The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-26-18 City Commission Packet Materials - A9. Commission Direction for a Parks and Trails Special DistrictCommission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Mitch Overton, Parks and Recreation Department Director Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager Andrea Surratt, City Manager SUBJECT: City Commission Direction on the Creation of a City-Wide Parks and Trails Special District MEETING DATE: February 26, 2018 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to accept the 2018 Park and Trail District Feasibility Study and direct the City Manager to return with a proposed plan for the creation of a park and trail special district at the Standard Practice Level of Service, including timing and method of creation. BACKGROUND: The need to address this issue is significant. Our park and trail infrastructure is a critical aspect to Bozeman’s quality of life and significant aspect of our asset inventory. The creation of a parks and trails special district and waivers of right to protest such a district have been cited, referenced and/or studied for over a decade in Bozeman. I will attempt to summarize some examples in a timeline below: • Beginning in the mid-1990’s, waivers of right to protest a city parks maintenance district were required from some subdivisions as a specific condition of approval. • In 2004, it became standard practice for the City of Bozeman to require property owners associations to maintain their city dedicated parkland until which time a city-wide parks maintenance district was created to do the same. This is most often indicated on the subdivision final plat. • The current (2007) adopted Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) Plan 10.2 Top Ten Non-Facility Recommendations calls to “Evaluate and implement a Citywide parks maintenance district or some equivalent alternative”. The item ranked as priority number 4 based on survey results, public input and level of service analysis. • In 2011 and 2013 two different Montana State University (MSU) students conducted research papers on the potential creation of a parks maintenance district in Bozeman. • In 2015, the City implemented a work order management solution (Cityworks) to record all costs associated with Park Division operations and maintenance. This information was used to compile current and future cost estimates, based on an extensive asset inventory. • In 2016 (at no cost to the city), the City of Bozeman contracted with the Trust for Public Land (TPL) to perform a Conservation Finance Feasibility Study (attached) that showed 773 examples of how the city could create a parks and trails special district similar to the city’s tree assessment or street maintenance assessment. • In 2017, the city budgeted for and contracted with Peaks to Plains Design to conduct a Park and Trail District Feasibility Study (attached). RESULTING ISSUES: Since the city began requiring property owners associations to maintain their city-dedicated parkland until a parks district was created, those neighborhood parks have grown to include approximately 235 acres spread out over 37 parks. In addition to the acreage the city owns, it also owns all of the associated assets within these parks (i.e., playgrounds, irrigation systems, sidewalks, basketball courts, shelters, trails systems, sand volleyball courts, benches, trash receptacles, street trees, etc…). Admittedly, some property owners associations do a very good job of maintaining their parks and associated assets. However, some struggle to cover the most basic levels of maintenance. This creates an inequity in city park infrastructure across the city, which then is reflected upon the neighborhoods. It also contributes to some neighborhood (HOA) parks becoming destination parks while others begin a downward spiral. This gap continues to widen as assets are not repaired or replaced in underserviced neighborhood parks, which then adds to the deferred maintenance costs of city owned assets within these parks and potential liability issues. One final issue worth mentioning is the cost inequity to members of a property owners association that maintain their city park infrastructure. Many property owners pay HOA dues to cover the cost of their park maintenance as well as paying city taxes to cover maintenance of the city maintained parks. While the neighborhood park is a public space open to all to enjoy, only the property owners bear the burden of maintenance costs. POSITIVE ASPECTS OF CURRENT SYSTEM: The city’s current system of requiring property owners associations to maintain their city neighborhood park can have some positive aspects. • It can save some citizens money. o Citizens that do not live in a neighborhood that pays property owners association fees to maintain a city neighborhood park, pay only the city taxes associated with maintaining the current city maintained parks and not for parks managed by property owners associations or HOA’s. • Residents that pay for the maintenance of their neighborhood park through association dues may feel a stronger sense of ownership and responsibility for the park. LEVELS OF SERVICE: Much of the study presented with this agenda item focuses on levels of service. The city’s Current Practice Level of Service is one that creates a backlog of deferred maintenance. The city’s current deferred maintenance backlog in parks is approximately $6,900,000. Without an increase in the level of service to park infrastructure, that number will increase annually. This results in a shorter lifespan for assets, higher maintenance costs and a continually degrading level of service to the public. The Standard Practice Level of Service described in the study not only increases the maintenance frequency for all park and trail assets but it catches the city up on deferred maintenance in all city parks over a ten year period. Additionally, all park and trail assets are maintained and replaced on a regular schedule resulting in a higher level of service than currently delivered. Finally, after the ten year “catch up” period, the maintenance budget can be reduced by the “catch up” amount (~$690,000 for this level of service). 774 The Best Practices Level of Service places all city park and trail infrastructure on a schedule that maximizes the user experience through a high level of planned routine maintenance, infrastructure improvements and asset replacement. This level also includes a ten year deferred maintenance “catch up” period. It is slightly higher ($763,771/yr for ten years) than the Standard Practice Level of Service due to the fact that assets are replaced more frequently. NEXT STEPS: The General Fund FY’19 – FY’23 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) adopted by the City Commission on December 11, 2017 anticipates the creation of a parks and trails special district in FY’19, and therefore removes all park division capital items from the CIP beginning in FY’20. If the Commission chooses not to pursue a parks and trails special district, parks capital will need to be re-addressed for years FY’20 – FY’23. The Montana Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 11, Part 10 is specific to the steps and requirements regarding the creation of a special district. If the City Commission choses to pursue a Parks and Trails Special District several options exist and will require direction and decisions from the Commission. This includes but is not limited to, a resolution of intent to create the district, the assessment method (i.e., property square footage or assessed value) and will the levy be presented to the voters as a ballot measure or a protest, are a few important examples. Fortunately, this would not be the first time the city has gone through such a process. FISCAL EFFECTS: Budget projections for each level of service standard have been prepared by the consultant. It is important to note that each scenario includes the city maintaining and operating all city owned parkland and associated trails and trail easements. The Current Practice Level of Service budget for FY’19 – FY’23 is $2,639,360/year including capital. However, this number does not include addressing the $6,900,000 backlog of deferred maintenance that currently exists within the city parks and trails system. As a comparison, the current Parks Division budget for FY’18 including capital is $2,083,480. Operating budget excluding capital items planned for FY’18 is $1,693,234. The operating budget is equal to 16.73 mills. The costs of a district could be assessed annually to all owners of real property within the incorporated city limits based upon the assessable area of each lot or parcel. This is the same method of assessment used for the city’s existing assessments, except that tax-exempt parcels for parks, open space land, and common areas and greenways are excluded. The table below shows the estimated costs for average and maximum residential lots for each scenario: Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Average Annual cost FY19-FY23 $ 2,639,360.00 $ 5,728,463.00 $ 7,727,639.00 Total Assessable sqft to date 214,328,525.50 214,328,525.50 214,328,525.50 Amount per sqft 0.0123 0.0267 0.0361 Average Residential lot 7,500 sqft $ 92.36 $ 200.46 $ 270.41 Maximum Residential lot 15,000 sqft $ 184.72 $ 400.91 $ 540.83 ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. 775 Attachments: -TPL Conservation Finance Feasibility Study -2018 Bozeman MT Park and Trail District Feasibility Study Report compiled on: 2/15/18 776 CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST 2016 BOZEMAN, MONTANA 777 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST 2016 2 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT Copyright © August 2016. The Trust for Public Land All rights reserved. Cover photo: Tom Robertson, Story Mill Community Park 778 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST, 2016 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 4 Special Districts Overview 5 Special Districts in Bozeman ................................................................................ 5 Authorization to Create Special Districts .............................................................. 6 Special District Governance and Powers ............................................................. 7 Methods of Assessment ....................................................................................... 7 Bozeman Parks and Recreation 7 Potential Park Maintenance District in Bozeman ................................................. 8 Municipal Park District Examples 9 Bend Park and Recreation District, Oregon 9 Eastmont Metropolitan Park and Recreation District, Washington 10 Billings District, Montana 10 Bainbridge Island Metro Park and Recreation District, Washington 11 779 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST 2016 4 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTRODUCTION The Trust for Public Land (“TPL”) is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization specializing in conservation research, finance, land and water protection and urban parks. TPL is based in San Francisco with 40 offices nationwide, including a program for land protection and parks in Oregon. The Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Finance program helps public agencies and communities create a vision for parks and conservation and raise funds from state and local public sources, including local ballot measures. TPL’s land protection team helps public agencies and other NGOs complete conservation real estate transactions, and our urban team helps to design and build parks and playgrounds. The Trust for Public Land differs from other conservation nonprofits because it works across the full range of landscapes necessary for human health and well�being — from inner city to wilderness. TPL has the expertise and resources to tackle the most complex parks and land protection projects. And TPL is the only national conservation group working to provide close�to� home nature in cities and metropolitan areas, where 85 percent of Americans live. The Conservation Finance Program provides professional, technical assistance services to government officials and administrators that need to research and evaluate conservation finance options. Since 1996, TPL has worked on over 500 state and local ballot measures and legislative campaigns to generate more than $57 billion to protect special places nationwide for parks, trails, beaches, historic landmarks, forests, rivers and lakes, wilderness, farms, and ranches. Voters have approved 81 percent of the ballot measures supported by The Trust for Public Land. In Montana, The Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Finance staff has provided technical assistance and planning services to several jurisdictions including Bozeman, Missoula, Whitefish, Gallatin County, and Missoula County. In all, since 1996, TPL has supported 8 successful conservation finance ballot measures in Montana generating more than $120 million for parks, trails, and open space conservation. The following study presents options for the Bozeman Parks and Recreation Department to consider in exploring the potential to create a special district. This research provides a stand�alone, fact�based reference document that can be used to evaluate financing mechanisms from an objective vantage point.1,2 1 The contents of this report are based on the best available information at the time of research and drafting, June 2016. 2 This feasibility study is not a legal document and should not be relied upon for legal purposes. 780 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST, 2016 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 5 SPECIAL DISTRICTS OVERVIEW Special districts are units of local government that provide specific services within a defined area. Most districts perform a single function, but in some instances, their enabling legislation allows them to provide several, usually related, types of services. The services provided by these districts range from such basic social needs, such as hospitals and fire protection, to the less conspicuous tasks of mosquito abatement and upkeep of cemeteries. