Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report Bozeman Sports Park Report Version 2.1 date 3.4.14 TOPs Program Staff Report Report # 2.1 Bozeman Sports Park 3/4/2014 __________________________________________________________ ___________________________ 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 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 of land on the west side of Bozeman) as well as construction of improvements on the property (on site improvements), including construction of soccer, lacrosse and multi use fields, and construction of site improvements, including a concessions stand, restrooms and parking lots. The application does not include the cost of development of off-site improvements (municipal improvements). 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. Application with final Correct Budget 3. Additional Narrative 4. Bozeman Sports Park Economic Analysis 5. Comparative Field estimate (spreadsheet) – Low End Budget 6. Sports Park Annual Visitor Expenditure Analysis 7. Plats for existing Irrigation Pipeline 8. ”As Built Designs” for Irrigation Pipeline 9. Water rights - General Abstract 10. Buy /Sell – Spencer Anderson /Rubright initials 11. Buy/Sell Soccer Education Foundation– Baxter LTD (Anna Allen) /Rubright initials 12. Preliminary Commitment to Title and Map (Survey) 13. Anderson Estate Buy/Sell Disclosure 14. Agreement of Limited Partnership – Baxter Ranch Holdings 15. Certificate of Survey (COS) Sports Complex Site 16. RoW Easement – Montana Power 17. SEC Corporation Search – Baxter Ranch LTD 18. Vesting Deed – Estate of Vesta Anderson to Spencer Anderson * All materials above are available online at including all public comment at the following link: weblink.bozeman.net/Web Link8/0/fol/57887/Row1.aspx 3. Location/Ownership 3.1 Parcel and Buy/Sell Agreement The proposed property is located on Flanders Mill Road between Oak Street, Cottonwood and Durston Roads. The proposed property does not exist as a legal tract of record at the size proposed for sale to the City and needs to be configured as a legal parcel of record via a boundary line adjustment (BLA) or subdivision prior to conveyance. See also Section 3.3. 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). The Buy/ sell agreement currently expires on April 30, 2013. The applicant would need the City of Bozeman to assume the buy/sell agreement and close on the property. Staff conversations with the seller’s attorney have indicated that the sellers may be open to providing 3, 30 day extensions if the City is willing to assume the buy/sell agreement. In order to get the extensions the city would need to pass a resolution approving purchase of the property prior to April 30 and then negotiate then extensions with the seller. 3.2 Appraisal The City Manager approved BSEF’s request to use Keith O’Reilly of Bridger Appraisals to provide an appraisal of the property on February 18, 2014 as per Section 2.06.860 of BCM. An appraisal was ordered by the BSEF on February 19, 2014. BSEF indicated in an email that “We intend to pay for these services with philanthropic dollars and donated services in lieu of fees.  The donated services and fees that we pay will be accounted for in our $500k matching contribution. We will not ask the city to reimburse us for these costs. (email, 2.18.14) 3.3 Boundary Line Adjustment The proposed 80 acre tract for the Sports Park is currently part of a larger 117 acre parcel. BSEF members indicated at a Feb. 24, 2014 meeting with City Staff that they anticipated submitting an application for a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) with the County to create the parcel but have not submitted it to date. It is unclear at this time whether the County would require a simple boundary line adjustment, which could create a “dumb bell” shaped parcel out of the remainder parcel or whether a minor subdivision would be required. The Buy/Sell agreement has a contingency requiring a “minor subdivision.” Any BLA or minor subdivision would be required prior to closing in order to create a tract of legal record. A minor subdivision would require municipal improvements. School District 7 has acted to place purchase of the southern portion of the existing tract (37 acres) on the May 2014 school ballot. If the school enters into a buy/sell, the seller could record a BLA for the parcel to the south, which would then eliminate the need for the applicant or the City to file a BLA for the proposed 80 acre parcel. 