HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Commission Meeting of Bozeman Montana Agenda Packet 2012-12-03 18-00Table of Contents
Agenda 3
Authorize Payment of Accounts Payable Claims
Claims Memo 5
Authorize City Manager to sign an Amendment to the
Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech Inc. for
continued post-closure of ground water monitoring at the Story
Mill Landfill
Commission Memo Tetra Tech 12/03/12 6
2012-2013 BLF Task Order 8
Authorize City Manager’s signature on a Professional Services
Agreement with CTA Architects and Engineers to complete a
Structural Analysis of Bozeman’s Northern Pacific Railway
Passenger Depot at 820 Front Street
Memo to Commission 21
Professional Services Agreement 23
Consultant's Scope of Work 27
Approve changing the Commission meeting time from 6 to 10
p.m. to 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Monday, December 17th
Meeting Time change memo 46
Approve the Interlocal Agreement between School District 7 and
the City of Bozeman to establish the process and guidelines
relative to school citing and development and the creation of
Tax Increment Financing Districts
memo for interlocal agreement with School District 7 47
Interlocal Agreement with School District for Tax
Increment Financing Districts 49
Approve Mayoral Proclamation Celebrating Rhodes Scholars
Amanda Frickle and Joseph Thiel
memo for Rhodes scholar proclamation 53
Two Rhodes Scholars Proclamation 54
Finally Adopt Ordinance No. 1849, Amending Chapter 36,
Article 4 of the Bozeman Municipal Code related to parking
standards and parking facilities, applying the “rolling rule” to city
facilities and amending the fine for section 36.04.260(D)
Memo for Final Adoption of Ord. 1849 55
Ordinance 1849 58
Celebrating Rhodes Scholars Amanda Frickle and Joseph Thiel
Proclamation 63
Update on the impending end to the two year stay of demolition
for the remaining portions of the Bozeman Lehrkind Brewery
site located at 801/803 North Wallace Avenue
BreweryUpdate CCMemo DRAFT 11 21 12 64
BozBreweryBldgTimeline update10 24 12 68
NENA Letter to Commissioners - 9Nov12 72
Z07145A brewerydemo fspmod ccsr 74
SHPO memo 12 21 2010 89
1
Adoption of the Library Depreciation Reserve Capital
Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018
Library Reserve CIP Memo 91
Library Res CIP 93
Resolution No. 4419 suspending independent operation of the
Board of Adjustment and retaining to the Commission the
powers of the Board of Adjustment
Cover Memo 99
Commission resolution 4419 100
2
1 of 2
THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
AGENDA
Monday, December 3, 2012 A. Call to Order – 6 p.m. – Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse
B. Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence
C. Changes to the Agenda
D. Consent
1. Authorize Payment of Accounts Payable Claims (LaMeres) 2. Authorize City Manager to sign an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech Inc. for continued post-closure of
ground water monitoring at the Story Mill Landfill (Johnson)
3. Authorize City Manager’s signature on a Professional Services Agreement
with CTA Architects and Engineers to complete a Structural Analysis of the Passenger Depot at 820 Front Street (Thorpe) 4. Approve changing the Commission meeting time from 6 to 10 p.m. to 11
a.m. to 1 p.m. on Monday, December 17th (Ulmen)
5. Approve the Interlocal Agreement between School District 7 and the City
of Bozeman to establish the process and guidelines relative to school citing and development and the creation of Tax Increment Financing Districts (Kukulski)
6. Approve a Mayoral Proclamation Celebrating Rhodes Scholars Amanda
Frickle and Joseph Thiel (Brunckhorst)
7. Finally Adopt Ordinance No. 1849, Amending Chapter 36, Article 4 of the Bozeman Municipal Code related to parking standards and parking facilities, applying the “rolling rule” to city facilities and amending the
fine for section 36.04.260(D) (Lee)
Consider the motion: I move to approve Consent items D. 1 - 7 as submitted. E. Public Comment - Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice
for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling
within the purview of the Bozeman City Commission. There will also be an
opportunity in conjunction with each agenda item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
3
Bozeman City Commission Agenda, December 3, 2012
2 of 2
F. Mayoral Proclamation – Celebrating Rhodes Scholars Amanda Frickle and
Joseph Thiel
G. Action Items
1. Update on the impending end to the two year stay of demolition for the
remaining portions of the Bozeman Lehrkind Brewery site located at
801/803 North Wallace Avenue (Brekke) No Official Action by the City Commission is required.
2. Adoption of the General Fund Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years
2014 - 2018 (Rosenberry) Consider the motion: I move to adopt the General Fund Capital Improvement Plan for
Fiscal Years 2014 – 2018.
3. Adoption of the Library Depreciation Reserve Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 - 2018 (Rosenberry)
Consider the motion: I move to adopt the Library Depreciation Reserve Capital
Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2014 – 2018.
4. Resolution No. 4419 suspending independent operation of the Board of Adjustment and retaining to the Commission the powers of the Board of
Adjustment (Saunders)
Consider the motion: I move to approve Resolution No. 4419, suspending independent operation of the Board of Adjustment and retaining to the Commission the powers of the Board of Adjustment.
H. FYI/Discussion
I. Adjournment City Commission meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires
assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301).
Commission meetings are televised live on cable channel 20 and streamed live at www.bozeman.net.
City Commission meetings are re-aired on cable Channel 20 Wednesday at 4 p.m., Thursday at noon, Friday at 10 a.m. and Sunday at 2 p.m.
4
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian LaMeres, City Controller
Anna Rosenberry, Director of Administrative Services
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Accounts Payable Claims Review and Approval
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission approves payment of the claims.
BACKGROUND: Section 7-6-4301 MCA states that claims should not be paid by the City until
they have been first presented to the City Commission. Claims presented to the City Commission
have been reviewed by the Finance Department to ensure that all proper supporting documentation
has been submitted, all required departmental authorized signatures are present indicating that the goods or services have been received and that the expenditure is within budget, and that the account
coding is correct.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The total amount of the claims to be paid is presented at the bottom
of the Expenditure Approval List posted on the City’s website at
http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Finance/Purchasing/Reports.aspx
Individual claims in excess of $500,000: to be announced in weekly e-mail from Accounts Payable Clerks Jenna Louttit and Marcy Yeykal.
Attachments: Expenditure Approval List (e-mailed)
and posted on the City of Bozeman’s website at http://www.bozeman.net/Departments-(1)/Finance/Purchasing/Reports.aspx
Report compiled on: November 26, 2012
5
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Dustin Johnson, Project Engineer
Richard Hixson, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech Inc. For continued post-closure ground water monitoring at the Story Mill Landfill.
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to sign.
BACKGROUND: Since the City of Bozeman has been required by the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 1994 Tetra Tech (previously Maxim Technologies) has been contracted with the City to assist in the work. The nature of the contract has been to assist the City of Bozeman in sampling, maintaining, and monitoring post closure parameters at the Story
Mill Landfill to keep the landfill in compliance with State and Federal regulations.
Each year Tetra Tech prepares a task order outlining the proposed monitoring costs for the upcoming fiscal year. Ground water sampling events typically take place twice a year (once in July and once in December). Tetra Tech takes the samples, processes the data, and prepares a
report for the DEQ for each event. The annual cost for the Tetra Tech’s services typically cost
from about $50,000 to $60,000. These annual costs have been budgeted for in the post closure
budget for the landfill for at least the next 29 years. Currently the post closure fund has $1,545,118 to cover all future maintenance and monitoring costs.
The proposed cost for this task order is $56,960.34. Included in this task order are extra
labor hours in the event that extra service time is required to troubleshoot something at the
landfill.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The entire project will be funded through the Solid Waste Landfill
Closure/Post-Closure Fund.
6
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: Task Order from Tetra Tech Inc.
Report compiled on: 11/15/12
7
Page 1 of 4
TASK ORDER
DECEMBER 2012 AND JUNE 2013 ASSESSMENT MONITORINGAND OTHER SERVICES
BOZEMAN SANITARY LANDFILL
November 9, 2012
CLIENT: CONSULTANT:
The City of Bozeman Tetra Tech, Inc.
P.O. Box 1230 851 Bridger Drive, Ste 6
Bozeman, Montana 59711-1230 Helena, MT 59715
Attention: Mr. Dustin Johnson Attention: Mr. Mark F. Pearson
SCOPE OF SERVICES:
Groundwater Monitoring: Two ‘Assessment’ groundwater monitoring events will be scheduled.
These will be conducted in December 2012 and June 2013. Tetra Tech will perform groundwater
monitoring in accordance with Tetra Tech’s Groundwater Monitoring Sampling Analysis Plan
(September 17, 2010) for the landfill. Groundwater sites to be monitored include13 monitoring
wells (MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7A, MW-8A, MW-9A, MW-10, MW-11, MW-12, MW-13, MW-14,
MW-15, and LF-3) and two private water sources (McIlhattan Seep and McIlhattan Veterinary
Clinic well). In the past several monitoring events, the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has required that five additional wells (LF-2, MW-7B, MW-8B, MW-9B, and Shop Well
(adjacent to the Bozeman Landfill Shop)) be monitored and samples collected for analysis. In
addition, three new groundwater wells (MW-6B, MW-8C, and MW-16) were drilled and completed
in May 2012. These new wells were monitored and samples collected in June 2012. This task
order assumes that 23 wells/sites will be monitored and sampled. A sampling and analysis matrix
is presented in Table 1 of Attachment A contained in this task order.
December 2012 Assessment Monitoring
Monitoring and collection of water samples will be conducted in 21 monitoring wells (MW-4, MW-5, MW-6, MW-6B, MW-7A, MW-7B, MW-8A, MW-8B, MW-8C, MW-9A, MW-9B, MW-10, MW-11,MW-12, MW-13, MW-14, MW-15, MW-16, LF-2, LF-3, and Shop Well) and two private water
sources (McIlhattan Seep and Valley View Veterinary Clinic well). Water levels will be measured
in all monitoring wells at the landfill prior to purging the wells for sampling. Field parameters
including temperature, pH, and specific conductivity will be measured at all stations. Field
parameters will be measured during and at the conclusion of purging the wells.
For the purposes of this task order, the purchase of a dedicated pump is included in the event of
breakdown of one of the dedicated well purging/sampling pumps. Water samples collected will be
analyzed by Pace Analytical Laboratories (in Billings, Montana) for many of the constituents listed
in Appendix I, 40 CFR Part 258 (July 1, 2008) in ARM 17.50.1306 plus chloride, sulfate,
nitrate/nitrite as N, pH, conductivity, iron, vanadium, zinc, and dichlorodifluoromethane.
Therefore, every sample will be submitted for the “Full Analysis” that includes 15 metals (Table 3
in Tetra Tech’s Groundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan).Table 3 is contained in
Attachment A. Well samples where only volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrate + nitrite
as N would be analyzed are indicated in Table 1.
8
Page 2 of 4
Two quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples will be collected and prepared during the
December 2012 assessment monitoring event. These will be 1) A duplicate sample collected and
submitted for analysis of all constituents included in Table 3 of Tetra Tech’s Groundwater
Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan and 2) A trip blank prepared by the analytical laboratory,
shipped with the sample bottles, travelling with sample bottles in the field, and returned to the
laboratory for analysis of VOCs.
June 2013 Assessment Monitoring
Monitoring and collection of water samples will be conducted in 21 monitoring wells (MW-4, MW-
5, MW-6, MW-6B, MW-7A, MW-7B, MW-8A, MW-8B, MW-8C, MW-9A, MW-9B, MW-10, MW-11,
MW-12, MW-13, MW-14, MW-15, MW-16, LF-2, LF-3, and Shop Well) and two private water
sources (McIlhattan Seep and McIlhattan Veterinary Clinic well). Water levels will be measured in
all monitoring wells at the landfill prior to purging the wells for sampling. Field parametersincluding temperature, pH, and specific conductivity will be measured during purging. Theseparameters and dissolved oxygen and oxidation reduction potential will be measured at theconclusion of purging.
In accordance with the DEQ approval letter dated May 31, 1996, water samples collected from
designated wells in June monitoring events will be analyzed for the “Full Analysis” (Table 3 in
Tetra Tech’s Groundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan) and “Partial Analysis” (Table 4
in Tetra Tech’s Groundwater Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan).Tables 3 and 4 are
contained in Attachment A. Therefore, samples collected from seven monitoring wells: MW-4,MW-5, MW-6, MW-7A, MW-8A, MW-9A, and LF-3 will undergo the “Partial Analysis” (Table 4).
Samples collected from the remaining wells/sites will be submitted for the “Full Analysis” that
includes 16 metals (Table 3). Both Partial and Full Analysis are inclusive of the constituent list in
Appendix I, 40 CFR Part 258 (July 1, 2008) in ARM 17.50.1306 plus chloride, sulfate,
nitrate/nitrite as N, pH, conductivity, and dichlorodifluoromethane.
Two QA/QC samples will be collected and prepared during the June 2013 assessment monitoringevent: 1) A duplicate sample will be collected from a downgradient monitoring well and analyzedfor the “Full Analysis” (Table 3). A trip blank will be prepared in the laboratory, shipped to the
sampling crew with the sample bottles, and returned to the laboratory for analysis of VOCs listedinTable 3.
Other Services:Other environmental services include monitoring and maintenance of thecomponents of the landfill gas extraction (LGE) system, additional field work or monitoring asneeded, regulatory liaison as needed, and reporting and project management.
Landfill Gas Sample Collection and Analysis
Two landfill gas sample collection and analysis events will be conducted at the LGE system flare
during the groundwater monitoring events (in December 2012 and June 2013). This will be for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance with the air quality permit. In each monitoring event, a
Tetra Tech scientist will conduct monitoring of the LGE system at the flare and then fill two
Tedlar®sample bags with landfill gas from an access port located between the blower and flare.
Each sample will be submitted for laboratory analysis of parameters listed in Table 1 of Air Quality
Permit # 2951-00. Upon receiving the landfill gas analytical results, Tetra Tech will forward a copy
of the lab report to the City and DEQ - Air and Waste Management Bureau.
9
Page 3 of 4
Additional Services
Additional field and reporting services include the following:
• Monthly monitoring of perimeter landfill gas probes for methane and other gas concentrations
• Monthly monitoring of flare operation and gas concentrations
• Inspection and monitoring of the landfill gas extraction (LGE) well heads
• Any light maintenance needs associated with the flare or LGE system or miscellaneous field work• Additional groundwater monitoring that cannot be covered under assessment monitoring budgets
• Any regulatory liaison and reporting services requested by City of Bozeman
Further explanation of Tetra Tech’s services is contained in the Estimated Budget in Attachment
B.
Reporting and Project Management
There will be two levels of reporting following the December 2012 and June 2013 groundwater
monitoring events. The first level of reporting will be one page reports, summarizing the results of
the monitoring, sent to DEQ departments following receipt of laboratory reports from landfill gas
and groundwater sample collection events. The one page, letter reports will be sent to DEQ AirResources Management – Air Compliance Section and DEQ Solid Waste Regulatory Program.
The second level of reporting will be the preparation of a groundwater monitoring report following
each of the two groundwater monitoring events. This will include entry of data into the project
database. The report will summarize the results of the monitoring including activities
undertaken, monitoring methods, results, limited data analysis, and statistical analysis. Data
and statistical analysis will also be conducted in accordance with Tetra Tech’s Groundwater
Monitoring Sampling and Analysis Plan.The report will be submitted as a draft version to the City
of Bozeman for review and comment. Tetra Tech will incorporate any changes or comments
requested by the City and finalize the report. Upon receiving approval from the City, the final
report will then be forwarded to DEQ Solid Waste Regulatory Program as a full or partial paper
copy and an electronic copy. The paper copy to the DEQ will include report text, figures,
summary tables, time series plots, and plots of statistical results.
Project management will consist of scheduling of field events; review of invoicing and budget; and
communication with the City of Bozeman, DEQ, analytical laboratory personnel, and other
pertinent parties. Project management will also include preparation of the succeeding monitoring
task order anticipated in November 2013.
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE:Activities covered in this task order will begin on December 1,
2012 and continue through November 30, 2013. Groundwater monitoring activities will be
performed during December 2012 and June 2013. Data analysis and report preparation will follow
the conclusion of each of the monitoring events and receipt of laboratory results. Each monitoring
report will be submitted to the City within eight weeks of receiving the final laboratory report.
Following review and approval of the draft report by the City, each report will be finalized and
submitted to DEQ within two weeks of receipt of comments from the City and no later than 90
days from completion of groundwater sampling.
10
Page 4 of 4
COMPENSATION:Estimated costs to complete the foregoing scope of services are not to
exceed $56,960.Attachment B details these costs. The services will be conducted on a time
and materials basis.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:Execution of this Task Order constitutes acceptance of all terms and
conditions contained in Tetra Tech’s Professional Services Agreement with the City of Bozeman,
dated January 3, 1994 and Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Professional Services
Agreement dated July 31, 1995; January 1, 1996; March 17, 1997; and December 10, 2001,
respectively.
CLIENT: CONSULTANT:
City of Bozeman Tetra Tech
By: By:
Its: Its:
Date: Date:
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This Task Order (including attachments) contains information confidential to Tetra
Tech, Inc., its subsidiaries, and subcontractors. It is intended only for City of Bozeman to consider Tetra Tech
providing professional services at the Bozeman Landfill. Any other use is prohibited, without the prior written consent
of Tetra Tech.
11
ATTACHMENT A
12
LF-2 x x LF-2 x x
LF-3 x LF-3 x
MW-4 x MW-4 x
MW-5 x x MW-5 x x
MW-6 x x MW-6 x x
MW-6B x MW-6B x
MW-7A x MW-7A x
MW-7B x MW-7B x
MW-8A x x MW-8A x x
MW-8B x x MW-8B x x
MW-8C x MW-8C x
MW-9A x MW-9A x
MW-9B x x MW-9B x x
MW-10 x MW-10 x
MW-11 x MW-11 x
MW-12 x MW-12 x
MW-13 x MW-13 x
MW-14 x MW-14 x
MW-15 x x MW-15 x x
MW-16 x MW-16 x
Shop Well x Shop Well x
McIlhatten Seep x McIlhatten Seep x
Vet Well x Vet Well x
Notes x denotes analysis conductedA listing of analytical constituents in the Full and Partial Analyses is contained in Attachment A of the Task OrderNitrate+NitriteasNDecember 2012 Monitoring Event June 2013 Monitoring Event
pH&SCpH&SCWellorSiteWellorSiteFullAnalysisPartialAnalysisVOCsTABLE 1
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS MATRIX
BOZEMAN SANITARY LANDFILL
November 1, 2012
Nitrate+NitriteasNFullAnalysisPartialAnalysisVOCsTetra Tech
13
96 of 9814
97 of 9815
ATTACHMENT B
16
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
DECEMBER 2012
UNITS RATE COST
LABOR
Sr. Hydrogeologist, per hour 2 $150.00 $300.00
Project Manager / Hydrogeologist, per hour 45 $88.00 $3,960.00
Staff Scientist, per hour 23 $75.00 $1,725.00
Total Labor:$5,985.00
DIRECT COSTS
Company Truck Mileage, per mile 30 $0.60 $18.00
Water Level Meter, per week 1 $75.00 $75.00
T-pH-SC Meter, per week 1 $80.00 $80.00
Replacement dedicated pump (Proactive Monsoon® DTW up to 120 feet depth), each 1 $501.00 $501.00
Note: Dedicated pump purchase is included in the event that a pump breaks down
Sampling Disposables - Filter, each 16 $20.00 $320.00
Sampling Disposables - Bailer, each 2 $6.20 $12.40
Sampling Disposables - Low-flow tip, each 15 $3.00 $45.00
Sampling Disposables - pump tubing, per foot 400 $0.53 $212.00
Sampling Disposables - Miscellaneous, each 23 $3.00 $69.00
Miscellaneous Shipping, estimate 1 $60.00 $60.00
Lab Sample Shipping (by bus overnight to lab), estimate 1 $150.00 $150.00
Lab Analysis (VOCs), each 25 $104.50 $2,612.50
Lab Analysis (inorganics - partial list) 0 $89.10 $0.00
Lab Analysis (inorganics - full list), each 18 $207.90 $3,742.20
Lab Analysis (pH & SC), each 4 $18.70 $74.80
Lab Analysis Vet Well, each 1 $207.90 $207.90
Total Direct Costs:$8,179.80
SUBTOTAL DECEMBER 2012 GROUNDWATER MONITORING:$14,164.80
ATTACHMENT A
Date Submitted: November 9, 2012
ESTIMATED BUDGET
DECEMBER 2012 AND JUNE 2013 ASSESSMENT MONITORING
AND OTHER MONITORING SERVICES
BOZEMAN SANITARY LANDFILL
Tetra Tech Page 1 of 417
ATTACHMENT A
Date Submitted: November 9, 2012
ESTIMATED BUDGET
DECEMBER 2012 AND JUNE 2013 ASSESSMENT MONITORING
AND OTHER MONITORING SERVICES
BOZEMAN SANITARY LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER MONITORING (Continued)
JUNE 2013
UNITS RATE COST
LABOR
Sr. Hydrogeologist, per hour 2 $150.00 $300.00
Project Manager / Hydrogeologist, per hour 35 $88.00 $3,080.00
Staff Scientist, per hour 23 $75.00 $1,725.00
Total Labor:$5,105.00
DIRECT COSTS
Company Truck Mileage, per mile 30 $0.60 $18.00
Water Level Meter, per week 1 $75.00 $75.00
YSI Multimeter w/ 20 m cable, per week 1 $300.00 $300.00
Replacement of Dedicated pump (Proactive Tempest® DTW up to 40 feet depth), each 1 $200.00 $200.00
Note: Dedicated pump purchase is included in the event that a pump breaks down
Sampling Disposables (bailer, low-flow tip, filter), each 15 $30.00 $450.00
Sampling Disposables - Filter, each 16 $20.00 $320.00
Sampling Disposables - Bailer, each 2 $6.20 $12.40
Sampling Disposables - Low-flow tip, each 15 $3.00 $45.00
Sampling Disposables - pump tubing, per foot 400 $0.53 $212.00
Sampling Disposables - Miscellaneous, each 23 $3.00 $69.00
Miscellaneous Shipping, estimate 1 $60.00 $60.00
Lab Sample Shipping (by bus overnight to lab), estimate 1 $150.00 $150.00
Lab Analysis (VOCs), each 25 $104.50 $2,612.50
Lab Analysis (inorganics - partial list) 7 $89.10 $623.70
Lab Analysis (inorganics - full list), each 11 $207.90 $2,286.90
Lab Analysis (pH & SC), each 4 $18.70 $74.80
Lab Analysis Vet Well, each 1 $207.90 $207.90
Total Direct Costs:$7,717.20
SUBTOTAL JUNE 2012 GROUNDWATER MONITORING:$12,822.20
LANDFILL GAS SAMPLING (two events)
UNITS RATE COST
LABOR
Project Manager / Hydrogeologist, per hour 4 $88.00 $352.00
Total Labor:$352.00
DIRECT COSTS
Lab Analysis 2 $414.92 $829.84
Shipping, est. 2 $70.00 $140.00
Total Direct Costs:$969.84
SUBTOTAL LANDFILL GAS SAMPLING:$1,321.84
Tetra Tech Page 2 of 418
ATTACHMENT A
Date Submitted: November 9, 2012
ESTIMATED BUDGET
DECEMBER 2012 AND JUNE 2013 ASSESSMENT MONITORING
AND OTHER MONITORING SERVICES
BOZEMAN SANITARY LANDFILL
REPORTING, STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (preparation of two statistics reports)
UNITS RATE COST
LABOR
Senior Project Manager, per hour 8 $185.00 $1,480.00
Senior Technician, per hour 4 $90.00 $360.00
Staff Engineer, per hour 80 $80.00 $6,400.00
Total Labor:$8,240.00
DIRECT COSTS
Statistica Software, Annual Subscription Fee 1 $80.00 $80.00
Total Direct Costs:$80.00
SUBTOTAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:$8,320.00
REPORTING (preparation of two monitoring reports)
LABOR
Sr. Hydrogeologist, per hour 4 $150.00 $600.00
Project Manager / Hydrogeologist, per hour 60 $88.00 $5,280.00
Staff Scientist, per hour 10 $75.00 $750.00
CAD Operator, per hour 10 $75.00 $750.00
Clerical, per hour 6 $52.00 $312.00
Total Labor:$7,692.00
DIRECT COSTS
Photocopies, estimate 1,000 $0.10 $100.00
Reprographics, estimate 2 $50.00 $100.00
Total Direct Costs:$200.00
SUBTOTAL REPORTING:$7,892.00
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
UNITS RATE COST
LABOR
Sr. Hydrogeologist, per hour 4 $150.00 $600.00
Project Manager / Hydrogeologist, per hour 24 $88.00 $2,112.00
Administrative Support, per hour 12 $60.00 $720.00
Clerical, per hour 6 $52.00 $312.00
Total Labor:$3,744.00
SUBTOTAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT:$3,744.00
Tetra Tech Page 3 of 419
ATTACHMENT A
Date Submitted: November 9, 2012
ESTIMATED BUDGET
DECEMBER 2012 AND JUNE 2013 ASSESSMENT MONITORING
AND OTHER MONITORING SERVICES
BOZEMAN SANITARY LANDFILL
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
UNITS RATE COST
MONTHLY METHANE MONITORING
(Assume 3.5 hours per monitoring event per month for 12 months and use of City of Bozeman meters)
LABOR
Project Manager / Hydrogeologist, per hour 42 $88.00 $3,696.00
Total Labor:$3,696.00
MONTHLY FLARE AND LANDFILL GAS EXTRACTION MONITORING/INSPECTION
(Assume 2 hours per monitoring event per month and use of City of Bozeman meters)
LABOR
Project Manager / Hydrogeologist, per hour 24 $88.00 $2,112.00
Total Labor:$2,112.00
MISCELLANEOUS FIELD, LIAISON, AND REPORTING SERVICES
(Conducted on an as-requested basis by the City of Bozeman)
LABOR
Sr. Hydrogeologist, per hour 2 $150.00 $300.00
Project Manager / Hydrogeologist, per hour 24 $88.00 $2,112.00
Administrative Support, per hour 4 $60.00 $240.00
Clerical, per hour 4 $52.00 $208.00
Total Labor:$2,860.00
DIRECT COSTS
Company Truck Mileage, per mile 50 $0.55 $27.50
Total Direct Costs:$27.50
SUBTOTAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES:$8,695.50
TOTAL TASK ORDER: $56,960.34
Tetra Tech Page 4 of 420
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Keri Thorpe, Assistant Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager’s signature of the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Bozeman and CTA Architects and Engineers (Bozeman Office).
MEETING DATE: December 3rd, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Commission motion and vote to approve the City
Manager’s signature of the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for an amount of $18,500 between the City of Bozeman and CTA Architects and Engineers (Bozeman Office) to complete
a Structural Analysis of Bozeman’s Northern Pacific Railway Passenger Depot at 820 Front
Street.
BACKGROUND: In July 2012 the National Trust for Historic Preservation awarded the City of Bozeman a $5,000 grant, to be matched by $15,000 from the North East Urban Renewal
Board, to complete a Structural Analysis of the Northern Pacific Railway Depot at 820 Front
Street, in Bozeman. The project will identify the structure’s potential for adaptive reuse by
determining existing conditions of the site and building, including structural stability, needed
upgrades, mechanical systems, etc. Montana Rail Link, who controls access to the property, wrote a letter of support for the grant application and is an enthusiastic partner in the project.
Of the $20,000 in funding available for the project, $1,500 will be reserved for hosting public
meetings to discuss the results of the Structural Analysis, making the information gathered
publicly available and disbursing the information to potential redevelopers.
