Big Sky Community & Infrastructure Solution Group

What Was Brian Gallik's Letter This Week All About?

We failed to copy the lawyer representing Simkins Holdings, LLC on our letter to the editor this week, but curiously he received a copy in time from at least one of those editors to dash off a response before the deadline.  Clearly he was in a hurry because there are a number of factual misstatements that require correction.

Most importantly, we are not the "Incorporation Committee." That is his personal nickname for the Big Sky Community & Infrastructure Solution Group. If we had to make up a nickname for our official title, we might settle on the "Pro-democracy Committee."  We are all about giving the people who live here the opportunity to vote on whether to become a self-governing town.

He goes on to state that "Some aspects of [our] letter are incomplete and potentially misleading." The remainder of his letter concerns the resort tax questions that are awaiting submittal to the Montana Attorney General.

First, he makes several statements that our letter implies or suggests that these questions have been submitted and a determination has been made. That's pretty silly as the last paragraph of our letter clearly states the fact that the questions have been submitted to Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney and currently reside on his desk.

More substantively, he then presents his legal interpretation of state and local resort tax statutes and ordinances. To understand where he is going with this you need to understand the requests that have been sent to Marty Lambert for submittal to the Attorney General.

As explained by Al Malinowski at our May meeting, the Big Sky Resort Area District Board request poses two questions. The first question is, what's the impact on the existing district if a smaller interior portion of the District votes to become a self-governing town? The Board request makes the legal case that the unincorporated portion of the District would continue to operate as it does currently without disruption. The second part of the request concerns the relationship of the remaining District with the new  municipality and makes the legal case that the two entities could work together to assure funding for mutually beneficial activities, as provided by statutes designed to encourage inter-governmental cooperation.

As you can see, when you ask the Attorney General a question, you also provide the legal answer you expect based on your interpretation of the appropriate law.  Brian Gallik, legal counsel to Simkins Holdings, LLC, disagrees, apparently wholeheartedly, with the interpretation made by legal counsel for both the BSRAD and our group.

And there you have it.

   

June 11 Public Meeting Summary

Our June public meeting, the last in a series of six, featured another guest speaker and a wrap-up summary of the prior five months of topics and speakers.

Dan Clark, Director of the MSU Local Government Center was the guest speaker. A former mayor of Choteau, MT, he provided an overview of the forms of government that Montana permits for its cities and towns.

He first outlined Article XI of the state Constitution which provide local government with its authority.  Two possibilities exist and it is up to the voters to decide between general powers or self-governing powers. General governing powers provide local government with general legislative and administrative powers defined by the state. Alternatively, voters may adopt self-governing powers for its local government which provides for the broader exercise of any power not prohibited by the state Constitution or laws. Examples of these expanded powers include the provision of services not allowed by statute, the ability to own and operate utilities, greater authority to dispose of public lands, and implementation of local development fees.

The state outlines six possible forms of local government. The most common is the commission-executive form, which is also variously known as the council-mayor, council-executive, or the mayor-commission form. This form calls for the election of at least three commission members and one elected executive or mayor for four year terms. Most Montana cities and towns conduct their local elections on a non-partisan basis. State law defines the duties of the executive to enforce state law and local ordinances, appoint department heads and local board members, and to prepare the budget. The commission create ordinances, policies, and resolutions, consents to the executive's appointments, and adopts the budget. The result is a system of checks and balances between the two. While the most common form of local government, Clark emphasized that it requires a "team mentality" and relies heavily on cooperation between the two bodies to avoid inefficiency.  Role clarity and formalized procedures help.

Alternatively, the commission-presiding officer form skips voter election of an executive, and instead the elected commissioners choose a presiding chair to serve in the executive role. Bozeman, until recently, has used this form for its city commission.

Clark pointed out that both of these structures rely on volunteer elected officials who may not have the time to devote to the issues that arise as a municipality grows. For that reason, some Montana cities, especially it's largest, have adopted the commission-manager form of government. The commission hires a professional manager to serve as its executive and delgates all day-to-day administrative responsibilities to this salaried position.

