(Note:  Please consider how the residents of Darby, Montana, are being manipulated in this situation.  Does this have similarities to issues in your area?) 

November 8, 2001 

Darby School District Planning Board 

Work Meeting to Develop a Growth Policy


Chairman Harriet Gibson welcomed all 68 participants and introduced the Planning Board members, Sonny LaSalle, Neil Crawford, LuRue Moorhouse, Dan Huls, Ron McCann. County Commissioners Betty Lund, Jack Atthowe and Alan Thompson, Planning Board staff Don Contraman.

County Commissioner, Alan Thompson, spoke about the importance and purpose of the meeting and developing a growth policy for Darby. Jack Atthowe explained the differences of each school districts part and how to bring the differences together. He said ‘we will have a plan’. Betty Lund thanked the people for coming and told them this plan is up to you to make it work and reiterated ‘we will have a growth policy’.

Gibson then turned the meeting over to Sonny LaSalle, who described the objective of this meeting:
1.)  To provide you with some background on the how and why of this process.

2.)  To get your feedback on five previously developed growth policy (draft) goals.

3.)  To help the community focus group decide where to go from here.

A power point presentation on growth policy planning in the Bitterroot Valley was shown to the audience.

The floor was then opened to questions:
         
Q. Does mandatory zoning follow adoption of a growth policy?
A. Not necessarily, but possibly.
         
Q. Do we have any demographics on the percentage of high school graduates who leave and the percentage who stay in Ravalli County?
A. Not at the current time, but it is information we may be able to obtain.
         
Q. Whatever  happened to the public vote?
A. The commissioners have said if the people get out and support this it will not need a vote.
         
Q. This group is too small to be considered representative of the public!
A. As the focus groups work more, people will hopefully get involved – this is everyone's opportunity to get involved in the entire process.  How much of county land is privately owned?
         
Q. What are the ‘absolute’ numbers on county growth?
A. I don’t have the numbers but are available.
         
Q. Anyone considering buying property in the interface, as well as those already there, should be warned that their protection is limited.
A. Yes, they should
         
Q. Shouldn’t people who live in the interface be required to pay higher taxes for services? Why should all taxpayers have to pay extra for them?
A. In the free enterprise system – we tax on what is available – not what people might or might not use.         

The group then dispersed into four smaller groups.

Group Number One:
         
1) Do you agree that these are major goals that growth policy should attain?
Yes to all five goals
         
2) Are there other Economic Opportunities that you would like to see?
                 
a.      Highway 93 zoning
b.      Housing development parameters required for development
c.      Impact fees on development
d.      Protect private property rights
e.      Safety – moral ordinances to protect kids. Sex Oriented Businesses
f.       Protect from devaluation of private property by neighborhood development
g.      Keep county commissioners as responsible officials for subdivision approval or disapproval
h.      What part do Federal Lands (NFS) play in county growth policy – economic, open space, etc.
i.        Affordable housing – really affordable
j.        Prevent seizure of property by eminent domain
k.      How many acres are actually available for development – minus federal – conservation easements, wetlands, floodplains, etc?
l.        Protect all tracts of record
m.     Keep local government protecting local citizens
n.      Use existing well, septic, and geologic data in approving septic systems
o.      Owners and builders in the urban interface should be warned, not just subdivisions
p.      Realistic cost estimate for implementing policies
q.      Reduce sprawl – encourage clustering
r.       Get more specifics in sub regulation to reduce interpretation and arbitrary decisions.

Group Number Two:

1) Do you agree that these are major goals that growth policy should attain?
Yes to all five goals
         
2) Other Concerns:

a)     Road signage: Quality of signs, billboards, outdoor advertising from Missoula to Sula.
b)     Undesirable businesses: (i.e. too many gaming machines, porno shops)
c)     Access to public land!
d)     More general information such as statistics and county information - number of residents for example in Darby
e)     Studies done to separate “out” the seven school districts (i.e. color coded maps)
f)       MAPS: seven separate maps of school districts that breakout

1)     Ag land
2) Residents
3) Forest Service Land                       
4) Business/Commercial areas
5) Restrictive covenants
g)     Recreational: use of water
h)     Most critical issue * Compensation for Ag Land (if subdivision is “disallowed”) * PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
i)        MANDATORY ZONING! = Will this occur?!

