HomeMy WebLinkAboutPotential parks and trails bond Policy Discussion1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Mehl, City Commissioner
SUBJECT: Potential Parks and Trails Bond Policy Discussion
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Consider information presented and provide staff with direction to
prepare a motion to be considered in July for the City Commission to place a referendum on the
November ballot authorizing the City to sell bonds for to acquire money purchase and
improvement of parks, trails, recreation fields, and preserving water quality along creek and
stream corridors.
SUMMARY: Bozeman’s parks, trails, and recreation fields contribute to our region’s high
quality of life, enhance our public health, create safe, accessible opportunities for outdoor
recreation and transportation, help attract and retain businesses, improve the sense of community
by creating outdoor gathering spaces, and increase property values.
Investing now in parks, trails, recreation fields, and preserving water quality (e.g., water
corridors such as Bozeman Creek) also makes sense as property values have lowered
significantly in the past several years and the borrowing costs for a bond also remain quite low.
Bozeman is expected to grow again, and a bond will help preserve and enhance our quality of
life while serving our community and using careful planning and consideration to create new
parkland in the fastest-growing parts of town to make larger, more cohesive parks that are more
substantial than the typical “pocket parks” for newer developments. A bond also could help in
the development of athletic fields that will help draw in larger tournaments, creating an
economic benefit for our community.
A survey of Bozeman residents conducted as part of the 2007 Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open
Space, and Trails (PROST) plan identified “more and/or better trails” as the highest
recommendation for improving Bozeman’s facilities, followed by parks, and then by open space.
A private opinion survey conducted this year, discussed in detail later, also showed strong public
support for either a $10 million or $15 million parks/trails bond, both by two-to-one ratios.
The 2007 PROST Plan, unanimously adopted by the City Commission and created with
considerable public input, identified the need to expand and improve the City’s parks and trails
system, and called for the City to consider a bond for the purchase of trails and parkland.
116
2
Responding to public interest, last summer (July 2011) the City Commission voted to analyze the
feasibility of a possible bond to protect water quality and increase and improve trails, parks, and
outdoor recreation in the City. Also, at the start of this year, the City Commission made a bond
for parks, trails, and recreation one of its priorities for 2012. During the past twelve months, a
number of residents have been meeting with City Staff and Commissioners to discuss costs,
needs, locations, and benefits of a bond. It is with the grassroots urging of these groups, that this
issue has been placed on the agenda for consideration.
The cities of Helena and Missoula have passed open space bonds. Missoula City and County
residents voted to fund a $5 million open space bond in 1995 and a $10 million open space bond
in 2006 with the money split between the two jurisdictions. Helena voted in 1996 for a $5
million open space bond.
Unlike those cities, Bozeman does not have a dedicated fund for acquisition and improvements
of public parks, trails, and recreation fields. This Policy Memo discusses a possible bond that
could be placed on the ballot this November, including background, need, the benefits and costs,
accountability, and how such a mechanism could work should the City decide to put a bond
measure to the voters for their judgment.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The Memo concludes with a series of clarifying questions the
Commission should address along with possible language and funding levels for a potential
bond. Other issues may be identified by the City Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT: Bond values of both $10 million and $15 million have been discussed.
City staff estimates that the maximum cost for a “typical household” for a $10 million bond
would be just under $30 annually, and just less than $45 a year for a $15 million bond. Details
of the City’s bonding capacity and costs to the City and taxpayers are discussed in depth in the
following memo.
ATTACHMENTS:
Examples of other Montana city bonds
Polling Memo: Public Opinion Strategies Memo: “Key Findings from a Survey of Bozeman
Residents Regarding Support for Bond Measure to Fund Trails, Natural Areas, Water Quality,
and Outdoor Recreation Areas”
Report Compiled on June 7, 2012
This memo was prepared with the help of Ron Dingman, Brit Fontenot, Anna Rosenberry,
Greg Sullivan, Thom White, and Chuck Winn.
117
3
CONTENTS:
Background: PROST, Feasibility, Meetings with User Groups (pp. 3-4)
Need, Public Health, Safety, and Economic Benefits (pp. 4-7)
Possible Projects, Cost of Land, Borrowing, Existing County Bond (p. 7)
Public Support and Partnerships (pp. 7-9)
How It Would Work (pp. 9-14)
Costs, Maintenance, and Other Priorities (pp. 14-17)
Accountability and Metrics (p. 17)
Questions, Possible Ballot Language, and Suggested Motion (pp. 17-19)
BACKGROUND
For a number of years Bozeman’s slogan has been “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place” and the
City’s parks, trails, open space, and other programs play an important role in meeting that
objective.
The 2007 Parks and Trails Plan is the planning document the City utilizes concerning parks and
outdoor recreation. The full PROST Plan is at:
http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/78/78215f19-19b9-44c0-8fd9-7df9068aebe0.pdf.
A map of PROST Plan identifying existing and proposed trails can be found at:
http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/47/474f9f7f-e1ad-4c2d-81b6-e3c46bb0c5b9.pdf.
The PROST Plan provides both policy recommendations along with the results of a small
residential survey. The survey results showed that hiking/walking was the number one activity
among all age groups, followed by biking and cross country skiing. When asked to select the top
three recreational facilities used, residents selected trails, parks, and open space in that order.
The survey also noted, “When asked to think of a recommendation to improve the City’s
recreation opportunities, more and/or better trails was the most frequently listed response.”
Respondents also selected trails as the top “additional” recreation facility they wanted to see and
that “more and/or better trails” should be the highest priority of the City.
On the policy and goals side, PROST identifies the establishment of “regular and sufficient
funding sources to acquire, develop, and maintain public parks, trails, and recreational facilities”
as a top goal (#3). Other related goals include expanded public accessibility (1), partnerships
with local groups and the school district (4), connections of existing and expanded trails (5),
usability and proper location of facilities (6), and planning for acquiring or preserving significant
open space and expanding the City’s trails system (10).
Under its Recommendations in Chapter 10, PROST calls for expanding the parks and trails
system, making sure that it reaches underserved areas of the City, and exploring an open space
bond. The PROST plan also states that an open space bond would provide the opportunity for
the City to be proactive in the selection and purchase of land for the purpose of connecting trails
and placing sports facilities where they make the most sense; both for need and cost.
Last summer, as noted in the Summary above, responding to inquiries from a number of citizens,
the City Commission unanimously requested technical advice from the Trust for Public Land
(TPL) on a number of fiscal and legal issues surrounding a potential bond. TPL prepared a
background report, met with all five City Commissioners, and the report also was shared with
City Staff.