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 1,082 special purpose districts in Montana.3 The most common form of special purpose district is the independent school district. Other prevalent districts in the state include water and wastewater districts, improvement districts, and economic development districts. These districts are given significant powers including the power to acquire, purchase, sell, or lease real property; sue and be sued; borrow money; and contract with other entities. Some districts are granted the power to impose and collect taxes and to issue bonds. Many districts have differing requirements for their creation, administration, funding, and structure. Advocates of special districts say they are more popular with citizens than general purpose governments because people understand what they are getting for their money. On the other hand, many people are not aware that special districts exist, making it unlikely they will show up at meetings or demand accountability and leaving districts potentially vulnerable to special interest control. Special Districts in Bozeman The City of Bozeman has created assessment districts for a number of functions, including Street Maintenance, Tree Maintenance, Street Paving, Street Lighting, Business Improvement, Tourism Business Improvement and Infrastructure Improvements. For example, in 2015 the city commission created a new special assessment district to assist in funding the construction and improvement of streets classified as arterials and collectors. The currently estimated costs of the Arterial and Collector Street Special District in Fiscal Year 2016 are $576,000; in Fiscal Year 2017 are $1,130,000; and in Fiscal Year 2018 are $2,000,000. Each year, as part of its regular budget process, the City estimates the total costs of the District for the ensuing fiscal year. The costs of the District are assessed annually to all owners of real property within the incorporated city limits based upon the assessable area of each lot or parcel, expressed in square feet. The lot or parcel area is limited to the maximum square footage assessed for zoning designations. This same method of assessment is used for the city's existing Street Maintenance District assessment. For FY 2017 the average sized residential lot (7,500 square feet) will be assessed $41.33 for the year for arterial streets. The city wide street maintenance district assessment is $169.24 for the averaged sized lot and the tree maintenance district’s annual assessment will be $22.70 for an average sized city lot. 3 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. 1,082 total districts: 763 special purpose districts; 319 independent school districts. 781 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST 2016 6 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT Source: City Manager’s Recommended Budget Message for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 (FY17). The cities of Billings and Missoula have established similar maintenance districts for parks. More information about the Billings Park Maintenance District is provided in a later section of this study. Authorization to Create Special Districts Special districts in Montana are authorized by MCA §7�11�1003. By this authority the city commission may create a special district by resolution or by referring a ballot measure for approval by the local electorate.4 Alternatively, citizens may petition the local government for the creation of a special district.5 If the special district is proposed by a resolution of the city commission then the commission must hold at least one public hearing on the matter. A notice of the resolution and hearing must be mailed to each property owner in the proposed district along with a protest form and instructions.6 If written protest is made by the owners of property to be assessed for 50 percent or more of the cost of the proposed program (in accordance with the methods of assessment) proceedings are terminated and the matter may not be considered again for at least a year. If the protest represents more than 10 percent but less than 50 percent of the cost of the assessments then the governing body may abandon the proposal or proceed by putting the question to a vote at a public referendum.7 If insufficient protests have been made (or if eligible voters have approved a referendum) the city commission would approve an ordinance or resolution creating the district and establishing assessments. 4 The city commission may refer the question to the ballot (either primary or general election) through the resolution/ordinance process. An individual entitled to vote on the proposition must be a registered voter of the state and a resident or owner of taxable real property in the area subject to the proposed special district. 5 MCA§7-11-1003(2)(a). If the petition is signed by at least 25 percent of the registered voters or by the owner of at least 25 percent of the real property within the boundaries of the proposed district the question shall be referred to the ballot. If the petition is signed by at least 50 percent of the voters or property owners the governing body will hold a public hearing and the matter will be subject to a protest process. 6 Property owners have 60 days from either the date of first publication on the notice passing the resolution of the date the protest form is provided to make written protest. 7 MCA §7-11-1008(5)(b)(i). 782 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST, 2016 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 7 Special District Governance and Powers8 A special district may be administered and operated either by the governing body (city commission) or by a separate elected or appointed board as determined by the governing body. If the special district is administered by a separate board, the board shall submit annual budgets and work plans to the governing body for review and approval. Powers and duties that may be granted to the board include establishing a capital improvement fund and issuing general obligation bonds or revenue bonds. Methods of Assessment9 The city commission will make assessments or impose fees for the costs and expenses of the special district based on a budget proposed by the commission or separate board administering the district. Several methods for assessing the percentage of cost of the program or improvements are authorized. For example, assessments may be assigned to each lot or parcel equally within the special district with regard to the size of the lot or parcel. Alternatively, each lot or parcel may be assessed based on the square footage. The governing body may not charge more than 15 percent of the annual fees or assessments collected to administer the district. BOZEMAN PARKS AND RECREATION The Bozeman Parks and Recreation Department comprises five divisions: parks; recreation; aquatics; forestry; and cemetery. Additionally, the department manages and acts as administrator for the Trails, Open Space and Parks (TOP) program. The City of Bozeman Parks Division is responsible for the overall development and maintenance of 45 public parks, 52 miles of trails and associated sports fields and open space within the city limits totaling 474 acres. Many homeowners associations (HOAs) are responsible for basic maintenance of their neighborhood city parks. HOAs maintain nearly 300 acres of park lands and natural areas. The Trails, Open Space, and Parks (TOP) program was created in 2012 when city voters approved a $15 bond initiative with 73 percent voter approval. The bonds will support the costs of designing, constructing or equipping on open�space land, trails, parks and natural areas or multi�use recreational fields and facilities, or employing such lands in the preservation or enhancement of water quality, and acquiring rights to or interests in or improving open� space lands in or near the City · To date, three major acquisitions of new parkland have been completed, including: • 55 acres for Story Mill Community Park • 80 acres for the Bozeman Sports Park • 9 acres for Bozeman Pond expansion Three additional projects have been approved and will require Parks Division management, maintenance and operation: 8 MCA §7-11-1021. 9 MCA §7-11-1024. 783 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST 2016 8 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT • Bozeman Creek Enhancement at Bogert Park • Path to the “M” and Drinking Horse • Front Street Connector Trail The city’s budget is organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate entity. Governmental funds include the General Fund, Special Revenue, Debt Service, and Capital Projects Funds. Enterprise funds consist of Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Parking, and Storm�water Utility Funds. The General Fund represents about 31 percent of total appropriations to support the majority of administration, public safety and public welfare operations. The FY 2017 recommended general fund budget for Bozeman of $29,882,201 includes $2,161670 for parks which represents roughly 7 percent of general fund expenditures. Recreation is budgeted at $2,026,743 (including the Aquatics Division). The largest expenditure categories are police and fire which combined comprise 49 percent of the total. Bozeman’s population grew by approximately 4.2 percent from 2013 to 2014 – much higher than comparable communities in Montana and regionally. The city’s current population of 43,400 is expected to continue to increase creating additional needs for parks, trails and recreation facilities and programming. See Appendix A for more information about population growth. The cost to manage the existing city�owned parks (474 acres) is approximately $1.9 million. The TOPs parks, once completed, will add another $741,950. The cost to the city to pay for management of HOA parks (286) is roughly $938,400 for a total of about $3.6 million annually.10 Potential Park Maintenance District in Bozeman The City of Bozeman could consider creating a special district to fund parks and trails maintenance and operations. As mentioned earlier, the district could be administered by the City Council or by a separate elected or appointed board and may be supported by assessments or fees. Assessments The City of Bozeman could impose an assessment to support a new park district similar to the existing assessments for streets and tree maintenance. In order to create an estimate of the revenue generating capacity and cost of a hypothetical assessment rate based on square footage of property in the city, TPL will require data from the assessor including total square footage of property in the city and the square footage of the average residential property. Alternatively, a parks maintenance district assessment may be based on the taxable value of property (similar to the city mill levy). For example, the City of Missoula created a park district in 2010 that levies an assessment of 7.08 mills.11 The Missoula park district levy is estimated to generate roughly $770,000 annually at a cost to the owner of a $225,000 house (taxable value = $2,864) of approximately $20 per year.12 10 Personal communication with Carolyn Poissant, MLA, AICP, Manager of Trails, Open Space and Parks Design and Development City of Bozeman - Department of Parks and Recreation 11 http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/30219. 12 City of Missoula, Budget Analysis 2016, p. 2. 784 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST, 2016 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 9 MUNICIPAL PARK DISTRICT EXAMPLES Municipal park and recreation districts exist in many forms around the country. Several examples are examined in this section. Details include mission, management structure, budget, funding sources, and implementation authority. BEND PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, OREGON Overview and Governance The Bend Park and Recreation District is a special tax district created in 1974. It is separate from the City of Bend, governed by a five�member, elected board of directors, and managed by an executive director. The district operates independently of other government agencies and adopts its own budget. The district serves a local population of 84,362 with 106 full�time staff and 380 part� time employees. District properties total 2,706 acres including regional parks (1,011 acres), natural areas (918 acres), community parks (619 acres), neighborhood parks (158 acres), and 65 miles of trails. Budget and Funding District operations are largely supported by a permanent tax rate (property tax) and program fees as shown in the charts below. District voters have been asked to approve several tax levies and bonds to support the district over the past 40 years. The majority of these measures passed. Most recently, in November 2012, the citizens of Bend Park and Recreation District passed a $29 million bond measure to fund a number of park, trail and recreation projects. The capital projects budget ($46.6 million) is funded by bonds and system development charges (SDCs). SDCs are collected from new residential building permits to be used for new park and trail land acquisition and development projects. 