HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-9-13 Aquatics LocationPage 1 of 5
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Determination of Location for a New Bozeman Aquatics Center and
Direction to Proceed with Design
MEETING DATE: December 9, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Direct the City Manager to proceed with the design of a new City
aquatics facility at one of the proposed sites, or another site that the
Commission designates.
PROPOSED MOTION: Having considered public comment and the information presented by staff, I hereby select the _________________ site as the desired location for the City’s new
aquatics center and direct the City Manager to complete all steps necessary to design and
prepare the project for Commission approval.
BACKGROUND: The 2012 Bozeman Recreation and Aquatics Facilities Feasibility Study recommends the City build a new aquatics facility to meet the current and future needs of the
Bozeman community. The report did not recommend a specific location. Subsequent to that
report, a site selection team comprised of the Chairman of the Recreation and Parks Advisory
Board, the Economic Development Director, the City Engineer, the Parks and Recreation
Director and a Project Planner from Community Development met with potential partners and reviewed possible locations for a new aquatics facility. The team evaluated potential sites
utilizing the following criteria;
• Community access (access to public transportation, bike and pedestrians);
• Visibility along major routes;
• Approximately five acres for facility and parking;
• Existing infrastructure available (water, sewer, streets); and
• Suitable zoning.
On August 12, 2013, the Commission considered an agenda item that recommended co-locating
a new police and courts facility with a new aquatics facility on the southern portion of the
Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) property at 907 North Rouse Avenue in
conjunction with a proposed land exchange. The Commission directed the City Manager to
complete the land exchange, but did not designate the site for the location of a new aquatics
220
Page 2 of 5
facility. The Commission did, however, direct staff to return with a more detailed analysis of
potential sites and partnerships for a new aquatics center. We are here tonight with a more detailed discussion of three potential sites for the aquatics center; the MDT property, Rose Park, and the YMCA site. A detailed site report prepared by MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects
(MMW) is attached to this memo as Exhibit A. We have summarized some of the key issues the
Commission may want to consider as it deliberates a location for a new aquatics facility.
Montana Department of Transportation. The City is currently negotiating a land exchange with MDT for the purpose of providing a location for a new police and municipal courts facility. The MDT site at 907 North Rouse is approximately 8.2 acres and is the current location of their
Bozeman maintenance operations. As currently planned, the new police/courts building would
occupy approximately 4.5 acres of that site. The remainder of the property could be used for
other city purposes, potentially the new aquatics center.
The main benefits to locating the aquatics facility on this site include proximity to the urban core
area, redevelopment of an industrial urban infill lot, service by existing public transportation
routes, and reduced development costs as major infrastructure is currently in place. Drawbacks
include limited pedestrian and bike access on Rouse until reconstruction beginning in 2016,
limited expansion opportunities, and potential conflicts with adjacent industrial uses.
MDT (907 North Rouse)
Site Considerations
Site Map on page 12 MMW Report
The property is currently served by adequate transportation, water
and sewer services making it the least expensive option of the three
to develop. There are no wetlands on the site.
Partnerships If the new aquatics facility was to be constructed on this site, we
would need to enter into an agreement with Gallatin County to build
additional parking on the Fairgrounds property. Initial conversations have been positive, but we will need to enter into a long term
agreement.
Required Infrastructure No significant offsite infrastructure will be required.
Expansion
Opportunities
Limited or none. As envisioned, the entire property would be
needed for the police/courts and aquatics facilities. If both facilities are constructed on this site, additional parking would need to be
constructed on the Fairgrounds to adequately serve both uses.
Additional offsite parking would not be needed if the aquatics
facility was built elsewhere. If both facilities share this site, any
future expansion of either would require relocating more parking onto the Fairgrounds.
Comparative Costs For the reasons identified above, this is the least expensive site to
develop of the three discussed in this memo.
Rose Park. Rose Park is a 20.5 acre dedicated City park located near 27th Avenue between Tschache Lane and Oak Street. The park is home to the City’s only disc golf park. Much of the
park acreage is designated wetland and floodplain.
221
Page 3 of 5
The main benefits of this site include current ownership by the City, that it is already utilized for
park and recreation purposes, is centrally located in the community, and is the only site that allows for future facility expansion without relying on further parking agreements with adjacent owners. Main drawbacks include increased development costs and major infrastructure needs.
Rose Park (Near 27th and Oak Street)
Site Considerations
Site Map on page 13 MMW Report
• The City currently owns the property
• High groundwater will increase construction costs
• Designated wetlands would need to be moved or reconfigured
and limit the buildable areas of the property
Partnerships The Fellowship Baptist Church owns the property adjacent to the park west of the 25th Ave. right-of-way. They have expressed an
interest in working with the City to sell a portion of their property to
the City and/or to discuss shared funding of 25th Ave. construction
and possible joint parking options.
Required Infrastructure • 25th Avenue would need to be constructed (possibly shared with Fellowship Baptist Church)
• Possibly a traffic signal installed at 27th and Oak
Expansion
Opportunities
As the City owns the entire 20.5 acres, this site provides the best opportunities for expansion.
Comparative Costs This site is estimated to cost approximately $775,000 more to
develop than the MDT site due primarily to the high ground water
and cost of extending 25th Avenue from Oak to Tschache Lane.
Sharing N. 25th construction costs could reduce this number to $610,000.
YMCA. The Gallatin Valley YMCA is a not-for-profit organization that is currently engaged in
a $10.5M capital campaign to construct a multipurpose recreation center on seven acres of
property they own adjacent to the Gallatin County Regional Park. Since February 2012, the City and YMCA have been discussing possible partnerships that would benefit the community. More
recently we are exploring the opportunity to partner on a joint project that would house both the
City’s new aquatics facility and the YMCA’s recreation center. Ongoing discussions are
resulting in an alignment of desired outcomes, timeframes and mutually agreeable schedules for
moving forward.
The main benefit to a City/YMCA partnership would be the construction of a full service
Community Recreation and Aquatics Center located in the fast-growing West end. Additional
benefits could include shared operation and maintenance costs. Drawbacks include complicated
construction and phasing agreements and the potential that one party or the other would not have their funding ready at the same time. There are significant risks associated with a partnership of this nature; however, there are significant benefits to be enjoyed as well. We want to make sure
the Commission is aware of the potential delays and cost increases that will most likely occur
should the YMCA capital campaign not materialize as planned. Additionally, much of the work
and specific agreements have yet to occur. For instance, we have not yet completed a
222
Page 4 of 5
preliminary title commitment and other due diligence on the property that must happen before a
final agreement can be drafted and approved by both the City and YMCA.
YMCA (Vaquero near Baxter Lane)
Site Considerations
Site Map on page 14 MMW Report
• Long-term low/no cost lease – the YMCA owns seven acres but
is prohibited by donor restriction to sell the land to the City
• Site currently undeveloped
• High ground water will increase construction costs
• Wetlands present on site may require future mitigation
Partnerships This option requires the most specific, complicated and detailed partnership of the three sites. Elements of a binding agreement would include, but not be limited to: lease, operations, payback,
condominium, and construction manager agreements. Additionally
we would need to agree on bid and bid-award processes and
procedures as well as construction management services.
Required Infrastructure Vaquero Parkway would need to be constructed with required water/sewer extension.
Expansion
Opportunities
Virtually none. The entire property is needed for the joint facility as
envisioned. The YMCA has a long-term lease with Gallatin County
on another 16 acres adjacent to their property, but the lease agreement prohibits construction of buildings.
Comparative Costs Construction on this site is expected to cost $758,000 more than the
MDT site. Partnerships and shared costs of infrastructure
installation could reduce this number to $403,000.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
YMCA. Should the Commission direct staff to proceed with the YMCA on the design
and construction of a joint facility, our first action will be to conduct due diligence on the property and, if acceptable, formalize an agreement to be approved by both parties. The agreement would, at a minimum, need to include the elements of the draft September 27,
2013 YMCA – City of Bozeman Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit 2).
Additionally, we would need to enter into an agreement with Gallatin County for use of
land at the regional park for a parking lot. We believe the County would be open to the possibility of the City/YMCA constructing and maintaining a parking lot on their property in exchange for joint use for all regional park users.
Rose Park. Should the Commission direct staff to locate the aquatics facility at Rose
Park, we will need to work with Fellowship Baptist Church on the construction on North 25th Ave. As stated earlier, the Church has expressed interest in partnerships that may include shared parking or the possible sale of land.
MDT. Should the Commission direct staff to co-locate the aquatics facility with the
police/courts building at the MDT site, we would need to enter into an agreement with Gallatin County to provide parking on the Fairgrounds. In a similar fashion to the
223
Page 5 of 5
YMCA, we would propose constructing and maintaining the parking lots in exchange for
permission to share parking with County functions occurring on the Fairgrounds. Architect Contract. Should the Commission direct staff to proceed with the design of a
new aquatics facility at one of the locations discussed above, or at another location, we
will bring back an architectural contract for approval and will ask the Commission to
reallocate the $225,000 assigned to the general fund reserve from the splash park project to the aquatics facility design. ALTERNATIVES: The Commission could direct staff to pursue other locations not
discussed in this memo, or investigate other opportunities for partnerships.
FISCAL EFFECTS: The City’s FY14 budget contains $125,000 for preliminary design and site analysis. On August 26, 2013, the Commission allocated $225,000 from the fiscal year 2014
budget originally planned for a splash park to the City’s general fund reserve with the direction
that staff return to the Commission for further authorization should the funds be needed for
aquatic facility design. If a site is approved tonight, we will return with a budget amendment to allocate and add $225,000 to the design budget.
Attachments: Exhibit 1 MMW Site Feasibility Report
Exhibit 2 Draft YMCA/COB Memorandum of Understanding Report compiled on: 12-02-13
224
SITE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR:
BOZEMAN INDOOR OUTDOOR AQUATICS FACILITY
BOZEMAN, MONTANA NOVEMBER 22, 2013
225
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Ballard*King & Associates Site Feasibility Analysis 4
Site Analysis
1 Urban Design Analysis
Transportation/Access
Surrounding Uses
Other Factors
6
Site Proximity Map 9
2 Zoning & Development
Zoning
Community Plan Land Use
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails (PROST)
Public Schools
Wetlands
Water Table
10
3 Project Area and Site Diagram
Preliminary Family Aquatics and YMCA Program Area Requirements 11
Preliminary Site Development Diagrams (Each Site) 12
4 Site Development Analysis, Including Costs
Site Development Narrative (comprehensive)
Size of Parcel
Wetlands/High Ground Water
Other Factors
15
Comparison of Site Development Costs (comprehensive) 17
Site Development Narrative (utilities and infrastructure 18
Comparison of Site Development Costs (utilities and infrastructure) 21
Cost Estimate Review by Roen & Associates 23
Appendix
A. MDT Site
Aerial Photo 24
Site Topography Map 25
Existing Utility Information 26
Geotechnical Investigation – Rouse Avenue Sewer Replacement 29
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, City of Bozeman, MDT Property 37
226
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
B. Rose Park Site
Aerial Photo 59
Site Topography Map 60
Site Wetlands Map 61
Plat Map 62
Geotechnical Report, Stoneridge Subdivision 63
C. YMCA Site
Aerial Photo 77
Site Topography Map 78
Gallatin County Regional Park – Draft Master Plan 79
Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed Gallatin County 911
Communications Building
81
D. Streamline Daytime Service Route 87
Streamline Service Extension 88
E. Shared Parking Arrangement Correspondence
89
227
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
228
Execut
The City o
under co
differenti
must con
term succ
site is mo
and proje
revenue
meets th
The three
• M
M
• Ro
o
• Y
B
a
Based on
accomm
expansio
MDT:
Prelimina
The MDT
The City i
on the M
projects w
to perfor
The 8 acr
some pa
Fairgroun
the Fairg
relocatin
Commun
aquatics
tive Summ
of Bozeman
onsideration
ial first cost o
nsider both th
cess of the f
ost likely to le
ect risk. Fac
generation,
e recreation
e sites under
MDT Site: 8.3 a
Montana Dep
ose Park: 20
ccupied by
MCA site: 7.0
axter and O
lso leased fr
n the initial p
modate build
on would req
ary analysis sh
site is also th
is considerin
MDT site. The c
would share
m all require
re site would
rking would
nds Manage
rounds prop
g more park
nity concern
facility can
mary
plans to bui
for the proje
of developin
he probabili
acility. Fact
ad to a posi
ctors contribu
potential fo
nal and urba
consideratio
acres at the
partment of
0.5 acres at t
park facilitie
0 acres adja
Oak near Vaq
rom the Cou
program, the
ding area, ex
quire approx
hows that th
he best serve
g locating th
cost analysis
e costs for de
ed environme
d not fully ac
need to be
er indicated
perty. Any fut
king onto the
over the inc
be mitigate
ild a new Ind
ect. This repo
g the Aquat
ty of initial d
tors contribu
itive bond e
uting to the l
or expansion
an design go
on are:
corner of Ro
Transportati
the corner o
es and a disc
acent to the
quero Parkw
unty for 60 ye
e Aquatics Fa
xterior faciliti
imately 2.3 a
he MDT site is
ed by existing
he City of Bo
s assumes th
emolition of a
ental remed
ccommodate
provided on
interest in m
ture expansi
e Fairground
compatibility
ed with good
door/Outdoo
ort evaluate
tics Facility o
evelopment
ting to initial
lection resul
long term su
on the site,
oals of the co
ouse and Ta
on.
of Oak and 2
c golf course
Gallatin Co
way. (16 add
ears). The sit
acility needs
es, and park
additional ac
s the least ex
g urban infra
ozeman Polic
at the Aqua
all existing b
diation).
e both proje
n the adjace
utually bene
on of either
ds.
y of law enfo
d site plannin
Bozeman
MacArthu
125 West
or Aquatics
es the suitabi
on each of th
t success an
l developme
t, the constr
uccess of the
and determ
ommunity.
marack. It is
25th Avenue.
e.
ounty Region
ditional acres
e is currently
s a site of ap
king. Preserv
cres of site a
xpensive site
astructure.