118
4
Since then, the City Commission has made a possible parks and trails bond a priority for this
year, and a number of Bozeman groups, individual citizens, and business leaders representing a
variety of outdoor recreation uses (including organized sports such as soccer, rugby, and
lacrosse; trail users; bikers; skiers; those interested in Bozeman Creek; etc.) have met a number
of times with City Staff from the Parks Department along with several Commissioners. Also, the
proposed fiscal year 2013 budget highlights a number of objectives for the Parks Department
including to “acquire and develop new parks,” “providing an adequate number of sports fields,”
“to continue adding, upgrading, and maintaining safe, quality sports fields and equipment,” and
“to improve, maintain, and expand the trail system.”
NEED, PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS
City Staff note that Montana cities average roughly twenty acres of parkland per 1,000 people
and Bozeman currently has roughly 19 acres per 1,000 people within City limits.
As noted earlier, the PROST plan calls for expanding the capacity of the City’s parks and trails.
For example, in Chapter 7, the PROST plan recommends making trail connections where we
have gaps. In Chapter 10 it recommends more Dog Parks and Multi-Use fields under the Top
Ten Capital Facility Recommendations. Under the Top Ten Non-Facility Recommendations it
lists “Evaluate and implement new methods of acquiring and improving park land.” City Staff
also have identified a “real weakness” in the City’s east to west trail connections and also the
desire to make connections between the Bozeman Pond, Rose Park, and the Regional Park.
[Note: This also could allow us to connect with a pathway to Belgrade, which is identified as a
priority in the PROST plan and could be done in partnership with that city and Gallatin County.]
City Staff also recommend possibly looking at how to complete the connections from Bozeman
to the “M” and to the Gallatin Range.
Bozeman also is hampered in our ability to host large outdoor sports tournaments in Bozeman
because of the lack of fields and adequate facilities. Bozeman has had good success in bringing
indoor tournaments to the City, but not as much for similar outdoor events. As an example of
this need, the recently submitted budget proposal for the Bozeman Tourism Business
Improvement District (TBID) identified a number of strengths and challenges facing the
community, and highlighted “limited sport/event fields and facilities” as one of the missed
opportunities in Bozeman.
Public Health and Safety
As noted earlier, additional and improved parks and trails will provide significant public health
benefits, provide adequate space for children and families to play, and will provide safer routes
to schools and to places of work. Studies show that families who live closer to parks and trails
have decreased rates of obesity and related diseases. Completing trail connections also provides
expanded non-motorized transportation routes, which can especially benefit children by
providing safe routes to school, and the underserved portion of our population that does not or
cannot drive motor vehicles.
Economics
This section discusses the economic value of parks and trails, notes what other Montana cities
are doing, and evaluates the impact of parks and trails as part of a higher quality of life that helps
retain and attract new businesses, and increase real estate values. As noted immediately above,
the expansion of parks, trails, and fields also should help expand tourism to the region through
119
5
increased sports tournaments. Similar communities have seen significant revenue to local
businesses as a result of outdoor athletic tournaments.
The City’s Economic Development Plan (http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/06/064cfc00-
949e-4e95-ab82-2c05a4ae0b55.pdf) repeatedly notes the importance of Bozeman maintaining
and building upon its high quality of life as both an economic attractant and as a way to help
existing businesses grow and prosper. The plan notes a number of advantages Bozeman already
has compared to other cities—such as the historic Downtown, Montana State University, the
hospital, retail center, and good school s ystem.
One of the priorities of the city’s economic plan is to continue attracting new economy firms—
businesses which could be located anywhere in the United State but choose to locate and/or
expand in Bozeman because of the region’s high quality of life and other factors. Parks, trails,
and recreation fields are part of this equation, and other cities, such as Helena and Missoula,
have already passed bonds to expand and improve their outdoor recreation.
Also, the Billings Chamber of Commerce recently set five strategic priorities for 2011-2012, one
of which is to “develop the Billings trail system for the economic and healthy community
benefits that result from active transportation (to work and school and for leisure). The Board,
staff and Trails Committee members will help communicate the quality of life and economic
benefits of trails.” (http://billingschamber.com/site/annual-priorities/)
Business and academic literature is increasingly citing the importance of quality of life for 21st
Century growth. For example, a study done at the University of North Carolina for the U.S.
Department of Commerce found that:
Traditionally, the location decisions of firms have been driven primarily by
factors such as land costs, labor costs and access to materials and markets.
Today, however, quality of life for employees is becoming an important factor
as well, particularly for knowledge–based industries such as
telecommunications, computers, entertainment, and biotechnology that are part
of the so–called New Economy….
An increasing number of firms are seeking locations that will attract and retain a
well–educated work force. Thus, areas offering cultural and recreational
amenities (e.g., theaters and bike trails) could have a competitive advantage over
places that do not. (The Importance of Quality of Life in the Location Decisions
of New Economy Firms)
Another study found similar results, noting that “quality of life has a major impact on a place’s
ability to attract well-educated and talented workers.” The report, How Cities Use Parks for
Economic Development, further states in its executive summary that:
Parks provide intrinsic environmental, aesthetic, and recreation benefits to our
cities. They are also a source of positive economic benefits. They enhance
property values, increase municipal revenue, bring in homebuyers and workers,
and attract retirees. At the bottom line, parks are a good financial investment for
a community. Understanding the economic impacts of parks can help decision
makers better evaluate the creation and maintenance of urban parks.
120
6
The importance of quality of life as an economic driver can be seen locally in the results of the
Economic Summit held in Bozeman earlier this year. Business leaders attending the summit
highlighted three assets and positive attributes of our community. In addition to education and
diversified economy, the number one attribute was broadly described as “quality of life” which
included recreational opportunities, cultural and natural amenities, and other factors.
Numerous other studies also have shown that parks and open space increase the value of
neighboring residential property. For example, a study completed earlier this year, The
Economic Benefits of Open Space and Trails in Pinal County, Arizona, found that “Parks and
protected open space increase the value of nearby residential properties because people like
living close to parks and protected open spaces and are willing to pay for the privilege.”
Most similar studies have found that preserving open space land generally, but not always,
increases the property value of nearby homes. The studies use a variety of methods to determine
this, and consider such variables as the type, location, and use of the open space, (large rural
areas or city parks; passive vs. active recreational use) and the distance between the open space
property and the residential property in question.
Three additional reports summarize the methodology and results of these studies: The Impact of
Parks and Open Space on Property Values and the Property Tax Base, commissioned by the
National Recreation and Park Association; The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of
Nonmarket Benefits, by Resources for the Future, a national nonprofit organization; and
Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway Corridors, prepared for the
National Park Service.
According to the Impact report, the economic contributions of public park land and open space
are twofold: first, they often increase nearby property values (resulting in more property tax
revenue to the town). Second, the town avoids costs associated with providing municipal
services to a residential development that might otherwise be located on the site.
