Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Bozeman Sports Park 2 7 14 TOP Program Staff Report Bozeman Sports Park 2/10/14 ___________________________________________________________________________________ __ 1. Project Applicants Bozeman Soccer Education Foundation (BSEF) and the Gallatin Valley Lacrosse League (GVLL) are listed as the two applicants. Both BSEF and GVLL are organized Not For Profit Organizations ( 501 (c) 3). Their application proposes a multi- phase project that includes the purchase of property by the City (approximately 80 acres on the west side of Bozeman) and phased construction of improvements on the property including development of soccer fields, lacrosse fields and multi use fields after the property is purchased . 2. Application Materials Submitted by BSEF and GVLL 1. Application with the following attachments: a) Location map (appendix A) b) Conceptual Rendering of proposed improvements to property (Appendix B) c) Proposed Phase I Improvements Project Schedule with Budget and Proposed annual maintenance costs (Appendix C) d) Buy –Sell Agreement 2. Water rights - General Abstract (not complete abstract) 3. Preliminary Commitment to Title 3. Location/Ownership The proposed property is located on Flanders Mill Road between Oak, Cottonwood and Durston. The proposed property does not exist as a legal tract of record and needs to be annexed and subdivided via a boundary line adjustment (BLA) prior to conveyance. The applicant, BSEF, has a buy sell agreement with the Seller (Estate of Vesta Anderson and Baxter Ranch LTD) that is contingent upon 1) contract being assigned to the City of Bozeman (L 127, p.3; Buy –Sell Agreement, and 2) Approval of the minor subdivision of the land necessary to create the parcel (L 133 p. 3. ). The Buy-Sell Agreement lists the City as the financer (L 30, p. 1). There is a Right of Way granted to Montana Power Company that cuts across the proposed property (approximately mid way running south to north). Preliminary title research also indicates that there is a Federal Tax lien for $4.155, 382 on the property. There is also an agricultural lease on record. The expiration date on the Buy-Sell Agreement is April 30th. Closing date may be extended without amendment by no more than 30 days to accommodate delays attributable solely to third party financing. 4. Application Development The applicant met on several occasions with city staff in formal meetings and has also worked informally with some city staff and officials prior to submitting their application. 5. Summary of Proposed project: Phases, Scope of Work A. Phases, Scope of Work: The project proposes three phases, but only budgets for phase I, which includes land acquisition and construction of athletic fields on about half of the property. Phase II and Phase III propose additional development of sports fields, the cost of which is not included in the budget or initial proposed Scope of Work, which is limited to Phase I. B. General Site Selection: Applicant lists site selection criteria on p. 2 of the application C. Existing and new Infrastructure requirements: The property is currently used for agricultural and does not have any improvements. It has a utility right of way through the middle of the property. The property and would need municipal improvements, including, roads, sewer, water. D. Suitability of site for proposed project: BSEF states it conducted site review and evaluations for two years and chose the property based on criteria listed on p.3 of the application. E. Who will manage/construct the project on the approved site? BSEF proposes to “co-manage” (application; p. 1) an 80 acre sports park. The terms of co-management would need to be codified in an agreement with the city. The City would be responsible for managing the implementation of the project once the land is acquired. The proposed park would need to go through both the park master planning process and site plan review. 6. Review by Municipal Departments Preliminary meetings were held with staff from different city departments prior to the application being submitted to discuss the proposed project. Public Works The proposed project would require significant municipal improvements that should be determined prior to purchase. Cost of municipal improvements were not included in the budget. Staff has proposed to ask commission to authorize a sole source contract with an engineering firm to determine cost of municipal infrastructure. Community Development and Planning Review The proposed property would have to be annexed and subdivided prior to conveyance. Property is currently located in Gallatin County. Legal Review The property has vested title through deeds of distribution and is currently owned by the Estate of Vesta Anderson and Baxter Ranch Holdings LTD. The seller’s attorney said he would provide a signed copy of the buy/sell agreement with both seller’s signatures. The seller’s attorney has also indicated that there is a clean chain of title demonstrating current ownership. A copy of articles of incorporation for Baxter Ranch Holdings will need to be obtained as well as power of attorney for the Estate of Vetsa Anderson. There is a $4.2 million Federal tax lien on the property. The IRS has indicated to the seller’s attorney that they are willing to release the lien upon sale. However, in order to obtain a release of lien from the IRS, the seller’s attorney will need a resolution from the city authorizing the purchase of the property. Once he gets a resolution from the City authorizing funding, he will submit to the IRS and hopefully receive the lease of the lien. The proceeds of the Estate of Vesta Anderson will be used to satisfy the lien. The contract expires on April 30th. The attorney said he thinks he can get the seller to agree to 3 , 30 day extensions ( at most) if need be. Logistically, in order to get the extensions, it would appear that the city would need  to pass a resolution approving purchase of the property prior to April 30 and then negotiate the extensions? There are 2 , 120 foot RoWs  for streets,  an electric utility RoW through the middle of the property (size unknown) and a proposed appurtenant sewer RoW (approx. 