ce Station a
atics and Pol
uildings and
ects. To mee
ent County F
eficial shared
facility on th
orcement us
ng. Highway
Sit
n Indoor Outdo
B
ur, Means & W
Alder Street,
Facility. Thre
ility, and pro
he three site
nd the proba
ent success i
ruction cost
e project inc
mining which
s currently oc
The site is c
nal Park prop
s surrounding
y undevelop
pproximately
ving the pot
area.
e to develop
nd Municipa
ice/Municip
d site paving
et the total p
Fairgrounds s
d parking ar
he MDT site w
ses with an a
y and rail-ori
te Feasibility R
oor Aquatic F
Bozeman, Mo
Wells, Architec
Missoula, MT
ee sites are
obable
es. Site selec
ability of the
include: whic
of the facility
lude: estima
project site
ccupied by
currently
perty betwee
g the site are
ped.
y 5.8 acres to
ential for fut
p.
al Court Fac
pal Court Fac
(MDT is assu
arking dema
site. The
rrangements
would requir
adjacent
ented vehic
Report
acility
ntana
cts, PC
59802
ction
long
ch
y,
ated
best
the
en
e
o
ture
ility
cility
umed
and,
s on
re
cle
1
229
traffic ma
site. Stre
facility vis
Rose Park
Prelimina
develop
ground w
Cost shar
reduce d
approxim
Rose Par
than the
Rose Par
Aquatics
Fellowshi
in shared
YMCA:
The Aqua
Sharing c
Account
approxim
east edg
at the YM
undergro
developm
There is ri
there wo
did not m
and desi
Construc
funding t
and com
more tha
cover the
assumes
access c
phase ne
ay warrant a
et modificat
sitors.
k:
ary analysis sh
than the MD
water levels c
ring for the e
developmen
mately $610,7
k is less well s
YMCA site.
k is the only
s project with
p Baptist Ch
d parking arra
atics Facility
common are
ing for build
mately $758,1
ge of the site
MCA site. Co
ound utilities
ment cost of
isk in having
ould be a sig
meet capital
gn.
ction costs w
timing. If the
mmon areas
an the Aqua
ese increme
that the YM
control, utility
ext to an ope
a traffic study
tions and go
hows that th
DT site. Exten
contribute to
extension of
nt costs by $1
750 more tha
served by ex
one of the th
hout relying o
hurch owns p
angements
would share
eas within a s
ing cost sha
160 more to
and elevate
ost sharing fo
could reduc
f approxima
two funding
nificant loss
campaign
ould increas
Aquatics fa
sized for bot
tics portion o
ntal costs at
CA would b
y extension, e
erational Aq
y to evaluat
ood site plan
he Rose Park
nding 25th Av
o higher dev
25th Avenue
164,660, resu
an the MDT s
xisting urban
hree sites tha
on parking a
property to th
if there was
e the site wit
single buildin
ring, prelimin
develop tha
ed ground w
or the extens
ce developm
tely $403,300
g streams for
of momentu
goals, their p
se if the com
cility were c
th facilities, t
of the joint fa
t the time of
e responsibl
etc., that wo
quatics facilit
e potential i
ning/entry p
site would c
venue on th
velopment c
e and the ass
ulting in a ne
site.
n infrastructu
at is big eno
agreements
he west of th
community
h the YMCA
ng would red
nary analysis
an the MDT s
water levels c
ion of Vaque
ment costs b
0 more than
r the joint pro
um for the YM
portion of th
mbined proje
constructed b
he first cost w
acility alone
the Aquatic
e for additio
ould be requ
ty. The Aqua
Bozeman
MacArthu
125 West
impact of co
points can m
cost approxi
e west edge
costs for the A
sociated un
et incrementa
re than the
ough for all o
with other a
he site. The
benefit.
A’s planned 4
duce buildin
s shows that
site. Extendi
contribute to
ero Parkway
by $354,860, r
n the MDT site
oject. If the
MCA portion
e project wo
ect had to b
before the Y
would be ap
. We have a
cs facility co
onal construc
uired to build
atics facility s
Sit
n Indoor Outdo
B
ur, Means & W
Alder Street,
ommercial tr
mitigate traffi
mately $775
e of the site
Aquatics pro
derground u
al developm
MDT site, bu
of the require
adjacent ow
Pastor has in
40,000 squar
ng cost for bo
the YMCA s
ing Vaquero
o higher dev
y and associ
resulting in a
e.
Aquatics bo
n of the proje
ould likely ch
e built in two
YMCA, but w
pproximately
assumed tha
nstruction. T
ction costs fo
d the YMCA
should antic
te Feasibility R
oor Aquatic F
Bozeman, Mo
Wells, Architec
Missoula, MT
raffic passing
c impact on
5,410 more to
and elevate
oject at this s
utilities could
ment cost of
t is better se
ements of th
wners. The
ndicated inte
re foot facilit
oth projects
site would co
o Parkway on
velopment c
iated
a net increm
ond issue fail
ect. If the YM
hange in sco
o phases due
with locker ro
y $1,660,000
at the YMCA
The analysis
or shoring,
as a second
ipate
Report
acility
ntana
cts, PC
59802
g the
n
o
ed
site.
d
erved
e
erest
ty.
.
ost
n the
costs
ental
s,
MCA
ope
e to
ooms
A will
also
d
2
230
approxim
account
The site h
Developi
multi-use
The site is
site size a
importan
future ex
YMCA’s A
located o
joint facil
up to ¼ m
mately $30,00
for lost reve
has the least
ing a single b
community
s not large e
and configur
nt individual
pansion if lo
Architect sho
on Gallatin R
lity could loc
mile away fro
00 of additio
enue, additio
urban infras
building to h
y recreation c
nough to ac
ration, each
project goa
cated on th
ow that mos
Regional Par
cate some p
om the front
onal cost with
onal cleaning
structure and
house both t
center on on
ccommodat
project will
ls are mainta
is site. Prelim
st or all of the
rk property.
parking on th
t entry; this d
h a phase-tw
g, and other
d has the few
he Aquatics
ne site, with
te the joint fa
need to ma
ained. The A
minary site di
e parking for
The County
heir property
distance may
Bozeman
MacArthu
125 West
wo YMCA co
r operationa
west nearby
s facility and
the regiona
acility and it
ake concessi
Aquatics Fac
iagrams dev
r the Aquatic
y has indicate
y. Some park
y not meet c
Sit
n Indoor Outdo
B
ur, Means & W
Alder Street,
onstruction p
al expenses.
y residents.
the YMCA w
l county par
ts required p
ons to insure
cility should a
veloped by M
cs Facility wo
ed in genera
king for the fa
customer ex
te Feasibility R
oor Aquatic F
Bozeman, Mo
Wells, Architec
Missoula, MT
period to
would creat
rk adjacent.
arking. Due
e the most
anticipate n
MMW and th
ould need to
al terms that
acility would
pectation.
Report
acility
ntana
cts, PC
59802
e a
e to
no
he
o be
t the
d be
3
231
1
Memo
To: Kent Means, MMW Architects
From: Ken Ballard, President
Date: 11/7/13
Re: Bozeman Aquatic Center Site Review
I have reviewed the Site Feasibility Report for the Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic
Facility and my comments are listed below:
- The city does not want to build another stand-alone indoor aquatic center if at all
possible. Even with a strong recreational orientation the indoor aspect will never
be able to cover its cost of operation and will result in a significant annual
subsidy. They already have this situation with the indoor 50 meter and I do not
imagine that they want replicate this again.
- An outdoor recreational oriented aquatic center can be a stand-alone facility and it
has the ability to perform well financially.
- Placing both the indoor and outdoor pools in the same facility will maximize
revenue, minimize costs and perform the best financially.
- Having an indoor aquatic center as part of a larger recreation center (or YMCA)
will allow the aquatic center to perform better and also increase use and revenues
in the recreation center. The best financial and use scenario would have the
indoor and outdoor pools together and directly connected to an indoor recreation
center or YMCA.
2743 E. Ravenhill Circle
Highlands Ranch, CO 80126 (303) 470-8661
(303) 470-8642 Fax bka@ballardking.com
4
232
Ballard*King & Associates
2
- It is absolutely essential that there is adequate parking for all facilities on site.
The lack of parking (or even the perception) will reduce use and revenues. This
needs to be avoided at all cost.
- It is also absolutely essential that there is room for expansion of facilities (outdoor
pool and recreation center especially). It would not be operationally cost effective
to eventually have to look at potentially building additional new facilities
elsewhere in the community because the existing site is too small. This is the
same situation the city currently has with the 50 meter pool and even the location
of the outdoor pool.
- You are right to be concerned about tying the aquatic center project to the YMCA
facility. While this is the best long term scenario for operations and revenue the
timing is a big concern. Raising money for a 40,000 SF YMCA will not be easy
and could delay their project considerably.
- Regarding the three sites here are a few concerns:
o MDT – the ability to expand is a big concern. The Police and Courts will
always have priority over the aquatic center.
o Rose – this seems like the best site (capital costs aside) due to its size. It
seems to me that an effort needs to be made to try and move the YMCA to
this location.
o YMCA – the site is simply too small to accommodate both projects and
the required parking. There would be limited to no possibilities for
expansion and this would be short sighted.
To me it is much more important to choose the right site for long term use and
operational success than to be concerned about the initial upfront capital cost
implications. The initial capital cost savings will be quickly surpassed by the operational
budget implications of the decision.
5
233
URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS
234
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
Urban Design Analysis
MDT:
The MDT site is 1 mile away from the approximate geographic center of development of
Bozeman (7th and Main). The site is 1.5 miles away from the center of population of Bozeman
(S16th and Olive).
Transportation/Access: The site is served by Streamline’s Blue Line with a stop on Tamarack and
Rouse. A new bus shelter and improved stop facilities would be warranted for the Aquatics
project.
The site is served on three sides by relatively high volume streets, Rouse on the east, Oak on the
north and Tamarack to the south. Rouse, north of Oak is slated for reconstruction in 2016.
Reconstruction of Rouse south of Oak is an unscheduled project. Reconstruction of Rouse will
improve vehicular and multi modal access to the site. Construction of Rouse might have an
impact on operation at this site particularly when the site’s frontage is being reconstructed.
Impacts on traffic may require a traffic study for this site. Access from the interstate is excellent
using the 7thAvenue interchange. The property is visible from I-90 which could attract more
regional use of the facility.
Pedestrian facilities are well developed in the residential areas to the south of the site.
In general the MDT site has the best transportation access of the three sites.
Surrounding Uses: The County Fairgrounds and Gallatin County Search and Rescue are
immediately to the west of the site. Many fairgrounds sited in urban areas are developing into
year-round regional recreational hubs. This pattern matches available community-owned land
with expanding demand for recreational opportunities. The fairgrounds land could allow future
expansion of community recreational facilities in close proximity to the MDT site. The Fairgrounds
Board has expressed a willingness to explore shared parking arrangements on their site.
The City Shops, including the Parks and Recreation maintenance facility, is immediately across
Tamarack to the south. Further south is small block traditional pattern residential development.
The small block residential pattern supports bicycle and pedestrian use well and ensures good
multimodal access between surrounding residents and the facility.
Highway and rail-oriented commercial uses predominate in the areas to the east of the site.
There are a few residences near the northeast corner of Rouse and Tamarack. These are the
only residences facing the site.
To the north of the site the recently completed shopping center on Oak includes a fitness gym
and small indoor pool. The owner of this facility has expressed support for locating the Aquatics
facility on the MDT site.
6
235
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
Rose Park:
The Rose Park site is 1.5 miles away from the approximate geographic center of development of
Bozeman (7th and Main). The site is 1.25 miles away from the center of population of Bozeman
(S16th and Olive).
Transportation/Access: Streamline has a stop on the Blue Line at 19th and Oak, .40 miles away.
The Red Line stops at 25th and Annie .30 miles away. Preliminary discussion with Streamline
indicates that they would consider providing service to the site but would need to analyze
routes and demand to see whether extending service to the site fits within their current budget.
A subsidy could be required for Streamline service to the site. A bus shelter and pull out would be
warranted at the Rose Park site if service were to be extended for the Aquatics facility.
Oak may require traffic calming at 25th and other crossing facilities to facilitate bicycle and
pedestrian access from the south.
Siting the Aquatics facility on the Rose Park site would require 25th Avenue to be extended
between Oak and Tschache on the west border of the site. 25th would provide local access to
the parcel. I-90 access is good from either the 19th Avenue interchange, or the 7th Avenue
interchange, and Oak.
Surrounding Uses: A disc golf course and walking trails are the primary current uses on Rose
Park.
To the south across Oak there is relatively high density residential development. The block
pattern of the residential development is somewhat less connective for bicycle and pedestrian
users than the small block pattern at MDT.
The site abutting the parcel to the west is owned by the Fellowship Baptist Church. The church is
early in the process of developing on the site.
To the east are a rest home, a shopping center, and one undeveloped property. Parcels across
Tschache on the north, and across 27th on the west, are undeveloped.
Most of the undeveloped parcels to the north and west of the site will likely have residential
development in the next 15 years.
YMCA:
The YMCA site is 2.4 miles away from the approximate geographic center of development of
Bozeman (7th and Main). The site is 2.0 miles away from the center of population of Bozeman
(S16th and Olive).
Transportation Access: The site is not currently served by Streamline. The Yellow Line’s nearest
stop is at Yellowstone and Durston, approximately 1.0 mile away. The Red Line stops at Annie
7
236
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
and Buckrake approximately 1.1 miles away from the site. A preliminary conversation with
Streamline indicates that they would consider extending service to the YMCA site. Streamline
would need to analyze routes and demand to see whether extending service to the site fits
within their current budget. A subsidy could be required for Streamline service to the site. A bus
shelter and pull out would be warranted at the YMCA site if service were to be extended for the
Aquatics facility.
Primary vehicular access to the site is from Baxter and Oak. Local access to the site would be
from Vaquero Parkway, a new road connecting Oak and Baxter via Davis Lane.
Pedestrian facilities are limited in the relatively rural context except for sidewalks in recent
subdivisions.
Access from I-90 is good with service from the 19th interchange and Baxter.
Surrounding Uses: The YMCA parcel is surrounded on the west, south, and north by the Gallatin
County Regional Park. The park is a destination for walking and swimming.
To the east the parcel fronts Vaquero and a partially developed residential subdivision beyond.