The Impact report notes that “the real estate market consistently demonstrates that many people
are willing to pay a larger amount for a property located close to parks and open space areas than
for a home that does not offer this amenity.” The Impact report reviewed 25 studies on the
impact of parks and trails to residential values and found that 20 of the results showed an
increase.
The Rivers, Trails and Greenways study states that the real estate industry found that 77.7
percent of home buyers and shoppers rated natural open space as either “essential” or “very
important” in planned communities. The Rivers, Trails and Greenways study also notes that
increases in property values depend upon the ability of developers and planners to minimize
potential homeowner-park use conflicts and provide access to the open space and the views it
offers.
The Impact report carefully cautions that is hard to quantify the impact of open space on property
values because of the many different types and uses of open space, the various uses of the land
surrounding them, and other factors. That said, the report then states that a 20 percent increase in
value for property adjoining or fronting a passive-use park is “a reasonable starting point.” The
increase is higher if the park is large, well maintained and primarily used for passive purposes,
such as hiking. The increase is lower for property that abuts smaller open space tracts or open
121
7
space used for active recreation, such as ball fields. Distance from the open space also plays a
role. Property owners living closer to open space enjoy a greater benefit than those whose homes
are further away.
POSSIBLE PROJECTS, COST OF LAND, BORROWING, EXISTING COUNTY BOND
This section lists a sample of possible projects that could be funded by a bond:
• Trail connections that close critical gaps to make our system safer, provide safer routes to
schools, and create more access to our parks;
• Improvements to parks and trails that will help protect Bozeman Creek, such as
redesigning Bogert Park;
• Expansion of existing parks to enhance recreational opportunities;
• The development of athletic fields to draw in larger tournaments, creating a new
economic benefit for our community;
• Purchase the East Gallatin Recreation Area if the state decides to liquidate it;
• Expansion of the Bozeman Pond park and trail system;
• Development of East-West trail connections to provide expanded non-motorized
transportation options; and
• Creation of neighborhood parks in the newest parts of town, where “pocket” or linear
parks created through new developments are not adequate to meet the community’s
needs.
Low Land and Borrowing Costs
Now is a good time to buy land because of relatively low prices; which are sometimes half, or
even less, than what they were five or six years ago. Land prices may differ for a variety of
reasons, but as the Chronicle noted in a March 4, 2012 story: “The school district recently paid
$27,500 per acre to buy land for a new elementary school. In the past, the district paid twice as
much, $52,500 an acre for a future high school site and $90,000 an acre for the new Chief Joseph
Middle School site.”
In addition, borrowing costs also are low, often at less than three percent. The recent refinancing
of a number of the City’s debt obligations to save money by capturing significantly lower
interest rate shows the benefits of borrowing at current rates.
City Bond-County Bond
This proposed bond would be City only, and a number of City residents have asked about how
this is different from the Gallatin Open Space Measures passed in 2000 and 2004. Funds from
the Gallatin County Open Space Measure were used across the County, including the 100-acre
park, but predominantly for the acquisition of conservation easements to protect open spaces
within the County, primarily working farms and ranchland. Funds from the Bozeman measure
will be focused on purchasing land from willing sellers for the benefit of Bozeman residents, and
with public access to all citizens, with the emphasis on protecting water quality and natural areas,
and the creation and improvement of trails, parkland, and outdoor recreation opportunities.
PUBLIC SUPPORT AND PARTNERSHIPS
Details of the public survey from the 2007 PROST plan were discussed earlier. In addition, the
Recreation and Parks Board has voted in support of this proposed bond measure in May 2012.
In addition, there is strong public support for a bond. Earlier this year, a number of parks and
trails supporters, groups, and businesses raised private funds to pay for a poll by Public Opinion
122
8
Strategies, a nationally recognized polling firm that conducts surveys for the Wall Street Journal
and many other outlets.
That poll showed two-to-one support for a bond, either for $10 million or for $15 million, and
that residents “connect these investments to protecting their quality of life.” The poll also
showed that “initial solid support levels became more intense and stronger as voters learned
more” about the costs, benefits, and possible operation of a bond.
The pollster’s memo is attached. Highlights include:
• The Numbers: Given sample bond language 62% indicate they will vote yes in support
of the $10 million measure and 69% yes in support of the $15 million measure. More
than one-quarter in either case indicate they will “definitely” vote Yes. One-quarter or
fewer (25% and 19% respectively) say they would oppose the measure.
• Support is broad-based and wide-spread. Given the lack of significant distinction
between the two amounts tested, we can combine the samples and examine sub-groups as
a whole. There is significant support among many key sub-groups, including…
o Men (65% Yes) and women (60%);
o Younger voters under age 45 (70%), age 45-54 (58%), age 55-64 (64%) and
seniors (56%); and
o Parents (61%) and those without children at home (68%).
• Voters respond positively to a range of ways funds are used in their community.
Proposals such as preserving water quality, protecting the community’s quality of life,
improving trails, preserving natural areas, and improving natural parks all scored highly.
• Managing the funding: City residents have confidence in the City to manage these
funds well. Nearly three-quarters (74%) say that they are either very confident (19%) or
somewhat confident (55%) that the city would handle these funds well.
• Accountability provisions incorporated into the ballot language would make voters
more likely to support the measure. Issues such as requiring that funds be used solely
for parks, trails, and natural areas; an annual audit; the review of a local citizens
committee; and an automatic sunset all gave respondents more confidence the funding
would be used wisely.
• In summary, “Bozeman residents are supportive of a measure which would bond to fund
trails, natural areas, water quality and areas for outdoor recreation. Residents make the
connection between these elements and their good quality of life and want to see that
maintained.”
Local Groups and Partnerships
As noted earlier, a number of local groups have been meeting and have expressed interest in the
possibility of a parks, trails, and recreation fields bond. The PROST plan calls for increased
partnerships, both with local groups and with the schools. Existing partnerships, such as that
with the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, Rotary Club, Optimists, and other civic groups, already
provide volunteer support to the City’s parks and trails. Recently, a number of Bozeman groups
have expressed interest in the idea of potential partnerships that would save and stretch taxpayer
dollars. For example, several outdoor recreation groups (soccer, rugby, lacrosse, etc) are
exploring the idea of signing an MOU with the City to provide some or all maintenance for new
or upgraded recreation fields.
123
9
In addition, a number of landowners—whether families, businesses, or banks—have indicated
that they would be receptive to selling land now and working with the City and others to secure a
fair and reasonable return on taxpayer dollars.