The last form that Clark described is the town meeting type of government, available only to communities with less than 2,000 residents. This form of direct democracy relies on the citizens to represent themselves in at least one annual meeting to make policy decisions. Currently only one Montana town operates under this structure.   

Clark answered questions and closed with the suggestion that community decision-making should strive for transparency of information, diversity of opinion, and inclusivity of all interested community members.

We then reviewed the series of meetings that have been held once monthly since January.  Click here to see this slide presentation.

Liquor Licensing Group Convenes

A group of local business owners met this week to explore possible action related to Montana's liquor licensing statues. The meeting was organized by our member, Dick Fast, in response to business concerns about restrictive license requirements in state law for municipalities. In addition, Madison County owners are interested in the issue as due to existing restrictions. See the problem the group will tackle in these of these minutes of the first meeting

May Meeting Summary

The May public meeting held on the 12th featured another panel of guest speakers. Community members had asked us previously to have someone speak on the impact of incorporation on the Fire District and on the Big Sky Community Library.  Experts in these areas plus the Gallatin County Planning Dept. and the Big Sky Resort Area District formed our four member panel for this month.

First up was Tom Rogers, a planner with the Gallatin County Planning Department.  He started out by saying that it is the County's position that their jurisdiction for planning would end within a municipal boundary if Big Sky were to incorporate. But before a muncipality can assume this function it must develop a growth plan which, Rogers stated, would take time. Thus it's unclear whether the County's role would immediately go away and the subject requires additional investigation. Rogers went on to state, the Gallatin Canyon Big Sky Zoning District extends well beyond any proposed municipal boundary and nothing would change for this broader area. He went on to describe several advantages of having a local government more closely involved with planning as it relates to the 1996 Master Plan and the 1997 Capital Improvements Policy.

Next up was Chief Jason Revisky of the Gallatin Canyon Big Sky Rural Fire District.  Jason stated that Montana law requires the provision of adequate fire suppression and emergency medical services and thus, the District would remain in place if Big Sky were to incorporate.  A municipality would be free to establish its own department, but municipalities with populations under 5,000 also have the option to contract with a surrounding rural fire district. Thus if Big Sky were to incorporate the status quo in terms of both costs and services could be maintained.

Al Malinowski, Chair of the Big Sky Resort Area District, spoke next and outlined the request for an Attorney General's opinion that the Board recently submitted to Gallatin County. The request has two parts. The first outlines the impact on the existing district if a smaller interior portion of the District were to incorporate. The request makes the legal case that the unincorporated portion of the District would continue to operate as it does currently without disruption.  The second part of the request concerns the relationship of the remaining District with the newly incorporated municipality and makes the legal case that the two entities could work together to assure funding for mutually beneficial activities.  Steve Johnson then explained that our committee has also submitted a request for an AG opinion to confirm that a new municipality may elect to become a resort community with independent taxing authority and work with the existing resort area district. Both requests are now on the desk of Gallatin County Attorney, Marty Lambert, whose office is responsible for submitting them to the State Attorney General.

The final speaker of the night was Bob Cooper, a visiting director at the Montana State Library, who is responsible for providing resources and training to the state's local public libraries.  He explained the difference between a legal public library and an independent library open to the public.  The Big Sky Community Library falls in the latter category as either a special district or a municipality is required to create the first. Cooper then went on the explain the resources available to legal public libraries which include some funding, various non-financial resources, inter-library book sharing, and access to private foundation funding, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has provided many computers to libraries across the state. 

Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 9 at 7:00 pm in the Big Sky Chapel lower level.   

April 14 Meeting Summary

In April we gave the floor to Gallatin County Commissioner Bill Murdock.  Bill left attendees with three messages:  Big Sky does not get the credit it deserves for its contribution to Montana’s economy. Road maintenance is expensive and no one wants to pay for it.  Some sort of local governance structure for Big Sky is needed.

