We'll go all through all the stuff though and get started.

Good evening and welcome to the uh July 20th meeting of the Bozeman Community Development Board.

The community development board is a seven-member citizen advisory board comprised of volunteers appointed by the city commission that fulfills requirements of state law.

We meet twice per month to make recommendations regarding land use regulations to the Bozeman City Commission.

Final decisions are typically not made here.

Thanks to everyone for joining us this evening.

Before we start the meeting, I'd like to remind those not physically present here of the ways in which you can follow the meeting and provide public comment.

You can watch this meeting in real time and provide public comment should you choose by joining us via video conference.

Then click on departments, then city commission, then on the live stream and videos.

Find this meeting under the upcoming events list and click on the copy of the meeting agenda.

It is highlighted in blue.

And then click on via video conference, also highlighted in blue, second paragraph of the agenda, and follow the prompts to enter this meeting.

If you're joining us via video conference and would like to offer public comment this evening, use the video conference raise your hand feature when it is your turn to comment.

Staff will call on you by name.

Please note that we will take public comments from those physically present here first, followed by those joining via video conference.

Then on City Commission, live streaming videos, find this meeting under the upcoming events list and click on view live events.

Is that still valid?

Bozeman and Got.

Yeah.

It'll still work.

Or you can visit the city's uh public comment web page.

Any public comment received by noon today will have been distributed to the board.

And start with any disclosures by members of the community development board.

Anybody got anything to share?

Okay.

Oh this Friday morning, July 24th at 7 a.m.

at City Hall.

Our uh City Commission liaison emeritus.

Commissioner Jennifer Magic will be doing uh walk uh along the Bozeman Creek uh area from uh mostly between City Hall and Board Park to take a look at uh some of the key locations that are we'll be talking about tonight in uh uh update of the Bozeman Creek uh City Bozeman Creek Vision Plan.

Great.

Friday, this Friday that yeah 7 a.m.

meet at City Hall.

Okay.

Not exactly a disclosure, but thank you.

It's the uh FYI.

Any changes to the agenda?

Probably not.

Okay.

Approval of the minutes.

I need a motion to approve um the minutes that are part of your packet.

Anyway, so moved.

Thank you.

Second, moved and seconded.

Discussion.

Okay, let's have a roll call.

Mover uh, secondary delvin.

Mayor Morrison.

All right.

Chair Lloyd.

Hi.

Member Eggnets.

Aye.

Member Maitro.

Aye.

Member Bonnet.

Hi.

Yeah, we didn't do that.

Let's take a let's do it.

That's uh an introduction.

We can go around the dais.

I have the wrong piece of paper as usual in front of me.

Um why don't we start with the mayor?

Sure.

Uh Joy Morrison, mayor of the city of Bozeman.

Uh Jason Del.

Ben Lloyd.

Chris Eggins.

Lori and Maitro.

Mark Eggie.

And then joining us via video conference is uh Eric Bonnet.

You there, Eric?

Hello, Eric Bonett.

Okay.

Yes, I'm here.

Great.

Okay, now we can get things underway for real.

And I think move on to where are we?

Our uh FYI discussions for the Bozeman Creek Vision Plan, hosted by Mr.

John Henderson.

Welcome.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Good.

Uh Chair.

It's a it's a bit formulaic, but uh we did skip item E on the agenda.

Thanks for helping.

Which is just the public comment on non-agenda items.

I rolled right over that.

Any public comments on non-edge agenda items falling within the purview and jurisdiction of this board.

Um we'll make that call.

I'm seeing none in the room.

Anything online?

If you would like to provide public comment, please use the raise your hand feature.

Okay.

No public comment.

Now we're ready, Joan.

Thank you.

All right, and thank you for having me.

Um John Henderson, your assistant city manager, and pleased to be here tonight.

Uh I'm gonna provide uh kind of a mid-project update on this Bozeman Creek Vision Plan.

And uh just want to disclose a couple things before we get started.

I'm gonna I'm gonna go through a lot of information here in a pretty brief amount of time.

I want to respect your your time here tonight.

If there's any uh questions along the way, feel free to interrupt and we can keep this fairly conversational.

Otherwise, I'm gonna do my best to present an update on um where we are in this process and and in particular wanting to maybe hear some input on some of the policy uh recommendations that are starting to take shape and come forward.

Um you all will have another opportunity to review uh the recommendations as they make a little bit of progress here over the next couple of months.

Uh right now we're targeting end of September, early October, um, and more on the timeline uh when we can get into the show here.

So again, thank you for having me tonight.

So uh just uh a quick uh introduction here.

I'm gonna provide just some background on the project, uh, talk about some of the work that we've accomplished to date, um, and then start getting into some of these recommendations that are starting to take shape.

Uh, and certainly want to discuss some of the ideas that we have for how we might be able to implement some of these projects if we are successful in uh adoption at the commission here at the end of the year and what those next steps might look like.

So, as a matter of uh kind of a flow chart here, I apologize for the font, uh not intended necessarily to read the fine print here, but just to illustrate that we are about halfway through the project right now.

Uh this has been uh commission priority uh since 2024, uh and then it's been carried forward in the city manager's work plan uh in hopes that we can make some progress here yet this year towards final adoption at the end of the calendar year.

Uh so far we've uh completed pretty significant community engagement as well as uh complete literature review, code review, all the things that we need to make sure we've got good footing on um uh the possibility of some of these recommendations being successful here.

So we are about midway uh with with plenty of work to go.

Um just highlighted in the box here again is uh are the couple of steps that we're involved in here in July and August.

Uh you can see we've already had uh some pretty significant input from a variety of constituents that I'm gonna talk to here in a little bit, um, as well as uh an open house that we had in June 2nd over at Stroptimus Park that was really well attended.

So we've got some really good feedback and input so far.

We're at a point where the city commission last week uh provided some guidance on uh on a few items that are gonna help shape the outcome of what this plan is likely to be.

And then uh like the schedule suggests later in the year, uh, we're gonna be coming back with a draft and uh full consideration uh in front of a number of boards here this fall.

Uh I want to uh highlight this incredible partnership we've got with Sea Bozing Creek.

Um I failed to mention that I'm actually joined tonight by Steve Noble and Jim Madden, uh co-leaders of Seed Bosan Creek.

All three of us will be available for questions afterwards.

Uh we encourage that.

This is a really unique uh partnership that uh we think demonstrates the model of success here, where you can bring all the energy from the community in a grassroots organization and all the expertise that we're so fortunate to have here in our headwaters community uh alongside the expertise that our staff provides and the horsepower that we can provide as a municipality uh when it comes to procuring grants and things of that nature.

So you put those two forces together.

It's uh undeniable at this point that it's uh made a huge difference in our ability to be successful thus far.

We've gotten tremendous amount of uh support from Seaboseman Creek, and I'll speak to that a little bit more uh in the subsequent slides.

Uh I'll start off here with the the goals of the project.

These were established late calendar year, uh last calendar year by the City Commission as a part of this project.

Uh the first and foremost thing we we gotta do is uh learn what we can to mitigate uh flooding impacts along Bozeman Creek.

Uh the extent of this project, just for reference here is roughly Ice Pond Road to I-90.

Uh we understand that there is a connection to the larger watershed and certainly respect the larger ecology here of the creek, um, but we do need to focus on uh that flooding downtown in particular.

Uh some of the other uh goals that we're hoping to make some progress here are on improving water quality.

As you know, we've made significant uh progress over the last many years as a result of our stormwater utility, making some significant improvements downtown in particular, but then again, want to look at that overall ecological health is super important to the not just the health of the creek, but the health of the community.

Uh we also want to uh wherever possible improve access and connectivity to our parklands through uh trail connectivity and potentially additional parkland uh that we might be able to acquire along that corridor.

And then uh finally, uh certainly want to uh note the opportunities for economic vitality, uh and this really refers to downtown and when you see other communities that have made investments like this, you can see firsthand that impact that it has on uh on that not just their community but visitation and uh some of the activities that are able that people are able to engage in downtown.

Um and then last but certainly not the least would just be really leaning into that uh the resource that that creek provides our community being the namesake creek here.

I think we can all agree we have an obligation to do everything we can to protect its health uh and and reciprocate that into the community's health.

