to existing resources. These issues do not necessarily
adhere to jurisdictional boundaries. Addressing these issues at a regional scale can be effective and
efficient.
Regional cooperation has been documented within the United States as far back as the mid-1800s.
The geography of issues associated with land use transcends the territorial reach of a single
jurisdiction or institution. Additionally, competing interests within the geographic area and lack of
any one authority to resolve conflicts can hamper any real advancement in the area of regional
cooperation.
Regional responses to planning and land use issues have generally fallen along two lines. The first is
the creation of a governmental organization, often called a council of governments, to be the lead on
issues within the region. State legislatures establish the authority, requirements and general duties of
these organizations. According to the National League of Cities, of the 39,000 local governments in
the United States, over 35,000 of them are served by a metropolitan council or council of
government. Services typically performed by regional councils of government include
transportation planning, economic development, workforce development, administration of grants
and services to citizens with specific needs.
The second type of regional response to address issues are ad-hoc committees and organizations,
often started by citizens concerned about their region. These organizations lack authority but also
are not restricted by jurisdictional boundaries. These organizations are often started by people
rallying around one issue of concern, and work with local leaders to collectively address issues.
Many of these types of organizations go on to create a more formalized organization.
The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy has studied and evaluated regional collaboration. One of their
findings is that regional collaboration includes both a procedural element, i.e. identifying ways to
work together, as well as a substantive element that addresses specific policies and programs to
address issues specific to a region. This analysis of how Gallatin County, City of Belgrade and City
of Bozeman can cooperate in planning within the Gallatin Valley was conducted with an
understanding that no single policy can be the deciding factor in shaping the growth of the valley. It
is ultimately up to the community as a whole, piecing together individual and collective decisions to
create a future for the Gallatin Valley.
This report is the first step in addressing procedurally how the communities can expand regional
cooperation. Subsequent policies and programs would need to be evaluated and discussed by the
communities and their elected officials. This report provides specific recommendations for actions
toward procedural approach to regional cooperation for the Triangle area.
535
5
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
Governments recognize the value of working cooperatively to solve common problems. Often
there are efficiencies that can be achieved by one entity completing work for multiple jurisdictions.
Alternately, one facility that is supported by many organizations can be cost effective. One of the
ways that governments work together is through the use of an intergovernmental agreement or
Memorandum of Understanding. These agreements and memos outline the purpose, function and
responsibilities of all parties involved. Gallatin County, the Cities of Bozeman and Belgrade and
Montana State University have entered into many of these agreements throughout their history. A
summary of existing agreements and cooperation that pertain to the study area are described below:
Joint City-County Planning Boards
Within Gallatin County, there are two joint City-County
Planning Boards: Belgrade and Manhattan. These Boards
have jurisdiction within their respective city limits, as well
as extra-territorial lands surrounding the community.
These citizen boards have representatives from the local
jurisdiction, as well as from the County.
Belgrade City-County Planning Board – The Belgrade
Council and the Gallatin County Commission established
the Belgrade City-County Planning Board in 1975 to develop a growth policy and serve in an
advisory capacity to the two governing bodies in making decisions regarding land use and
development in the Belgrade area. The Planning Board is made up of nine members. Four members
of the Planning Board reside within the City limits of Belgrade and are appointed by the Belgrade
City Council. Four additional members reside outside the City limits and within the Board's 4.5 mile
jurisdiction around the City limits are appointed by the Gallatin County Commission. The ninth
member is appointed by the Planning Board and approved by the City Council and County
Commission and may reside either in the City limits or outside the City limits but within 4.5 mile
Planning Jurisdiction.
Manhattan City-County Planning Board – The Planning Board is made up of nine members, with
appointed members from both Manhattan and the County.
City-County Health Department
Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman have a consolidated City-County Health Department to
provide a full range of services to City and County residents. There is a Board of Health that is
required to fulfill all duties as assigned by MCA 50-2-116(1). The joint City-County Health
Department provides a variety of services to the public including restaurant inspections,
536
6
immunizations, permits, and licensing of child care facilities and approval of private septic systems.
The Department is also responsible for providing public health-related news and information.
County Library Fund
The County Library Fund is a fund created by a citizen-approved property tax to support County
residents’ use of City libraries. Libraries supported through this fund include Belgrade, Bozeman,
Manhattan, Three Forks and West Yellowstone.
Transportation Facilities Improvements
There are several intergovernmental agreements in place that address existing transportation facilities
and planning for future facilities.
The Bozeman Area Transportation Plan was adopted in 2009 by the Bozeman City Commission and
the Gallatin County Commission. The Transportation Plan study area went beyond the City of
Bozeman city limits, acknowledging that large areas of unincorporated Gallatin County are likely to
see future growth and those areas will impact the transportation system.
The Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) was created to coordinate and develop
transportation planning within a regional context. A memorandum of understanding was completed
in 1996, and updated in 2009, by and between the State of Montana, Gallatin County, the City of
Bozeman, Bozeman City Planning Board and the Gallatin County Planning Board. Representatives
from each of these signatories plus additional staff and
citizen representatives meet quarterly to provide updates
and input on current and future transportation issues.
Meetings of the TCC allow agencies to report on
specific projects and deliver updates on issues of
concern. The continuation of the TCC is essential to
sustain a coordinated approach towards planning a
transportation system that aligns with regional growth
policy objectives. This non-regulatory committee
provides a public forum for information sharing and is
the lead agency for the Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan.
A Memorandum of Understanding between Bozeman
and the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), signed September 7, 2012, establishes
roles, responsibilities, and commitments relative to funding, administering, and long-term
implementation of a Community Transportation Safety Plan for the City of Bozeman. There is no
expiration date.
An Interlocal Agreement between the city of Belgrade and the Gallatin Airport Authority was signed
July 9, 2007 to establish the coordinated planning and construction of the Belgrade I-90 Interchange
537
7
serving the Gallatin Field Airport. This agreement established the roles, responsibilities and
commitments relative to the planning sequencing, costs, administration, design, construction and
maintenance responsibilities necessary for the planning and construction of a new Interstate 90
interchange and connector roadways to be located in the vicinity of the Gallatin Field Airport.
Construction is now underway.
A Memorandum of Understanding between the city of Belgrade, Gallatin County and MDT was
signed December 14, 2013 to establish the roles, responsibilities and commitments relative to the
Eastside Bypass connection to Dry Creek and outline those procedures necessary to add the project
to the Urban Highway System. The County will assume full and complete responsibility for the
project upon completion of the roadway, and MDT will conduct the required project reviews.
A Memorandum of Understanding between the city of Bozeman and Montana State University was
signed May 1, 2011 to establish the roles and responsibilities for using and maintaining the center
island of the roundabout located at College Street and 11th Avenue.
Water Resources
Public water supply within the Study area is addressed through several regional agreements.
An Interlocal Agreement between the city of Bozeman and the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks (FWP) was signed November 7, 2012 to establish a framework for mutual
cooperation between the City and FWP for operation and maintenance of a portion of the City’s
water resource facility. The 10-year agreement ensures provision of fishing access to the East
Gallatin River, including parking, which complements FWP's management of the adjoining Cherry
River Fishing Access Site.
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the city of Bozeman and U.S. Forest Service
on March 29, 2011 to document the cooperation between the parties to maintain (in the long term) a
high-quality, predictable water supply for Bozeman through cooperative efforts in implementing
sustainable land management practices in accordance with agreement provisions.
A Memorandum of Agreement between the city of Bozeman and Montana State University was
signed on February 25, 2013 to clarify the responsibilities of both parties with respect to National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The city agrees to administer water quality tests for MSU
while the university assumes responsibility for any required water facility upgrades.
538
8
Association of Agricultural Irrigators (AGAI) Canal
Mapping Project.
Montana State University, Gallatin County GIS Department
and the Association of Agricultural Irrigators (AGAI) have
been collaborating since 2007 to map and update the inventory
of water resources in the Gallatin Valley. This information is
used by AGAI, land owners and others interested in water
rights issues.