785 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST 2016 10 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT EASTMONT METROPOLITAN PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, WASHINGTON Overview and Governance The Eastmont Metropolitan Park and Recreation District (EMPRD) was created by a voter� approved ballot measure in 2004. The district serves a population of just over 30,000 in the cities of East Wenatchee and Rock Island in Douglas County, Washington. EMPRD manages 44 acres of parks and seven miles of waterfront asphalt trail (The Apple Capital Loop Trail). Other district amenities include baseball, basketball, soccer, and football fields; lighted basketball and tennis courts; horseshoe pits, a disc golf course, picnic shelters, playgrounds, walking and biking trails, a radio control car race track, and an indoor swimming pool. Organized recreation offerings include indoor and outdoor sports leagues, sports camps and specialized day camps. The district is governed by a five�member board of directors. Board members are elected for six� year terms. The Board appoints a Director to oversee the district’s daily operations as well as its six full�time employees and a varying number of seasonal employees. Budget and Funding Revenue for the park district13 is derived primarily from district�wide residential property taxes. Other revenues are generated by activity fees, program fees, and compensation for intergovernmental services, advertising, donations, concessions and grants. The EMPRD has a voter�set levy rate of $0.35 per $1,000 of assessed value that was established as part of the EMPRD formation. Expenses in the 2015 budget totaled just over $1 million, leaving a positive balance of roughly $7,500. The district has placed a $4 million bond measure on the November 8, 2016 ballot. The bond will upgrade and improve the public Eastmont pool and continue the district’s partnership with the YMCA to provide recreation programming, renovate a community park and expand and upgrade other local parks trails and pathways. The measure requires 60 percent voter approval to pass. BILLINGS DISTRICT, MONTANA Overview and Governance The Parks and Recreation department manages approximately 2,580 acres of parkland that includes: 171 Park Areas, 40 playgrounds, 29 basketball courts, 19 tennis courts, 29 park shelters, 66 horseshoe pits, over 100 athletic fields (soccer, baseball and softball), 6 neighborhood centers, 13 2015 EMPD Approved Budget. Source 2015 UNRESERVED FUNDS $120,000 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES $783,148 LEASEHOLD EXCISE $1,200 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES $12,000 ACTIVITY FEES $15,990 PROGRAM FEES $64,910 ADVERTISING FEES $9,150 INVESTMENT INTEREST $240 CONCESSIONS PROCEEDS $2,275 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE $1,008,913 Eastmont Park District Revenues 786 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST, 2016 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 11 30 miles of paved multi�use trails, 3 cemeteries in two locations, 2 outdoor pools, and a minor league baseball stadium. The department serves a city population of 108,869. Budget and Funding The City of Billings created a city�wide park maintenance district in 2011 to support the Billings Park and Recreation Department by providing certain maintenance and improvement services for city�owned park facilities. The parks to be improved were previously supported through the general fund, which draws most of its revenue from the property tax mill levy that is capped by the City Charter. The intent of creating a district was to add $2 million annually in council�mandated assessments to whatever general fund revenues the council budgets for parks to allow the department to address a backlog of deferred maintenance. The proposed resolution to create the citywide park district states that raising $2 million in fiscal 2013 would require a levy estimated at 12.39 mills on each parcel of property within the city. That would be about $16 annually for a home with a value of $100,000. The total FY 2017 proposed city budget was $329 million. The budget designates roughly 3 percent of that amount for the Billings Park, Recreation, and Public Lands Department ($11 million). Funds for the department come from four major sources: General Fund Contributions (45 percent); the city�wide park district (24 percent), and 35 individual park maintenance districts (13 percent); and fees and charges (14 percent). BAINBRIDGE ISLAND METRO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT, WASHINGTON Overview and Governance The Bainbridge Island Park and Recreation District was created in 1965 to provide park facilities and in particular a swimming pool for city residents. The park district grew as properties were acquired or donated. As of 2014, the district operates and maintains more than 1,500 acres in parks, trails, and open space that is available to the community for both active and passive use. Recreation programming ranges from sports to cultural arts and aquatics to boating. The district serves a population of 23,293 with a staff of 40 full�time employees and 5 regular part�time employees. The Park Board of Commissioners consists of five elected members who serve six�year terms of office. Budget and Funding During its first forty years, the District operated under a tax structure that relied upon the passage of maintenance and operations excess levies every two years to obtain funding for basic operations. The uncertainty over whether the District would have funding every two years curtailed the District’s ability to look ahead and plan for the island’s future. To stabilize funding for the District, city residents voted in 2004 to approve the formation of the Bainbridge Island Metropolitan Park and Recreation District. As a metropolitan park district, the Park District now operates under a tax structure that provides the community with on�going funding and thereby assures residents of continued park and recreation services from year to year. 787 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST 2016 12 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT District voters also have approved a number of bond measures to support parks, trails, and the protection of natural areas. In 2015, voters overwhelmingly approved a $5.9 bond to purchase 23 acres in the Winslow area. In 2001, island residents approved an $8 million open space bond authorizing the City of Bainbridge Island to collect tax funds for the purchase of open space, forested areas, wildlife habitat and properties for trails and passive parks. The City worked in partnership with the Park District and the properties purchased with these funds are gradually being transferred into Park District ownership to operate as park land for the island. Revenue 2016 Projected Expenses 2016 Projected Beginning Cash $1,532,789 Administrative $1,793,651 Property Tax Operations $4,493,823 Park Services $1,634,502 Property Tax Lid Lift $244,156 Recreation $3,767,267 Program Revenue $2,342,945 Transfers Out $362,656 Donations/Rentals $374,830 Total Resources $8,988,543 Total $7,558,076 Bainbridge Island MPRD General Fund 788 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST, 2016 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 13 Appendix A Bozeman’s growth rate tops 4 percent, population likely past 45,000 By Eric Dietrich Chronicle Staff Writer June 21, 2016 Bozeman added 1,760 people to its population between 2014 and 2015, bringing the city to 43,400 residents, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. The city�level statistics put the city’s growth rate at a blistering 4.2 percent — well higher than comparable communities both in Montana and regionally. Because Census Bureau population estimates are released on an annual cycle for the previous year, an official population estimate for 2016 isn’t yet available. Assuming a constant rate of growth, however, puts Bozeman’s current population at roughly 45,200. Local population growth far outstrips Montana’s other major cities, on both a raw number and a percentage basis. Billings, with a population of 110,000 and Missoula with 71,000, for instance, added roughly 1,400 and 1,200 residents, respectively, between 2014 and 2015, putting their growth rates at less than 2 percent. Helena and Kalispell are the state’s next�fastest growing cities, each adding several hundred residents for growth rates near 2 percent. Other western U.S. cities comparable to Bozeman are also seeing growth, but at rates that pale in comparison to Bozeman. Bend, Oregon, for example, is estimated at 3.4 percent annual growth, while Fort Collins, Colorado, and Flagstaff, Arizona, are clocked at 2.5 and 2.1 percent rates, respectively. Several smaller municipalities in the Bozeman area are also seeing substantial growth. Manhattan, for example, added an estimated 66 people between 2014 and 2015, bringing its population to 1,630 with a growth rate nearly equal to Bozeman’s 4.2 percent. Belgrade grew at 3.1 percent, adding 240 residents to break the 8,000�resident mark. Unincorporated Gallatin County also added 1,356 people, putting it at a 3.1 percent growth rate. http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/bozeman�s�growth�rate�tops�percent�population�likely�past/article_4388bda0�d225�57f7� a221�0e1d9db6db64.html/#utm_source=bozemandailychronicle.com&utm_campaign=related�by� section&utm_medium=direct&utm_term=bozeman%E2%80%99s%20growth%20rate%20tops%204%20percent%2C%20population%20likely% 20past%2045%2C000 789 BOZEMAN, MT | CONSERVATION FINANCE FEASIBILITY STUDY | AUGUST 2016 14 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND :: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT With any questions or for more information please contact: David Weinstein Conservation Strategies Director – Intermountain West The Trust for Public Land 406-582-6248 david.weinstien@tpl.org or Wendy Muzzy Feasibility Research Director The Trust for Public Land (206) 274-2914 wendy.muzzy@tpl.org www.tpl.org 790 DISTRICT PARK & TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY 791 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Maintenance Responsibility History 3 Park & Open Space Land Inventory 6 Private Maintenance Contacts 9 Inventory of Park Assets 10 Total Cost of Ownership 11 Routine Land & Asset Operations & Maintenance 13 Life Cycle Asset Replacement 15 Scenario #1: Current Level of Service 18 Scenario #2: Standard Practice Level of Service 19 Scenario #3: Best Practice Level of Service 20 Peer City Benchmarking 21 Next Steps 23 792 1 Bozeman has had tremendous household growth in the past twenty acreage years to the that city’s added park significant system. Fortunately, Bozeman not only received land, but subdividers also installed park improvements, known as assets, at the time of dedication. While the city has been involved in the review of developer-built park plans, the city mainly relies on private entities (property owner associations) for maintenance of park facilities in newer subdivisions. THE HONEYMOON PERIOD When developers are building out their subdivisions, many are actively involved in the operations of the neighborhood. Property owner associations are formed and often the developer retains a majority position until most of his or her interests in the neighborhood are built or sold. Park maintenance by private entities is a model that has served the city well as developers have a vested interest in keeping the neighborhood well-maintained in order to hold a market position. Newly installed park assets are covered under manufacturer warranties and any typical repairs can be done quickly by a developer’s on-call contractor or other personnel. The city is usually not involved in the daily operations or maintenance as the private entity has performed these duties in an acceptable manner. AGING INFRASTRUCTURE As developers complete the sales in their subdivision, they shift management and maintenance to property owners. Some owner associations hire professional management companies to perform management tasks, VISION: “EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO A QUALITY PUBLIC PARK.” SUMMARY EXECUTIVE 793 2 others try to perform management and maintenance services themselves. Many have little or no training in land or facility management. Ultimately, they are managing city-owned assets without any enforceable maintenance standards in place, except for playgrounds, which Parks provides Department inspections. staff regularly The issues compound as some owner associations perform maintenance at less than a best practice level, while others may provide additional services beyond the typical maintenance regime. For the city, this becomes an equity issue for residents. Some parks have become destination parks that the adjacent property owners pay a premium in dues for maintenance, while other neighborhoods are less well- managed, resulting in lower dues. The cost of replacing assets has significantly twenty years. increased When in purchased the past and installed by a developer, the costs are distributed to all the lots, and pay for property the asset, owners which effectively is hidden in the sale price and amortized over several years. Life cycle replacement costs for major assets are generally prohibitive to private associations who may not have the appetite to incur substantial dues increase to cover those costs. THE CITY’S RESPONSIBILITIES The city is ultimately responsible for the land and assets in city- owned parks and open spaces. The Parks and Recreation Department specialists in has operating, the staff managing who are and developing park lands. