Gallatin County Commission says it won’t support TEDD and TIF to help fund Gallatin Canyon sewer project at this time
By Jen Clancey STAFF WRITER
Nearby residents filed into The Wilson Hotel’s conference room in Big Sky Wednesday morning, Oct. 8, for the Big Sky Resort Area District and Madison-Gallatin Joint County Commission meeting, an annual staple of Big Sky Community Week. The meeting provides an opportunity for Big Sky to update the two counties in which it resides—Gallatin and Madison—about local projects, finances and concerns from residents.
Discussions about local government studies, water and sewer district projects and grants to support infrastructure operations informed the public about where Big Sky and county government is headed next. Leaders also revisited how to fund the Gallatin Canyon County Water and Sewer District.
In late August, infrastructure leaders and BSRAD representatives discussed the benefits of a targeted economic development district, or TEDD, as well as its tax method companion, called tax incremental financing, or TIF. GCCWSD hoped to get the Gallatin County Commission on board with a TEDD and TIF boundary where a centralized sewer would connect homes along a section of U.S. Highway 191, pumping wastewater uphill to be treated at Big Sky’s new, $50 million Water Resource Recovery Facility.
The canyon sewer is an expensive $50 million project, and approval for the TEDD and TIF could solve a critical funding gap, potentially raising between $10-20 million from new development in the district boundary area. That’s if the commission approved TEDD and TIF financing for the project, but Commissioner Zach Brown explained in the meeting why the governing body ultimately decided not to support a TEDD and TIF for the GCCWSD.
County commission expresses concern about ‘backlash’, questions need for TEDD and TIF
He explained that the commission took time through discussions with Mace Mangold, VP of infrastructure at WGM Group, and BSRAD Executive Director Daniel Bierschwale, learning about the potential impacts of a TEDD and TIF. He referenced the City of Bozeman’s TIF as an example of the challenges created by economic development incentives.
“I would add a bit of editorialization only on behalf of myself, that the City of Bozeman’s program has, in their attempts to chase the increment, has resulted in a lot of the infill development around downtown Bozeman, including all of the high-rise apartments and hotels,” Brown explained. He said the development has stirred public frustration in the Bozeman voter base.
“…It’s just a way to say that with local government proactively incentivizing development, there is a political consequence and backlash that is likely to come from that.”
He also noted that commission was unsure if Gallatin County voters would support the county government incentivizing new development, though Big Sky leaders like BSRAD board member Kevin Germain noted in August that the TEDD and TIF would be used not for economic growth, but for solving the infrastructure inefficiency and environmental challenges along U.S. 191.
Brown continued about the project’s need for a county-supported funding mechanism.
“We are not necessarily convinced that the developers of the Quarry combined with the resources of BSRAD and the water and sewer district itself—let alone the corporate firms that own most of, or a lot of the land up here and would stand to benefit from this redevelopment opportunity—couldn’t achieve this level of financing and bonding on their own,” Brown said.
BSRAD board chair Sarah Blechta responded to Brown’s remark, saying that the project addresses a water quality issue.
“We need to protect this [Gallatin] River in any way that we can,” Blechta said. “Big Sky is doing everything that we can … We are an engine in this state and we want to continue to be. We want to work with you, we want to work with the state. I just would ask that you don’t shut everything down. I’m hopeful that we can work together and find a way to make this really important issue, something that everybody can be a part of.”
Board member John Zirkle weighed in on the discussion, explaining BSRAD’s perspective.
“The community voted for the $12 million to help with this, and Mr. Mangold is talking about a $50 million project. The challenge with BSRAD is that we really are tied up at the moment. We just approved, with the community, $60 million for housing and park renovation and that really has tied up most of our capacity. So when Ms. Blechta talks about us really doing everything we can, we really feel like we’ve showed up.”
He explained that he hopes the conversation continues at the county level, because the project may depend on it.
The GCCSWD still saw support come in from BSRAD on Oct. 8 though, as the board approved requests for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to fund operating costs, at $200,000 each year.
“That operations budget is really our pot of money to keep the district advancing in a progressive direction,” Mangold said about the request of BSRAD. He noted again river health and a human health risk associated with ongoing septic system use.
“So fundamentally, our number one challenge is a sewer challenge. Septics was the start of this whole venture and it was really … the network of wells and septics intermingled in that whole canyon corridor has kind of exposed that there’s a human health risk, that even if we pull three quarters of the septics offline, there’s still kind of a potable water risk,” Mangold said.
From here, project leaders will need to continue conversations with county government and continue looking for solutions for the gap in funding left without a TEDD and TIF.
Board approves funding for Firelight water and sewer district; elected leaders discuss zoning, local government
The BSRAD board also greenlit a $100,000 request for both fiscal years 2026 and 2027 for the Firelight Meadows County Water and Sewer District. Becky Brockie, vice chair of the FMCWSD, explained that connecting the 216 homes in the Firelight neighborhood would support river health downstream. The project was approved unanimously by resident voters in May 2025.
“Contamination from our failing system spreads across the Gallatin watershed and impacts our neighbors in West Fork, Town Center in Meadow Village,” Brockie said. “Supporting Firelight startup operations helps protect the Gallatin River, advances DEQ compliance, unlocks matching government funds, complements BSRAD’s canyon investment by addressing another significant source of contamination in our watershed and keeps one of Big Sky’s largest neighborhoods livable for the workforce that sustains this community.”
The funding request will support operating costs as the district gets started in implementing a more dependable water and sewer system.
Local government study commission members Jackie Haines, with Gallatin County’s study, and Brian Conklin, with Madison County’s study, also described what they’ve learned so far from their work in examining local government structures.
One takeaway from both of their assessments is that the two counties’ commissions do not have self-governing powers. When a local government, like the City of Bozeman, has self-governing powers, they are only restricted by what state law prohibits, opening the door for more autonomy at the local level for regulation, services and problem-solving.
Haines and Conklin encouraged people to participate through surveys and meetings which are shared on the Gallatin County study commission and Madison County study commission websites.
Gallatin County Commissioner Jennifer Boyer also described updates from the county’s recent zoning reform plans. For a county with 22 unique zoning districts and plenty of unzoned land, a plan for what happens to land needed significant public input.
“So in an effort to create more predictability, to create more consistency across our county and to give our local residents more voice in what happens in their future, we kicked off a series of listening sessions,” Boyer said. She noted relevant areas to the Big Sky community, like the land between Four Corners and Gallatin Gateway, as acres that are susceptible to taking on population and development growth in the county, and that growth policies and future land use maps emphasized the desire for new development to be near existing services and infrastructure.
“Over and over and over again, we hear that we do not want rural sprawl,” Boyer said.
She said residents wanted tight-knit communities with accessible services in new development. It’s also an efficient use of land, protective of natural resources nearby and an effective use of existing infrastructure, Boyer said.
No lines have been drawn on maps yet, as the Gallatin County Commission hopes public comment further guides zoning plans. She recommended residents attend a Gallatin County Commission meeting on Oct. 21 to weigh in on the topic, which will appear on the agenda. Brown clarified that the zoning plans and reform won’t impact zoning in Big Sky.
“The take home message for Big Sky residents is that we have no plans to affect, or mess with, or edit, or in any way change your zoning district regulations, which have been in place for 40 plus years,” Brown said.
