HomeMy WebLinkAboutConsideration of using Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland to purchase property at 905 South Church
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Ron Dingman, Parks and Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Authorize Use of $78,000 of cash-in-lieu of parkland for purchase of
property at 905 South Church and direct commencement of process to purchase the
property.
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2012.
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action.
RECOMMENDATION: Allocate $78,000 of cash-in-lieu of parkland funds for purchase
of property at 905 South Church Avenue and authorize City Manager, subject to
Commission ratification, to enter into purchase and sale agreement for the property.
STAFF SUGGESTED MOTION: Having heard public comment, I hereby adopt the staff
suggested findings included in the staff memorandum and move to authorize the allocation
of $78,000 of cash-in-lieu of parkland funds for the purchase of property located at 905
South Church Avenue and direct the City Manger to enter into negotiations and a purchase
and sale agreement, subject to Commission ratification, to purchase the property.
BACKGROUND& PROCESS FOR PURCHASE: City Staff was notified by the
Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT) in November of 2011 that property located at 905 South
Church Avenue is for sale by the Moss family. This property straddles Bozeman Creek and
is in close proximity to existing trails. Staff and GVLT recognize this as an opportunity to
improve existing trail connections and to create a community park. At that time the owners
listed the property's sale price at $169,000. Following several conversations between GVLT
and the Moss family, the family orally agreed with GVLT to sell the property to the City for
$80,000 so that it could be used as parkland and provide a valuable trail connector. As
explained below, Staff suggests the funds used to purchase the property consist of $78,000
of cash-in-lieu of parklands (CIL) funds and $2,000 of transportation impact fee funds for
the purchase of land that would be considered right-of-way for South Church Ave.
The City's CIL fund is made up of cash contributions from subdividers who request and are
approved to provide cash rather than actually develop parkland within their subdivision.
Currently, there is a balance of $192,443.66 in the City’s CIL fund.
79
The purpose of this agenda item is to have the Commission determine whether it is
appropriate to allocate CIL of parkland funds to the potential purchase of this property. If
the Commission authorizes the use of these funds staff will work with the property owners
to develop and enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the property. That agreement
will contain a contingency that you ratify the City Manager's authority via resolution. The
adoption of the resolution will be your formal authorization to complete the purchase of the
property. As such, this agenda item is necessary to begin the purchase process and to
formalize the use of CIL funds but is not the Commission's final decision on the purchase.
The City Attorney prefers the above two-step process for purchase of real property for the
following reasons. First, it creates a deliberate approach to using public funds to purchase
real property.1 Second, your action to authorize the use of the public funds, be it CIL or
general fund money, is necessary for the staff to formalize the negotiation process. Third,
authorizing the City Manager to develop and enter into an agreement for the purchase of the
property prior to but contingent upon your final approval allows for flexibility in the
negotiation for the purchase of the property. Fourth, ratifying the City Manager's signature
on the agreement via resolution creates a formal decision of your approval of the specific
terms of the agreement and, except for satisfaction of remaining contingencies, would be the
final action necessary prior to closing.
STAFF SUGGESTED FINDINGS:
Montana law requires the Commission to make specific findings when CIL funds are used
to acquire real property to be used as parkland. Below we provide suggested findings
regarding the property, the rationale for the purchase (including a discussion on trail
connector/parkland and use of transportation impact fees for right-of-way acquisition) and
specific findings required by Montana law for use of CIL funds.
1. The Property: The property consists of 1.03 acres and has Bozeman Creek running through
it. A map is attached to this memo which shows the property fronting South Church Avenue
and extending west through a 50-foot wide corridor. The map also shows planned trail
connections. Currently, the only structure on the property is a dilapidated house and an old
bridge. The house will be removed and the bridge replaced. Costs for removal of the
structure would be approximately $18,000. GVLT has agreed to pursue grant s to replace the
existing bridge and estimates that cost to be around $35,000.