In September 2012 Historic Preservation Officer Courtney Kramer formed a committee of
stakeholders in the project to guide the project, including hiring of a contractor. The committee
includes Erik Nelson, the North East Urban Renewal Board Chairman; Keri Thorpe, Planning Department representative; Dustin Johnson, Engineering Department representative; Joe Gentri of Montana Rail Link and Mark Hufstetler of the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory
Board. As the total contract amount is less than $20,000, the committee was able to solicit bids
from three qualified contractors. In early October 2012 the committee ranked respondents and
chose CTA Architects and Engineers to execute the Structural Analysis. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
21
FISCAL EFFECTS: The North East Urban Renewal Board has included $15,000 for the NP
Depot in their FY 2013 budget. The National Trust for Historic Preservation will provide a grant
of $5,000.
Attachments: Professional Services Agreement between City of Bozeman and CTA Architects
and Engineers
Scope of Work for Professional Services Agreement
Report compiled on: November 9, 2012
22
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR PLANNING SERVICES
This Agreement is made this __ day of ______, 2012, by and between CITY OF BOZEMAN,
P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, Montana, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Montana, ("City"), and CTA Architects Engineers, 411 E. Main Street, Ste 101, Bozeman, MT 59715
("Consultant").
RECITALS
A. City, in partnership with the North East Urban Renewal Board, Montana Rail Link and National Trust for Historic Preservation, desires to employ Consultant to execute a Structural
Analysis of the Northern Pacific Railway Passenger Depot at 820 Front Street in Bozeman, MT.
B. Consultant agrees to furnish such services in accordance with the conditions herein provided
and will carry out the duties and obligations imposed by the Contract.
C. The City of Bozeman designates Courtney Kramer, Assistant Planner and Historic Preservation Office as administrator of this agreement
D. Articles 1, 2, 5 and 14 of this agreement allow for revision upon mutual written agreement of
the parties.
AGREEMENT
Subject to the provisions herein set forth and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, Consultant agrees to furnish, and the City agrees to accept, certain specified services
and products to include; a Structural Analysis of the Northern Pacific Railway Passenger Depot,
more fully described in Attachment A. Such services and products shall be referred to as the
Work.
All services described herein are to be performed by Consultant and/or its Contractors in accordance with the most commonly accepted standards and practices of the architecture,
architectural history and historic preservation fields. Consultant will use final product
technologies that are acceptable to the City in order to satisfy the broadest distribution of the
Work possible.
Article 1. CONTRACT TIME.
The Work will be completed between February 1, 2013 and June 30, 2013. The total time may be
adjusted at the mutual written agreement of both City and Consultant.
Article 2. CONTRACT PRICE.
CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for performance of the Work in accordance with the Contract
Documents the total sum (subject to adjustment as provided in the Contract Documents) of Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($18,500). CONSULTANT recognizes that the total
sum is the aggregated amount for all services described in the scope in Attachment A. CITY
retains the right to a refund contingent upon satisfactory completion of the Work in accordance
with this agreement. The total sum may be adjusted at the mutual written agreement of both City
and Consultant.
Article 3. PAYMENT PROCEDURES.
Not more than 90% (ninety percent) of Payment will be provided by CITY to CONSULTANT
upon submittal of monthly invoices. Remaining Payment will be provided by CITY to
CONSULTANT upon completion of the entire Work. Payment will not exceed 60% of the
contract price prior to delivery of the initial public review draft of the work. CITY retains the right to a refund contingent upon satisfactory completion of the Work in accordance with this
23
agreement.
Article 4. CONSULTANT’S REPRESENTATIONS.
In order to induce CITY to enter into this Agreement, CONSULTANT makes the following
representations:
4.1 CONSULTANT has familiarized himself with the nature and extent of the Contract, Work, locality, and with all local conditions and federal, state and local laws, growth
policies, ordinances, rules and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress or
performance of the Work.
4.2 CONSULTANT represents and warrants to City that it has the experience and ability to perform the services required by this Agreement; that it will perform said services in a professional, competent and timely manner and with diligence and skill; that it has the
power to enter into and perform this Agreement and grant the rights granted in it; and that
its performance of this Agreement shall not infringe upon or violate the rights of any
third party, whether rights of copyright, trademark, privacy, publicity, libel, slander or any other rights of any nature whatsoever, or violate any federal, state and municipal laws. The City will not determine or exercise control as to general procedures or formats
necessary to have these services meet this warranty.
Article 5. SCOPE OF WORK
The Work shall consist of the preparation of the work described in the Scope of Services contained in Attachment “A”. If CITY wishes CONSULTANT to perform additional services, CITY shall so instruct CONSULTANT in writing. The performance, cost, and time frame of the
additional services shall be subject to mutual written agreement of both City and Consultant.
Article 6. INSURANCE
CONSULTANT agrees to keep in force during the entire period of this Agreement professional liability insurance and such general liability insurance as will protect it and the City from claims, including claims under worker's compensation and other employee benefit laws that are
applicable, for bodily injury and death, and for property damage that may arise out of work under
this agreement whether directly or indirectly by CONSULTANT, or directly or indirectly by sub-
Contractors hired by CONSULTANT. Minimum liability limits shall not be less than $1.0 million general liability and $1.0 million automobile liability. CONSULTANT shall provide proof of workers compensation insurance at the State statutory limits, unless CONSULTANT
provides an exemption from the State Department of Labor & Industry. The City has the right to
require that the City be named as an additional insured under said insurance coverage.
Article 7. INDEMNITY
Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, directors, and
employees, against any and all claims, that arise from the negligent performance of the
Consultant’s work herein described. The obligations of the Consultant to indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the City of Bozeman will apply to any suit, cause of action, claim, loss, cost or
obligation including, without limitation, those alleged under the common law or pursuant to a federal or state statute or regulation including those arising from the negligent acts, errors or
omissions of the Consultant. The indemnity required herein shall not be limited by reason of the
specification of any particular insurance coverage in this Agreement.
Article 8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CONSULTANT acknowledges that the services rendered under this Agreement shall be solely as an independent Contractor. CONSULTANT shall not enter into any contract or commitment on
24
behalf of City. CONSULTANT further acknowledges that it is not considered an affiliate or
subsidiary of City, and is not entitled to any City employment rights or benefits. It is expressly
understood that this undertaking is not a joint venture.
Article 9. GRANT / WORK MADE FOR HIRE
To the extent that CONSULTANT‘S Work includes any work of authorship entitled to
protection under the copyright laws of the United States or elsewhere, the parties agree that:
CONSULTANT'S Work has been specially ordered and commissioned by the City as a
contribution to a collective work, a supplemental work, or such other category of work as may be
eligible for treatment as a "work made for hire"; CONSULTANT is an independent Contractor and not an employee, partner, joint author or joint venturer of the CITY; CONSULTANT'S
Work shall be deemed to be a "commissioned work" and a "work made for hire" to the greatest
extent possible under the law; and the CITY shall have the right to use, execute, reproduce,
display, perform, distribute internally or externally, and prepare derivative works of the
CONSULTANT'S Work.
To the extent that CONSULTANT'S work is not properly characterized as a "work made for
hire," then CONSULTANT shall, at its own expense, cause the CITY to have and obtain the
right and license to use, execute, reproduce, display, perform, distribute internally or externally,
and prepare derivative works based upon all such works and derivative works thereof and shall
provide to the CITY a written license granting the CITY such rights. It is the intent of the parties that the specific work subject to said license shall be comprised of text, illustrations, calculations,
photographs, and all other works Consultant copies that may belong to third parties for which
license for use is required.
Article 10. OFFICE RULES
CONSULTANT shall comply with all office rules and regulations, including security requirements, when on City premises.
Article 11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONSULTANT shall not offer or give a gratuity of any type to any City employee or agent.
Article 12. NON-DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT hereby affirms it will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, national origin, or because of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or disability in the performance of work performed for the city of
Bozeman, if a contract is awarded to it, and also recognizes the eventual contract, if awarded,
will contain a provision prohibiting discrimination as described above and that this prohibition
shall apply to the hiring and treatment of CONSULTANT’S employees and to all subcontracts it enters into in performance of the agreement with the city of Bozeman.
Article 13. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of
Montana. In the event of dispute regarding the terms of this Agreement, the parties agree to
attempt mediation of the conflict prior to pursuing litigation. Venue shall be in Gallatin County, 18th Judicial District.
Article 14. ENTIRE AGREEMENT AND NOTICE
This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and may not be amended without
the specific written consent of both parties. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be
sufficient if it is in writing and if sent by certified or registered mail.
25
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and
year first above written.
CONSULTANT
By:____________________
CTA Architects Engineers
CITY OF BOZEMAN
By:____________________
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
ATTEST: Stacy Ulmen, City Clerk
_____________________________
26
ProPosal for Professional services
Structural Analysis for the
NortherN PAcific rAilwAy
PASSeNger DePot
820 front street
Bozeman, montana
sePtemBer 27, 2012
suBmitted to:
courtney Kramer
Department of Planning and
community Development
20 east olive street
Bozeman, mt 59771
cta architects engineers
411 east main street, suite 101
Bozeman, montana 59715
suBmitted By
27
Revised October 16, 2012
Courtney Kramer
Department of Planning and Community Development
20 East Olive Street
Bozeman, MT 59771
Re: Proposal for Professional Services
Structural Analysis of Bozeman’s Northern Pacific Railway Passenger Depot
Dear Courtney:
Thank you for inviting CTA Architects Engineers (CTA) to submit a proposal for the above project. We
have visited the site and reviewed the historical material available. We’re pleased that the National
Trust for Historic Preservation and the Northeast Urban Renewal Board – as well as Montana Rail Link
– are dedicated to providing the resources and access required to provide a thorough assessment of
the building. The depot remains a part of the development of Bozeman’s transformation into a secure
commercial center and provides a strong visual context for this evolving neighborhood. As such, it
deserves serious consideration in its treatment and future use.
We have compiled a professional team specifically designed to meet the needs identified in the
Request for Proposal, as confirmed during our site visit. Our team is comprised of a historian,
historic preservation architect, structural engineer, civil engineer, mechanical engineer, and electrical
engineer – all of whom have prepared assessments of historic structures. Our team prides itself on
looking at the full context – and related details – of historic properties, examining cause-and-effect,
and providing subsequent solutions that can be implemented. Unless noted otherwise, all images
contained herein have been provided by CTA.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our qualifications and proposal for this exciting historic
property.
Sincerely,
CTA ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
Lesley M. Gilmore, AIA, LEED AP-BD+C
Director, Historic Preservation Services
CTA Associate-Owner
encl:
Proposal (1)
Affirmation of Non-Discrimination (included in the proposal)
Resumes (1)
Report Sample (1)
Disc (2)
CTA ArChiTeCTs engineers 411 East Main strEEt, suitE 101 BozEMan, Mt 59715 406.556.7100 www.ctagroup.coM
28
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
ProJect DeScriPtioN
The City of Bozeman is seeking professional
services for the preparation of a Structural Analysis
for the Northern Pacific Railway Passenger Depot
(Depot) located at 820 Front Street in Bozeman,
Montana. The depot was originally constructed
in 1892 and extensively remodeled in 1923-24.
The building is currently used for cold storage,
and maintenance has been deferred. The City of
Bozeman, with the support of the National Trust
for Historic Preservation and the Northeast Urban
Renewal Board, intends for the analysis to help
inform and spur adaptive reuse of the Depot.
The analysis will identify all areas of required
improvements and their respective construction
cost estimates for budgeting and marketing
purposes. Phasing of the implementation
recommendations will be based upon priority,
related construction trade, and budget costs.
ScoPe of SerViceS
The following scope of services is based upon the
Project Description provided, and supplemented
by information obtained during our tour of the site
surrounding the building and discussions with our
historian.
Prevailing theme of historic
Preservation
CTA proposes that the plans and recommendations
for the treatment of this historic depot comply
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines
for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. As
a contributing (“primary architectural feature”)1
property to the Northern Pacific and Story Mill
Historic District, the Depot is the last remaining
railroad depot in the City of Bozeman, hence should
be treated with care and respect. All of our work
and end product will be formulated and infused with
this philosophy.
Preparation of Base Drawings
Original drawings for the 1924 remodeling of
the Depot, housed in Special Collections of the
Montana State University Library, will be obtained
for use as base documents which will be confirmed
on site.2 CTA will take field measurements to
validate the dimensions indicated and shown on the
drawings, and incorporate the actual dimensions
into floor plans drawn in AutoCad. The elevations
and details will not be drawn, but will be relied upon
for understanding the construction of the building
(see Assessment below).
1Derek strahn, northern pacific/story Mill Historic District registration form, p. 7-5.
2Drawings, dated June 14, 1923, from collection no. 1130, drawings set no. 030.
29
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
render the plan in either color or varied pochés
(hatches) in order to present a clear graphic
depiction of the alterations over time. Original
details for each room – trim, windows, doors,
hardware, flooring, wall materials, etc. - will be
highlighted and located on the building plan. These
details will be used to relay the historic chronology
of the building. Again, these details will be
illustrated with representative photographs keyed to
their locations.
Sanborn maps, city maps, county maps, historic
photographs, and visual observations will be
used to identify the modifications made to the
site (hardscape and vegetation) over time. While
the scope of this report will not cover exhaustive
research, we will target our research to try to
substantiate the nature of the parks adjacent to the
Depot (in response to the RFP, page 3).
research and Documentation
CTA and our historian consultant will examine the
following research repositories and related sources:
1. Pioneer Museum in Bozeman
2. Railroad Museum in Livingston
3. Museum of the Rockies
4. Montana State University’s Special Collections
5. National Register Nominations of other depots
– particularly Northern Pacific depots of a similar
vintage
6. HABS (Historic American Buildings Survey)
documentations of depots of a similar
construction period
7. Montana Historical Society
The information gathered from the above sources
will help inform our analysis of the construction
history and design of the Depot. Our historian will
compose a chronological history of the depot and
site, set within the context of the history of the City
of Bozeman, the NPRR, and the State of Montana.
This history and context will be comparable to that
typically provided in the Montana Historic Property
Record Forms. Our historian, Dale Martin, is known
as a railroad historian whose work was used to
help formulate the contextual history presented the
district’s nomination form.
Our team will assess the building on site to uncover
clues to support – and be supported by – the
archival information and subsequent history derived
above. Our physical inspection will primarily be
based upon the currently visible material, as well as
select removal of subsequent materials. All such
inspections will only occur after written authorization
from Montana Rail Link (MRL) or the City of
Bozeman.3
All our findings will be annotated on the base
drawings, with indications of specific locations of
our findings and historic treatments. These locations
will be keyed to photographs, and drawings, where
required for illustration purposes. We will compile
and analyze this information to develop a chronology
of construction of the building. Depending upon
the scope and extent of the modifications, we will Depot, c.1905, before the 1923 remodeling. Reproduction
from the National Register nomination.
1912 Sanborn map, depicting R.R.
Parks flanking the passenger depot.
3cta will sign a standard MrL permit for entry and occupancy of the site with
reasonably acceptable indemnification provisions and insurance requirements.
30
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
Period of Significance,
character-Defining features,
and Statement of integrity
CTA will use the historic analysis and building
inspections to propose a Period of Significance and
develop character-defining features. A Period of
Significance highlights the time period that most
represents when the building served its primary
function and the building retained sufficient physical
and historical integrity. Character-defining features
are those that represent the building and its
architectural style during the Period of Significance
– features without which the building would not
be recognizable as the historic building it is. We
will identify character-defining features of the site
(approach, tracks, passenger waiting area, etc.), and
exterior and interior of the building, in that order.
These features will be described in detail, explaining
the feature’s context and import, and illustrated with
photographs. For example, the wirecut tapestry
brick currently on the building’s exterior is indicative
of construction from the 1920s. The texture this
brick imparts upon the walls, balanced with the
smooth soldier brick coursing, conveys a stylistic
distinction associated with this late Prairie style
structure.
This compilation of the Depot’s character will
naturally present a determination of the building’s
integrity. Such integrity is analyzed in terms of
the physical condition of the building (which will
be described in greater detail in the sections
that follow) and the condition of the historical
character-defining features of the building. The
latter determination essentially is comprised of
whether the building is recognizable as the Depot
it once was during the Period of Significance. The
report will include industry-standard definitions of
these terms, and supportive documentation of the
determinations.
Building code & Accessibility
Analysis
CTA will analyze compliance of the building with
the 2009 International Existing Building Code (with
related applicable sections of the 2009 International
Building Code). For this analysis, we will assume
that the building will be used for mercantile (retail),
business, or assembly purposes – all occupancies
allowed within the current light manufacturing
district (see Bozeman Zoning Ordinance).
These different uses inherently instill different
requirements, allow for different occupancy loads
(and concomitant amenities and fire resistances),
and modifications to the building. We will provide a
comparison chart of the most pertinent aspects for
each use.
Accessibility requirements will be examined
similarly, with the aim of providing sound
recommendations for removing barriers to access,
while still respecting the historic character of the
building. The goal will be to provide accessible
The wirecut tapestry brick is a character-defining feature of the 1924 remodeled Depot.
31
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
parking, entry, and facilities akin to those provided
to the rest of the population.
Physical examination
& Assessment
All physical examination and assessment will be
documented on the drawings generated from
the original documents. Documentation will be
presented in the form of annotations keyed to
specific locations of deterioration. This phase will
also include testing, as noted below.
CTA’s inspections are thorough. Our architects and
engineers access all areas of the building, from
the roof through the basement or crawlspace.
We touch and sample the materials, removing
subsequent materials to ascertain the build-up of
materials present. This investigation is interwoven
with our determination of the building chronology.
All materials are examined and discussed in the
report. We discuss every case of cause-and-effect
and pride ourselves on our ability to present these
causes and descriptions of building systems in a
clear fashion comprehensible to the lay person.
Our assessments include a description of the
component, its condition(s), and recommendations
for rectification of any deficiencies. Estimates
of remaining useful life are made to aid in our
compilation of priorities. We propose to classify
each recommendation in terms of the following
priorities of need, in descending order: immediate,
within five years, within ten years.
copshaholm in south Bend, indiana – condition assessment & Long-range plan.
Our assessment will be as identified below.
Architectural:
1. Exterior envelope:
a. Roofing , drainage, and collection
b. Walls
c. Openings – windows and doors
d. Trim
e. Special finishes and features
f. Strategies for mothballing the building
2. Interior finishes:
a. Walls and ceilings
b. Trim
c. Flooring
d. Openings – windows and doors
e. Special finishes and features
3. Opportunities for energy savings:
a. Windows
b. Insulation
c. Roofing
4. Identification of hazardous materials
a. Lead-based paint
b. Asbestos
Life/Safety/Accessibility:
1. Basic Code Analysis as described above– using
the 2009 International Existing Building Code
2. Fire Safety:
a. Fire suppression systems
b. Fire alarm systems
c. Egress windows
d. Fire-rated doors in corridors, etc.
3. ADA (handicapped accessibility) options
Example of discovery of original window, after selective demolition at interior of
retail building on Main street, sheridan, wyoming.
32
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
Structural:
1. Overall assessment – identification of areas of
concern
2. Seismic improvements
a. Code requirements
b. Industry standards
c. Range of options
Civil / Site Work:
1. Overall assessment – identification of areas of
concern
2. Mapping of existing utility services within and to
the structure, including water and sewer
Mechanical:
1. HVAC system
2. Plumbing system
3. Opportunities for energy savings
Electrical:
1. Wiring
2. Power supply
3. Loading
4. Devices
5. Opportunities for energy savings
As stated above, we will provide prioritized
recommendations for the work required to bring
the Depot component into good condition and into
(International Existing Building) code compliance,
where applicable. The recommendations will be
balanced with an understanding of the historic
character-defining features of the building, and
include parameters for treatment of special
materials (description of appropriate procedures for
recommended work items). A separate section will
be dedicated to the requirements for mothballing
the building.
cost estimating
CTA believes that cost estimating is one of our
prime responsibilities as a design firm and because
of that we treat estimating as an integral part of
the assessment process. We spend a substantial
amount of time and effort in developing systems,
maintaining databases, and training our professional
staff to use these tools effectively. Our estimates
are based on our computerized cost estimating
system that was developed by our Senior Partner,
Gene Kolstad, over 25 years ago. The entire system
was designed to be flexible to allow us to use
our system in any market area regardless of local
economic or construction conditions. The basis of
our system is the construction cost index that is
updated on a weekly basis in Engineering News
Record (ENR) magazine. That index is also adjusted
to site specific considerations through extensive
local market research and recent experience. In
2007 we updated the unit cost database, moving
from our internal product to RS Means Building
Construction Cost Data’s database, which is
updated routinely throughout the year. We believe
that our cost estimating system is one of our most
important communication tools. With this system,
we can provide this project with information needed
to make educated design decisions and allowing
clients to explore funding and phasing options. At
CTA, we require that our design architects and
engineers perform their own cost estimating. That
requires them to be much more familiar with the
project and accountable for the cost impact of their
design decisions. The firm has maintained a culture
of cost awareness and diligently approaches each
project with a focus on value and communication of
the cost implications of project decisions.
Deliverables
The Structural Analysis will be prepared and
presented in our standard format, with introduction,
executive summary, history assessments,
treatment recommendations, budget estimates,
and recommended phasing. We have provided
an example of a similar report, in order to
demonstrate our qualifications, and our method of
communicating our analysis and findings.
CTA will submit the Structural Analysis Report
with prioritized recommendations, alternative
use options, proposed restoration methods and
materials, and preliminary cost estimates. This
report will include:
33
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
1. Summary of character-defining features and
associated integrity.
2. Summary and analysis of the architectural
materials and systems conditions, and causes
where known.
3. Structural evaluation and recommendations.
4. Mechanical evaluation and recommendations.
5. Plumbing system evaluation and
recommendations.
6. Electrical system evaluation and
recommendations.
7. Civil and site systems evaluation and
recommendations.
8. Annotated and targeted photographs to illustrate
the patterns of deterioration.
9. Annotated plan drawings as needed to illustrate
the patterns of deterioration.
10. Recommended repairs and material
specifications specific to the architecture of
the building, as intended to rectify the current
and potential future damage caused by existing
conditions. This will include specific prioritized
recommendations for the structural systems,
mechanical systems, plumbing system,electrical
system, and the site.
11. Code analysis.
12. Construction cost estimates.
CTA will present the above report in hard copy (five
original color copies) to the City of Bozeman, as
well as in digital format, at 95% completion. At final
completion, we will submit ten original color copies
and ten digital copies to the City of Bozeman. The
final version will incorporate review comments from
the City and its representatives. Photographs and
drawings will be integrated into the body of the text
as required to illustrate the points of discussion.
(The digital reports will be provided in MS Word
2010 with an associated folder of jpeg images keyed
to the numbered figures in the body of the report.
The appendix articles will be provided in pdf format.)
CTA understands that ownership of the report
will be transferred to the City of Bozeman upon
completion of the report.
Presentations
The CTA team welcomes the opportunity to
present our findings to the public – at two meetings
– and the Bozeman City Commission. Such
presentations provide for an effective distillation of
the key components and findings. We will prepare
draft outlines for the presentations prior to the
events, for review by the City of Bozeman and
its representatives. We will submit CDs of these
PowerPoint presentations to the City of Bozeman.
ProfeSSioNAl teAM -
QUAlificAtioNS
CTA’s professional team will work closely with
the City of Bozeman’s representatives, and be
guided by the historic preservation expertise of
Lesley M. Gilmore. As senior project manager,
Ms. Gilmore will be intimately involved in the
project, leading the field inspections, managing
the other team members, coordinating and guiding
interpretation, code analysis, and developing final
recommendations and details. We are excited
to welcome local historian Dale Martin to our
team, both for his knowledge of Bozeman and the
railroads, and for his integrated team approach.
The exchange of information between Dale and our
architectural and engineering team will result in a
well-informed analysis and historical documentation.
Dale Martin qualifies as a professional historian
and Lesley M. Gilmore qualifies as an architect and
historic preservation architect.
34
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
Architects / engineers
Our professional team will be comprised of the
following key members, all of whom have worked
together on assessing and renovating historic
buildings. All members are with CTA, unless noted
otherwise:
Principal-in-Charge:
Scott Wilson, P.E.
Project Manager:
Lesley M. Gilmore, A.I.A., LEED-AP
Historic Preservation Architect
Historian:
Dale L. Martin, Jr., Consultant to CTA
Electrical Engineer:
Alan Bronec, P.E.
Mechanical/Plumbing Engineer:
Bill Edden, P.E.
Structural Engineer:
David French, P.E.
Civil Engineer:
Todd Swinehart, P.E.
Industrial Hygienist:
Sonia Rogers, Environmental Solutions
The various team members have been intimately
involved in the following representative related
projects, several of which are described in greater
detail – and illustrated – in the Appendix:
1. Historic Structure Report for the Original
Governor’s Mansion in Helena, Montana
2. Condition Assessment and Long-Range Plan for
Copshaholm in South Bend, Indiana
3. Historic Structure Report for the Albright Visitor
Center in Mammoth, Yellowstone National Park
4. Lake General Store Historic Structure Report &
Renovation, Yellowstone National Park
5. Nichols House Historic Structure Report &
Renovation, Yellowstone National Park
6. King Residence Assessment in Bozeman,
Montana
7. Historic Structure Report and Master Plan for
Dornix Park in Big Timber, Montana
8. Meeteetse Museum Assessment in
Meeteetse, Wyoming
9. Buildings No. 5 & 6 Assessments at the South
Boulder Development Center in Boulder,
Montana
10. Tower General Store Renovation, Yellowstone
National Park
11. Ouellette Place Apartments Renovation and
New Construction; Lewistown, Montana
12. Restorations of exterior masonry at historic
buildings on the MSU-Bozeman campus:
Montana Hall, Lewis Hall, Linfield Hall, and
Traphagen Hall
13. Old Faithful Haynes Photo Shop Renovation &
Addition, Yellowstone National Park
Completed renovation projects are included above
as a demonstration of our ability to provide feasible
solutions that can be – and are – implemented.
References will be provided upon request.
Team member resumes are included at the close of
this proposal. One copy of the Boulder Building No.
5 Assessment and Reuse Plan is provided with the
proposals, and included on the disc.
35
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
fee ProPoSAl
The CTA team has determined the following level
of effort for the Scope of Services described
above. The following cost proposal is based upon
our knowledge of the project and experience with
similar projects, and is inclusive of all associated
costs except for the reimbursable expenses
associated with printing the reports:
Professional Fees (personnel labor)
Architectural/Management .....................$8,150
Historian ................................................$1,200
Electrical Engineering .............................$2,175
Mechanical/Plumbing Engineering ..........$1,120
Structural Engineering ............................$1,000
Civil Engineering ........................................$640
Clerical/Graphics .......................................$145
Hazardous Material Testing - Allowance .....$2,200
Travel Expenses (electrical engineer) .............$370
Printing .......................................................$1,500
TOTAL $18,500
coNtrActUAl ProViSioNS
Project Schedule
CTA’s team proposes the following overall schedule of work:
Task Completion Date
Team Selection by City of Bozeman October 22, 2012
Kick-Off February 1, 2013
Assessment on Site February 1 – March 15, 2013
Meeting with Stakeholders March 15, 2013
95% Draft Submittal April 15, 2013
Draft Review and Editing April 15 – May 14, 2013
100% Final Submittal May 15, 2013
Public Presentations / Forums May 15 – June 30, 2013
The professional fees have been modified to reflect
the following changes in the Scope of Services:
1. Additional archival research via online database of
the Northern Pacific Railroad.
2. Removal of engineers’ participation in the public
presentations.
3. More exact definition of asbestos and lead-based
painting testing
36
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
Additional Services
The following services can be provided in addition to
those described in the Scope of Services; they are
not currently included in the proposal.