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the alternatives in which the city is responsible for management and maintenance of all city-owned parks. Several options are available to the city in how it wants to structure its administrative, operations and capital investments. To achieve the highest level of success will require shifts in organizational structure, The city is finance already and poised operations. to be successful with its commitment to using work-order management systems and the latest GIS 3 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY Bozeman began its modern housing boom in the late 1990s and early 2000s. New subdivisions are required to comply with MCA 76-3-621, “Park Dedication Requirement,” which calls for the subdivider to dedicate conditions land of or approval provide regarding a cash donation the type equal of land to specific accepted formulas. and its Local development governments requirements. may stipulate Subdividers additional have recognized that providing both park land and additional assets, beyond the minimum requirements, help to achieve market competitiveness, and as a result, park land acreage and asset installation were added to the city’s portfolio at an unprecedented rate. The Parks and Recreation Department is funded primarily with general fund dollars. The general fund is a competitive bucket of money and competes with public works, safety and other departments for funding. The department city lacks has the held resources onto a to practice manage whereby the sudden maintenance influx of new would land be and performed maintenance by the responsibilities. subdivision’s home The or property owner association (HOA). This was included as a temporary measure until such time that a park maintenance district could be established by the city. The requirement to establish a home owner’s association was added to subdivision agreements and language indicating that dedicated park land is to be maintained by the property owner association was added to subdivision plats. Various waiver language stating that property owners agree not to protest the formation of a park maintenance district is found on most recent plats. In 2007, the city adopted the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) Plan. Recommendation 10.3.4 in the plan indicates: “Continue to require that a homeowners’ or property owners’ association maintain newly dedicated park- land and trails within their development until a City-wide parks maintenance district or some equivalent alternative is created.” Municipal Eventually, Code Bozeman (Sec. 38.27-codified Park the and requirement Recreation Requirements)in the Uniform . Development The city established Code (UDC) requirements of the Bozeman for the minimum development for park lands and increased oversight for the installation of the park assets. HISTORY 795 4 In response to a Montana Supreme Court ruling of a playground lawsuit based in Miles City, Montana, the management parks staff concerns. began inspecting This includes all playgrounds, play equipment beginning installed in 2012, on city in city-land owned but under parks the to maintenance address risk requirement of home owner associations. City staff were certified as Certified Playground Safety Inspectors, and with strive a notice to of inspect correction. all playgrounds If the correction at least is once not completed per year. within If deficiencies a certain amount are found, of time, the HOA the city is contacted performs the corrective action and assesses the HOA for the costs. NEW CAPITAL INVESTMENT: TRAILS, OPEN SPACE & PARKS BOND of the In 2012, City of the Bozeman Bozeman the City question Commission of issuing passed general Resolution obligation 4386, bonds which in submitted the amount to the up to qualified $15 million electors for the purposes of: The resolution notes that the “City does not have a dedicated fund for acquisition and improvements of public overwhelmingly parks, trails by 73.and 4 recreation percent. General fields.” obligation The electors bonds approved do not fund the operations issuance of or general maintenance. obligation The bonds table below outlines the projects approved to date utilizing these bond funds. The responsibility for maintenance for these projects is the parks department. “Paying the costs of designing, constructing or equipping on open space land, trails, parks and natural areas or multi-use recreational fields and facilities or employing such lands in the preservation or enhancement of water quality and acquiring the rights to or interest in or improving open space lands in or near the City.” Trails, Projects Open Space & Parks Bond Bond Amount Year Approved Construction Year Path to the “M” & Drinking Horse Mountain $675,000 2013 2018 Bozeman Pond Expansion $1,295,000 2013 2016 Bozeman Creek at Bogert Park Enhancement $490,000 2013 2016-17 Story Mill Park $4,500,000 2014 2018-19 Bozeman Sports Park $8,417,000 2014 2018 Front Street Connector Path $178,106 2015 2019-20 Table 1: Trails, Open Space & Parks Bond Projects 796 5 As Bozeman emerged from the recession, new subdivision creation returned to pre-recession levels. New park land and assets are being added to the city’s inventory, with 235 acres having been added since 2010. In 2015, the city implemented an asset and work order management program. This program is used to evaluate cost centers and manage city-owned assets, labor, time and materials. Vision The statement Bozeman 4: City a well Commission planned city and states, staff commenced “We consistently working improve on the strategic our community’s plan for Bozeman quality in of 2016. life as it grows and changes, honoring our sense of place and the ‘Bozeman feel’ as we plan for livable, affordable, more connected city.” Strategy 4.3 (Strategic Infrastructure Choices) states, “Prioritize long- term investment and maintenance for existing and new infrastructure.” The resulting action item (c) is to “develop a comprehensive parks maintenance and facilities funding program.” The Trust for Public Land issued the “Conservation Finance Feasibility Study” in August 2016, which outlines the use of special districts, how they are created and case studies from around the region. In 2017, the City of Bozeman hired Peaks to Plains Design and PROS Consulting to evaluate the current park land assets, cost-tracking methodology and potential costs that would be associated with the creation of a parks and trails district. This report and supporting information are the outcomes from that endeavor. 797 6 PARKS VERSUS OPEN SPACE Montana Code Annotated (word MCA) “park.does ” Local not governments define the can subdivision define “park” or through development their ordinances and regulations. Many local governments use the words “park” and “open space” interchangeably to describe their land-based recreational spaces. Bozeman defines both words in the Park Unified is defined Development as follows: Code. “...an open space, under the owner- ship or other legal control of the city which provides area for active and passive recreational purposes.” Open space is defined as: “A land or water area devoid of buildings or other physical struc- tures except where accessory to the provision of recreation, including but not limited to benches, picnic tables and interpretive signage.” PARK & OPEN SPACE LAND INVENTORY As a platting function, the plat designation of a park has separate requirements in terms of land acquisition and disposition, which are for open different space. than the requirements Parks are dedicated to local governments under MCA 76-3- 621. The statute outlines the minimum amount of land that must be dedicated to a governing body. This statute also outlines the situations where local governments can waive the park land dedication requirement. Open space is defined under MCA 76-6-104 as: “any land which is provided or preserved for (a) park or recre- ational purposes; (b) conservation of land or other natural resources (c) historic or scenic purposes; or (d) assisting in the shaping of the character, direction and timing of community development.” Open space by its very nature and definition extensive is development typically not like subject a park. to Open space is typically managed to remain in a near natural state when it has been dedicated for preservation or conservation purposes, and it is managed for 798 7 CITY-OWNED INVENTORY The city of Bozeman owns 906 acres of park land, and the city maintains 672 acres. Property owner associations and their respective management companies maintain the remaining 235 acres. The city is responsible for the maintenance of 61.1 miles of trails located on both city-owned lands and on public access easements. Additionally, 16.8 miles of sidewalk are located in or adjacent to city-owned parks and open spaces. Parks are generally classified according to their size, primary function and service area. The PROST Plan most defines common the park park class class is definitions. neighborhood The park, following which page is followed illustrates by community the acres of parks, park lands natural by areas, class. open The lands and linear parks. The city currently provides maintenance on 74% of the city’s park land acreage CITY-OWNERSHIP Park land: 906.4 acres PARK LAND MAINTENANCE City-maintained: 671.9 acres Privately-maintained: 234.5 acres TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS Length of trails: 61.1 miles • Paved: 2.20 miles • Unpaved: 58.9 miles Length of sidewalks: 16.8 miles noxious weeds and public safety concerns hazard trees. such Publicly as wildland accessible fire and trails are typically provided in open spaces if deemed appropriate by the governing body. The statutes are silent on the ownership requirements for platted parks versus open space. In general, local governments are acknowledging the cost of ownership for public lands is expensive. A privately owned park or the open property space owners effectively through relieves self-administered the local government assessments. of that Local burden governments and shifts those are not costs responsible more directly for the to development or maintenance of privately owned lands beyond the requirements set forth in state statute and local subdivision regulations. 799 8 CITY ACREAGE BY PARK CLASSIFICATION 800 9 PRIVATE MAINTENANCE CONTACTS Property owner associations or their designated management companies maintain 235 acres of city- owned park land. The current city policy is to require the subdivider and/or a property owner association to maintain city-owned park land. Eventually, the subdivider relinquishes their interest in the subdivision and property owners bear more responsibilities. The State of Montana does not maintain a registration for property owner associations, making it difficult to track the latest contacts for the association. Some property owner of non-associations compliance. become inactive, causing difficulty for the city to correspond with the subdivision in cases Because the park assets are located on city-owned land, the city is ultimately responsible for the safety and assumed risk of these parcels. Some associations exceed best practices, while others fail to meet them. requirements. With no formal contract or standard in place, the city has difficulty enforcing proper maintenance The city updated its database of association contacts through this study. Annual outreach to the associations is recommended due to changing leadership for the association. 801 10 PARK ASSETS INVENTORY OF Park assets are the items that comprise the physical improvements made to the land. These improvements consist of items such as benches, play structures, ball diamonds and irrigation systems. Bozeman utilizes a GIS-based inventory system of park assets that is tied to the city’s work order management system. As a part of this study, additional assets were inventoried such as sidewalk and trail dimensions, new structures, public art, trail surfacing and other assets not currently maintained by the city. The information was shared with the city GIS Department and the resulting inventories were updated. Because so much energy is spent on capital investment, it is important to document assets to determine the life cycle replacement, noting the year installed, value or cost of the installation and expected years of service based upon best practices for maintenance. As Bozeman’s system matures, these costs must be accounted for as a part of the total cost of ownership. 802 11 TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP Communities spend significant time and resources in land and asset capital development. The capital funding comes from many different sources. General obligation bonds, donations and private investment are immediate typical sources impact on of a capital. community. Capital It is investment relatively easy often to results acquire in tangible these funds assets and that recognize make a investors. significant and during Operational new construction. costs, including Departments staff, equipment are asked and to do materials, more with are fewer often resources. costs that are The not most considered common funding sources for municipal operations are the general fund, enterprise funds, special assessment-funded maintenance districts, cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments (50% as per MCA Section 76-3-621), and dedicated millages. Grants and donations to public entities are generally not usable for maintenance costs. Each asset placed in a park has a useful lifespan if properly maintained. If maintenance standards fall short of best practice standards, annual repair and maintenance costs increase, and the effective lifespan of the asset decreases. The asset may be as small as a dog station or as large as sports field lighting. Major components can be however, identified smaller and addressed components, through such the as capital bench replacements, improvements program; are often not accounted for and are addressed in a reactive manner. Oftentimes, if the asset becomes a hazard or risk, then it is removed resulting in a reduced level of service. over The time. cost It is of important replacing to an consider asset is the subject short-to term inflation (5 years as labor, or less) materials, and long-and term equipment (5-10 years) costs forecast increase to adequately gauge the level of funding needed. Together, capital investment, operations and maintenance, and life cycle replacement represent the total cost of ownership of a park system. Capital investment often results in tangible assets that make a significant immediate impact on a community. Citizens and elected officials are more likely to support capital programs, which are highly visible, as opposed to maintenance programs, which are not. 803 TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP CAPITAL INVESTMENT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE LIFE CYCLE REPLACEMENT 804 13 GENERAL FUND IS USED FOR OPERATIONS Operations and routine maintenance funding is primarily provided by the city’s general fund. The parks department currently has 14.51 FTE’s to support the workload of the city-maintained parks. In FY17, the salaries, benefits and operating budget was $1,599,482. The variability in assets and resulting useful life depends on the quality of the asset when installed (i.e. commercial versus residential grade) and the level of care for routine maintenance given to the asset. Those maintained to a best practices standard will generally last the full lifespan of the asset, barring extreme conditions maintenance such from as a weather best practices damage standpoint and vandalism. will generally Conversely, have a an shortened asset that useful does life, not resulting receive sufficient in higher and more frequent capital replacement costs. Bozeman has implemented a work order management program utilizing CityWorks® work management software. The parks division has recently commenced tracking work tasks to help determine the costs associated with the task. Work orders are currently being tracked by appropriate asset. Staff asset continues categories to work in order on identifying to best report the progress and to have the ability to benchmark against best practices. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE ROUTINE LAND & ASSET 805 14 LEVEL OF SERVICE, DEFINED Level of service measures a minimum amount for a public facility which must be provided to meet the community’s basic needs and expectations. Park and trail maintenance activities are often expressed in terms upon completing of levels (e.a g. maintenance level 1, level management 2 and level plan, 3). Diving which is deep not into a part the of level this scope definitions of work. is often However, based for purposes of the feasibility study, the costs associated with these levels and the methodology applied to develop the scenarios was based upon the consultant’s experience in communities of similar size and climates and level and 3 costs. a series Standard of staff practice workshops. is based Current on level practice 2 costs in and Bozeman best practice generally is a falls blend into of a level blend 1 of and level level 2 2 costs. A similar methodology was also applied to the life cycle replacement schedule. national The current data set parks forth division by the National budget Recreation does not reflect and Parks a standard Association. or best practice The department level of service has set based their own on workload performance measures for routine maintenance. Standard and best practice levels of service benchmarks the consultant’s were extensive set by staff data through set that a provided series of the workshops. basis in formulating Unit cost information the annual costs. was then derived from OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS CURRENT PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE FY 2019 - FY 2023 FY 2024 - FY 2028 Average annual operations & maintenance funding $2,112,760 $2,460,320 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS STANDARD PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE FY 2019 - FY 2023 FY 2024 - FY 2028 Average annual operations & maintenance funding $3,658,291 $4,260,098 OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COSTS BEST PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE FY 2019 - FY 2023 FY 2024 - FY 2028 Average annual operations & maintenance funding $4,661,019 $5,427,779 Table 2: Estimated operations & maintenance costs at the current level of service Table 3: Estimated operations & maintenance costs at a standard practice level of service Table 4: Estimated operations & maintenance costs at a best practice level of service 806 15 A large deck mower, like the image above, is an example of a as CIP a item new that or can replacement be classified equipment item. The addition of new turf areas require additional to operate equipment the equipment. and staff CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Bozeman’s capital improvement program for adding (CIP) amenities identifies (improving funding the level of service) or replacing old assets (maintaining the current level of service) in the city’s park system. The CIP includes any planned expenditure of $10,000 or greater, which results in the acquisition of an asset with a useful life of 1 year or more. Funding for park assets is allocated to the department’s “parks” division and excludes improvements to recreational centers, aquatics, forestry and cemetery facilities. The park projects are selected based upon anticipated need and obligations. The funding levels provided in the CIP has not been representative to the true costs needed to address life cycle replacement needs for all park assets across the system. Additionally, a substantial increase in funding will need to occur in fiscal as many years park 2024 assets through have a 2028 life span between twenty and thirty years. Due to the 2000s housing boom and resulting park land development during that decade, many of the assets will be due for replacement between 2024 and 2028. A full asset inventory was conducted to document each asset’s estimated replacement cost and anticipated life cycle. The calculation incorporates a base year value for each asset and rate. factors The in results a 3 percent provide inflation data- driven insights into the actual funding needed to replace assets according to a current, standard or best practices schedule. REPLACEMENT LIFE CYCLE ASSET Each scenario represents a philosophy. different Implementation level of service of a selected scenario will likely take three changes to five to years policy and and will revenue involve generating activities. 807 16 LIFE CYCLE ASSET REPLACEMENT ALLOCATION CURRENT PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE* FY 2019 - FY 2023 AVERAGE ANNUAL FY 2024 - FY 2028 AVERAGE ANNUAL Average annual expenditure for life cycle asset replacement $526,600 $500,000 LIFE CYCLE ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE STANDARD PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE* FY 2019 - FY 2023 FY 2024 - FY 2028 Average annual costs based on a standard practice replacement schedule $1,380,124 $1,933,016 Average annual costs to “catch up” on deferred asset life cycle re- placement needs prior to FY19 within 10 years $690,048 $690,048 Total average annual cost $2,070,172 $2,623,064 Table 5: Life cycle asset replacement costs at a “current practice” level of service Table 6: Life cycle asset replacement costs at a “standard practice” level of service DEFERRED LIFE CYCLE ASSET REPLACEMENT BALANCE SHEET CURRENT PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE* TOTAL Cost of deferred life cycle asset replacement prior to FY2019, based on standard level of service $6,900,476 Start FY19 Additional life cycle asset replacement needed FY19-FY28, based on standard level of service $10,510,860 Less for investment based on Table 5 ending FY28, based on current practice level of service $(5,133,000) Cost of deferred life cycle asset replacement ending FY28, based on standard level of service $12,278,336+ End FY28 DEFERRED LIFE CYCLE ASSET REPLACEMENT BALANCE SHEET STANDARD PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE* TOTAL Cost of deferred life cycle asset replacement prior to FY2019, based on standard level of service $6,900,476 Start FY19 Additional life cycle asset replacement needed FY19-FY28, based on standard level of service $10,510,860 Less for investment based on Table 6 ending FY28, based on standard practice level of service $(23,466,180) Cost of deferred life cycle asset replacement ending FY28, based on standard level of service $0 End FY28 808 17 *The costs reflect all assets in the ground as of June 2017, TOP bond projects scheduled to be constructed in 2018-2019, and off-parkland trails that are maintained by the City through maintenance agreements. It does not include additional costs from new parks related to development after June 2017. Table 7: Life cycle asset replacement costs at a “best practice” level of service LIFE CYCLE ASSET REPLACEMENT VALUE BEST PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE* FY 2019 - FY 2023 FY 2024 - FY 2028 Average annual costs based on a best practice replacement schedule $2,302,850 $2,907,127 Average annual costs based on a best practice to “catch up” on deferred maintenance needs prior to FY19 within 10 years $763,771 $763,771 Total average annual cost $3,066,620 $3,670,897 DEFERRED LIFE CYCLE ASSET REPLACEMENT BALANCE SHEET BEST PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE* TOTAL Cost of deferred life cycle asset replacement prior to FY2019, based on best practice level of service $7,637,709 Start FY19 Additional life cycle asset replacement needed FY19-FY28, based on best practice level of service $26,049,881 Less for investment based on Table 7 ending FY28, based on best practice level of service $(33,687,585) Cost of deferred life cycle asset replacement ending FY28, based on best practice level of service $0 End FY28 809 18 CURRENT PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE SCENARIO #1 In all three scenarios, all city-owned park land and trails will be placed under the management of the city parks department. Outside entities, primarily sole source management companies, would continue to maintain certain public parks and open space areas where the city holds a public access easement. the The level first of service scenario will reflects most the likely current decrease level over of service time as provided the system by the ages parks and department. risk will increase In this model, due to deferred maintenance. The current practice is a reactive approach. Park assets in city parks with the most use and highest risk would typically be allocated higher priority funding. Priorities are susceptible to political influence, life safety or risk management mitigation. The city parks department currently has a deferred asset life cycle replacement backlog of approximately $6.9 million. This amount includes all assets that are due for replacement according to the standard practice replacement schedule. In this scenario, the deferred asset replacement balance of zero is never achieved. The department will continuously be chasing the repair of aging infrastructure, and the level of service to the community will decrease from where it is today. The funding levels of this scenario are roughly equal to the current funding levels. The average annual operations and maintenance cost for city parks and trails would be approximately $2,112,760 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023 and $2,460,320 for fiscal years 2024 - 2028. Average annual capital replacement costs for city- maintained parks would be $526,600 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023, and $500,000 for fiscal years 2024 - 2028. The resulting target average annual budget would be $2,639,360 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023 and $2,960,320 for fiscal years 2024 - 2028. CURRENT Average annual PRACTICE operations LEVEL OF and SERVICE maintenance FY 2019 - $FY 2,112,2023 760 FY 2024 - $2,FY 460,2028 320 Average annual capital/life cycle replacement $526,600 $500,000 Total average annual budget $2,639,360 $2,960,320 Table 8: Estimated average annual cost for city-maintained parks at the current practice level of service 810 19 STANDARD PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE SCENARIO #2 city-The owned standard park lands practice and level trails. of service This scenario reflects acknowledges an increased level the deferred of service asset that is life consistent cycle replacement across all backlog of $6.9 million and strives to eliminate the backlog within ten years. In order to achieve this, funds must be applied to both deferred life cycle asset replacement and upcoming assets due for replacement in their designated year. In this scenario, the typical lifespan is increased on all assets approximately 40 percent from a best practice standard. This acknowledges that some assets may need to be replaced sooner than others, and the risk of day to day operations continues to function in a reactive mode, but is improved greatly from the current level of service. The average annual operations and maintenance cost would be approximately $3,658,291 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023 and $4,260,098 for fiscal years 2024 - 2028. Average annual asset life cycle replacement costs would be $2,070,172 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023 and $2,623,064 for fiscal years 2024 - 2028. The resulting target average annual budget would be $5,728,463 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023 and $6,883,162 for fiscal years 2024 -2028. STANDARD Average annual PRACTICE operations LEVEL and OF SERVICE maintenance FY 2019 - $3,FY 658,2023 291 FY 2024 $- 4,FY 260,2028 098 Average annual capital/life cycle replacement $2,070,172 $2,623,064 Total average annual budget $5,728,463 $6,883,162 Table 9: Estimated average annual costs at standard practice level of service 811 20 BEST PRACTICE LEVEL OF SERVICE SCENARIO #3 The third scenario would acknowledge that the city operates, maintains and reinvests in all assets and improvements on dedicated parkland and city-maintained trail easements to best practices standards. Park assets are replaced according to a best practices life cycle schedule, and the city has the appropriate staffing and equipment to fulfill those requirements. This scenario places the city is the best position to achieve the proactive management of its city park lands and assets. Items that are maintained on a best practice standard would minimize risk. The deferred asset life cycle replacement backlog under this scenario starts at $7.6 million, but is eliminated in ten years. Assets due for replacement in their respective year, between FY19 and FY 28, are addressed in those years. The average annual operations and maintenance cost for all city-owned parks would be approximately $4,661,019 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023 and $5,427,779 for fiscal years 2024 - 2028. Average annual life cycle replacement costs would be $3,066,620 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023 and $3,670,897 for fiscal years 2024 - 2028. The resulting target average annual budget would be $7,727,639 for fiscal years 2019 - 2023 and $9,098,676 for fiscal years 2024 -2028. BEST Average PRACTICE annual LEVEL operations OF SERVICE and maintenance FY 2019 - $4,FY 661,2023 019 FY 2024 - $5,FY 427,2028 779 Average annual capital/life cycle replacement $3,066,620 $3,670,897 Total average annual budget $7,727,639 $9,098,676 Table 10: Estimated average annual cost at best practice level of service 812 21 BENCHMARKING PEER CITY Peer communities can be used to help provide the strategic planning framework to analyze best practices. The National Recreation and Parks Association publishes data on park facilities, programs, responsibilities, staffing, budgets and agency funding based upon national survey data. The caveat is that park budgets are to spending. comprised For of example, many different Missoula, “buckets” has over and are 1400 generally acres of difficult conservation to compare lands apples-that provide to-apples considerable in regards recreational opportunities, but the budget and acreage are not included in the calculations. Likewise, Billings does aquatics, not separate which many its aquatics other communities budget from budget its park for budget. separately. So, the numbers include staff and expenses for and Whitefish recreation and in Colstrip the state are of included Montana. because Colstrip our is research a true park shows district that that they is have governed the top by spending an independent on parks board with the authority to levy taxes and operate the district. Changes in statute no longer allow for these types of districts and, instead, rely on the special district format. Table 12 represents the per capita spending comparisons of peer communities in Montana based upon research conducted by Peaks to Plains Design. The budgets only include operations, maintenance and life cycle replacements and generally excludes new capital investment. Bozeman’s budget is near the bottom of cities of the first class in Montana in operations and management spending account for for private parks. funds This is spent likely on because parks by this private amount entities only reflects or volunteers. funds expended The actual by per the capita city. It spending does not in Bozeman is higher, but cannot be fully determined due to aforementioned inconsistencies in how private entities format their cost accounting for public park maintenance. 