2. Rational for the Purchase:
a. Trail Connector and Parkland: Purchase of the property would enable the City to
develop a trail that would extend west from South Church Avenue and connect with
the Gallagator Trail. See aerial photo/map. However, to complete this connection the
1 The City Commission has authority regarding purchases of property pursuant to 2.06.580, BMC, which
reads, “Sec. 2.06.850. - Authorization for city to obtain property. The city commission has jurisdiction and
power, under such limitations and restrictions as are prescribed by law, to purchase, receive by donation or
exchange, or lease any real or personal property necessary for the use of the city and to preserve, take care of,
manage, and control the same.”
80
City and GVLT will need to obtain easements from two additional adjacent property
owners. GVLT has met with those land owners and both have expressed an initial
willingness to provide the necessary easements. In addition, ownership of this property
would position the City to be able to connect a trail from the property to Burke Park,
east the property. Making the connection to Burke Park would require developing a
safe pedestrian crossing to the east side of South Church Avenue. This would include
a painted crosswalk with advanced crossing signs along the road at both ends similar
to the crossing of the Galligator across South Church near the Library. Advanced
pedestrian crossing signs with flashers would cost between $5,000 and $10,000
depending on the power source and location. Finally, if purchased, the Commission
must declare the property as parkland via resolution.
b. Acquisition of Right-Of-Way for Improvements to South Church: The purchase of this
property would also provide right-of-way necessary for future pedestrian and vehicular
improvements to South Church Avenue. The 2007 Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan Update recommends South Church Avenue be improved as a two
lane collector with bike lanes, parking lanes, boulevards, and sidewalks.2 Currently,
the structure on the property is situated at the very east edge of the property, leaving
no room for a sidewalk or pathway between the structure and South Church Avenue.
In addition, South Church Avenue was established by Road Petition #11 in 1878 and
without a survey of the entire roadway we assume the centerline of the built road is at
or near the center of the petitioned 60-foot right-of-way.
At this time, sufficient right-of-way does not exist at this location to make these
improvements. Even though the City Engineering Division has reviewed the property
and determined the Transportation Plan’s typical collector section is not feasible for
South Church Avenue (as there are at least 20 structures from Story Street to Kagy
Boulevard that are closer than 45 feet from centerline of the existing street) the City
Engineer has indicated a 75-foot right-of-way would be more realistic for this street,
which is consistent with Chapter 6.2 of the Transportation Plan Update.3
According to the City Engineer, the additional right-of-way needed outside of the
existing roadway that lies within the property is 1,084 square feet, or approximately
.025 of the total square footage.4 As such, we recommend using transportation impact
fee funds at the same percentage (.025) as a contribution to the overall purchase price.
Thus, the funds for purchasing the property would consist of $78,000 of the CIL fund
and $2,000 of the transportation impact fees to acquire the right-of-way.
At $80,000, this property is selling for $1.79 per square foot. The City most recently
paid $15.00 to $20.00 per square foot to purchase of right-of-way for the College and
2 The typical right-of-way for a collector street is 90 feet.
3 This Chapter recognizes the need for “context sensitive solutions” for areas that have competing needs (i.e., existing housing,
physical features), and that the application of design standards should be flexible so a facility can be designed that is safe for all
users with minimal impact to the surrounding area. A 75 -foot right-of-way would allow the future construction of a two-lane
street with bike lanes, parking, sidewalks, and a five foot wide boulevard. This section will also allow the preservation of many
of the mature trees along this street.
4 The total square footage of the property is approximately 44,823.
81
11th roundabout. If purchased, at the time the property is declared parkland an
easement will be established on the property to establish the right-of-way for the
future reconstruction of South Church Avenue.
It is important to note that the improvements to South Church Avenue have been listed
as "un-scheduled" on the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a number of
years. During this year's policy discussion of the Street Impact Fee CIP, the City
Commission voted to eliminate South Church Avenue from the CIP, because the cost
of right-of-way and the improvements put the feasibility of the project too far out in
the future. However, South Church Avenue is shown as a collector in the 2007
Transportation Plan Update, and obtaining affordable right-of-way whenever possible
is prudent.