1. Full seismic analysis.
2. Any scope items in addition to those indicated in
Scope of Services above.
Qualifications
CTA has based this proposal upon the following
provisions:
1. The City of Bozeman or MRL will provide
full access to the entirety of the building – roof,
elevations, basement/crawlspace (if there is
one), and all interior spaces.
2. The drawings will be prepared in AutoCad.
3. CTA and our consultants can only inspect the
accessible areas and visible components of the
building. We will not be responsible for areas
that are obstructed by excessive storage.
4. CTA will provide ladders to access the roof,
framing, and ceilings.
terMS of the coNtrAct
AIA Contract B102 (2007), Standard Form of
Agreement Between Owner and Architect, will be
the legal basis for providing the above work, unless
the City of Bozeman has a preferred standard
contract. On a monthly basis CTA shall invoice
for Professional Fees and Reimbursable Expenses
incurred during the previous month. Invoices
shall be due and payable 30 days from date of
invoice. CTA shall have the right to suspend the
performance of its services as part of this proposal
at any time if such payments are not received within
45 days of date of invoice. Outstanding invoices are
subject to 1.5% interest rate per month.
This proposal is not a contract; however, if work is
begun prior to signing a contract, the terms of this
proposal shall be considered binding until a contract
is signed.
This proposal is valid for 90 (ninety) days from date
of issue.
iNSUrANce coVerAge
CTA maintains a $5,000,000 Professional Liability
Insurance policy with CNA. CTA will provide a
Certificate of Insurance, upon selection of CTA for
the above services.
37
representative ProjectsAPPeNDiX
38
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
CTA Assessments & Restorations: 2007-2011
Proposed Team Members Involved:
Lesley M. Gilmore
Total Construction Cost: $587,000
Client name:
MSU Facilities & Planning - Bozeman
Contact person:
Dennis Raffensperger, Campus Architect
Phone Number: 406-994-5040
Email: dennis.raffensperger@montana.edu
Description:
Prioritized assessments with cost estimates helped
CTA define the scope of work the University
could accommodate with their funding sources.
Ensuing restorations focused on the most critical
issues on these historic masonry buildings at the
MSU campus, from repair and replication of 1907
concrete brick, restoration and repair of terra cotta,
repointing, reflashing, and brick replacement.
This project received a 2012 Bozeman Historic
Preservation Award.
Montana state University Masonry Assessments & restorations Montana hall, Traphagen hall, Lewis hall, Linfield hall, Linfield hall south; Bozeman, Montana
original concrete brick used for testing - Linfield Hall.
39
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
J. G. Link & Co.: 1936
CTA Renovation: 2007-2010
Construction Cost: $1,200,000 (actual cost;
estimating provided by owner)
Proposed Team Members Involved: Lesley M.
Gilmore, Bill Edden, Alan Bronec, Todd Swinehart
Client name:
Ouellette Place Limited Partnership
Contact Person: Duane Ferdinand
Phone Number: (406) 535-1776
Email: planning@ci.lewistown.mt.us
Description:
Renovation of existing masonry Nurses Home
into 8-unit low-income apartment building, in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards, including completion of Historic
Preservation Tax Credit Application. Work included
restoration of the exterior brick and cast concrete
façade, and integration of apartments as closely
within the original wall configurations as possible.
Construction was completed in Fall 2011.
This project received the Governor’s 2011 Excellence
in Historic Preservation Award.
Ouellette Place Apartments renovation; Lewistown, MT
Lower Level Floor plan - adaptive reuse of 1936
nurses’ Dormitory
40
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
CTA, Assessments: 2010
Total Construction Estimate Costs:
$595,000 - $1,060,000
Proposed Team Members Involved:
Lesley M. Gilmore
Client name:
Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office
Contact person: Mary Hopkins, WY SHPO
Phone number: (307)777-6311
Email: mhopki@state.wy.us
Description:
Description: Assessment and facility reuse plans for
the original 1879 stone administration building at
historic Fort Washakie. CTA’s historic preservation
specialist examined the building that had
sustained heavy fire damage in 2005 and provided
recommendations for different reuse options,
restoration, repairs, and interior reconfigurations to
enable the building to effectively serve either the
Bureau of Indian Affairs or one of the Indian tribes
that inhabit the adjacent Wind River Reservation.
Fort Washakie Building no. 1 Assessment, with reuse Options;Fort Washakie, WY
Building no. 1 in 1937. photograph courtesy of the Bureau of
indian affairs, wind river agency.
41
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
Hodgson, Stem, and Welter: 1887
CTA Assessment: 2012
Proposed Team Members Involved:
Lesley M. Gilmore and Alan Bronec
Client name:
Montana State Historical Society
Contact person: Sarah Nucci, Curator of History
Phone number: (406) 444-4711
Email: SNucci@mt.gov
Description:
Research as required for contextual and
chronological history, assessment of Mansion
and Carriage House, accessibility study, and
development of prioritized recommendations
with associated costs. Components included in
the analysis were roofing (with various options
presented for appropriate substitute materials), brick
and stone masonry, windows and doors, exterior
porches and balustrades, and interior finishes.
Areas of specific structural, mechanical, and
electrical concern were addressed. The 95% draft
report was issued in May 2012; the final draft will be
submitted in October 2012.
Original governor’s Mansion historic structure report; helena, MT
riLEM tube test showing rapid absorption of water in the
pressed brick.
42
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
Kirk: 1922
CTA HSR and Renovation: 2007-2010
Proposed Team Members Involved:
Lesley M. Gilmore and Bill Edden
Client name:
Delaware North Companies
Contact person: Derek Zwickey, Regional Manager
Phone number: (406) 586-7593
Email: dzwickey@dncinc.com
Description:
Research and investigation as required for
contextual and chronological history, assessment of
Lake General Store and the grounds, accessibility
study, code analysis, and development of prioritized
recommendations. Based upon our findings, the
National Park Service and Wyoming State Historic
Preservation Office approved our approach to
the renovation of the 5,600 square foot building,
including restoration of the wood shingle roof and
wall covering, replication of original stone foundation
work, seismic improvements, incorporation of all
new systems (electrical, plumbing, mechanical,
and fire protection), and sensitive integration of a
handicapped accessible ramp into the main entry
landing sequence. Completed in Fall 2010, this
project received the first Yellowstone Business
Partnership Sustainability Framework Certification.
Lake general store historic structure
report and renovation; Yellowstone
national Park, WY
Hamilton’s Lake general store, c. 1927. photograph courtesy of
robert goss.
43
Structural analySiS : : northern Pacific railway PaSSenger DePot
Assessments of Building No. 5 & No. 6,
with Reuse Options
Reroofing of Building No. 5
CTA, Assessments: 2009-2010
Total Construction Estimate Costs:
$1,175,500 – $3,360,000
Client name:
efferson Local Development Corporation
Contact Person: Tara Mastel, MSU Economic and
Community Development Extension Agent for
Jefferson County
Phone Number: (406) 287-3282
Email: tara.mastel@montana.edu
Description:
Full architectural and engineering assessments
of the 1923 masonry Women’s Dormitory for
determination of feasibility of reuse for a business
and community center on the first floor, with
living spaces on the second floor. Coordination of
work with the potential user and with the State
Historic Preservation Office for compliance with
the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the
Treatment of Historic Properties. Assessment
of the 1954 Building #6 was prepared without a
specific tenant in mind; analysis assumed a typical
office use. Both studies included architectural,
structural electrical, plumbing, and mechanical
system analyzes, with prioritized recommendations
for rehabilitation and code compliance. Associated
cost estimates for proposed phases of work were
provided.
CTA prepared bid documents for repairing the roof
framing, and providing stone-coated steel roofing to
replicate the original clay tile roofing, of Building No.
5. A contractor completed the work in July 2011. All
work was approved by the Montana State Historic
Preservation Office.
Boulder Development Center;
Boulder, MT
adaptive reuse of residential apartments on second floor
44
cta architects Engineers
411 East Main street, suite 101
Bozeman, Montana 59715
Doing Business By The Golden Rule
simply put, it means, “treating others as we would like to be treated.”
the key is to be able to step completely out of your shoes and look at each situation
from the other person’s perspective. ask yourself, “if i were on the other side of the
action i am about to take, would i feel fairly treated?”
taken from cta’s employee handbook
45
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Stacy Ulmen CMC, City Clerk
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approve the meeting time change from 6 p.m.-10 p.m. to 11 a.m.-1 p.m. on Monday, December 17th for the Regular City Commission
Meeting.
MEETING DATE: December 3rd, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: Due to Holiday schedules, approve a time change for the regular City Commission Meeting on Monday, December 17th. This will
also be the last meeting for 2012.
BACKGROUND: City Commission meetings are typically held each Monday from 6
p.m. to 10 p.m.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: Meet at 6 p.m.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None
Attachments: none
Report compiled on: 11/26/2012
46
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of the Interlocal Agreement between School District 7 and the City of Bozeman to establish the process and guidelines relative to school citing and development and the creation of Tax
Increment Financing Districts.
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Interlocal agreement as written, authorizing
Mayor Becker to sign.
BACKGROUND: On November 28, 2011 the Bozeman City Commission and
Bozeman School District 7 representatives met in a joint session to discuss the creation of tax
increment financing districts, public safety issues and planning for future school locations.
At that time staff was directed to work with school district staff to draft an interlocal agreement addressing these issues and to return to the Commission during a subsequent City Commission
and School District 7 Board of Trustees joint meeting to discuss the draft document.
Additionally, School District 7 Trustees requested that the creation of the Technology TIF be
included as a topic of discussion.
On October 15, 2012 the Bozeman City Commission and Bozeman School District 7
representatives met in a joint session to discuss the draft interlocal agreement and creation of the
Technology TIF. The attached agreement is a result of the work completed between city and
school district staff and the conversations from the meetings between the City Commission and
School District 7 Board of Trustees. The materials provided in the link below explain Montana State Law governing this type of agreement, the historical need for the agreement and an
explanation as to the benefits of such an agreement. These prior materials also explain the
primary provisions of the Interlocal agreement.
Link to the materials of the October 15, 2012, Bozeman City Commission and Bozeman School District 7 joint meeting.
Link to the audio of the October 15, 2012, Bozeman City Commission and Bozeman School
District 7 joint meeting.
47
On November 12, 2012 the Bozeman School District 7 Board of Trustees met and approved the
final version of the Interlocal Agreement as attached. The Agreement is now before the City
Commission for final approval.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None identified at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As recommended by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified at this time.
Attachment: FINAL Interlocal agreement between the City of Bozeman and
Bozeman School District 7
Report compiled on: November 15, 2012 by Aimee Brunckhorst
48
49
50
51
52
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Aimee Brunckhorst, Deputy City Clerk Stacy Ulmen CMC, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Mayoral Proclamation Celebrating Rhodes Scholars Amanda Frickle and
Joseph Thiel
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012
MEETING TYPE: Consent
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached Mayoral Proclamation Celebrating the
achievements of Rhodes Scholars Amanda Frickle and Joseph Thiel.
BACKGROUND: Two residents of the city of Bozeman were selected to receive
prestigious Rhodes Scholarships to attend Oxford University. This Mayoral Proclamation is a
way to acknowledge this feat and to congratulate Amanda and Joseph letting them know how
proud we all are of their dedication and their commitment to the common good.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachment: Proclamation
53
MAYORAL
PROCLAMATION
CCCeeellleeebbbrrraaatttiiinnnggg RRRhhhooodddeeesss SSSccchhhooolllaaarrrsss
AAAmmmaaannndddaaa FFFrrriiiccckkkllleee aaannnddd JJJooossseeeppphhh TTThhhiiieeelll
**********************************************
WHEREAS, the Rhodes Scholarships are the oldest and most celebrated international
fellowship awards in the world and provide full financial support for Rhodes Scholars to
pursue a degree(s) at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom; and,
WHEREAS, Each year 32 young Americans are selected as Rhodes Scholars, through a
decentralized process representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia; and
WHEREAS, Rhodes Scholars are chosen not only for their outstanding scholarly
achievements, but for their character, commitment to others and to the common good, and for
their potential for leadership in whatever domains their careers may lead; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is proud to celebrate the selection of two Bozeman
residents as 2012 Rhodes Scholars; and,
WHEREAS, the city of Bozeman would like to honor Rhodes Scholar Amanda J. Frickle
who majored in political economy and history with a focus on gender studies and who has
been very active politically and plans to pursue dual masters programs in women’s studies and
possibly public policy while at Oxford; and,
WHEREAS, the city of Bozeman would also like to honor Rhodes Scholar Joseph W.
Thiel who has experience and interest in international development and majors at Montana
State University in chemical engineering and liberal studies with a focus on politics,
philosophy and economics and plans to pursue economics for development at Oxford; and WHEREAS, the city of Bozeman and its residents would like to congratulate Amanda and Joseph for this amazing achievement, celebrating their success and wishing them well far into the future.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereto set my hand and cause
the Great Seal of the City of Bozeman, Montana to be affixed
this 20th
day of November, 2012.
_____________________________________________
Mayor Sean A. Becker
54
Memorandum to City Commission: Provisional Adoption of Ordinance 1836 Page 1 of 3
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission.
FROM: Scott Lee, City Parking Manager.
SUBJECT: Final Adoption of Ordinance 1849 – an Ordinance amending chapter 36,
article 4 BMC related to parking standards and parking facilities, applying the “rolling rule” to
city facilities, amending the fine for section 36.04.260(D), and providing an effective date. MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Commission hold a public hearing on the ordinance,
consider this staff memorandum, written and spoken public testimony, and finally adopt
Ordinance 1849 to amend chapter 36, article 4 of the Bozeman Municipal Code related to
parking standards and the city parking facilities and applying the rolling rule to said facilities and
amending the fine for parking longer than 48 hours on a street, alley, or city parking facility.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having conducted a public hearing and considered public comment I
hereby move to finally adopt Ordinance 1849 amending Chapter 36, Article 4 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code related to parking standards and city parking facilities and the application of the “Rolling Rule” to city facilities and amending the fine for parking longer than 48 hours on a street, alley, or city parking facility.
BACKGROUND:
It is the intent of the Bozeman Parking Commission and the City to clarify and amend the parking related ordinances currently in place to include all City owned facilities in addition to
streets, alleys and highways and to therefore make regulations and enforcement consistent. The
proposed ordinance addresses two issues: application of the “rolling rule” to City parking
facilities such as the Mendenhall and Willson parking lots and a clarification amendment
regarding the fine amount for parking for longer than 48 hours on a street, alley, highway, or city parking facility.
Section 1 of the Ordinance amends section 36.04.250, BMC, and provides authority to the
Bozeman Parking Commission to determine restrictions on parking in the public parking
55
Memorandum to City Commission: Provisional Adoption of Ordinance 1836 Page 2 of 3
facilities including the Downtown Bridger Park Garage and all the surface parking lots owned by
the city.
Section 2 of the Ordinance addresses the “rolling rule.” In section 36.04.260, the City Commission previously established a “rolling rule” in 2002 to prevent people from just moving a vehicle a short distance every few hours to avoid violating the 2 hour limit. Currently, Parking
and Police Officers electronically log the location of vehicles parked in 2 hour zones and mark
the location of the valve stems on the vehicle thereby allowing them to determine if the vehicle
has been moved. This amendment seeks to include the public parking facilities under this section. The existing “rolling rule” is currently not enforceable in public parking facilities.
This has lead to abuse of the intent of the original ordinance by vehicles only needing to move
from one space to another within the same parking facility to avoid violation of the city
ordinance for two hour parking and said vehicle receiving a citation. Parking Officers see vehicles parked daily in a public lot and a few hours later see the same vehicle parked in the same lot just in a different space. Often the same vehicle will be noted in the same lot every
weekday. The drivers have not violated the current ordinance, so no citations are issued.
However, a person who parked on the adjacent street would be issued a citation, if they do not
vacate the block face for a minimum of three hours. This inconsistency is what the amendment will correct. Additionally, employees of local businesses are encouraged to park elsewhere; however, they often utilize the parking lots, and then just switch spaces with another employee
every few hours. The 2010 traffic study has shown the occupancy rate in the several lots
remaining at a relatively high level after the late morning peak, thereby not allowing new
vehicles to be able to park in these surface lots. The 2012 traffic study has not yet been finalized, however it shows increased occupancy rate in the surface lots over the 2010 levels. Local business owners have addressed their parking concerns about surface parking lot
availability to the Parking Commissioners and to the City Commissioners on numerous
occasions. This amendment will address the concerns of the Parking Department and
Commissioners and these citizens as well. Any person, who displays a permit issued by the City for that specific parking lot, will be exempted from the maximum parking duration thru section 36.04.260(E) and therefore no lawful use will be affected.
In an effort to generally revise these provisions in the municipal code we recommend in Section 3 of the Ordinance that Section 36.04.270 be repealed. The language in this section is better included in the previous section which has been done with this amendment, therefore this section should be repealed.
Finally, Section 4 of the Ordinance amends Section 36.04.380 - which covers penalties for
violations – to change the language regarding which violations have a minimum penalty other than the standard amount of $20.00. There currently are only two violations that have a minimum higher than the $20.00 – Fire Lane violations ($50.00) and Parking Limitations on
Certain Streets – parking 2am-7am ($30.00).
The original intent of the Bozeman Police Department and the Bozeman Parking Department was to increase the minimum fine for Fire Lane violations to $50.00, the 48 hour violations to
56
Memorandum to City Commission: Provisional Adoption of Ordinance 1836 Page 3 of 3
$30.00 ( not the Parking Limitations on Certain Streets), and to increase all other Title 32
violations to $20.00 each with ordinance 1771. However, when the ordinance was drafted, the
language was drafted differently than the intent, and went unnoticed by both departments. The
Bozeman Police Department and the Parking Department have been issuing citations for 48 hour violations in the amount of $30.00 since the ordinance was adopted and became effective February 1, 2010. Since I have discovered this, I am presenting this new amendment to the
ordinance to match the original intent. Since the prior ordinance set a minimum only, the
issuance of citations with a higher amount has been lawful, and both departments seek to correct
the language with this amendment. The minimum fine for Parking Limitations on Certain Streets will be reduced to $20.00.
The Bozeman Parking Commission meet on November 14, 2012 and approved a resolution to
adopt and recommend to the City Commission said changes to the BMC section 36, article 4
detailed above and in ordinance 1849.
ALTERNATIVES: As determined by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Negligible increase in revenue.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Ordinance 1849 for provisional adoption.
Report compiled on: November 26, 2012
57
Ordinance No. 1849
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 1849
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, AMENDING CHAPTER
36, ARTICLE 4 OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PARKING STANDARDS AND CITY PARKING FACILITIES, APPLYING THE “ROLLING RULE” TO CITY PARKING FACILITIES, ADJUSTING
THE FINE FOR PARKING LONGER THAN 48 HOURS ON
A STREET, ALLEY, OR CITY PARKING FACILITY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana:
Section 1
Section 36.04.250 of the Bozeman Municipal Code shall be amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
“Sec. 36.04.250. - Parking limitations on certain streets/city parking facilities.
A. The director of public services is authorized to erect signs or markings upon either or both
sides of any street or highway to prohibit the standing or parking of vehicles or to restrict such standing or parking.
B. The Parking Commission may, by resolution, erect signs or marking upon any city parking
facility to prohibit the standing or parking of vehicles or to restrict such standing or parking.
C. When official signs are erected in each block or markings are placed along a street, highway,
or within a city parking facility, indicating that parking is prohibited or restricted, no person
shall park any vehicle in violation of any such sign or marking.”
58
Ordinance No. 1849
Page 2 of 5
Section 2
Section 36.04.260 of the Bozeman Municipal Code shall be amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
“Sec. 36.04.260. - Maximum parking duration designated.
A. When signs are erected on any street, alley, highway, or city parking facility, within the city
designating a maximum duration for parking, no person shall park any vehicle for longer
than the maximum duration posted. B. A vehicle may not return to a parking space in the same block face or within 500 feet of where
previously parked on the same block face or to the same city parking facility for a three hour
period.
C. Upon expiration of the maximum parking duration as posted, a citation may be issued, in accordance with 36.04.380, to any vehicle which remains parked or stopped on the same
block face unless for vehicles parked on streets, alleys, and highways:
1. The vehicle has moved more than 500 lineal feet, measured along the curb or edge line;
2. The vehicle has moved to an unregulated area in the same block face; or 3. The vehicle has vacated the block face for a minimum of three hours.
D. Upon expiration of the maximum parking duration as posted for a city parking facility, a
citation may be issued, in accordance with 36.04.380, to any vehicle which remains parked
or stopped in the same city parking facility. E. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no person shall park a vehicle for longer than 48 consecutive
hours at any time upon a street, alley, or highway within the city or within a city parking
facility, except for the Downtown Bridger Park Garage, unless displaying a valid permit.
Signs may be erected by the director of public services giving notice thereof. However, the signs are not required.”
Section 3
Section 36.04.270 of the Bozeman Municipal Code shall be repealed in its entirety and shall be
reserved. There shall be no numbering changes to other sections in Chapter 36, Article 4,
Division 1.
Section 4
Section 36.04.380.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code shall be amended so that such section shall
read as follows:
59
Ordinance No. 1849
Page 3 of 5
“Sec. 36.04.380. – Enforcement; penalty for violations; designated as municipal infractions.
A. Municipal infraction/fines. A violation of this article is a municipal infraction and shall be
punishable by a civil penalty as provided in section 24.02.040 and the civil penalties shall be
imposed as follows:
1. The minimum civil penalty for parking in violation of section 36.04.180 shall be a fine
of not less than $50.00 or more than $300.00.
2. The minimum civil penalty for parking in violation of 36.04.260(D)
3. The minimum civil penalty for parking in violation of other sections of this article shall
be a fine of not less than $20.00 or more than $300.00.
shall be a fine of
not less than $30.00 or more than $300.00.
Section 5
Repealer.
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances of
the City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect.
Section 6
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. All other
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 7
Severability.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect
the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so
60
Ordinance No. 1849
Page 4 of 5
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman
Municipal Code as a whole.
Section 8 Codification.
This Ordinance shall be codified as indicated in Section 1 – 4.
Section 9
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
61
Ordinance No. 1849
Page 5 of 5
PROVISIONALLY PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana,
on first reading at a regular session held on the _____ day of ________________, 2012.
____________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the ___ of
____________________, 2012. The effective date of this ordinance is __________, __, 2012.
_________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
62
MAYORAL
PROCLAMATION
CCCeeellleeebbbrrraaatttiiinnnggg RRRhhhooodddeeesss SSSccchhhooolllaaarrrsss
AAAmmmaaannndddaaa FFFrrriiiccckkkllleee aaannnddd JJJooossseeeppphhh TTThhhiiieeelll
**********************************************
WHEREAS, the Rhodes Scholarships are the oldest and most celebrated international
fellowship awards in the world and provide full financial support for Rhodes Scholars to
pursue a degree(s) at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom; and,
WHEREAS, Each year 32 young Americans are selected as Rhodes Scholars, through a
decentralized process representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia; and
WHEREAS, Rhodes Scholars are chosen not only for their outstanding scholarly
achievements, but for their character, commitment to others and to the common good, and for
their potential for leadership in whatever domains their careers may lead; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman is proud to celebrate the selection of two Bozeman
residents as 2012 Rhodes Scholars; and,
WHEREAS, the city of Bozeman would like to honor Rhodes Scholar Amanda J. Frickle
who majored in political economy and history with a focus on gender studies and who has
been very active politically and plans to pursue dual masters programs in women’s studies and
possibly public policy while at Oxford; and,
WHEREAS, the city of Bozeman would also like to honor Rhodes Scholar Joseph W.
Thiel who has experience and interest in international development and majors at Montana
State University in chemical engineering and liberal studies with a focus on politics,
philosophy and economics and plans to pursue economics for development at Oxford; and WHEREAS, the city of Bozeman and its residents would like to congratulate Amanda and Joseph for this amazing achievement, celebrating their success and wishing them well far into the future.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereto set my hand and cause
the Great Seal of the City of Bozeman, Montana to be affixed
this 20th
day of November, 2012.
_____________________________________________
Mayor Sean A. Becker
63
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Allyson B. Brekke, Associate Planner
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: An update to the City Commission on the impending end to the two year stay of demolition
for the remaining portions of the Bozeman Lehrkind Brewery site located at 801/803 North Wallace
Avenue.
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: No official action by the City Commission is required.
BACKGROUND: This update to the City Commission is due to the public interest in the remaining
Bozeman Lehrkind Brewery building. The update is not required by the Bozeman Municipal Code. City
of Bozeman staff wanted to provide an opportunity for all parties to learn of the impending end of the two
year stay of demolition. The end of the two year stay of demolition is January 10, 2013.
A timeline of the Bozeman Brewery Building project’s extensive background since original submittal to
the Bozeman Department of Planning in 2007 is attached to this memo. A portion of that timeline is
summarized below:
August 24, 2010: A Modification to a Final Site Plan application was submitted by the Bozeman Brewery
applicant requesting the complete demolition of the remaining “Lehrkind Brewery Building”
structure/wall.
November 15, 2010: First City Commission public hearing on the Mods of FSP/Brewery Demolition
application – Commission opens and continues the project to January 10, 2011 and requests the following
additional information:
1. More detail/more information about how permanent stabilization/bracing of
the wall can occur - Applicant and property owner
2. State Historic Preservation Office's determination of how the Brewery
Historic District is affected by the demolition of the wall –City Staff
3. Demolition cost estimates – Applicant and property owner
4. Explanation of whether or not the temporary bracing can be improved by
fixing the failing epoxy issue – City Staff
5. Examples of building walls preserved and other similar relics – City Staff
6. More information on why the Final Site Plan proposal can’t move forward –
Applicant and property owner
7. Final recommendation from the Northeast Neighborhood Association (results
of final vote at November 2010 meeting) – City Staff
64
January 10, 2011: Second City Commission public hearing on the Mods of FSP/Brewery Demolition
application –City Commission voted to deny the demolition request of the remaining Bozeman Brewery
building. The voted motion, which was made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner
Becker, was the following: “Having heard and considered public comment, we hereby adopt the findings
presented in the November 15, 2010 and January 10, 2011 staff reports for the Modifications to the Final
Site Plan #Z-07145A except we find that until a detailed structural report is provided with construction
bids made from engineered plans the Commission does not have sufficient information to make the
findings required under 18.28.080.C.2. Specifically, we find the applicant has failed to satisfactorily
demonstrate compliance with 18.28.080.C.2 (a) or (b) because: (i) the applicant has not satisfactorily
demonstrated that work to permanently stabilize the wall is not reasonable under the circumstances; (ii)
the applicant has not demonstrated costs associated with the permanent stabilization of the wall exceed
the value of the structure; and (iii) the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated the structure has no
viable economic or useful life remaining. As such, I move to deny the requested modifications to the final
site plan for demolition of the east facade of the brewery.”
In essence, the only effect of the Commission’s “denial,” per 18.28.080.C.2 (now currently referenced as
38.16.080.a.4 BMC) was to start the two year stay of demolition. After the period of stay is over, a
demolition permit can be submitted to the City’s Building Division for review and approval provided the
demolition permit application meets the applicable building code requirements. This determination is
based on the reading of the BMC section that deals with the demolition or movement of structures or sites
within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, which is included below:
Sec. 38.16.080. - Demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district
(previously Sec. 18.28.080)
A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be
subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for the
demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows:
1. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district
will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or
treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent
development or treatment must be approved before a demolition or moving permit may be
issued.
2. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or
sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral elements by the state historical and
architectural inventory, and that are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to review per articles 19
and 34 of this chapter, and the standards outlined in 38.16.050. The state historical and
architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified
professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions
on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review
authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section
shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in
conjunction with a deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit development
application.
3. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or
sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the state historical and architectural
inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to
public notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. Prior
to any final action on the application the review authority shall receive a recommendation
from the historic preservation office; and if the demolition does not conform to the criteria
below a recommendation from the historic preservation advisory board. The state historical
and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified
professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions
on the site prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review
65
authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section
shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in
conjunction with a deviation, variance, site plan, conditional use permit or planned unit
development application. The review authority shall base its decision on the following:
a. The standards in 38.16.050 and the architectural, social, cultural and historical
importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined
by the state historic preservation office and the planning department.
b. If the review authority finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then,
before approving an application to demolish or remove, the review authority must find
that at least one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied
by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs
of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment:
(1) The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable
repairs or alterations will remove such threat; any costs associated with the
removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure.
(2) The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
4. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving
permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order
to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including,
but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be
terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient
additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection 2 or 3
of this section.
5. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a
manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and administrative design review
staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits.
6. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site
that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor
performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and
manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in
conformance with all applicable codes and regulations.
The two year stay was intended for interested parties to work with the property owner to determine
alternatives to demolition. Despite those efforts getting a relatively slow start, the property owner has
been contacted by the Northeast Urban Renewal Board and the Northeast Neighborhood Association. No
response from the property owner was received to the requests within those contact attempts.
A change in that policy has occurred since the Brewery project and now requires the submittal of building
permits, and the payment of impact fees for an approved structure (if required) prior to the demolition of
significant historic structures. If it’s the desire for the City Commission to move this practice beyond
policy to municipal code, it may direct Staff to do so.
If the demolition of the wall occurs, the State Historic Preservation Office has determined the following
(from a letter dated December 21, 2010 and addressed to Courtney Kramer, the City’s Historic
Preservation Planner):
“Should the brewery complex façade wall be demolished, an integral part of the district’s ability
to convey these associations with its industrial past would cease to exist, and the district, as
originally listed in the National Register, would no longer be eligible. As noted above, within the
district, the brewery complex façade wall provides the district’s most substantial, tangible link to
the rise of industrial development in Bozeman. Without it, these associations would be unclear,
as the smaller-scale bottling plant would be the only remaining integrity of setting, feeling, and
66
association within the district would not be sufficient to justify the district’s listing in the National
Register.”
SHPO’s letter is attached to this memo. In the City Commission’s denial motion on January 10, 2011,
none of the recommended conditions of approval that dealt with mitigation for the loss of the historic site
were included. Staff is suggesting mitigation to the Commission. The suggested form of mitigation is the
suggestion made by SHPO in their December 21, 2010 letter: Hire a professional acceptable to the State
Historic Preservation Office to conduct some historic inventory work to determine if a new National
Register Historic District can be created with the remaining three residential structures, including the
Lehrkind Mansion. If the historic research doesn’t support the creation of a new district, then the idea of
individual listings should be considered.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: There are no unresolved issues at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: None suggested.
ADDITIONAL SUGGESTIONS: The City Commission may also consider the additional suggestions:
FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified at this time.
Attachments: Brewery Development Timeline
NENA letter dated November 9, 2012
Original Brewery Mods to FSP Staff Report from January10, 2011
Report compiled on: November 21, 2012
67
Bozeman Brewery Building Project Timeline
Updated October 24, 2012 - Page 1
June 2007: Brewery applicant submits Preliminary Site Plan/COA/DEV application to
Planning Department
June/July 2007: Demolition of non-contributing parts (including “Hell Roaring Building”
and wood frame additions) of the Brewery Building property approved by
Planning Department prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval – Demolition
occurs
August 20, 2007: Preliminary Site Plan approval granted by City Commission – Brewery
applicant has six months to turn in a Final Site Plan application to the
Planning Department
February 2008: Brewery applicant submits Final Site Plan application to Planning – traffic
study included with application and demonstrates the need for a light
signal at the Peach and Rouse intersection – the installation of a light
signal the responsibility of the applicant (as the code required at that
time)
March 13, 2008: Encroachment Permit for the closure of the sidewalk along the west side
of North Wallace Avenue between Aspen and Tamarack approved for an
18-month duration
April 21, 2008: Appeal by Brewery applicant to not have to install a traffic signal at Peach
and Rouse approved by the City Commission
May 5, 2008: Final Site Plan approval by Planning Department
May/June 2008: Demolition permit of Brewery Building property (including the remaining
“Haynes Building” and “Lehrkind Brewery Building”) approved by
Planning Department prior to building permit approval – demolition to
follow a demolition plan created by a licensed structural engineer
included in the Final Site Plan approval – temporary bracing installed on
the east wall of the “Lehrkind Brewery Building”
May/June 2009: One year extension to Final Site Plan approval granted by Planning
Department
September 2009: Extension to Encroachment Permit granted by Engineering until May 5,
2010
68
Bozeman Brewery Building Project Timeline
Updated October 24, 2012 - Page 2
July 27, 2010: Letter sent from Planning Department asking about the applicant’s
intentions with the site – letter sent because questions about the long
term stability of the wall and possible hazards to the public had been
raised by members of the public and the Building Department – letter
stated that “the City is interested in discussing with you the long term
maintenance and development of the site.”
August 24, 2010: A Modification to a Final Site Plan application was submitted by the
Bozeman Brewery applicant requesting the complete demolition of the
remaining “Lehrkind Brewery Building” structure/wall.
September 15, 2010: Mods of FSP application deemed “inadequate” by City Staff – applicant
requested to supply: “A structural analysis update from the original
structural engineer on the project stating the justification for why the
remaining wall/structure on the property needs to be demolished” –
asked to be submitted within 15 days
October 6, 2010: Structural analysis update submitted by applicant
October 20, 2010: Additional information requested by the applicant so City Staff can make
a recommendation to the demolition of the wall:
1. An inspection of the wall and the temporary bracing system shall
occur by the current Engineer of Record or another Montana State
Licensed Engineer. The Engineer should provide a letter documenting
the current structural condition of the wall and the temporary bracing
along with a recommendation either for demolition or a plan to
maintain/stabilize the wall in its current condition.
2. If the wall is determined to be a threat to public health or safety, a
cost estimate for permanent bracing or other remediation to make it
stable and safe must be submitted and must demonstrate how it
either a) exceeds the cost of the remaining structure and/or b) the
remaining structure has no viable economic or useful life remaining
(per Section 18.28.080 of the BMC, “Demolition or Movement of
Structures or Sites within the Conservation District”).
October 27, 2010 Additional information submitted by applicant
November 15, 2010 First City Commission public hearing on the Mods of FSP/Brewery
Demolition application – Commission opens and continues the project to
January 10, 2011 and requests the following additional information:
69
Bozeman Brewery Building Project Timeline
Updated October 24, 2012 - Page 3
1. More detail/more information about how permanent stabilization/bracing
of the wall can occur - Applicant and property owner
2. State Historic Preservation Office's determination of how the Brewery
Historic District is affected by the demolition of the wall –City Staff
3. Demolition cost estimates – Applicant and property owner
4. Explanation of whether or not the temporary bracing can be improved by
fixing the failing epoxy issue – City Staff
5. Examples of building walls preserved and other similar relics – City Staff
6. More information on why the Final Site Plan proposal can’t move forward –
Applicant and property owner
7. Final recommendation from the Northeast Neighborhood Association
(results of final vote at November 2010 meeting) – City Staff
January 10, 2011 Second City Commission public hearing on the Mods of FSP/Brewery
Demolition application –City Commission voted to deny the demolition request
of the remaining Bozeman Brewery building. The voted motion, which was
made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Becker, was the
following: “Having heard and considered public comment, we hereby adopt the
findings presented in the November 15, 2010 and January 10, 2011 staff reports
for the Modifications to the Final Site Plan #Z-07145A except we find that until a
detailed structural report is provided with construction bids made from
engineered plans the Commission does not have sufficient information to make
the findings required under 18.28.080.C.2. Specifically, we find the applicant has
failed to satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with 18.28.080.C.2 (a) or (b)
because: (i) the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that work to
permanently stabilize the wall is not reasonable under the circumstances; (ii) the
applicant has not demonstrated costs associated with the permanent
stabilization of the wall exceed the value of the structure; and (iii) the applicant
has not sufficiently demonstrated the structure has no viable economic or useful
life remaining. As such, I move to deny the requested modifications to the final
site plan for demolition of the east facade of the brewery.”
City Thoughts in
2012: Because the application for demolition was denied, issuance of a demolition
or is stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision (or
until January 10, 2013). The purpose of a stay in demolition is to allow
additional time for the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the
demolition. Up to this point, the City hasn’t heard from the property owner
on any alternatives they are considering. The city’s exploration is
demonstrated through the efforts of the Northeast Urban Renewal Board and
their attempt to offer some funding for public improvements adjacent to the
Brewery Wall site. The City also supports the efforts of the Northeast
Neighborhood Association in trying to work with the developer.
70
Bozeman Brewery Building Project Timeline
Updated October 24, 2012 - Page 4
The City recently worked with the property owner to reestablish the security
fencing around the property.
The City does not regularly inspect the wall. This is no different than our
approach to any other structure in the City.
The City is operating based upon the information that was presented by the
property owner as part of the demolition application that was denied.
If the wall begins to present a safety hazard, the City could act based upon the
unsafe building section of the IBC and/or the nuisance provisions of the BMC.
Once the 2 year stay of demolition required by the City Commission comes to
an end, the property owner can apply for a demolition permit for the wall.
The City Commission has decided to have an “Update of the Brewery Wall” on their November 5th
public hearing agenda. Because of the public interest in the wall, the Commission wanted to inform
the public on the upcoming end of the two year stay of demolition. It’s important to note that the
Commission is unable to further delay demolition. The two year stay was the maximum delay
permitted by current Bozeman Municipal Code.
71
NENA – Northeast Neighborhood Association
Bozeman, Montana
November 9, 2012
Dear Mayor and City Commissioners:
We understand that the City Commission plans to place the Brewery Wall Issue on the City Commission agenda as an Action Item for discussion on December 3, 2012. To our understanding, this upcoming
December Commission meeting could be our last opportunity to speak to the City Commission
concerning this important issue.
We are informed by City Planning Staff that the City Building Department will automatically issue the Demolition Permit for the wall if requested by the property owner/developer on or after January 10, 2013, when the two-year moratorium will expire.
Also to our understanding, the City Commission changed the ordinance for demolition of historic
structures on September 10, 2012, placing such decisions with the “review authority” rather than the
Commission – in this case we are told the review authority would be the City Planner.
NENA is very concerned about the options we have available when it comes to saving historic structures in Bozeman, the Brewery Wall in particular. We want this issue to remain in the public light, available to
hearing and comment before the Commission, rather than an administrative decision in the City Planning
Office where 'sunshine' is more limited.
Two years ago, when the City Commission wisely denied demolition of the Brewery Wall, the Commission directed the developer to provide additional information/options, engineering specifications and projected cost for preservation versus demolition of the Wall. The City Commission, at that time, also
directed the neighborhood (NENA) to work with the developer and look into options for helping fund
stabilization of the Brewery Wall.
NENA, as well as the Northeast Urban Renewal Board (NURB), have sought to work with the developer and have offered to help in stabilization of the wall. On January 25, 2012 NURB wrote to Scala
Properties offering financial assistance in stabilizing the Wall. On March 2, 2012, NENA sent a
registered letter to Scala Properties, also offering to help with financial support to stabilize the Wall.
Scala did not respond to either letter. NENA also e-mailed and attempted to call Scala, again with no
response.
This past August 25th, NENA held the Brewery Wall Festival celebrating Bozeman's rich brewing history
to raise awareness of the Wall issue. We had a fun and successful event with over 300 in attendance,
covered all of our expenses, which included paying for a web-page through which we can accept on-line
donations for preservation of the wall through a non-profit organization, and raised a little over $150
above the cost of the event expenses. Those in attendance requested that it become an annual event with a local run organizer wanting to organize a "Run for the Wall" coinciding with future festivals.
We have done what the City Commission asked of us in attempting to engage Scala Properties in a
solution to saving, rather than demolishing, this important part of Bozeman's heritage. Scala Properties is
aware, per communications from NENA and NURB, that Bozeman would lose this rare historic Brewery
District if the Wall is demolished, one of only ten in the nation. We feel that the property owner/developer and Bozeman has much to gain by having the Wall and its associated historic district. In
addition we now have an annual festival and fun run dedicated to its existence.
72
Page 2 of 2
Our question to the City Commission is:
Precedent was set in the case in the Story Mill Development failure in that the City of Bozeman was able
to alleviate the 'Public Nuisance' by going in and securing the structures via boarding up the building, removing graffiti, and cleaning up the property, etc and placing a lien on the property now owned by a local bank. If the Bozeman Brewery Wall property were to be designated as a public nuisance, would the
City of Bozeman have the ability to remove the nuisance by permanently stabilizing the wall and placing
a lien on the Bozeman Brewery property?
In such a case the nuisance would have been eliminated, the wall would be available to be incorporated into a myriad of potential positive new development options on the property, Bozeman's reputation would not be marred by being the first municipality in Montana to lose a nationally recognized significant
historic district, and we could continue to add to Bozeman's economy by expanding upon the 'Brewery
Wall Festival' and 'Run for the Wall' as community events. We feel that highlighting the significance of
the property by these annual events would greatly add to any potential developments and re-use of the currently failing property - greatly more valuable to the developer, the city tax base, and the community beyond its value as a blank scraped clean lot, stripped of its historical significance.
Several NENA representatives and members will be meeting with the City Planner and other members of
the City Staff next Tuesday, November 13, 2012, to discuss the opportunities Bozeman may have to retain
this remaining relic of Bozeman's brewing history and thus preserving the Bozeman Historic Brewery District.
We are at the eleventh-hour, with the economy on the upswing giving more hope to re-starting a
development project on the Brewery property. This Wall can be saved physically. This developer, or
another developer, can take advantage of the wall with a re-invigorated development scenario, like the
one promised to the northeast neighborhood and approved by the City of Bozeman. The northeast neighborhood and the people of Bozeman never signed on to the destruction of this nationally rare historic brewery district. We do yet have the chance to correct what has gone wrong with the Brewery
development. The issue is really about more than just this particular Wall - saving the Wall means saving
the historic Bozeman brewery district. And if we let the Wall go, like other historic Bozeman landmarks
before it, what historic property is next?
To our understanding the developer did not provide the City Commission with any of the information
requested in the Commission’s motion of January 10, 2011. Scala Properties has not responded to
correspondence and offers of assistance from NENA or NURB. We believe NENA and Bozeman deserve
more than pro-forma demolition permit issued to a developer that has ignored all efforts to assist it in
saving this historic structure, and preserving both the cultural values and property values associated with the Wall.
We look forward to your thoughts and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Chris Nixon
NENA President
406-585-6932
73
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT BOZEMAN BREWERY BUILDING DEMOLITION MODS TO FINAL SITE PLAN #Z-07145A
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 1
Item: Zoning Application #Z-07145A, a Modification to a Final Site Plan application to demolish the remaining four-story structure (wall) of the
Lehrkind Brewery Building property addressed as 801 and 803 North Wallace Avenue. The property is zoned as “NEHMU” (Northeast Historic
Mixed Use District) and is located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The property is also included as a contributing property within the Bozeman Brewery Historic District.
Owner: Scala Properties, LLC 1228 31st Street NW, Level 2
Washington, DC 20007 Applicant: Goff Architecture Ltd.
201 South Wallace Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715
Date: City Commission Public Hearing: Monday, November 15, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman,
MT.
Report By: Allyson C. Bristor, AICP, Associate Planner
Recommendation: That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months from the date of their decision; and after
the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building Department; and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City
Staff’s recommended conditions of approval.
PROJECT LOCATION The subject property is addressed as 801 and 803 North Wallace Avenue, which is generally located on the
southwest corner of North Wallace Avenue and East Tamarack Street and encompasses approximately 65,000 square feet in lot area. The property includes the remains of the historic Lehrkind Brewery Building (from this
point forward referred to as the Bozeman Brewery Building), a part of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District.
The property is zoned “NEHMU” (Northeast Historic Mixed Use District) and is also located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.
The Lehrkind Brewery Building is one of the six contributing structures of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Other buildings included in this historic district include the Bottling Plant located across Wallace
Avenue and the Lehrkind Mansion located across the abandoned Aspen Street. Following its use as a brewery
(post Prohibition), the Lehrkind Brewery Building site was used for a variety of things, including a coal company, soda production business, ice plant and warehouse, Kessler Creamery operations, photography studio and
Bozeman Plumbing & Heating office. All the uses were predominately industrial and office in nature. Before the
current property owner’s purchase, the site was generally neglected and not properly maintained, due to the difficult historic condition of the buildings and the fact that the property was divided between multiple owners.
74
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 2
ZONING DESIGNATION & ADJACENT LAND USES
The subject property is zoned “NEHMU” (Northeast Historic Mixed Use District) and the intent of such a zoning district is to provide recognition of an area that has developed with a blend of uses not commonly seen under
typical zoning requirements. The unique qualities and nature of the area are not found elsewhere in Bozeman and should be preserved as a place offering additional opportunities for creative integration of land uses.
The intent of this area is to allow private and case by case determination of the most appropriate use of land in a broad range of both nonresidential and residential uses. Standards for buffering between different land uses are
deliberately not as high as that elsewhere in the community as it is assumed that persons choosing to locate in this
area are aware of the variety of possible adjacent land uses and have accepted such possibilities as both acceptable and desirable. It is expected that the lots within this district will continue to develop under a variety of uses which
may increase or decrease in scope in any given portion of the district.
The clear intent of this district is to support a mix and variety of nonresidential and residential uses. Authorized
uses for the “NEHMU” include a blend of those uses allowed in the “R-2” (Residential Two-Household, Medium
Density) and “M-1” (Light Manufacturing) zoning districts excluding adult businesses and casinos.
The subject property is surrounded by the following land uses:
North: Industrial grounds, zoned as “M-1;”
South: Lehrkind Mansion B&B, zoned as “NEHMU;”
East: Wallace North LLC complex, zoned as “M-1;” West: Lattice Materials complex, zoned as “NEHMU.”
Please refer to the zoning map below:
The act of demolition would create an empty property lot, which is not specifically prohibited in the NEHMU
district. However, a more desirable development of the property would be the establishment of a use, or a blend of uses, allowed in the “R-2” and “M-1” zoning districts.
75
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 3
BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION
The property is designated as an “Industrial” future land use. This classification provides areas for the uses which support an urban environment such as manufacturing, warehousing, and transportation hubs. Development within
these areas is intensive and is connected to significant transportation corridors. In order to protect the economic base and necessary services represented by industrial uses, uses which would be detrimentally impacted by industrial activities are discouraged. Although use in these areas is intensive, these areas are part of the larger
community and should meet basic standards for landscaping and other site design issues and be integrated with the larger community.
The act of demolition would create an empty property lot, which is not specifically prohibited for an “Industrial” designated property. However, a more desirable development of the property would be the establishment of an
appropriate mix of residential and light-manufacturing uses. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The original Bozeman Brewery Building proposal was submitted to the City’s Department of Planning in June 2007 by property owner Scala Properties, LLC and representative Graham Goff of Goff Architecture, Ltd. The
details of the project proposal included the following: 1) demolition of the Haynes Building complex, 2) a
combination of reconstruction, rehabilitation and demolition of the existing Brewery Building to create a building complex with four sections of residential units (total: 35 units/approx. 33,400 SF), approximately 10,210 SF of
commercial/office space, an elevated courtyard and an underground mixed-use parking garage, 3) new
construction of a building along Tamarack Avenue (Tamarack Building) with residential units (4 units/approx. 4,800 SF) and approximately 6,600 SF of commercial/office space, and 4) new construction of a surface parking
lot. Zoning deviations were available to the property owner because of the property’s location within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Seven deviations were requested and approved with the original
proposal. The deviations were required for the proposed percentage of office use, building lot coverage, building
height and lot area and width.
Summarized below is a timeline of the Bozeman Brewery Building project’s extensive background since original
submittal to the Bozeman Department of Planning:
June 2007: Brewery applicant submits Preliminary Site Plan/COA/DEV application to Planning Department
June/July 2007: Demolition of non‐contributing parts (including “Hell Roaring Building” and wood frame
additions) of the Brewery Building property approved by Planning Department prior to
Preliminary Site Plan approval – Demolition occurs
August 20, 2007: Preliminary Site Plan approval granted by City Commission – Brewery applicant has six months to
turn in a Final Site Plan application to the Planning Department
February 2008: Brewery applicant submits Final Site Plan application to Planning – traffic study included with
application and demonstrates the need for a light signal at the Peach and Rouse intersection –
the installation of a light signal the responsibility of the applicant (as the code required at that
time)
March 13, 2008: Encroachment Permit for the closure of the sidewalk along the west side of North Wallace
Avenue between Aspen and Tamarack approved for an 18‐month duration
April 21, 2008: Appeal by Brewery applicant to not have to install a traffic signal at Peach and Rouse approved
76
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 4
by the City Commission
May 5, 2008: Final Site Plan approval by Planning Department
May/June 2008: Demolition permit of Brewery Building property (including the remaining “Haynes Building” and
“Lehrkind Brewery Building”) approved by Planning Department prior to building permit approval
– demolition to follow a demolition plan created by a licensed structural engineer included in the
Final Site Plan approval – temporary bracing installed on the east wall of the “Lehrkind Brewery
Building”
May/June 2009: One year extension to Final Site Plan approval granted by Planning Department
September 2009: Extension to Encroachment Permit granted by Engineering until May 5, 2010
July 27, 2010: Letter sent from Planning Department asking about the applicant’s intentions with the site –
letter sent because questions about the long term stability of the wall and possible hazards to
the public had been raised by members of the public and the Building Department – letter stated
that “the City is interested in discussing with you the long term maintenance and development of
the site.”
August 24, 2010: A Modification to a Final Site Plan application was submitted by the Bozeman Brewery applicant
requesting the complete demolition of the remaining “Lehrkind Brewery Building” structure/wall.
September 15, 2010: Mods of FSP application deemed “inadequate” by City Staff – applicant requested to supply: “A
structural analysis update from the original structural engineer on the project stating the
justification for why the remaining wall/structure on the property needs to be demolished” –
asked to be submitted within 15 days
October 6, 2010: Structural analysis update submitted by applicant
October 20, 2010: Additional information requested by the applicant so City Staff can make a recommendation to
the demolition of the wall:
1. An inspection of the wall and the temporary bracing system shall occur by the current
Engineer of Record or another Montana State Licensed Engineer. The Engineer should
provide a letter documenting the current structural condition of the wall and the temporary
bracing along with a recommendation either for demolition or a plan to maintain/stabilize
the wall in its current condition.
2. If the wall is determined to be a threat to public health or safety, a cost estimate for
permanent bracing or other remediation to make it stable and safe must be submitted and
must demonstrate how it either a) exceeds the cost of the remaining structure and/or b) the
remaining structure has no viable economic or useful life remaining (per Section 18.28.080
of the BMC, “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation
District”).
October 27, 2010 Additional information submitted by applicant
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The City Planning and Building Departments sent a letter to the Bozeman Brewery property owner and applicant following the expiration of the Final Site Plan and Sidewalk Encroachment Permit. The departments inquired
about the property owner’s intentions and plans for the site. In response to the City’s inquiry, the applicant
77
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 5
submitted a Modification to a Final Site Plan application to the Department of Planning in August 2010. The application requested the complete demolition of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building.
Any modification of a site plan approved under the Unified Development Ordinance (Title 18 Bozeman Municipal Code) shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and possible approval. The Planning
Director must determine if the modified plan is or is not in substantial compliance with the originally approved plan before acting on the modification request. The remaining east wall of the Bozeman Brewery Building was originally proposed to be an integral part of the new development. It was planned to be rehabilitated to an
appearance that returned several features of the wall back to its original appearance. The preservation and rehabilitation of the Bozeman Brewery Building’s east wall was the primary reason why the project received
support by Planning Staff for the several deviations requested. The complete demolition of the east wall is
determined to be a substantial change in the original development design and not in compliance with the originally approved plan. Therefore, the demolition application is subject to all applicable standards and site plan
review and approval provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (Title 18 BMC), which primarily includes
“Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness” (Section 18.28.050) and “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation District” (Section 18.28.080).
Though a significant portion of the Bozeman Brewery Building has been demolished, Planning Staff is still considering the structure to be a “contributing property” within a historic district. Demolition of contributing
properties within historic districts shall be subject to approval by the City Commission through a public hearing,
after considering a recommendation from Administrative Design Review (ADR) Planning staff and the Design Review Board (DRB). The application was also reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC), the
Northeast Urban Renewal Board (NURB), the Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB), and the Northeast
Neighborhood Association (NENA). The recommendations of all City Boards are included below in the section “City Board Recommendations.”
REVIEW CRITERIA & FINDINGS
The Department of Planning & Community Development reviewed this Modification to a Final Site Plan application against the relevant sections of the Unified Development Ordinance (Title 18 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code, BMC) and as a result offers the following comments.
Section 18.28.050 “Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness”
A. All work performed in completion of an approved certificate of appropriateness shall be in conformance with the most recent edition of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, published by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Heritage Preservation Services,
Washington, D.C. Because of its historic significance to the Bozeman community and its vital importance as a contributing
building to the Bozeman Brewery Historic District, the proposed demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building is found to be in direct conflict with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
B. Architectural appearance design guidelines used to consider the appropriateness and compatibility of proposed alterations with original design features of subject structures, or properties and with
neighboring structures and properties, shall focus upon the following: 1. Height; 2. Proportions of doors and windows; 3. Relationship of building masses and spaces; 4. Roof shape; 5. Scale; 6.
Directional expression, with regard to the dominant horizontal and vertical expression of
78
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 6
surrounding structures; 7. Architectural details; 8. Concealment of nonperiod appurtenances, such as mechanical equipment; and 9. Materials and color schemes.
New construction is not proposed following the proposed demolition. Therefore, this section is not applicable.
C. Contemporary, nonperiod and innovative design of new structures and additions to existing structures shall be encouraged when such new construction or additions do not destroy significant
historical, cultural or architectural structures, or their components, and when such design is compatible with the foregoing elements of the structure and the surrounding structures.
Not applicable.
D. When applying the standards of subsections A-C, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District which are hereby incorporated by this reference. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design
of new structures, or addition to existing structure, the review authority shall be guided by the Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.
Not applicable.
E. Conformance with other applicable development standards of this title.
The application is reviewed under the criteria of “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within
the Conservation District” (Section 18.28.080 of the UDO) which is discussed further below in this staff report.
F. Tax abatement Certificate of Appropriateness applications are also reviewed with the procedures and standards established in Chapter 3.30, BMC.
Not applicable.
Section 18.28.080 “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites Within the Conservation District”
The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the
provisions of this chapter and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows:
A. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be
approved prior to the demolition or moving permit may be issued. No plans for new construction are proposed with this demolition application. The proposed subsequent
development, following the demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building, is to remove all rubble, grade the site to match adjacent properties, and reopen the closed sidewalk.
The Department of Planning generally does not support demolition of historic buildings without plans for subsequent reconstruction or new construction.
79
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 7
B. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structure or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neural elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural
Inventory, and are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director after review and recommendation of Administrative Design Review staff or Design Review Board as per Chapters
18.34 and 18.62, BMC, and the standards outlined in Section 18.28.050, BMC. Not applicable, as the building proposed for demolition is designated as a “contributing” structure within
the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. C. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites,
which are designated as contributing elements by the Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to
approval by the City Commission, through a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing before the City Commission shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.76, BMC. Prior to the public hearing, the City Commission shall receive a recommendation from Administrative Design
Review Staff and the Design Review Board. The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by the historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The
final authority for demolition or movement of structures or sites within this section shall rest with the City Commission.