813 22 CITY POPULATION (CENSUS 2016 EST) PARKS BUDGET (FY17) O&M BUDGET PER PERSON NUMBER OF PARKS TOTAL PARK ACREAGE OWNED* Billings 110,323 $5,808,673 $52.65 164 2093 Bozeman 45,250 $1,542,846 $34.10 79 906 Butte 33,853 $1,100,468 $32.51 29 723 Great Falls 59,178 $2,628,748 $44.42 79 1215 Kalispell 22,761 $805,420 $35.39 28 429 Helena 31,169 $1,734,494 $55.65 56 2297 Missoula 72,364 $1,825,782 $25.23 51 500+ Whitefish 7,279 $777,204 $106.77 11 66 Colstrip 2,214 $1,992,720 $900.05 32 170 “A standard for parks and recreation cannot be universal, nor can one city be compared with another even though they are similar in many respects.” (Barth, 2016) *Acreage only includes land owned by the entity itself, not lands that the entity manages on behalf of other land owners Table 12: Peer community review of parks budgets, number of parks and acreage 814 23 The use of private entities to maintain city-owned lands and assets is a rare model in Montana, especially when those parties are not subject to any formal contract with the local government. Under this model, a compelling argument can be made for enhancing private sector business and job creation. Privately held contracts are not required to pay prevailing wage rates or carry bonds or insurance. This makes their costs less than if the contracts were procured through a public entity. The implication of utilizing private entities for park maintenance as a long-term strategy may expose the city to greater risk in terms of unforeseen and unclear liability due to poor maintenance practices, as well as greater long-term asset replacement costs. Additionally, there is the potential for an inequitable approach to park maintenance. Some property owner associations appear to be maintaining their parks at a level that exceeds best practice standards, while others are failing to keep trails and other assets up to a minimum level of service. Parks that have extensive amenities become destinations for citizens across Bozeman and the neighborhood owners association is the sole bearer of the burden for maintenance of the attraction. The next step is to determine the level of service that the city wants to achieve within a given time period. One of the three scenarios presented in the report can be considered. In scenarios other than the status quo, the parks division will need to develop a strategy to phase-in the maintenance responsibility of park maintenance and operations in a three to five year time period. Utilizing the projected cost data for the total cost of ownership for parks, the city will need to consider the options for assessment methodology and procedures. Montana Code Annotated 7-11-1001 et. seq. outlines the requirements for the creation of a special district, which are included in the appendix of this report. Other options include, but are not limited to, raising the milleage dedicated to parks or special assessment-funded maintenance districts. STEPS NEXT 815 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 Montana Code Annotated Title 7. Local Government Chapter 11. General Provisions Related to Services Part 10. Special Districts – Creation and Governance 7-11-1001. Purpose. The purpose of this part is to allow for the creation and governance of special districts. 7-11-1002. Definitions. As used in this part, the following definitions apply: (1) "Governing body" means the legislative authority of a local government. (2) "Local government" means a city, town, county, or consolidated city-county government or any combination of these acting jointly. (3) (a) "Special district" means a unit of local government that is authorized by law to perform a single function or a limited number of functions. (b) The term includes but is not limited to cemetery districts, museum districts, park districts, fair districts, solid waste districts, local improvement districts, mosquito control districts, multijurisdictional districts, road districts, rodent control districts, television districts, and districts created for any public or governmental purpose not specifically prohibited by law. The term also includes any district or other entity formed to perform a single or limited number of functions by interlocal agreement. (c) The term does not include business improvement districts, cattle protective districts, conservancy districts, conservation districts, water and sewer districts, planning and zoning districts, drainage districts, grazing districts, hospital districts, irrigation districts, library districts, livestock protective committees, parking districts, resort area districts, rural improvement districts, special improvement districts, lighting districts, rural fire districts, street maintenance districts, tax increment financing districts, urban transportation districts, water conservation and flood control projects, and weed management districts. 7-11-1003. Authorization to create special districts. (1) Whenever the public convenience and necessity may require: (a) the governing body may: (i) create a special district by resolution; or (ii) order a referendum on the creation of a special district to serve the inhabitants of the special district as provided in 7-11-1011; or (b) petitioners may initiate the creation of a special district to serve inhabitants of the special district as provided in subsection (2). (2) (a) (i) Upon receipt of a petition to institute the creation of a special district that is signed by at least 25% of the registered voters or by the owners of at least 25% of the real property within the boundary of the proposed special district and that is submitted to the clerk of the governing body, the governing body shall order a referendum on the creation of the special district pursuant to 7-11-1011. (ii) Upon receipt of a petition to institute the creation of a special district that is signed by more than 50% of the registered voters or by the owners of more than 50% of the real property within the boundary of the proposed special district, the governing body shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to 7-11-1007. Following the hearing and if insufficient protests are made as provided in 7-11-1008, the governing body shall order the creation of the special district in accordance with 7-11-1013. (b) If a proposed special district would be financed by a mill levy, a petition to institute the creation of the special district must be signed by at least 40% of the registered voters or at least 40% of the property taxpayers within the boundary of the proposed district. (c) The form of the petition may be prescribed by the governing body, and the clerk of the governing body shall verify the signatures on the petition. 816 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 (d) Subject to subsection (2)(c), the petition must: (i) require the printed name of each signatory; (ii) specify whether the signatory is a property taxpayer or owner of real property within the proposed special district and either the street address or the legal description, whichever the signatory prefers, of that property; (iii) describe the type of special district being proposed and the general character of any proposed improvements and program to be administered within the special district; (iv) designate the method of financing any proposed improvements or maintenance program within the special district; (v) include a description of the areas to be included in the proposed special district; and (vi) specify whether the proposed special district would be administered by the local governing body or an appointed or elected board. (3) Within 60 days of receipt of a petition to create a special district, the clerk of the governing body shall: (a) certify that the petition is sufficient under the provisions of subsection (2) and present it to the governing body at its next meeting; or (b) reject the petition if it is insufficient under the provisions of subsection (2). (4) A defect in the contents of the petition or in its title, form of notice, or signatures may not invalidate the petition and subsequent proceedings as long as the petition has a sufficient number of qualified signatures attached. 7-11-1004 and 7-11-1005 reserved. 7-11-1006. Determining special district boundaries. (1) The boundaries of the proposed special district must be mapped, clearly described, and made available to the public at the time of the publication of the notice of public hearing pursuant to 7-11-1007 before the district may be approved. (2) The governing body or petitioners shall consult with a professional land surveyor, as defined in 37-67-101, to prepare a legal description of the boundaries for the proposed special district. (3) The boundaries must follow property ownership, precinct, school district, municipal, and county lines as far as practical. 7-11-1007. Public hearing -- resolution of intention to create special district. (1) The governing body shall hold at least one public hearing concerning the creation of a proposed special district prior to the passage of a resolution of intention to create the special district. A resolution of intention to create a special district may be based upon a decision of the governing body as provided in 7-11-1003(1)(a) or upon a petition that contains the required number of signatures as provided in 7-11-1003(1)(b). (2) The resolution must designate: (a) the proposed name of the special district; (b) the necessity for the proposed special district; (c) a general description of the territory or lands to be included within the proposed special district, giving the boundaries of the proposed special district; (d) the general character of any proposed improvements and the proposed location for the proposed program or improvements; (e) the estimated cost and method of financing the proposed program or improvements; (f) any requirements specifically applicable to the type of special district; (g) whether the proposed special district would be administered by the governing body or an appointed or elected board; and 817 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 (h) the duration of the proposed special district. (3) (a) The governing body shall publish notice of passage of the resolution of intention to create a special district as provided in 7-1-2121 and 7-1-2122 or 7-1-4127 and 7-1-4129, as applicable. The notice must contain a notice of a hearing and the time and place where the hearing will be held. (b) At the same time that notice is published pursuant to subsection (3)(a), the governing body shall provide a list of those properties subject to potential assessment, fees, or taxation under the creation of the proposed special district. The list may not be distributed or sold for use as a distribution list in accordance with 2-6-1017. (c) A copy of the notice described in subsection (3)(a) must be mailed to each owner or purchaser under contract for deed of the property included on the list referred to in subsection (3)(b) as shown by the current property tax record maintained by the department of revenue for the county. 7-11-1008. Right to protest -- procedure -- hearing. (1) An owner of property that is liable to be assessed for the program or improvements in the proposed special district has 60 days from either the date of the first publication of the notice of passage of the resolution of intention or the date the protest form provided for in subsection (2)(c) was sent to property owners, whichever is later, to make a written protest against the proposed program or improvements. (2) (a) A property owner may register a written protest under either subsection (2)(b) or (2)(c). (b) A property owner may register a written protest in any format in conformity with this section. The protest must identify the property in the district owned by the protestor by either its street address or its legal description, whichever the property owner prefers, be signed by a majority of the owners of that property, and be delivered to the clerk of the governing body, who shall endorse on the protest the date of receipt. (c) The governing body shall send each person referred to in 7-11-1007(3)(c) a protest form with space for any information required under subsection (2)(b) of this section, mailing instructions, and the date the form must be returned to the governing body. The form must allow a property owner to select either support for or opposition against the creation of the district. The forms returned with an indication of either support for or opposition against the creation of the district may be used, along with written protests submitted under subsection (2)(b), in determining whether sufficient protest has been filed to prevent further proceedings. (3) (a) For purposes of this section, "owner" means, as of the date a protest is filed, a record owner of fee simple title to the property or a contract buyer on file with the county clerk and recorder. (b) The term does not include a tenant of or other holder of a leasehold interest in the property. (4) An owner of property created as a condominium may protest pursuant to the provisions in 7-11-1027. (5) (a) At the hearing provided for in 7-11-1007, the governing body shall consider all protests. (b) If the protest is made by the owners of property in the proposed district to be assessed for: (i) 50% or more of the cost of the proposed program or improvements, in accordance with the method or methods of assessment, further proceedings may not be taken by the governing body for at least 12 months; or (ii) more than 10% but less than 50% of the cost of the proposed program or improvements, in accordance with the method or methods of assessment, and if the governing body decides to proceed with proposing the district, the governing body shall order a referendum in accordance with 7-11-1011. (c) In determining whether or not sufficient protests have been filed in the proposed special district to prevent further proceedings, property owned by a governmental entity must be considered the same as any other property in the district. (d) The decision of the governing body is final and conclusive. (e) The governing body may adjourn the hearing from time to time. 7-11-1009 reserved. 