3. Use of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Funds: 76-3-621(5), MCA (2011), requires the
Commission make specific findings when using CIL funds to acquire parkland.5 First, the
law authorizes CIL to be used for "land acquisition." The property would be purchased and
owned in fee by the City and declared parkland. The CIL funds will only be used for the
portion of the property declared parkland. As such, this requirement is met.
Next, Montana law requires the CIL funds be used to purchase property if the property is
"within a reasonably close proximity" to the subdivisions that have paid into the fund. The
determination as to whether this property is within "reasonably close proximity" to the
subdivisions that paid into the fund depends upon whether this park would be classified as a
"community park" within the meaning established by the 2007 Parks, Recreation, Open
Space and Trails (PROST) Plan.
Based on the characteristics of this property now and upon development the property
will be classified as community park and thus in "reasonably close proximity" to all
subdivisions that paid into the CIL fund.
Section 8.4.3 of the PROST Plan6 provides criteria controlling how CIL funds may be used.
Under the header "Service Area" this section of the PROST Plan quotes the Montana statute
cited above and also states,
5 This subsection of 76-3-621(5), MCA, states,
(5) (a) In accordance with the provisions of subsections (5)(b) and (5)(c), the governing body shall use the dedicated
money or land for development, acquisition, or maintenance of parks to serve the subdivision.
(b) The governing body may use the dedicated money to acquire, develop, or maintain, within its jurisdiction,
parks or recreational areas or for the purchase of public open space or conservation easements only if:
(i) the park, recreational area, open space, or conservation easement is within a reasonably close
proximity to the proposed subdivision; and
(ii) the governing body has formally adopted a park plan that establishes the needs and procedures
for use of the money.
(c) The governing body may not use more than 50% of the dedicated money for park maintenance.
6The PROST plan can be found at http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/78/78215f19-19b9-44c0-8fd9-
7df9068aebe0.pdf
82
"The RPAB [Recreation and Parks Advisory Board] has determined that “reasonably
close proximity” will be based upon the service area of the park classification. For
example, the service area of a neighborhood park is a ¼- to ½-mile radius around the
park, and the use of cash-in-lieu within this service area would be considered to be
within reasonably close proximity."
While this section of the PROST Plan does not define the service area of a community park,
the service area of a community park can be determined from the definition of Community
Park as provided in the PROST Plan. Community Park is defined in the PROST Plan at
Section 3.1 (pg. 3-8) as a park
"...larger in size and serv[ing] a broader purpose than neighborhood parks. [A
community park's] focus is on meeting the recreational needs of the entire community.
They allow for group activities and offer other recreational opportunities not feasible –
nor perhaps desirable – in a neighborhood park. The use of cash-in-lieu within this
service area [i.e. within the entire community] would be considered to be within
reasonably close proximity" (emphasis added).
The service area for parkland classified as a community park is the entire community (i.e.
the entire City).
When comparing this property against the characteristics of a community park as shown in
the PROST Plan at pg. 8-3 (attached) the property in its current conditions and upon future
development including the creation of the trail connectors will be considered a community
park. The property is serviced by South Church Ave which is considered a collector.
Despite only being 1.03 acres, the principal use of the property will be to provide critical
trail connections. The site will also provide an additional access to Bozeman Creek in an
area of the City lacking sufficient access points to Bozeman Creek. We also propose
developing a small picnic area within the park and other context appropriate amenities that
will facilitate a mix of uses.
Because this park will function as a community park, its service area is the entire
community and thus the use of CIL funds for its purchase it appropriate.
Finally, the City has adopted the PROST Plan as its “park plan that establishes the needs
and procedures for use of the money.”