3.4 Title; Rights of Way, Liens, Leases • Power Company RoW - There is a 60 foot Right of Way granted to Montana Power Company (runs east to west along Oak Street)? • Federal Tax lien : There is a lien for $4,155, 382 on the property. Seller’s attorney has indicated that in order for the tax lien to be released, he would need a copy of a resolution from the City Commission authorizing the purchase of the property. Seller’s attorney would then submit the resolution to the IRS requesting release of the lien to be paid at closing with a portion of the proceeds from the sale. • Agricultural Lease : There is an agricultural lease on record. Seller’s attorney indicated that the seller would like to maintain lease as long as possible. Terms of the lease are unknown at this time but the buy/sell agreement includes a provision to except non-harvested crops (line 17). • Irrigation Pipeline: There is an underground irrigation pipeline that diverts off the Farmer’s Canal at Oak Street at a 45 degree angle and then runs north to Baxter Lane. This pipeline essentially bisects the property. The pipeline services farms to the north of Baxter Lane. An easement was recorded between the School District and the landowners serviced by the pipeline for the parcel south of the proposed sports park parcel and adjacent to Flanders Mill Road. The easement on the school district parcel establishes a 20 foot wide Right of Way for the pipeline. Any proposed park plans would likely need to be designed around the pipe or the pipe will need to be moved. Moving the pipe would potentially require approval of all end users as well as the USDA since this was originally part of a agricultural conservation project. • Farmer’s Canal RoW: (ditch) runs south to north along Flanders Mill Road. Approximately 1100 feet south of Baxter Place, a stream flowing from the east flows into the canal, which changes the status of the irrigation facility into that of a stream. If Flanders Mill Road is built to current municipal standards, the 1100 foot portion of the stream/canal would need to be moved to the west because the stream will be in the proposed Flanders Mill RoW. The stream would also require a 50 foot setback from the west bank. The useable land in the portion of land west of the stream (north eastern quadrant of the proposed parcel) and east of the irrigation pipeline would potentially be reduced by both a stream set back and a pipeline easement or RoW. The potential cost of moving the stream to accommodate the Flanders Mill Road RoW will be addressed in the Municipal Infrastructure Cost Report being conducted by TD & H. The proposed subdivision to the east of the proposed sport park parcel may be requesting to move the stream to the east of Flanders Mill Road, which would eliminate the need to move the stream out of any proposed Flanders Mill RoW. USDA interest •Vested Title : 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 has been obtained. •Proposed appurtenant sewer RoW (approx. 30 feet) that is currently being negotiated and is expected to be recorded prior to the end of the month. The RoW will run along Cottonwood. • Street RoW’s would be required for Cottonwood, Flanders Mill, Oak St and Baxter Lane. 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 5.1 Phases, Scope of Work: The application proposes three phases, but only budgets for phase I, which includes land acquisition and construction of athletic fields and site improvements on about half of the property. Phase II and Phase III propose additional development of sports fields, including a indoor facility, the cost of which is not included in the budget or initial proposed Scope of Work of this project, which is limited to Phase I. 5.2 Site Selection: 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 improved seasonal use; sufficient water rights, proximity to commercial lodging and retail (Application , p. 2). BSEF did not include information on any other properties that were considered. 5.3 Existing and new Infrastructure requirements: The property is currently used for agriculture purposes (small grain production) and does not have any improvements other than the improvements (i.e. irrigation pipeline and Farmer’s Canal) outlined in Section 3.4 of this report. Municipal infrastructure( off- site improvements) requirements are detailed in Section 6.1 of this report. 5.4. 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.2 of the application. Suitability includes water rights deemed sufficient by applicant to support proposed uses, as well as micro-climate and proximity to services and Bronken Fields. 5.5 Project Management : BSEF proposes to “co-manage” (application; p. 1) an 80 acre sports park. The terms of co-management should be codified in an agreement with the city (a Memorandum of Agreement ). The proposed park would need to go through both the park master planning process and site plan review. Users of the park will need to enter into Park User agreements. 5.6 Maintenance: Annual operating costs are expected to be paid for by the General Fund, and offset with revenues from Park User Agreements and any other annual operating agreements with the involved non-profits. Depending on the level of maintenance required, this could affect the General Fund. 