The new Fire Station and Emergency Services facility is further south along Vaquero.
The site is at the western edge of the urbanized area of Bozeman – there are a mix of
agricultural parcels and residential subdivisions beyond the immediately adjacent parcels.
Other Factors: Future residential development is anticipated moving west.
8
237
Possible Site
Public School
1/2 mile radius
Center of Population
(Source: Sonoran Institute & City GIS data)
Existing Bus Stop
TIF District
PROXIMITY INFORMATION
9
238
ZONING & DEVELOPMENT
239
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
Zoning & Development
MDT:
Zoning: Public Lands & Institutions (PLI), Class II Entryway Corridor (25 ft setback from property or
roadway easement), Design Review Board (DRB) review required, multiple parcels need to be
aggregated and alleys vacated. Publically Owned Community Center is permitted use. Site is
adjacent to Northeast Urban Renewal District and approximately 0.5 mile from North Seventh
Urban Renewal District.
Community Plan Land Use: Public Institutions
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails (PROST): Proposed Bike Lanes at Rouse & Tamarack,
Proposed Shared-Use Path at Oak and bisecting the Fairgrounds (within 1/8 mile)
Public Schools: Hawthorne Elementary (1/2 mile), Whittier (3/4 mile).
Wetlands: None.
Water Table: No known concerns.
Rose Park:
Zoning: Residential Medium Density (R-3). Not an entry way corridor. Community Center is
allowed Conditional Use (permit required).
Community Plan Land Use: Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails (PROST): Proposed Bike Lane at Tschache, 27th, and 19th.
Proposed Shared Use Path at Oak & Tschache. Proposed Trail Corridors at east edge of
property. Dedicated open space (Stoneridge Development) at east edge of property.
Public Schools: Emily Dickenson (1/4 mile)
Wetlands: Present, delineation required. 1 AC of cash-in-lieu of mitigation assumed.
Water Table: 3 to 6 feet - some flooding.
YMCA:
Zoning: Residential Medium Density (R-3). Not an entry way corridor. Community Center is
allowed Conditional Use (permit required). Adjacent to Public Lands & Institutions (PLI).
Community Plan Land Use: Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, Trails (PROST): Proposed Bike Lane at Baxter. Proposed Shared
Use Path at west edge of property.
Public Schools: Chief Joseph Middle School (1/2 mile)
Wetlands: Present, updated delineation required. 1 AC of cash-in-lieu of mitigation assumed.
Water Table: 4 to 5 feet near west edge of property, 3 to 6 feet – rare flooding.
10
240
PROJECT AREA AND SITE DIAGRAM
241
Preliminary Program
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Family Aquatics Center
November 20, 2013
Gross
Building Function Area
Indoor-Outdoor Facility
Natatorium 21,100
Locker Rooms 4,700
Staff 1,560
Public Toilets and Shower 350
Entry 2,000
Mezzanine Seating 2,000
Maintenance/Storage 250
Indoor/Outdoor Pool Mechanical 2,600
Mechanical & Electrical Rooms 1,600
Community Room with Divider 1,000
Walls & Circulation 3,500
TOTAL 40,660
Outdoor Water & Deck Area 32,000
Outdoor Buildings 950
TOTAL 32,950
Aquatics Parking and Site Development Area # Spaces 400 SF/spot
Zoning Parking Calculations
Recreation Center 73,610 at 85% gross 62,568.5
1 space/
200 SF 312.8 125,200
Transit Availability Adjustment 312.8 spaces at 90%281.6 112,800
Future Expansion 30,000 at 85% gross 25,500.0
1 space/
200 SF 127.5 51,200
Transit Availability Adjustment 127.5 spaces at 90%114.8 46,000
YMCA Building and Site Area Area # Spaces 400 SF/spot
Zoning Parking Calculations
Recreation Center Building Area 35,000 at 85% gross 29,750.0
1 space/
200 SF 148.8 59,600
Transit Availability Adjustment 148.8 at 90%133.9 53,600
AQUATICS - Building and Site Area Area (SF)Acres
Aquatics Building Area 40,660 0.933
Aquatics - Outdoor Pools & Decks 32,950 0.756
25,764
SUBTOTAL - AQUATICS - BUILDINGS & POOLS 99,374 2.281
AQUATICS - Parking (w/ Transit Adjustment)112,800 2.590
39,480
SUBTOTAL - AQUATICS - PARKING 152,280 3.496
AQUATICS - Future Expansion Potential 30,000 0.689
46,000 1.056
26,600
SUBTOTAL - AQUATICS - FUTURE EXPANSION 102,600 2.355
TOTAL AQUATICS SITE AREA (all the above)354,254 8.133
YMCA Building Area 35,000 0.803
YMCA Parking (w/ Transit Adjustment)53,600 1.230
31,010
Outdoor Fields & Future Expansion
TOTAL Y SITE AREA (excludes fields & expansion)119,610 2.746
TOTAL COMBINED SITE AREA - Y & AQUATICS 473,864 10.878
Adjustment for site irregularity, setbacks, easements,
landscaping
Adjustment for site irregularity, setbacks, easements,
landscaping
Required Additional Parking for Building Expansion
(w/ Transit Adjustment)
Adjustment for site irregularity, setbacks, easements,
landscaping
Adjustment for site irregularity, setbacks, easements,
landscaping
Preliminary Program
MacArthur, Means Wells Architects, P.C. 11
242
489 SPACES TOTALMDT SITE LAYOUTBOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTERAQUATICSCITY OF BOZEMAN POLICE STATION & MUNICIPAL COURTS MAIN ENTRY
SERVICE PUBLIC ENTRYSTAFF
ENTRYSECURE PARKING EMERGENCY OPERATIONS-AND- FIRE& RESCUE FACILITYUNDERGROUND RETENTIONPARKING TABULATIONREQD FOR POLICE STATION AND MUNICIPAL COURTS**REQD FOR AQUATICS**TOTAL NEEDEDTOTAL PROVIDED......240...............220............................460........................489PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE**PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE - FINAL PARKING REQUIRED MAY VARY +/-10%.12243
N 25TH AVE (EXISTING)N 25TH AVE (NEW)N 27TH AVE WOODLAND DRIVEWEST OAK STREET1326262319242427230 SPACES TOTAL2424ROSE PARK SITE LAYOUTBOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTERAQUATICSMAIN ENTRYSERVICEWETLANDPOSSIBLE WETLANDWETLANDPOSSIBLE WETLANDRETENTIONPARKING TABULATIONREQD FOR AQUATICS**TOTAL NEEDEDTOTAL PROVIDED................220...........................220........................230PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE**PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE - FINAL PARKING REQUIRED MAY VARY +/-10%13244
15
30
30
15
30
30
15
30
30
300 SPACES
22
22
20
20
20
10
10
10
16
150 SPACES
VAQUE
R
O
PARKW
A
Y BAXTER LANE15
30
30EXISTING GRAVEL PARKINGPARKING TABULATION
REQD FOR YMCA
REQD FOR AQUATICS**
TOTAL NEEDED
TOTAL PROVIDED
.......................220
................220
...........................440
.......................450
**PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE - FINAL
PARKING REQUIRED MAY VARY
+/-10%
YMCA SITE LAYOUT
BOZEMAN FAMILY AQUATICS CENTER
AQUATICS
YMCA
SHARED
E
X
P
A
N
S
IO
N
MAIN EN
T
R
Y
RETENTION
RETENTI
O
N
RE
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
EXISTING POND
TRAIL S
Y
S
T
E
M
TRAIL SYSTEM SERVICE
I R R I
G
A
T
I
O
N
L
I
N
E
FOOTBALL FIELD
PROPERT
Y LI
NE
ENIL YTREPORP14
245
SITE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, INCLUDING COSTS
246
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
Site Development Narrative
Overview:
Based on the preliminary project program, the building and outdoor aquatics facilities require
approximately 2.3 acres of site area. Current zoning requires approximately 280 parking spaces
for the program, assuming Streamline bus service is available at or near the project site. Parking
to accommodate the current preliminary program requires approximately 3.5 acres of site area.
Future expansion for either indoor or outdoor leisure pools or an outdoor 50m pool requires
approximately 2.3 acres of site area to accommodate the new pools and parking required.
Approximately 8.1 acres of site area is required to accommodate current program areas and
potential future expansion.
MDT:
Size of Parcel: The City is considering locating the City of Bozeman Police Station and Municipal
Court Facility on the MDT site. The site is a tight fit for both projects. To meet the total parking
demand for both projects, approximately 170 spaces would need to be provided on the
adjacent County Fairgrounds site. Any future expansion of either facility would require
relocating even more parking to the Fairgrounds site. Since high ground water is not anticipated
on the MDT site storm water retention could be provided below parking areas to free up more
site area for other purposes. The site would fit the Aquatics facility comfortably if the Police
Station/Court Facility were located elsewhere.
Other Factors: Community concern over the incompatibility of law enforcement uses with an
adjacent aquatics facility can be mitigated through careful site planning. Site design can also
mitigate traffic safety concerns.
Rose Park:
Size of Parcel: Rose Park is the only one of the three sites that is clearly big enough for all of the
requirements of the Aquatics project without relying on parking agreements with other adjacent
owners. However, a joint use parking arrangement with Fellowship Baptist Church could prove
mutually beneficial and would reduce project costs.
Wetlands/High Ground Water: Wetlands bisect the site from the southwest corner to the
northeast corner. As the site is quite large, with some portions of the site lower in elevation than
the likely Aquatics facility location, it is feasible to address impacts to riparian resources on site.
The site has high ground water and likely also has expansive soils. There is a significant cost to
construct pools that extend below expected annual high ground water levels particularly in
expansive soils. Further wetlands and geotechnical investigation are warranted on the site to
reach an accurate cost estimate.
15
247
Site Feasibility Report
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Aquatic Facility
Bozeman, Montana
MacArthur, Means & Wells, Architects, PC
125 West Alder Street, Missoula, MT 59802
Other Factors: There is a large borrow pile in the southeast corner of the parcel where the
aquatics facility could be located.
Utility easements along Oak will require buildings to setback 50’ from the right of way.
Portions of the disc golf course would need to be relocated to accommodate the Aquatics
facility. The relocation could happen on site - or possibly on the Stoneridge Development’s
adjacent dedicated open space if suitable agreement could be reached.
YMCA:
Size of Parcel: The site would be shared by the Aquatics facility and a new, 40,000 square foot,
YMCA facility. Over time the YMCA anticipates both developing playing fields and expansion of
their indoor facility at this location. The Aquatics/YMCA building, the outdoor Aquatics facility,
and 150-180 parking spaces fit on the YMCA site. The additional 260-290 parking spaces required
for the joint facility would need to be located off-site, either on leased land or in the County
Park. The Aquatics facility should anticipate no future expansion if located on this site. The
YMCA’s future expansion at this location will be constrained by sharing the site with the Aquatics
facility. Each project will need to make concessions to insure the most important individual
project goals are maintained.
The Gallatin County Regional Park master plan identifies a parking area along Vaquero to serve
the future requirements of the Park. This parking area would be the best location for off-site
parking to serve the Aquatics/YMCA facility. However, sharing this parking area may not meet
total demand for the Regional Park and the Aquatics/YMCA facility. In addition parking in this
lot would be up to ¼ mile distant from the front door of the Aquatics facility/YMCA building. This
is pushing the limit of acceptable proximity. Future expansion of the YMCA facilities would
require additional parking on County land. (The YMCA has a 60 year lease with the County for
16 acres of additional land surrounding their parcel. The original intent of this lease was to allow
the YMCA to create playing fields surrounding their facility.)
On-site storm water retention will further limit development potential on the site. Subsurface
storm water management is likely not an option due to high groundwater.
Wetlands/High Ground Water: Riparian areas are potentially present on the site. On-site
mitigation may not be feasible but mitigation on adjacent leased land is probably acceptable
to address impacts to this resource. The site has high ground water and likely also has expansive
soils. There is a significant cost to construct pools that extend below expected annual high
ground water levels particularly in expansive soils. Further wetlands and geotechnical
investigation are warranted on the site to reach an accurate cost estimate.
16
248
Bozeman Indoor Outdoor Family Aquatics Center
Site First Cost Comparison
November 14, 2013
Least-Expensive Site
Site Variances MDT Rose park YMCA
Utility/development cost variation
See Morrison-Maierle Break-down $443,700 $769,110 $1,041,860
Water Table **
$400,000 $400,000
Wetlands remediation
Assumes 1 acre disturbed $50,000 $50,000
Streamline stipend for serving Y or Rose Park $0 $0
Y site combined facitliy cost reductions
Shared lobby/entry sequence -$92,500
Shared locker rooms -$150,000
Reduce exterior wall -$30,000
Shared community room -$87,500
Y site combined facility cost addtions
Fire area separation wall $50,000
Additional access control required $20,000
Purchase or lease of land for facility/parking $0 $0
Total Site Development Cost $443,700 $1,219,110 $1,201,860
Relative site development cost $0 $775,410 $758,160
MDT site cost = cost basis
Potential Cost Sharing - Site/Utility Development $0 $164,660 $354,860
Incremental Cost with Cost Sharing $0 $610,750 $403,300
Notes:
The costs estimated in this report are construction costs and do not reflect variations in soft costs.
Costs in the estimate assume providing the same amount of parking for each of the three sites.
All three sites could potentially benefit by sharing parking with other adjacent owners.
** Range of cost: $200,000-$600,000. A geotechnical investigation is required to further refine the cost.
Y Site Phased Construction
Costs for building YMCA spaces
Lobby/entry sequence $175,000
Locker rooms (built for Y)$1,125,000
Subtotal - YMCA spaces $1,300,000
Shared savings not realized with phased construction
Shared lobby/entry sequence $92,500
Shared locker rooms $150,000
$30,000
Shared community room $87,500
Subtotal Phased Costs - shared costs $360,000
Total Phased Costs - for Y Reimbursement $1,660,000
Phased construction - Additional Cost $30,000
Incremental cost to build aquatics facility to
accommodate future YMCA
Additional operational expense/lost revenue
during Y construction
Complete exterior wall; accommodate future
addition
Assume cost share potential with adjacent
property owners
Approximate Cost Information
Estimated additional building cost based on
water table elevations at surrounding sites
Approximate cost / (savings)
May be required; additional info from Streamline
required
May be required; additional info required from Y
and County
Preliminary Program
MacArthur, Means Wells Architects, P.C. 17
249
Page 1 of 3
Bozeman Indoor/Outdoor Family Aquatic Center
Siting Study - Site Development Narrative
October 29, 2013
The following text and attached cost estimate describe differences in development needs and
associated cost differences between the three proposed sites for the Bozeman Aquatics facility. Costs considered to be approximately equal for all three sites are not included.