Though a significant portion of the Bozeman Brewery Building has been demolished, Planning Staff is
still considering the structure to be a “contributing property” within a historic district.
The City Commission shall base its decision on the following: 1. The standards in 18.28.050 UDO, and the architectural, social, cultural, and historical
importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the State Historic Preservation Office and the Planning Department.
The application is requesting the demolition of the remaining east wall of the four-story structure known as the Bozeman Brewery Building. The building is considered a contributing building to the
Bozeman Brewery Historic District. The Bozeman Brewery Historic District is one of only ten
brewery historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places (according to records found on http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/). Overall, the historic district represents important aspects
of Bozeman’s industrial, social, and ethnic history. Please see the entire Bozeman Brewery Historic
District National Register nomination form that is attached to this report. Because the Bozeman Brewery Historic District is compact in size and only includes five buildings, the demolition of the
remaining Bozeman Brewery Building removes an extremely significant building from the historic
district. The Bozeman Brewery Building is so significant to the district that it might be the reason why the Bozeman Brewery Historic District loses its listing on the National Register of Historic
Places. Because of its historic significance and its important contribution to the Bozeman Brewery Historic
District, the proposed demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building is found by the Planning Department, with input from the Montana State Historic Preservation Office, to be in direct conflict with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Therefore, the criteria of this section are not satisfied.
2. If the Commission finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving
an application to demolish or remove, the Commission must find that at least one of the
80
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 8
following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair or rehabilitation versus the
costs of demolition and redevelopment: a. The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or
alterations will remove such a threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure.
b. The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining.
Additional information was requested from the applicant so City Staff could make a
recommendation to the City Commission on the proposed demolition. That additional information was the following:
1. An inspection of the wall and the temporary bracing system shall occur by the current Engineer of Record or another Montana State Licensed Engineer. The Engineer should
provide a letter documenting the current structural condition of the wall and the temporary
bracing along with a recommendation either for demolition or a plan to maintain/stabilize the wall in its current condition.
2. If the wall is determined to be a threat to public health or safety, a cost estimate for permanent bracing or other remediation to make it stable and safe must be submitted and
must demonstrate how it either a) exceeds the cost of the remaining structure and/or b) the
remaining structure has no viable economic or useful life remaining (per Section 18.28.080 of the BMC, “Demolition or Movement of Structures or Sites within the Conservation
District”). The applicant submitted the additional information on October 27, 2010 and reviewed by
Planning Staff. The information was forwarded to the members of the Development Review Committee, which includes representatives from the Building, Fire, Engineering, and Streets
Departments. Members of the DRC reviewed the information and Staff’s recommended
conditions at their November 3, 2010 meeting. A stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building was supported by the DRC with the conditions of approval recommended by City Staff.
The structural engineer’s letter reiterates the fact that the existing temporary bracing on the Bozeman Brewery Building wall was designed with the intent it would remain standing for a
short duration between demolition and final construction. In reality, the temporary bracing has
kept the wall standing for one and a half years.
The structural engineer identifies areas of the wall and temporary bracing system that are
deteriorating, likely from the exposure to weather (rain, wind, snow, etc). The engineer states that “the existing epoxy anchors into the unreinforced masonry wall continue to experience
significant tension loads and load cycle reversals as the wind blows on the wall.” He continues by saying “over time with these load cycles and with the small movements of this wall, the brick will continue to crumble around the epoxy.” In the end, the structural engineer states “these
anchors are not designed to support this masonry wall indefinitely.” The structural engineer’s final assessment of the wall is the following: “the temporary bracing for
the existing 40-foot high unreinforced masonry wall along Wallace Street is not adequate for continued support of this wall indefinitely.” Staff assumes the structural engineer chooses to use
the word indefinitely because it is close to impossible to say how much longer the temporary
81
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 9
bracing will keep the wall standing. It could be six months, it could be a year, or it could be two years. The greatest threat to the integrity of the temporary bracing system is likely a seismic
event, which is an unknown factor. Another threat is the accumulation of small movements in the
wall from wind load cycles, which is also an unknown. In the end, there are a lot of unknowns that have to be balanced when determining the level of threat the remaining Bozeman Brewery
Wall has to public health and safety. The only way to eliminate the possible threat of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building to
public health and safety is to either a) permanently stabilize the wall or b) demolish the wall. Both will incur an expense for the property owner. An accurate cost estimate for permanent
stabilization of the wall can only occur when a structural design for stabilization is created by a
certified structural engineer and construction bids are received for said design. However, the applicant did prepare a cost estimate to restore the wall and permanently brace the wall without a
set of design plans (restoration of the wall must occur before the permanent bracing is
established). The estimate range is submitted as $173,310.00 to $198,310.00. Cost estimates for demolition of the wall were requested from the applicant by Planning Staff, but were not received
before the drafting of this report. However, Staff assumes the cost estimate for demolition is less
than the permanent stabilization cost estimate, which is why the property owner is requesting for demolition. If demolition cost estimates are received prior to the scheduled public hearing, they
will be forwarded to the City Commission as an addendum to this report.
The demolition criteria ask the Commission to consider the costs of reasonable repairs or
alterations, which removes the threat to public safety, to the value of the structure. The value of
the historic Bozeman Brewery Building is one that cannot be accurately represented by quantitative data. Rather, the value of the structure is best represented by qualitative information.
The significant cultural and high social value of the Bozeman Brewery Building was identified when the City of Bozeman chose to create a National Register Historic District that highlights the
building and its immediate neighboring buildings. The act of listing the property on the National
Register was one that identified it as a historic resource that is extremely valuable to the Bozeman community. Furthermore, the City of Bozeman chose to offer the highest protection to the
structures included within historic districts which only increases the value of the property. If the
value of a historic structure is only represented as the amount of money required to demolish it, then the cultural and social value of history is ignored.
It is crucial to consider the level of detriment to the community that will occur with the loss of this significant building, and likely the loss of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Historic
preservation creates a bond between a community and its citizens.1 Demolition of a part of this
amenity removes the community’s connection to it, which can never be reestablished. The value of the Bozeman Brewery Building can only be described as irreplaceable.
D. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the
applicant and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to
otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection B or C of this section. The Department of Planning & Community Development is making the following recommendation for
the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request:
• That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six
82
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 10
months from the date of their decision; and after the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building
Department; and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City Staff’s
recommended conditions of approval.
Though the code allows the Commission to consider a two year stay for demolition permits, the Department of Planning recommends a stay of just six months from the date of their final action. City Staff recognizes the existing temporary bracing was designed for a short duration between demolition and
final construction. As the structural engineer states, “the anchors of the temporary bracing were not designed to support the masonry wall indefinitely.” City Staff doesn’t find six additional months as an
indefinite amount of time, but rather a fixed amount of time. Six months will provide ample amount of
time for the property owner/applicant, neighborhood residents, members of the greater community and City Staff to work together and see if there are any sound financial resources available to permanently
stabilize the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building east wall.
The permanent stabilization and preservation of the wall is likely the only chance remaining to keep the
Bozeman Brewery Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic districts
are culturally important for a city because they increase community pride of place and identify areas that are significant for the preservation of neighborhood character. Historic districts are also economically
important for a city. Studies have consistently shown properties within designated historic districts have
higher appraised values than those outside of districts and appraisal values of properties increase faster when located within designated historic districts.
E. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the Historic Preservation Officer and Administrative Design Review Staff prior to the
issuance of demolition or moving permits. If the City Commission chooses to allow the demolition request, several conditions of approval are
included in City Staff’s recommendation to mitigate the great loss of the Bozeman Brewery Building and the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Those conditions include resurveying of the remaining
contributing properties in the Bozeman Brewery Historic District and preparation of a new National
Register nomination form to determine whether or not the district can remain listed.
F. In addition to the remedies in Chapter 18.64, BMC, the owner of any structure or site that is
demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its
condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations.
Not applicable. The applicant made proper application for the demolition request.
PUBLIC COMMENT
One letter of public comment was received for this proposal and is attached to this report. The letter was submitted by Bill and Bobbi Clem, who are the property owners of 802, 810 and 820 North Wallace Avenue
(across Wallace Avenue from the subject property). The letter indicates support of the demolition request. If public comment is received after the submittal of this report, it will be forwarded to the City Commission prior to the public hearing for consideration.
83
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 11
CITY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Several City Boards reviewed the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition application and offered
recommendations for the City Commission’s consideration. Minutes from each board meeting where the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition was discussed is attached to this report. The recommendations from
each City Board were heavily considered by City Staff and are largely the reason a stay of demolition for six months is being recommended to the City Commission. The final recommendations and motions made by each City Board are summarized below, with exception to the Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA).
Because of the great importance of the Bozeman Brewery Wall and Historic District to the northeast neighborhood, NENA is holding an emergency neighborhood meeting on November 7, 2010. The goal of this
emergency meeting is for the neighborhood association to formally vote on whether or not to recommend denial
of the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request in order to allow every possible means of permanent stabilization of the wall. The notice of the emergency meeting is attached to this report. Because this emergency
meeting occurs after the creation of this staff report, it will be forwarded to the City Commission before the
scheduled public hearing as an addendum to this report.
Historic Preservation Advisory Board: The HPAB saw the application early in its review stages and before the
structural engineer information was submitted for consideration. The board’s Planning and Policy subcommittee will be forwarding a recommendation to the City Commission that speaks to the recommended form of mitigation
for total loss of the building the at a later time. However, they recommended that the City Staff defer a decision
on demolition to give time to explore possible solutions, as well as include the Northeast Neighborhood Association in the process.
Northeast Urban Renewal Board: The NURB forwarded a recommendation to the City Commission and City Staff for preservation of the Bozeman Brewery Building wall, and furthermore that the decisions about the
outcome of the wall lead to the most expeditious redevelopment of the property, with the wall incorporated into the design.
Design Review Board: The DRB forwarded a recommendation to the City Commission and City Staff for Bozeman to deny the demolition request for the Bozeman Brewery Building as the proposal did not meet the
review criteria for approval of demolition as set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance.
It should also be mentioned that all City Boards included in their discussion of the application the great need for a
demolition by neglect ordinance.
CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Planning & Community Development is making the following recommendation for the Bozeman Brewery Building demolition request:
• That the City Commission grant a stay of demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months from
the date of their decision; and after the conclusion of six months the property owner may request a demolition
permit for the Bozeman Brewery Building through the Building Department; and any demolition shall be completed in accordance with City Staff’s recommended conditions of approval.
The additional six months will allow the applicant, the Northeast Urban Renewal Board, the Northeast Neighborhood Association, the general public, and the City to explore alternatives to the demolition, including
but not limited to finding additional funding resources to be used for the permanent stabilization of the wall.
The Department of Planning offers different conditions of approval dependent on the direction of the City
Commission. They are discussed in the following section.
84
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 12
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
If the City Commission supports the recommendation to stay the demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building for six months, the following conditions of approval are recommended by City Staff:
1. The property owner and/or applicant shall submit a written narrative outlining how each of the conditions of approval and code provisions has been satisfied.
2. The sidewalk adjacent to the property shall remain closed to the public throughout the six month stay of
demolition.
3. New “Sidewalk Closed Ahead” signs shall be installed south and north of the closed section of sidewalk
adjacent to the property. The property owner and/or applicant shall arrange for the installation of these
signs in collaboration with the Bozeman Engineering Department. These signs shall be maintained by the property owner and/or applicant for the duration of the six month stay of demolition.
4. The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the Bozeman Building Department requirements to remediate the concerns of weather protection for the existing anchor bolts.
If the City Commission allows demolition of the Bozeman Brewery Building, whether it is immediate or six months from their decision, the following conditions of approval are recommended by City Staff:
1. The property owner and/or applicant shall submit a written narrative outlining how each of the conditions of approval and code provisions has been satisfied prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
2. The property owner and/or applicant shall hire a qualified professional, who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for qualified professionals (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm),
to resurvey the five properties located within the Bozeman Brewery Historic District. Following the survey work, the qualified professional shall prepare a new National Register of Historic Places
nomination form that supersedes the existing Bozeman Brewery Historic District form. The new
nomination form and all affiliated materials shall be submitted to the National Park Service for a final determination of whether or not the Bozeman Brewery Historic District can remain listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
3. If the National Park Service determines the loss of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District, then the
property owner and/or applicant shall hire a qualified professional, who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for qualified professionals (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm), to prepare the necessary National Register nomination forms in an attempt to individually nominate the
remaining former-contributing properties of the Bozeman Brewery Historic District.
4. If the property owner and/or applicant do not wish to complete all the National Register survey and
nomination work required to meet the conditions of approval prior to issuance of a demolition permit, then the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City of Bozeman financially guaranteeing the completion of all required National Register survey and nomination work.
5. A demolition plan prepared by a certified structural engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Planning prior to a demolition permit request. The demolition plan shall include the following
information: 1) phasing of demolition that correlates to building plans or elevations and 2) a written explanation of the demolition activities that will occur in each phase.
85
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 13
6. The applicant shall attempt to salvage materials of the Bozeman Brewery Building during the demolition process. A written narrative explaining the process and materials of salvage shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning for approval by Administrative Design Review Staff prior to a demolition permit
request.
7. Following demolition, the property shall be graded flat and cleared of all debris. If outside storage is proposed on the site, a screening plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning for review and approval prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
8. Any damaged sidewalk along North Wallace Avenue that was damaged during any of the demolition
shall be replaced and meet all City and ADA standards within 90 days of issuance of a demolition permit.
9. The applicant shall work with the Water/Sewer Department to assure that all service lines have been
properly abandoned per code.
10. Construction/demolition traffic shall limit its use of Wallace Avenue as their direct route to the site.
11. Any necessary street closures shall be coordinated with the City of Bozeman Engineering and Street Departments.
The applicant must comply with all provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code, which are applicable to this project prior to receiving final site plan approval. The applicant is advised that unmet code provisions, or code
provisions that are not specifically listed as conditions of approval, does not, in any way, create a waiver or other
relaxation of the lawful requirements of the Bozeman Municipal Code or state law.
Code Provisions
Planning
• Section 18.34.130, a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the work, and must be obtained within
one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved. Minor site surface preparation and normal maintenance shall be allowed prior to submittal and approval of the final site plan, including excavation and footing preparation, but NO CONCRETE MAY
BE POURED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
• Section 18.38.080, “Clean Up of Property and Revegetation Required,” the developer shall ensure
that all construction and other debris is removed from the development. This includes concrete, asphalt, dead trees and shrubs, and fencing materials. All areas disturbed during construction shall be reseeded
with vegetation types approved by the Gallatin County Weed Control Supervisor.
• Section 18.42.160, “Outside Storage,” all materials, supplies, or other similar matter not on display for
direct sale, rental or lease to the ultimate consumer or user shall be stored within the confines of a 100 percent opaque wall or fence not less than six feet tall. This includes the current pallets of brick stored on
the site. No storage of any type shall be permitted within any required yards.
• Section 18.64.100, “Building Permit Requirements,” a Building Permit must be obtained prior to the
work, and must be obtained within one year of final site plan approval. Building Permits will not be issued until the final site plan is approved.
86
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 14
• Section 18.64.110, “Permit Issuance,” states that no permit or license shall be issued unless the use,
arrangement and construction has been set forth in such approved plans and applications.
Engineering
• A Storm Water Drainage/Treatment Grading Plan and Maintenance Plan for a system designed to remove
solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants must be provided to and approved by the City Engineer. The
plan must demonstrate adequate site drainage (including sufficient spot elevations), storm water detention/retention basin details (including basin sizing and discharge calculations, and discharge
structure details), storm water discharge destination, and a storm water maintenance plan.
• The applicant shall submit a construction route map dictating how materials and heavy equipment will
travel to and from the site in accordance with section 18.74.020.A.1 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall be submitted as part of the final site plan for site developments, or with the
infrastructure plans for subdivisions. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the
construction traffic follows the approved routes.
• All construction/demolition activities shall comply with section 18.74.020.A.2 of the Unified Development Ordinance. This shall include routine cleaning/sweeping of material that is dragged to
adjacent streets. The City may require a guarantee as allowed for under this section at any time during the
construction to ensure any damages or cleaning that are required are complete. The developer shall be responsible to reimburse the City for all costs associated with the work if it becomes necessary for the
City to correct any problems that are identified.
CONCLUSION
Over the last two decades, the City of Bozeman has implemented a historic preservation program to protect the community’s historically and culturally significant resources. The Bozeman Community Plan states how the City
envisions a community with a rich collection of historically and culturally significant resources for the benefit of
all citizens living in and visiting Bozeman. The Community Plan continues to state the City’s mission in regards to historic preservation: carry out a historic preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman’s historic
resources so they remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community.2
In addition to the Community Plan’s goals, the risk of losing an entire historic district is justification for a stay of
demolition no less than six months. All financial opportunities that can result in the permanent stabilization of the remaining Bozeman Brewery Building wall shall be considered prior to a rush towards demolition. Private
financing through a bank may not be the only valid option for the preservation of the remaining wall. Through
collaboration of private and public, alternatives to demolition may quickly emerge. City Staff feels six months is adequate amount of time that can allow for the consideration of all alternatives.
“Preservationists are often accused of opposing demolition of any and all buildings. In fact, few, if any, preservationists have that attitude. But preservationists often take the position that demolition permit should not
be issued without knowing what is going to built instead, and without having some surety that the proposed
construction project will, in fact, go forward if the demolition is approved.”3 Considering demolition of a historic structure before all alternatives are weighed and balanced is not striving toward the community’s goal of
promoting historic resources for their continued survival. Therefore, the Department of Planning is
recommending a stay of demolition for six months to allow the applicant, the Northeast Urban Renewal Board, the Northeast Neighborhood Association, the general public, and the City Staff to explore alternatives to the
demolition, including but not limited to finding additional funding resources to be used for the permanent
stabilization of the wall.
87
Bozeman Brewery Building Demolition Mods to FSP (#Z-07145A) 15
Attachments: Applicant’s Original Application Materials
Applicant’s Additional Application Materials (Structural Engineer Reports)
Bozeman Brewery Historic District National Register Nomination Form Historic Preservation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
Northeast Urban Renewal Board Meeting Minutes Design Review Board Meeting Minutes Clem Public Comment Letter
NENA Emergency Meeting Notice
Report Sent To: Scala Properties, LLC, 1228 31st Street NW, Level 2, Washington, DC 20007
Goff Architecture Ltd., 201 South Wallace Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715
1 The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community’s Leader Guide, “Preservation Economics as Public Policy,”
Donovan D. Rypkema. 2 Bozeman Community Plan, “Chapter 5: Historic Preservation, most recent edition June 1, 2009. 3 The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community’s Leader Guide, “Preservation Economics as Public Policy,”
Donovan D. Rypkema.
88
89
90
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of the General Fund Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for
FY14-18
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the General Fund Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
for FY14-18.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Manager is required to prepare a 5 Year Capital
Improvements Plan and submit it to the Commission by December 15th. In October and
November, staff meetings and requests for General Fund capital items were discussed. The
attached schedule contains the recommended Capital Improvement Plan.
Project Descriptions and Information: We have made an effort to indicate how a capital
project supports an identified Performance Measure or Workload Indicator for a department.
These use the specific reference number (ie, WL01 for “workload indicator” or PM01 for
“performance measure”) from the budget document. We can continue to refine and improve
how this information is linked from the Annual Budget to the Capital Improvement Plan.
Because there are so many different items in the General Fund CIP, we have prepared two
different summary schedules: One listing the projects “Sorted by Funding Year and Rating” and,
another listing the projects “Sorted by Department and Rating.”
Revenues and Money Available: Last year’s CIP for the General Fund contained cash reserved
for capital from the prior year’s budget savings. For FY12, FY13, and FY14, cash from budget
savings has been assigned to help fund the MMIA Litigation/Settlement – and is therefore not
available for capital investment. Until this dispute is resolved, we will not include any budget
savings amount estimates for capital projects on these schedules.
We have continued to develop the CIP working off a basic “% of general fund revenues
dedicated to capital,” found towards the bottom of the Financial Summary sheet. As you know,
during budget development, we will load all of the FY14 approved CIP items and then work to
balance the budget, with capital, personnel, and operating costs in total.
In planning for our two largest scheduled projects the following Revenues are added on the
Financial Summary Sheet, critical to the projects moving forward:
Plus: Bond Issue: Police & Municipal Court Facility Bond, FY15 $17,992,000
Plus: Mandeville Farm Developer/Land Contribution, FY15 $4.6 Million, FY16 $550,000
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Recreation & Aquatics Feasibility Study: The City is currently
underway with a Recreation and Aquatics Feasibility Study. The Study will inform how we
move forward with the following listed CIP Items:
GF055 – Bogert Gutter & Shell - $382,000
GF117 – Bogert Pool Heater - $100,000
GF183 – Bogert Pool Bath House Renovation/Reconstruction - $1.5 Million
GF142 – Swim Center Pool Gutter & Edge Tiles, etc. - $400,000
GF182 – Swim Center Expansion - $1.2 Million
GF137 - Swim Center Filtration System - $135,000
GF181 – Swim Center Deck Tile Replacement - $198,000
GF192 – Swim Center Ceiling Tile Replacement - $40,000
GF56 – Design & Construct a Community Recreation/Aquatics Center - $21 Million
Because the results of the study are not complete, we have done our best to leave items in the
same years as proposed in the past, and/or scheduled the most critical projects earlier in the plan
years. We anticipate that the results of the study will be presented to the public and the
Commission in January 2013, and could potentially change the timing and contents of these
projects.
Sale of Story Mansion: We have prepared the CIP assuming that the sale of the Mansion is
completed in February 2013. In previous CIP’s, before the sale agreement was entered into,
there were also projects related to rehabilitation and repair of the Mansion and Carriage House
themselves. The Mansion Sidewalk Replacement – GF144 - $69,200 remains in the plan as an
improvement to that Park property surrounding the Mansion and Carriage House.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no fiscal effect. Once adopted, the
Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for
FY14.