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. 6.1 Public Works The proposed project would require significant municipal improvements that should be determined prior to any proposed purchase. Cost of municipal improvements were not included in the budget for this project. TD& H engineering was hired to provide a report outlining the costs of municipal infrastructure associated with this property, including the “local” improvements that would generally be provided by any developer of the property. The report is due March 10, 2014. In addition to the cost of roads, the engineering report will include research related to the cost of sewer and water infrastructure. The cost of potentially moving the irrigation pipe referenced in section 3.4 of this report would add to any total municipal infrastructure costs. 6.2 Community Development and Planning Review The proposed property would have to be divided prior to conveyance. The property is currently located in Gallatin County. Annexation and municipal zoning should be conducted simultaneously with the park master planning process. A site plan review will also need to be conducted for the proposed site. Site improvements including off-site infrastructure would be detailed and phased during the site plan review process. RoW for Oak Street, Cottonwood Road and Baxter Lane would use up a little over 6 acres beyond what is already shown as street easement on the tract. The existing easements take up about 2.73 acres. The Irrigation pipeline would uses up about 1.2 acres for RoW, leaving about 70 acres of property for some form of development. 6.3 Legal Review The application has two separate buy/sell agreements; one signed by Baxter Ranch LTD and another by the Estate of Vesta Anderson. The applicant provided a commitment to Title for the 116 acre parcel and a Certificate of Survey. Appraisal was order on Feb. 19, 2014. The applicant ordered a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment from Tim Marcinko of Phoenix Engineering on February 18, 2014.Water rights will need to be evaluated and confirmed to ensure that there are sufficient rights for the proposed uses. 6.4 Finance Finance has had some preliminary conversations about availability of funds from the 2013 Bond Series ($9.9M issued) and how soon the City would need to issue the additional $5.1M, if this project were to be approved. Timing of the actual construction of the playing fields (vs. the property purchase) would be critical to cash-flows and the issuance of the remaining bonds. Issues such as: General Fund Balance (Reserve), Final MMIA Settlement Payment, and ongoing litigation will affect how and when the City should move forward with the $5.1M series. It is likely that Ph 1 of this proposed project will need to be further split (buy land, then build fields the next year), due to the size of the project budget and the timing of bond cash flows. Once annexed and owned by the City, the property will be subject to annual Street and Tree Assessments, estimated to be $X/year. These assessments are usually paid from the City’s General Fund through the Park’s Department budget. 6.5 Parks The proposed project would need to go through the Park Master Planning Procedure. A draft Park Master Planning Procedure (PMPP) has been developed and is currently under review by the City legal department. A final draft of the PMPP is expected to go before the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) on March. 13. The proposed PMPP includes review by Community Development for conformity of a proposed park plan to current Site Plan Review requirements. 7. Proposed Improvements to Site/Property Applicant proposes phasing construction of sports fields over three distinct phases but the Scope of Work proposed by the budget only covers the cost of the first phase. The proposed budget of $9,442,200 -$7,490,645 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 and an indoor facility on the remaining property. Fields proposed in Phase I include natural and artificial turf fields. Site improvements include trails and paths, two parking lots (220 stalls and 160 stalls and 20 bus stalls), irrigation equipment, wells, utilities, concession building with restrooms and maintenance, and play areas. 8. Other Committees Review A. The application has not been reviewed by any other committees. 