Fire Protection Agreements
Mutual aid and response agreements ensure that backup is
available when emergencies occur. Under these agreements,
each fire service and district remain an independent service
provider within their respective areas. However, the ability to
provide aid increases response when needed. A Mutual Aid
Agreement was signed on June 5, 2012 between Gallatin
County and the city of Bozeman to provide mutual assistance to signatory agencies for control of
fire, fire prevention, emergency medical services, hazardous materials control, and/or emergency
support in the event of disaster. The agreement only expires if terminated.
School District Agreements
Bozeman School District and the city of Bozeman signed an Interlocal Agreement on November 12,
2012 to develop an operating process and guidelines relative to school siting, development within
the City of Bozeman, and the creation of Tax Increment Financing Districts. The agreement only
expires if terminated.
Solid Waste Agreements
The consolidated Solid Waste District provides a central means to handling solid waste in the
County. This agency manages and operates the Logan Landfill and the Bozeman Convenience Site
to ensure current and future solid waste disposal needs are met. An Interlocal Agreement was signed
in July 2013 between the Gallatin Solid Waste Management District, Gallatin County, and the city of
Bozeman to establish a framework of cooperation between the signatory parties with regard to the
operation of the Bozeman Convenience Site located on the City of Bozeman Landfill property.
Hazard Mitigation
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Gallatin County, the city of Bozeman,
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency on January 2, 2014 to establish a Risk Map, Assessment, and Planning project
charter to assist local communities in mitigating flood risks. The charter describes that project,
539
9
identifies areas where floodplain changes are expected, and identifies the roles and responsibilities of
the parties.
Law Enforcement Agreements
There are multiple agreements in place regarding law enforcement within Gallatin County. Those
pertaining to the Study area include the following.
The City of Bozeman and Gallatin County have multiple Interlocal agreements pertaining to
cooperation of law enforcement. These agreements relate to the Missouri River Drug Task Force
Project, Support to the Victims and Witnesses in the criminal justice system, allocation of Justice
Assistance Grants, and multi-agency creation of the Domestic Violence Response Team.
A Memorandum of Agreement was signed between the City of Bozeman and Bozeman School
District on August 12, 2013 to address the growing problem of juvenile-related crime. This
agreement establishes terms and conditions for allocating school resource police officers to the
district. The agreement terminates September 13, 2014.
An Interlocal agreement was signed between the city of Bozeman, the city of Belgrade and the
Public Defender’s Office on May 20, 2003 for the establishment of a joint and coordinated public
defenders program to be known as the Public Defender’s Office. The County and the cities enter
into this joint agreement in which they will pay their proportionate shares for, and participate in the
joint operation of this office.
In March 2012, the members of the Cardiac Arrest Survival Team (CAST), including the city of
Bozeman Police and Fire Departments, Bozeman Deaconess Health Service, the Montana State
University Police Department, and Gallatin County signed Memorandum of Agreement that
stipulates the individual responsibilities of each CAST partner agency. The CAST program is
intended to acquire and utilize Automated External Defibrillators to save lives.
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed on June
29, 2012 between the Gallatin County Attorney’s
Office, the Gallatin County Victim Services Office, the
Misdemeanor Probation Office, the Gallatin County
Sheriff’s Office, the Bozeman Police Department, the
Montana State University Police Department, Hearts
and Homes, the Office of Court Services, the
Bozeman City Attorney, VOICE Center, Child
Protection Services, and HAVEN. The document
establishes Domestic Violence Response Team
intended to improve the provision of services to victims of domestic violence-related crimes and to
ensure accurate and complete evidence collection, prosecution, advocacy and the protection of
victim safety.
540
10
A Memorandum of Understanding between the city of Bozeman Police Department and the
Montana State University (MSU) Police Department was signed July 9, 2012 to authorize the MSU
Police Department to perform all duties as peace officers within the university, including acting as
primary enforcer of felony and misdemeanor crimes on MSU property. The agreement does not
diminish the ultimate jurisdiction or authority of the Bozeman Police Department within the
university. It also establishes procedures and responsibilities for prosecution, addressing abandoned
vehicles, animal impounding, and emergency situations.
As demonstrated above, intergovernmental cooperation, whether through agreements or other
forms, address a wide array of issues that address the needs of citizens. Local jurisdictions have
successfully collaborated on a number of issues, resulting in cost savings and/or improved services
throughout the region.
541
11
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Infrastructure is generally defined as physical elements providing services, including roads, water
systems and sewer. The infrastructure servicing land within the project area is a mix of public and
private. This chapter describes the existing inventory of such infrastructure.
Water Supply
Within the study area, potable water is provided for residential and business uses from decentralized
private groundwater wells and centralized public and private water systems. Centralized water
systems serve the citizens of Bozeman and Belgrade, as well as the residents of the RAE and Four
Corners water and sewer districts.
Bozeman municipal water and sewer system is connected to
approximately 11,500 customers serving over 37,280 residents.
The city’s source water comes from Lyman Creek in the Bridger
Mountains and from Sourdough and Hyalite Creek in the
Gallatin Mountains. Water from the Hyalite and Sourdough
drainages is treated in the recently upgraded Sourdough
Treatment Plant, which is located at the mouth of Sourdough
Canyon. The plant has a processing capacity of 22 million
gallons per day and supplies approximately eighty 80 percent of
Bozeman’s water needs. Groundwater from Lyman creek
supplies a maximum of 3.7 million gallons of water per day, and
is treated before being introduced to the city’s water delivery
system. Bozeman’s municipal water system also consists of three
finished water storage tanks that together possess a maximum
capacity of eleven million gallons.
The Belgrade municipal water system is connected to approximately 2,500 customers serving
approximately 7,439 residents. The city’s source water is taken from six deep-water wells located
throughout the city, and is pumped, untreated, into the city’s water delivery system. The city plans
to incrementally permit and drill new wells as development continues.
The Four Corners County Water and Sewer District consists of two water conveyance systems
owned and operated by Utility Solutions, a private utility company. These systems deliver well water
to approximately 2,500 residents within several local subdivisions. The Elk Grove system draws
water from three deep water wells located within the Elk Grove Subdivision. The Northstar-Zoot
system draws water from three active wells within the Northstar Subdivision and three wells in the
Galactic Park Subdivision. Two additional well sites have been approved for future expansion.
542
12
The RAE Water and Sewer District is connected to approximately 450 customers and serves over
1,000 residents. The district’s water is drawn from five deep-water wells located in several local
subdivisions. The district plans to iteratively permit and drill more wells as new development
occurs. The system also consists of a 500,000 gallon water storage tank.
Wastewater Systems
Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal are provided by decentralized, private septic and
drainfield systems and centralized public and private wastewater systems within the study area.
According to the 2010 Gallatin County Regional Wastewater Management System Feasibility Study,
residents and businesses not connected to a centralized system use approximately 13,350 private
septic and drainage systems that discharge roughly 3.5 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgpd).
Centralized sewage systems serve the residential customers of Bozeman and Belgrade, as well as the
residents of the RAE and Four Corners water and sewer districts.
The Bozeman municipal wastewater system was modernized in 2011 with a design loading capacity
of 8.5 mgpd. The system currently processes on average 5.6 mgpd. The facility expansion plan
provided room for additional expansion.
The Belgrade municipal wastewater system mains
convey sewage to three aerated treatment lagoons
located to the northeast of the Bozeman Yellowstone
International Airport. These lagoons treat
approximately 550,000 gpd, roughly 70% of their
total system capacity. Based on current growth
projections, the city estimates that the existing
wastewater treatment facility will reach its loading
capacity in approximately ten years.
The Four Corners County Water and Sewer District’s
mains and lift stations deliver wastewater to an
oxidation ditch treatment system located within the
Elk Grove Subdivision that is owned and operated
by Utility Solutions. The facility treats approximately
150,000 gpd. This represents 50% of the system’s
overall loading capacity.
The RAE Water and Sewer district’s mains convey approximately 70,000 gpd of wastewater to a
tertiary treatment sequencing batch reactor facility that has a design loading capacity of 200,000 gpd.
In anticipation of future growth, the district plans to double – and potentially quadruple - the
capacity of this facility.