Some of the user groups, businesses, and organizations that have expressed interest in this
concept include:
Big Sky Wind Drinkers
Blitzz Soccer Club
Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Bozeman Creek Enhancement Project
Bozeman Women’s Activity Group
Bridger Ski Foundation
Gallatin Valley Lacrosse
Gallatin Valley Land Trust
GallEP
Montana Conservation Voters (Gallatin/Park Chapter)
Northern Lights Trading Company
Oboz Footwear
REI
Run Dog, Run
Sonoran Institute
Trust for Public Land
Wilderness & Recreation Partnership
HOW IT WOULD WORK
This section discusses how a possible bond would work and related details. In addition, the bond
counsel who assisted the City in refinancing its current bonds will attend the Commission
meeting and will be able to answer additional questions that may arise. One advantage of a bond
is that the language of the ballot measure authorizing the bond restricts money only to be used
for explicit, clear purposes.
Note: The City Attorney provides the information in this next section related to the legal
authority for the sale of bonds. If the Commission decides to move forward additional legal
review will be required. Please note, the City has retained outside bond counsel to assist the City
should the Commission move forward.
There are two statutory frameworks that provide authority to call for an election for the sale of
bonds to support parks and trails: Title 7, Chpt. 16, Part 41, MCA (cultural/social/recreational
facilities) and the Montana Open Space Act (Title 76, Chpt. 6, MCA). Examples of using both
frameworks for bonding by Bozeman and other Montana cities are attached to this memo.
Generally, the first option (Title 7, Chpt. 16) has been used for structures and the second option
(Title 76, Chpt. 6) has been used for parks, trails, water quality, and open space bonds.
Examples of other bonds:
• Gallatin County open space bond 2004
• City of Helena open space bond 1996;
• Missoula County/City open space bond 2006;
• City of Kalispell pool bond 2002;
124
10
• Bozeman Public Library bond sale 2001; and
• Missoula aquatics facilities 2003.
The first part of this section discusses these two frameworks including the scope of projects that
could be funded and the statutory limits on indebtedness. The next part of the memo will discuss
generally the process for selling general obligation bonds.
I. Specific Statutory Authorization For the Sale of Bonds to Fund Parks/Trails
Montana law provides two statutory frameworks authorizing the issuance of general obligation
bonds to provide funding for the purchase of lands or rights-of-way for parks and trails and for
the purposes identified in the sample ballot language [included at end of memo].
a. Title 7, Chpt, 16, Part 41, MCA (Cultural, Social, and Recreational Facilities)
Sect. 7-16-4104, MCA, provides specific authority for a municipality to “contract an
indebtedness… by issuing bonds:”
7-16-4104. Authorization for municipal indebtedness for various cultural, social, and
recreational purposes. (1) A city or town council or commission may contract an indebtedness
on behalf of the city or town, upon the credit of the city or town, by borrowing money or issuing
bonds:
(a) for the purpose of purchasing and improving lands for public parks and grounds;
(b) for procuring by purchase, construction, or otherwise a swimming pool facility, athletic
field, skating rink, playground, museum, golf course, site and building for a civic center, youth
center, or any combination of these facilities; and
(c) for furnishing, equipping, repairing, or rehabilitating a swimming pool facility, athletic
field, skating rink, playground, museum, golf course, civic center, or youth center.
(2) (a) The total amount of indebtedness authorized to be contracted in any form, including the
existing indebtedness, may not at any time exceed 0.9% of the total assessed value of taxable
property, determined as provided in 15-8-111, within the city or town, as ascertained by the last
assessment for state and county taxes prior to the incurring of the indebtedness.
(b) Money may not be borrowed for any purpose on bonds issued for the purchase of lands and
improving the land until the proposition has been submitted to the vote of the qualified electors of
the city or town and a majority vote is cast in favor of the proposition.
The above statute specifically allows the sale of bonds for three distinct purposes: (i) purchasing
and improving lands for public parks and grounds; (ii) for procuring by purchase, construction,
or otherwise a swimming pool facility, athletic field, skating rink, playground, museum, golf
course, site and building for a civic center, youth center, or any combination of these facilities;
and (iii) for furnishing, equipping, repairing, or rehabilitating a swimming pool facility, athletic
field, skating rink, playground, museum, golf course, civic center, or youth center.
The City Commission may rely upon the authority granted to it by this section to adopt a
resolution putting before the voters the question of whether to sell bonds for park and trail
purposes. It is important to note this provision authorizes only the purchase and improving of
lands for parks, the purchase or construction of the types of active recreational facilities listed in
subsection (1)(b) and for furnishing, equipping, repairing, or rehabilitating the facilities listed in
subsection (1)(c).
If this part is to provide the authority for issuing of bonds the language of the ballot must
necessarily reflect the statutory provisions and the use of bond proceeds will be limited to the
purposes enumerated in this part or as further restricted by the ballot language.
125
11
While this part of the MCA does not include the term “maintenance” it allows for furnishing,
equipping, repairing, or rehabilitating those facilities listed in subsection (1)(c). In 1986,
Montana Attorney General Greely stated, in referring to a previous version of 7-16-4104, which
at that time did not authorize repair or maintenance, “The word ‘maintenance’ has been held to
be synonymous with ‘repair.’” 41 Mont. Op. Atty. Gen. 301 (1986) (internal citations omitted).
As you can see, the Legislature later amended 7-16-4104 to include the terms repair and
rehabilitation. As such, it appears the addition of the term “repair” into 7-16-4104(1)(c), MCA,
authorizes the use of bond proceeds for maintenance of the facilities enumerated in subsection
(1)(c): a swimming pool facility, athletic fields, skating rinks, playgrounds, museums, golf
courses, a civic center, or a youth center. If the Commission is interested in using 7-16-4104 as
the authority to sell bonds for parks and trails, the City Attorney requests the ability to further
research the authority to use bond proceeds for “repair and rehabilitation.”
Pursuant to Sect. 7-16-4104(2), MCA, the amount of indebtedness the City will be limited to
authorizing in its sale of bonds is 0.9% of the “total assessed value of taxable property,
determined as provided in Sect. 15-8-111 [MCA] within the city or town…” According to the
State of Montana Department of Revenue, the “total assessed value of taxable property” is
equivalent to the “taxable market value.” As such, 0.9% of the taxable market value for
FY2012 is $26,955,000.
The City does not currently have any outstanding indebtedness under this provision of Montana
law. As such, all of this indebtedness capacity is currently available. However, if the
Commission moves forward with adopting a resolution to put the sale of bonds before the voters
the Commission should engage bond counsel to not only oversee the process, provide an opinion
on specific ballot language, but also to opine on the following question:
• Is the 0.9% limit provided for in 7-1-4104(2), MCA, in addition to or subject to
the bond limit provided for in Sect. 7-7-4201, MCA (restricting a city or town
from issuing bonds or incurring other indebtedness for any purpose in an amount
that with all outstanding and unpaid indebtedness exceeds 2.5% of the total
assessed value of taxable property).
b. The Montana Open-Space Land and Voluntary Conservation Easement Act
(Title 76, Chpt. 6, MCA) (the “Open Space Act”)
The Open Space Act provides specific authority to local governments to issue “for the purposes
of [the Open Space Act] general obligation bonds in the manner and within the limitations
prescribed by the applicable laws of the state…” 76-6-109(2), MCA.