In comparing the three sites, there are major differences in the amount of public infrastructure required to develop each site. Because adjacent property owners stand to benefit from these
public improvements, the attached cost estimate has two tables. Table 1 summarizes relative
development costs based on the Aquatics Center bearing the full cost of the public improvements; Table 2 summarizes relative development costs based on an assumed cost
share agreement It is assumed that during design development, there will be some negotiation
before arriving at a final agreement on funding for the public improvements.
MDT Site
Sanitary Sewer Service: The site has three existing services draining to a main in Rouse
Avenue. Existing services may be used if in good condition and large enough diameter; the estimate assumes a street cut and a new 6” service line. A second service line may be needed if
a “gray water” system is used in the building. Water Service: The site has three existing services supplied by a main in Rouse Avenue.
Existing services may be used if in good condition and large enough diameter; the estimate
assumes a street cut for a new 6” fire service and a 2” domestic service in the same trench.
Nearby fire hydrants are located on the east side of Rouse Avenue, on the south side of the
Tamarack Street intersection, and about 350 feet north of this intersection.
Street Improvements: With the exception of new approaches, no street improvements are
required. Depending on the timing, temporary approaches to the existing Rouse Avenue may be required in advance of permanent connections to the proposed Rouse Street Widening project, currently scheduled for 2016.
ALTA Survey and Demolition: The ALTA survey will be more detailed than the other two sites
due to the extensive asphalt, concrete and numerous buildings and other structures onsite.
Likewise, demolition of these items is a significant cost. MDT is exploring the possibility of moving some of the buildings prior to the start of this project.
Grading and Storm Drainage: The site drains north, generally at about 1 percent, to a roadside ditch on Oak Street. A feasible concept for storm runoff would be to run storm drain pipe and
surface runoff west to a ditch along the west property line, then discharge into a detention facility
at the north end of the site.
Electrical, Natural Gas and Communications: Three-phase electrical and natural gas utilities
exist along the east side of Rouse Avenue. Although unknown at this time, it is assumed that communications lines (telephone and internet/TV cable) adjoin the property.
18
250
Page 2 of 3
Impact Fees: Re-development sites such as this can deduct the value of existing impacts based
on current impact fees. The estimate assumes a $106,000 deduction, which is half the total site deduction. The estimate assumes that the other half will be applied to a future City Police/Courts
project currently proposed to share this site with the Aquatics Facility.
Environmental Permitting: It is assumed there will be no environmental permitting associated with this site. The current property owner, the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT),
has agreed to turn over an environmentally clean site, and there are no streams or wetlands apparent on this currently industrial site.
Rose Park Site
Sanitary Sewer Service: The nearest, most accessible sewer main is at the intersection of 27th Avenue and Tschache Street. The estimate assumes an 8” sewer main extension will be
routed east under the paved Tschache Street (street cut required), then south in the future
25th Avenue alignment (road & utility easement). A 6” service will leave the street easement and head southeast to the Aquatics Facility.
Water Service: The estimate assumes a street cut in Oak Street for a new 6” fire service and a
2” domestic service in the same trench. Because the nearest fire hydrant is at the 27th and Oak
Street intersection, a new fire hydrant assembly is included as the cost equivalent of a 100-foot water main extension.
Street Improvements: The City will require a looped road connection between Oak Street and either 27th Avenue or Tschache Street, utilizing the existing road and utility easements for 25th Avenue. Due in part to the sewer main requirement, the most economical connection
appears to be construction of 25th Avenue all the way to Tschache Street. Half-width construction may be acceptable to the City, but full width construction is assumed for improved
access to the facility.
ALTA Survey and Demolition: The ALTA survey and demolition are minimal due to the
undeveloped nature of the site.
Grading and Storm Drainage: The site drains north, generally at about 1.2 percent, to Tschache
Street. An existing irrigation ditch traverses the site and will need to be rerouted and partially
piped. A feasible concept for storm runoff would be to run storm drain pipe and surface runoff north, then through one or more detention facilities north of the site improvements, and into the
existing irrigation ditch. Electrical, Natural Gas and Communications: Three-phase electrical, natural gas and
communications lines (telephone and internet/TV cable) exist along the north side of Oak Street. Impact Fees: Impact fees are required for new development and for redevelopment. There is no
cost reduction for re-development at this site, so the full cost of impact fees will be required. Environmental Permitting: There are significant wetlands and streams near and within the
proposed development areas, and environmental permitting will be required. The City requires a 50-foot setback from wetlands. Due to the location and extent of existing wetlands, the Rose
Park site assumes up to one acre of wetland impacts. Therefore, this site includes an additional
$50,000 cash-in-lieu for offsite mitigation (replacement) wetlands.
19
251
Page 3 of 3
YMCA Site
Sanitary Sewer Service: The nearest, most accessible sewer main is at the intersection of
Vaquero Parkway and Lolo Way. The estimate assumes an 8” sewer main extension will be
routed south in the Vaquero Parkway road & utility easement, per the Baxter Meadows development plans. A 6” service will leave the street easement and head west to the Aquatics Facility. The estimate includes a possible cost-sharing agreement with adjacent property owners
to reduce public infrastructure cost to the Aquatics project.
Water Service: The estimate assumes an 8” water main extension will be routed south in the Vaquero Parkway road & utility easement, per the Baxter Meadows development plans. A new
6” fire service and a 2” Type K copper domestic service in the same trench will run west to the
Aquatics Facility. The estimate includes a possible cost-sharing agreement with adjacent property owners to reduce public infrastructure cost to the Aquatics project.
Street Improvements: The City will require completion of Vaquero Parkway, utilizing the existing road and utility easements. The estimate assumes the Aquatics Facility will be responsible for
full-width construction from Lolo Way to the Fire Station. The estimate includes a possible cost-sharing agreement with adjacent property owners to reduce public infrastructure cost to the Aquatics project.
ALTA Survey and Demolition: The ALTA survey and demolition are minimal due to the
undeveloped nature of the site.
Grading and Storm Drainage: The site drains northeast, generally at about 2.6 percent, to the Vaquero Parkway road & utility easement. An existing irrigation pipe traverses the site and will
need to be rerouted or replaced with a pipe that can handle vehicular traffic loading. A feasible concept for storm runoff would be to run storm drain pipe and surface runoff east to a ditch along
Vaquero Parkway, then discharge into a detention facility at the north end of the site, possibly
re-grading and utilizing the area north of the site where irrigation ditches converge.
Electrical, Natural Gas and Communications: The nearest three-phase electrical primary is
located on the north side of Baxter Lane. The nearest natural gas and communications lines (telephone and internet/TV cable) are at the intersection of Vaquero Parkway and Lolo Way.
These utilities need to be extended south along Vaquero Parkway, with services into the YMCA
site. The estimate includes main line extensions to a point east of the Aquatics Facility building, and service lines across Vaquero Parkway and into the site.
Impact Fees: Impact fees are required for new development and for redevelopment. There is no cost reduction for re-development at this site, so the full cost of impact fees will be required.
Environmental Permitting: There are wetlands near and potentially within the site near the west property line, and permitting may be required. The City requires a 50-foot setback from
wetlands. Wetland impacts less than 0.1 acre (4,356 sq. ft.) require a environmental permitting. Wetland impacts greater than or equal to 0.1 acre would require much more costly mitigation. The estimate assumes we will avoid the greater impacts and mitigation.
C:\Users\mhickman\Desktop\siting narrative 10-22-13 draft.docx
20
252
BOZEMAN AQUATICS CENTER
Comparison of Site Development Costs
Date: 10/29/13
Z:\13.037 Bozeman Aquatics\Pre-CA\11. Site Feasibility\[MMI site development costs.xlsx]A
TABLE 1: Comparative Cost Items for Site Development, Full Cost*
MDT site Rose Park site YMCA site
No.Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
1 sewer main extension LF $38 0 $0 1,400 $53,200 1,440 $54,720
2 add for sewer main under street LS N/A 0 $0 1 $16,000 0 $0
3 sewer service LF $18 100 $1,800 320 $5,760 740 $13,320
4 water main extension LF $48 0 $0 100 $4,800 1,940 $93,120
5 Aquatics Facility water service LF $75 100 $7,500 200 $15,000 200 $15,000
6 3/4" water service stubs LF $25 0 $0 0 $0 900 $22,500
7 local street LF $250 0 $0 1,300 $325,000 1,940 $485,000
8 ALTA survey LS N/A 1 $12,500 1 $7,000 1 $5,500
9 site demolition LS N/A 1 $290,000 1 $5,000 1 $5,000
10 storm drainage facilities LS N/A 1 $25,000 1 $38,000 1 $45,000
11 primary electrical service LF $40 50 $2,000 50 $2,000 1,000 $40,000
12 natural gas main LF $33 0 $0 0 $0 700 $23,100
13 natural gas service LF $18 50 $900 50 $900 200 $3,600
14 communications services LF $20 50 $1,000 50 $1,000 700 $14,000
15 6' sidewalk on N. side of Oak St. LF $35 0 $0 670 $23,450 0 $0
16 impact fees LS N/A 1 $103,000 1 $212,000 1 $212,000
17 environmental permitting LS N/A 0 $0 1 $60,000 1 $10,000
Totals, Full Cost*$443,700 $769,110 $1,041,860
*
costs with a negotiated "cost-share" agreements involving adjacent property owners.
NOTES (note numbers correspond to the above Table 1):
1
extension. The YMCA site requires new sewer main under Vaquero Parkway per the Baxter Meadows development plans.
2 This item covers additional effort (street cut) to install 350 feet of sewer main under the existing paved Tschache Street.
3 The YMCA site includes sewer service stubs under Vaquero Parkway per the Baxter Meadows development plans.
4 Includes valves, fire hydrant assemblies and all fittings. The Rose Park site requires a fire hydrant, the cost equivlent of about
100 feet of water main. The YMCA site requires new water main from Lolo Way to the south end of the YMCA property.
5 Water service for the Aquatics Facility includes a 6" fire protection service line, and a 2" domestic service line.
6 At the YMCA site, water service stubs are required under Vaquero Parkway per the Baxter Meadows development plans.
7 Unit cost is full width asphalt street with curb & gutter, sidewalks and street lights per City of Bozeman standards for local streets.
The Rose Park site requires construction of 25th Ave, from Oak Street to Tschache Street. The YMCA site requires construction
of Vaquero Parkway from Lolo Way to the existing Fire Station near Davis Lane.
8 Includes topographic and utility survey, and accurate locations of property lines and easements. Title report is not included.
9 Includes removal of all concrete and asphalt surfacing, and all buildings and foundations. It is assumed that all hazardous waste
cleanup will be completed prior to this project.
10 Includes ditches, culverts, storm drain systems and onsite detention/retention facilities. The YMCA site includes replacement of an
existing irrigation pipe with reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) at a cost of $20,000. The Rose Park site includes replacement of an
existing irrigation ditch with RCP at a cost of $13,000.
11 Unit cost is a rough estimate, due to variable payback programs available from the electrical power provider (NorthWestern Energy).
12, 13 Unit cost is a rough estimate, due to variable payback programs available from the natural gas provider (NorthWestern Energy).
14 Unit cost is a rough estimate; costs not available from providers. Assumes one phone line and one coaxial TV/internet cable.
16 Impact fees are based on a 35,000 sq. ft. building. Redevelopment projects can deduct value of existing impacts based on current
impact fees. The MDT site accounts for this savings as half the total savings, with the other half reserved for the City Police/Courts
project to be located on the same site.
17 It is assumed that the MDT site has no wetlands. The other two sites include wetlands delineation report and three permits:
404 (wetlands), 124 (fisheries) and 318 (turbidity). YMCA site assumes total wetland disturbance is less than 0.10 acres. Rose Park
site includes an additional $50,000 cash-in-lieu for offsite mitigation wetlands, to offset loss of 1 acre of wetlands to development.
The above items 1 through 7 represent full cost for for work within street right-of-ways. It may be possible to recoup some of these
Includes manholes. The Rose Park site requires new sewer main from 27th & Tschache to the building site via 25th Avenue
21
253
BOZEMAN AQUATICS CENTER
Comparison of Site Development Costs
Date: 10/29/13
TABLE 2: Comparative Cost Items for Site Development, With Cost Share*
MDT site Rose Park site YMCA site
No.Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
1 sewer main extension LF $38 0 $0 1,400 $53,200 700 $26,600
2 add for sewer main under street LS N/A 0 $0 1 $16,000 0 $0
3 sewer service LF $18 100 $1,800 200 $3,600 200 $3,600
4 water main extension LF $48 0 $0 100 $4,800 700 $33,600
5 Aquatics Facility water service LF $75 100 $7,500 200 $15,000 200 $15,000
6 3/4" water service stubs LF $25 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
7 local street LF $250 0 $0 650 $162,500 1,000 $250,000
8 Table 1, items 8 through 17 - -$434,400 $349,350 $358,200
Totals, With Cost Share:$443,700 $604,450 $687,000
Totals from Table 1 (Full Cost):$443,700 $769,110 $1,041,860
Difference = Proposed "Cost Share" Funding by Others:$0 $164,660 $354,860
*
street right-of-ways, a starting point for a negotiated "cost-share" agreement involving all of the adjacent property owners.
See item notes below for assumptions. Cost for items 8 through 17 is identical to Table 1.
NOTES (note numbers correspond to the above Table 2):
1
extension. The YMCA site requires new sewer main from Lolo Way (south of Baxter Lane) to the south end of the YMCA property.
2 This item covers additional effort (street cut) to install 350 feet of sewer main under the existing paved Tschache Street.
4 Includes valves, fire hydrant assemblies and all fittings. The Rose Park site requires a fire hydrant, the cost equivlent of about
100 feet of water main. The YMCA site requires new water main from Lolo Way to the south end of the YMCA property.