Report compiled on: November 28, 2012
Attached: General Fund CIP
General Fund CIP Criteria
General Fund Capital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 UnscheduledProjected Beginning Balance Dedicated to CIP 473,320$ ‐$ 17,835$ 136,635$ (14,327)$ 190,488$ Plus: General Fund Revenues Dedicated to CIP 1,380,000$ 1,380,000$ 1,393,800$ 1,407,738$ 1,421,815$ 1,436,034$ ‐$ Plus: Bond Issue: Police & Municipal Court Facility Bond 17,992,000$ Plus: Mandeville Farm Developer/Land Contribution 4,600,000$ 550,000$ Plus: FY13 Assigned to Bogert Pool Repairs/Design 177,000$ Less: Scheduled CIP Project Costs (1,853,320)$ (1,539,165)$ (23,867,000)$ (2,108,700)$ (1,217,000)$ (692,500)$ (25,361,800)$ Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP‐$ 17,835$ 136,635$ (14,327)$ 190,488$ 934,022$ * FY12 Budget Amendment AnticipatedAssumptions Made for Revenue Estimates:FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18Estimated Annual General Fund Revenues 23,000,000$ 23,000,000$ 23,230,000$ 23,462,300$ 23,696,923$ Estimated Growth in General Fund Revenues 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%Total Estimated General Fund Revenues 23,000,000$ 23,230,000$ 23,462,300$ 23,696,923$ 23,933,892$ Current Revenues Dedicated to CIP % 5.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% Plus: Increase Dedicated to Capital Improvements % 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total % Dedicated to CIP 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0% 6.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 1,380,000$ 1,393,800$ 1,407,738$ 1,421,815$ 1,436,034$ 30,000,00025,000,00020,000,00015,000,00010,000,0005,000,0000FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 UnscheduledGeneral Fund Projects & Equipment
PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17FY18CIP PROJECT FUND:General FundSorted by Funding Year and RatingGF053POLICEPOLICE CARS & VEHICLE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT$156,000$208,000$156,00063$208,000$156,000GF080I.T.REMOTE CLOSET SWITCHES, ROUTER AND WIRELESS AP REPLACEMENT$40,000$40,000$40,00050$40,000$40,000GF104FAC. MTC.ENERGY UPGRADES$30,000$30,000$30,00047$30,000$30,000GF062I.T.SERVER & PERSONAL COMPUTER (PC) REPLACEMENT$100,000$100,000$100,00045$100,000$100,000GF162FIRELIVE‐FIRE TRAINING PROP$10,000$10,000$10,00045$10,000$10,000GF103FAC. MTC.AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILTIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE IMPROVEMENTS$15,000$15,000$15,00042$15,000$15,000GF031PARKSPARK IMPROVEMENT GRANTS$75,000$75,000$75,00037$75,000$75,000GF052POLICEUNMARKED VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$35,500$60,000$30,00063$33,000GF185ECONOMIC DEMANDEVILLE FARM PROJECT ‐ PHASE 1$150,000$4,600,000$550,00045GF170FAC. MTC.BOILER REPLACEMENT AT FIRE STATION #1$255,66562GF055RECREATIONBOGERT POOL GUTTER AND POOL SHELL REPAIRS$382,00057GF117RECREATIONBOGERT POOL HEATER$100,00055GF180RECREATIONLINDLEY CENTER RESTROOMS ADA UPGRADES$40,00052GF184I.T.WEB MAPPING$25,00046GF197I.T.SQL CLUSTER UPGRADE$10,00045GF197RECREATIONLINDLEY CENTER CLEAN AND SEAL BASEMENT$25,00039GF048PLANNINGCOPY MACHINE REPLACEMENT$25,00037GF176ATTORNEYELECTRONIC DISCOVERY SOFTWARE$65,00036GF115PARKSPARK VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS$28,000$30,000$60,00063$30,000$30,000GF194PARKSPARK ENTRANCE SIGNS$10,000$10,000$10,00037$10,000$10,000GF166POLICEPORTABLE RADIO REPLACEMENTS$48,000$49,50057$51,000$52,500GF010CEMETERYCEMETERY MOWER REPLACEMENTS$14,000$16,00025$16,000$16,000GF165POLICEPATROL MOTORCYCLE REPLACEMENTS$70,000$70,00066GF092PARKSPLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT$55,00037$60,000GF050POLICE/COURTPOLICE & MUNICIPAL COURT FACILITY$17,992,00065GF079I.T.NETWORK CORE SWITCHES$50,00050
PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17FY18GF164FAC. MTC.REPLACEMENT OF IT AIR CONDITION UNIT AT PROFESSIONAL BUILDING$22,50049GF137RECREATIONSWIM CENTER POOL FILTRATION SYSTEM$135,00045GF139FAC. MTC.CITY HALL PHASE 3 SITE IMPROVEMENTS$45,00045GF188FAC. MTC.REPLACE BOILER AT BOZEMAN SENIOR CENTER$18,50042GF163ADMINCOPIER/PRINTER/SCANNER REPLACEMENT$18,00040GF187FAC. MTC.REPLACE WORN SIDING ON THE BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER$25,00039GF030PARKSARTICULATING TRACTOR$110,00035GF189FAC. MTC.REFINISH THE ROOF ON THE GREEN STORAGE BUILDING AT THE SHOP COMPLEX$38,00030GF192RECREATIONBOZEMAN SWIM CENTER CEILING TILE REPLACEMENT$40,00030PW01PARKS/FAC. MTSHOPS FACILITY EXPANSION PLAN$10,000GF084PARKSPARKS RESTROOM UPGRADES$175,00037$175,000$40,000GF051POLICEANIMAL CONTROL VEHICLE$27,70060GF142RECREATIONSWIM CENTER POOL GUTTER & EDGE TILES, POOL RESURFACING, AND UNDERWATER LIGHTING REPLACEMENT$400,00047GF034PARKSLARGE DECK MOWER$50,00043$60,000GF083CEMETERYBACKHOE$110,00042GF157FAC. MTC.SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR$65,00037GF116CEMETERYCEMETERY VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS$42,50034GF100PARKSTRACTOR WITH BUCKET$45,00033GF186FAC. MTC.REPLACE ENTRANCE LOCKS AT THE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING WITH FOB UNITS.$12,00027GF140RECREATIONLINDLEY CENTER PARKING LOT RENOVATION47$47,000GF171FAC. MTC.CITY HALL SITE DRAINAGE ON WEST SIDE OF BUILDING43$11,000GF181RECREATIONSWIM CENTER DECK TILE REPLACEMENT43$198,000GF065I.T.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY39$65,000GF130FAC. MTC.CITY HALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS ‐ PHASE 238$40,000GF190PARKS4‐WHEELER ATV REPLACEMENT37$13,000GF126RECREATIONTRUCK WITH PLOW36$23,000
PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17FY18GF182RECREATIONSWIM CENTER EXPANSION$1,200,00046GF056RECREATIONDESIGN & CONSTRUCT COMMUNITY RECREATION/AQUATICS CENTER$21,000,00044GF144PARKSSTORY MANSION SIDEWALKS$69,20038GF183RECREATIONBOGERT POOL BATH HOUSE RENOVATION/RECONSTRUCTION$1,500,00037GF001FAC. MTC.PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT$65,60033GF111PARKSEAST GALLATIN REC AREA IRRIGATION REPAIRS$25,00028GF146PARKSLINDLEY PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM$100,00028GF147PARKSSOFTBALL COMPLEX IRRIAGATION SYSTEM$110,00028GF108PARKSPARK SIDEWALK REPLACEMENTS$182,00027GF148PARKSBMX PARKING LOT$85,00025GF149PARKSEAST GALLATIN REC AREA PARKING LOT$60,00025GF151PARKSBEALL PARK BASKETBALL COURTS$18,00023GF191PARKSUPGRADE OF SOFTBALL COMPLEX LIGHTING$825,00022GF195PARKSAERATOR$17,00019GF196PARKSSKATE PARK REFURBISHMENT$35,00018GF168FAC. MTC.NEW CITY HALL BRICK FAÇADE REPAIR53GF064PLANNINGVEHICLE REPLACEMENT35$25,000Summary for General Fund (69 items)Totals by year:$1,539,165 $23,867,000 $2,108,700$1,217,000$25,361,800FY14FY15FY16FY17UnscheduledFY18$692,500
PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17FY18CIP PROJECT FUND:General FundSorted by Department and RatingGF163ADMINCOPIER/PRINTER/SCANNER REPLACEMENT$18,00040GF176ATTORNEYELECTRONIC DISCOVERY SOFTWARE$65,00036GF083CEMETERYBACKHOE$110,00042GF116CEMETERYCEMETERY VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS$42,50034GF010CEMETERYCEMETERY MOWER REPLACEMENTS$14,000$16,00025$16,000$16,000GF185ECONOMIC DEMANDEVILLE FARM PROJECT ‐ PHASE 1$150,000$4,600,000$550,00045GF170FAC. MTC.BOILER REPLACEMENT AT FIRE STATION #1$255,66562GF168FAC. MTC.NEW CITY HALL BRICK FAÇADE REPAIR53GF164FAC. MTC.REPLACEMENT OF IT AIR CONDITION UNIT AT PROFESSIONAL BUILDING$22,50049GF104FAC. MTC.ENERGY UPGRADES$30,000$30,000$30,00047$30,000$30,000GF139FAC. MTC.CITY HALL PHASE 3 SITE IMPROVEMENTS$45,00045GF171FAC. MTC.CITY HALL SITE DRAINAGE ON WEST SIDE OF BUILDING43$11,000GF103FAC. MTC.AMERICAN'S WITH DISABILTIES ACT (ADA) COMPLIANCE IMPROVEMENTS$15,000$15,000$15,00042$15,000$15,000GF188FAC. MTC.REPLACE BOILER AT BOZEMAN SENIOR CENTER$18,50042GF187FAC. MTC.REPLACE WORN SIDING ON THE BOZEMAN SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER$25,00039GF130FAC. MTC.CITY HALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS ‐ PHASE 238$40,000GF157FAC. MTC.SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR$65,00037GF001FAC. MTC.PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT$65,60033GF189FAC. MTC.REFINISH THE ROOF ON THE GREEN STORAGE BUILDING AT THE SHOP COMPLEX$38,00030GF186FAC. MTC.REPLACE ENTRANCE LOCKS AT THE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING WITH FOB UNITS.$12,00027GF162FIRELIVE‐FIRE TRAINING PROP$10,000$10,000$10,00045$10,000$10,000
PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17FY18GF079I.T.NETWORK CORE SWITCHES$50,00050GF080I.T.REMOTE CLOSET SWITCHES, ROUTER AND WIRELESS AP REPLACEMENT$40,000$40,000$40,00050$40,000$40,000GF184I.T.WEB MAPPING$25,00046GF062I.T.SERVER & PERSONAL COMPUTER (PC) REPLACEMENT$100,000$100,000$100,00045$100,000$100,000GF198I.T.SQL CLUSTER UPGRADE$10,00045GF065I.T.AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY39$65,000GF115PARKSPARK VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS$28,000$30,000$60,00063$30,000$30,000GF034PARKSLARGE DECK MOWER$50,00043$60,000GF144PARKSSTORY MANSION SIDEWALKS$69,20038GF031PARKSPARK IMPROVEMENT GRANTS$75,000$75,000$75,00037$75,000$75,000GF084PARKSPARKS RESTROOM UPGRADES$175,00037$175,000$40,000GF092PARKSPLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT$55,00037$60,000GF190PARKS4‐WHEELER ATV REPLACEMENT37$13,000GF194PARKSPARK ENTRANCE SIGNS$10,000$10,000$10,00037$10,000$10,000GF030PARKSARTICULATING TRACTOR$110,00035GF100PARKSTRACTOR WITH BUCKET$45,00033GF111PARKSEAST GALLATIN REC AREA IRRIGATION REPAIRS$25,00028GF146PARKSLINDLEY PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM$100,00028GF147PARKSSOFTBALL COMPLEX IRRIAGATION SYSTEM$110,00028GF108PARKSPARK SIDEWALK REPLACEMENTS$182,00027GF148PARKSBMX PARKING LOT$85,00025GF149PARKSEAST GALLATIN REC AREA PARKING LOT$60,00025GF151PARKSBEALL PARK BASKETBALL COURTS$18,00023GF191PARKSUPGRADE OF SOFTBALL COMPLEX LIGHTING$825,00022GF195PARKSAERATOR$17,00019GF196PARKSSKATE PARK REFURBISHMENT$35,00018
PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17FY18PW01PARKS/FAC. MTSHOPS FACILITY EXPANSION PLAN$10,000GF048PLANNINGCOPY MACHINE REPLACEMENT$25,00037GF064PLANNINGVEHICLE REPLACEMENT35$25,000GF165POLICEPATROL MOTORCYCLE REPLACEMENTS$70,000$70,00066GF052POLICEUNMARKED VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM$35,500$60,000$30,00063$33,000GF053POLICEPOLICE CARS & VEHICLE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT$156,000$208,000$156,00063$208,000$156,000GF051POLICEANIMAL CONTROL VEHICLE$27,70060GF166POLICEPORTABLE RADIO REPLACEMENTS$48,000$49,50057$51,000$52,500GF050POLICE/COURTPOLICE & MUNICIPAL COURT FACILITY$17,992,00065GF055RECREATIONBOGERT POOL GUTTER AND POOL SHELL REPAIRS$382,00057GF117RECREATIONBOGERT POOL HEATER$100,00055GF180RECREATIONLINDLEY CENTER RESTROOMS ADA UPGRADES$40,00052GF140RECREATIONLINDLEY CENTER PARKING LOT RENOVATION47$47,000GF142RECREATIONSWIM CENTER POOL GUTTER & EDGE TILES, POOL RESURFACING, AND UNDERWATER LIGHTING REPLACEMENT$400,00047GF182RECREATIONSWIM CENTER EXPANSION$1,200,00046GF137RECREATIONSWIM CENTER POOL FILTRATION SYSTEM$135,00045GF056RECREATIONDESIGN & CONSTRUCT COMMUNITY RECREATION/AQUATICS CENTER$21,000,00044GF181RECREATIONSWIM CENTER DECK TILE REPLACEMENT43$198,000GF197RECREATIONLINDLEY CENTER CLEAN AND SEAL BASEMENT$25,00039GF183RECREATIONBOGERT POOL BATH HOUSE RENOVATION/RECONSTRUCTION$1,500,00037GF126RECREATIONTRUCK WITH PLOW36$23,000GF192RECREATIONBOZEMAN SWIM CENTER CEILING TILE REPLACEMENT$40,00030
PROJ.DEPARTMENTPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15RATINGFY17FY18Summary for General Fund (69 items)Totals by year:$1,539,165 $23,867,000 $2,108,700$1,217,000$25,361,800FY14FY15FY16FY17UnscheduledFY18$692,500
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF001
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$65,600
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The elevator in the Professional Building is a three stop Otis elevator. The elevator was installed when the second floor was
added in 1972. Since the City purchased the building re-modeling has occurred on both the main floor and second floor. The
elevator is to the point where many technological improvements have been made in elevator technology and a change out would
yield both improved service and some reductions in energy savings. While the elevator is still a safe system, there are some
inherent problems with the operation of the elevator. Of the four elevators owned by the City, this system experiences the
most downtime. One big problem is the leveling systems and the way the rails and tracks are mounted in the building. If
someone loads the elevator heavy to one side or another the balance alarm will engage and the elevator has to be reset. A new
car and track system would solve the nuisance trips associated with this elevator.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to maintain and adjust the elevator operating systems throughout the year. The current electronics for the building are also a source
of increased vigilance on the system and the electrical components on the system had to be traced back this year on two occasions to
determine the problems of uneven voltages associated with the system.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
A new car, rail system and control package would add to the reliability of the elevator operation and the address the accessibility
requirements for a municipal building.
Building energy demands would also benefit as the newer elevator systems have more energy saving features built into them.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
A new system would reduce some of the maintenance costs currently associated with this elevator. A new system would also
include a number of technological improvements such as a solid state slow start motor yielding reduced energy costs associated
with the high demand motors used in elevator systems.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund and Building Inspection Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:33
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF010
DEPARTMENT
CEMETERY
PROJECT NAME
CEMETERY MOWER REPLACEMENTS
FY14 FY15
$14,000
FY16
$16,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Ongoing mower replacement program developed to keep the cemetery mowers operating as needed. These mowers are the
equipment used to complete the mowing of 53 Formal Turf Acres (Workload Measure WL04), and support the Cemetery
Divisions's performance measures PM03 and PM04 - Mowing the cemetery and adjacent trails.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Keep older mowers for extended periods of time.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Less down time, Decreased repair /maintenance costs, High trade –in value, Increased productivity, Less emissions.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Routine maintenance, oil changes, fuel.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:25
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):5
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17
$16,000
FY18
$16,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF030
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
ARTICULATING TRACTOR
FY14 FY15
$110,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The replacement of the 1992 MT articulating tractor, which does the bulk of the sidewalk snow removal for the Parks Division
(WL08), encompassing over 10 miles of sidewalks and two routes to plow.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Repair and maintain the 1992 MT as needed or explore the potential of sharing the costs of new Wacker/Neuson wheel loader machines with
the Street Division. The Wacker/Neuson machines are a fairly new development in regards to sidewalk snow removal and can handle numerous
implements as well. Waiting on costs from the Street Division. Rough estimate is around $52,000.00
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Less down time and maintenance/repair costs, A new MT tractor will be able to support more implements, Less emissions and
better fuel economy, Faster more efficient use of time.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Better fuel economy and less emissions= less maintenance costs and operating costs.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:35
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF031
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
PARK IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
FY14
$75,000
FY15
$75,000
FY16
$75,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Contribute each year from the General Fund towards improving park infrastructure through implementation of park master plans.
This grant program is a matching funds program in which the City receives a 1 to 1 match from the recipient. The Commission
has established a formal grant policy by resolution. The number of Park Improvement Grants is tracked in department Workload
Measure WL05, with 20 various grant projects underway in FY12.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Handle park equipment and improvement requests on an adhoc basis, as various donors or service groups bring them forward. Allocate more
or fewer dollars to the program.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This matching funds program provides critical infrastructure to the park system by utilizing the talents of our community members
through matching funds, donations, labor in lieu of and numerous specialized services. All of the above can be used as a match in
this program
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: New infrastructure and facilities bring on increased maintenance and labor costs. The
nature of each project funded will determine the continued costs. Some projects have very low ongoing costs, others have
relatively higer costs.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:37
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):7
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17
$75,000
FY18
$75,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF034
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
LARGE DECK MOWER
FY14 FY15 FY16
$50,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Replacement of the 1999 (in FY16) Toro 455 series mower, which is difficult to repair due to lack of parts (these mowers are not
manufactured anymore). This mower is used in department weekly mowing (PM01-PM03). Mower in FY18 would be the
addition of a large-deck sports turf mower, anticipated to be needed for additional land purchases from Park and Trail Bond and
future annexations. The city currently maintains 125 acres of Formal Turf in the parks system (WL02).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to repair as break downs occur, Replace mowers as they breakdown, Lease mowers on a 3 - year program.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Proper mowing of sports fields is imperative to safety. Regular replacement will reduce maintenance costs and decrease the
number of breakdowns we have been experiencing. Well mowed parks are an important reflection on our City and how it is
perceived by visitors and citizens. Having the right mower to do the job will ensure well mowed parks. New mowers will be more
reliable, safer, productive, and will reduce the workload on the vehicle maintenance shop personnel.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Improve scheduling of mowing and increase crew efficiency because of reliable
equipment.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:43
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
$60,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF048
DEPARTMENT
PLANNING
PROJECT NAME
COPY MACHINE REPLACEMENT
FY14
$25,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The existing copy machine is expected to have a life of around 5 years given its intensive use, and was purchased in May 2008. The
machine produces in excess of 250,000 copies per year. Repair and maintenance costs show a steady increase as wear continues.
This request is for a replacement copier to meet the ongoing operational needs of the department, supporting all department
workload measures for (WL01-WL32.) Incorporation of advanced scanning capability facilitates records management and
customer service.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue using current copier with an increasing frequency of down time and cost of repairs.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The new copier will help contain operational costs due to maintenance. The copier is also utilized as a high capacity network
printer and scanner for the department which brings some additional efficiencies in utilization of staff time in the preparation of
reports, commission packets, and other materials.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: None, operating costs are already incurred with the current copier. Anticipated costs
are expected to remain in line with current charges. Maintenance costs will increase annually without replacement.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund and/or Planning Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:37
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF050
DEPARTMENT
POLICE/COURTS
PROJECT NAME
POLICE & MUNICIPAL COURT FACILITY
FY14 FY15
$17,992,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The City recently participated in the 2011 Campus Master Plan for the Gallatin County Law and Justice Center site. This study
reviewed and validated the prior estimated space needs for the City and County’s criminal justice functions and specifically the
facility needs of the Bozeman Police Department and Municipal Courts to 2020 and 2025. The master plan determined that there
is adequate space for the City and County’s law enforcement and courts functions on the site and recommends the construction
of two new buildings; a combined courts building housing the District, Justice and Municipal Courts and a separate combined law
enforcement building for the Sheriff and Bozeman Police. The plan did not address sequencing or recommend timing of the
construction, but did determine that the law enforcement building could be built in phases (police or sheriff) as the needs of the
City and County dictated. Presently we are negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the County that would identify a
construction site, agree to a mutually beneficial ownership model, and allow us to proceed with the design of a municipal courts
and police facility, either with or without the county.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The existing building does not meet current building and life-safety codes for critical public safety facilities and is not adequate for remodel or additions.
Previous studies discuss the operational needs of the departments and the lack of the existing space. They analyzed alternative site locations for this facility
including 5 dedicated acres at the current L&J site and approximately 6 acres at the current BMX Park located at 5th and Tamarack. These other sites would
provide for projected expansion capabilities, adequate parking and public space needs but would separate the City’s criminal justice functions from the County.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The Police Department would have adequate room for existing staff – and projected staff for 15-20 years. Sufficient Municipal
Court space would also be available. This facility would be programmed and built with the PD, Court, and Prosecution needs in
mind from the beginning. The new site and building would provide secure parking for the City’s police vehicle inventory. Public
areas, secured areas, office locations, and space adjacencies could be maximized for the best and safest utilization (as opposed to a
retro-fit of an existing building).
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Not estimated at this time. Currently, the City pays facility costs to the County for our
square footage at the L& J. We anticipate asking voters to approve an operating levy, if necessary, when approving the
construction levy.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund: Land and Construction would be funded by a voter-approved levy. 20 year General Obligation Bonds would be
issued. FY12 & 13: $500,000 each year for Design. FY15: $17,992,000 Land Purchase and Construction.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:65
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):5
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF051
DEPARTMENT
POLICE
PROJECT NAME
ANIMAL CONTROL VEHICLE
FY14 FY15 FY16
$27,700
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
FY16 - $27,700 to replace vehicle Asset 3230, 2004 Dodge 4-wheel drive with an expected mileage of 109,000. This vehicle will
be replaced with a new extended cab, 4wd truck. The department responds to nearly 2,000 Animal Complaints each year
(WL07). During the winter months, it is very difficult to navigate the city streets and transport animals to the Heart of the Valley
Animal Shelter with a 2 wheel drive pickup and need to continue use of a 4wd vehicle. It is anticipated that this vehicle will begin
accumulating repairs and increasing maintenance costs. Purchase of a new truck would ensure many years of service without
incurring high maintenance costs. The current truck could be used by another city department, be sold at auction, or used as a
trade in. Hybrid fuel vehicles will be examined for suitability to assignment.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The purchase of a newer lease return vehicle is a viable option and one that should be looked at before a final decision to purchase is made.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
4-wheel drive is important for 12-month access in difficult weather. 4-wheel drive vehicles are often used for evidence retrieval
and transport. A flex-fuel vehicle would provide better gas mileage.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduction in costs expected.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:60
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):17
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):1
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF052
DEPARTMENT
POLICE
PROJECT NAME
UNMARKED VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
FY14
$35,500
FY15
$60,000
FY16
$30,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
FOR POLICE INVESTIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION VEHICLES. FY14 - New vehicle for support service administrative
position. FY15 - Replace vehicle Asset #2617 and 2618 1998 Chevrolet Luminas used by our School Resource Officers which
will have become maintenance intensive. FY16 - Replace vehicle Asset #3138 Chevy Impala which will have over 120,000.
Purchase mid-size passenger vehicles, plus equipment, to replace high mileage cars currently driven by detectives and to provide
safe and reliable emergency response vehicles. An additional Support Service Supervisory Position requires a vehicle with similar
emergency response needs. This amount includes all the necessary vehicle equipment, with some current equipment being
reused. Hybrid fuel vehicles will be examined for suitability to assignment. As feasible and appropriate, old cars are either rotated
for use as travel cars for employees attending training, traded in, sold at auction or transferred to other divisions in the city.
Unmarked vehicles are an essential item in the operation of the Bozeman Police Department, being the primary tool used by
Detectives, School Officers, and department administration to assist and manage the 41,000 Response to Calls (workload
measures WL02-WL34) each year.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No safe and reliable alternatives have been identified.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Would drastically reduce maintenance costs, mechanical concerns and provide many years of reliable service. Increased public
safety and officer safety in providing mechanically sound emergency response vehicles, reduced risk and liability related to use of
unreliable cars.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduction in maintenance costs and possible reduction in fuel costs.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:63
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
$33,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF053
DEPARTMENT
POLICE
PROJECT NAME
POLICE CARS & VEHICLE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
FY14
$156,000
FY15
$208,000
FY16
$156,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This plan allows for a number of patrol cars to be replaced each year, including all of the necessary vehicle equipment (top lights,
sirens, mobile data terminals, video cameras, electronic reporting / ticketing systems, etc.) Patrol vehicles are an essential item in
the operation of the Bozeman Police Department, being the primary tool used for over 41,000 Response to Calls (workload
measures WL02-WL34) each year. Police vehicles must be available for police patrol use 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These
vehicles are used to respond to both emergency and non-emergency calls for service, investigate accidents, conduct traffic
enforcement and for general patrol duties. These patrol vehicles average approximately 20,000 miles annually. The table on the
following page is an outline of the replacement schedule.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This helps us plan for safe and reliable emergency response vehicles for patrol use, as well as projected lower annual maintenance
costs due to lower annual miles driven per vehicle per year. This program would allow for the replacement of older, higher
mileage patrol cars that become less reliable and more costly to repair. Equipment components mounted inside the car can
sometimes be transferred from the old car to the new car, depending on the condition.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: These are replacements; recurring costs frequently decline as newer cars replace older
ones. Maintenance costs have stabilized due to regularly scheduled service even though calls for service have increased and
additional officers have been hired. Also, fewer miles are accumulating on the vehicles because the number of patrol vehicles has
increased. Our projection is the useful life of each patrol car is being extended.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:63
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$208,000
FY18
$156,000
Police Vehicle DetailsProject NumberCurrent MileageAsset #MakeFY14FY15FY16UnscheduledNotesFY17FY18GF053113,617335106 IMPALA$52,000Mileage Oct 2012112,370335006 IMPALA$52,000Mileage Oct 2012122,243328005 IMPALA$52,000Mileage Oct 2012107,124331105 EXPLORER$52,000Mileage Oct 2012115,841335206 IMPALA$52,000Mileage Oct 201278,185344008 IMPALA$52,000Mileage Oct 201277,345336907 IMPALA$52,000Mileage Oct 201229,728349909 IMPALA$52,000Mileage Oct 201233,6363498CHEVY LUMINA$52,000Mileage Oct 201260,016337007 IMPALA$52,000Mileage Oct 201225,801358911 IMPALAMileage Oct 2012$52,00022,463359011 IMPALAMileage Oct 2012$52,0008,667359511 IMPALAMileage Oct 2012$52,0004,363363012 IMPALAMileage Oct 2012$52,00050363112 TAHOEMileage Oct 2012$52,000.003,904362712 IMPALAMileage Oct 2012$52,000.0064362812 IMPALAMileage Oct 2012$52,000.00$156,000$208,000$156,000$208,000Totals$156,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF055
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
BOGERT POOL GUTTER AND POOL SHELL REPAIRS
FY14
$382,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
General Fund Budget $177,000 for this Item in FY13. The pool gutter system around the edge of the Bogert Pool is in disrepair.
The gutter system is vital to the filtration system as it skims water from the pool and sends it to filtration. The pool shell is in
need of replacement also. It is most efficient and economical to complete the gutter and shell projects together since they are
connected and one project affects the other. This will replace the current concrete gutter system with a stainless steel gutter
system and install a new plaster pool shell with a ceramic tiled whale logo to replace the 30 year old shell. This project would
assist in making sure Aquatics classes aren't cancelled (PM08), reduce some of the current maintenance burdens (PM01), and
mitigate some of the items contained in Risk Management reports - Aquatics Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Build new outdoor leisure pool
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The USAquatics report stated that the above renovations will increase the life of the facility by an additional 30 plus years. This
will benefit the community by keeping a historical icon in service, allowing community swim lessons and recreational swimming in
an outdoor environment.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduced water use, Reduce Chemicals use, Reduce annual painting costs.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund * General Fund Reserve $382,000 for this Item in FY12.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:57
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):9
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):9
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):9
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):1
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF056
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
DESIGN & CONSTRUCT COMMUNITY RECREATION/AQUATICS CENTER
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$21,000,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Build a community center designed to create a visual connection between spaces and an openness that promotes community for
all users. Aquatic Elements: Therapy pool, water slides, zero entry teaching area, river run, deep diving well, 25 yd lap pool.
Fitness Elements: Indoor track, strength and cardio equipment, free weights, climbing wall. Gym Elements: Two multipurpose gym
facilities and an indoor tennis court Multipurpose/Play Elements: Indoor playground and multipurpose rooms (one with a kitchen).
This item was identified as a “Top Ten Capital Facility Recommendation” in the PROST plan, adopted October 2007.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Implement plan in phases
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Community Benefits of a Community Center: Safe and healthy place for families to play; Connected families; Strong, vital, involved
community; Support for youth at risk; and, Increased community programs.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual operating and maintenance costs to include additional Recreation Department staff: Cost undetermined at this time. We
would recommend asking voters to approve a levy increase of operations, at the time we funded the capital improvements.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund, Bond Issue, Grants, etc.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:44
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):0
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):8
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):8
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF062
DEPARTMENT
I.T.
PROJECT NAME
SERVER & PERSONAL COMPUTER (PC) REPLACEMENT
FY14
$100,000
FY15
$100,000
FY16
$100,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a general item for replacement of personal computers and Servers for General Fund related jobs and services. (Enterprise
and Special Revenue fund services pay for their own pc’s and servers.) As of FY10, Personal Computers’s moved to a 4 year
rotation and servers continued to be minimal of a 5 year asset before replacement. PC Replacements are one of the primary
drivers of Help Desk Calls (PM01 & WL01) - aging computers can have more software and technical conflicts, and replaced PC's
often require user support for newer versions of software, etc.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not replace computer/server hardware as frequently.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
City technology needs will be better met and the IT department will be able to more efficiently support employees and citizens.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:45
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):7
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):8
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$100,000
FY18
$100,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF064
DEPARTMENT
PLANNING
PROJECT NAME
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Replacement of the current vehicle, a 1998 Nissan Sentra with 55,000 miles. This is a small car which works well for single or two
person activities but does not have much cargo or personnel capacity. The vehicle is used by Planning Staff for site visits to
projects, posting notices on-site, in-town meetings and other department activities (WL01-WL32) . Replacement would be with a
fuel efficient small vehicle, possibly a hybrid.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to operate the existing vehicles with increasing maintenance costs.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Provide functional transportation with reduced maintenance costs. Because of the age of the existing vehicle, maintenance costs
are likely to increase to keep it functional. Recent repairs include power windows and routine maintenance. The vehicle needs
numerous minor repairs, including dashboard lights, that continue to be deferred.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: No new costs are expected as maintenance is already performed on the existing
vehicle. However, maintenance and repair costs are anticipated to increase due to the age of the vehicle.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund and/or Planning Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:35
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
$25,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF065
DEPARTMENT
I.T.
PROJECT NAME
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Acquire aerial photography for the Bozeman planning area. Aerial photography benefits both the organization and the community
by supplying a clear and accurate representation of current conditions. This information is used on a daily basis in all levels of our
operations. We continue to experience unprecedented demand for digital imagery (i.e., staff reports, Commission presentations,
water/sewer utilities, public requests, etc.).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Use of lower resolution satellite imagery. Partnerships with other agencies.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Contributes to on-going acquisition of photos at regular intervals for historical archives. Since 1987 we have not gone more than
five years without an update. Measurements and land use determinations are made on a local or regional basis without requiring
extensive field time. Aerial photographs are used extensively in several on-line and in-house mapping applications. Background
information for existing and future GIS & CAD datasets and Facility Plans. Meets public demand for current and accurate aerial
photography.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
There are no annual operating or maintenance costs associated with this project.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:39
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):13
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):7
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):8
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):1
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$65,000
FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF079
DEPARTMENT
I.T.