The City has recently used CIL funds for purchase of community parks. In 2008 the City
Commission approved expenditure of $250,000 of CIL funds toward the $520,000 purchase
of approximately two acres within Burke Park. This acquisition was approved on the basis
that the land being purchased was considered part of a community park and would benefit
the entire community.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: We have not yet entered into formal discussions with the
property owners regarding the specific terms of purchase. As stated above, the purchase
agreement will be placed before you to ratify via resolution, as will a budget amendment,
once the final purchase price has been determined. Also, removal of the existing structure
83
would cost about $18,000. As there is no money in the current budget for the removal of the
structure we anticipate proposing to budget $18,000 in FY13 from the CIL fund for its
removal.
In order to develop a safe pedestrian crossing to the east side of South Church Avenue, for
the purpose of making a connection to Burke Park, there would need to be a painted
crosswalk with advanced crossing signs along the road at both ends. Advanced pedestrian
crossing signs with flashers would cost between $5,000 and $10,000 depending on the
power source and location.
The connection from South Church to the Gallagator Trail is planned to be the first
connection to be made while the connection to Burke Park is planned to be completed in the
future. When this connection is made, staff would suggest using CIL funds to pay for the
signage and signals and budget accordingly.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: There is currently $192,443.66 in the City’s CIL fund. The
expenditure of the anticipated purchase price of $78,000 of CIL funds for the property
would leave a balance of $114,443.66. Expending $18,000 to remove the structure in FY13
would leave a balance of $96,443.66.
When the connection to Burke Park is made, staff is suggesting that CIL funds be used to
pay for the crossing signage and signals. Depending on the power source available, that
would bring the CIL total to somewhere between $91,443.66 or $86,443.66.
A budget amendment will be brought forward once the final purchase price is known, and
future budget requests will include the structure removal costs and signage, as necessary.
Attachments:
Map of property with potential trail connection shown
Sections 8.4 and 3.1of the PROST Plan
Report compiled on: January 26, 2012
84
S. Church Trail Connection
¯Legend
Church Gallagator Connector Trail
905 S Church 180 0 18090 Feet
85
8.4 CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION PROPOSALS
8.4.3 Cash-in-Lieu Criteria
Proximity to Existing Parkland. Arguments for cash-in-lieu proposals often invoke the issue of
proximity to existing parkland; additional parkland is not needed since the subject development is
close to an existing park. In some instances this argument has merit and a cash-in-lieu proposal may
make sense. However, decisions based on proximity arguments must also consider the type of
existing park and the needs of the area, in terms of the type and location for parks, as determined by
this plan. For example, a new development may be near an existing special use skatepark. A park
may still be needed in the new development to satisfy the non-skate recreational needs of its future
residents. In addition, adjacency to existing parks may provide unique opportunities to aggregate and
consolidate parkland into larger and more useful parks.
Size of Land Available for Parkland. When only small pieces of parkland are available it may be
preferable to get the cash-in-lieu. However, these small parcels might make perfect mini parks if
need is demonstrated by this plan. Again, this document will influence not only where parks are
needed, but how parks should be developed (i.e., playground equipment vs ball fields). Cash-in-lieu
decisions will need to consider the size of the land available for a park within the context of whether
a park is needed in the area, and if so what type of park is needed.
Housing Density/Infill Projects. At some point residential dwelling unit density becomes a factor
because a high-density project could have more units, thus more parkland requirement, than land
available to dedicate. This situation occurs frequently with infill projects. Cash-in-lieu may be the
only option in some cases. This must be balanced with the need to provide recreational
opportunities for all residents. Lower-density development is characterized by lots with yards,
whereas high-density lots typically do not have large yards; high-density development may, in fact,
have a greater need for parkland than low-density.
Trail Connections. In some instances a development may not be appropriate for the siting of a
new park, but land in the development could provide a key trail corridor connection. In these
situations, the trail connection should be obtained instead of cash-in-lieu.