818 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 7-11-1010. Combination of elections -- term of board members if election combined. (1) (a) If the governing body orders a referendum on the creation of a proposed special district and the special district would be administered by an elected board, the governing body may combine the referendum on the formation of the district with the election of the members of the board so that the qualified electors of the district may vote on these matters on the same date and at the same time. (b) If the elections are combined, the notice of the election must contain the names of the candidates. Candidates for the board must file a declaration of candidacy with the election administrator within the time period specified in 13-1-502. The election administrator shall endorse on the declaration the date on which it was presented. (2) If the governing body orders a combined election pursuant to subsection (1) and unless otherwise provided by resolution by the governing body pursuant to 7-1-201: (a) a board member elected pursuant to this section shall hold office until the election and qualification or the appointment and qualification of the member's successor. (b) Except as provided in subsection (2)(c), a board member has a term of office of 4 years. (c) (i) In a special district requiring the election of five directors, three of the initial directors shall serve for a term of 2 years and two of the initial directors shall serve for a term of 4 years. (ii) In a special district requiring the election of three directors, one initial director shall serve for a term of 2 years and two initial directors shall serve for a term of 4 years. (iii) At the first meeting following an initial election of board members, the board shall determine by lot who shall serve a 2-year term. 7-11-1011. Referendum -- conduct of election on creating special district. (1) The governing body may order a referendum on the creation of the proposed special district. (2) The resolution ordering the referendum must state: (a) the type and maximum rate of the initial proposed assessments or fees that would be imposed, consistent with the requirements of 7-11-1007(2)(e) and 7-11-1024; (b) the type of activities proposed to be financed, including a general description of the program or improvements; (c) a description of the areas included in the proposed special district; and (d) whether the proposed special district would be administered by the governing body or an appointed or elected board. (3) The election must be conducted in accordance with Title 13, chapter 1, part 5. (4) The proposition to be submitted to the electorate must read: "Shall the proposition to organize (name of proposed special district) be adopted?" (5) An individual is entitled to vote on the proposition if the individual: (a) is a registered elector of the state; and (b) is a resident of or owner of taxable real property in the area subject to the proposed special district. (6) If the proposition is approved, the election administrator of each county shall: (a) immediately file with the secretary of state a certificate stating that the proposition was adopted; (b) record the certificate in the office of the clerk and recorder of the county or counties in which the special district is situated; and (c) notify any municipalities lying within the boundaries of the special district. 819 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 7-11-1012. Certificate of establishment. (1) On receipt of the certificate referred to in 7-11-1011(6), the secretary of state shall, within 10 days, issue a certificate reciting that the specified district has been established according to the laws of the state of Montana. A copy of the certificate must be transmitted to and filed with the clerk and recorder of the county or counties in which the district is situated. (2) When the certificate is issued by the secretary of state, the district named in the certificate is established with all the rights, privileges, and powers set forth in 7-11-1021. 7-11-1013. Order creating district -- power to implement program. (1) The governing body shall create a special district and establish assessments or fees if the governing body finds that insufficient protests have been made in accordance with 7-11-1008 or if the eligible registered voters have approved a referendum as provided in 7-11-1011. (2) To create a special district, the governing body shall issue an order or pass an ordinance or resolution in accordance with the resolution of intention introduced and passed by the governing body or in accordance with the terms of the referendum required under 7-11-1011. This must be done within 30 days of the end of the protest period or approval of the referendum. (3) If the governing body creates the special district of its own accord and without a referendum being held, a copy of the order, ordinance, or resolution creating the district, certified by the clerk of the governing body, must be delivered to the clerk and recorder of the county or counties in which the special district is situated and to the secretary of state, who shall issue a certificate of establishment in accordance with 7-11-1012. 7-11-1014. Additional reporting procedures -- coordination of information collection, transfer, and accessibility. (1) Within 60 days after the creation of a special district or by January 1 of the effective tax year, whichever occurs first, the governing body shall provide to the department of revenue a: (a) legal description of the special district; (b) map of its boundaries; (c) list of the property taxpayers or owners of real property within the special district's boundaries; and (d) copy of the resolution establishing the special district, including any adopted method of assessment. (2) The department of revenue shall review the information provided in accordance with subsection (1) and work with the governing body to identify and correct any discrepancies before the information is recorded by the department. (3) If the governing body intends to submit any digital information to the department of revenue for the purposes of subsection (4)(b), the governing body shall notify the department of revenue as to the expected date of submission and submit the digital information in a manner prescribed by the department of revenue in consultation with the state library. (4) The state library, in coordination with the department of revenue, governing bodies, and other appropriate entities, may develop standards, best practices, and procedures for: (a) collecting and transferring between agencies any digital information submitted by a governing body for purposes of subsection (4)(b); and (b) creating digital information to map special districts for land information purposes authorized in Title 90, chapter 1, part 4, that can be accessed through the website of the state library. 7-11-1015. Limitations on lawsuits. (1) A finding of the governing body in favor of the genuineness and sufficiency of the petition or election is final and conclusive against all persons except the state of Montana upon suit brought by the attorney general. (2) A lawsuit filed by the attorney general must be filed by the earlier of: (a) 1 year after the order, ordinance, or resolution creating the special district is approved by the governing body; or 820 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 (b) the issuance of bonds to implement the program or improvements approved for the special district. 7-11-1016 through 7-11-1020 reserved. 7-11-1021. Governance -- powers and duties. (1) A special district must be administered and operated either by the governing body or by a separate elected or appointed board as determined by the governing body. (2) (a) If the special district is governed by a separate board, the board must be established in accordance with Title 7, chapter 1, part 2, except as provided in 7-11-1010, and specific powers and duties granted to the board and those specifically withheld must be stated. (b) A vacancy created pursuant to 2-16-501 occurring during a term must be filled for the unexpired term by the governing body. The member appointed to fill the vacancy holds the office until a successor has been appointed and qualified. (c) The governing body may grant additional powers to the board. This includes the authorization to use privately contracted legal counsel or the attorney of the governing body. If privately contracted counsel is used, notice must be provided to the attorney of the governing body. (d) The governing body has ultimate authority under this subsection (2). (3) The entity chosen to administer the special district, as provided in subsection (1), may: (a) implement a program and order improvements for the special district designed to fulfill the purposes of the special district; (b) employ personnel directly related to the specific improvement or program; (c) purchase, rent, or lease equipment, personal property, and material necessary to develop and implement an effective program; (d) cooperate or contract with any corporation, association, individual, or group of individuals, including any agency of federal, state, or local government, in order to develop and implement an effective program; (e) receive gifts, grants, or donations for the purpose of advancing the program and, by gift, deed, devise, or purchase, acquire land, facilities, buildings, and material necessary to implement the purposes of the special district; (f) construct, improve, and maintain new or existing facilities and buildings necessary to accomplish the purposes of the special district; (g) provide grants to private, nonprofit entities as part of implementing an effective program; (h) adopt a seal and alter it at the entity's pleasure; (i) administer local ordinances as appropriate; (j) establish district capital improvement funds pursuant to 7-6-616, maintenance funds, and debt service funds; and (k) borrow money by the issuance of: (i) general obligation bonds as authorized by the governing body pursuant to Title 7, chapter 6, part 40, and the appropriate provisions of Title 7, chapter 7, part 22 or 42; or (ii) revenue bonds for the lease, purchase, and maintenance of land, facilities, and buildings and the funding of projects in the manner and subject to the appropriate provisions of Title 7, chapter 7, part 25 or 44. (4) If the special district is administered by a separate board, the board shall submit annual budget and work plans to the governing body for review and approval. (5) The right to exercise eminent domain pursuant to 70-30-102 is limited to cemetery districts. 7-11-1022. Multiple jurisdictions. (1) A special district created by a combination of local governments acting together must be administered according to an interlocal agreement. The interlocal agreement may determine 821 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 whether the administrative body of the special district consists of the entire membership of all governing bodies from the participating jurisdictions or representatives of each governing body or jurisdiction. (2) A special district created by a combination of local governments acting together may enlarge an existing service district, but may not supersede or void an existing contract, district, or interlocal agreement under which the same service is currently provided to residents of one or more of the participating jurisdictions. The local governments acting together may agree to alter an existing contract, district, or interlocal agreement as necessary. (3) The local governments shall proportionally share the ownership of real or personal property acquired by the district pursuant to their interlocal agreement. 7-11-1023. Alteration of special districts. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the governing body may change the boundaries of any special district by resolution. (2) The boundaries may be altered by petition after complying with the requirements for petitions as provided in 7-11-1003. (3) Alteration of special district boundaries is also subject to procedures for public notice, protest, referendum, certification, reporting, and establishment of assessment as provided in 7-11-1006 through 7-11-1008, 7-11- 1011 through 7-11-1015, and 7-11-1024. (4) Changes made to the boundaries may not: (a) occur more than once each year unless the governing body makes a special finding that an alteration is necessary; (b) delete any portion of the area if the deletion will create an island of included or excluded lands; (c) delete any portion of the area that is negatively contributing or may reasonably be expected to negatively contribute to environmental impacts that fall within the scope of the special district's program; and (d) affect indebtedness existing at the time of the change. 