PROJECT NAME
NETWORK CORE SWITCHES
FY14 FY15
$50,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This is a scheduled replacement of switches that provide the backbone of the entire network. These provide the technology
platform for the entire organization. The switches at the Professional Building will be replaced in FY15. This equipment is critical
to the City's technology network, suporting all of the department's performance measures related to system "uptime" (PM02-
PM06) and workload measures related to number of hours the network and various software is "in service" (WL02-W06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Maintain current switches without critical support or maintenance.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Continued maintaining network stability and ensure phone services and data without interruption.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund – with costs shared with Enterprise, as location warrants.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:50
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF080
DEPARTMENT
I.T.
PROJECT NAME
REMOTE CLOSET SWITCHES, ROUTER AND WIRELESS AP REPLACEMENT
FY14
$40,000
FY15
$40,000
FY16
$40,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Wan Site end of life replacements for switches and router throughout City to include City Hall, Professional Building, City Shops,
Landfill, L&J, Library, WWTP, WTP, Swim Center, Beall Park, Cemetery. Smaller sites will be consolidated in one year. FY 14 –
Swim Center, PD, FS 1,2,&3 Cemetery. FY 15 - Prof-Building, Vehicle Maint. This equipment is critical to the City's technology
network, suporting all of the department's performance measures related to system "uptime" (PM02-PM06) and workload
measures related to number of hours the network and various software is "in service" (WL02-W06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Maintain current switches without critical support or maintenance.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Maintain uptime for all WAN locations throughout the City to include phone services as well as data.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund – with costs shared with Enterprise, as location warrants.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:50
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$40,000
FY18
$40,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF083
DEPARTMENT
CEMETERY
PROJECT NAME
BACKHOE
FY14 FY15 FY16
$110,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This vehicle replaces the current cemetery backhoe that is used for burials an average of 2 times per week (WL01). This is the
main piece of equipment utilized for cemetery burials.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to use older vehicle which is becoming unreliable and costly to maintain. Borrow from another department.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased reliability and safety for staff and the families relying on cemetery services.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair costs are expected to be lower than the existing vehicle.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:42
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF084
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
PARKS RESTROOM UPGRADES
FY14 FY15 FY16
$175,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project is the general replacement and upgrading of the City Park’s public restroom facilities. In order of priority: 1. Rose
Park (new - FY16) – $175,000 2. BMX Park (new - FY17) - $175,000 3. Beall Park Restroom Refurb - $40,000. The replacement
of the Lindley Park Restroom Facility was scheduled and funded in FY13, as the top replacement priority. The Project was put on
hold, pending the outcome of the MMIA litigation settlement. At this point, we are assuming that that "hold" will be lifted and the
Lindley Park Restroom will be replaced in Late FY13, early FY14. Doing a good job maintaining the 13 existing restrooms (PM21
& WL19) is critical to the enjoyment of park users.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to try to maintain existing facilities. The Rose and BMX Park projects will provide restroom facilities in areas where currently none
exist.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Ease of maintaining new restrooms, increased cleanliness of public facilities.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair costs are expected to be lower than the existing facilities.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:37
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$175,000
FY18
$40,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF092
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
FY14 FY15
$55,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The following playground equipment needs to be replaced due to its age and condition: Replacement will bring fully compliant
ADA equipment and reduce safety and liability concerns. FY15– Christie Park, FY17– Beall Park. In general, safety
recommendations for playgrounds address: playground site elements, sight lines, equipment features and materials, surfacing
materials, hardware, paints and finishes, and any other hazards that might be present. Playground repairs require "same-day"
response (PM11) given their critical safety implication. We currently maintain 24 playgrounds city-wide (WL10).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Keep existing equipment in place.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased safety for community members.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Minimal.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:37
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17
$60,000
FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF100
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
TRACTOR WITH BUCKET
FY14 FY15 FY16
$45,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Replace the aging 1986 Ford tractor with a new tractor. This tractor will be used to broom the 4 ice rinks (WL12), move
material, assist in fertilization (PM04-PM06) and will be used extensively with all three city-owned aerators. New price
information is much less expensive than previously quoted.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to repair and patch up the Ford tractor as breakdowns occur.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Less down time and maintenance/repair costs, A new tractor will be able to support more implements, Less emissions and better
fuel economy, Faster more efficient use of time.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Better fuel economy and less emissions= less maintenance costs and operating costs.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:33
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF103
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
American's with Disabilties Act (ADA) COMPLIANCE IMPROVEMENTS
FY14
$15,000
FY15
$15,000
FY16
$15,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Replace or install ADA upgrades in various city-owned buildings. Work examples include: door hardware, handrails, parking
signage and stalls, building access, etc. Plans are in place to reestablish an ADA advisory committee in 2013 to provide
recommendations to the city on priority order for any upgrades or improvements that we might make in order to make our
facilities or programs more accessible. Having this money available to begin improvements will show our priorities have already
been in place to address special needs concerns for the City of Bozeman.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
When remodels are initiated on buildings they are brought up to current ADA requirements as per regulations. There are changes to the ADA
that took effect in March 2011. We will continue to make upgrades as changes are made to buildings but this budget item would accelerate the
compliance for city buildings.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
It has been the policy of the city to meet the full spirit of the law as outlined in the ADA regulations. By taking the initiative to
bring all our buildings up to current standards we can provide a positive example to the community in meeting the needs of
people with restricted or limited mobility.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: No real costs foreseen with these improvements. Future costs could be reduced if the
upgrades are made prior to any remodeling of the building
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:42
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$15,000
FY18
$15,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF104
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
ENERGY UPGRADES
FY14
$30,000
FY15
$30,000
FY16
$30,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Install occupancy sensors in areas that are occupied at irregular times; install programmable thermostats; replace plumbing
fixtures with low-water fixtures; replace single glaze windows with double glazed units. Work would occur on all city owned
buildings after an analysis of the work that would have the best payback and energy savings. Some consultation with an electrical
engineer would be needed to develop some energy modeling to determine which improvements would have the best payback.
This funding is expected to become available just as our federal Energy Efficiency & Conservation Block Grant money has been
fully utilized.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Currently upgrades are made as equipment reaches its useful life. This approach would be more proactive, replacing
Items that have a reasonable pay-back on energy savings.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This work would be in line with the Mayor’s energy initiative. Some rebates are currently available through NorthWestern
Energy which would help offset the cost of the change-outs.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Improvements that would result in the shortest payback would receive priority. Changes that would improve the work
environment for employees and the public would also be given a priority.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:47
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$30,000
FY18
$30,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF108
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
PARK SIDEWALK REPLACEMENTS
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$182,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Identified for replacement due to deteriorating cement, missing sections and heaving from weather and roots from trees. Approx
$7/ square foot for rip and replace. New sidewalks must meet or exceed city code. Replacing the old sidewalk will result in a
safer sidewalk year round and enable the sidewalks plows to better meet the snow removal municipal code in 12.24.020 (PM23).
Project 1: $100,000 - Southside Park - replace 730' of sidewalk along South 5th Avenue and along West Alderson Street with
new 6' (six foot) wide concrete sidewalk, and the related retaining wall. Project 2: $82,000 - Cooper Park - replace the sidewalk
around the entire block. This sidewalk serves as a main route to and from the University. Approximately 1875' total.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increased safety for community members.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: no estimate at this time
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:27
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):0
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF111
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
EAST GALLATIN REC AREA IRRIGATION REPAIRS
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$25,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Update and repair the irrigation and pump system that has been repeatedly damaged by construction of the restrooms and park
expansion. A damaged system requires more repairs (PM07.) Wait until the Sunrise Rotary park development is completed.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Not irrigate until construction and master plan implementation is complete.
Patch together what we can of the existing system and irrigate some of the park.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Efficiently irrigate the entire park
Minimize labor due to potentially hauling hoses around.
Shorten the time it takes to irrigate the park
Irrigate at night-minimize evaporation, transpiration and vandalism to irrigation heads.
Healthier turf
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Annual operating and maintenance costs would rise slightly, due to the upgrades of
valves, rotor heads and electrical wire in the ground. These identified costs potentially could be offset by fuel, vehicle and
manpower savings attributed to continual manual watering.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:28
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF115
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
PARK VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS
FY14 FY15
$28,000
FY16
$30,000
Unscheduled
$60,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Parks Department utilizes trucks for mowing, fertilization, irrigation, inspections, and repairs of the city parks (PM01 -PM23),
comprising over 125 acres of formal turf and 220 acreas of natural parkland. Because these are not emergency response vehicles,
they are replaced as funding becomes available. All trucks are utilized well beyond 150,000 miles, and until service related down-
time for equipment and staff become problematic or safety is compromised. A detailed listing of the replacement plan is shown on
the following page, with vehicle mileage updated October 2012.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This insures safe and reliable vehicles for park use.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: These are replacements; recurring costs frequently decline as newer cars replace older
ones.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:63
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$30,000
FY18
$30,000
Parks Vehicle Replacements - DetailsProject NumberAsset #MakeModel YrCurrent MileageFY14FY15FY16UnscheduledNotesFY17FY18GF1151495GMC1988207,240$28,00010/2012 MILEAGE2691FORD1990188,83010/2012 MILEAGE$30,0005561FORD1997181,109$010/2012 MILEAGE$30,000.003251DODGE2001171,488$30,00010/2012 MILEAGE1266CHEVY1985145,088$30,00010/2012 MILEAGE– 3023DODGE (1 TON)200129,132$30,00010/2012 MILEAGE –$0$28,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000Totals
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF116
DEPARTMENT
CEMETERY
PROJECT NAME
CEMETERY VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS
FY14 FY15 FY16
$42,500
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Cemetery Vehicle Replacement Plan. The Cemetery Department utilizes 1-Ton trucks for operations and maintenance of the
Sunset Hills Cemetery. Asset# 1213, 1989 1Ton 4x4, Estimated 45,000 miles, replace in FY16. This 1-Ton is critical to providing
prompt burial services (loading and unloading dirt) roughly twice a week (WL01), and sanding/plowing cemetery roads (PM16).
While it has relatively low mileage, the cost of repairs and its extremely low fuel economy (460 engine) drive our
recommendation to replace this 27 year old vehicle. *Mileage as of 10/2012
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This insures safe and reliable vehicles for cemetery use.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: These are replacements; recurring costs frequently decline as newer cars replace older
ones
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:34
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):5
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF117
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
BOGERT POOL HEATER
FY14
$100,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The current boiler for Bogert pool is a 1946 380 million BTU heater. The boiler is unreliable half way through the season, locking
out at night time. The replacement system will consist of four 200 thousand BTU heat exchangers, with a total of 800 thousand
BTUs. They would be configured to run independently from each other, to increase the total efficiency. During the startup of the
2011 summer season the water maker was replaced and the asbestos was removed. This project would assist in making sure
Aquatics classes aren't cancelled (PM08), reduce some of the current maintenance burdens (PM01), and mitigate some of the
items contained in Risk Management reports - Aquatics Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue using current boiler
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The new heat exchangers will decrease the amount of natural gas consumed by Bogert during the summer season. It will also
increase the reliability of having the pool heated throughout the night, providing warm water for morning swim lessons.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Annual startup and winterization: $1000
FUNDING SOURCES
100% general fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:55
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):8
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):8
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):1
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF126
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
TRUCK WITH PLOW
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
New ¾ ton 4X4 gas or diesel double cab truck with a V-plow mounted on the front. This truck would assist with Swim Center
parking lot snow plowing (PM04), which needs to be completed by 5:00am for early morning swimmers.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Contract our plowing for the Swim Center: $1000/yr
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Be able to plow Swim Center lot, Asist in plowing of Story, Move 5 staff members at a time for Bogert start-up and shut-down,
Pull kayak trailer to classes at East Gallatin pond, Replace 2 wheel drive truck with 151,000 miles.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:36
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$23,000
FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF130
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
CITY HALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 2
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A general landscape plan was prepared for the building remodel. It included planting beds, irrigation upgrades for a dated system
and modifications to provide water coverage for the revised site and better use of treated city water. Improvement items include:
Irrigation upgrade and new irrigation lines to all parts of the site, Reclamation of the abandoned alley to the south of the City
Commission meeting room, Trees to provide screening and shading on the south facing elevation, A storm water detention area
on the north east end of the alley to protect the creek from site run-off and any added siltation, Planting beds and screening from
the parking lot to the south of City Hall, Benches and or picnic tables for staff and citizen use, Better amenities for bike racks will
also be included. If approved the landscaping plan will be presented to the Commission for final review and approval.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The site improvements will add to the overall character of the building as an important municipal facility. Commitments were
made in the LEED application for future site development that will address lower maintenance needs, less water use, and other
green practices.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: The replacement of the irrigation system with a properly zoned system will make
better use of treated city water. The landscape plan that has been initially developed for the site includes both native plantings and
other vegetation requiring less water.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:38
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17
$40,000
FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF137
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
SWIM CENTER POOL FILTRATION SYSTEM
FY14 FY15
$135,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The current filtration at the Swim Center is a hazard to work in. Staff must climb into the filtration pit onto slick wood rails to
scrub the filter grids on weekly bases. Once per month staff must climb to the bottom of the pit to clean out all old filter media,
there is not a ladder the bottom of the pit so staff must swing from pipes to get to the bottom. The filter pit holds approximately
60,000 gallons of water, which gets flushed down the drain. A regenerative media system is a new media system that uses the
same media that the Swim Center currently uses, which provides the cleanest water. The system is contained in a pressurized
tank that will hold 400 gallons of water. To clean the staff will only be required to press a button, reducing the potential hazard.
This project would assist in making sure Aquatics classes aren't cancelled (PM08), reduce some of the current maintenance
burdens (PM01), and mitigate some of the items contained in Risk Management reports - Aquatics Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to use current system
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This project will decrease the work place hazards for staff, reduce staff time needed to clean filters, and replace media. The
regenerative media system will also save approximately 700,000 gallons of water per year in cleaning.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Maintenance and Operating cost will be equal or less then current system.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:45
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):7
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):7
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF139
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
CITY HALL PHASE 3 SITE IMPROVEMENTS
FY14 FY15
$45,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Phase III will address some of the longer term site needs. Work proposed in this phase of improvements includes: an established
path of travel through the parking lot from the parking area along Rouse to the entry sidewalk, resurfacing the parking lot and
restriping will reduce annual maintenance costs, sections of sidewalk along Lamme are starting to deteriorate. Work on these
sidewalk sections will be combined with the establishment of tree pits and drip irrigation. Current code calls for street trees
approximately every 50 feet. The curb area around the creek crossing bridge on Lamme is an odd configuration that leads to
water retention and freezing during the winter. Site security and pedestrian lighting will also be evaluated once a site plan and
project costs are further refined.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Certain components of Phase III will require coordination so that improvements do not get damaged with future work on the site.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The site improvements will add to the overall character of the building as an important municipal focal point. The work proposed
in Phase III will improve general pedestrian safety by getting people across the parking lot and address some of the deterioration
sidewalk on the East Lamme side of the building. This area gets a good deal of pedestrian traffic for both City Hall and Hawthorn
school.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Some additional costs will be incurred during the first few years as the plantings are
starting to establish themselves on-site. The upgraded sidewalk areas will still need to be maintained, but a new walk will require
less work to clear because the surface will be uniform and have the proper drainage slopes. Improvements to the parking lot will
also reduce some of the overall annual maintenance costs.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:45
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF140
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
LINDLEY CENTER PARKING LOT RENOVATION
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Seal and stripe the parking lot at the Lindley Center and include ADA parking stalls. Install parking lot lights and bases, a dumpster
pad and dumpster enclosure fence. This project aligns with section 10.10.1 of the PROST plan (adopted October 2007) that
recommends that City parks, recreation facilities and trails are accessible to the greatest extent possible. It would reduce some
of the current maintenance burdens (PM07), and mitigate some of the items contained in Risk Management reports - Recreation
Facilities (PM06). Includes permit fees.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Sealing and striping lot and not installing lights
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Comply with city codes, allow for more cars to be parked in the lot at a time, more organized parking which will make the lot
safer and reduced liability, lights will help with public safety and parking lot/facility security, ADA spots will be designated which
will make the lot accessible, the dumpster would be enclosed.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual operating and maintenance costs to include stripping and periodic overlays.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:47
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):13
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):9
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$47,000
FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF142
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
SWIM CENTER POOL GUTTER & EDGE TILES, POOL RESURFACING, AND UNDERWATER LIGH
FY14 FY15 FY16
$400,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The current Pool gutter tiles are from the original build in 1974. They are made of concrete and over the years have been eroded
away and are becoming dangerously thin. The tiles are no longer made; the gutter will be replaced with a high impact plastic gutter
system. The edge tiles around the pool will be damaged during the process, and they are also no longer available. A modern tile
that will fit into the color scheme of the pool will replace them. $210,000 The pools current shell surface will be 10 years old in
2017. The average life span of pool surfaces is 10 years. Resurfacing of the pool is the best time to replace light fixtures. In the last
resurfacing the crew was not monitored and the fixtures were installed incorrectly, therefore we have disconnected the lights
from the electricity source for safety. Resurfacing of the pool will be with Diamond-brite, and the lights will be LED fixtures
producing better light at higher efficiency then the 500W fixtures currently in place. Light and shell resurfacing combined price:
$190,000 This project would assist in making sure Aquatics classes aren't cancelled (PM08), reduce some of the current
maintenance burdens (PM01), and mitigate some of the items contained in Risk Management reports - Aquatics Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Replace with stainless steel gutters
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Replace with stainless steel gutters
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:47
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF144
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
STORY MANSION SIDEWALKS
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$69,200
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Replace the damaged areas of sidewalk around the perimeter lot of the Story Mansion. Replacing the old sidewalk will result in a
safer sidewalk year round and enable the sidewalks plows to better meet the snow removal municipal code in 12.24.020 (PM23).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The current sidewalks are the standard 5 foot walkways. Areas of the sidewalk are showing signs of wear making it difficult to maintain in the
winter. The turf areas on either side of the sidewalk are higher that the sidewalk which leads to snow and snow melt-off accumulation on the
walk. The Parks Department has moved to 6 foot wide sidewalks so it can be cleared properly with the equipment we currently use for winter
snow removal.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Replacement of the walks will facilitate more efficient snow removal on the block.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:38
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF146
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
LINDLEY PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$100,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Completely replace the irrigation system at Lindley Park. The system is one of the oldest in the city. It is becoming common that
the pipe and electrical wire are starting to fail on a regular basis. A damaged system requires more repairs (PM07.) It is important
to keep this system working because Lindley is one of our most used parks, keeping the grass green before and after the Sweet
Pea Festival, and it also a part of the cemetery irrigation system.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Repair existing system as needed
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Healthier turf, grass will be green, not dormant in the summer
Efficient use of the water (water conservation)
Irrigate at night-minimize evaporation and transpiration
Public safety, un-irrigated ground is hard and attracts gophers.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Annual operating and maintenance costs would rise slightly, due to the nature of valves, rotor heads and electrical wire in the
ground.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:28
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF147
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
SOFTBALL COMPLEX IRRIAGATION SYSTEM
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$110,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Replace the existing irrigation system at the softball complex. The system is 35 years old and starting to fail regularly. This is not
only due to its age but because many of the lines were cut through and patched when the lighting system was installed. Work has
been done to fix the curb stops from leaking by. A damaged system requires more repairs (PM07.)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to repair existing system
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Healthier turf, grass will be green, not dormant in the summer
Efficient use of the water (water conservation)
Irrigate at night-minimize evaporation and transpiration
Public safety, un-irrigated ground is hard.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Annual operating and maintenance costs would rise slightly, due to the nature of valves, rotor heads and electrical wire in the
ground.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:28
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF148
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
BMX PARKING LOT
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$85,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Installation of parking lot at Westlake BMX park.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not install a parking lot
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Also access for Childrens Memorial Park
Accessible area to park
Christmas tree dumping
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Minimal. Clean-up, possible snow plowing, painting lines every few years
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:25
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF149
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
EAST GALLATIN REC AREA PARKING LOT
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$60,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Paving parking lot at the East Gallatin Recreation Area.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Keep the parking lot gravel
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Reduced maintenance on the road.
We would be able to plow the parking lot after all snow events. We now have to make sure the ground is frozen before we plow
so the parking lot does not come up with the snow.
No washboards and holes to trap water.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Minimal. Clean-up, possible snow plowing, painting lines every few years
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:25
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF151
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
BEALL PARK BASKETBALL COURTS
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$18,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Resurface or tile the existing court.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Leave it the way it is.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved basketball courts that are level, safe and are an asset to the park.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:23
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF157
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR
FY14 FY15 FY16
$65,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The elevator at the Bozeman Senior Social Center is a three stop Otis elevator. The elevator was installed in early 1980. The
elevator is to the point where many technological improvements have been made in elevator technology and a change out would
yield both improved service and some reductions in energy savings. While the elevator is still a safe system, the elevator is used
often due to the special needs of the members of the Senior Center. Planning ahead for the replacement of the elevator will be
more cost effective and avoid unnecessary down time during the replacement process.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to maintain and adjust the elevator operating systems throughout the year. Wait to replace the elevator until it physically breaks
down or continue to monitor the operation and hold off on the replacement until the routine repair and maintenance costs exceed acceptable
limits
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
A new car, rail system and control package would add to the reliability of the elevator operation and the address the accessibility
requirements for a municipal building.
Building energy demands would also benefit as the newer elevator systems have more energy saving features built into them.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
A new system would reduce some of the maintenance costs currently associated with this elevator. A new system would also
include a number of technological improvements.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:37
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):7
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):5
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF162
DEPARTMENT
FIRE
PROJECT NAME
LIVE-FIRE TRAINING PROP
FY14
$10,000
FY15
$10,000
FY16
$10,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This will complete the Fire training facility at the lower yards. It would be constructed of modular container units that will be
configured and replaced when needed. This facility will be used year round. The following types of training would occur: Live Fire,
Flashover, Ventilation, Forcible Entry, Confined Space, Hazardous Materials Response, and Trench Rescue. The facility would be
available to the City Police Department for their training needs (Special Response Team, etc.) and to the Water and Sewer
Department for continued Trench Rescue training. In recent budgets we have purchased the containers and have them stacked at
the training site. The ongoing request is to begin and complete the passage doorways, roof props, burn rooms and eventually a
standalone flash over prop. This project trains firefighters to respond to Fires (WL01), Reputure/Explosion (WL02), and
Hazardous Conditions (WL04) and various other call types. It supports two department training performance measures (PM10 &
PM11.)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue with utilizing the existing site and Central Valley Fire training center out of the city and limited trips to Missoula to use their prop.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Firefighters can train when on-duty, reducing overtime costs. Required for ISO compliance. This is one item that were recently
marked down on in our latest ISO review. Located within the City Limits, firefighters would be close for call-outs. Available when
needed (unlike Central Valley Fire site.) Shared facility with City Police and Water/Sewer Operations.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating costs are minimal and are within our existing operational budgets.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:45
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$10,000
FY18
$10,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF163
DEPARTMENT
ADMIN
PROJECT NAME
COPIER/PRINTER/SCANNER REPLACEMENT
FY14 FY15
$18,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Purchase of an ENERGY STAR rated Copier/Printer/Scanner to replace the oldest copier at City Hall, currently located in the
City Clerk's office. This machine is used to print, scan and make copies for: Commission packets, general public requests and
administrative/clerk staff, supporting all City Commission workload measures (WL1-WL9) and City Manager workload measures
WL01, and WL04-WL08. At replacement time, this Konica Bizhub C550 machine will be approx 8 years old. The current
machine is under a repair contract, but has recently required a lot of site-visits from the vendor. (This item was previously listed
as "Finance Copier Replacement;" however, in FY13, the Finance Department copier was replaced with the Clerk's previous
copier, when the Clerk's office moved upstairs. We've changed this item to simply replace the oldest copier in City Hall, where-
ever it may be located at the time.)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Utilize other machines throughout City Hall.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The Clerk's Office will have a critical piece of office equipment available in our office for customer service.
Energy star devices are more energy efficient than other non-rated machines
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: The replacement will be more energy efficient than the existing machine.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:40
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF164
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
REPLACEMENT OF IT AIR CONDITION UNIT AT PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
FY14 FY15
$22,500
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Upgrade the aging air conditioner in the professional building's server room. Due to the migration to virtual servers, this piece of
equipment is over-sized for today's uses. It is also out of warranty, so future repairs could be troublesome or difficult to
accomplish. When in need of repair, this equipment is an "emergency" (PM01), due to its temperature control of critical IT
equipment.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Don't replace.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The replacement will be significantly smaller and have reduced energy costs.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Assists in reducing the professional building's reoccurring energy costs.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:49
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):8
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):4
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF165
DEPARTMENT
POLICE
PROJECT NAME
PATROL MOTORCYCLE REPLACEMENTS
FY14 FY15
$70,000
FY16
$70,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
FY15 - $70,000 will replace asset # 3112 and asset # 3154. This plan allows for our 2 primary patrol motorcycles to be replaced,
including all of the necessary vehicle equipment (emergency lights, sirens, electronic reporting / ticketing systems, etc.) This
program would replace older, higher mileage patrol motorcycles that become less reliable and more costly to repair. Equipment
from the motorcycle can sometimes be transferred from the old motorcycle to the new motorcycle depending on the
equipment’s condition. Patrol motorcycles are an essential item in the traffic enforcement division, used for a portion of the over
13,000 traffic stops, crashes, and citations each year (WL32-34.) These vehicles are used to respond to both emergency and non-
emergency calls for service, investigate accidents, conduct traffic enforcement and for general patrol duties.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This ensures safe and reliable emergency response vehicles for patrol use, as well as lower annual maintenance costs. For the
traffic division to be effective, this equipment must be kept in top operating condition. Police motorcycles must be available for
police patrol use during the day and when the city streets are clear enough to ride.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Maintenance costs are stable due to regularly scheduled service. Officers assigned to the motorcycle division are also assigned to
their own motorcycle. This seems to reduce the wear on this equipment.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:66
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF166
DEPARTMENT
POLICE
PROJECT NAME
PORTABLE RADIO REPLACEMENTS
FY14 FY15
$48,000
FY16
$49,500
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This plan allows for 9 police portable radios to be replaced each year, including all of the software, programming and peripheral
accessories. This is planned replacement of radios at the end of their predicted usable life, estimated between six and ten years.
This will provide forseamless communication and response capabilities as the radios become less reliable and repair is no longer a
financially prudent option. Portable (or hand-held) radios are an essential item in the operation of the Bozeman Police
Department, being a critical communication tool used for over 41,000 Response to Calls (workload measures WL02-WL34)
each year. Police radios must be available for police use 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These radios are individually assigned,
allowing for greater longevity, and department-wide communication in the event of a need for major response.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This insures safe and reliable emergency communication and response. Program allows for a planned and predictable need for
equipment replacement. Clear and dependable communication allows for quick and efficient deployment and the required level of
officer safety.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:57
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$51,000
FY18
$52,500
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF168
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
New City Hall Brick Façade Repair
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
At least 6 areas of brick around windows at the new City Hall are showing signs of weather deterioration. Water has become
trapped behind areas of the brick causing the brick to crack. Most of the window areas are close to the ground but on the west
side of the building the windows are on the second floor and falling brick pieces have the potential to fall on people or parked
vehicles in the staff lot.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The problem is caused by water getting behind the brick and during the freeze thaw cycle, the brick gets cracked which allows even more water to penetrate.