So some of the work that's been completed to date, uh you all might be familiar with uh with these plans.

I just want to touch on a couple in particular.

Um, you know, really in 2012 uh through the Bozin Creek Enhancement Project, uh, we did a lot of uh ground uh laying of the ground right now that's uh that we're using as the foundation for how we understand um you know the the extents of the creek as the as it traverses through town.

And then subsequent to that, there were a number of analyses that took place.

Um the downtown improvement plan in particular has I think a whole section dedicated on the creek itself.

Of course, the Parks Recreation and Active Transportation Plan talks about the need to promote uh trail connectivity and uh corridor connections throughout town for the community.

Um then the the one we all hear most about here tonight is this up in the upper right hand corner.

Um it was what's called the preliminary engineering report, and this was uh procured last year as a part of uh a grant that we got to pursue an update to some of the modeling that um we need to know uh in order to inform uh where our opportunities lie for flood mitigation.

So again, just calling out that Bozman Creek Enhancement Plan.

If there uh if there really was a foundation, it's it's here.

It you know, we spent a concerted effort at the time, making sure we understood you know, as the creek travels through town, there are various styles and what we call a reach uh definitions that that we need to be considerate of.

Um and that especially plays out downtown when you look at a highly urbanized environment.

Um, and I think you all uh can speak with your own experience uh the need to really understand those trade-offs and understand what we can realistically achieve as it relates to economic uh ecological improvements uh in an urban setting like this.

So that flood study uh really set the stage for a lot of the conversations that we've been having here this year.

Of course, flooding has been known for for a long time.

Uh there's there's a lot of precedent for historic floods here in this in this last century or two.

And uh we we definitely want to make sure that we're understanding uh what our options are for mitigating flood, uh especially through downtown.

That preliminary engineering report that Allied Engineering did last year um took a little bit more modern approach than what you might see in the typical FEMA uh maps that we are actually making decisions on here today.

Uh this this modeling took into account um some of the rain on snow events that you've seen in the last few years.

Uh we we took a hard look at what happened in Red Lodge in 2022 and 2023, and trying to understand what those rain on snow impacts might have in our watershed and what those impacts might be on the creek.

And so we looked at you know the existing FEMA analysis right here.

Uh they call it a 1D model.

It's essentially the standard that's applied uh throughout the country here for managing flood insurance.

And then we upped that a little bit by um uh a certain percentage to uh help model essentially what those rain on snow events might look like.

Uh so I want to stress that this infuse me, this information being presented tonight is not authoritative.

Uh this is not adopted by FEMA.

This is not something that we can regulate against.

Uh this is simply a modeling exercise that is um is very modern and using very new techniques to understand our changing environment and the impacts that that might have.

So uh the lighter blue here is um a depiction of what that flooding event might look like.

Uh it's a basically a little over a hundred year flood uh when you add in some of those environmental impacts.

So significant um you know difference.

I think you can see visually here between what FEMA is currently regulating against versus what we need to be mindful of in this new climate.

So can I ask a question on that?

Yes.

So the river rises, the river comes up, the river overflows its banks.

And then on these maps, is this essentially basically taking kind of a datum, right?

And then across the town and saying, okay, at this datum, at this elevation, the river will come up, and then as a result, it's going to go down these streets over this sidewalk into this person's lawn.

And then we elevate that datum again, and that becomes the light blue, which is fine.

And that becomes the elevation.

Okay.

That's exactly right.

Um, so thank you.

Um my question, my second question would be um when was the last time or when was a time that um I guess the Bozeman Creek flood flooded.

I've I've only been in town for about six years now.

Um I'm not doubting it does.

I'm just trying to figure out like and then and then when it did flood last time, what what happened?

Sure.

And I apologize.

I don't have that those dates in front of me.

Uh they are listed in the report if folks want to go access that.

To my recollection, I believe 2017 might have had some very light flooding.

Uh prior to that, there's been documentation of uh more significant flooding in the 50s and 40s.

Um that's some of the historical photos you see downtown, very, very significant flooding events.

Uh to my I've been here about 26 years, and I haven't I've seen a couple of overtops here at this bridge, but uh nothing of uh what I would consider to be a very dramatic flood event.

Uh but that's easy for me to say.

I don't own property in the in the corridor here, but uh but I do own a home uh in the light blue here.

So I'm I'm very particular to uh to what we're looking at in this more modern environment here.

Well, thank you.

Yeah, I'm not doubting it.

Like if I understand the hundred-year flood, they happen, like in the scene.

Um just in those, you know, in present time um if there's any recollection of one.

So do that.

Yeah, so uh I'm gonna go into some of the recommendations that are coming forward here.

I mentioned that community engagement that we did early in the year, uh, we were very intentional uh about bringing folks to the table that we knew had experience.

Uh the watershed council, uh, GVLT, Trust for Public Lands.

Uh, we brought um all the neighborhoods uh that that are involved here, all those neighborhood associations.

We've met with the downtown urban renewal district, uh, a bunch of folks that that we've been very mindful of making sure that we understand and give everybody an opportunity to put their voice into the conversation here.

So we spent a significant effort early on uh hearing and listening uh some of these ideas.

And I want to really stress that all of the recommendations that you're gonna see tonight um are really born from that community engagement.

None of these actually came from city management or our city leaders.

Uh this all came from the ground up from the community.

Uh I just mentioned uh some of those groups here.

Uh and and early on, we we came away with what we call these these kind of key takeaways, and and none of these should be real surprise, but I do want to touch on them because I think they'll reinforce a theme that that we're gonna try to emphasize here moving forward, and that is um yes, we do need to be thinking big about this.

We need to be thinking about the broader ecological context, not just a few blocks through Bozeman.

We've got to consider what those ecosystem services are that are contributing into our quality of life here.

We've heard loud and clear that as Bozeman grows, we are becoming a menetized, and there is a sensitivity, there's a there's a tension there between how much access you want to provide to the creek versus what's in the best interest of the ecological health of the creek.

Those are two forces that we need to find balance.

And then we certainly have a lot of limitations that are given to us by the legislature that uh that we're gonna need to respect and navigate as we uh try to unpack some pretty complex ideas here.

Uh wanna be respectful of uh the constraints that that we have to work with.

Um and then this last point I think speaks to what I failed to uh to really reinforce the the chronology of the timing there and of the flooding, and that is um it's not a function of when of if it's it's really when uh this is gonna happen next.

So these ideas uh I mentioned all you know coming from community engagement.

I do also want to uh caveat that a lot of this has already evolved.

Okay, so I I I want to be really upfront about uh some of these ideas that I'm gonna present to you tonight are already starting to move along.

And a couple of them uh we've decided we're gonna we're gonna um table and come back to another day.

I just want to present you the raw uh uh information here so that you can see uh the process that we've gone through and making sure that we understand you know what what these ideas might even look like and how that could really help inform and shape you know the end results of the plan.

So uh that's that's my disclaimer here.

So without further ado, uh, you know, this was first uh released back in June over at Suro Optimus and Steve and Jim and our uh consultants put on a great event.

We we think somewhere between three and four hundred people walked through there.

We were blessed with beautiful weather and uh just had a really outstanding event where we got a tremendous amount of feedback.

We had all kinds of boards and table top exercises and ways for people to engage, and we we um we got what we asked for.

We got a tremendous amount of input.

And we put all that together and uh are using that to inform where some of these ideas might go.

So the first idea here is uh is still one that we're contemplating and and working through right now.

This is the and the reason that it's at the beginning here is this is really the lead.

This is really the driver of this entire project is just managing that flood uh through Bozeman Creek.

One of the alternatives that were uh studied in that preliminary engineering report that I mentioned from last year, there were four alternatives that were studied.

One of those alternatives looked at putting some of the flow into what we call mill ditch over here at the bottom of Pete's Hill.

Um, and then it comes out over at the wetland by the interchange.

And that idea is really starting to come together.

Um it's founded on good engineering.

Uh of course, there's a lot, there's a lot that we don't know still that needs to be studied to make sure that we understand what kind of improvements are gonna be required when we're starting to talk about specific conveyances that are uh that are needing to be upgraded and whatnot.

