Text Box: 
All of the areas scored at the “agree” level with the exception of the adequacy of Bigfork street lighting, which at 2.92 scored just under “agree.”  Taken as a whole, these responses reflect a strong desire to keep and/or improve the current village atmosphere of Bigfork.

Anticipating the relatively high concern about parking in the Bigfork Village (3.22), Question III-2 asked for written suggestions on how to solve this problem.  The response rate was a stout forty-eight percent (48%), or seven hundred forty-three (743) specific comments.  Representative comments are included below.
Above ground parking garage
Underground parking garage
Shuttle from school lot to downtown during summer months
Limited employee parking
Electric Ave (one-way) with two-side diagonal parking
Make downtown pedestrian area

The 1993, sixty-seven percent (67%) of survey participants favored a requirement for additional village parking before approving additional commercial facilities.   

Section IV: Outside the Loop

These questions explored various issues pertaining to area aesthetics as well as location-defined development questions.  The specific results are easily gained from Fig IV-1 and Fig IV-2.  

Generally, respondents showed less than positive support for additional commercial development in the specific areas cited in this section: Holt Drive between Flathead Bank and Eagle Bend; Hwy 35 from Burger Town south to boundary between Flathead and Lake County line; Hwy 83 corridor between Rocky Mountain Roadhouse to boundary between Flathead and Lake Counties.  A determination of just where additional commercial development would be encouraged is not addressed in the survey.  Without exception, aesthetic issues (e.g., mobile/portable signs, screened garbage collection facilities, signage requirements, etc.) all received very positive support.