Suitability Factors. Occasionally land will simply not be suitable for recreational uses and would
therefore not be appropriate for a park. The suitability may be diminished due to factors such as
steep slopes, extremely high groundwater (surface ponding), etc. In these cases, cash-in-lieu may be
the only viable alternative.
Service Area. State law states that cash-in-lieu funds can be spent only if the “park, recreational
area, open space, or conservation easement is within a reasonably close proximity to the proposed
subdivision.” The RPAB has determined that “reasonably close proximity” will be based upon the
service area of the park classification. For example, the service area of a neighborhood park is a ¼-
to ½-mile radius around the park, and the use of cash-in-lieu within this service area would be
considered to be within reasonably close proximity.
86
3.1 INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILTIES
At the end of 2005, there were approximately 667 acres of park within the City of Bozeman, and
another 166 acres of County park within the planning area, for a total of approximately 833 acres of
park in the planning area. Table 3-1 contains park and recreation facilities information for City
parks, and Table 3-2 contains similar information for County parks. The following classifications are
used to define Bozeman’s parks. Information regarding locational and size criteria is drawn from the
National Recreation and Park Association’s Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines.i
Mini Park. Mini parks are used to address limited, isolated or unique recreational needs. They are
often developed as tot lots to provide recreational opportunities for young children with slides,
swings, spring toys and the like. They may also function as landscaped public use areas in
commercialized parts of town. The service area for a mini park is a ¼-mile radius around the park in
a residential setting. Accessibility by way of interconnecting trails, sidewalks, or low-volume
residential streets increases use opportunities. Recognizable public access should be provided with at
least 50 feet of frontage on a public or approved private street. In terms of size, they are generally
between 2,500 square feet and one acre in size. Soroptomist and Creekside Parks are good examples
of mini parks.
Neighborhood Park. Neighborhood parks are the basic unit of the park system, and serve as the
recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. Focus is on informal recreation for all age groups
and geared towards those living within the service area. Neighborhood parks should be centrally
located within their service area, with access uninterrupted by non-residential roads and other
physical barriers. The service area of a neighborhood park has a ¼- to ½-mile radius.
The site should be accessible from throughout its service area by way of interconnecting trails,
sidewalks, or low-volume residential streets. Ease of access and walking distance are critical factors
in locating a neighborhood park. A neighborhood park should have a minimum of 50 percent
frontage on a public or approved private street. Neighborhood parks are generally 3 to 10 acres in
size. Leftover parcels of land that are undesirable for development are also generally undesirable for
neighborhood parks and should be avoided. It is more cost-effective to select a site with inherent
aesthetic qualities, rather than trying to recreate them through extensive development. Facilities
include playgrounds; informal playfields or open space; basketball, tennis and volleyball courts; ice
skating; trails; and picnic and sitting areas. Cooper, Jarrett and Southside Parks are good examples of
neighborhood parks.
Community Park. Community parks are larger in size and serve a broader purpose than
neighborhood parks. Their focus is on meeting the recreational needs of the entire community. They
allow for group activities and offer other recreational opportunities not feasible – nor perhaps
desirable – in a neighborhood park. Optimally, the site should be between 20 and 50 acres in size;
however the actual size should be based on the land area needed to accommodate desired uses. The
site should be serviced by arterial and collector streets, as well as the community trail system.
Parking lots should be provided as necessary to accommodate user access. The site’s natural
character should play a very significant role in site selection, with emphasis on sites that preserve
unique landscapes within the community and/or provide recreational opportunities not otherwise
available. Potential recreation facilities include playgrounds; basketball, tennis and volleyball courts;
informal ballfields for youth play; ice skating rinks (temporary); swimming pools or swimming
beaches; trails, including cross-country ski trails; individual and group picnic/sitting areas; general
open space; unique landscapes and features; nature study areas; and ornamental or native plant
gardens. Lindley Park is a good example of a community park in terms of size and mix of uses.