So this graphic just simply illustrates that you know we are definitely taking a hard look at what it would look like if we were to divert some of that flood flow uh down into Mill Ditch and then uh have it enter the East Gallatin instead as a bypass essentially uh from downtown.

And we can come back to that later if you'd like to hear a little bit more about the details on that.

Um another uh idea that that kind of blends the water quality improvements with flooding, with community access, has to do with uh some of the improvements that we could extend in Bogart.

I mentioned that uh Bozman Creek Enhancement Plan, one of the projects that resulted from that, you're probably familiar with is in Bogart right now.

Uh they put in a little flood bypass in there, and that was really a demonstration of what could be done.

This is really, if you want to get serious of what it could look like if we were able to open that up, let the creek move around a little bit, uh, provide more public access and really celebrate the creek in this community park.

Um it's been noted uh and and addressed.

Uh this graphic shows the Anderson Pavilion being relocated.

Actually doesn't show it at all, but we're proposing to have it relocated in the park.

Uh, but that's definitely an area where we've heard loud and clear from the public and something that we want to uh want to address.

Uh number three uh is perhaps uh the idea that we're getting the most interest in right now.

I'll just say anecdotally, we've gotten the most input and positive feedback on this one in particular, has to do with uh converting that section of Rouse from Maine to Olive, essentially, which is under city's jurisdiction into um more of a greenway.

And and in this graphic, you have to use a little bit of your imagination here.

These are in high-level designs.

Again, these are not the engineering plans.

But the idea is what you see in other communities where they've moved the channel actually, and they've daylighted that creek out into Seroptimus Park.

They've taken on some of that right-of-way, maybe restricted traffic access.

You're familiar with the Woonerf concept, essentially, you know, redesign that couple of blocks in order to accommodate more of a natural environment.

And uh and the fact that that could connect uh Bogart Park with this next idea of uh, well, must be the next slide.

There's another park coming out in City Hall here in a minute.

Uh I apologize.

Um, uh we're we're looking at other existing city loan lands such as parks.

Um this is Beale Park actually on the graphic here, just for reference.

Uh we're looking at ways that we might be able to utilize some of that space for flood control.

Uh, there are some pretty modern infrastructures now available that you could actually bury uh storage uh underneath that park.

So you wouldn't change the use of the park at all.

I want to stress that.

We're not talking about building over top of uh Beale at all.

Um we're talking about using it as what is commonly referred to as a sponge park, basically through infrastructure development can develop this in a way that can incorporate drainage as part of that flood event.

Uh here's that uh park I alluded to in front of City Hall that could, in theory, be connected from Bogart all the way through Rouse to City Hall.

Again, getting a fair amount of comment on this one.

It's it's it's an interesting idea, really leaning into what art exists out here.

We're very fortunate to have stretch of Bows and Creek in front of City Hall.

Um, and we really want to uh express that idea where people can come uh come to City Hall and really have a nice experience with nature uh right out front.

And so you can see we would uh move that parking actually potentially into a parking structure that would be right behind us here and really open up a lot of opportunity for us to not only improve this frontage here along Rouse, uh, but also take care of that nasty 90 degree bend that's over on the corner of Creekside Park here.

So this would be kind of a two for one there.

Um moving north, uh this is again just an example of a concept that we're um likely to be moving forward with, and that is uh utilizing what we call underutilized right-of-way in a maybe a little different way.

So, as you're aware, I'm sure a lot of the older parts of town have dedicated right-of-way that was never developed.

And so there are chunks of little strips and pieces of parcels and uh that could be uh used to provide access to the creek.

And so this is an example right across from the safety center, actually, uh, where there's a little strip of um dedicated right-of-way there that we could use and entertain to put in a trail to get it over to the creek.

And again, the idea being we would potentially connect that to a larger trail system that would then move north.

And now we're looking at uh north of Story Mill where we know you know there's um an opportunity to improve that connection there with actually uh maybe a bridge over the railroad instead of having folks come out on that dotted line all the way around to get back to the under the tunnel into the interstate there.

Again, just an example of the way we're thinking about a creek-centric approach to making sure that we're exhausting our opportunities for um for ideas here and how we can celebrate that, keep people next to the creek and and really improve awareness and support of the creek.

Um just extending that again to the north.

Um, there's a lot of opportunity uh to connect that to Story Mill and East Gallatin and beyond.

Uh this is one of the policy recommendations that I should put a big X through here because this is not exactly how it's uh gonna take form.

Um, but I do want to present it to you as kind of the iteration of how we started this conversation, and then once I can get through my long-winded presentation here, I'll uh be anxious for your feedback on uh how we might be talking about things like setbacks.

So early on we we heard loud and clear, hey, you gotta have you know um you know an ability to provide more of a setback uh when new development does occur, so that we're uh respecting that uh natural environment adjacent to the creek there.

And this idea was using uh what they called, I think an indexed uh required setback where it would be based on the parcel size.

Again, we've heard Baden Career, there's a lot of ideas why this wouldn't work.

Um, and so an example of an idea that has since evolved.

Uh moving on, uh last couple here.

Uh this is an idea where again we would look at city-owned properties and potentially consider for redevelopment and uh support of other community needs adjacent to the creek.

Um same kind of idea, but on the private side, we would potentially provide incentives to private landowners to develop their uh portion of the creek.

Um this is Osterman's here, uh just south of Griffin there.

If you've ever been back there, it's just a beautiful piece of land.

Um pretty pretty interesting if you could think about how that might be redeveloped and uh really celebrate the creek there.

Uh so this graphic kind of puts some of that together.

Uh you can see the idea being not just one single project, this is really a system of projects that would all uh need to be considered as a whole.

So, last couple slides, and then we'll move on to questions and discussion here.

Um so I mentioned all of those ideas, and and you if you're taking notes, you probably noted I only mentioned 11 ideas.

Uh, it was because of our 12th was hey, we let's hear what we're missing.

You know, we wanted to keep an open mind from people about you know ideas that that we haven't even thought of yet.

And we're gonna continue to do that throughout this project.

Again, I think demonstrates our willingness to be heard and open uh with the public here.

So right now, all this is starting to funnel into four categories essentially.

We talked about flood mitigation, we talked about these downtown parks, we talked about zoning and policy a little bit.

We're gonna talk about that more tonight, I hope, and then uh that connectivity piece.

So just quick uh blast through this.

This is kind of where we are today.

Um I'm not gonna go into any more detail because you've heard plenty from me already about the mill ditch, uh, unless you have questions, of course, happy to dig into that.

Um, looking at that pretty hard, uh looking at these parks that I just mentioned, uh Bogart, Rouse, Storoptimus, City Hall, uh, those three specifically are really taking hold.

Uh, this is the slide that we can maybe come back to.

I'd I'd be curious to get some of your thoughts on.

Um, this slide speaks to those zoning and planning policy recommendations.

So again, just draft right now.

Um this is nowhere near done.

Uh, but I think you're coming in at a good point where you might be able to provide some influence on where some of these go.

Um, and so very quickly here, probably not gonna give any of these the justice they deserve, but that first bullet is the idea of providing the city with an opportunity to acquire land if a flood does happen, essentially a first-righted refusal for the city to maybe purchase land.

You see that in other communities, other states.

Um full disclosure, we're not sure we can actually do that here in Montana.

We would need to do uh quite a bit of legal uh due diligence to make sure that there's that's even possible.

But the idea is genuine.

It's uh, hey, you know, this ground has been flooding repeatedly, that's costing the community.

Uh, let's look at ways that we can maybe acquire that and uh in a fair market value way and um and make it straight.

Uh the second one there is this idea of setbacks.

Uh we know we're setbacks will be a recommendation.

We just don't, I don't know at this point in time what that number will be, what the extents will look like, what style and and type they come into.

But uh that's where I'm curious to kind of get some of your input as it relates to setback requirements specific to Bolson Creek, please.

Uh that third bullet there has to excuse me, have to has to do with uh those incentives uh I mentioned for private property owners.

Um there's been some conversation at the commission here, last couple of projects over the years about um you know providing at least the possibility for an incentive related to public access for private property.

If uh you know maybe we could consider a relaxation of some kind in some form if the public were able to um experience the creek in in their property.

Uh that's just an example of uh what an incentive might look like for uh that trail side easement.