Group Number Three:

1) Do you agree that these are major goals that growth policy should attain?
Yes to all five goals
         
2) What other goals you would like to see happen:
                
a.      Moratorium on Gambling Casinos
b.      Economic Opportunities:
c.      Use of renewable resources

a.      Tax breaks for businesses
b.      Creative climate to generate jobs (well paying) for youth and adults

d.      Maintain valley way of life

a.      Country-minded (not street wise)
b.      Neighbors helping neighbors
c.      Close proximity to nature
d.      Maintain property rights
e.      No porn, no nude dancing
f.       Buffer zones between residential/commercial/industrial and recreation
g.      Retain beauty of the valley as it develops
h.      Bike paths through Darby and south
i.        Absolutely no building in the flood plain
j.        Agriculture/open space
                              
a.      Payments to the farmer/rancher for development rights
b.      Conservation easement
c.      Ag preserve
d.      TDRS, PDR’s
e.      Deed restrictions
f.       No inheritance tax – federal or state
k.      Water quality

Group Number Four:

Ag/Open Space Issues:

a.      Why we moved here
b.      Families here have had this life historically (heritage)
c.      Productive land; once developed; can’t go back
d.      Ag/open space often go hand-in-hand for economic reasons
e.      Can’t keep people (e.g. hunters) off agriculture property – liability issues; where is profit for landowners
f.       County must write tax policy to protect agriculture/open space and not tax them out of existence     g.      We value ag/open space, but we don’t help with financial part; this
is opportunity to set policy to compensate

Infrastructure – availability and cost:
a. Is it possible?

a.      put on development costs?
b.      Everyone must pay on a pro rata basis?

b.      Policy must address this
c.      People moving in, but tax-payers not supporting new schools
d.      Let’s plan for recreation opportunities
                         
a.  e.g. non-motorized path – should be expanded

e.      Encourage infrastructure for tourism
f.       Don’t want to encourage bars, casinos, adult book stores, etc.

Water Quantity:

a.      Protection is vital to everyone
b.      Agriculture primary objective; rather than landscaping
c.      Vital to fish and wildlife
d.      Manufacture sector – water supply is vital – water limits could eliminate business
e.      Current enforcement is inadequate

Water Quality:
       
a.      Should be included
b.      Number of septics and possible contamination real concern
c.      Need better system to oversee
d.      Large development should be required to have sewage treatment
e.      Regulations shouldn’t conflict with state regulations

Air Quality:

a.      Avoid disaster of Missoula; must be addressed now, long-term issue
b.      Many things affect air quality – must be a factor in decisions
c.      Better trash collection system; many people burn trash
d.      Road dust is a factor
                
a.      infrastructure cost?
         
e.      Address by District – very different situations exist

Issues of importance:
          
a.      Send statements
b.      System of checks and balances to ensure no buy-offs on development (accountability/trust)
c.      If build in wildland/urban interface, are there some requirements (e.g. defensible space, etc.) and pay the incremental costs?
d.      Policy should address need to retain people let them make a living, ensure that industry exists – jobs
e.      Policies must encourage industry and business

Those committed to help:

Dick Ackerman,
Amy Arnold,
Gary Bell,
Jayne Brindle,
Ellie Cannan,
Judy Estler,
Winslow Golly,
Jay & Diane Milligan  blackelkranch@msn.com
Pat Pattersin, and
Eddie Smith

South Valley Growth Planning Minutes from January 10, 2002

Notes and Concerns regarding a growth policy from the citizens of the Ravalli
County South Valley

Jay Milligan opened the meeting with a welcome and a brief history of the planning process.  Twenty-three were in attendance at the Growth Planning Meeting on January 10, 2002 at the Darby Community Center. He then asked for their concerns regarding future valley growth.  A brief summary list of their comments follows:

We need to encourage responsible businesses to come to the area that do not bring harmful influences that lower the morality, air quality, scenic/aesthetic qualities etc.

A hope that the wide open spaces are protected by encouraging and protecting the agricultural industry in the Valley. Montanas reputation brings people here to enjoy the wide-open spaces. 

Lets not let Montana become over-developed like everywhere else.

A hope that we find a way to maintain the quality of life while encouraging activity that brings jobs and economic development.

A hope that we can find a way to lease land from the Forest Service to run cattle so the ranchers can use their land to grow hay to support the livestock in the winter and also produce an economic benefit for the rancher.

A hope that we evaluate public purchase of open space or Development rights using Galletin County as a model for financing this effort.

A hope that the recreational activities are protected. And that non-motorized paths like bike and walking paths are planned for the future by maintaining easements.

Federal loans should be amended to prevent environmentalists from delaying any salvage of burnt forests indefinitely.