10) feet that is currently being  negotiated and is expected to be recorded within the next 10 days. There is also an Agricultural lease on the property.  The seller would like to negotiate terms of the lease in the buy /sell, depending upon dates of proposed construction. The application has two buy/sell agreements- One signed by Baxter Ranch LTD and another By Estate of Vesta Anderson? Closing date of April 30 has 30 day extension for third party financing (L48, p. 1) No appraisal has been submitted – Buy/Sell has Appraisal Contingency (L 107, p. 2) No documents have been submitted by applicant in support of Property Investigation clause (L 117, p. 3) (i.e. Environmental Site Assessment, full Title Search or Report, Water Rights (extensive title search, proposed deed language). Applicant has not ordered an appraisal for this property or an Environmental Site Assessment. No survey, Annexation/Boundary line agreement provided (L 133, p.3) Copy of title Insurance to be provided by seller is for 116 acre parcel (Line 179, p.4) Condition of Title (L 185, p. 4) - Property has Federal Tax Lien, Utility RoW, and possible farm lease Special Improvement District payment assumed by buyer at closing (L 190, p. 7) Water rights need to be evaluated and confirmed. Finance 7. Proposed Improvements to Site/Property Applicant proposes phasing construction of sports fields over three distinct phases. The proposed budget of $9,442,200 for phase I includes purchasing land and developing sports fields on approximately half the property. No budget was included for Phase II and Phase III, which proposes adding additional sports fields on the remaining property. Fields proposed in Phase I include natural and artificial turf fields, trails and paths, parking lots (220 stalls and 160 stalls and 20 bus stalls), irrigation equipment, wells, utilities, concession building with restrooms and maintenance, and play areas. BSEF indicated in their application that they spent two years conducting site evaluations and chose the proposed parcel based on the following criteria : tract with adjoining city boundary; tract with 50 acres or greater to meet growth demands, reasonable price, western location in valley floor for seasonal use; sufficient water rights, access to commercial lodging and retail BSEF did not include information on any other properties that were considered. 8. Other Committees Review A. The application has not been reviewed by any other committee. 9. Overall budget development A. Applicant provided the following budget (P.2): Property Acquisition : $2,070,000 Project Planning: $240,000 Phase I Sports Field Construction: $6, 910,000* Maintenance Equipment: $222,200 *Total Project Cost: $9,442,200 *Proposed TOPs Funding: $8,942,200 Applicant’s Proposed Match: $500,000 * The original application had $7,150,000 listed for Sports Field Construction in error B. Applicant’s proposed match of $500,000 does not give specific cost itemization but simply proposes cash, donated land value, services and products donated in lieu of cash. C. Applicant provided a total cost Estimate for Phase I (Appendix C) as follows: Phase I includes: 1) Purchase of land - $2,070,000 2) Site Improvements - $1,500,000 (includes $240,000 planning costs) 3) Construction of Fields - $ 5,000,000 4) 10% Contingency - $650,000 Total $9,220,000 * The categories above are itemized in the application . The 10% contingency is based on the total cost of site improvements and construction only ($6,500,000). The Site Improvements include the $250,000 planning fee which was listed separately on the p. 2 budget. D. The applicant provided a cost estimate for annual maintenance (Appendix C). Annual maintenance between 2016-2018 is estimated at $76,100. Annual maintenance between 2019-2024 is estimated at $66,173. There are additional annual maintenance costs of $7000 identified but not included in the annual maintenance costs listed above. The cost of maintenance is not included in the proposed project cost. The initial cost of maintenance equipment is listed as $220,000. E. No supporting documentation was provided to substantiate cost calculations for construction of fields or site improvements. F. The budget does not include cost estimates for municipal improvements (roads, sewer, water etc.) which have been estimated at approx. $2 million. Summary Prior to submitting to the Commission, a Memorandum of Agreement should be developed to address cost sharing and proposed co- management since no cost sharing plan or fund raising plan was provided by the applicant demonstrating how they propose to raise matching funds. A significant amount of due diligence needs to be completed prior to the proposed closing date on the Buy-Sell Agreement, including ordering and appraisal and environment site assessment. There are also title issues that would need to be resolved prior to closing. No soils study or analysis was provided by applicant to determine suitability of site for proposed development. As such, costs proposed in budget for soils, sands and top soils ($3,500,000) may vary. Research will need to be conducted in order to determine if the water rights are sufficient for the proposed use. The budget does not include the costs of municipal infrastructure necessary to develop the property. No traffic impact study was included to determine impact on surround roads and neighborhoods.