543
13
Solid Waste Collection
Solid waste collection, disposal and recycling services within the study area are provided by the
Gallatin Solid Waste Management District, in partnership with municipal solid waste collection
services. The District manages Logan Landfill and the Bozeman Convenience Site, receiving
approximately 105,000 tons of waste per year from Gallatin, Broadwater, and Jefferson Counties, as
well as Yellowstone National Park. Based on average annual disposal rates and the maximum
capacity of landfill waste cells, the District projects an estimated landfill life of approximately 13.5
years. Consequently, the District is in the process of negotiating a land exchange with the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) for a 636 acre parcel of land adjacent
to landfill for future expansion. Acquisition of this property is projected to extend the life of the
landfill for at least 50 years based on future population projections.
Transportation
The study area’s transportation system consists of federal, state, county roads, and municipal streets
and alleys, as well as private access roads and a commuter and recreational trail network. Major
collector thoroughfares like Cottonwood Road are
maintained by Gallatin County, while municipal roads like
Black Avenue in Bozeman and Broadway in Belgrade are
maintained by their respective cities. Private access roads
such as North Shore Drive in River Rock are maintained by
homeowners associations. Within the study area there are
77.1 miles of principal arterial roads, 80.03 miles of minor
arterial roads, and 102.7 miles of collector roads.
Approximately 183 miles of city streets are maintained by
Bozeman’s Street Department. Belgrade maintains roughly
47 miles of municipal streets and alleys. Local roads within
the unincorporated areas are maintained by private
homeowner associations or by Rural Improvement
Districts. There are approximately 94 Rural Improvement
Districts within Gallatin County, serving approximately
8,900 lots.
Increasing traffic congestion is placing strain on existing transportation infrastructure. The current
construction of a second I-90 interchange in Belgrade is intended to reduce traffic congestion along
state and county roads to the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport. Moreover, plans to
reconstruct and widen a section of Montana Highway 85 north of U.S. Route 191 into a four-lane
facility with turn lanes, a center median and signalization at major intersections is also intended to
add capacity, reduce traffic congestion, and improve safety along this critical thoroughfare.
544
14
There are approximately 50 miles of trails within the Bozeman Area. Additional trails within the
study area are maintained by private homeowner associations and nonprofit organizations such as
the Gallatin Valley Land Trust.
Public transit within the study area is provided by the Streamline bus service. The service is jointly
administered by the Human Resource and Development Council and the Associated Students of
Montana State University. Streamline operates three bus routes within Bozeman and a commuter
route to Belgrade five days a week. Approximately 343,214 passengers ride Streamline 511,838 miles
annually.
545
15
EXISTING SERVICES
Like infrastructure, provision of services is provided by a collection of public and private enterprises.
Services range from law enforcement to parks. Services within the study area are described below.
Law Enforcement
Countywide law enforcement and criminal investigation in the study area is provided by the
Montana State Highway Patrol and the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office. The Belgrade Police
Department (PD) and the Bozeman PD provide these services for the citizens of their respective
cities.
The Montana State Highway Patrol is the traffic law enforcement division of the Department of
Justice responsible for the enforcement of motor vehicle and highway safety laws, as well as for the
investigation of traffic crashes. State troopers patrol assigned highways to ensure that traffic is
moving safely and crashes are prevented. The Division employs 243 troopers, fifteen of which are
assigned to the Greater Gallatin Valley Area.
Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office is the county law enforcement division, consisting of 51 deputies
serving approximately 45,000 county residents. The agency responds to approximately 37,000
service calls annually. The Patrol Division consists of 37 sworn deputies, 27 of which are assigned
to the Greater Gallatin Valley Area. The Patrol Division consists of a Bicycle Patrol, K-9 Patrol,
Animal Patrol, Marine Patrol, Search and Rescue Team, and Special Response Team. Four sheriff’s
detectives handle a case load of 280 felony cases per year. The Detective division also collaborates
with the Missouri River Drug Task Force. In addition to law enforcement and criminal
investigation, the Sheriff’s Office also operates the Gallatin County Detention Center, houses the
county coroner, and conducts arson investigations as well as other civil services, including
courtroom and judicial security, prisoner transportation,
warrants, and extraditions.
Bozeman PD consists of 64 police officers responsible for
enforcing State laws and City Ordinances. Several
divisions comprise the department, including the
Motorcycle Patrol, the Bicycle Patrol, the K-9 Patrol, the
Special Response Team, and the Honor Guard. The
department’s Detective division investigates felony cases
within the City limits and allocates full-time detectives to Missouri River Drug Task Force. The
department provides public education, maintaining administering the Sexual and Violent Offender
Registry Program. They also offer school patrol and animal control services.
546
16
Belgrade PD employs 15 sworn officers serving approximately 7,389 residents. The department
provides law enforcement and criminal investigation services within the city limits and consists of
divisions in Internet Crimes Against Children, Crisis Intervention Team, Sexual Assault Response
Team, Bicycle Patrol, and School Patrol. Officers are also involved in public education.
Fire Protection
Residents within the study area receive fire protection services from four fire districts and one fire
service area. The distinction between a fire district and a fire service area is its means of revenue
generation. A district’s revenue comes from the imposition of a mill levy on all the property in the
district. A fire service area generates revenue by charging a fee on each property upon which a
qualifying structure is built. The four fire districts serving the study area include RAE, Sourdough,
Central Valley, and the Bozeman municipal fire department. Story Mill fire service area also
provides volunteer fire protection for residents south of Bozeman.
The Bozeman Fire Department is a full-service fire department providing fire suppression,
emergency medical response, rescue, fire code enforcement, building inspection, and public
education services for the citizens of Bozeman. The department also staffs five Paramedics, five
EMT Intermediates, and 32 Emergency medical
technicians who provide critical pre-hospital invasive
procedures. Finally, the department administers one
of six regional hazardous materials response teams.
Central Valley Fire District Belgrade City Fire
Department (formerly Belgrade Rural Fire District)
is the largest fire district in Gallatin County,
operating out of five fire stations, and serving a
population of approximately 26,500 county citizens
and approximately 7,439 citizens within the city of Belgrade. In addition, the fire district serves
Gallatin County in areas where no other wildland fire protection is available. The district is a full-
service county and municipal fire department providing fire suppression, emergency medical
response, rescue, hazardous materials response, public education, code enforcement, building
inspections, and other services. The Fire District employs 11 firefighters supporting 40 volunteers.
The Sourdough Fire Department and the RAE Fire Department are full-service fire departments
providing fire suppression, emergency medical response, rescue, hazardous materials response,
public education and other services to citizens in unincorporated neighborhoods south and
southwest of Bozeman The departments are staffed by all-volunteer teams of emergency services
providers. Both departments operate out of two fire stations located south of Bozeman.
547
17
Schools
Five school districts are located within the study area, all of which are experiencing rapid growth.
Bozeman Elementary and High School Districts serve citizens within the city of Bozeman and the
surrounding region. Belgrade Elementary and High School Districts serve the city of Belgrade and
the surrounding area. Monforton Elementary School District provides k-8 education for the
residents of Four Corners. This district’s secondary students transfer to Bozeman High School.
Currently, 6,114 students are enrolled in Bozeman
Primary and Secondary Districts. Combined, the
districts consist of eleven facilities, including one high
school, two middle schools, and eight elementary
schools. In response to rapid population growth in the
region, the Primary District built Meadowlark
Elementary School in 2013. The districts have
experienced a 6.7% annual increase in enrollment for
the last five years. Anticipating future growth, the
district has purchased land for a new high school and
middle school and is currently considering expansion of Sacajawea Middle School.
Belgrade Primary and Secondary Schools Districts consist of one high school, one middle school,
and three elementary schools and currently enroll over 3,100 students. With the failure of a recent
school levy, the districts are struggling to fund the construction of a new elementary school to
accommodate annual enrollment increases that have ranged from five to seven percent over recent
years.
Monforton School District in Four Corners consists of one school facility, in which approximately
300 students are enrolled. District voters recently passed a $2.9 million bond issue to expand the
school, add three more classrooms, turn the current lunchroom back into a classroom, and build a
new cafeteria which will double as a community room. This is in response to a spike in enrollment
from 234 in 2010 students to 312 in 2013.