Uh the fourth bullet there, uh uh again, redeveloping um that that public property.

Uh this would this would be focused on property that the city already owns and leaning into some of the other community needs that we know we have.

And then finally, that uh that dead idea of a uh stormwater management and some of that that sponge park recommendation there.

Uh that last one on uh trail connectivity there, I think speaks for itself.

You know, this thing this works really well when you can connect all these pieces together.

Um that that's really where it works best.

Uh just a quick slide on, and I understand this is not legible, I apologize.

I I think in the packet material we may have uh included this.

This is a memo that our consult provided, I think at a good time where we're already starting to ask, well, how does this work?

You know, how do we even, if we're successful in getting this plan adopted, um, what's the next step look like?

And that's where this guidance is becoming very helpful right now, even in these early conversations where we know where there's a lot of additional study and additional engagement.

Um there's a lot of uh work still that needs to be done uh probably early in 2027.

Uh the city commission is part of their recent uh budget adoption did just approve another 150,000 uh to maintain that momentum.

And I'm I'm looking to Steve and Jim back here because uh C Bows and Creek is gonna have um an enormous role in that.

They they are definitely gonna be taking on a lot of responsibility for uh helping coordinate uh some of the grant applications and just project administration and just navigating what is likely to be uh kind of a generational uh project here that it will take uh many, many years to implement over time.

So just uh in closing, uh want to uh highlight the the dates that we have coming up here on Saturday, August 8th.

Uh, we're just finishing plans right now uh to have some presence at the Slam Festival during Sweet Pete.

Um and I'm being told we are right in between the food trucks and the beer tent.

So it's like the perfect spot.

Um and all joking aside, uh we're we're taking this really seriously because it's a wonderful opportunity to get that local impact.

There's a lot of locals that that come through that uh festival, and um we want to, and it's right by the Welshen Creek, uh a lot of opportunity there.

And I I extend that invitation to you all if you're available that weekend, we'll be there.

And then uh in September, I mentioned we'll be going back through uh this is advisory boards and um a couple other uh constituent groups to make sure that we've got everything kind of pulling together in the right order, and then we're gonna get close to a final uh or a pre-draft, I guess, um, of the plan in early November.

I think we've got another public event, maybe November, early November, uh, where the public will have an opportunity to see that public draft.

And then December 15th, we just put it on the calendar.

This will be our target for bringing it back to the city commission.

Um, hopefully with a favorable recommendation uh from this body and others uh by the time we get there.

And with that, uh I'll leave you with the link that we have to our engaged Boseman site that's got all of this information, including all the reports and the dates of the floods and uh some really compelling photographs.

And thank you.

Appreciate your time and uh happy to answer any questions and Jim and Steve are here as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

You're right.

A lot of information in a relatively short period of time.

But um any questions, comments from the board.

I have a very nerdy question.

Um I think you you indicated that uh 1,450 CFS was kind of the extreme flood event scenario.

I'm just curious what uh typical like summertime flows are and what typical flood stage flows are.

Off the top of my head, I can tell you the hundred year flood is just over a thousand CFS.

The rain on snow events that we've modeled were 1250.

So we're just right in between kind of that hundred year event.

I think the 500 year event was like 1680 or 1700 quite a bit more.

And I think we you know it's I I I I shouldn't speak out of turn here, but there is kind of a logarithmic scale to that.

Uh and so though as you get closer to that 500 year event, the impacts are much more significant.

Um that's why we part of why we wanted to take a look at those modeling of the rain on snow.

So we're looking at 1250 for that CFS.

Um and I apologize, I couldn't really tell you what it is today.

I should probably note on that.

That's probably I would say that's probably a good guess.

Maybe 200 at most.

Yeah.

Well, thanks.

You bet.

Other comments, questions.

A couple.

Um let's see.

On the note about the milled to the minimum one CFS.

Um is that because like if that's sort of turn into kind of a greenway thing, the idea is like there should be at least some water flowing in it all the time to sort of maintain that environment.

Yeah, thanks for picking up on that, Jason.

So uh again, just to kind of set the stage here, uh, that we we are having to think about that a little bit differently.

Originally it was presented as an opportunity for an additional greenway.

Basically provide a perennial flow down Mill Ditch and a trail and amenities that would allow um pedestrian connection um you know over to the to the wetland.

Um what we have learned uh just recently in the last couple of weeks is that in order to provide a perennial flow in Mill Ditch, which was kind of the original idea, uh that is that's unlikely.

Uh there would there are uh some very significant limitations with regard to water rights transfer uh that would need to um be enabled in order for that to uh happen uh that are incredibly unlikely.

And uh so right now our position that we're studying right now and that we're gonna be moving forward with that you're gonna hear in the fall, goes like this.

It will be considered as a flood control device, essentially.

And there's probably a better engineering term for this, but it will act as a floodway, essentially.

It will not have a perennial flow beyond the existing water rights that are it's already righted for, unless the city can figure out a way to transfer uh additional rights into that ditch.

So right now we're kind of backing off on that perennial, looking at it as purely a flood control vehicle.

And uh also whether or not we can um provide trail access in there too.

So that hasn't been fully vetted yet, uh, but that we're still holding on to the idea that we can use that as a trail corridor until we get to a point where it's become obvious that that we can't do that.

The issues with Mel Creek are really not just the water rights, but there's a number of conveyances, uh basically hydrological structures that we have to navigate that flood has to go through that will have to be improved.

They're gonna be a lot less costly than some of the ones that we see downtown, but they're still a significant consideration.

So we have to balance that.

We'd also be creating a new floodplain that doesn't exist today.

Uh I've been told you can do that, but that that is definitely definitely things that we have to be eyes wide open and wanting to make sure um we're not moving the problem somewhere.

Uh but I can assure you that there are incredibly well experienced engineers involved and invested in this work to make sure that we have the confidence, knowing that, oh yeah, this is gonna work, let's do this because it's gonna save and have a huge impact on that cost benefit of um you know the situation we have downtown where none of the tunnels under Main Street can come anywhere near uh conveying that hundred-year flood.

Um I don't remember in which exact document that was part of the packet, but um there was a reference to you know needing to investigate water rights status, is that the issue that we just talked about?

Yeah, okay.

Um then you mentioned that the scope uh is being considered as like from ice pond to I-90.

Um maybe you could talk a little bit about um like in theory you could do something upstream that would have an effect.

Um, once you're looking at really expensive stuff downtown versus maybe uh as expensive in sourdough drainage, let's say.

That could start to make sense.

But I mean, also it could be that like, well, yeah, but if you were gonna read animistic to from like capturing water to drink, you probably want to optimize holding a lot of water as opposed to having it empty in case there's a giant flood.

Anyway, anything you can talk about upstream sourdough is stuff would be maybe helpful in the sense of uh if that's like odd, is that categorically excluded from the Icepond to I-90 scope, or just doesn't make sense or I I can offer a couple of responses there.

So uh while our current study does not discreetly investigate opportunities south of IcePond necessarily, um it's a recurring theme in all of the conversations that we have with ecologists and watershed experts and our constituents that we're collectively working with here.

So it is while we are trying hard to define a scope for a reasonable chance of having success in the outcome of this plan, uh we are very aware that uh there are that is not preclude conversations that need to happen elsewhere.

Um you bet.

I the second thing I would say um it's an example of where as staff we have a responsibility to make sure that all of our planning efforts coincide with one another.

So I know the integrated water resource plan in particular is considering those kinds of things.

And that's where as staff we work closely uh to make sure that we're talking apples to apples here and understand the relationships you even if it's not defined in a discrete contract right here.

I can assure you that that is a part of a larger conversation.

Great.

Thanks so much.

Yep.

Very nice.

Um yes, I really like the ideas, by the way.

Uh the 12 slash 11 big ideas.

Um I mean, honestly, uh when I moved to down here, um, I kind of thought that the city was really underutilizing one of the nicest assets of the city, which is this river that goes through it.

Um I was mentioning to the other board members here that I was traveling through Europe lately for about a month last month.

Um in every one of the towns in the Alps um have a has a giant river flowing directly through the middle of it.

And it's incredible what they've done from an infrastructure standpoint.

They control runoff, all these rivers are glaciated.

Um I mean, and and the cities are built right on them.