5 The Aquatics Facility will require a 6" fire protection service line and a 2" domestic service line.
6 At the YMCA site, it is assumed that cost for 3/4" water service stubs for the Baxter Meadows development will be paid by others.
7 Unit cost is full width asphalt street with curb & gutter, sidewalks and street lights per City of Bozeman standards. The Rose Park site
assumes half-width construction of 25th Ave, from Oak Street to Tschache Street (i.e., full width unit cost times half the length). The
YMCA site assumes full width construction of Vaquero Parkway from Lolo Way to the south end of the YMCA property.
8 through 17: (see Table 1 notes)
Includes manholes. The Rose Park site requires new sewer main from 27th & Tschache to the building site via 25th Avenue
To more accurately estimate relative costs between the three sites, the above items 1 through 7 represent, for work within
22
254
MEMO
TO: Luke Jackson AIA MMW Architects
125 W. Alder Street Missoula, MT 59802
CC: Casey Aboudara, Cost Estimator Roger Roen-President
FROM: Roger Roen/Casey Aboudara
Roen Associates DATE: October 29, 2013
SUBJECT: Site Development Costs Comparision Overview
Bozeman Aquatics Center
Luke good to talk with you on this project yesterday, and the below summarizes Roen Associates overview of subject project being analyzed on a cost basis for overall feasibility in site selection process.
Our comments are limited due to the fact that we have not done quantities calculations or scope evaluation on
these site options, but we have provided the overview you requested.
The three sites (MDT, Rose Park, and YWCA) all represent different levels of investment needed to
accommodate the new Bozeman Aquatics center, with the MDT site being the more affordable of the 3 due to a
more developed street/utility infrastructure that exists currently to serve that site.
Overall, cost comparisons based look reasonable to Roen Associates, but without doing a full estimate, a more detailed cost opinion perspective is not available from our group at this time. Unit costs used in the cost comparison look reasonable for the type of utilities and roads being proposed, but must be reviewed against utility
sizes/and pavement sections as well as quantity take offs for overall cost validity.
In addition, the MDT site must also be analyzed for costs due to the demolition/remediation of the current
industrial use that may present significant cost premiums. Thanks again, and we look forward to working more on this project.
Please see all contact information for myself, and Roger below.
Casey Aboudara Roen Associates
23
255
APPENDIX A - MDT SITE
256
Printing: Layout Page http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?83
1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:33 AM
24
257
25
258
26
259
27
260
28
261
29
262
30
263
31
264
32
265
33
266
34
267
35
268
36
269
Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment
City of Bozeman
MDT Property
907 North Rouse
Bozeman, MT
Prepared for:
Brit Fontenot, City of Bozeman
Bozeman, MT
Prepared by:
Hyalite Environmental, LLP
P.O. Box 90
Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730
(406) 763-4228
June 2013
37
270
ii
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
Cover Photo: View of the property of interest
38
271
iii
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
Table of Contents
List of Figures..................................................................................................... iv
List of Appendices.............................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary............................................................................................ 1
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................... 2
2.0 Site Description................................................................................. 2
3.0 User Provided Information................................................................ 3
4.0 Records Review................................................................................. 3
4.1 Regulatory Records Review.............................................................. 3
4.1.1 Facilities within one mile of the site of interest ............................... 4
4.1.2 Facilities within one-half mile of the site of interest......................... 6
4.1.3 Facilities adjacent to or within the site of interest ............................ 8
4.2 Water Quality.................................................................................... 9
4.3 Historic Records Information............................................................ 10
4.3.1 Historical Data................................................................................... 10
4.3.2 Title Records..................................................................................... 10
5.0 Site Reconnaissance.......................................................................... 11
5.1 Subject Property................................................................................ 11
5.2 Adjoining Property............................................................................ 11
6.0 Interviews.......................................................................................... 12
7.0 Findings............................................................................................. 13
8.0 Opinion.............................................................................................. 14
9.0 Conclusions....................................................................................... 15
10.0 Deviations.......................................................................................... 15
11.0 References......................................................................................... 16
39
272
iv
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
List of Figures
Figure 1. Site location
Figure 2. 2011 Aerial photo of site
Figure 3.Facilities that are potentially significant if they are within one mile of the site of
interest
Figure 4. Facilities that are potentially significant if they are within one-half mile of the site of
interest
List of Appendices
Appendix A Example Site PhotosPage
Photo 1. Main office and shop building located in southeast corner of property.A-1
Photo 2. Welding shop – typical example of maintenance buildings throughout
facility with concrete floors and floor drains.A-1
Photo 3. Example of storage of chemicals / oils in 55 gallon drums – stored on
concrete floor pad within an enclosed building.A-2
Photo 4. Mechanic shop – newer building built in 1990’s. Remaining buildings
were built after purchase of property by MDT in 1951.A-2
Photo 5. Chemical storage tanks located on concrete pads.A-3
Photo 6. Northern portion of property looking north. Overall drainage direction
of property flows in a northerly direction via sheet flow.A-3
Photo 7. Current fueling island with 10,000 gallon diesel and 10,000 gallon
gasoline underground storage tanks.A-4
Photo 8. Waste oil burner used for heating building.A-4
Photo 9. One of the floor drains in the maintenance shop. A-5
Photo 10. Northwest portion of property – sand storage pile. A-5
Photo 11. Outside wash-down area for equipment. A-6
Photo 12. Flammable gas secured and stored within building. A-6
Photo 13. Bozeman City Shops located south of property of interest. A-7
Photo 14. Kenyon Noble yard located east of property of interest. A-7
Photo 15. Industrial / commercial businesses located east of property of interest.A-8
Photo 16. Business and residential areas adjacent of property of interest. A-8
40
273
v
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
Appendix B Supporting Information from Records ReviewPage
Federally listed sites -- NPDES, CERCLA, TRI, RCRA, AIRSB-1
MT CECRA Priority sites, RRS B-111
Remediation Response Sites B-114
VCRA, CALA, WQA, Brownfields, NRC, MethB-174
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs)B-185
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)B-238
Landfills.B-251
Abandoned and Inactive MinesB-252
Railroad right-of-way, pipelinesB-255
Groundwater, surface water, public water supplyB-258
Adjacent Parcels B-271
Appendix C Historic Information Page
Historic aerial photos C-1
Title records C-11
Appendix D Communication Records
Contact Basis for interview Page
Brit Fontenot City of Bozeman – User Questionnaire form D-1
Dustin Johnson City of Bozeman D-3
Kyle DeMars MDT Maintenance Chief, Bozeman D-4
Bill Pierce MDT Maintenance Superintendent, Bozeman D-5
Maryanne Mathews MDT Office Administrator, Bozeman D-6
Doug Compton MDT Environmental Services, Helena D-7
William Bergum MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau D-9
Katie Erny MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau D-10
Donnie McCurry MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau D-12
John Vandelinder Street Supervisor, City of Bozeman D-13
John Alston Water / Sewer Supervisor, City of Bozeman D-14
Tammy Crone Gallatin Water Quality District D-15
Michelle Adjacent Property, M&W Truck & Auto D-16
Sue Shockley Adjacent Property, Gallatin County Fairgrounds D-17
Ashly Ogle Adjacent Property, Kenyon Noble D-18
Appendix E Environmental Professional Statement
Signed Statement and Resume
41
274
1
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
Executive Summary
Hyalite Environmental, LLC, has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for
the City of Bozeman on State of Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) property in
Bozeman, MT. The MDT property (property of interest) is approximately 9 acres and is located
at 907 North Rouse, Bozeman, within Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Section 6, Montana
Prime Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana (Figures 1 and 2).
This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions from
properties within the search radius of one mile, on-half mile, or adjacent to, the property of
interest that would indicate the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or
petroleum products on the subject property.
There were several historic recognized environmental conditions that involved releases of
contaminants to the soils and underlying groundwater within the property of interest.
Leaking underground storage tank releases
o Release #345, released 7/16/1990, resolved 9/16/1999, Not Active
o Release #1136, released 3/31/1992, resolved 7/22/2008, Not Active
o Release #2319, released 8/17/1994, resolved 2/3/1995, Not Active
Remedial Response Site Release: This site was listed in 1997 during the removal of a
concrete vault that contained road oil. The site was delisted in 1999.
The above recognized releases have been resolved and likely do not pose an environmental
concern to the property. The MDT property currently has two 10,000 gallon underground
storage tanks (USTs) in use, one diesel and one gasoline. The current 10,000 gallon USTs are
currently in compliance with DEQ.
Suspect environmental conditions based on past releases, and the historic and present uses of the
property, include the possibility of hazardous substances or petroleum products beneath the
property of interest as a result of the use of floor drains located within the majority of the
buildings. In addition, there may be stained soils underlying the areas where there is currently
asphalt. These stains would likely be from past spills / leaks prior to paving the site.
This Phase I ESA has been performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of
American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-05 Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM,
2005). This Phase I ESA does not address asbestos-containing materials, radon, lead-based
paint, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health
and safety, ecological resources, endangered species or indoor air quality. Hyalite
Environmental was contracted through Brit Fontenot, City of Bozeman. The findings and
conclusions generated or produced here are intended exclusively for the use of Brit Fontenot,
City of Bozeman, and specific parties designated by Brit Fontenot.
42
275
2
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
1.0 Introduction
Hyalite Environmental, LLC has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on
property owned by Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) located at 907 North Rouse,
Bozeman, MT. The Phase I ESA was performed at the request of the City of Bozeman by Brit
Fontenot, Bozeman, MT. The location of the property is shown in Figure 1.
The purpose of the environmental site assessment is to perform "all appropriate inquiry into the
previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary
practice" as defined in 42 USC 9601(35)(B). The goal of the Phase I ESA is to identify
recognized environmental conditions that would indicate the presence or likely presence of any
hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an
existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or
petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface
water of the property.
This Phase I ESA has been performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of
American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-05 Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM,
2005).
2.0 Site Description
The MDT property (property of interest) consists of approximately 9 acres owned by the State of
Montana. The property address is 907 North Rouse, Bozeman. The eastern edge of the property
is bordered by Rouse Street, the northern boundary by Oak Street, and the southern boundary by
Tamarack Street. The Gallatin County Fairgrounds borders the western edge of the property.
The property is within Township 2 South, Range 6 East, Section 6, Montana Prime Meridian,
Gallatin County, Montana. Figure 1 shows the site location relative to Bozeman on a
topographic map of regional scale. An aerial photograph of the site is shown on Figure 2. Site
photos showing the property of interest and adjacent parcels are included in Appendix A.
The property of interest has been owned and operated by MDT since the early 1950’s as an area
office for the operations and maintenance of state-owned roads and highways. Land use in the
area surrounding the property is a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential. Bozeman
Creek flows north approximately 350 feet east of the property of interest. Interstate 90 and the
railroad are located a few property parcels away to the north and northeast of the property.
The Bozeman Montana State University weather station (241044) has recorded the average
annual total precipitation as 18.3 inches (Western Regional Climate Center, 2013). The average
maximum temperature is 81.4 Fahrenheit (F) in July and the average minimum temperature is
12.0 F in January. The average total annual snowfall is 86.0 inches, and the average snow depth
in January is 5 inches.
43
276
3
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
3.0 User Provided Information
Brit Fontenot, City of Bozeman, MT, represents the user(s) of this Phase I ESA. The User
Questionnaire form suggested for use by the Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM, 2005) was filled out by
Mr. Fontenot and is included in Appendix D, pages D1-D2.
The user Brit Fontenot has no knowledge of any environmental liens filed or recorded against the
property of interest. The user is not aware of any Activity and Use Limitations that are in place
on the site or that have been filed or recorded. The user has no specialized knowledge or
experience related to the property. There is no negotiated value or purchase price for the
property at this time. The user is aware of past uses of the property. The user knows of no spills
or other chemical releases that have taken place on the property. The user has no knowledge that
there are any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at
the property
4.0 Records Review
Supporting information for the records review is included in Appendix B. Historic Aerial Photos
and Deed Records are included in Appendix C, and Communication Records are included in
Appendix D.
4.1 Regulatory Records Review
Records were reviewed (record types and databases, pertinent search distances) according to
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Process (ASTM, 2005). The search radius required for each type of site differs according to the
type of regulation, potential hazard, and regulatory agency. The following classification scheme
organizes the search radius requirements in order of decreasing required search radius; each level
of records review is from the defined required radius inward, and includes the subject
property(ies).
Required Records Search Radius of One Mile:
1. The search radius is one mile for Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). These sites are commonly referred to as
Federal Superfund Sites and are listed on the National Priority List (NPL).
2. The search radius is one mile for Montana Comprehensive Environmental Cleanup
and Responsibility Act (CECRA) sites. These sites are commonly referred to as State
Superfund Sites. [A Montana state program allows Potentially Liable Persons to
voluntarily participate in the Controlled Allocation of Liability Act (CALA) program
44
277
4
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
or the Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Act (VCRA) as an alternative to
standard CECRA processes.]
3. Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Treatment, Storage or Disposal
(TSD) facilities that have had a corrective action are also required to be noted if
within one mile from the proposed project site.
Required Records Search Radius of One-Half Mile:
1. RCRA TSD sites that have not had a corrective action are to be noted if within one-
half mile of the proposed project site.
2. The search radius is one-half mile for Solid Waste Landfills (SWLFs).
3. The search radius is one-half mile for Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
sites.
Required Records Search of Adjacent Properties:
1. Records for property adjacent to the proposed property are searched for Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs).
2. Records for property adjacent to the proposed property are searched for RCRA
generators.
Required Records Search of Subject Properties:
1. Records are searched for the proposed project property for toxic chemical releases.
Additional databases that are not included in the standard that have been searched for the
property of interest and the area within one mile of that site include the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) active and abandoned mine lands (AML) databases, the
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) mining databases, and various groundwater
and surface water databases. Database queries are made for different variables in different
combinations to provide redundancy to the searches and to minimize the effect of database errors
on the results of the queries.
4.1.1 Facilities within One Mile of the Site of Interest
The area within one mile of the property of interest is shown on Figure 3.