548
18
Parks
Growth policies for Bozeman, Belgrade, and Gallatin County identify the need for open space and
public park lands. Approximately 667 acres of parks are located within the city of Bozeman.
Notable parks include Beall Park, Bogert Park, East Gallatin Recreation Area, and Lindley Park.
Additionally, the Bozeman Recreation Division operates and manages Bozeman Swim Center,
Bogert Pool, Beall Park Recreation Center, and five ice skating rinks. The city of Belgrade maintains
seventeen parks, including Lewis and
Clark Park, Kathy Hollensteiner
Memorial Park, Lion’s Park, and
Kiwanis Park. Roughly 100 acres of
county parkland are located within the
study area, within the Gallatin County
Regional Park.
549
19
GROWTH POLICIES
Growth policies are the method by which communities articulate goals, provide objectives and
strategies for maintaining public infrastructure and establish a vision for current land use decisions.
Within the Triangle area, growth policies for the County, Belgrade and Bozeman all come into play.
Understanding the legal requirements for these documents, the purpose and the broad goal
statements of the documents help provide a framework for the planning issues within the Triangle.
Local governments adopt growth policies in order to formally articulate a community vision.
Growth policies can be used as a source of information for community demographics,
environmental characteristics and common goals. It is used to guide the community when making
decisions regarding its development.
While a growth policy is not required, if a local government chooses to prepare and adopt one, there
are certain required elements, including:
Community goals and objectives;
Maps and text that describe the characteristics and features of the jurisdiction, including
population, land uses, housing needs, economic conditions, local services, public facilities,
and natural resources;
Projected trends of the characteristics and features;
Policies, regulations and other tools to be implemented in order to achieve the goals and
objectives;
A strategy for development, maintenance and replacement of public infrastructure, including
roads, water systems, wastewater treatment, sewer systems, solid waste facilities and fire
protection facilities;
An implementation strategy identifying timing for implementation; and a list of conditions
that will instigate a revision to the policy;
A description of how the jurisdiction will coordinate and cooperate with other jurisdictions;
A description of how the jurisdiction will review subdivisions for impacts on the public
interest criteria of the subdivision review criteria established in Section 76-3-608(3)(a), MCA.
Those criteria include agriculture, agricultural water user facilities, local services, the natural
environment, wildlife and wildlife habitat, and public health and safety;
A description of how public hearings for subdivisions will be conducted;
An evaluation of the potential for fire, including wildland fires.
Growth policies are required to be prepared by the local planning board and are adopted by the
elected governing board. Planning boards work with their planning staff or consultant to prepare
the plan, including developing a public input process for residents to participate. The governing
body of the local jurisdiction adopts the growth policy after preparation by the planning board and
550
20
public participation. Growth policies should be reviewed every 5 years to ensure the policy reflects
current information and current community goals.
Gallatin County adopted its current growth policy in 2003; City of Belgrade in 2007; and the City of
Bozeman adopted the Bozeman Community Plan in 2009.
Gallatin County Growth Policy
The Gallatin County Planning Board is currently reviewing the 2003 Growth Policy and preparing
an update to that policy. The 2003 policy as well as the 2014 draft lists the ideas that the Planning
Board and Commission are striving for when preparing the Growth Policy and reviewing
development projects. These include:
A coherent pattern of land use will be established and will not sprawl across the
countryside or along major transportation corridors.
Compact development is
encouraged as a way to
achieve an efficient use of
land and infrastructure,
reducing sprawl, preserving
open space and creating a
separation between
communities (e.g recreational parkway,
etc.).
Existing communities and neighborhoods
will encourage and reward infill and
contiguous development.
Transportation systems consistent with the
overall growth management vision will be
carefully planned.
Community centers will grow only with adequate highway, utility, health, educational
and recreational facilities.
The needs of agriculture, industry and business will be recognized in future growth.
Residential areas will provide healthy surroundings for family life.
Open
space
Wildlife habitat
Rangeland
Agricultural lands
551
21
Agricultural, wildlife and hydrological resources will be identified and steps taken to
help conserve these resources.
The demand for new housing units will be adequately and timely met, and excessive
regulation that adversely impacts housing affordability will be avoided.
The growth of the community will be commensurate with and promote the efficient
and economical use of public funds.
Coordination and cooperation with municipalities so that development in the County
does not compromise the ability of municipalities to grow in the future or expand
necessary infrastructure.
Belgrade Growth Policy
The Belgrade Growth Policy was adopted in 2006, with this as the stated primary goal:
The primary goal of the Belgrade Area Growth Policy is to improve
the efficiency of land use in the Belgrade City‐County Planning
Jurisdiction (planning jurisdiction), as shown on the attached Future
Land Use Map, by concentrating development within and adjacent to
Belgrade on soils which would be considered marginal for
agricultural production. As the distance increases from the City, the
Growth Policy encourages the preservation of farmland, open space,
and protection of the East and West Gallatin rivers.
Bozeman Community Plan
The Bozeman Community Plan was prepared and adopted in 2009 after an extensive participation
public process, from which the following vision statement was developed.
Bozeman’s unique identity, characterized by its natural surroundings, its historic and
cultural resources, and its downtown, which is the heart and center of the
community, is preserved and enhanced.
Bozeman’s economy is strong, diverse and sustainable.
Our natural resources are protected and preserved for future generations.
552
22
A diversity of recreational facilities, activities, and parks are provided.
Public services and infrastructure support our growing population in a cost‐effective
manner.
The community development pattern is sustainable,
and preserves our health, safety, and quality of life.
The housing stock provides quality, affordability, and
choice.
Our development pattern encourages and enables the
use of diverse modes of transportation.
Our quality of life is enhanced by the arts.
Our governmental agencies, including the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County, work
together in a cooperative and coordinated way for the good of the region.
An actively engaged citizenry has a wide array of opportunities to participate in civic
life.
Our community recognizes that the individual and collective choices we make have
consequences.
553
23
SCENARIO MAPS
Envision Tomorrow is a mapping and data tool that can be used to model land use scenarios and
evaluate results of those scenarios. It allows communities to analyze their current growth pattern
and understand how future decisions about growth and land use can impact issues such as public
health, fiscal responsibility and environmental quality. Students at Montana State University (MSU)
created a series of scenario maps for the Gallatin Valley by working with a stakeholder group
comprised of representatives from City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallatin County to
develop and refine several future growth scenarios for the Gallatin Valley. The scenarios developed
are simply tools to help communities visually and numerically compare and contrast the implications
of different future growth scenarios. Scenarios are not plans. Development of the scenarios
emphasized various goals and objectives from the adopted growth policies and other planning
documents of the participating jurisdictions and demonstrate alternative actions.
Using existing development within the Gallatin Valley, students in the MSU School of Architecture
identified common residential and commercial development types.
They researched characteristics typically associated with these
development types, such as average densities, water and
wastewater facilities, energy consumption, and property tax
revenues. From these local examples, a generalized development
summary was created and used as the basis for the Envision
Tomorrow growth scenario models.
Using the Envision Tomorrow tool, various types of development
can be “painted” on the landscape to create different scenarios.
The scenarios result in a map of the spatial development that
could occur, as well as the cumulative impacts of that
development.
Six scenarios were developed based on historic patterns of
development, existing growth policies, and current thinking
about development. These scenarios were analyzed and
three were selected for use in this study. The three
scenarios are identified as Gallatin Growth Policy, Fiscally
Efficient, and Villages. These scenarios are located in
Appendix A. As viewed on paper, these scenarios would
result in very different futures for the valley, with various growth impacts.
Each scenario represents a population increase of an additional 126,500 people. Based on a
population in 2013 of approximately 94,720, this represents an annual growth rate of 2.6 percent.
As a comparison, from 2000 to 2014, the annual average population growth was 2.75 percent. The
554
24
scenarios use a lower percentage of growth but overall reflect a consistent pattern of growth that has
been experienced within the county. Considering that the majority of past population growth has
occurred in the study area, county-wide growth rates should reflect growth within the study area.
The scenarios produce maps as well as estimated values for average home price, property tax
revenue per acre, developed land area, and infrastructure needs. These values are estimated
projections. However, the results are still useful because they enable relative comparisons to be
made between the three scenarios.