Something must be done regarding the regulations that are holding up work to clean out the forests of the burned timber.

Law enforcement must be enhanced.

We need to keep the costs in mind as we develop the plan.

We need to consider local control of forest management so there is a knowledgeable balance of recreation, cattle grazing and logging of the forest. 

Property rights must always be given first priority.  Ordinances need to be enforced.  If one persons management of their land is hurting another persons property values that person either needs to clean-up or put up a fence to cover up.

We need to protect the pristine beauty of the valley.

We need better signing to protect the animals from traffic.  We need deer crossing signs at places where animals are frequently hit by cars.

Something should be done to clean up strewn garbage along the highway.  Garbage cans should have an attractive cover if left along the highway.

Dangerous stretches of road like certain areas of the West Fork should be evaluated for ways to increase safety.

There need to be conservation easements so one can continue to ride horses into the Wilderness areas.

Ordinances and zoning need to be developed to create controlled development.

Refuse containers need to be available for those traveling through the Valley for waste.

More information on Highway development plans from Hamilton South.

More thought should be given to how we can educate the people of the Valley when it comes time to pass any bonds.

Increased numbers of people are going to continue to move to the Valley who will require more services.

Discussion followed regarding how we can get the word out to increase attendance at our next meeting.  It was agreed that we each would contact others by phone or in person and would commit to bringing one other person to the next meeting.

The next meeting will be Thursday, January 24, 2002, at 7 PM, at the Darby Community Center. 

South Valley Growth Planning Group
P. O. 1088
Darby, MT 59829-1088
406-821-3033
blackelkranch@msn.com

February 4, 2002

Dear Friend,

Thank you for your commitment to identifying the growth issues that are important to the residents of the south valley.  At our last meeting, we discussed and further clarified these issues.  Now, we need to refine them for submission to the County for the first draft of the Growth Policy.

Our next meeting will be Thursday, February 7, 2002, at the Darby Community Clubhouse, at 7 PM. We are enclosing the meeting agenda and a summary of our priority issues for your review.  At the meeting, we plan to have the focus group summaries from Florence, Corvalis, and Hamilton for your discussion and evaluation.

We hope that you can attend this meeting.  The more input that we can draw from our community, the more effective the final growth policy will be.  Your contribution is important and will make a difference.

We look forward to seeing you.
Sincerely, Jay and Diane Milligan

Priority Issues Identified at Jan 24, 2002 Meeting

I  Agriculture/Open Space

§        How to protect in South Valley?

§        Requirement that any approved subdivisions include open space dedication?

§        Additional tax breaks for property owners dedicating land to agriculture/open space?

§        Support for County-wide bonds to purchase open space and/or development rights?

II  City of Darby Economic Viability

§        Most of Darby Businesses currently on market

§        How to increase Economic Viability?

§        Public/private partnership to acquire/develop N. Darby Mill site

§        Support for Darby as site(s) for forest by product co-generation plant(s)

III  South Valley Public Services

§        Additional support for police/fire service

§        Establishment of Head Start Satellite facility

§        Support for new Darby Library

§        Assistance for Lewis & Clark tourists

V  South Valley Highway 93 / Bitterroot River Corridor

§        How to protect & enhance unique attraction

§        Enforcement of existing litter ordinance

§        Enforcement of sign restrictions

§        Additional signage to protect wildlife

§        Additional public access points

§        Volunteer beautification/enhancement projects

§        Public refuse receptacles along Highway 93

VI  Protection of Private Water Rights

Threat of State/Federal taking of existing private water rights

Darby has seen a very dynamic process.  A core group is supplemented by shifting attendance of other interested parties who provide meaningful input just by coming to a couple meetings.  There is representation from all geographic areas at the Focus Group meetings.
  
Although Darby started later than any other district, they are right up to speed with everyone else.  This is partly because they have been able to feed off of other group work.  But mostly their progress is due to dedicated focus.  Over 200 questionnaires were distributed in the upper West Fork and were well received.  The land-use working group has had good attendance with diverse perspectives and has reached common ground on important issues.  Resolutions by this group may prove useful to other Focus Groups as they encounter land-use issues.  This is the only Focus Group, so far, to tackle the transportation corridor.  

The Bitterroots - Darby, MONTANA
Ravalli County Planning Board
205 Bedford Courthouse Box 5007
Hamilton, MT 59840
406-375-6379

Harriet Hooper-Gibson, Chairman hoop@montana.com

http://www.bvchamber.com/planningboard/DARBY%20GROWTH%20POLICY%20GROUP.htm