The purposes of the chapter are listed in 76-6-103, MCA, and include “provid[ing] for the
preservation of… open space land…” 76-6-103(2), MCA. The term “open space lands” is
defined in the Open Space Act:
(3) "Open-space land" means any land which is provided or preserved for:
(a) park or recreational purposes;
(b) conservation of land or other natural resources;
126
12
(c) historic or scenic purposes; or
(d) assisting in the shaping of the character, direction, and timing of community
development.
76-6-103, MCA.
As such, the proceeds of a bond sale authorized under the Open Space Act can be used for “park
and recreational purposes.”
In 1996, the voters of the City of Helena authorized the sale of bonds under the authority of the
Open Space Act. The City of Helena requested an Attorney General opinion on the use of bond
proceeds “for the purpose of purchasing and improving lands for public parks and grounds, as
well as for the purchase and construction of athletic fields.” 47 Mont. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 8
(1997). The first question was whether the Open Space Act authorized the use of proceeds from
the sale of bonds for such purposes or, rather, should the City of Helena have relied upon the
provisions discussed above under 7-16-4104, MCA. Attorney General Mazurek noted first the
resolution put before the voters cited to the Open Space Act and after analyzing the provisions of
the Open Space Act determined “the restrictions in 7-16-4104 do not apply.” Id.
The City of Helena also inquired as to whether the proceeds from the sale of bonds could be used
for maintenance of lands purchased with bond money. The Attorney General noted 76-6-
109(1)(e) authorizes the use of proceeds from the sale of bonds for maintenance, operation, and
repair and thus stated Open Space Act bond proceeds could be used for maintenance of land
acquired “by the expenditure of the bond proceeds.” The Attorney General cautiously noted the
City of Helena did not inquire “as to expenditure of bond proceeds to maintain open-space land
not acquired by expenditure of bond proceeds” and therefore specifically expressed no opinion
on the matter. Id.
As for the limit on indebtedness, the amount of indebtedness that can be assumed under
the Open Space Act limit is the general indebtedness limit for the City found at 7-7-4201,
MCA. As of FY2012, that debt limit is $70,249,000.00 (see table below).
If the Open Space Act is to provide the authority for issuing of bonds the language of the ballot
must necessarily reflect the statutory provisions and the use of bond proceeds will be limited to
the purposes enumerated in the Open Space Act or as further restricted by the ballot language.
127
13
Legal Debt Limit—G.O. Estimated June 30,
2012
Statutory G.O Debt Limit—2.5% of Valuation $74,875,000
Less: Outstanding GO Bonds (being refinanced as we
speak, could go lower)
Library, Series 1 & 2 ($2,310,000)
Transportation ($810,000)
($3,120,000)
Less: Loans Payable
Fire Station #3 ($234,000, could be lower depending on
impact fees)
South 8th Ave ($1,272,000)
($1,506,000)
Plus: Fund Balances Reserved for Debt Payment -
Equals: Legal Debt Margin $70,249,000
The anticipated legal debt margin as of June 30, 2013 will be $72.7 million.
II. Procedures for Selling General Obligation Bonds
Note: The City Attorney also provided the information in this section.
Regardless of the specific authority the Commission chooses to rely upon as discussed above, the
City will be subject to and must follow the requirements of Title 7, Chpt. 7, Parts 41 and 42,
MCA, as it sells general obligation bonds.
The limit on indebtedness has been discussed above.
Bonds may not be issued for a period of longer than 20 years. 7-7-4205.
Whenever the City Commission considers it necessary to issue bonds that pledge the general
credit of the city for any purpose authorized by law, the question of issuing the bonds must be
submitted to the registered electors of the City. 7-7-4221.
To call the election, the Commission must adopt a resolution or a valid petition meeting the
requirements of the law must be presented to the City Clerk. 7-7-4223.
The resolution must comply with the requirements of 7-7-4226(2), MCA. Specifically, the
resolution must:
(a) recite the purpose or purposes for which it is proposed to issue the bonds;
(b) fix the amount of bonds to be issued for each purpose;
(c) determine the number of years through which the bonds are to be paid, not exceeding the
limits fixed in 7-7-4205; and
(d) unless the bonds are revenue bonds not pledging the general credit of the municipality,
make provisions that are necessary for submitting the question to the registered electors of the
city or town at the next general city or town election, at an election that is conducted by mail
ballot, as provided in Title 13, chapter 19, or at a special election that is held in conjunction with
a regular or primary election and that the governing body may call for the purpose.
128
14
Under 7-7-4226(2)(d), the resolution must contain the specific ballot language the Commission
that will be presented to the voters. If the Commission moves forward and adopts a resolution,
the Commission can put the question to the voters at the federal/state regular election to be held
on November 6, 2012. That election will be a special election of the City. Only a simple majority
of the Commission is required to put the question of selling general obligation bonds before the
electors. The deadline for transmitting the resolution containing ballot language to the Gallatin
County Clerk and Recorder/Election Administrator is August 13, 2012. As such, the
Commission’s last date to take action on a resolution will be August 6, 2012.
After adoption of the resolution described above, the City must give “separate notice of the
election.” 7-7-4227. The notice must contain specific information. 7-7-4227(2) and must be
published and posted. 7-7-4227(3).
A majority of votes cast at the election determines whether the voters approved or rejected the
bond proposition. 7-7-4235.
After the election, the staff will work with bond counsel to prepare resolutions and to sell the
bonds pursuant to the procedures of 7-7-4251 – 4261.
If the voters approve the sale of bonds and the bonds are sold, the Commission must, “at the time
of making the levy of taxes for general city [] purposes… levy a separate and special tax upon all
taxable property in the city…” 7-7-4265. If the sale of bonds is through the Open Space Act,
certain types of real property may not be taxed. See 76-6-109(3), MCA (prohibiting the levy of
property taxes under the Open Space Act to agricultural and forest land and certain
improvements thereon).
COSTS, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PRIORITIES
The table immediately below estimates annual costs to a “typical household” for both a $10
million and $15 million bond. See the notes and subsequent tables for further clarification on
costs to taxpayers over the life of the bond.
Estimated Typical
Household
Current 20 yrs, 3%
Tax Per Year Cost Per Mill Mills Mill Value Annual Debt Service Total Bond Issue
$ 44.47 $ 3.71 11.99 $ 83,769.00 $ 1,004,000.00 $15 Million
$ 29.67 $ 3.71 8.00 $ 83,769.00 $ 670,000.00 $10 Million
These are strictly estimates. The 20 Year Muni Bond Scale is at 2.82% today.