Scenario 1: Gallatin Growth Policy
The Gallatin Growth Policy Scenario was developed based on the
principle that growth is guided by the current Gallatin Growth
Policy. This policy loosely discourages development in areas
currently at less than one unit per 160 acres and encourage
development near existing communities. This scenario focuses on
development around Bozeman and Belgrade with higher density
development adjacent to the cities and lower densities farther
from the cities.
Scenario 2: Fiscally Efficient
The guiding principle of the Fiscally Efficient scenario is to focus
growth in and around Bozeman, Belgrade and Four Corners, thus
reducing costs related to new infrastructure. This strategy
emphasizes small-lot single family homes and apartments. Large
lot subdivisions (5 to 20 acres per lot) are minimized. A paper
published in 2011, Understanding Smart Growth Savings by Todd
Litman with the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (Canada) cites
previous studies of infrastructure costs in urban, rural and low
density suburban development areas and supports compact
development as a fiscal efficient approach to development. This
scenario reflects that analysis.
555
25
Scenario 3: Villages
The guiding principal of the Villages scenario is that growth is
focused to create self-sufficient villages. Each village has a live-
work core for zero commute housing, all with services and
entertainment available within walking distance. This scenario
encourages more commercial development away from the city
center in order to encourage the development of villages.
Summary
There is more than one way to grow. Land use patterns over a large area can significantly vary
depending upon goals and policies implemented to support those goals. These scenarios are
examples only, but show how policy decisions can affect long term and permanent outcomes.
Gallatin Growth
Policy
Fiscally
Efficient
Villages
New Developed Acres 89,961 22,707 24,805
People per Net Acre 3.1 12.6 11.1
Housing Units per Net Residential Acre 2.6 9.0 6.5
Total New Roads needed, in miles 80.48 25.04 50.8
Total new private wells and septic systems 2,623 309 523
Property Tax Revenue, per acre, estimated $1,711 $7,348 $6,684
556
26
GROWTH POLICIES AND SCENARIOS
Because growth policies are the roadmaps that communities have and use for identifying goals and
objectives, comparing the growth policies to the scenarios to see how they align is a practical
undertaking. Communities wishing to fulfill a certain scenario can use this analysis in their own
evaluation of their growth policy.
This section analyzes the growth policies within the study area to the scenarios produced by
Envision Tomorrow, in order to identify conflicts between stated goals and potential outcomes.
Scenario 1 Gallatin Growth Policy
Each scenario was analyzed and compared to each of the jurisdiction’s growth policies, including the
Gallatin County Bozeman Area Plan and the Four Corners Community Plan. The first analysis
compared the Gallatin Growth Policy Scenario to each of the community growth policies. Below
are the goals and objectives that substantially conflict with the scenario.
Gallatin County Growth Policy
Below are the goals and policies from the Gallatin County Growth Policy that are currently in place
that conflict with Scenario 1: Gallatin Growth Policy. Policy conflicts that are shared with the Four
Corners Community Plan and the Gallatin County Bozeman Area Plan are noted.
3.1 Water Quality
GOAL 1: Promote Water Quality
Policy 4: Encourage multiuser or public water and wastewater treatment systems
Rationale for Conflict Identification: The Scenario identifies an additional 2,623 of
new wells and septic systems that would be required for the new lots greater than 2
acres to be developed. This scenario would generate 5 times more wells and septic
systems than projected for the other two scenarios.
3.3 Fish, Wildlife and Plant Habitat
GOAL 1: Conserve Important Habitat
Policy 2: Encourage development to conserve important habitat
Promote open space corridors for identified wildlife migration corridors
This goal is also articulated in the Gallatin County Bozeman Area Plan, which calls
for policies that encourage cluster and low-impact development, such as a Transfer
of Development Rights.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: The low density development pattern projected
in Scenario 1 carries significant quality implications for fish, wildlife, and plant
557
27
habitat. According to the model, this growth trajectory results in the development of
6,792 single family mid-sized lots and 2,623 single-family 2-acre lots dispersed over a
surface area of 85,357 acres.
3.7 Residential
GOAL 1: Encourage Residential Development in Areas Planned or Zoned for
Residential Use
Policy 2: Development should document: Provision of adequate local services and
public facilities
Policy 3: Discourage Sprawl
Policy 4: Promote residential development adjacent to existing developed land, and
that does not foster sprawl development: Discourage leapfrog development and
support land use patterns that are not energy and land consumptive and do not
require a high ratio of road surface to development served.
Policy 5: Promote residential development that is clustered and compatible with
existing developed land.
This goal is also found in the Gallatin County Bozeman Area Plan, which supports
policies that encourage cluster development.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: The scenario indicates substantial low density
development outside of the planning jurisdictions. This is the type of sprawl that
Policy 3 seems to be discouraging. Scenario 1 also has the highest miles of new
roadways required for development, which is in conflict to Policy 4.
3.12 Mobility and Circulation
GOAL 1: Provide a safe and efficient transportation system.
Policy 1: Promote multi-modal transportation opportunities: encourage development
to be consistent with countywide trails plan.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: At an average density of 3.1 persons per net
acre, this scenario is not conducive to multi-modal transportation options. Density
at this rate requires private automobiles as the primary and most likely only
transportation option available to those residents.
3.13 Local Services
GOAL 1: Provide for local services and public facilities
Policy 2: Encourage multi-user, public water and wastewater treatment systems
GOAL 2: Provide cost effective extension of public facilities and local services
558
28
This goal is shared by both the Gallatin County Bozeman Area Plan and the Four
Corners Community Plan which both support the use of centralized wastewater and
water systems within their planning areas.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: This scenario identifies the largest number of
private wells and septic systems needed of the three scenarios. Large acre lot
development is not cost- effective for providing community or public facilities.
According to the Gallatin County Regional Wastewater Management System Feasibility Study,
serving low density areas with centralized wastewater treatment is uneconomical
because the necessary collection costs are too large and the rate payer base too small.
For a centralized wastewater system to be economically viable, a minimum density of
four persons per acre is necessary. Scenario 1 projects development of over 2,600
lots larger than 2 acres. Given that the average household size within the Gallatin
Valley is 2.17 persons per dwelling unit, the economically feasible development
density for centralized wastewater systems consists of at least one-half acre lots.
3.15 Agriculture
GOAL 1: Preserve Productive farm and ranch lands
Policy 2: Support development standards that protect agricultural activities from
incompatible uses and encourage development to buffer between non-agricultural
uses in agricultural areas.
Both the Gallatin County Bozeman Area Plan and the Four Corners Community
Plan contain language calling for the preservation of existing farm and ranch lands.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: This scenario replaces large areas of
agricultural land with low density housing. There is a significant shift from
productive farmland to housing development within this scenario with no apparent
buffers between residential uses and existing agricultural uses.
Belgrade Growth Policy
GOAL 2: Land Use – Agriculture.
Protect and promote agriculture and agri-business as the agriculture industry
contributes to the economic well-being of the valley and provides many benefits to
the area including a rural atmosphere, open space wildlife habitat and certain
recreational opportunities.
D. Encourage rigidly maintained land buffer zones that will provide acceptable
distances between people and certain types of land uses, i.e. certain crops livestock
businesses industry public facilities etc. to reduce or eliminate nuisance complaints.
J. Development should be discouraged and agriculture should be encouraged on land
with productive soil structure with adequate water availability.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: This scenario does not preserve existing
agricultural land, and does not provide buffers between new development and
559
29
existing agricultural land uses. As with the similar goals outlined in the Gallatin
County Growth Policy, the scenario does not preserve and support agriculture and
agri-business within the Belgrade Growth Policy Area.
GOAL 5: Economic Conditions
Promote the local economy and employment by providing for adequate commercial
areas for retail light manufacturing and industrial areas etc.
H. Encourage the continuation of the establishment of commercial and light
industrial corridors to the east west and south including a commercial corridor south
of Belgrade on Jackrabbit Lane.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: This scenario envisions the majority of
development surrounding Belgrade to be residential in nature, particularly along the
Jackrabbit Lane corridor.
GOAL 7: Public Facilities Parks and Recreation
Provide adequate public facilities efficiently and effectively.