7-11-1024. Financing for special district. (1) The governing body shall make assessments or impose fees for the costs and expenses of the special district based upon a budget proposed by the governing body or separate board administering the district pursuant to 7-11-1021. (2) For the purposes of this section, "assessable area" means the portion of a lot or parcel of land that is benefited by the special district. The assessable area may be less than but may not exceed the actual area of the lot or parcel. (3) The governing body shall assess the percentage of the cost of the program or improvements: (a) against the entire district as follows: (i) each lot or parcel of land within the special district may be assessed for that part of the cost that its assessable area bears to the assessable area of the entire special district, exclusive of roads, streets, avenues, alleys, and public places; (ii) if the governing body determines that the benefits derived from the program or improvements by each lot or parcel are substantially equivalent, the cost may be assessed equally to each lot or parcel located within the special district without regard to the assessable area of the lot or parcel; (iii) each lot or parcel of land, including the improvements on the lot or parcel, may be assessed for that part of the cost of the special district that its taxable valuation bears to the total taxable valuation of the property of the district; (iv) each lot or parcel of land may be assessed based on the lineal front footage of any part of the lot or parcel that is in the district and abuts the area to be improved or maintained; 822 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 (v) each lot or parcel of land within the district may be assessed for that part of the cost that the reasonably estimated vehicle trips generated for a lot or parcel of its size in its zoning classification bear to the reasonably estimated vehicle trips generated for all lots in the district based on their size and zoning classification; (vi) each lot or parcel of land within the district may be assessed based on each family residential unit or one or more business units; or (vii) any combination of the assessment options provided in subsections (3)(a)(i) through (3)(a)(vi) may be used for the special district as a whole; or (b) based upon the character, kind, and quality of service for a residential or commercial unit, taking into consideration: (i) the nature of the property or entity assessed; (ii) a calculated basis for the program or service, including volume or weight; (iii) the cost, incentives, or penalties applicable to the program or service practices; or (iv) any combination of these factors. (4) If property created as a condominium is subject to assessment, each unit within the condominium is considered a separate parcel of real property subject to separate assessment and the lien of the assessment. Each unit must be assessed for the unit's percentage of undivided interest in the common elements of the condominium. The percentage of the undivided ownership interest must be as set forth in the condominium declaration. 7-11-1025. Notice of resolution for assessment -- assessment. (1) The governing body shall estimate, as near as practicable, the cost of each established special district annually by the later of the first Thursday after the first Tuesday in September or within 30 calendar days after receiving certified taxable values from the department of revenue. (2) (a) The governing body shall pass and finally adopt a resolution specifying the special district assessment option and levying and assessing all the property within the special district with an amount equal to the annual cost of the program and improvements as provided in 7-6-4012 and 7-6-4013. (b) If the entity chosen to administer the special district is the governing body, the governing body may not charge more than 15% of the annual fees or assessments collected to administer the special district. (3) The resolution levying the assessment to defray the cost of the special district must contain or refer to a list that describes the lot or parcel of land assessed with the name of the owner of the lot or parcel, if known, and the amount assessed. (4) The resolution must be kept on file in the office of the clerk of the governing body. (5) A notice, signed by the clerk of the governing body, stating that the resolution levying a special assessment or changing the method of assessment to defray the cost of the special district is on file in the clerk's office and subject to inspection must be published as provided in 7-1-2121 or 7-1-4127. The notice must state the time and place at which objections to the final adoption of the resolution will be heard by the governing body and must contain a statement setting out the method of assessment being proposed for adoption or the change in assessment being proposed for adoption. The time for the hearing must be at least 5 days after the final publication of the notice. (6) The notice and hearing process may be included in the local government's general budgeting process as provided in Title 7, chapter 6, part 40. (7) At the time set, the governing body shall meet and hear all objections that may be made to the assessment or any part of the assessment, may adjourn from time to time for that purpose, and may by resolution modify the assessment. (8) A copy of the resolution, certified by the clerk of the governing body, must be delivered to the department of revenue by the later of the first Thursday after the first Tuesday in September or within 30 calendar days after receiving certified taxable values from the department of revenue. 823 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 7-11-1026. Collection of special district assessments. (1) When a resolution of assessment has been certified by the clerk of the local government, the county treasurer, the city treasurer, or the town clerk, as provided in 7-12-4182, shall collect the assessment in the same manner and at the same time as property taxes for general purposes are collected. (2) All money received by the special district, including interest and earnings accrued, must be deposited in an account held only for the special district by the office of the county treasurer, city treasurer, or town clerk. 7-11-1027. Payment of assessment under protest -- action to recover. (1) (a) When an assessment made under this part is considered erroneous by the party whose property is charged or from whom the payment is demanded, the person may: (i) prior to the assessment becoming delinquent, file an appeal to the administrative board of the district; or (ii) pay the assessment or any part of the assessment considered to be erroneous under protest to the county treasurer, city treasurer, or town clerk, whoever is charged with collection of the assessment, and either file an appeal to the administrative board of the district or initiate action in court as provided in subsection (2). (b) (i) If an appeal is filed before the administrative board and the board finds in favor of the taxpayer, the board shall order the assessment or the contested portion of the assessment removed, and if the payment was made under protest, it must be refunded by the county treasurer, city treasurer, or town clerk. (ii) If an appeal is filed before the administrative board and the board does not find in favor of the taxpayer and if a payment was made under protest or the taxpayer makes a payment under protest before the assessment becomes delinquent, the taxpayer may initiate an action in court as provided in subsection (2). (2) The party paying under protest or the party's legal representative may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the officer to whom the assessment was paid or against the local government on whose behalf the assessment was collected to recover the assessment or any portion of the assessment paid under protest. An action instituted to recover the assessment paid under protest must be commenced within 90 days after the date of payment. (3) The assessment paid under protest must be held by the county treasurer, city treasurer, or town clerk until the determination of an action brought for the recovery of the assessment. (4) If the assessment considered to be unlawful pertains to property created as a condominium and the property is not solely a certain unit in the condominium, then the owner of the property created as a condominium that is entitled to protest is considered to be the collective owners of all units having an undivided ownership interest in the common elements of the condominium. (5) An owner of property created as a condominium may protest against the method of assessment or vote at an election of the special district only through a president, vice president, secretary, or treasurer of the condominium owners' association who timely presents to the secretary of the special district the following: (a) a writing identifying the condominium property; (b) the condominium declaration or other condominium document that shows how votes of unit owners in the condominium are calculated; (c) original signatures of owners of units in the condominium having an undivided ownership interest in the common elements of the condominium sufficient to constitute an affirmative vote for an undertaking relating to the common elements under the condominium declaration; and (d) a certificate signed by the president, vice president, secretary, or treasurer of the condominium owners' association certifying that the votes of the unit owners, as evidenced by the signatures of the owners, are sufficient to constitute an affirmative vote of the condominium owners' association to protest against the method of assessment. 7-11-1028. Assessments as liens. (1) An assessment made and levied to defray the cost and expenses of the program or improvements, together with any percentages imposed for delinquency and for cost of collection, constitutes a lien upon the property on which the assessment is made and levied from the date of the passage of 824 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 the resolution levying the assessment. This lien may be extinguished only by payment of the assessment, with all penalties, costs, and interest, or by sale of the property as provided in subsection (2). (2) When the payment of an installment of an assessment becomes delinquent, all payments of subsequent installments of the assessment may, at the option of the governing body and upon adoption of the appropriate resolutions, become delinquent. Upon delinquency in one or all installments, the whole property must be sold in the same manner as other property is sold for taxes. The enforcement of the lien of any installment of a special assessment by any method authorized by law does not prevent the enforcement of the lien of any subsequent installment when it becomes delinquent. 7-11-1029. Dissolution of special district. (1) A special district may be dissolved if it is considered to be in the best interest of a local government or the inhabitants of the local government or if the purpose for creating the special district has been fulfilled and the special district is not needed in perpetuity. (2) The governing body may pass a resolution of intention to dissolve a special district upon its own request or upon request of the separate board administering the special district. (3) After the passage of the resolution provided for in subsection (2), the clerk of the local government that established the special district shall publish a notice, as provided in 7-1-2121 or 7-1-4127, of the intention to dissolve the district. (4) (a) The notice must specify the boundaries of the special district to be dissolved, the date of the passage of the resolution of intention to dissolve, the date set for the passage of the resolution of dissolution, and that the resolution will be passed unless the clerk of the local government receives written protest in advance from the owners of property in the district who are assessed for: (i) 50% or more of the cost of the program or improvements; or (ii) more than 10% but less than 50% of the cost of the program or improvements. (b) If the governing body receives the protest as provided in subsection (4)(a)(i), further dissolution proceedings may not be taken by the governing body for at least 12 months. (c) If the governing body receives the protest as provided in subsection (4)(a)(ii), the governing body shall order a referendum on the dissolution in accordance with 7-11-1011. (d) In determining whether or not sufficient protests have been filed, property owned by a governmental entity must be considered the same as any other property in the district. (e) The decision of the governing body is final and conclusive. (5) If the special district is dissolved, the clerk of the local government shall immediately send written notice to: (a) the secretary of state; and (b) the department of revenue, providing the same information required in 7-11-1014 when a district is created. The department of revenue and the state library shall respond to the dissolution in the same manner as they respond to the creation of a district, as described in 7-11-1014. (6) The dissolution of a special district may not relieve the property owners from the assessment and payment of a sufficient amount to liquidate all charges existing against the special district prior to the date of dissolution. (7) Any assets remaining after all debts and obligations of the special district have been paid, discharged, or irrevocably settled must be: (a) deposited in the general fund of the local government; (b) in the case of multiple local governments, divided in accordance with their interlocal agreement and deposited in the general fund of each local government; or 825 http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0070/chapter_0110/part_0100/sections_index.html Accessed October 26, 2017 (c) transferred to a new special district that has been created to provide substantially the same service as provided by the dissolved special district. (8) If the remaining assets are derived from private grants or gifts that restrict the use of those funds, the funds must be returned to the grantor or donor. 7-11-1030. Minutes. The board or governing body administering and operating the special district as provided by 7-11-1021 shall submit the minutes of its proceedings for electronic storage as provided in 7-1-204 unless: (1) the special district is operated by the governing body of a municipality; and (2) the governing body has designated an alternative place for the minutes to be recorded or maintained. 7-11-1031 through 7-11-1034 reserved. 7-11-1035. Energy performance contracts exempt. This part does not apply to solicitation and award of an investment-grade energy audit or energy performance contract pursuant to Title 90, chapter 4, part 11, or to the construction or installation of conservation measures pursuant to the energy performance contract. 826 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING / CIVIL ENGINEERING Peaks to Plains DesignP C Prepared by: In association with: 827 technology. embraced tracking Staff has costs already and using the data to become more efficient citizens of and Bozeman. accountable The to goal the is that everyone has access to a quality public park. 794