What will be the continued tax levy effect of the bond issue, for Bozeman property tax payers
after the first year? Because Bozeman’s tax base continues to grow each year, a declining
amount of taxes for debt service would be needed from each property owner. The City will have
more properties to share the burden of paying for the bonds. For instance, assuming a two
percent growth in taxable value for each year after the first year; the tax per year from a typical
residence would decrease approximately 9.5% from the first year amount during the first five
years.
129
15
Estimated Change in Tax Per Year on Typical Resident, $10M Example
Estimated
Tax Per Year
Typical
Cost Per
Mill Mills
Estimated
Mill Value, 2%
Growth
20 yrs, 3%
Annual Debt
Service
Total Bond
Issue
FY13 $29.67 3.71 8.00 $83,769.00 $670,000.00 $10 Million
FY14 $29.09 3.71 7.84 $85,444.38 $670,000.00 $10 Million
FY15 $28.52 3.71 7.69 $87,153.27 $670,000.00 $10 Million
FY16 $27.96 3.71 7.54 $88,896.33 $670,000.00 $10 Million
FY17 $ 27.41 3.71 7.39 $90,674.26 $670,000.00 $10 Million
FY18 $ 26.88 3.71 7.24 $92,487.74 $670,000.00 $10 Million
How will interest rates and other market factors influence the bond sale(s)?
That being said, the voters (tax levy) each year will pay off the debt that has been issued. If the
first couple of years have less than $10 million outstanding, the tax levy will be proportionally
less, until the full amount of bonds are issued.
If passed, the City
will be asking the voters to approve a total Face Value of bonds to be issued. For instance,
“Approve $10 Million in General Obligation Bonds…” When the voters approve this type of
ballot measure, they are obligating themselves to pay back the face value of the bonds, PLUS
interest over the life of the bonds at the market rate of interest when the bonds are issued. The
interest rate market will not affect the total amount of money available to the program, but it will
affect the amount of taxes necessary to pay off the debt each year. Because of some IRS rules,
Finance Director Rosenberry reports that the City would want to time the issuance of the bonds
so that we do not have large sums of bond money on hand for years on end, unspent on
parks/trails. If approved for $10 million, for example, we may potentially have two or three
bond sales ($2-4M each) to coincide with how we plan to spend the money.
Maintenance
The proposed bond measure focuses primarily on acquiring land because this is an historic
opportunity to purchase land for low cost and at favorable financing—and waiting could make
future purchases significantly more costly or even cost prohibitive. This does not mean that the
City cannot take seriously the need to properly maintain its parks and trail system. Currently, the
City does this annually through a process designed to make sure that the maintenance budget is
targeted and well-spent while working with volunteers to keep costs down.
This section first reviews current maintenance issues, outlines options for future maintenance,
and then lists costs of maintaining various park units to provide a general understanding of costs
and potential future expenditures.
The 2007 PROST plan noted that “City residents are largely satisfied with park maintenance;
with 86 percent of respondents indicating that park maintenance is Excellent (12 percent), Good
(43 percent) or Adequate (31 percent).”
In terms of staffing, Missoula currently runs its Park Division with 20+ FTEs. By comparison
Bozeman has less than 14 and the FY 2013 budget recommends 11.77 FTEs for the Parks
Department. From staff conversations with Missoula, that city maintains 356 acres with a budget
of $1.3 million, or roughly $3651/acre. Bozeman spends approximately $2740/acre. This recent
example corresponds with the PROST study from 2007 which found that “The average park
130
16
budget per resident for all peer communities is $47.07. Bozeman’s park budget per resident of
$37.90 lags significantly behind.”
Clearly, City Commissioners must consider future maintenance options. One choice could be to
continue the current practice of allocating funds for maintenance annually, and these funds could
expand as trails, parks or other lands were brought into the City system. The costs of
maintenance are well-known by staff (see details below) and funding could be appropriated
accurately on an annual basis to meet the increased need, factoring in differing costs for various
parks types, any maintenance partnerships, and other factors.
The other option would be to conduct maintenance through one of the two bond options
mentioned above. As the memo noted, the Title 7, Chpt. 16, Part 41, MCA
(cultural/social/recreational facilities) option would require clarification of what’s eligible for
possible maintenance beyond athletic fields. The second option, the Montana Open Space Act
(Title 76, Chpt. 6, MCA), would allow for maintenance of lands acquired “by the expenditure of
the bond proceeds.” So any additional lands—whether parks, trails, creek corridors, or
recreation fields—could be maintained through the bond funding. The maintenance issue is
highlighted again at the end of the memo, and an approach to maintenance should be clarified by
Commissioners as part of the larger discussion.
Maintenance Costs Summary:
Typical
Parkland Athletic Fields
Direct
Cost/Acre
Annual
Frequency
total
cost/acre/year Annual Frequency
total
cost/acre/year
Mowing $40 20 $800 40 $1,600
Aeration $52 0
- 2 $104
Fertilization $121 1.5 $182 3.5 $424
Herbicide $64 0.5 $32 2 $128
Overseeding $460 0
- 1 $460
Total
cost/acre/year $1,014 $2,716
Staff
hours/Park
#
Occurrences
Staff Hourly
Rate Total Cost/park
Garbage/Restroom
Mgmt 2.0 112 15 3360
Irrigation
Maintenance 60.0 1 15 900
This table is meant as an overall summary to compare costs. Garbage/restroom management is
daily for 16 weeks in the summer. Staff hours vary from 0.5 - 4 hours/park. Irrigation
maintenance varies for individual parks.
131
17
Other Priorities
The City always will be facing competing priorities for funding. Investing now to protect our
quality of life will benefit our families, businesses, and future generations. Taking steps to
improve trails, parks, and outdoor recreation are long-standing priorities that can be
accomplished today when we can stretch taxpayer dollars further, and engage in a number of
partnerships. Parks and trails are part of our City’s infrastructure and transportation network,
and no other substantial, on-going funding mechanisms currently exist to expand parks and trails.
That said, the timing and budgetary situation also allows for the City to pursue this bond while
still pursuing additional actions on other priorities in the coming years. The Municipal Courts
and Police Facility, replacing Bogert Park outdoor pool, the results of the Recreation/Aquatics
Facility Feasibility Study, and the current Capital Improvements Program are all items that can
and must be addressed and prioritized by the City.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND METRICS
The City should explore establishing a citizen’s advisory group—either as part of the Recreation
and Parks Advisory Board or as a new entity—made up of citizens with a variety of backgrounds
with expertise in financial and accounting issues, parks and trails, development, and other related
fields to perform proper oversight. That group, in collaboration with City Staff and under review
of the City Commission, should develop a process that incorporates public hearings and
transparent metrics by which projects would be measured and evaluated.