A. A modern and adequate sewage disposal system to meet the present and expected
needs of the community should be developed and maintained. With an adequate
system the use of septic tanks can be curtailed thereby safeguarding underground
water supplies.
G. Modern community waste disposal must replace individual septic systems that
may degrade groundwater New development should not be allowed if it lowers
existing levels of service including questionable cumulative effects regarding waste.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: The future development surrounding Belgrade
in this scenario is low density residential, which is more likely to use wells and septic
systems. This type of low density development is not cost-effective to serve with
public water and waste water systems.
GOAL 9: Natural Resources Surface and Groundwater Quality and Availability
Protect surface and groundwater quality and availability
A. Encourage developments outside the City limits to provide potable water from
public water system versus individual wells for each lot and the creation of Water
Maintenance Districts to maintain the system
Rationale for Conflict Identification: The future development surrounding Belgrade
in this scenario is low density residential, which is more likely to use wells for potable
water. This type of low density development is not cost-effective to serve with
public water systems.
560
30
Bozeman Community Plan
The Bozeman Community Plan has 17 chapters or elements detailing the community’s vision.
Thirteen of those chapters have goals and objectives that can be weighed against the scenario maps.
The overarching goals of the plan support a sustainable development pattern for the community.
The low density, sprawling development pattern of this scenario conflicts with many of these goals.
The following goals are representative of that conflict.
3.3 Land Use Goals
Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently
provides public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where
people live and work, and minimizes sprawl.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: The Gallatin Growth Policy scenario shows
sprawling areas of suburban type development adjacent to the existing City limits.
The type of development pattern depicted in the scenario does not encourage
services and facilities close to housing and does not minimizes sprawl.
Goal LU-2: Designate centers for commercial development rather than corridors to
encourage cohesive neighborhood development in conjunction with non-motorized
transportation options.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: The land use pattern depicted in the scenario is
a single use type pattern that is consistent with sprawl, corridor development.
11.3 Transportation Goal
Goal T-2: Ensure that a variety of travel options exist which allow safe, logical, and
balanced transportation choices.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: In this scenario, a typically low density type of
development pattern is oriented toward the private automobile. Distances between
uses become too large for walking and biking, and inefficient for public
transportation.
Goal T-3: Encourage transportation options that reduce resource consumption,
increase social interaction, support safe neighborhoods, and increase the ability of
the existing transportation facilities to accommodate a fast growing city.
Rationale for Conflict Identification: As with the previous goals, the low density type
of development will increase the amount of new roads required and decrease the
ability for multi-modal uses.
Summary
The growth pattern depicted in Scenario 1 is inconsistent with several of the goals and objectives of
the three growth policies. Substantial changes to the overarching vision statements would be needed
to enact policy that would create the growth pattern depicted. The policy would need to reflect a
turn away from agricultural heritage preservation in favor of low-density suburban development.
561
31
Based on the principles outlined in each of these growth policies, we cannot recommend specific
changes to goals that would encourage this type of development. According to adopted growth
policy objectives, Scenario 1 represents an undesirable future for the valley. These policies and
vision statements should be reviewed during the public input and outreach phase of any growth
policy revision.
Scenario 2: Fiscally Efficient
The fiscally efficient scenario projects a land use pattern that minimizes public development costs by
focusing future growth within and around existing communities. The land use pattern of Scenario 2,
which develops one-fourth the land area to accommodate the same population increase as Scenario
1, is comprised of more mixed use compact development.
Gallatin County Growth Policy
The goals within the existing and proposed Growth Policy update, as well as the Gallatin County
Bozeman Area Plan and the Four Corners Community Plan, are consistent with the type of
development depicted in Scenario 2. The goals support preservation of farm land and farming
practices, compact development, water quality protection and open space preservation. The goals,
particularly related to the Housing Section of the Growth Policy, support the development pattern
within this Scenario.
Belgrade Growth Policy
The Fiscally Efficient scenario results in growth of residential and industrial uses surrounding
Belgrade. Many of the goals outlined in the Belgrade Growth Policy encourage the type of
development shown on this scenario. However, the limits of development are shown on the Future
Land Use Plan is greater than what is indicted on the Scenario.
The Fiscally Efficient Scenario depicts the vast majority of new housing to be multifamily around
the Belgrade area. The Belgrade Growth Policy seeks to encourage a variety of housing types,
including more affordable manufactured and mobile homes. This scenario may limit the ability to
provide for this variety of affordable housing types.
Bozeman Community Plan
Under the Fiscally Efficient Scenario, the majority of new development within the existing Bozeman
City limits consists of apartment buildings and townhouses with an average development density of
12 household units per acre. The Bozeman Community Plan states that “the provision of a range of
housing options…is an important consideration,” For such a scenario to be realized, the city would
need to implement policies that strongly favor high-density, multifamily development.
Summary
For the Fiscally Efficient Scenario to align with the growth policy objectives adopted by Gallatin
County, the city of Bozeman, the city of Belgrade, the Gallatin County Bozeman Area, and the Four
Corners Zoning District, the land use maps associated with each of the policies would need to be
evaluated for fit with the scenario. While the goals and objectives of the policies support the type of
562
32
development shown in Scenario 2, the language of those goals would need to be strengthened in
order to support regulations that would implement it.
The Gallatin County Growth Policy supports and encourages the development of citizen petitioned
201 zoning districts. Under this scenario, implementation of those 201 zone districts may be in
conflict with the growth pattern shown. This conflict would need to be identified and resolved.
The City of Belgrade Land Use Map shows a larger area for development than is depicted on the
Scenario. In order to align with the scenario, the Land Use Map would need to be updated.
Scenario 3: Villages
This scenario depicts the development of self-sufficient villages located throughout the valley,
expanding areas of development that already exist. These villages contain compact, mixed-use
development with live-work village cores that reduce or eliminate automobile commutes and enable
multiple modes of transportation. Large areas of the study area remain in their current use.
Gallatin County Growth Policy
The compact development pattern envisioned in Scenario 3 takes on a similar look to the diagram in
the introduction to the Growth Policy (see page 19 of this report for that diagram). Clustered
development with areas of agriculture and open space separating areas of development. However,
individual goals and policies within the plan conflict and may not support the development of
villages in unincorporated areas. Specific conflicts include:
3.7 Residential
GOAL 1: Encourage Residential Development in Areas Planned or Zoned for
Residential Use
Policy 2: Development should document: Provision of adequate local services and
public facilities
Policy 3: Discourage Sprawl
Policy 4: Promote residential development adjacent to existing developed land, and
that does not foster sprawl development: Discourage leapfrog development and
support land use patterns that are not energy and land consumptive and do not
require a high ratio of road surface to development served.
Similar language calling for the promotion of residential development adjacent to
existing developed land is found in the Gallatin County Bozeman Area
Rationale for conflict: Creating self-sustaining villages within unincorporated areas
of the County could lead to leapfrogging of development, and unintended sprawl.
3.15 Agriculture
GOAL 1: Preserve Productive farm and ranch lands
563
33
3. Promote development adjacent to or within cities, unincorporated communities
and other areas planned for such development where public facilities and
infrastructure are available, and away from areas exclusively for agricultural.
Likewise, the Four Corners Community plan supports “development standards that
protect agricultural activities.”
Rationale for conflict: This scenario would promote high intensity uses adjacent to
productive farmland in areas without public infrastructure.
Belgrade Growth Policy
This scenario shows increased development around Belgrade, with a large village center located
south and east of the city along Alaska Road. With the completion of the new interstate interchange
at the airport, it is likely that this area will see increased activity. When the Growth Policy was
adopted in 2006, the Land Use Plan does not contemplate this type of intense use. Rather, the
growth policy encourages development around the City and along Jackrabbit Road. The Land Use
Map would need to be updated as well as development of goals and policies that would support
intense development away from the core downtown area.
Bozeman Community Plan
One of the seven components that form the land use policies of the Bozeman Community Plan is
the idea of Centers. Within the Plan, centers are defined as areas of commercial activity that provide
employment opportunities, convenience to residents and create efficiencies in delivery of public
services. This scenario aligns with the center-based concept laid out in this plan.
