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.
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.
Think Montana is alone in odd laws governing the sale of alcohol? Check these out:
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.
Maybe we just missed it but we didn't see the letter we wrote to the editor of the Big Sky Weekly last week. Here's what it said:
"The Weekly covered part of the discussion which occurred at the January 14 meeting we held concerning liquor licensing and incorporation. But the article missed one piece of the discussion and the ultimate conclusion decided by participants.
The part of the discussion missed is the data Kay Reeves presented regarding liquor laws, licensed establishments, and growth in five other major western destination ski resorts. For those of you who weren’t there, the data made two points. Major destination resorts constrained by an assortment of liquor license restrictions continue to grow handsomely. Corollary to that is the fact that in comparison, Big Sky is not close to running short of capacity at the current level of licenses. If we were living 50 or 75 years ago and the state of Montana were leading the effort in the U.S. to regulate its sale, there would indeed be a major issue here. But the simple fact is that the ability to purchase an alcoholic beverage in a bar or restaurant is a regulated act in this country. Until the development community in Big Sky presents relevant data to the contrary, we agree with Michael Garrity, the Simkins’ attorney who stated that alcohol should not be the “tail that wags the dog” when it comes to deciding the incorporation question in Big Sky.
The second point missed in the Weekly article was the ultimate result of the meeting. We stated upfront that the outcome of the meeting would be a go-or-no-go decision made by the participants. Should we go forward with communicating information until the voters are ready to vote? Or should we stop now (No Go) based on the issue of alcohol license quotas? 26 of the 31 people who left prior to adjournment said Go, as did a clear majority of those in chairs when we adjourned. We look forward to continuing to get information to the community for an informed decision.
Does the potential for “tearing the community apart” concern us? Absolutely. But at the same time we can’t ignore the many “thank you”, “keep it up” comments we’ve each heard personally from people in Big Sky. The current rip you hear is about alcohol licensing. Is it important? Yes. Are there potential solutions? Yes. Are those in Big Sky who care passionately about this issue capable of taking the proactive path to finding them? We’re sure of it.
Dick Fast, Kay Reeves, Steve Johnson
Community & Infrastructure Solution Group
January 20, 2008"
There are serious reasons why Big Sky ought to consider incorporation. On the other side of the coin, there are costs to do so. And there are responsibilities that the citizens of Big Sky will need to assume if we choose to govern ourselves.
Our role is to continue to assemble facts, present them to the community, and if it is the will of the citizens, move forward to a vote on incorporation.
We will continue to hold public meetings on the second Monday of every month (7:00 pm Big Sky Chapel) to continue to present the information that we have learned, answer questions, get your input and your suggestions. In the meantime, read through the presentation we made at two public meetings almost a year ago. We will update, and expand this information over time. But for now it will provide you with some useful background.
No one knows the answer to that question as it requires a crystal ball and perfect knowledge of all of the varying market forces that factor into Big Sky's future. There are business owners who view it as devastating. There are business owners who don't think it will make a difference.
We think it is one issue that Big Sky citizens will have to weigh on the subject of self-government. There are many others. Click the link below to see the slides we presented at the meeting on January 14 on the subject of alcohol license quotas.
In the immediate future of the next few years, if Big Sky were to incorporate, nothing would change. The state cannot impose a quota until it receives the 2010 federal census data. This won't be available until the middle of 2011. After that date, new all-beverage licenses would not be available. However beer/wine licenses would be available. All-beverage licenses are transferable and the existing licensees in Big Sky could move or be sold to new establishments.
In the long term, two options are available. The first is to seek an expansion to the existing resort area designation that is in place for the Meadow Village area. This designation provides for an exception to quota limitations provided certain criteria are met. The second is to amend this existing resort exception to meet Big Sky's changing needs through legislative action.
We would like to see a group of business leaders with interest in this area take this issue on and pursue a workable solution. We have contacted a number of people to get this going and hope to see it started shortly.