There's walkways on either side, and people are out dining, enjoying the river, the sound in it, everything else.

Um we have that probably in one space, one spot here, which is bar nine, right?

Um so my um I do have a question in all this, but I mean I'm getting to it.

Um what are some of the ideas, first of all, around how do we fund it?

This isn't gonna happen overnight.

It's gonna be a long gun-out project.

Um, so how do we how do we fund it?

Thank you.

Uh the million dollar question for sure.

Uh multi-million dollar.

Probably more than a billion.

Yeah.

Uh so uh sorry to be facetious there.

Uh no, I can tell you we are fortunate to have uh the consultant that we have right now, they're called port urbanism, and they are doing work just like this all over the country.

They're called Port Urbanism, and they are doing work just like this all over the country.

So they're bringing expertise from a lot of projects that they've been successful with that in a lot of ways validate what we already knew good and into this.

It's going to require a really diverse capital stack essentially.

It's going to need to be a combination of grants and incentives and private contributions.

We've got folks working with the possibility of philanthropy, bringing dollars into the project.

Because a lot of the work is going to be related to flooding, we we have pretty good confidence that we'll be eligible for uh federal funding opportunities to for some of these improvements.

At this point in time, and I can't say for sure.

I I don't believe we'll be considering uh general tax purposes here.

I don't think we're gonna be going to bond at this point.

We've got a lot of other community needs that uh I think are positioned well uh for those interests.

But uh you know, for this for this work, uh we're gonna be leaning heavily on grants, uh potential for philanthropy, um, private property owners and such.

And uh and of course, um wherever we can within our um local government funds, uh we've got stormwater utility parks maintenance district, we've got some other enterprise funds that might be able to contribute.

But uh yeah, it's it's gonna be interesting to see what um what we can do to uh to make some concerted progress.

One of the first things that that implementation strategy talked about is needing to sequence it in a way that you can get some early success to build and maintain that momentum and make sure that you know, over 10, 20 years, as we uh work through uh you know changes in in um elected officials and and leadership that we maintain that level of continuity uh to really achieve the larger vision.

Um if we touch the river or build alongside of it, do we have to do an environmental impact study for it?

What type of, I guess, permitting is needed to work on the river?

Right.

So right now, I believe Army Corps Engineers has jurisdiction over the permitting associated with any development that would have an impact to the channel.

So I I am not prepared to answer.

Maybe uh Mr.

Saunders would have an answer to what the city's uh community development department process is as it relates to um you know development along the creek, but uh but I do know that Armed Corps um has jurisdiction over the channel itself.

Okay.

We we've seen excuse me.

In association with the development of Story Mill Park, there was a large um waterway enhancement project along the East Gallant River, and we processed those through our standard uh processes.

In this case, that was a site plan review.

So uh submitted all the same materials, obviously not building envelopes and stuff that weren't relevant.

But um all the same materials that come in, it's all the same review by the same engineers, uh planners and and other participants.

And then yes, there are uh Army Corps of Engineers, Gallant Conservation District, other outside agencies, fish wildlife and parks, uh, other folks who have an interest of some sort.

And so that becomes part of the review process, um, either during initial development and or during the review and then ultimate construction.

So lots of partners.

All right, I mean I just asked the question because uh you know we want to we're gonna get moving on this, right?

And uh, you know, I I I recognize any time we touch a waterway or do something adjacent to a waterway, there's often a lot of interest down river, and I'm just trying to assess what that looks like from a timing standpoint and an impact standpoint.

Okay.

Um I really love the idea of uh connecting all of the um uh pedestrian and bike paths on the north side of 90, all the way down into uh the city.

Um I think the river is a great way, a great place to do that.

Um I often bike with my kids down the Hawthorne and I get stuck behind a train like every single time.

Um but um but I recognize that the river, I mean it it goes through probably what would be a hundred different properties between really I-90 and then where it kind of pops out here at City Hall.

Um so is the idea around easements would would would there could there be eventually connectivity that's located along the river that we manage through zoning and easements in the future, or would the idea be I guess I mean I'm just trying to understand how that would work because again, you've got a hundred different property owners there that may or may not want to have a bike path next to the river.

So it's a great it's a great question, honestly, and and I think that speaks to the I I don't know if Bosemer Creek is unique, but uh but we have looked at other communities around Montana, and we don't think that any other city has really developed this closely to their namesake creek that just works right through downtown.

It's been here for as long as we have longer.

So early in the project, it was well noted that you know a community like Boise and the success that you see that they've had was largely attributed to the fact that they had an opportunity prior to development to impose those regulations as development occurred.

We do not have that luxury.

So while Bo at Boise is a tremendous example of what a corridor might look like, I I'm I'm not sure that we're gonna have as much opportunity there, uh largely because of the conditions that you just described.

Yeah.

And then really quickly, last question.

Um a lot of the big ideas um had um had a splitting the river up and creating kind of other secondary rivers that would basically create parkland in between and walking trails and other things like that.

Um is there enough flow during regular season to actually support some of those ideas?

Um there's nothing worse than you know creating channels for a river to flow through when the river decides not to go there because we just don't have the flow.

Yeah.

So I guess that's maybe it's a little bit of a nerdy question along with Mark's, but it it was something that struck me.

Okay, you know, if we're breaking it into three separate channels, is there gonna be enough push behind it to make it work?

Yeah, it's it's a legitimate question.

I'll be honest.

I I was skeptical at first because uh not being a uh water engineer, I I was uncertain what what CFS looks like, you know.

And so how it's been described to me is that uh and to answer your question directly, uh yes, there is enough uh perennial flow to split that creek.

Um and we we definitely need to be careful, right?

And in mind that we're not having an adverse impact on the existing ecological health of the creek.

Uh but that's where that additional study would come into play to make sure that we understand the volumes associated with how we would braid that essentially.

Um the way it was described to me was that you really only need about one CFS, believe it or not, to provide a perennial flow.

I'm not suggesting that that channel would have one CFS.

I'm just using that figure to highlight that if we've got 150 or 200 out here tonight, you know, maybe uh 20 or 30 of it could be uh channeled uh elsewhere along uh you know a bypass somewhere.

Um but uh that's where I should probably quit while I'm ahead.

I don't know what those numbers are.

You know more than I do.

I wanted to learn a little bit, so thank you.

Any other comments?

Anything here?

Chair.

Yes, uh just I guess two comments.

Um I think that expanding uh expanding setbacks that are into our code um to be based on uh a climate kit climate conditioned uh 100-year floodplain setback.

I mean, I think that to me seems like uh seems like a no-brainer.

Um the the FEMA floodplains, they're all they're backward looking, they're based on historic events, and we know that our climate is changing.

Um Red Lodge knows that our climate is changing, Yellowstone knows that our climate's changing.

Uh so I mean it seems like it'd be a straightforward application of the city's police powers to say, hey, we're gonna use like we're gonna use a better flood model than FEMA's flood model.

And I mean, there might be some minor taking as implications there, but the city would just need to be prepared to you know buy land if anything was rendered without uh any you know possible beneficial use.

But that just makes makes uh seems like a no-brainer to me to use uh a better source of flood modeling data uh for defining those setbacks.

Um so my second comment was just uh trail trail connectivity.

So there's great connectivity to downtown from the south on the Galligados, great connectivity from the north from Story Mill Park on the uh the Mill Spur Trail, and then they both run into this like this crater that we call downtown where there's a national highway that runs through the middle of it and like no trails anywhere to be found.

And if you wanted to ride across there with you know your seven-year-old daughter, God help you.

Um so I think like closing that gap would be of tremendous value to the community, and based on what was seeing there in the map, like obviously that is part of the concept, like incorporation of trails, but I think like there's a critical gap there, and if you could incorporate an element of closing that gap with creating uh within the the uh the creek plan, it would be uh certainly would expand the group uh of local stakeholders, um it probably would create uh eligibility for additional you know grant types.

Um I just think that yeah, if you could and it would support a broader set of city goals as well, in addition to you know the the resiliency uh and livability goals of this clear outlines with like promoting active transportation and making those trail connections would be uh it looks like there would be an easy opportunity to potentially incorporate like across downtown connectivity.

Great.

Thank you.

For yeah.

Thank you for the reminder.

Eric, anything you want to add?