He suggested that this structure could range from a simple council of governments made up of existing districts to an attempt to seek legislation permitting a large incorporated city stretching across county lines.  He did not favor the proposal on the table of a small Gallatin County based Meadow/Canyon area boundary because he thought it was too small. He also said that Big Sky should not expect support from Gallatin County for any proposal if there is lack of unanimity for it in Big Sky. 

   

Murdock answered a series of questions posed by Group member and moderator, Kay Reeves and from the audience.  He knows the area well, having been a small business owner, and later, Executive Director of the Big Sky Owners’ Association, before being elected to the County Commission in 1996. He currently lives in Bozeman.

Big Sky is “driving the economy” in both Gallatin and Madison counties but there is little recognition of this in Bozeman or elsewhere in the state.  He urged attendees to be more vocal on Big Sky’s positive impact to Montana’s business climate. 

Posed a question about how Gallatin County would be affected by an incorporated Big Sky, Murdock handed out an exhibit detailing county tax revenues within the Ophir School District boundaries.  He highlighted the two revenue sources that the county would lose if Big Sky became a city: road maintenance and library funds. For the Ophir district-wide area, these two total $465,000.   Murdock explained that local taxpayers contribute significant funds to the county treasury for road maintenance but receive nothing in return because there are no county-maintained roads in the Big Sky area.  “You ought to be coming to [county] budget meetings demanding a share of these funds,” he suggested. But when asked how the county might share some of the 2003 “Big Bill” revenue that it receives as a result of economic activity in Big Sky, his only suggestion was that Big Sky seek legislative relief. 

   

As to the loss to Gallatin County, he stated, “we don’t care if Big Sky incorporates or not” but he made it clear that little support for the idea would be forthcoming from his colleagues if there was significant “opposition” to the idea from Big Sky residents.  He questioned the small area being proposed and suggested that the resort tax issue and existence of many other legal districts in the area posed significant challenges.  Instead of working within existing state law, he suggested that Big Sky consider going to the state legislature for relief that would allow incorporation of the broader area and into Madison County.

In question related to the Big Sky Gallatin Canyon Zoning District and Master Plan, Murdock cited zoning as a subject that incorporation could likely improve.  “We’re making decisions many miles away;” however, planning benefits from more local control, he said. He agreed that the 1996 Master Plan may be in need of updating, stating that “it may have been too ambitious,” with “greed” playing a not insignificant role.  “The Canyon would need an eight lane highway” if the Master Plan was fully developed.

Murdock answered additional questions from the attendees and listened to comments before thanking the sponsors for the opportunity to visit Big Sky. 

Becky, this one's for you...

At the March public meeting Becky Pape asked for specific results of the Chamber of Commerce survey that led their Board to create our committee. According to Chamber staff, 218 respondents (65% of the total) expressed a concern about local governance/incorporation in Big Sky. 118 respondents (35%) did not.    

Next Meeting: April 14 7:00 PM...

...same place, lower level of the Big Sky Chapel. Our guest speaker will be Gallatin County Commissioner, Bill Murdock.

If you have a question for him, please add it here as a comment. Thank you!

March Meeting Highlights

Thanks to everyone who attended last night. Much material was covered. Check here for the presentation that Steve made. Here is the large area map (Big Sky Resort Area District boundary) he referenced. And this is the sample incorporated boundary map. Note that this boundary is slightly less than five square miles and was drawn for only for discussion purposes on the issues covered last night.  If you have any questions, feel free to post them as comments to this post.

The document that got us started...

To see what got the Community & Infrastructure Solution Group started, click here. It is an executive summary of the results of the Big Sky Chamber's community-wide survey completed in early 2004.

Monday's Meeting February 11

Thanks to everyone who came out to our meeting on Monday. Having every folding chair filled is a testament to the people of Big Sky who care for this community. Everyone’s willingness to work with rules for civility presented a refreshing break in the discourse.  We put together this meeting to bring other voices to the discussion and we very much appreciate the willingness of Ron Edwards, Jim Cashell, Matt Daugherty, Bill Olson, and Don Loyd to do so.