Bogert Park is a good example of a community park in terms of the mix of uses.
87
Special Use Park. The Special Use classification covers a broad range of parks and recreation
facilities oriented toward single-purpose or specialized use. Special uses generally fall into three
categories:
· Historic/Cultural/Social Sites – Unique local resources offering historical, educational, and
cultural opportunities. Examples include historic downtown areas, performing arts facilities,
arboretums, ornamental/native plant gardens, sculpture gardens, indoor theaters, public
buildings, and amphitheaters. Indoor Recreation Facilities – Examples include community centers,
senior centers, sports stadiums, community theaters, indoor hockey arenas, and indoor swimming
pools.
· Outdoor Recreation Facilities – Examples include tennis centers, sports complexes, golf courses,
disc golf courses, hockey arenas, BMX parks and skate parks. Recreation need, community interests,
the type of facility, and land availability are the primary factors influencing location and size. Special
use facilities should be viewed as strategically located communitywide facilities rather than as serving
well-defined neighborhoods or areas. The site should be accessible from arterial and collector streets
where feasible. The Adam Bronken Sports Complex is a good example of a Special Use Park.
Natural Areas/Open Lands. Natural resource areas are lands set aside for preservation of natural
resources, remnant landscapes, open space, and visual aesthetics or buffering. These lands typically
consist of:
· Individual sites exhibiting natural resources;
· Lands that are unsuitable for development but offer natural resource potential. Examples
include parcels with steep slopes and natural vegetation, drainage ways and ravines; and
· Protected lands, such as wetlands, riparian areas and ponds.
Resource availability and opportunity are the primary factors determining location and size.
Although natural areas are resource rather than user based, they can provide some recreation
opportunities such as trails, and nature viewing and study. They can also function as greenways.
Development should be kept to a level that preserves the integrity of the resource. Tuckerman and
Burke Parks are examples of Natural Areas/Open Lands.
Linear Parks. Linear parks contain pathways that serve a number of important functions:
· They tie park components together to form a cohesive park, trail, recreation, and open space
system;
· They allow for uninterrupted and safe pedestrian and bicycle movement between parks and
throughout the community; and
· They provide an opportunity for resource-based outdoor recreation.
Land availability and opportunity are the primary factors determining location. Many linear parks
will follow natural features such as watercourses, while others will follow man-made features such as
abandoned railways. Linear parks should be at least 25 feet wide for general trail use, with additional
width required for parks used for cross-country skiing. Linear parks can be developed for a variety
of different recreational activities. Most notable are hiking, walking, jogging, bicycling and cross-
country skiing. The Gallagator and Story Mill Spur Trails are examples of Linear Parks.
Regional Parks. Regional parks are similar to community parks in terms of uses and facilities but
are scaled to meet the recreational needs of a region. Regional parks are generally larger in size (50
acres or more), with larger and/or more numerous facilities. The scale and service area of a regional
park makes possible more extensive facilities that may be cost prohibitive at the community level.
The service area for a regional park is generally countywide for most uses, but would draw from a
multi-county area for special events such as concerts and sports tournaments.
The site should be serviced by arterial and collector streets, as well as the countywide trail system.
88
Parking lots should be provided as necessary to accommodate user access. The East Gallatin
Recreation
Buffers. Strips of land used to buffer residential development from busy streets or incompatible
adjacent uses, but not providing recreational uses. Buffers are frequently landscaped but may, in
some cases, remain as natural areas. Buffers have been counted as parkland in the past. Current City
policy instead designates these areas as common open space to be owned and maintained by the
property owners association.rea is a good example of a regional park.
It should be noted that not all existing parks comply with these service area or size requirements.
Instead, these classifications provide guidance for the creation of new parks. Also, some parks are a
combination of types. For example, Bronken Park is both a Special Use Park due to the sports
fields, as well as a Natural Area/Open Lands park due to the natural portion of the park.
89