The ballot language itself will require that funds are to be used solely for acquiring and
improving parks, trails stream corridors, and natural areas and cannot be used for any other
purpose. The language also could specify maintenance issues. In addition, the ballot language
should create the oversight board, to which all City regulations would pertain such as open,
noticed meetings held to evaluate projects based on publicized criteria and metrics. The
oversight group would make recommendations to the Bozeman City Commission on all
expenditures, and the City Commission also would hold open, noticed meetings and votes before
any final action could be taken. Also important, all revenues and expenditures will be subject to
an annual public audit, report, and review.
QUESTIONS, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND SUGGESTED MOTION
Questions
Should the Commission wish to proceed; the following discussion will direct the determination
of whether the Commission desires to proceed under Title 7 (recreation/culture/social) or Title
76 (Open Lands Act) and also will influence the ballot language placed before voters.
1) The types of projects that will be funded with the proceeds of a bond sale. This would
include:
o Real property purchases;
o Purchases of easements or other legal entitlements to use real property (e.g. a
lease such as exists on the Story Mill Spur Trail);
2) Should the real property purchased or the rights-of-way obtained be limited to those
within the City or will the City be authorized to purchase real property interests outside
of the City?
3) What types of improvements to the real property/rights-of-way purchased with bond
proceeds should the bond proceeds fund?
132
18
4) Does the Commission want to fund improvements with bond proceeds to lands NOT
acquired with bond proceeds?
5) Will the Commission be interested in using bond proceeds for maintenance of existing
and/or property interests obtained with bond proceeds?
6) Will all acquired property interests purchased require public access?
7) The Commission may want to determine at this time the specific dollar amount of bonds
to be sold;
8) How does the Commission want to structure the administration of the trails/park bond
program?
a. Creation of an advisory board;
b. Role of the Commission in approving purchases/acquisitions (final decision at a
public hearing);
c. Metrics for purchases: how will the advisory group and the Commission evaluate
and prioritize proposals? Who is eligible to bring forward proposals? This could
be done AFTER the election if successful.
d. Independent annual audits;
e. City staff assigned/necessary to manage the program and lands acquired;
f. Current municipal code provisions on purchase of real property will apply – does
the Commission want to alter those existing requirements (2.06.860, BMC)?
Sec. 2.06.860. - Appraisal required for certain purchases of real
property or conservation easements. Unless otherwise provided
by law, the city may not purchase real property in an amount in
excess of $200,000.00 or a conservation easement using public
funds in an amount in excess of $40,000.00 unless the value of the
property or conservation easement has been previously estimated by
a disinterested certified general real estate appraiser selected by the
city manager.
9) Additional information the Commission requires to be provided by staff prior to or at the
hearing on the resolution authorizing the election on the sale of bonds;
10) Other issues:
a. Who is eligible to vote: the law states that “registered electors” are those eligible
to vote.
b. Can public bond proceeds be used to acquire interests in real property that would
be held by a qualifying nonprofit, e.g. GVLT?
c. Legal issue raised earlier in the City Attorney’s section of the memo concerning
the two bonding authorities.
Next Steps
Tentative Schedule:
• June 18th Commission action item directing staff to move forward (and retain
bond counsel);
• July 16th Resolution before the Commission; and
• Last meeting to approve: August 6th.
133
19
Possible Ballot Language:
Shall the City Commission of Bozeman be authorized to issue and sell general
obligation bonds of the City up to [Ten Million and No/100Dollars
($10,000,000)/Fifteen Million and No/100 Dollars ($15,000,000)], for the purpose of
any one or more of the following but no other reasons: protecting lands that preserve
water quality in rivers, creeks and streams, preserving natural areas, creating and
improving trails, parks and recreation areas, and preserving Bozeman’s quality of life)
with all expenditures subject to yearly independent audits and based on the
recommendations of the Parks Advisory Board, which bonds shall bear interest at a rate
to be determined by the City Commission, payable semiannually during a term not to
exceed twenty (20) years.
The estimated annual tax upon the issuance of the full [Ten Million and No/100Dollars
($10,000,000)/Fifteen Million and No/100 Dollars ($15,000,000)] in bonds, assuming a
3.0% interest rate per annum on the bonds for 20 years and based on the current
assessed value of property in the City that would be subject to taxation to pay the debt
service on the bonds, is estimated be $xx for a home with an assessed value of $100,000
and $yy for a home with an assessed value of $200,000.
Suggested Motion:
I move to direct staff to work with bond counsel to draft a resolution for Commission approval
on July 16th placing the question of selling $____ worth of general obligation bonds before the
registered electors of the City of Bozeman at the November 6, 2012 election under the authority
of [insert “Title 7, MCA (recreation purposes” or Title 76, MCA (Open Space Act”)] for the
purposes of the following [insert specific language here on the scope of use of the funds].
The scope language can, of course, be amended at the hearing on the resolution but City Staff
need guidance from the Commission to draft the resolution.
134
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND
FROM: LORI WEIGEL / PARTNER / PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2012
RE: KEY FINDINGS FROM A SURVEY OF BOZEMAN RESIDENTS REGARDING SUPPORT
FOR BOND MEASURE TO FUND TRAILS, NATURAL AREAS, WATER QUALITY AND
OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS
Public Opinion Strategies recently completed a survey of voters in the City of Bozeman
regarding their support for an extension of the current tax which funds trails, natural areas, and
places for outdoor recreation.1 The survey results show strong support for a bond measure or
a mill levy to fund trails, open space, and natural areas in Bozeman. The amount – either
overall or how it specifically applies to each household – are not the decisive factors for city
residents. Instead, they want to be assured funds are only used for the purposes they find
important. Residents say that investing in protecting water quality, maintaining and improving
trails, preserving natural areas and open space is important. They connect these investments
to protecting their quality of life. The initial solid support levels become more intense and
stronger as voters hear more – even after a simulation of the give and take which could occur
on this issue. With strong ballot language that closely approximates that tested and an effort
that clearly communicates the benefits of the measure, this effort should be well positioned for
success.
Specifically, the survey found that:
There is solid support for a bond measure at either the $10 million or the $15 million
level. Three‐in‐five voters indicate that they would vote Yes if the election were being held
today for a bonding measure that funds trails, natural areas, wildlife habitat. Respondents
were presented with the following draft language of the proposal as it would appear on a
1 Methodology: Public Opinion Strategies conducted a survey of N=300 registered voters throughout the City of
Bozeman who have voted in past elections and are likely to vote in November. The survey was conducted January
24‐25, 2012 and has an overall margin of error of +5.66%. Sampling error for subgroups within the sample will be
larger. Interviews were distributed proportionally throughout the city.
135
Page 2
future ballot, with half hearing the $10 million amount and the other half hearing $15
million:
Shall the City issue 10 million dollars/15 million dollars in general obligation bonds to
protect water quality, protect natural areas, create and improve trails, parks, and recreation
areas? The city shall create a citizen advisory committee charged with making
recommendations on the expenditure of bond funds to the
City Council.”
