Do these places provide any insight to the discussion of local government in Big Sky ? We think not since this repeatedly published article leaves out the more relevant facts about these two places. In addition, the projected expense for law enforcement services in Big Sky is simply wrong. Read our response here.
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.
...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!
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.
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.
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.
We've added a new document on the Pages sidebar titled "January 2008 Some Questions & Answers" which provides information gleaned from our three years of notes. If you'd like to know more about an answer, have a comment on an answer, or have another question, just leave it as a comment below or on the page itself. We'll respond. Don't be shy.
(Click here for a printable .pdf version of the 'Questions & Answers' )
This question was posted as a comment in another post. It's a good question and one of the very first we asked to legal counsel back in 2006. We posed it a little bit differently, but the legal requirements appear to be the same. Here's the short answer:
Territory taken from an existing county must be greater than 49 square miles. Entirely new counties must be 250 square miles exclusive of forest reserve land. 50% of the registered voters in the territory to be taken must petition. All voters in both counties are permitted to vote in an election on the matter. Thus, a majority of all Madison & Gallatin county voters, plus a majority in the Big Sky area would need to approve the new county.
We concluded that it was not likely that Madison and Gallatin County voters at large would approve the removal of a significant amount of their respective county's taxable property value.
Becky Pape, in a recent letter to the editor, attempted to intuit our “agenda” citing observations of our personal behavior. We respond below to correct her factual errors concerning our personal record. As for her opinions on the subject of incorporation, we will continue disseminating those facts in our public meetings.
First, here is Steve & Jeanne Johnson’s letter which they attached to their Chamber of Commerce survey response on April 2, 2004.
To the Big Sky Chamber of Commerce:
We have owned property in Big Sky since 1993, and have been permanent residents since retiring here in 2001. We are seriously interested in and committed to the success of Big Sky as a community, and applaud the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce to seek input from the community as it develops Strategic Plan for Big Sky. This letter is intended to supplement our survey response, and to point out some of the more significant issues we feel the Chamber must address in its planning.
The diversity of the Big Sky community is clearly one of its challenges. Our community spans two counties, with the mountain area located in Madison County and the meadow and canyon areas located in Gallatin County. Further, there are at least four principal constituencies concerned about Big Sky, namely the permanent residents (consisting of both full time career people as well as retirees), absentee property owners, vacationers visiting Big Sky, and seasonal workers. The wide ranging needs of these groups often conflict, and serving them across two county jurisdictions will never be simple.
We feel strongly that an effective governance mechanism is needed for the community to successfully address this diversity. We are seriously disturbed at the factionalism displayed by the various entities and groups that express concern about development in Big Sky. The pettiness of the disputes among Boyne, Moonlight Basin and the Yellowstone Club are one particularly disgusting example. Another is the seeming inability of mountain, meadow and canyon groups to ever rise above their own narrow self-interests to work toward the possibility of a greater good. The unfortunate result of this is a hodge-podge of development clusters, with no focus on creating a mutually reinforcing community center. Both businesses and community amenities suffer as a result.
Downhill Slide by Hal Clifford is an interesting book that you might consider as a source of background information for your planning efforts. Whether you agree with its conclusions or not, it is a well-researched analysis of the current state of the market for ski resort developments. At the very least it should stimulate some useful debate among your group.
As Montana undergoes the transition from a ranching-timber-mining based economy to one of eco-tourism, by all rights Big Sky should be one of the state’s crown jewels. In our view, the central mission of the strategic plan you are developing should be to make that come about.
Very truly yours,
Steven and Jeanne Johnson
The letter stands for itself. There is no mention of construction activity, road traffic, or fury over the development of Plum Creek lands. Becky is attempting to create an anti-development agenda on our part, where none exists. Period.
Dick Fast did not build his house on the “public Aspen Grove Road” because (a) there is no such road, and (b) he lives on a cul-de-sac. The facts are these: As a member of the Aspen Groves HOA Board he and the board have worked to mitigate the use of Andesite Road by Spanish Peaks Resort construction traffic. The Board’s focus has been on the heavy gravel and other construction traffic generated by road construction in the Spanish Peaks Resort. The fact is that Spanish Peaks Resort has been cooperative in working with the Aspen Groves HOA board.
Kay Reeves does not have a family member who ever entertained any notion of heading “the Park District that was voted down.” She does have a family member who served on the BSOA Trails Committee. Tom Reeves, along with others, conducted several neighborhood meetings proposing the creation of a park district in Big Sky to provide a means to maintain parks and trails in the area. While a legal petition was presented to the Gallatin County Commission, the district was never voted on. It was doomed by Montana law which permits property owners to request exclusion from proposed park district boundaries. Tom Reeves chose to exit local politics and commit his time to the Fire Department and Search & Rescue. (Sometimes he questions his wife’s sanity.)
Finally, we need to clear up Becky’s misstatement of our role in HB 524, noting that private citizens are allowed to express their views on pending legislation. This bill passed in the last session of the Montana state legislature and did indeed lower ward density requirements for incorporation from 500 to 200 inhabitants in a square mile.
It came to our attention that a bill had been introduced to reduce the number from 500 to 250. The bill was sponsored by a Missoula lawmaker on behalf of a group of citizens in Seeley Lake. We advised the Seeley Lake citizens that as drafted, we did not think the bill would accomplish what they intended. They put us in touch with the director of the Montana League of Cities & Towns who agreed that the bill contained a drafting error. We visited with him in Helena to correct it. In the course of that discussion, he agreed to work to change 250 to 200. This version of the bill eventually passed. We stand by the effort.
In summary, we are not interested in character assassination or scare tactics. Neither of these do anything to move forward intelligent decision-making in a growing community. We agree with Will Genge’s recent “Hundred Heads Found Buried in Snow” piece in the Big Sky Sun. In our opinion, the notion that nothing should change in a dynamic community like Big Sky over the course of 35 years is an example of the same ostrich phenomenon. Our agenda is simple. Provide the facts to the Big Sky community about self-government. If it’s the will of the citizens, enable a vote. Period.
Last summer, at the suggestion of the Governer's Office for Economic Development, the Big Sky Chamber met with the Montana Economic Developers Association for advice on key issues facing Big Sky. Their conclusion?
"Most, if not all of the issues addressed during this session hinge on the community’s decision to incorporate. If Big Sky incorporates, its future direction will move toward self government and local control. If Big Sky chooses to not incorporate, the concerns identified during this meeting will require proactive partnerships with county governments in Gallatin and Madison Counties. Thus, the hinge pin for Big Sky’s future direction is the decision to incorporate. Until that decision is made future directions will remain unclear."
Read the whole report here.
In the report, Dave Cole, Montana Department of Commerce, Administrator, Community Development Division, referenced an article entitled the “Pros and Cons of Incorporation”. It comes from the state of Arizona and you can view it here.