There is a spray on binder that will seal the brick and bind some of the cracks. It is a temporary fix because of some of the deterioration that has already
occurred. The repair options include cutting away the front surface of the brick and binding a new brick face to the wall and re-grouting. The better solution is
to remove the entire section of brick and replace it with a brick of similar appearance and providing for weep holes behind the brick to allow the water to not
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Securing the building envelope and preventing further deterioration of adjoining brick; preventing damage to vehicles or injuries to
people from falling pieces of brick; improving the exterior appearance of the building.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Address other areas of the building if other surfaces of the building start showing similar problems.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% general fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:53
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):6
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF170
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
BOILER REPLACEMENT AT FIRE STATION #1
FY14
$255,665
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The old steam boiler at Fire Station #1 has reached the end of its useful cycle. The fact that the unit is no longer serving the old
City Hall means that is working even less efficient because it is now oversized. The current plan was to replace the existing boiler
with another steam boiler. When the steam lines were disconnected from old City Hall the condition of the pipes could be
assessed. The pipes were found to be severely corroded and in poor condition. An engineer was hired to size the boiler for
servicing only Fire Station #1 and to assess other features of the 1964 vintage system. Three options were proposed to upgrade
the system for both building comfort and energy efficiency. The third option proposed in the study is the most efficient and has
the best payback. This project significantly effects building occupant comfort/quality (PM05) and potentially generates emergency
and non-emergency repairs (PM01-3).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Replacement of the current boiler with another steam boiler is no longer an option after assessing the condition of the steam distribution lines and other
components of the older system. Three options were reviewed and a summary report for each option was included in the analysis done by the engineer. The
least expensive solution is to stay with a stem system. The project will now include boiler replacement, distribution line replacement, and changing out the old
pneumatic controls with a digital control system.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The proposed option will better address the variable heating needs of the building – work areas, living areas, and fire bays. The
proposed system is designed for the current configuration of the building and could be supplemented to handle the additional
square footage proposed when the dorm area of the station is increased. The proposed system is in line with the Municipal
Climate Action Plan. Planning for the replacement of the current boiler prior to failure of the unit will be most cost effective.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
The recommended system would result in an approximate $9,000 per year in energy savings at current utility rates. The payback
would be about 28 years.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:62
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):10
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):9
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF171
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
CITY HALL SITE DRAINAGE ON WEST SIDE OF BUILDING
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The drainage on the west side of the building at City Hall needs some re-grading to properly drain the lot. The roof drain and
melting snow is ponding in the lot and accumulates in the ADA parking spot. Water needs to be diverted from the area from the
public building entrance to the south. The work will involve removal of pavement, regrading, and repaving in order to drain
properly. So concrete aprons may need to be added along the edge of the building to aid drainage.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Phase II and Phase III improvements for City Hall are already listed in the Capital Improvements Budget. This work could be added into one of
those phases.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Proper drainage of the lot will reduce water ponding and during the winter icing in the lot. It will make the building access safer
and improve the layout of the ADA parking space on the west side of the building.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Proper drainage will reduce the amount of time needed to make sure there is safe building access from the staff parking lot and
reduce the risk of slip and falls. Proper drainage will also mean less hand shoveling and less sand and salting of the lot.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:43
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):8
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):8
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$11,000
FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF176
DEPARTMENT
ATTORNEY
PROJECT NAME
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY SOFTWARE
FY14
$65,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Currently we have software that enables electronic discovery of email communications. We are lacking the ability to enable
electronic discovery of other records. This item would buy the software to more efficiently respond to discovery requests for
litigation support, trials (WL03 & WL04), DUI and domestic violence case prosecution (WL11-WL14) and requests for
Confidential Criminal Justice Information (WL08).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
CONTINUE TO MANUALLY DISCOVER RECORDS
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
ENSURES CITY WILL DISCOVER ALL REQUESTED RECORDS
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
$3600/ANNUALY
FUNDING SOURCES
100 % General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:36
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):8
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):8
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):5
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF180
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
Lindley Center Restrooms ADA Upgrades
FY14
$40,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will upgrade existing restrooms in the Lindley Center to be compliant with federal ADA guidelines, and City of
Bozeman Building codes. The project will also replace materials, such as flooring and backsplashes, with products that are easily
cleaned and do not harbor pathogens. This estimate includes architectural fees, permitting, and construction. This project would
assist in making sure Recreation Programs aren't cancelled (PM08), reduce some of the current maintenance burdens (PM07), and
mitigate some of the items contained in Risk Management reports - Recreation Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
As suggested by the commission
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
*Brings restrooms up to current ADA requirements * Brings restrooms up to current City of Bozeman codes *Improves
restrooms sanitary environment *Improves esthetics
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:52
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):18
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):8
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):4
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):8
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):8
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):1
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF181
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
Swim Center deck tile replacement
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The tile on the Bozeman Swim Center’s deck is the original tile. The grout has worn away in many places and the tile is cracked in
many places. The tile pattern was a special order tile when the pool was constructed and we have none left. Replacement with a
current, non-skid tile will not only increase the visual appeal of the facility, but will help reduce the number of slips that occur at
the facility. This project would reduce some of the current maintenance burdens (PM01) and mitigate some of the items
contained in Risk Management reports - Aquatics Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Replace the deck in four sections, north($23,500), south($23,500), east($81,000) and west($70,000) deck. With the first deck being the east
deck.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increase safety by installing non-skid tile
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:43
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$198,000
FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF182
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
Swim Center Expansion
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$1,200,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Swim Center expansion will increase the size of the lobby, create a secure front desk space, provide for private(Family) ADA
changing rooms, bring all entrances up to current federal ADA codes, add a teaching/birthday party room, and provide office
space for staff. This project would reduce some of the current maintenance burdens (PM01) and mitigate some of the items
contained in Risk Management reports - Aquatics Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This project will provide space to meet the current needs and use of the Swim Center
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:46
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):13
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):5
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF183
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
Bogert Pool Bath House Renovation/Reconstruction
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$1,500,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will be for the renovation/reconstruciton of the bathhouse at Bogert Pool. The will bring the bathhouse up to
current codes for plumbing, electrical, and structural. This will also bring the bathhouse up to current ADA standards. This
project would reduce some of the current maintenance burdens (PM01) and mitigate some of the items contained in Risk
Management reports - Aquatics Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Full Remodel of Existing House
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Providing a safe, and up to code facility for the public
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:37
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):5
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):1
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF184
DEPARTMENT
I.T.
PROJECT NAME
WEB MAPPING
FY14
$25,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Migrate existing web mapping applications to support future software releases. The City maintains several mapping sites, both
internal & public. We have provided access to valuable information since 2002, with increased demand in recent years as the
internet becomes more functional. The software program we use to create and manage these sites is being discontinued. An
opportunity also exists to provide additional functionality through easy-to-use tools (e.g., basic analysis, reporting, etc.).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Contracted professional services for custom application development.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The City will continue to provide vital information to its employees & citizens. We will maintain substantial investments that have
been made over many years. Additional functionality will be available to end-users, thus increasing the value of our information.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Maintenance (first year included) = $4,000.00
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:46
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):17
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):7
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):2
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF185
DEPARTMENT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NAME
Mandeville Farm Project - Phase 1
FY14
$150,000
FY15
$4,600,000
FY16
$550,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Phase 1 Infrastructure Improvements for the Mandeville Farm Project, according to the Mandeville Property Land Use Plan. FY14 -
Preliminary Engineering Report ($50,000) and SiteWork, with beginning of geo-tech and platting work. FY15 - Complete Geo-
tech, Platting, Water, Sewer, Electrical, Fiber-Optic, Street, Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk, Stormwater infrastructure. FY16 - Signage,
Landscaping, Trail & Bridge Work. Costs of infrastructure could be off-set by the sale of land in the development. This
project is critical to the City's development of the Mandeville Farm Industrial Tax Increment District (Community Development
workload indicator WL01)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
any
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Phase 1 development of the Mandeville Property – Commission Policy Initiative 2e on the adopted 2011-2012 Work plan.
Development of the Mandeville property for job creation and industry diversification has been adopted as a commission priority.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
unknown
FUNDING SOURCES
The City is very actively pursing a Montana Department of Commerce Economic Development Grant, which would provide
$450,000 (to be matched with $450,000 local dollars) for infrastructure improvements, most likely the FY15 tasks. Total
potential sources of funding: General Fund, grant funding, private investment (leverage the land for infrastructure), bonding, TIF
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:45
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):0
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):10
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF186
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
Replace Entrance Locks at the Professional Building with Fob Units.
FY14 FY15 FY16
$12,000
Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
There are 6 main entrance doors at the Professional Building on the south, north, and west sides of the building. The current
door locks would be replaced with the radio frequency fob locks that are being used for other city buildings.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Stay with the existing key locks.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Replacement of the key locks with fobs would be consistent with the other locks that have been installed on all new city projects.
This is one of the last primary city buildings that is not equipped with the fob units. These locks would allow for easier access for
the various employees and multiple departments that occupy the building.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% general fund unless the building department fund would be charged separately for a portion of the cost.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:27
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):0
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF187
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
Replace Worn Siding on the Bozeman Senior Social Center
FY14 FY15
$25,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The original siding on the Senior Center is wide flat boards installed in a clap board pattern. The board are showing signs of wear
and many are split and exposing the underlayment. Areas of the building that were damaged in the 2010 hail storm were resided
with a cement based siding that is more durable. While the current siding does add character to the building it will be difficult to
replace or refinish and the proposed material will be more durable.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Repair, replace, and repaint the existing wide board siding.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Install a more durable type of siding that will seal the building envelope and provide for a material that will have a longer life.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Long term maintenance costs will be reduced.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:39
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF188
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
Replace Boiler at Bozeman Senior Center
FY14 FY15
$18,500
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
There are two hot water boilers at the Bozeman Senior Social Center. One boiler was replaced about 3 years ago. The other
boiler from about 1989 is now assigned as a back-up boiler. The older unit is having problems firing and will often not come on.
The boiler would be replaced with a high efficiency combustion boiler and the other unit would then be used as the back-up unit.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Work is being done right now on the old unit to get the venting and firing to function property so that we can continue to use the unit for
awhile.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Replacing the older unit will give us a reliable more cost effective boiler which will help with both comfort levels (PM04) and
efficiency.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Reduced maintenance and operating costs from less energy use.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% general fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:42
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):5
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF189
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
Refinish the Roof on the Green Storage Building at the Shop Complex
FY14 FY15
$38,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Green Building used for vehicle and equipment storage has a metal roof that is has been leaking at the seams of the metal
panels. The interior ceiling shows lots of areas where leaks are occurring. There is a new technique where a plasticized material
is sprayed on the roof which will seal all the seams and cover the existing metal roof material. The roof is power washed, seams
are sealed and the spray material is applied.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Remove and replace all the existing metal roof panels. There is also an option of spraying on a layer of insulation and then spraying on the roof
finish. Rather than applying the insulation on the roof, once the roof is sealed the insulation on the ceiling and some ventilation for condensation
will need to be installed.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The spray on material will cost less than removing all the panels which are showing no signs of rusting.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
As mentioned after the roof is sealed, he ceiling of the building will need to be removed and new insulation and sheet rock will
need to be installed.
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund and other departments that occupy the shop complex and store equipment in the building could be charged for the
cost of the repairs.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:30
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF190
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
4-Wheeler ATV Replacement
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Replace the ATV (2000 Yamaha Grizzley) used for sidewalk snow removal (WL08 - approx 10 miles) and is the main piece of
equipment that is used to spray approx 300 acres with herbicides and biostimulants for the Parks Division (WL13-14.)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to use the 2000 Yamaha Grizzley and repair as needed.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Maximize efficiency, minimize down time, proactive replacement of aging equipment.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Routine maintenance
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:37
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$13,000
FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF191
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
Upgrade of Softball Complex Lighting
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$825,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Replace the current lights at the Softball Complex with appropriate stadium lights. Estimate provided by MUSCO, would be bid at
the time of construction. Existing lights have light spillage and this is the only way to make the lights Dark Skies Compliant.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Keep existing lights
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The new lights can offer 50% less light spillage and glare and reduce energy costs by up to 50%. Additionally, upgraded lights could
help to reduce or eliminate complaints regarding light pollution.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Reduction in electrical use.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund, or fundraising by user groups - Cost estimates range from $750,000 to $825,000 in August 2012.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:22
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):6
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):0
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):3
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):1
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF192
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
Bozeman Swim Center Ceiling Tile Replacement
FY14 FY15
$40,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This Project will replace all of the ceiling tiles above the pool at the Bozeman swim Center. Most of the tiles are from the original
construction. They have lost their reflective ability, limiting the amount of light reflected down into the pool. Replacement of the
tiles will increase the visibility on the bottom of the pool and increase public safety thereby mitigating an element of Risk
Management reports - Aquatics Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Increase safety of swimmers by reflecting more light off the ceiling tiles. This will also increase the aesthetics of the facility.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:30
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):15
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF194
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
Park Entrance Signs
FY14 FY15
$10,000
FY16
$10,000
Unscheduled
$10,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A five year project to replace existing park signs and add park entrance signs where none currently exist with an updated,
identifiable, uniform, maintenance-free park sign. This project would provide for approximately 5 double-sided signs per year.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to make our own wooden routered park signs.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
A uniform signing system creating easily identifiable park properties, continuity, and reduction in labor costs due to constant
upkeep of our wooden signs.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
None
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:37
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):10
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):10
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17
$10,000
FY18
$10,000
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF195
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
Aerator
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$17,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
An additional aerator into Parks and Recreation inventory of turf equipment. This would be used to maintain the 125 acres of
turf in the park inventory (WL02).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to operate with one aerator.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Proactively and aggressively aerate parks and sports fields within the City to create a finer and healthier product.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:19
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):5
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):1
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF196
DEPARTMENT
PARKS
PROJECT NAME
Skate Park Refurbishment
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
$35,000
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Tear out and replace the East end of the Skate Park to make it more functional and create a space appropriate for beginners to
learn. This project is in coordination with Gallatin Valley Skate Park Association. This could potentially be a Park Improvement
Grant Project (WL05) or Volunteer project (WL07).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Leave the East end as it is to be underutilized by participants.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
A non-functioning section of the Skate Park can be transformed into a learning and teaching area. This plan can nurture younger
participants and increase family activity at the Skate Park, ultimately creating a healthier environment.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
none
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund, possibly local fundraising and donations.
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:18
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):5
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):3
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):3
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF197
DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
PROJECT NAME
Lindley Center Clean and Seal Basement
FY14
$25,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Put in FY14 Due to public safety concerns - The Lindley Center basement has become a health and safety hazard. It is infested
with rodents, is dilapidated and is to the point of being non-functional. The basement has previously been used for storage of
Parks and Recreation Department program supplies (used in youth programs) as well as storage for other community groups such
as Bridger Ski Foundation and Gallatin Valley Bike Club. The proposed project will include the following: Cleaning/disinfecting
and packing out all salvageable supplies to an on-site storage container, patching all holes where rodents are entering the
structure, cleaning and disinfecting the structure. It would reduce some of the current maintenance burdens (PM07), and mitigate
some of the items contained in Risk Management reports - Recreation Facilities (PM06).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None. At this point the basement needs to be addressed due to the fact that our heating and ventilation system is in the basement and the
upstairs is a rentable public space.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Reduced liability for the City, a healthier/safer environment for the staff, a healthier/safer environment for the public, reduced
rodent population, increased storage which is very much needed by the Department, reduction of staff time for maintenance and
upkeep.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Renovation fees as determined by the recently completed facility condition index. Annual operating and maintenance costs, which
would include an exterminator.
FUNDING SOURCES
100% General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:39
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):2
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):7
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
GF198
DEPARTMENT
I.T.
PROJECT NAME
SQL CLUSTER UPGRADE
FY14
$10,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project complets an upgrade to our existing database backbone, that was begun in FY13. This upgrade will support data
network uptime (PM03) and the number of hours the data network is available (WL03).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Critical databases are available when needed, without work-stoppage for departments and customers.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
General Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:45
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):20
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):5
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):5
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):10
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):0
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):0
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):5
FY17 FY18
CIP Project Fund
General Fund
PROJECT NUMBER
PW01
DEPARTMENT
PARKS/FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
SHOPS FACILITY EXPANSION PLAN
FY14 FY15
$10,000
FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The construction of the new Vehicle Maintenance Shop at the Lower Yards on Rouse Avenue in FY10/FY11 was Phase I in
expanding and improving our ability to service equipment, store vehicles, and provide work space for Public Works, Parks, and
Facilitiy services. Questions remain about the long-term plan for construction, location, and expansion for: Streets, Sign & Signal,
Forestry, Water/Sewer Operations, Solid Waste Collection & Recycling, Facilities, and Parks & Cemetery departments. This
project would develop a master plan. In scheduling this project, we are recommending waiting until after the Vehicle Maintenance
Division is relocated to its new shop and the interior improvements are made to the Shop at Rouse and Tamarack Street for the
remaining divisions.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
From related divisions: General Fund 20% ($10,000), Water Fund 20% ($10,000), Wastewater Fund 20% ($10,000), Street
Maintenance Fund 20% ($10,000), Solid Waste Fund 20% ($10,000).
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
General Fund Project and Equipment Scoring TOTAL RATING:
LEVEL OF SERVICE (Up to 20):
OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT (Up to10):
SERVICE AREA (Up to 10):
DEPARTMENT PRIORITY (Up to 10):
COMMISSION WORKPLAN (Up to 10):
ADOPTED CLIMATE PLAN (Up to 5):
FREQUENCY OF USE (Up to 5):
FY17 FY18
General Fund Criteria
Criteria Rating Notes Project
Score
1. Level of Service Up to 20
pts
20 - Corrects a health or safety hazard or prevents a
critical breakdown of an existing city facility or
equipment.
15 - Repairs, rehabilitates, or replaces physically
deteriorated or functionally obsolete existing city facility
or equipment.
10 - Brings an area up to the basic level of service as
identified in an adopted city wide plan.
5 – Expands an approved City service.
0 – Other.
2. Operating Budget
Impact
Up to 10
pts
10 - Provides a significant decrease in city operating
and/or maintenance expenses.
5 – Has a neutral or small impact on operating and/or
maintenance expenses.
0 – Provides a significant increase in city operating
requirements.
3. Service Area Up to 10
pts
10 – Direct Benefit to entire city.
5 – Direct benefit to roughly half city or indirect benefit
to entire city.
2 – Direct benefit to small area of the city or indirect
benefit to several areas.
4. Departmental
Priority
Up to 10
pts
10 – Critical to Department’s Mission
7 – High
3 – Moderate
0 – Questionable/Very Difficult to Complete
5. Commission
Work Plan
Up to 10
pts
10 – Identified project in Adopted Commission Work Plan
5 – Contributes to an indentified project in the Adopted
Commission Work Plan.
0 – Not identified in Adopted Commission Work Plan.
6. Municipal
Climate Protection
(Municipal Climate
Action Plan – MCAP)
Up to 5
pts
5 – Is recommended by MCAP and will accomplish a
stated MCAP goal.
3 – Will assist in meeting MCAP goal.
0 – No relation to MCAP.
7. Seasonal Use Up to 5
pts
5 – Year Round.
3 – Six to Eleven months per year.
1 – Five or fewer months per year.
TOTAL Up to 70
pts.
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Library Depreciation Reserve Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for FY14-18.
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the Library Depreciation Reserve Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for FY14-18.
BACKGROUND: Each year, the City Manager is required to prepare a 5 Year Capital
Improvements Plan and submit it to the Commission by December 15th.
Library and other city staff met in October to develop the attached Capital Plan for the
equipment and capital needs of the Library. The Library Board reviewed this draft and will be
making comment at their meeting during the last week of November. We will bring that
comment forward during this items presentation.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. If the Commission is does
not wish to adopt this schedule tonight, it can be scheduled for approval on a later agenda.
91
FISCAL EFFECTS: This step in the process has no fiscal effect. Once adopted, the
Capital Improvements Plan becomes the basis of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget for
FY14.
Report compiled on: November 19, 2012
Attached: Library Depreciation Reserve CIP
92
Library Depreciation Reserve Fund Capital Improvement PlanFinancial Summary Current YearFY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18UnscheduledProjected Beginning Reserve Balance Dedicated to CIP 243,000$ 337,349$ 340,969$ 386,869$ 433,687$ 446,441$ Plus: Estimated Annual Unspent Appropriations 125,349$ 45,000$ 45,900$ 46,818$ 47,754$ 48,709$ ‐$ Plus: Hail Damage Insurance Proceeds 500,000$ Plus: Contribution 500,000$ Less: Scheduled CIP Project Costs (1,031,000)$ (41,380)$ ‐$ ‐$ (35,000)$ ‐$ ‐$ Projected Year‐End Cash Dedicated to CIP 337,349$ 340,969$ 386,869$ 433,687$ 446,441$ 495,151$ Assumptions Made for Revenue Estimates:FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18Estimated Annual Library Budget 1,500,000$ 1,530,000$ 1,560,600$ 1,591,812$ 1,623,648$ Estimated Amount of Budget left Unused 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%Estimated Annual Unspent Appropriations 45,000$ 45,900$ 46,818$ 47,754$ 48,709$ Current Budget Amount Dedicated to CIP % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Plus: Increase Dedicated to Capital Improvements % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Total % Dedicated to CIP 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%ProjectedProjectedTotal Estimated Revenues Dedicated to CIP 45,000$ 45,900$ 46,818$ 47,754$ 48,709$ 45,00040,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,0000FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 UnscheduledLibrary Depreciation Fund Projects & Equipment93
CIP PROJECT FUNDPROJ.DEPARTMENPROJECT NAMEFY14FY16UnscheduledFY15FY17FY18Library Depreciation ReserveLIB05FAC. MTC.LIBRARY ‐ ‐WIDEN SIDEWALK ADJOINING EAST SIDE PARKING LOT$12,380LIB03LIBRARYSELF CHECK STATION$14,000LIB06LIBRARYPUBLIC PC/LAPTOP REPLACEMENTS$35,000LIB07LIBRARYPRINT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM$15,000Summary for Library Depreciation Reserve (4 items)Totals by year:$41,380FY14FY15FY16UnscheduledFY18$35,000FY1794
CIP Project Fund
Library Depreciation Reserve
PROJECT NUMBER
LIB03
DEPARTMENT
LIBRARY
PROJECT NAME
SELF CHECK STATION
FY14
$14,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Purchase of a Self Check station to allow patrons self service in checking out and renewing items as well as paying for late fees;
this will be placed on the Library’s second floor.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Continue to use staff to manually check materials in and out, renew items and collect fines, as well as use the three self checks
which currently have patrons waiting in line to use.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
The self check machine assigns the tasks of checking out, renewing and paying fines to the patron which in turn allows the staff to
be efficient by providing timely service to a culture that demands and expects quicker turnaround time. Paraprofessional staff will
have more time to check materials in, shelve materials, inventory, maintain and care for the collection, and assist patrons in
locating materials. Professional staff will be able to focus on assistance with technical and detailed information.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Estimated Maintenance Cost $2,200
FUNDING SOURCES
Library Depreciation Reserve
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
FY17 FY18
95
CIP Project Fund
Library Depreciation Reserve
PROJECT NUMBER
LIB05
DEPARTMENT
FAC. MTC.
PROJECT NAME
LIBRARY - -WIDEN SIDEWALK ADJOINING EAST SIDE PARKING LOT
FY14
$12,380
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The parking lot access sidewalk along the east edge of the library parking lot is five feet wide. If someone backs into a parking
space, or has a vehicle with a long overhang in the front, a good portion of the sidewalk is blocked. A new 5 foot section of
sidewalk will be added to better accommodate pedestrian traffic. The price includes relocation of the irrigation system that runs
along the edge of the sidewalk. There is a good deal of stroller traffic along this area of the sidewalk. The vehicles cut the width
so that there is not enough room for people to safely pass each other on the sidewalk.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
If curb stops were placed in the lot to keep the cars back from the sidewalk it would interfere with vehicle traffic and make
maintenance of the lot more difficult for sweeping or snow clearance.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
This section of sidewalk is a close connection to the library and the trail system. People with bicycles or people or people with
stroller do not have enough width to move along the walk if a vehicle is hanging over the curb and onto the sidewalk. The walk is
sometimes blocked so there is less than 3 feet of usable sidewalk.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
The wider sidewalk would mean that there would be additional area to plow. If the extra walk was added there would at least
be enough room to plow the walk and provide a path of travel for library users.
FUNDING SOURCES
Library Depreciation Reserve
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
FY17 FY18
96
CIP Project Fund
Library Depreciation Reserve
PROJECT NUMBER
LIB06
DEPARTMENT
LIBRARY
PROJECT NAME
PUBLIC PC/LAPTOP REPLACEMENTS
FY14 FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Library provides 28 public computers in a lab setting as well as 5 checkout laptops. These devices will have been in place
with daily use for 5 years with multiple re-imaging and upgrades.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatively, the computers and laptops will be pushed for an additional year.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Keeping a public service up to date with technology.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
FUNDING SOURCES
Library Depreciation Fund
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
FY17
$35,000
FY18
97
CIP Project Fund
Library Depreciation Reserve
PROJECT NUMBER
LIB07
DEPARTMENT
LIBRARY
PROJECT NAME
PRINT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM
FY14
$15,000
FY15 FY16 Unscheduled
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
A print management software system would allow for the improved management of library patron printed materials. Currently,
when a patron needs to print from a computer, there is little privacy and it is difficult for staff to manage at times.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Status Quo use of individual printers managed by staff.
ADVANTAGES OF APPROVAL
Improved efficiency for staff and improved privacy for patrons.
ADDITIONAL OPERATING COSTS IN THE FUTURE, IF FUNDED
Annual Software Licensing Costs
FUNDING SOURCES
100% Library Depreciation Reserve
New
Replacement
Equipment
Project
FY17 FY18
98
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4419 suspending independent operation of the
Board of Adjustment and retaining to the Commission the powers of the Board of Adjustment
MEETING DATE: December 3, 2012
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
SUGGESTED MOTION: Having considered the draft resolution and considering all presented
materials and public comments I move to approve Commission Resolution 4419.
BACKGROUND: The City Commission recently approved Ordinance 1827 which took effect on October 10, 2012. As part of the ordinance a process was established by which a zoning
Board of Adjustment could be created and activated to operate in administering defined portions
of the City’s zoning standards. A process was also created to suspend the independent action of
the Board of Adjustment. The state law which authorizes municipal zoning provides for the City
Commission to act in the role of a zoning Board of Adjustment.
The change in operating status of the Board of Adjustment occurs through the commission
resolution process after a public hearing is conducted. The procedure being completed now is to
have the City Commission suspend the Board of Adjustment from acting as an independent
body.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None.
ALTERNATIVES: Adopt or not adopt the draft resolution or continue the discussion to an
alternate date.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None at this time.
Attachments: Commission Resolution 4419 Report compiled on: 11/19/2012
99
Page 1 of 2
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4419
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA, SUSPENDING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND RECLAIMING ALL DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION PER
SECTION 2.05.2800, BMC.
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-321, MCA provides authority to municipalities for the
creation of a Board of Adjustment to aid in the administration of a municipal zoning ordinance
and for the governing body to act in the role of the Board; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 16 of the Bozeman Municipal Code
implements the authority of Section 76-2-321, MCA and establishes procedures for the
establishment, activation, and suspension of the Board of Adjustment as deemed necessary by
the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, A public notice was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on
November 11, 2012 and November 18, 2012 informing the public of a hearing to be held on
December 3, 2012; and
WHEREAS, The City Commission has given due consideration to the issue of how
best to administer the City’s zoning regulations and having held a public hearing on December 3,
2012 to receive public comment; and
100
Resolution No. 4419, Suspending the Board of Adjustment
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, The City Commission finds that it is in the best interest of the proper
administration of the City’s Chapter 38, Unified Development Code, BMC.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, that
The City of Bozeman Zoning Board of Adjustment is hereby dissolved and suspended
in its functions and the City Commission hereby reserves to itself the power to review any
projects not otherwise delegated in ordinance. Any applications now in the review process which
have not been publicly noticed for review before the Board of Adjustment shall be considered by
the City Commission.
Section 1
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, at a regular session thereof held on the _____ day of ________, 2012.
___________________________________
SEAN A. BECKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney
101