There are two sites (Figure 3) listed in the Federal Superfund (CERCLA) database that fall
within one mile of the property of interest (Appendix B pages B1 – B20).
1. Idaho Pole Plant. The Idaho Pole Company began wood treating operations in 1945
using creosote, switching to pentachlorophenol (PCP) in 1952. It was added to the
National Priorities List (NPL) of superfund sites in 1986. In 1989, MDEQ assumed the
lead agency role through a cooperative agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). EPA issued a Record of Decision in 1992. Cleanup activities for both
soils and groundwater ensued. In 2001, a Controlled Groundwater Area was established
down gradient of the Idaho Pole site, extending in a northerly direction. Information
45
278
5
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
related to the Idaho Pole Plant site is located in Appendix B pages B69-B75. Based on
the location of the Idaho Pole Plant property, and the extent and direction of the
groundwater contaminant plume, this CERCLA site is not likely to pose any risk to the
property of interest.
2. Bozeman Solvent Site. The Bozeman Solvent Site is a chlorinated-solvent-contaminated
groundwater plume, primarily tetrachloroethylene (PCE), which originated from a dry
cleaning facility located on the north side of Main Street, just east of 19th Street,
Bozeman. Although the site is listed in the Federal information system database
(CERCLIS) as a Federal Superfund Site, the MDEQ CECRA program is the lead
regulatory program for this facility. The site is listed in the Montana Superfund database
and is identified as a Maximum Priority CECRA Site (Appendix B pages B45, B117-
B131). The contaminated groundwater plume, which extends approximately 2.5 miles
north of the original site, falls just within the one-mile radius of the property of interest.
The plume is well defined and monitored, and since the plume does not lie beneath the
property of interest, it is not likely to pose a risk to the property of interest.
There are five listed Montana Superfund (CECRA) sites within 1 mile of the property of interest
(Figure 3) (Appendix B pages B111-B113):
1) Bozeman Old City Landfill. The Bozeman Old City Landfill is an inactive,
approximately 30-acre municipal landfill, which operated from 1962 to 1970 (Appendix
B pages B114-B116). During a 1983 CERCLA site investigation, sampling found very
low levels of organic and inorganic compounds and the EPA declared that the facility
needed “No Further Action” under CERCLA. The site was covered and revegetated and
is now part of the East Gallatin Recreation Area. The MDEQ CECRA program is
currently the lead regulatory program for the site and continues to monitor / sample to
ensure public health and safety. The site is ranked as a low priority and no further actions
are planned at this time.
2) Bozeman Solvent Site.
The Bozeman Solvent Site was discussed above under the CERCLA sites (Appendix B
pages B45, B117-B131).
3) CMC Asbestos Bozeman.
The CMC Asbestos Bozeman site, located on East Main, is an inactive, 11-acre asbestos
ore-loading depot that operated between 1956 and 1988 (Appendix B pages B132-B139).
The site was listed as a CECRA site in 1990. The City of Bozeman initiated a voluntary
allocation of liability under CALA, and in 2006 agreed to act as the lead Potentially
Liable Party to conduct remedial actions. Cleanup was completed in 2009, with final
reseeding/revegetation efforts still underway. groundwater There are portions of the site
that are owned by private parties, rather than the City of Bozeman, that have not been
remediated.
4) Developmental Technology. Developmental Technology was a former electroplating
46
279
6
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
facility that was closed in 1976 (Appendix B pages B140-B141). Abandoned hazardous
waste drums were removed and disposed of in 1977. The site was originally listed under
CERCLA, but was delisted in 1984. The site remains listed under CECRA with a low
priority ranking.
5) Mercer Post Plant. The Mercer Post Plant is an inactive wood-treating facility that
operated from 1970 to 1974 (Appendix B pages B142-B143). The facility was a small,
approximately 1-acre operation which used pentachlorophenol (PCP) to treat posts. In
1989, EPA declared that the facility required “No Further Action” under CERCLA. The
MDEQ CECRA program is now the lead regulatory program for the site. The site is
currently listed as low priority. Further evaluation / sampling will be needed before the
site can be considered to require “No Further Action” under CECRA.
Based on the locations of the CECRA sites with respect to the property of interest, and the extent
of cleanup that has been conducted for each of the facilities to date, the sites listed above do not
likely pose a threat to the property of interest.
The MDEQ Remediation Response Site (RRS) database (Appendix B pages B144-B173) was
searched for other properties within the search radii that were not already identified in the
CERCLA and CECRA databases. The RRS database identified past CECRA facilities within the
search radius that have been delisted. These sites include:
Lattice Materials, located at 516 E. Tamarack, which was listed in 1990 and delisted in
1997. Site cleanup included remediation of soils contaminated with petroleum.
Montana Rail Link Asbestos, located north of 506 Front Street. The site was listed in
1990 as a result of asbestos contamination. The site was cleaned up and delisted in 1996.
The CMC Asbestos Bozeman site is listed in both the VCRA and CALA registry (Appendix B
pages B174 – B177). These programs allow potentially liable persons to voluntarily participate
in clean-up programs as an alternative to standard CECRA processes. A description of the site
is listed above under the CECRA discussion.
There are no known RCRA treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facilities for which a corrective
action has been required within one mile of the site (Appendix B pages B1 – B20).
4.1.2 Facilities within One-Half Mile of the Site of Interest
The area within one-half mile of the parcel of interest is shown on Figure 4. There are no listed
RCRA TSD facilities within one-half mile of the site (Appendix B pages B1 – B20). There are
no recorded closed solid waste landfills within one-half mile of the site (Appendix B pages B1 –
B23).
There are five listed leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites, or petroleum tank release
sites, within ½ mile of the property of interest (Appendix B pages B185–B237). Of these, four
are listed as “non-active”, and one is listed as “active”. The following table summarizes the
47
280
7
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
LUST sites within ½ mile of the property of interest.
Site Name Address Facility
ID
Release
ID
Date of
Release
Resolve
Date
Active
Gallatin County Shops W Tamarack & N
Grand 1604563 2675 12/6/1989 5/23/1990 No
MT Dept Hwy 907 N Rouse 1604052 345 7/16/1990 9/16/1999 No
MT Dept Hwy 907 N Rouse 1604052 1136 3/31/1992 7/22/2008 No
MT Dept Hwy 907 N Rouse 1604052 2319 8/17/1994 2/3/1995 No
Bozeman City Shops 814 N Bozeman 1603847 749 5/24/1991 7/19/1996 No
Bozeman
Transmission Center 421 N Broadway 1612812 1458 11/6/1992 12/2/1993 No
Kwik Way 32 401 E Peach 1605094 4599 10/25/2007 Yes
All of the non-active sites, which have had a confirmed release, have been resolved. However,
there have been three resolved releases that occurred directly on the MDT property of interest
that deserve discussion.
Release ID 345 involved the release of gasoline from a 6,000 gallon UST discovered in
1990. The tank was closed and removed, and soil contamination was evident at the time
of removal. Contaminated soils were excavated and groundwater monitoring wells were
installed. A No Further Corrective Action Required letter was provided by DEQ on
September 16, 1999, after monitoring results indicated appropriate clean-up levels. The
monitoring groundwater wells were abandoned in 1996. (Appendix B page B207, B213-
B217; Appendix D page D-10)
Release ID 1136 was initially reported during the removal of two tanks in 1992 (6,000
gasoline UST and a 10,000 gallon diesel UST), as well as a surface spill in 1993.
Approximately 375 cubic yards of petroleum impacted soils were excavated and
groundwater monitoring wells installed. A No Further Corrective Action Required letter
was provided by DEQ on July 22, 2008 after monitoring wells indicated that groundwater
was not adversely impacted from the residual soils contamination. The groundwater
monitoring wells were abandoned and closed. (Appendix B pages B208-B209, B213-
B217; Appendix D page D-10).
Release ID 2319 was associated with the removal of a 300 gallon waste oil tank in 1994.
Approximately one cubic yard of contaminated soil was excavated. A No Further
Corrective Action Required letter was provided by DEQ on February 3, 1995 after soil
samples indicated that the removal of the contaminated soils was sufficient. (Appendix B
pages B210-B212; Appendix D page D-10)
48
281
8
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
The Kwik Way site, located approximately ¼ mile south from the property of interest, is still
pending closure and is rated by MDEQ as a High Priority (Appendix B, pages B220-B235).
Three tanks were removed from the ground in 2007, and as a result of the leaking underground
storage tanks, the soils within the immediate area of the tanks were contaminated. In addition,
groundwater within the site was also affected. Ongoing monitoring of wells located on the
property have found low concentrations of dissolved contamination within one well on the
property detectable during periods of high groundwater. It is suggested that the plume boundary
has not migrated off-site. MDEQ has required continuing monitoring as dissolved contaminants
naturally degrade and attenuate.
The LUST sites do not likely pose a potential threat to the properties of interest. All of the
LUST sites identified within the search radius have been resolved except for the Kwik Way site.
Records review and discussions with DEQ agency project officers indicated that clean-up
remediation efforts of the active LUST site have eliminated or greatly reduced the potential for
impacts to any off-site facilities.
The MDT Maintenance Facility (property of interest) was identified as a “delisted” WQA facility
in the RRS database (Appendix B pages B154-156, B166-B167). Since this incident occurred on
the property of interest, information regarding the incident is presented here. This site was listed
in 1997 as a result of a release discovered during the removal of a concrete vault that contained
road oil. Cleanup measures were taken over the next several years. Based on soils and
groundwater monitoring results, the site was delisted in 1999. The RRS database identified
several other WQA sites within the search radius, but all have been classified as “delisted”
(Appendix B pages B144-173).
4.1.3 Facilities Adjacent to or within the Site of Interest
There is one RCRA generator that is listed on the parcel of interest, or directly adjacent to the
property of interest (Appendix B page B1–B20). The MDT facility is listed as a Conditionally
Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) in the Federal EPA database. The majority of the
hazardous waste that is generated is related to products used for servicing and maintaining
equipment and vehicles (Appendix D, page D-7)
There are four UST sites listed in the databases that may be considered adjacent to, or on, the
property of interest (Appendix B pages B238–B250).
1. The MDT property located at 907 North Rouse currently has two 10,000 gallon tanks in
use, one diesel and one gasoline. Five tanks are listed as closed and were removed from
the ground in 1990, 1993 and 1994. (Appendix B pages B195-B196)
2. Kenyon Noble, an adjacent property located at 1104 North Rouse, has no active tanks.
Kenyon Noble had two tanks which were closed and removed from the ground in 1988.
(Appendix B pages B249-B250)
49
282
9
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
3. The Bozeman City Shops, located at 814 N Bozeman, previously had five UST’s located
on the property. All five tanks were closed and removed from the ground in 1991.
(Appendix B pages B193-B194)
4. The Gallatin County Shops, located at West Tamarack and North Grand, previously had
seven USTs located on the property. All seven tanks have been closed and were removed
from the ground between 1986 and 1996. (Appendix B pages B218-B219; )
There have been no toxic chemical releases reported on the property or adjacent to the property
of interest (Appendix B pages B181-B184).
There are no records of mine sites or abandoned mines adjacent to, or within, the property of
interest (Appendix B pages B165 – B166).
4.2 Water Quality
The depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the property of interest is in the range from 12 to 20
feet below ground surface. Groundwater flows in the vicinity of the property of interest
generally flow in a northerly to northeasterly direction toward the East Gallatin River, and
locally toward Bozeman Creek.
Groundwater data was pulled for the area surrounding the property of interest (Appendix B pages
B258-B265). There is no recent groundwater quality data publicly available for the vicinity of
the property. There is shallow groundwater quality data available for the Idaho Pole site (Section
4.1.1), but that is related to the CERCLA site and not relevant to the property of interest. There
are no nearby public water supplies with deep groundwater quality data
There was historic groundwater data from monitoring wells that were installed on the MDT
property to monitor impacts and clean-up from the leaking underground storage tanks (Appendix
B pages B207-B217). These wells were abandoned when groundwater quality samples were no
longer showing concentrations of constituents of concern above groundwater quality standards,
and the LUST sites (as discussed previously) were considered to be resolved by MDEQ. The
water quality data from the monitoring wells from the MDT LUST sites is evidence that
groundwater concentrations in areas under the site have, at the time and location of the sampling,
had groundwater quality that met groundwater quality standards.
There are no surface water bodies on or adjacent to the parcel of interest. The nearest stream,
Bozeman Creek, is within approximately 340 feet of the property. This stream has been
determined to be fully supporting of agricultural and drinking water beneficial uses, partially
supporting primary contact recreation beneficial use, and not supporting aquatic life beneficial
uses. Impairment has been determined to be caused by grazing in riparian or shoreline zones,
irrigated crop production and yard maintenance, channelization and loss of riparian habitat and
septage disposal (Appendix B pages B266-B268).
50
283
10
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
4.3 Historic Records Information
4.3.1 Historic Data
Sanborn fire insurance maps were available for the property of interest between 1904 and 1946
(Appendix C pages C1-C6). The only dates that had information available for the property of
interest were the 1927 map and the 1927-1946 map. The 1927 map shows one small structure, a
stable, on the northern portion of the property (Appendix C, page C4). To the north of the
property was the Montana Flour Mill Company. The 1927-1946 map (Appendix C page C6)
shows that the Montana Department of Highways had a machinery and materials yard on the
southern portion of the site, which included several buildings (offices and shops) and oil/fuel
tanks (tar, road oil, gas and lubricating oil). On the northern portion of the property, a building
that is listed as part of the Montana Flour Mills Company is identified as “machinery storage”.
The following historical aerial photos were examined for the following years: 1995, 2003, 2006,
and 2011 (Appendix C pages C7-C10). No major changes to the property of interest were noted
during that period.
There is no other evidence in the recorded documents of historic use that the property of interest
was developed, or used for other purposes, prior to development by MDT and the one building
identified as part of the Montana Flour Mill. Uses of the property for storage of fuels and oils
were identified as far back as 1946 (or earlier). Environmental regulations were not in place
prior to the early 1970’s and the likelihood of spills of hazardous and petroleum products that
were not reported are high.
4.3.2 Title Records
Records pertaining to the properties of interest were reviewed for historical and environmental
conditions. Documents (deeds, easements, liens, etc.) were researched and reviewed by Hyalite
Environmental through the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder files. The records that were
obtained are included in Appendix C (pages C11 – C19).
