Text Box: Questions I-12, I-13 and I-15, as depicted in Fig I-11, continue with the planning theme.  Respondents registered strong support (3.29) for requiring the BLUAC to use the Bigfork Master Plan as the guiding document when making planning and zoning determinations.  Support for incorporation of Bigfork as a means to more thoroughly control the planning and zoning process was modestly positive (2.69), but the median score in this area was a more positive 3.0.  There is very little support (1.65) for the idea that county zoning determinations should take precedent over the planning and zoning preferences of the local community.  Here too we find consistent views between overall survey participants and those who may be regarded as closer to this particular issue.  Of those respondents who lived in areas A or B (generally inclusive of potential incorporation boundaries), survey results were marginally different on the need to use the Bigfork Master Plan (3.35) as a guiding document and support for incorporation of Bigfork (2.7).  On the question of whether or not county zoning should trump community zoning, residents of areas A and/or B recorded 1.64--a statistically insignificant difference from the 1.65 expressed by the survey respondents at large. Taken separately, these responses demonstrate very strong support for community based planning and zoning similar to the 1993 result for a related question (General #10) in which seventy-seven percent (77%) of those surveyed favored area zoning.  Though the question dealing with incorporation of Bigfork posted only a modestly positive response, it is compelling to note that under the Constitution for the State of Montana, community as opposed to county based planning and zoning can only be achieved through the political mechanism of an incorporated community, or through cooperation with county commissioners who are responsive to the community.  On the other hand, similar to the earlier developmental questions, respondents were asked to give their views without any access to cost information.  What, if any, the additional tax burden would be for incorporation, and whether or not area citizens would be willing to pay it, will need to await further exploration.   

Question I-14 asked what the incorporation boundaries of Bigfork should be.  Three-hundred seventy-nine (#379) respondents provided comments with forty-three (#43) (11%) providing negative comments on the wisdom of incorporating, or at least asking for cost information before deciding.  The actual suggested boundaries covered the wide range of options, to include prefix 837, postal code 59911, Bigfork Village—and most every combination in between imaginable.  

Section II: Land Use Questions

Responses to land use questions (Fig II-1), ranging from a high of 3.57 to a low of 2.95, reveal generally strong support for all categories included in the question.  Placement of future utility lines underground received the highest rating (3.57) while need for additional waterway access posted 2.95—the lowest of the five areas, but nonetheless a score of considerable strength.  The above score on a perceived requirement for underground utilities is consistent with the 1993 survey results (Land Use Questions #28) as eighty-five percent (85%) of those surveyed favored underground utilities.