The Planning Division staff is recommending the Yellowstone County Board of Planning hold a public hearing on the proposed City of Billings Growth Policy and make a recommendation, by resolution, to the City Council for adoption of the Policy.  The Growth Policy provides guidance to decision-making bodies of the City of Billings on matters on land use and infrastructure investment.  It is not a regulatory document, however, it does provide information on the public preference on how Billings grows and where it grows in the next 20 years.

State law specifies that a jurisdiction should review an existing growth policy at least once every five years and revise the policy if necessary (76-1-601 (3)(f)(iii), MCA).  The current policy, which incorporates both the City and County, was adopted in 2008.  Updating the 2008 City of Billings/Yellowstone County Growth Policy was identified as a priority in the 2014 City Council Strategic Plan.  The City Council recognized at that time that a policy was needed to achieve its goal of “comprehensive, cost-effective, and orderly growth.”  Staff was directed to “prepare a comprehensive growth policy focused on existing service gaps in the City growth areas.”  This action by City Council both initiated the process of preparing a growth policy for the City of Billings and provided a framework for the purpose of the document.  State law also lists required elements that a growth policy must include (76-1-601 (2), MCA).  If the Board recommends approval, the City Council will act on the recommendation at its July 11, 2016 regular business meeting.

Updating the 2008 City of Billings/Yellowstone County Growth Policy was identified as a priority in the 2014 City Council Strategic Plan.  The City Council recognized at that time that a policy was needed to achieve its goal of “comprehensive, cost-effective, and orderly growth.”  Staff was directed to “prepare a comprehensive growth policy focused on existing service gaps in the City growth areas.”  To achieve this directive, two questions needed to be answered:

1. How will we grow?  The responses identified what services would be needed to provide a desired growth outcome and where the “service gaps” are and will be in the next 20 years.
2. Where will we grow?  Answers to this question established where the “City growth areas” actually are.

 These were the questions posed to the public to begin the planning process in October, 2014.  More than 1,200 comments were received from 35 public meetings.  As the comments were examined, certain core values began to emerge that fell together into seven categories.  The aggregated values expressed clear community goals that shared many common associations.  The seven goals are:  Essential Investments, Place Makers, Community Fabric, Strong Neighborhoods, Home Base, Mobility and Access, and Prosperity.

The public comments were also the basis for three other important elements of this Policy: objectives, toolboxes, and performance measurements.  Goal objectives are targeted outcomes that provide definition to what the goal can achieve or how the goal can be achieved.  Toolboxes suggest ways, means, and methodologies to accomplish the goal, and performance measurements are recommended metrics for determining if the goal is being achieved.

Referring back to the Council’s Strategic Plan goal of “comprehensive, cost-effective, orderly growth”, the planning process also evaluated seven different growth scenarios to estimate the relative cost and revenue of various growth patterns in three separate growth areas identified through the public input process: North (around the proposed Inner Belt Loop), West (west of Shiloh Road) and Infill (existing parcels within the City limits and adjacent properties).  The scenarios were developed to accommodate approximately 50,000 more residents.  The costs to provide selected services and facilities the public preferred were calculated for high, low, and mixed residential density (Preferred) scenarios in the North and West growth areas.  The residential density used for the infill scenario was based on existing zoning.   The revenue estimates were developed by extrapolating the average tax and assessment revenue from existing residential housing developments of comparable densities.
The scenario planning results were looked at three ways:

1. Total cost of selected services and facilities and total revenue from housing unit per scenario
2. Total cost of selected services and facilities/total anticipated annual revenue (Return on Investment)
3. Total anticipated annual revenue from residential development/acre

The chart below shows the order of ranking for the seven scenarios.

Scenario Ranking		North Preferred	North High Density	North Low Density	West Preferred	West High Density	West Low Density	Infill and Adj. Parcels
Total Costs (1 = lowest costs)		3	1	5	6	4	7	2
Return on Investment		6	7	3	4	5	1	2
Total Revenue per Acre		4	7	3	5	6	2	1

The scenario planning data and the values expressed by the public support a general consensus that development of infill parcels and properties adjoining the existing City limits is second lowest in total costs, second highest in return on investment and is the highest in total revenue per acre.  Also substantiated by public comment and the scenario planning data is that a mix of residential densities is preferred.  There are clear revenue advantages to the low density scenarios in terms of return on investments and total revenue per acre, mostly because the revenue generated by higher valued houses on larger lots is greater than any other scenario.  However, the costs for developing the low density scenario are significant. The infill scenario returns the highest total revenue per acre largely because of the concentrated value on smaller lots, provides a mix of housing, and is less costly to develop. 

The primary purpose of the planning process is to formulate a Growth Policy for the selected time horizon, or 20 years.  In the end, the Policy is derived from the comments, goals, objectives and data.  The Growth Policy stands as a framework to evaluate future public and private development and investment.  The Policy is further supported by a Growth Policy Statement (vision) and suggested Growth Guidelines that can be referred to when making decisions for land use applications and infrastructure projects.

Adoption of the Billings Growth Policy will have no direct financial impact to the City.  However, the Policy demonstrates that the Infill and Adjacent Parcels growth pattern is most cost effective.  It should be noted that maintenance and replacement costs were not factored into the scenario planning.  It stands to reason that infill development will require replacement and repair of existing infrastructure sooner than newer development in the north and west scenarios.  This repair and replacement of existing infrastructure will be necessary regardless of the growth area as the majority of the City population still live in areas served by existing infrastructure and rely on this infrastructure. Adoption of the Billings Growth Policy should provide guidance to the City in making financial decisions that are cost effective and efficient in delivering City services.

The Planning Division staff is recommending the Yellowstone County Board of Planning hold a public hearing on the proposed City of Billings Growth Policy and make a recommendation, by resolution, to the City Council for adoption of the Policy.