The parcel of interest was acquired by MDT from the Gallatin County in 1951 through a Quit
Claim Deed. [Note: The MT Department of Administration cadastral database has the parcel
recorded as Gallatin County ownership, not as a separate parcel from the Gallatin County
Fairgrounds under MDT ownership.] As indicated from earlier Sanborn maps, MDT was using
the parcel of land prior to the parcel transfer. Gallatin County purchased the property of interest,
along with a large portion of property to the west, from Syracuse University in 1914. Syracuse
University acquired the property in 1897 during a Sherriff Auction. Sanborn maps indicated that
the University did not develop the land during that time.
The deed records reviewed showed no indications of any environmental liens or authorized use
limitations for the property of interest.
51
284
11
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
5.0 Site Reconnaissance
Hyalite personnel performed a site reconnaissance of the property on June 21, 2013. The site
reconnaissance was documented by photographs, which are included in Hyalite's project files.
Representative site photos are included in Appendix A.
5.1 Subject Property
Hyalite personnel met with Kyle DeMars, MDT Maintenance Chief; and Bill Pierce, MDT
Maintenance Superintendent, who has been with MDT for thirty five years, at the property
location. Mr. Pierce provided a walk-through of the entire property, including buildings and
grounds.
The property of interest houses numerous buildings, mostly located on the southern portion of
the property, consisting of offices, maintenance facilities, shops, labs, and equipment storage.
Most of the buildings were built during the initial development of the property in the later 1940’s
and 1950’s. A newer vehicle maintenance building was built in the mid 1990’s. A walk through
the buildings showed that the buildings had concrete flooring. Chemicals, oils, and hazardous
materials were stored on the concrete flooring and secured as needed. Two of the buildings use
oil burners, which are used to heat the building and dispose of used oil. The majority of the
maintenance and shop buildings had floor drains. Discussion with site personnel indicated that
the floor drains consisted of concrete vaults that were tied into the city sewer system. Settled
sludge within the vaults was pumped out as needed. The condition of the floor drains were
unknown, and it was unknown if all floor drains were tied into the city sewer system.
The property has used asphalt from old millings to pave all of the open space within the property.
The paving has taken place over time as old millings have become available. The open space
areas are used to store maintenance equipment / vehicles, supplies, and equipment that are able
to be stored outside. Two 10,000 gallon USTs (one diesel and one gasoline) are located on the
northeast corner of the property. There are two deicer tank sites and a salt/sand pile that is used
for winter road maintenance. There are no storm drains within the property boundaries, and
stormwater run-off flows towards the north where it exits the property onto Oak Street. A drop
inlet to a sub-surface city stormwater system is located at the corner of Oak and Rouse.
5.2 Adjoining Property
A list of adjacent landowners including property descriptions, names and addresses is included in
Appendix B, pages B271 to B272. The sites adjacent to the properties of interest are a mix of
commercial, industrial, and residential use. The Gallatin County Fairgrounds borders the
property to the west. To the north of the property is a relative recent commercial development
complex. To the south are the Bozeman City Shops and to the east are several industrial /
commercial businesses and residences. Stormwater run-off incidences have occurred where
contaminated stormwater was allowed to leave the property and flow down streets and towards
52
285
12
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
adjacent properties.
6.0 Interviews
Hyalite personnel interviewed people with personal knowledge of the site and people with
regulatory responsibility and potential knowledge of the site. Communication records of
pertinent interviews are included in Appendix D. A list of persons contacted and interviewed is
included in the table below.
Table 2. Persons Interviewed
Contact Basis for interview
Brit Fontenot City of Bozeman owner representative – User Questionnaire form
Dustin Johnson City of Bozeman
Kyle DeMars MDT Maintenance Chief, Bozeman
Bill Pierce MDT Maintenance Superintendent, Bozeman
Maryanne Mathews MDT Office Administrator, Bozeman
Doug Compton MDT Environmental Services, Helena
William Bergum MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
Katie Erny MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
Donnie McCurry MDEQ, Hazardous Waste Cleanup Bureau
John Vandelinder Street Supervisor, City of Bozeman
John Alston Water / Sewer Supervisor, City of Bozeman
Tammy Crone Gallatin Water Quality District
Michelle Adjacent Property, M&W Truck & Auto
Sue Shockley AdjacentProperty, Gallatin County Fairgrounds
Ashly Ogle Adjacent Property, Kenyon Noble
The interviews revealed some additional pertinent information concerning the site that had not
been included in the regulatory records. An adjacent landowner, M&W Truck & Auto, indicated
that in 1979 there was an oily substance discovered in Bozeman Creek (borders M&W property).
A letter from Department of Health Environmental Services dated June 7, 1979, identified the
source as the MDT site. The pipe was closed and plugged. This occurrence is evidence of
historic (1979) problems related to drainage from the MDT site. (Appendix D, pages D-16).
53
286
13
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
7.0 Findings
Hyalite has performed a Phase I ESA on the State of Montana Department of Transportation
property (property of interest) located at 907 North Rouse, in Bozeman, within Township 2
South, Range 6 East, Section 6, Montana Prime Meridian, Gallatin County, Montana (Figure 1
and 2).
For the search radii that involved one mile, one-half mile, and adjacent to, the property of
interest, Hyalite found no evidence of recognized environmental conditions that would indicate
the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the subject
property under conditions that indicate any other existing release, past release, or material threat
of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or
into the ground, groundwater or surface water of the property.
Based on Hyalite’s investigations, there were several historic recognized environmental
conditions that involved releases of contaminants to the soils and underlying groundwater within
the property of interest.
LUST releases
Facility ID Release
ID
Date of
Release
Resolve Date Active
1604052 345 7/16/1990 9/16/1999 No
1604052 1136 3/31/1992 7/22/2008 No
1604052 2319 8/17/1994 2/3/1995 No
Remedial Response Site Release: This site was listed in 1997 as a result of a release
discovered during the removal of a concrete vault that contained road oil. The site was
delisted in 1999.
The above recognized releases have been resolved and likely do not pose an environmental
concern to the property. The MDT property currently has two 10,000 gallon USTs in use, one
diesel and one gasoline. The current 10,000 gallon USTs are currently in compliance with DEQ.
Suspect environmental conditions based on past releases, and the historic and present uses of the
property, include the possibility of hazardous substances or petroleum products beneath the
property of interest as a result of the use of floor drains located within the majority of the
buildings. In addition, there may be stained soils underlying the areas where there is currently
asphalt. These stains would likely be from past spills / leaks prior to paving the site.
This Phase I ESA has been performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of
American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM) Practice E 1527-05 Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM,
2005). This Phase I ESA does not address asbestos-containing materials, radon, lead-based
54
287
14
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
paint, wetlands, regulatory compliance, cultural and historic resources, industrial hygiene, health
and safety, ecological resources, endangered species or indoor air quality. Hyalite
Environmental was contracted through Brit Fontenot, City of Bozeman. The findings and
conclusions generated or produced here are intended exclusively for the use of Brit Fontenot,
City of Bozeman, and specific parties designated by Brit Fontenot.
__________________________________________________________ 6/28/2013
Chris Thelen, P.E. Hyalite Environmental, LLP Date
8.0 Opinion
It is the opinion of the environmental professional that based on the Findings (Section 7.0), it is
likely that contaminants exist on the property of interest that may require appropriate cleanup /
remediation if and when encountered during remodeling or demolition. The exact design /
configuration of the floor drains within the buildings throughout the property (including whether
they contain a concrete catch vault and outlet pipe), and the condition of these substructures are
not known, especially the drains that were installed during the early development of the property
in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The possibility of encountering contaminated soils is likely
during the removal / demolition of the buildings and subsequent floor drains. There is also a
potential for impacts to shallow groundwater underlying the drains and piping. Removal of
contaminated soils and possible groundwater monitoring may be needed. Any observance of
stained soils during removal of these structures will need to be reported to MDEQ, and
appropriate action(s) taken.
It is also possible that stained soils may be found during construction / demolition activities
beneath areas of asphalt or other surfaces. These situations would likely involve minimal
excavation / cleanup, as the “source” of the release if no longer present.
The scientific and technical reasons for concluding that identified potential environmental
material threats within the minimum approximate search distance from the parcel of interest do
not present a potential threat or recognized environmental condition on the parcel of interest
include:
The potential environmental material threat has been resolved, often attested to by the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality (examples: historic petroleum leaks
were cleaned up and resolved and neighboring USTs have been removed);
The potential environmental material threat would not impact the parcel of interest
due to spatial distance from the site (examples: Sites that were identified in the
databases have intervening areas and properties that do not show impacts);
The potential environmental material threat would not impact the parcel of interest
due to the amount of time since the potential environmental material threat was present
55
288
15
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
(examples:: spills that occurred in the past would dissipate and no longer be hazardous
over time);
The potential environmental material threat would not impact the parcel of interest
because it is hydraulically down gradient of the parcel of interest (examples: impacted
ground water that is down gradient of the parcel of interest; source of impacts to surface
water that is downstream of the parcel of interest).
9.0 Conclusions
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM
Practice E 1527 of State of Montana Department of Transportation property located at 907 N
Rouse, Bozeman, MT.
Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 10 of this report.
This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection
with the property. There is a good possibility that future excavation of the asphalt pavement or
demolition and excavation in areas of the existing buildings may uncover contaminated or
stained soils.
10.0 Deviations
There were no deletions or deviations from ASTM Practice E 1527 in performance of this Phase
I ESA.
56
289
16
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
10.0 References
American Society for Testing Materials, 2005, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process," ASTM Standard E 1527
-- 05, West Conshohocken, PA.
American Society for Testing Materials, 2008, "Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forested or Rural
Land," ASTM Standard E 2247--08, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM -- see American Society for Testing Materials
Bates, Grace Kamp, 1994, “Gallatin County Places & Things, Present & Past,” second edition,
Gallatin County Historical Society.
DNRC – see Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
EPA – see United States Environmental Protection Agency
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, 2013, “Ground Water Information Center,” retrieved
June 2013, from http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu/.
MDEQ -- see Montana Department of Environmental Quality
MDOA -- see Montana Department of Administration
Montana Department of Administration, 2013, "CAMA" database, retrieved June 2013, from
http://gis.doa.state.mt.us/index.html
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "CECRA Priority Sites" database,
retrieved June 2013 from http://www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "Closed landfills," retrieved June
2013from http://www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "Controlled Allocation of Liability Act
(CALA) Program," retrieved June 2013, from http://www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "EnviroNet" database, retrieved June
2013, from http://nris.state.mt.us/wis/environet/
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "Open Landfills," retrieved June 2013,
from http://www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp .
57
290
17
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Hyalite Environmental, LLP
City of Bozeman - MDT Property June 2013
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "UST list", retrieved June 2012, from
http://www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "LUST field Sites", retrieved June 2012,
from http://www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp .
Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 2013, "Voluntary Cleanup and
Redevelopment Act (VCRA) Registry," retrieved June 2013, from
http://www.deq.state.mt.us/index.asp .
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2013, “Water Rights database,”
retrieved June 2013, from http://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_rts/default.asp
Montana Natural Resource Information System, 2013, retrieved June 2013, from
http://nris.state.mt.us
National Response Center, 2013, “ERNS Database,” retrieved June 2013, from
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/wdbcgi/wdbcgi.exe/WWWUSER/WEBDB.foia_query.show_pa
rms
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 2013, retrieved June 2013 from
http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgweb/HistPres/SanbornMaps.htm .
Smith, Phyllis, 1996, “Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley: A History,” Twodot Publishing,
Helena, 348 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2013, “Envirofacts Data Warehouse,” retrieved
June 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html .
Western Regional Climate Center, 2013, " Bozeman Montana State University weather station
(241044)," June 2013, from http://wrcc.dri.edu.
58
291
APPENDIX B - ROSE PARK
292
Printing: Layout Page http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?41
1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:35 AM
59
293
60294
PROPERTY LINE
WETLAND BOUNDARY
POTENTIAL WETLANDBOUNDARY
61
295
62
296
63
297
64
298
65
299
66
300
67
301
68
302
69
303
70
304
71
305
72
306
73
307
74
308
75
309
76
310
APPENDIX C - YMCA SITE
311
Printing: Layout Page http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/layout.aspx?51
1 of 1 10/28/2013 8:52 AM
77
312
EXISTINGDESCRIPTIONLEGENDSHEET OF CAD NO.DESIGNED BY:QUALITY CHECK:JOB NO.FIELDBOOKDRAWN BY:DATE:THOMAS, DEAN & HOSKINS, INC.
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
REVISIONS
BY
BY
BY
DATE
DATE
DATE
DESCR
DESCR
DESCR
.DWGGALLATIN COUNTY REGIONAL PARK
NE1/4, SECTION 3, T2S, R5E, P.M.M., CITY OF BOZEMAN, GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA
SITE TOPOGRAPHY1 17042T1B07-04222 JUNE 2007FB150/57-61JEUO:\Proposals\YMCA\7042T1.dwg, 7/2/2013 7:53:56 AM, KLS
78313
79
314
80315
August 10, 2007 Project 07-2314
Mr. Kurt Ratz
CTA Architects Engineers
Via E-Mail:kurtr@ctagroup.com
Dear Kurt:
Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Gallatin County 911 Communications Building,
Vaquero Parkway, Bozeman, Montana
We have completed the preliminary geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Gallatin County 911
Communication Building you authorized on June 27, 2007. The purpose of the preliminary geotechnical
evaluation was to assist your firm and Gallatin County in evaluating the suitability of the proposed site for
the proposed facility. These services were performed in general accordance with our proposal to you
dated June 27, 2007.
Proposed Construction
If selected as the preferred site, the proposed Gallatin County 911 Communication Building will be
located approximately 100 feet southwest of the intersection of Vaquero Parkway and Davis Lane. The
layout of the facility and parking lot area has not been selected. However, the facility will likely consist
of one primary two-story building, and then one or more smaller support or equipment buildings. Paved
parking and driveways will also be constructed on the proposed site. The primary building will likely
utilize heavy masonry, concrete and/or steel construction, however, loads are not available at this time.
The buildings will have earth supported floor slabs placed near grade. Basements are generally not
planned at this time.