Questions?

Uh yeah, thank you.

Um I um uh I would love to ask a couple questions.

Um yeah, just kind of echoing what's been said uh elsewhere.

I definitely I think especially in the downtown, you know, kind of immediately adjacent to main street, several blocks in both directions.

I think that concept is highly compelling from um and I think both an identity standpoint for the city as well as uh economic development standpoint.

Um I mean I I I I take the point that perhaps the city is overamenitized, but I think that part of the city is not.

And I think connecting uh although it may not be prime ecological uh you know habitat, it still would be infinitely better than a culvert.

And so I think that's part of um I think what our city's about is the idea that we are trying to find ways to live um in community with our our natural, you know, the the kind of non non-human members of our our ecosystem.

And so I think that would that would be valuable for all those reasons.

So strong support for that that concept, and I think the project overall.

Um I did I had a question I'd love to hear just a little bit more about, but this this kind of idea of um kind of affordable housing uh being tied into this project somehow somehow.

Is there anything more you can share with that, especially kind of how it works in the floodplain, if that's um kind of been been thought through it all or um yeah, just curious to hear more about that.

Yeah, and and thanks for elevating that.

Uh just to be clear, would the development wouldn't occur in the floodplain.

Um I don't think any development could could be built in the floodplain itself.

This would be simply taking advantage of adjacency to the creek.

And that is a direct input that uh came um not just from the community, but validated by our consultants and the work that they do all over this country, uh they see these communities where they've got opportunity for uh uh improvements in a greenway sense uh that coincide beautifully with um other community needs such as affordable housing.

So it it's really um and I'm probably not describing it as well as they could.

It's it's really an opportunity to um to marry those two things together in a way that benefits not just the community and its needs for additional housing uh but development along a greenway that would be a protected creek.

Um so it's really a a way of kind of leveraging those uh those opportunities to achieve other benefits.

Okay, yeah, yeah, right on.

Well, I I mean I definitely love the idea of um you know, certainly we need affordable housing and and kind of thinking how we can meet diverse needs.

Um I think um that might be really appropriate in some spots.

I I could think of some other spots where perhaps um you know uh basically selling the land uh more at market rate uh and then still perhaps using that money for affordable housing, but on a different site, I think you'd get more affordable housing.

Uh because if you have this, you know, kind of essentially like prime lot.

Um I know for instance, uh the city of Boulder has kind of thought through that with their affordable housing, the way that they you know fund it, that for instance, you know, creating one two million dollar condo and subsidizing to make it 400,000 is probably not the best use of that sixteen hundred dollars or on a different site, you know, might be able to get uh you know half half a dozen or more units.

So anyway, I just love the idea of of kind of funneling uh and supporting affordable housing, um, but just trying trying to build it in that could be geographically flexible in terms of where that money is is has its highest for best use.

That's a really helpful comment.

Thank you very much.

Sure thing.

Um just two other thoughts.

I think what um member Agu was saying about the you know it sounded like you were kind of maybe looking for input on on the kind of setback um question and and I definitely can understand why having setbacks tied to lot size would be kind of problematic.

Um I I do think I think where he was going essentially of just having it be a mapped zone that's based on uh objective criteria.

Um you know, for instance, if it's a really steep bank in some place, then you know, uh a 50 foot setback might be very appropriate, uh where if it's a very um shallow bank and there's a big floodplain, we probably don't want people building in the floodplain, even if it's 300 feet, right?

And so I think um that that I think is what I understood him to say, which which I would um I think generally agree with.

But you kind of need to make it up that that kind of water um flood capacity, the volume somewhere else.

And since we're trying to get more volume in a particular floodplain, it seems like we're kind of we'd be working at cross purposes if we're you know potentially spending a bunch of money to redevelop you know Bogart Park, but then letting someone else fill a different part of the floodplain.

So yeah that's yeah just I think that's that's great.

One other suggestion I would have too at least in in my experience with the kind of idea of the sponge park, you know, essentially using as I understand what you're saying like a subterranean structured infiltration or detention facility.

I see that a lot in in really urban areas where you don't have another option that's cheaper.

It's these in my experience pretty expensive perhaps the most expensive option.

And I would encourage the city to look first at places like like what you showed for Bogar Park where you're essentially depressing the whole park so it can be flooded from time to time but then is that investment is going into more than just stormwater.

It's going into ecological restoration it's going into park amenities and I think we'll just get more out of that investment than an underground infiltration gallery or or detention facility.

And I think I think in general although we are somewhat spatially constrained I think that you know we're not Manhattan or you know downtown Chicago or something.

I think we have have the space uh in and around to to kind of do that at least in general.

You know even something like a swale or something like that that um is a daylight a day lit civil um structure would be my my suggestion.

And I think that's that's feedback I have thanks thanks for uh your presentation and your work on this thank you.

Thank you Eric I've just got one question sort of following up you know now getting to see this twice.

So I I think and I I don't know exactly the frame um that the consultant shared this last week um but I think it's idea nine the setbacks based on acreage question which I know came up during the commission's discussion on water course wild and setbacks et cetera you know sort of the settled science being for a waterway like this it should be you know the rural uh setback should be 150 feet on on each side um and I there you know there's the sort of ascending descending uh acreage to set back piece which I think was seems somewhat elegant to kind of get at that distinction between urban creek you know suburban rural creek but they said something to the effect of like that that got tossed out or we're not doing pursuing that and I didn't know if there was a a legal reason for what maybe got that to the end but I'm just curious if that's what's on the table now for us to you know try to have a a sliding scale so to speak of setbacks dependent on lot parcel area in the community et cetera.

Thank you.

So I so I I recall some of the some of the issues that were discussed as it relates to that sort of indexing of the setback relative to the property size had to do with um the available land supply along Belgium Creek there are actually aren't many properties downtown that are um over an acre if any.

And so a couple of those graphics were moot essentially.

Again it was provided as a demonstration of what could be used to encourage thought and ideas to what would work but in practic practical terms some of those indexed uh limits just kind of fell fell out of the math because uh there weren't actually available any any parcels of that particular size.

Another idea that I know was shared was the challenges associated with an inconsistent policy or practice that would have to be addressed in a piecemeal fashion.

And maybe this body can speak to that better than I can certainly but it over time it it it's difficult to to manage regulations that are predictable.

And so when we have um kind of this menu of setbacks relative to a particular parcel size or even an air an adjacency to a particular area of the creek it's difficult to stitch that together in a way that would result in a good experience for the navigating public.

The last one that I I'm not well equipped to elaborate on had to do with considerations as it relates to takings and whether or not we were precluding someone's right to develop given how we were considering and this is where I I'm not prepared to be able to describe this in earnest here.

If nothing else, maybe that just demonstrates the sensitivity that we're trying to take here and making sure that we end up with something that's going to work.

We also want to look out for underserved populations that may not have an opportunity to be here tonight or contribute into the development pattern of Bozeman Creek.

So that that is the balance that we're trying to strike here, and I'm really wavering off of your uh often answer here, Joey.

But uh yeah, I think right now we're starting to look at just a more prescriptive setback specific to Bozeman Creek.

Understanding the Bozeman Creek isn't the only waterway that goes through town.

That's another another comment that we've heard a lot.

Um but at the end of the day, this Bozeman Creek fishing plan needs to develop and propose discrete policy recommendations that we would then have an opportunity to go codify in the into the UDC, which will then have its own subsequent process for review and debate.

Uh these are these are recommendations, but but I don't want to provide a recommendation that has no future.

Um so that's where I'm here tonight to really kind of try to unpack this and thank you for the question.

I'm obviously not doing a very good job uh responding in in discrete terms here.

I think you're doing a good good job.

I think it kind of gets back to what you were saying earlier when I asked kind of a similar question.

Um we have eighth of an acre at a quarter of an acre sites, right?

All along Mosman Creek.

We we don't have anything that's even close to an acre.

Um so I love the vision, but then how do we create policy to get to that vision without taking too much of what is already there, too much of somebody's site to try to create even just the a walkway for people to enjoy the creek on.

Um so I I don't have an answer for it because I'm I'm noodling over in my head.

Okay, what is the right number?

How do we get to to that vision?

But it it's definitely um it's gonna be tricky because the whole river has been developed.