Given this language, fully 62% indicate they will vote yes in support of the $10 million
measure and 69% yes in support of the $15 million measure. More than one‐quarter in
either case indicate they will “definitely” vote Yes. One‐quarter or fewer (25% and 19%
respectively) say they would oppose the measure.
In our experience in ballot measure campaigns around the country, response to the actual
proposed language is one of the most important indicators of how well a measure will
perform in an actual election. These supportive responses could change dramatically if
voters are presented with different ballot language. It is also typical for ballot measure
support to decline over the course of a campaign, which is why a threshold of 60% is often
used to measure “viability.” Clearly this proposed measure as drafted in the poll surpasses
that mark.
Support is broad‐based and wide‐spread. Given the lack of significant distinction between
the two amounts tested, we can combine the samples and examine sub‐groups as a whole.
There is significant support among many key sub‐groups, including…
o Men (65% Yes) and women (60%);
o Younger voters under age 45 (70%), age 45‐54 (58%), age 55‐64 (64%) and seniors
(56%);
o Parents (61%) and those without children at home (68%); and
o Democrats (82%) and Independents (67%), with Republicans divided (40% yes, 38%
No and 23% undecided).
When asked why they would vote Yes in support of the measure, many respondents
connect their good quality of life and the City’s prosperity with natural areas, outdoor
recreation, and other elements of these funding proposals:
“To protect quality of life in Bozeman. I think these issues are important anywhere, but
especially in Bozeman. That's it. I just think it makes sense. For the reasons I gave before.
People live here, and choose to live here, because of a clean environment, accessibility to
recreation and community.” ‐‐ Independent man, age 45‐54
“Create jobs for residents of Bozeman, improve the city. And we are a tourist based
community, and it will generate revenue. Mainly job creation.” – Democratic man, age 35‐44
136
Page 3
“I think it is well worth the money in something that makes Bozeman the place to live that it
is. Trail improvement, water quality, water improvement, all things that make this a good
place to live, so it's a quality of life issue more than anything else, and I feel fine investing in
a quality of life.” – Independent man, age 34‐44
“I like everything about it protecting the water and the open space. Because you know,
preserve while were here, preserve our quality of life.” – Independent woman, age 35‐44
“I feel very strong about public access to trails and recreation and water quality. I think it is
very important and is over looked too much.” – Democratic woman age 25‐34
Conversely, those who oppose the measure tend to say there are other priorities that
need to be addressed first. A small number also express concern about raising taxes more
broadly, and the price tag of each bond does seem to stand out to some.
“Because I think there's too much money going into the parks and trails and water quality. I
think they've got it all taken care of. Because I just think there's other directions that the
moneys need to be going in. Well, you know, I think I pretty much just stated it. There's just
way too much concentration on things. There's bigger things that the city should be
concentrating on, other than trails, parks and all that good stuff.” – GOP man, 45‐54
“I guess it is just not something that I would not be passionate about, and don't think it is
something that Bozeman needs.” – Independent woman, age 35‐44
“Because we don't have the city budget for it and I don't want any new taxes to pay for it”. –
GOP woman age 25‐34
“Because the fifteen million dollars is a lot of money, and I don't know too much about this
bond, and we should be saving in a time like this and not spending. Because like our debt
keeps increasing instead of decreasing. Like the main one is open spaces and it seems they
have enough of that already.” – GOP man age 18‐24
137
Page 4
Voters respond very positively to a range of ways funds are used in their community. The
survey also demonstrates that voters find all of the ways funds are being used as important,
as the following graph demonstrates:
Summary of Potential Funding Items ‐ Ranked By % Extremely/Very Important
Potential Funding Items % Extr/Very
Important
% Total
Important
Protecting lands that preserve water quality in rivers, lakes and streams 74% 90%
Protecting our quality of life 70% 89%
Providing, maintaining and improving biking, walking and hiking trails 63% 83%
Preserving natural areas 62% 90%
Protecting lands along Bozeman Creek 61% 87%
Preserving open space 57% 79%
Improving water conservation and energy efficiency and lighting at parks and
ball fields 54% 84%
Providing, maintaining and improving neighborhood parks 52% 89%
Connecting trails to enable people to hike, bike or walk without having to
cross busy streets and intersections 52% 82%
Providing access to natural areas for disabled residents, including such things
as a handicap accessible fishing pier and playgrounds 51% 86%
Connecting trails to enable people to hike, bike or walk to places such as the
M or to Leverich Canyon 47% 80%
Ensuring residents in every neighborhood in the city have nearby and safe
parks 45% 83%
Cleaning up the Story Mill site northeast of town, in order to provide
affordable housing and create trail connections there 43% 80%
Preserving Bozeman Beach at the East Gallatin Recreation Area as a city park 39% 80%
Providing safety improvements at trails and parks 34% 74%
Creating or expanding off‐leash dog parks, like the Snowfill Recreation Area 31% 65%
Enhancing and maintaining historic sites, such as the Story Mill 30% 63%
Providing, maintaining and improving sports fields 29% 75%
Creating new soccer fields at the regional park 19% 56%
Reducing crowding at parks, ball fields, and on trails 18% 67%
138
Page 5
Notably, 89% say they are familiar (49% very familiar) with the Story Mill site, so a lack of
familiarity does not appear to be an issue.
City residents have confidence in the City to manage these funds well. Nearly three‐
quarters (74%) say that they are very confident (19%) or somewhat confident (55%) the city
would handle these funds well. Not surprisingly, these voters are very supportive of the
bond measures (82% who are confident the city would manage the funds well say they
would vote Yes in support of the bond measure).
Still, they view a number of accountability provisions that be incorporated into the ballot
language as items which would make them more likely to support the measure. As one
can see, ensuring that funds are directed as stated in the ballot measure is of the utmost
importance but other provisions may be reassuring as well.
Summary of Accountability Provisions ‐ Ranked By % Much More Likely
Accountability Measures % Much
More Likely
% Total
More Likely
Require that funds are used solely for parks, trails, and natural
areas, and cannot be used for any other purpose 40% 69%
Conduct an annual independent audit and make it available to
the public 29% 56%
Base funding priorities on the recommendations of a local
citizens committee 18% 53%
Automatically expire or sunset the tax in TEN years 17% 45%
Base funding priorities on the Parks, Open space, trails Master
Plan created by the public in 2007 16% 48%
Allow up to five percent of the funds to be used for
administration and program operations 9% 33%
In summary, Bozeman residents are supportive of a measure which would bond to fund
trails, natural areas, water quality and areas for outdoor recreation. Residents make the
connection between these elements and their good quality of life and want to see that
maintained.
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184