Summary
The development depicted in this scenario aligns well with the policies of the Gallatin County
Growth Policy, the Gallatin County Bozeman Area Plan, the Four Corners Community Plan, and
the Bozeman Community Plan. The changing landscape surrounding Belgrade as it relates to the
new airport interchange should be addressed in any update to the Belgrade Growth Policy. As
depicted in this scenario, increased development along Alaska Road is not representative of the
Growth Policy. However, this development projection is likely in response to the new I-90
interchange.
564
34
FUTURE SERVICE NEEDS
The different growth scenarios will have different impacts on existing and future infrastructure and
services. Analyzing each scenario for resources that would be needed to support such a growth
pattern can help communities evaluate and think about future growth. These scenarios are a broad
brush approach and therefore specific impacts may be difficult to measure. The summary below
uses information available within the scenarios, as well as information from public reports and
interviews of service providers.
Scenario 1: Gallatin Growth Policy
The development footprint projected in Scenario 1 would require additional infrastructure and
public resources to provide quality service for new and existing residents. The low density nature of
the new development will likely develop in the County and not annex into either city. This impacts
County services. The following is a summary of the anticipated additional services required for this
scenario:
An additional 82.48 miles of roadways
2,653 new wells and septic systems for
private, low density residential lots
New suburban style lots, needing private
community wastewater treatments
New urban units to connect to existing
municipal services
Additional County services, such as
Sheriff’s Patrol, and maintenance of County
roads would be required.
Rural Fire Districts will also see increased
demands for services and additional fire stations.
Rural School Districts will also see additional students.
Scenario 2: Fiscally Efficient
The fiscally efficient scenario envisions the majority of new development to surround the Cities of
Belgrade and Bozeman. Under this scenario, the density surrounding the cities would enable
practical and efficient expansion of City services. The following additional infrastructure, services
and agreements would be needed:
An additional 24.04 miles of roadways
309 new wells and septic systems for private, low density residential lots
New urban units to connect to existing municipal services
The additional population would likely reside within the Cities of Bozeman and Belgrade,
thereby increasing the need for all municipal services, including police, fire, street,
stormwater, and planning.
565
35
Scenario 3: Villages
The Villages Scenario would place additional growth surrounding the existing municipalities of
Belgrade and Bozeman, but would also increase density within unincorporated areas of the County.
Of the three scenarios, this would require the most involvement of all three jurisdictions in to order
to fulfill this growth scenario. Additional infrastructure, services and agreements include the
following:
An additional 50.8 miles of additional roadways
523 new wells and septic systems for private, low density residential lots
New suburban style lots needing private community wastewater treatment
New urban units to connect to existing municipal services
The additional intensity of development in unincorporated areas of Gallatin County
would require additional services such as Sheriff, Fire Districts, public transportation
(Streamline), community or municipal water service, stormwater management
566
36
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGIONAL
COOPERATION
Places that have diverse views and policies seem unlikely to reach common ground. Yet, there is
public support for regional cooperation. This is evidenced in the Envision Utah or the Blackfoot
Challenge in Montana. Finding common ground and seeking cooperation is not always a short task.
The steps recommended below are intended as stepping stones to build knowledge and trust so that
cooperation becomes easier. These are intended to enable the procedural elements of regional
cooperation to be established.
1. Create a Planning Coordinating Committee
Modelled after the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC), each jurisdiction should
appoint a group dedicated to working on and interested in regional planning issues.
Representatives from elected officials, City offices, County offices, Montana State, fire districts
and other service providers should be included. As with the TCC, quarterly meetings should be
established for the purposes of information sharing. Such a coordinating committee should be
tasked with the following items:
a. Create a common portal for property information, including service district boundaries for
multiple agencies including schools, postal services, planning districts, zoning information,
water and sewer service information. Throughout the development of this study, access and
availability to public information was often scattered across a variety of websites or public
offices. Anyone seeking information, whether it be a resident, consultant, or service
provider would benefit from a consolidated source for information related to property
within the study area. A likely portal for such a site, where much of the information is
already available, is the Montana Governor’s Office of Economic Development Site
Selector.
b. Investigate cooperation between the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County and Belgrade
City/County Planning Boards. Opportunities to increase communications regarding policies
and projects should be evaluated. Discussions should include potential benefits to regional
cooperation by providing formal comments on relevant projects, coordinating and
discussing policies related to regional issues, and future impacts on services.
c. Send a study team to evaluate the regional success stories.
A commitment to regional cooperation should include learning from others. Successful
communities referenced in the Addendum could provide insights that would benefit
discussion and actions of regional cooperation.
d. Continue the work by MSU on the Envision Scenarios.
Understanding and using the Envision Tomorrow software can be a tool for communities to
talk about change. Participating with MSU and building upon their knowledge of the
scenarios and the software can benefit discussions about a community’s future and provide a
strong visual understanding of choices and decisions.
567
37
2. Review and Update Growth Policies
Growth policies should be reviewed by their approving agencies at least every 5 years. In a fast
growing area, a lot of change can happen in that time. Committing to a review of the document
will ensure that goals and policies still reflect community values and choices. Evaluate the goals
and policies identified as being in conflict with a particular scenario. The scenarios can be used
to help communities evaluate those goals. Planning Boards for each of these jurisdictions with
the support of staff will need to implement.
3. Increase Community Participation
Implementation cannot be by government alone. Individuals and private interests must be part
of the solution. Invite interested community members to be part of the discussion.
Much like the work of Envision Utah where success came through citizens concerned for the
future, community members can build commitment to solving community issues.
4. Continue the evaluation of items identified in this study
This broad analysis of possible growth scenarios and impacts on the community has touched on
many topics. It was not intended to provide in-depth analysis of all the issues facing the
Triangle area. The issues should continue to be reviewed and evaluated. These include:
a. Items identified in the Stahly Wastewater Study.
b. Coordination of infrastructure issues, including transportation, water and wastewater
service.
c. How to address impacts on services, such as schools and fire districts, in the Triangle
area should continue to be evaluated.
568
38
ADDENDUM: REGIONAL EXAMPLES
Montana
There are two fully-consolidated city-county governments in Montana. Anaconda - Deer Lodge
County formed in 1977, and the City and County of Butte Silver Bow became incorporated in 2006.
These jurisdictions are legally designated as both incorporated municipalities and counties with
county boundaries serving as consolidated city-county boundaries. The Anaconda – Deer Lodge
Commission as well as the Butte – Silver Bow Commission are the legislative and policy-making
bodies of their respective governments, and all government departments and agencies serve both
city and county residents. This governmental framework replaced the separate municipal and county
governments of both communities as a means of maintaining infrastructure and public service
quality in response to local depopulation and tax base reduction.
Yellowstone County and the Cities of Billings and
Broadview operate with a single planning
department, providing planning services to residents
and supporting the Yellowstone County Board of
Planning and the City and County Zoning
Commissions and Boards of Adjustments.
Yellowstone County and the City of Billings
prepared and adopted a joint Growth Policy Update
in 2008. However, each separately maintain zoning
and subdivision regulations. Additionally, the
Yellowstone County Planning Board is the
designated Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) and oversees transportation planning for the
Billings Urban Area. The area includes Billings and
extends approximately 4.5 miles outside of the City
limits. The MPO is responsible for preparing a
Unified Planning Work Program on an annual basis
that addresses capital projects to be undertaken and
specific funding information.
Idaho
Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act (1975) requires cities to identify areas they may wish to annex
in the future by designating such areas as part of an Area of City Impact (AOI). Locations where
infrastructure expansion is likely to occur are thus identified by both the city and the county. Lands
not included in the AOI are not typically eligible for annexation. The AOI approach allows for the
rational extension of city streets and utilities. Cities and counties in Idaho negotiate AOI agreements
and maps of AOI boundaries. Area of City Impact agreements determine whether the plans or
regulations of (1) the county, (2) the city, or (3) some combination of both apply within the AOI
569
39
boundary. When city or county land use plans are revised in Idaho, AOI agreements and boundaries
are reviewed and potentially updated, along with relevant regulations.