Right.

And it's all it's all owned, right?

Um so a hundred years ago we probably needed to put some policy into effect, and I think you said that um to kind of get to the place where we want it to be right now, but uh we didn't, and that's okay, it's not nobody's fault here.

Uh, but then how do you how do you unmine that um without encroaching on somebody's own rights, right?

Their property rights.

John, yes, sir.

If I could help answer some of these questions, um the city does have established setbacks along Bozeman Creek.

It's a fixed number, 75 feet.

Uh it's been in the code for over two decades now.

Uh prior to that there was a setback with a smaller number, um, but we learned some things and uh made some modifications.

There's also a second piece of that setback, and the second piece applies to all defined waterways in the community, which is if there's a defined floodplain and the floodplain is larger than whatever applicable setback you start with, then the setback goes and it expands outwards to the floodplain.

So if you're coming down the creek somewhere and you happen to hit one of those low bank areas where the water swells to the side as part of a site plan or other development project, folks give us the ground survey work to show this is where the line of the waterway or the and the floodway stops, floodplain stops, and then that's their setback.

Now, sometimes we do have to start looking at did we ask for too much as part and parcel of that, and maybe there's a variance that's justified in order to avoid uh improper taking.

Uh but we do have that um site-by-site element uh that is part of the analysis for redevelopment.

Um that's um Division 38 620.

Um that was just recently updated uh and integrated into the the UDC.

So we do have some tools in place.

Um it's not starting from zero at all.

Um, and it is something that uh does pose some challenges, you know, along certain portions of the creek where uh folks do have buildings literally over the top of the entire thing.

So some other challenges there.

But that's only for new building, correct, Chris?

Yeah, any kind of starting.

And so it really triggers that redevelopment.

The other part of this that comes into play, there's there's protection of the creek.

That's one purpose.

The other piece is the trail uh access point.

That triggers a whole nother set of legal questions that are uh interesting and and fun to work on from a professional standpoint.

Um so it it can get pretty complicated.

Uh it's great if you have you know folks who are community-minded and willing to give a little.

Um, but uh not everybody chooses to or feels like their property allows for that kind of uh opportunity.

I I do have one question about the mill creek, mill mill ditch to mill creek idea.

Will that change the map, the FEMA map?

Because that what that does is it relieves some of the pressure on the existing conditions that we have today.

Because I for better or for worse, there's another another topic that I've been thinking about, and I wonder if it came up in any of the engagement is the difference between how a creek naturally regulates itself when it has all the room in the world and an urban situation and an urban waterway.

Is this what Chris described in Europe is like sometimes they do constrain it for those rare or the maybe regular runoff occurrences, and they they've carefully considered that and blows through, but it doesn't take up in in our town.

I keep hearing about the value of property, it's like kind of like parking is like is that the best use of this property is a floodplain in the core of town that happens once every 500 years or once every hundred years using the natural, you know what I'm saying.

And if you can relieve it upstream, which is back to what I've heard before, is like is there something we can do upstream to maintain the urban fabric?

I'm sort of here as the advocate of the urban fabric versus like jamming a natural waterway through a city, right?

Right.

And and thank you.

So just first a direct response to your question.

Um if if we do send water down mill ditch during a flood, we would definitely be creating a new flood zone.

That would all have to be gone through through FEMA, there's a process for that.

The flood zone would branch.

It would it would definitely because you would be limited to the amount of design that you could achieve along Mill Ditch in order to inhibit like a 500-year flood.

It just that wouldn't be economically feasible.

And so you would end up with some flood that would be newly that would be a new flood zone.

You'd have to go through a process to map that and then come up with a plan to minute mitigate it.

I think your comment about you know, finding ways to mitigate those issues upstream is on point.

Um, the reason I'm I'm stumbling here a little bit is that we've been at this for a long time.

Yeah, yeah.

And it will be a long time.

Yeah, sure.

Uh before we can see the benefit, see some of that coming to light.

So this, and I I would speak to Jim and Steve here, you know, uh, speaks to some of that sense of urgency of like we've got to do something now.

We we've got enough plans, we've got enough data, we've got to do something.

Uh and this and by finding a way to split that flow here downtown kind of goes back to your comment, Bran, where we could continue to see the creek in an urban environment and actually have a better experience with it.

Right.

Um I I know it doesn't solve everyone's issue, but it does present a more near-term opportunity for us to find some mutual benefit here between flooding and what we've done to the creek in this urban setting.

I really love that that mill, the mill ditch idea, because that frankly, 75 feet through the city through the core of town, that's a lot of property.

And it it sort of disconnects to my earlier comment.

And I do think it's important to recognize all of this is a complicated issue, obviously, and it's important to recognize it all.

But I I think that practically speaking, again, a balanced approach is maybe go around it, which is that this mill the mill ditch idea does a little bit, which I find compelling.

I'm also curious if if you reallocate FEMA hazard, that what that's gonna do is change the insurance maps and all that whole equation running down here because I'm a personal experience with that right next door, is that we play flood play pay flood insurance that that may go down, and that that when that border comes in, there's sort of a benefit to folks along the existing Bozeman Creek.

Yes.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, Mark.

Just two quick additional comments.

Uh one, not all takings are improper.

Um be an intrinsically scared of that word.

Uh they do require compensation in Montana.

Uh but yeah, that's it's it's not necessarily a um like a non-starter if there were some regulatory takings.

But I do think Chairman Lloyd does a great point.

It's like if you could move the uh the primary floodplain um from running through the middle of downtown to going around less uh economically productive land on the side of downtown, like that could be a brilliant tax increment finance play in the making.

Interesting.

Thank you.

Yeah, if I could add just a short point to that too.

I'm kind of looking at the GIS right now.

It looks to me like there is uh FEMA uh you know, floodplain map along the ditch right now.

Um presumably the assumption is that some flood waters would kind of spill into there in the current condition, though most of it seems you know, certainly none of it, at least that I can see is is in developed land.

Um and I guess just the other thing as a certainly not a flood engineer, but I I am a boater and 800 CFS is not a lot of water.

Um so you know, I think that you know 400 CFS through the middle of town is I mean it's like fairly boatable.

Um so I mean I think that certainly we that you know where where that infrastructure I think is running into problems is the culverts that would create dams and then it's built over.

So I use the I guess where I'm going with that is that I think this idea of uh taking a lot of the flood water down Mill Creek.

I think it should be possible relatively easily to just kind of enhance the constraints of that waterway to handle 800 CFS without impacting those property owners um significantly.

So I think you know, the kind of taking there, if there were any, I think would be pretty minimal versus um, you know, I I think as the kind of status quo of the potential damage caused in a flood uh through downtown would be would be really significant.

So yeah, I think that that makes makes a ton of a ton of sense.

Um to me.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Final thoughts.

I I may be the dissenting vote on this, um, but not on um, but I I'm not sure that we need to tie affordable housing right now to this project.

Okay for what it's worth.

I I'm not um obviously I don't all for affordable housing.

I think that uh anything we can do to support it is great, all this, but but it I just I think it's it's kind of confusing right now how it gets tied to each one of these properties.

And um I'm just not sure like any means uh it's worth the squeeze in a sense.

Um I think we need to really just focus on reduce reduction of of or mitigating flood hazards and opening this land up as best we can uh to the town.

Um and then if there's we can layer on affordable housing in the future on top of it, maybe that that works.

But um I don't I just think trying to do it all right now through this project, it's um it might be a little bit too much.

So I think I think we can attack affordable housing in a different man manner.

Um I don't think this is the the way to do it.

The the only thing that I would uh just as a brief response to that that we heard from the consultants is that in there they they should sort of showed, and and John correct me if this is off base from what we were seeing from them, is that it's not necessarily like a tack on that can burden the project, but it they've used it in other communities as an enabling part of the project to potentially you know leverage other grants or incentives that help get individual chunks of the multi-year project off the ground.

But I agree, especially with some of the um properties proposed, the ship is sort of sailed on what we're doing with them.

Like they're we're not digging up the city shops complex that we've just committed at you know, 84 million dollars to um build a new complex on and things like that.

But thank you.

Agreed that to the sentiment that it it can't be the the North Star that keeps us from moving forward.

Oh yes.