9. Overall budget development 9.1. Budget Applicant provided the following budget on P.2 of the Application: Property Acquisition : $2,070,000 Project Planning: $240,000 Phase I Sports Field Construction: $6, 910,000* Maintenance Equipment: $222,200 Proposed TOPs Funding: $8,942,200 Applicant’s Proposed Match: $500,000 Total Project Cost: $9,442,200 * The original application had $7,150,000 listed for Sports Field Construction in error *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. * Budget was adjusted (Low End Budget) on March 4, 2014 as follows (see section 9.2) Proposed TOPs Funding: $6,990,645 Applicant’s Proposed Match: $500,000 Total Project Cost: $7,490,645 9.2 Cost Estimate for Phase I (Original Budget) Applicant provided a total cost Estimate for Phase I in the original application (Appendix C) as follows: 1) Purchase of land - $2,070,000 2) Site Improvements - $1, 500,000 3) Construction of Fields - $ 5,000,000 4) 10% Contingency - $650,000 5) Total Outdoor Fields - $7,150,000 Total $9,220,000 * The categories above are itemized in the application in Appendix C. 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. The Phase I estimate does not include the maintenance equipment cost of $222,200 9.2 Adjusted Cost Estimate for Phase I Applicant provided an adjusted, “low end” cost estimate for Phase I on March 4, 2014 as follows: 1) Purchase of land - $2,070,000 2) Site Improvements - $1,420,999 (includes $274,666 planning costs) 3) Construction of Fields - $3,282,133 4) 10% Contingency - $495,313 Total Outdoor Fields - $5,198,445 Total $ 7,268,445 * The categories above are itemized in a spreadsheet addendum to Appendix C. The 10% contingency is based on the approximate total cost of site improvements and construction only ($4,703,132). The Site Improvements include the $274,666 , planning fee which was listed separately on the p. 2 budget. The Phase I estimate does not include the maintenance equipment cost of $222,200. Total budget for “low end” proposal : $7,490,645. Total TOPs funding requested under “Low End” budget : $6,990,645 Applicant Match would be $500,000. 9.3 Maintenance: 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 and is included in the total budget. The fields will also be subject to certain assessments and charges which will potentially raise overall maintenance costs. These are applicable to all parks. Initial estimate is $16,074 per year. No supporting documentation was provided to substantiate cost calculations for construction of fields or site improvements. The budget does not include cost estimates for municipal improvements (roads, sewer, water etc.) which have been estimated at approx. $2 million. Summary Given the April 30th expiration date to the buy/sell agreement, the City would likely need to assume the buy /sell agreement without a completed appraisal or Environmental Site Assessment. Additionally, the City would need to resolve all of the title /ownership issues identified in Section 3 of this Report prior to closing. Furthermore, the issues identified in Section 3 will either impact any proposed park designs (i.e. alter conceptual renderings) or increase overall costs of the project not identified in the budget. If the TOPs Committee approves the project , prior to submitting to the Commission, a Memorandum of Agreement or an Agreement in Principal should be developed between the applicants and the City to outline expectations related to both cost sharing and proposed co- management during the design/construction phase of the project, since no project management plan (other than the timetable) was provided and no cost sharing plan or fund raising plan was provided which demonstrated how the applicants propose to raise matching funds. A significant amount of due diligence needs to be completed prior to the proposed closing date of the buy/sell agreement. The City would likely need to be granted an extension from the seller in order to complete all tasks necessary to close if the city assumes the buy/sell agreement. Research will need to be conducted in order to determine if the water rights are sufficient for the proposed use. No soils study or analysis was provided by applicant to determine suitability of site for proposed development. As such, costs proposed in the budget for soils, sands and top soils ($3,500,000) may vary. A study to determine municipal infrastructure costs was ordered by the City and is expected to be complete by March 10. The budget does not include the costs of off-site (municipal) infrastructure necessary to develop the property. . Several of the street intersections in the near vicinity which would provide primary access to the site are known to have already failed levels of service or to be very close to failure. Some improvements may be provided by pending private development but likely not all that is needed. Traffic impact studies will be included in the engineering report to speak to potential impacts on surrounding roads and neighborhoods. Right of Ways, for roads, the irrigation pipe, the farmer’s canal and potential stream setbacks may reduce the total amount of land available for the development of proposed fields to approximately 70 acres. Ongoing maintenance of this facility is expected to be significant and as-of-yet is unfunded and currently would be assumed to fall on the City’s General Fund.