What we can learn from Big Sky

A small group of legislators invited to Big Sky? Sounds like the making of an expensive junket. 

I wasn’t quite sure of the purpose of the invite but following the passing of SB 260, a bill that solved several thorny taxation issues facing Big Sky, I was intrigued to learn more about the exclusive resort community and the challenges faced by most of the full-time residents who are in fact regular people like you and I. During the session I wrote about a taxing problem; the district lines for a hospital and school district serving residents in Madison County were drawn before the most expensive portion of Big Sky was developed. This resulted in considerable fixed mill levies funding services that were not practically accessible to the full-time residents of Big Sky, mostly within Gallatin County. Of course, if you live in Ennis, MT, it is financially advantageous to have low school mills subsidized by properties with limited access to such services through Jack Creek Road, a privately held road one that is long, and winding. Over the next decade more taxes will stay on the Gallatin side. Nobody is totally happy, but problem resolved. 

Big Sky is an unincorporated resort district encompassing the likes of the Yellowstone Club, on Madison County side and a town center on the Gallatin side. There are a dozen or so special districts that along with the county, provide governance to the area. A coalition of interests make up a working group; you might call them the problem solvers. Included in this group are the Big Sky Water and Sewer District, the Big Sky Area Resort District, Lone Mountain Land and Environmental, the Big Sky Chamber, the Housing Trust, and the MT Department of Transportation. Retaining water quality, providing affordable housing and improving the US 191 transportation corridor are social and environmental challenges addressed by the problem solvers. I was most interested in the use of the district’s lucrative resort tax receipts (at the maximum 4% rate), to leverage funding for land purchases designated for a blend of affordable housing. Bonding against the tax, through voter approval, allowed the District to purchase privately held land. Unlike our two municipalities, there is no existing publicly owned land within the Big Sky Resort District.  Affordable housing is built to provide below market options for full time residents. Like in the Flathead, the financing model relies upon collaboration among the local government, private philanthropy, leveraging tax collections through bonding, a local land trust and non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity.  

The cost for the transportation fixes are enormous. The plan is to modernize the US191 corridor along with a rebuild of the intersection with state highway 64. Chris Dorrington, the agency director, was present and it was apparent that partnership rather than an adversarial relationship was the only way forward in addressing such complicated problems.  

The sewer and water district is permitted to send all the treated effluent back to the land, including snow making for the initial snow based upon the ski slopes. Collaboration is required with state agencies including DEQ and DNRC. The infiltration of septic on site sewage along 191 is the next funding challenge for the Big Sky.  

I learned more than I could imagine from my 24-hour stay in Big Sky.  Complex and expensive problems require problem solvers. It requires, at times, uneasy relationships between big entities and the development of a strategic plan to address such needs. Here within Senate District 2; special districts, the county, municipalities and the private sector need heightened conversations to address similar issues experienced in Big Sky. Perhaps I overuse the word collaboration but it keeps returning to me as foundational to progress. 

Dave Fern, SD 2 Whitefish/Columbia Falls