Um first uh seeing the images from the presentation tonight reminded me of seeing them at Suraptimus Park and all the like creativity that and awfulness that's gotten into, so it's was it was exciting to see it again, just like it was when we saw it at Sur Optimus.

So thanks for that.

Um just real quick.

Um I would say I mean because I have a different take than Ben that we're not trying to just sort of create empty space downtown that's just waiting to catch water occasionally.

But I it seems like based on those images, it's like, oh, this will be beautiful activated space that'll be a community benefit all the time.

Sort of like you know, the Beale Park example.

And then when it does occasionally have all this water, it's gonna serve that role.

So it's I mean, it does seem like it's a it's a beautiful uh two birds with one stone um approach.

Um and then regarding uh setbacks based on lot size.

Um I guess what I I didn't really like that that's not really tied to anything meaningful or substantive.

Um there's probably like a minimum size, it's like the necessary for creek health.

So if that's a minimum, that should be a minimum.

It shouldn't be based on like lot size and you know, even if there were larger parcels um where these different setbacks would would trigger, I mean, it just it doesn't result in a system.

You'd have like a little setback on a parcel, and then right next to it, a bigger setback, and then back to a little.

Like that's just not a that's not a system, that's sort of a haphazard.

I mean, it might be possible that somehow that just happens to work, but to just have this sort of vacillation between little, medium, big um that doesn't seem like it's really tied to anything, you know, either based on economic enhancement or vitality or creek health or um or whatever.

Um then here's a this is the question about so this is like the analytic approach um about kind of this whole thing.

So I definitely agree that we should be computing um what's likelier based on new knowledge, and you know, like the example you gave was the rain on snow event.

So um but even with that new knowledge, there's kind of like two conceptually different ways to approach this.

One would be right, you estimate that hundred-year event and then you allocate that hundred-year amount of water.

But the other could be to look at the downtown corridor and compute sort of, you know, because we know there's these bottlenecks.

And so you could look at the downtown corridor and just go sort of like bottleneck by bottleneck, and sort of there's a there's a range of options for improvements, and then try to see like, oh, what might make sense as a you know, for each of these bottlenecks, there's a menu, and what might be the sweet spot for um just increasing that capacity because you know, if we get a six-year, uh 70-year flood, I mean, just assuming this these, you know, it's all just like a distribution.

Um, there's still benefit there.

Anyhow, granted, it when the hundred year does come, whatever that excess is needs to be uh, you know, something has to happen with it, you know, or it's gonna flood.

Um but I guess I was uh just saying like maybe we should be looking at both like coming at it from both directions because there might be some uh sort of sweet spot for the downtown corridor that just kind of makes sense.

Like, oh, we could get a lot of extra capacity for a reasonably large amount of money, but you know, like that could make sense regardless of that it doesn't distribute or deal within the entire hundred-year flood.

Does that make sense?

Like those two different ways of approaching it.

Yeah, if I could respond to that briefly.

Um so alternative one in that preliminary engineering report did look at um improving all 21, I think, structures that are deficient right now.

And when they ran the numbers uh based on cost benefit ratio, essentially, um, it was a staggering amount of money.

Um whereas the ideas that are starting to come forward achieve the same level of service at a far less substantial investment that also result in more direct public benefit being access and experience experiential to the to the creek.

So yes, our we're fortunate that our consultant was in in some ways uh came in cold, right?

They they they're not from here.

They were able to come at this, and I I remember vividly the first time they came to town, they're like, what is going on here?

You know, you guys have buried this creek, and uh and it just reinforced to me that they're taking a very objective analytical approach to looking at all the science and engineering that we did last year without all that bias that we carry, and then they themselves have put together this sort of hybrid of alternative two from the plan to address largely what what you're describing here, Jason, where it's uh you know, there's there's a lot of different ways you can do this, but they want to find they want to strike a way that has a chance of success that isn't gonna break the bank that benefits the public that provides that net experience that that we're shooting for here.

Um I will add as well just because I haven't mentioned it.

Uh there are some more practical measures that that we're also thinking about, too.

Um we're thinking about simply grades on the front of the tunnels just to keep debris out of the out of the tunnels under Main Street.

Something as simple as that.

Maybe more aggressive um management of tree fall uh in the corridor um through city operations.

You know, those are kind of operational things that we're also contemplating as well, uh, because they need to be a part of this too.

Those um the things that we've learned through the studies downtown and under those tunnels in particular are um are gonna require some some pretty aggressive improvements.

All right, cool.

Well, that's great.

I mean, that's great to from what you said.

It sounds like yeah, uh it was approached from every angle, and yeah, as would be expected.

Things that seem to make the most sense kind of start to filter out or emerge to the top is like, oh, that's a reasonable return on a reasonable investment.

Right.

Well, thanks, John.

Yeah.

Did we do it?

Great.

Thank you, John.

Fantastic.

Really appreciate the input.

Thank you.

And if there are further interest, uh, we're you know, you will we'll be at this for another couple months before we come back and we'll schedule uh another round here, probably late September, early October.

And by then we'll have all of us a little bit more polished and um ready for your uh your input at that point.

So thanks again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next agenda item.

It's just a discussion.

Yeah.

No.

Just yaken.

Upcoming items for the August third meeting, Mr.

Saunders.

Yes.

Um upcoming items and then a couple other FYI items.

Uh upcoming items, we have a work session at your next meeting.

Uh, City Commission has requested that there be some conversation on the issues of zone edge transitions and the maximum height allowed in the B3 district.

And so they would like the input from this body.

They're also gonna we're also gonna go visit with the downtown associations and other folks that have interests.

Uh, and then that will lead up to a work session with the city commission.

Um, I believe it's the 28th of August.

Um, so look forward to visiting with you and having some input uh from this body about that topic.

Uh so we'll be providing um some written materials and and links to other elements where these topics were discussed previously during the UDC update, um, just to kind of help everybody um get your feedback under you on these topics.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh the other two things I have uh for your information.

Um tomorrow evening, city commission is gonna hold work session on advisory boards uh five years ago uh roughly.

City did uh the large overhaul of its board structure system, and as part of that was a commitment to uh evaluate, report, reassess, and so that's happening.

Um there's a pretty complete packet in the city commission uh materials for next uh tomorrow.

And so if you're interested in that, of course, uh folks are welcome to listen in and see what the conversation is.

The other items um the city's landmark project, which is a code-focused update on the conservation overlay district and our NCOD design guidelines projects have uh been moving ahead.

There are separate projects when they have separate consultants and separate uh pages on engaged bosemen.

So they really are two different things, uh, but they certainly have some relationship to each other and they interact with uh the duties of this board relating to the UDC as well.

Uh so the city commission is going to be doing a work session on those two projects on July the 28th, so almost two weeks.

Um so uh obviously encourage you folks to listen in on that.

Um keep your eyes on engage Bozeman for updates of things like that.

Um if you would like to do that.

So just want to keep you apprised of that work that is happening.

Uh that's maybe of interest to the board.

Okay.

Any other FYIs?

None for me.

We have quorum for the next two meetings, as far as we know.

We do.

Um we are right on the line for August 17th.

Um, so two meetings uh ahead.

That is going to be a text amendment, public hearing uh relating to wetlands and water courses.

Um as the this body knows uh roughly a year ago, year and a half ago almost now, uh, there was a an update to our wetlands and water course standards having to do with changes that occurred uh through federal law, and so adapting to catch up to that.

So we adopted that, put it in place, started uh implementing it, and um then we kind of ran into uh some conflicts with some of our agency partners uh on timing, not substance, but um they're reluctant to proceed in advance of the city approving something.

They'd like to see what an actual project is before they begin their review.

So uh we're working out the nuances of how we do the review that we're obligated to do.

They do the review they're obligated to do, and we do it in timing that actually works for all of the parties in the process, and so um that's coming forward.

Uh it's not a whole lot of pages, um, but it's uh pretty much all procedural, uh, but it's it's important procedure.

So uh be carrying that through, and then leave that's going to the commission in the beginning of September to see if they uh agree with the proposal.

So um, yeah, some things happening um coming up this fall.

Um well, that's I hate to say that fall.

It's too early to say the word fall, but uh there we go.

Okay, seeing nothing further, we're adjourned.