Wyoming
City of Sheridan/Sheridan County
While the city of Sheridan and Sheridan County each possess separate planning commissions and
departments, these entities adopted a Joint Planning
Area (JPA) in 2008 as a component of the Sheridan
County Comprehensive Plan. The JPA, located
around the City of Sheridan, is an area of
approximately 60 square miles, of which
approximately 10 square miles are currently
incorporated into the City of Sheridan. The
boundary encompasses the area where future
development and conservation activities and future
decisions are of joint interest to residents and
government of both the city and the county. The
JPA provides long-range guidance to property
owners, citizens, and decision makers on land use
issues, such as where and how future residential,
commercial, and industrial development should
occur, irrespective of jurisdiction (city or county)
and facilitates the development and implementation
of policies that encourage compact urban growth as
a means of protecting and conserving riparian areas,
groundwater quality, and agricultural lands outside the urban areas. Subdivisions located within the
JPA require approval by both the city and the county. All other development within the JPA
requires final approval by the county. However, under these circumstances, both entities frequently
utilize an established system of notice and comment.
East Fifth Corridor Plan
In addition to establishing a growth policy for the JPA, Sheridan County and the City of Sheridan in
partnership with The Wyoming Department of Transportation integrated the Sheridan County
Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Plan for the JPA to develop a corridor plan for East
5th Street. This plan articulates a collective vision for the future the corridor that reflects the views
and objectives of various community stakeholders, providing a framework of principles, policies,
design options and implementation strategies for guiding future development along this historic
thoroughfare.
570
40
Teton County/Town of Jackson
Teton County and the city of Jackson jointly fund and share a long range planner who worked with
both entities in 2012 to develop the Jackson/Teton County
Comprehensive Plan. This plan establishes a coordinated growth
management approach, in which municipal and county Land
Development Regulations have been aligned. The city and county are
currently developing an Integrated Transportation Plan. Its creation
will establish a community-wide vision for meeting future
transportation needs through the use of alternative modes.
Utah
Envision Utah
Envision Utah is a public, regional planning effort launched in 1997 aimed at addressing the impacts
of rapid population growth and improving the quality of life within the Greater Wasatch Area, the
narrow corridor stretching one hundred miles north and south of Salt Lake City. Envision Utah is a
unique non-profit organization comprised of leaders within the public and private sectors that –
over the course of two years - brought together diverse stakeholders across the region to develop a
Quality Growth Strategy for the Greater Wasatch Area. The organization continues to engage
regional stakeholders in growth strategy revisions, the most recent of which being the Wasatch
Choice for 2040 Vision, adopted in 2005.
Key to Envision Utah’s success was its early leadership. Envision Utah sprang from a multi-issue
organization called Coalition for Utah’s Future. In 1995, the Coalition established the Quality
Growth Steering Committee to
research and make recommendations
to the Coalition Board on how to
address recent and rapid growth in the
state of Utah. The Coalition was
chaired by prominent and well-
respected business leaders, including
Robert Grew, President and Chief
Operating Officer of Geneva Steel,
former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Jr., and Greg Bell, a former mayor, land-use attorney and
successful developer. These leaders engaged mayors, city council members, developers, legislators,
and other key stakeholders in discussions about regional growth issues, fostering enough interest in
development impacts to convince then Utah Governor Michael O. Leavitt to ultimately throw his
weight behind the movement. That same year, the Utah legislature appropriated research funds for
growth analysis, and the organization that would become Envision Utah launched a public
participation and education campaign unprecedented in scope.
Envision Utah successfully created the Quality Growth Strategy in a state where regional land use
planning is viewed with suspicion because of its broad stakeholder consensus-building and public
571
41
participation approach. Since its inception, the organization sought out government and community
leaders that were representative of each major stakeholder group and jurisdiction within the Wasatch
region, including local and state government, businesses, developers, utility companies, religious
leaders, educators, conservation and citizen groups, and the media. Government participants
included the mayors, city council members, planning and development departments, and leaders of
the 10 counties, 91 cities and towns, and 157 special service districts within the Greater Wasatch
Area. Moreover, Envision Utah created opportunities for area residents to play a key role in the
decision-making process. They launched a comprehensive media campaign, encouraging residents
to participate in visioning and growth scenario selection workshops that were held throughout the
region. Overall, between 1997 and 1999, Envision Utah held over 200 public workshops, and
listened to more than 20,000 residents express their visions for the future.
Such diverse community participation helped ensure that the target growth pattern and
implementation strategies developed by Envision Utah aligned with the values, preferences, and
desires of the regional community. The Quality Growth Strategy therefore reflected community
preference for incremental, market-based approaches and incentives; education and promotion over
regulation; and retention of local land use control. Following the regional adoption of the Quality
Growth Strategies, no region-wide land use regulations were established. Rather, local communities
could voluntarily select those growth management tools developed by Envision Utah that adhered
to their unique challenges and aspirations. The success of the Envision Utah pioneering approach
has prompted other metropolitan areas to model their own regional planning initiatives after it,
including the Austin, Texas region and the Kansas City region.
572
42
RESOURCES
In preparing this study, we reviewed a number of documents pertaining to the study area, general
reports relating to planning and development, and spoke to numerous service providers and people
with interest in the future of the Gallatin Valley.
Interviews
Herb Bartle, City of Bozeman Water and Sewer Division
Ed Blackman, Financial Director, Gallatin County
Barb Campbell, Utility Solutions
Elaine Clegg, Idaho Smart Growth
Tammy Crone, District Manager, Gallatin Local Water Quality District
Jon Henderson, GIS Manager, city of Bozeman
David King, Manager RAE Water and Sewer District
Steve Johnson, Assistant Superintendent, Bozeman Public Schools
Steve Klotz, City of Belgrade Public Works
Ron Lindroth, Chief Central Valley Fire District
Jennifer Madgic, Former Planning Director, Gallatin County
Denise Moldroski, City-County Health Department
Bob Murray, Project Engineer, city of Bozeman
Chris Naumann, Executive Director, Downtown Business Partnership
Jim Simon, District Manager, Gallatin Solid Waste Management District
Dan Springer, Undersheriff, Gallatin County
Darren Strauch, Superintendent, Monforton School
Mike Waterman, Director of Business Services, Bozeman School District
Local Reports
City of Bozeman Interlocal Agreements, City of Bozeman website
Gallatin County Interlocal Agreements, Gallatin County website
Gallatin County Regional Wastewater Management System Feasibility Study, Stahly Engineers, 2010
573
43
Gallatin County, Montana Fiscal Impact Analysis, Sonoran Institute and RPI Consulting, March 2009
Monforton School District Growth Rate Study, Dowl HKM, October 2012
PROST Plan, City of Bozeman, 2010
Streamline 2012 Business Plan, January 2013
Subdivision Regulations, Gallatin County, City of Belgrade and City of Bozeman
State and National Studies and Documents
A History of Envision Utah and the Quality Growth Strategy, Envision Utah, 2003
Agricultural Protection in Montana: Local Planning, Regulation, and Incentives, Land Use Clinic,
University of Montana School of Law, Spring 2012
Learning to Think and Action Like A Region, Matthew McKenney and Kevin Essington, Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy, January 2006
Montana’s Growth Policy Resource Book, Montana Department of Commerce, April 2009
Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions among Land Use,
Transportation, and Environmental Quality, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Sustainable Communities, Smart Growth Program, June 2013
Regional Approaches to Sustainable Development: Linking Economic, Transportation, and Environmental
Infrastructure in Rural and Small Metropolitan America, National Association of Development
Organizations Research Foundation, September 2011
Smart Growth and Conventional Suburban Development: An infrastructure case study completed for the EPA,
Jonathan Ford, PE, Morris Beacon Design, January 2010
This Shifting Nature of US Housing Demand, The Demand Institute, May 2012
Understanding Smart Growth Savings, What We Know About Public Infrastructure and Service Cost Savings,
and How They are Misrepresented by Critics, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, June
17, 2011
What’s Next, Urban Land Institute, 2010
What’s Next at the Local Level, Urban Land Institute, 2011
Working Across Boundaries: Principles of Regional Collaboration, University of Montana Public Policy
Research Institute, April 15, 2008
574
576
578
580
106 East Babcock
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 522-9876
www.sandersonstewart.com
581