Available Information
Stahly Engineering & Associates (SEA) provided us with a site survey showing the proposed site. This
plan is dated August 7, 2007, and was used for our attached Boring Location Sketch.
Field Procedures
Six soil borings were performed on the proposed project site. The soil borings were performed on June
28 and 29, 2007, with a truck-mounted auger rig having an automatic hammer. Temporary piezometers
consisting of 1-inch PVC pipe were installed in three of the borings to allow for extended water level
measurements.
The proposed boring locations were selected by Mr. Brett Warren, EI, an engineer with our firm, and then
staked by our drill crew. The boring elevations and locations were later surveyed by SEA, and were
81
316
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07-2314 Page 2
provided to us in a table format and drawing, respectively.
Laboratory Procedures
Samples from the borings were returned to our office and visually classified and logged by a geotechnical
engineer. The soils encountered in the borings were classified in accordance with American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Method of Test D 2488, "Standard Practice for Description and
Identification of Soils (Visual – Manual Procedures)." A summary of the ASTM classification system is
attached. Representative samples will remain in our office for a period of 60 days to be available for your
examination.
Two thin-walled tube samples from the borings were selected for consolidation tests. The results of the
consolidation tests are attached to this report.
Results
Existing Site Conditions. Photographs of the site were obtained by our drill crew at the time of our field
work, but we did not perform an engineering reconnaissance of the site. The photographs indicate that a
portion of the vegetation has been removed, and the site appears to be a former agricultural field.
Observations made by the drill crew indicate the site appears to be previously undeveloped. The site
plane provided by SEA indicates the site to have a high elevation of about 4724 at the south end of the
site, and a low elevation of about 4719 at the north end, or a slope of about 1 1/2 percent down to the
northwest.
Geology. The Preliminary Geologic Map of the Bozeman 30' by 60' Quadrangle, compiled by Vuke et
al, indicates the site geology consists of an alluvial braid plain deposit. This deposit is described as
including well rounded, well sorted, bouldery gravel and sand with some thin beds of clayey silt. The
soils encountered on the proposed site generally fit the description of an alluvial braid plain deposit.
Soils. The general soil profile encountered at the six borings was relatively similar. These borings
generally encountered 5 to 10 inches of topsoil and root zone underlain by low to medium plasticity lean
clay to depths ranging from 3 to 4 1/2 feet. Beneath the lean clay, the borings encountered poorly graded
gravel with sand to depths ranging from 11 to 16 feet. Clayey gravel with sand was then encountered to
the borings' termination depths of 15 1/2 and 25 1/2 feet. These strata are described in more detail below.
Lean Clay Alluvium. All borings encountered lean clay alluvium to depths ranging from 3 to 4
1/2 feet. Penetration resistances ranged from 1 to 13 blows per foot (BPF), but were generally
between 2 and 6 BPF. These results indicate the clay was generally of a soft to medium
consistency. Pocket penetrometer estimates of the unconfined compressive strengths ranged from
1 to greater than 4 tons per square foot (tsf), indicating the clay ranges from a medium to very
stiff consistency.
Gravel Alluvium. Gravel alluvium was encountered beneath the clay in all the borings to their
termination depths of 15 1/2 and 25 1/2 feet. The gravels consisted of either poorly graded gravel
with sand or clayey gravel with sand. Cobbles are also likely present within the gravel.
Penetration resistances in the gravel alluvium generally ranged from 36 to 86 BPF, indicating the
gravel alluvium is dense to very dense.
82
317
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07-2314 Page 3
Groundwater. Groundwater levels on the proposed site is relatively shallow (4 to 6 1/2 feet).
Groundwater was observed at elevations ranging from 4714 1/2 to 4718 1/2. One-inch piezometers were
installed in Borings ST-1P, ST-4P, and ST-5P to allow for extended monitoring of groundwater levels on
the site.
Table 1. Summary of Groundwater Level Measurements
Boring Surface Elevation Depth to Groundwater
Groundwater
Elevation
ST-1P 4720.3 5.6' 4714.7*
ST-2 4722.9 6' 4717
ST-3 4720.9 4' 4717
ST-4P 4723.6 6.7' 4716.9*
ST-5P 4721.4 5.7' 4715.7*
ST-6 4724.0 5 ½' 4718 1/2
*Static groundwater levels observed in piezometers on June 29, 2007.
Laboratory Tests.
Classification Tests. Classification tests consisting of Atterberg limits and percent-finer-than-a-
200-sieve were conducted on two of the clay alluvium samples. The liquid limit of the clay
alluvium samples tested was 31, the plastic limit 20 and the plasticity index 11. The percent-
finer-than-a-200-sieve of these samples ranged from 86 to 93 percent. Based on these test results,
the samples classified as low plasticity lean clay. The ASTM symbol for these soils is CL.
The Atterberg limits tests indicated a low potential for volume change, i.e., shrinking and
swelling with changes in moisture content. The plastic limit was near or below the natural
moisture contents, indicating the soils tested are not likely to absorb a significant amount of
moisture if they are covered by a slab.
Consolidation Tests. The results of the consolidation tests performed on the clay alluvium
samples from Borings ST-2 and ST-4P are shown on the graphs in the Appendix. The samples
collapsed less than ½ percent when inundated under a load of 500 psf. This is a relatively low
value. Compression under a load increase of 2,000 psf was about 4 ½ to 6 ½ percent. These are
moderate to high values indicating the clays are moderate to highly compressible.
The initial moisture content and dry density of the samples were determined as part of the test.
The initial moisture contents of the samples ranged from 26.4 to 28.4 percent, indicating they
were wet and over the soil’s estimated remolded optimum moisture content. The initial dry
densities ranged from 93.5 to 93.9 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These are typical values for lean
clay alluvium.
83
318
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07-2314 Page 4
Preliminary Analysis and Recommendations
Discussion. The proposed site along Vaquero Parkway being considered for the proposed 911 Building
site can generally be described as a moderately thick layer of rather soft to soft clay underlain by dense
gravel alluvium. The clays are generally quite weak and easily disturbed during construction activities,
and are not well suited for support of heavy buildings. However, the underlying gravels are dense to very
dense and are generally well suited for supporting both heavy and light structures on conventional frost-
depth spread footings.
For the primary building, we recommend totally removing all of the clays from beneath the proposed
building area, and replacing it with compacted structural gravel backfill. The new building could then be
supported on conventional spread footing foundations and earth supported floor slabs. For the lighter
support and equipment buildings, it may be possible to support the foundations and floor slabs on
undisturbed clay, or compacted backfill placed over the undisturbed soils, provided the foundation loads
are relatively low. Although some of the borings indicate some of the clays are likely too soft even for
lightly loaded foundations, and it may be necessary to subexcavate the clays from beneath foundations
depending on the actual building location.
Bearing capacities in the alluvial clay can be expected to range from 1,000 psf to 1,500 psf, while bearing
capacities in the alluvial gravel can be expected to range from 4,000 to 5,000 psf, or possibly higher, if
necessary.
The on-site clays are highly susceptible to disturbance during construction activities, and special
considerations will be needed in preparing subgrades in parking and driveway areas. These
considerations typically consist of measures such as haul roads, stabilization with geotextiles, thicker
pavement sections and/or subexcavation and stabilization of soft areas.
Groundwater was also encountered at fairly shallow depths on the proposed site. It is common for
groundwater levels in the Bozeman area to rise several feet due to spring thaw and irrigation, and
groundwater levels during construction may be higher than the levels we measured during drilling. The
presence of high groundwater could complicate the excavations performed on the proposed site, and
considerable dewatering could be required, particularly for deeper excavations. Due to the high
groundwater, basements should be avoided, if possible, but if basements are planned, permanent
perimeter and subfloor drainage systems will be necessary to permanently lower the groundwater level
and control seepage. More detailed recommendations are discussed below.
Site Preparation. We recommend all vegetation, topsoil, and root zone be removed from beneath the
proposed footings, slabs, and pavement. The thickness of topsoil and root zone at the borings was 6 to 10
inches. Actual depth of removal across the site should be determined by observations during stripping.
It is our opinion conventional spread footings and earth support floor slabs can be utilized for the
structures planned on the proposed site. For the primary structure, which will have heaver foundation
loadings, we recommend removing all of the clay from beneath foundations and replacing it with
compacted sandy gravel. To provide more uniform floor slab and interior foundation support, we also
recommend removing all of the clays from beneath the floor slab areas.
We recommend footings bear on undisturbed alluvial gravel or compacted backfill placed over
undisturbed alluvial gravel. We recommend all existing clay be subexcavated from beneath the proposed
84
319
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07-2314 Page 5
footings and floor slabs and oversize zones extending 1 foot (horizontal) beyond the footings for every
foot of subexcavation below the footings, i.e. 1:1 oversizing.
In pavement areas, it will be necessary to strip the topsoil, and the exposed subgrade should be scarified
and recompacted before placing any structural fill or pavement base or subbase. Extreme care will need
to be taken to avoid excessively disturbing the clay subgrade during construction. We also recommend
constructing haul roads during construction to keep rubber tired equipment off of the clay subgrade.
Additional measures such as stabilization with geotextiles and/or subexcavation and backfilling with
gravels may be needed in soft areas that are identified or develop during construction.
Dewatering. Groundwater measurements taken while drilling indicate groundwater is fairly close to the
clay and gravel interface. With the seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels, it is likely groundwater
levels during construction could be significantly higher than the levels measured during drilling.
Therefore, groundwater could be encountered during the building excavation. If groundwater is
encountered above the gravel surface, the groundwater can likely be displaced as the gravel backfill is
advanced across the excavation. Fairly significant dewatering will be required during the excavation of
deeper utilities. Basements for the proposed buildings should be avoided, if possible, but if planned will
require permanent perimeter and subfloor drainage systems to control seepage and permanently lower the
groundwater level.
Spread Footing Foundations. For conventional frost depth spread footings placed on undisturbed
alluvial gravel or compacted backfill placed over undisturbed alluvial gravel, preliminary settlement
calculations indicate bearing capacities of 4,000 to 5,000 psf will result in settlements of less than 1 inch
for column loads up to 500 kips. For the smaller support and equipment buildings, spread footing
foundations bearing directly on the the medium to rather stiff clays, spread footings can be designed for
bearing pressures of about 1,000 to 1,500 psf for column loads up to 50 kips and wall loads up to 3 kips
per lineal foot. Settlement should be less than 1 inch. The soft to very soft clays will not be suitable for
direct foundation support, and it will be necessary to subexcavate the clays down to the gravels for these
structures. The above bearing capacity and settlement values should be considered estimates, and further
analysis will be required once specific footing elevations, site grades and building loads are determined.
Seismic Considerations. Based on the results of our soil borings and review of available geologic
information, we recommend using a “Stiff soil profile, Site Class D,” as defined by the 2006 International
Building Code (IBC) for design. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) wesbsite indicates the
project location to have a maximum 1.0 second spectral response acceleration, S1, of 23 percent of gravity
and a maximum 0.2 second spectral response acceleration, SS, of 75 percent of gravity.
Pavement Areas. After stripping the topsoil and root zone, we recommend the upper 6 inches of the
resulting subgrade be scarified, moistened to a moisture content near optimum, and compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Method of
Test D 698 (standard Proctor). Pavement sections consisting of approximately 3 inches of asphalt
concrete underlain by 12 inches of compacted base course would be sufficient in automobile areas, while
3 inches of asphalt pavement underlain by 18 inches of compacted base course would likely be sufficient
in truck areas. These pavement sections are preliminary, and should the site be developed in the future,
further analysis will be required.
Additional Geotechnical Analysis. Should the proposed 911 Building be constructed on the site, further
geotechnical analysis will be required. A site map showing the location of the proposed building along
85
320
CTA Architects Engineers August 10, 2007
Project 07-2314 Page 6
with anticipated loading will be required. Additional shallow borings are recommended at specific
structure locations, and additional geotechnical engineering analysis will be required to determine
foundation and pavement recommendations. If basements are planned, piezometers should also be
installed in the building specific borings to assist in the design of the subfloor drainage systems and to
assist in establishing basement floor elevations.
General Recommendations
The preliminary analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained
from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated on the attached sketch. Additional geotechnical
evaluation will be needed for the project. Often, variations occur between these borings, the nature and
extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted.
Services performed by SK Geotechnical Corporation personnel for this project have been conducted with
that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this
area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Thank you for using SK Geotechnical. If you have any questions regarding this report, please call Brett
Warren or Cory Rice at (406) 652-3930.
Sincerely,
Brett M. Warren, EI
Engineer
Cory G. Rice, PE
Senior Engineer
bmw/cgr:khr
Attachments:
Site Location Sketch
Boring Location Sketch
Geologic Sketch
Descriptive Terminology
Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 through ST-6
Consolidation/Swell Tests (2)
86
321
STREAMLINE DAYTIME SERVICE ROUTE
322
HARMON STREAMRENOVA
ANNIE MEAGHERYELLOWSTONE AVE N 27TH AVEBUCKRAKE AVEDAVIS LNFERGUSON AVEFALLON ST
COLLEGE ST
KAGY BLVD
COLLEGE ST6TH AVEMSU STRAND UNION
MSU
CAMPUS
MSU HEDGES
COMPLEX
DOWNTOWN
TRANSFER
LAW & JUSTICE CENTER
TECH PARK
BABCOCK
GALLATIN
VALLEY MALL
CLEVELAND ST
HARRISON ST
CURTISS ST
KOCH ST
STORY ST
POST
OFFICE
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
PEACH ST.
BOZEMAN HIGH SCHOOLHASTINGS
CENTER
VILLARD ST
BEALL ST
WALLACELAMME ST
MUSEUM OF
THE ROCKIES
BOZEMAN
DEACONESS
HOSPITAL(PHARMACYENTRANCE)
MENTAL
HEALTH
CAMPUS
CHERRY
S. PINECREST
BABCOCK
MAIN ST
BABCOCK
TOOLE
KOONTZ TRAILER PARK
COTTONWOODCOTTONWOODHUFFINE LANE
THERIDGE
VALLEY COMMONS DR
BABCOCK
LAREDO DR
CASCADE
GENA CIRCLE
VILLARD ST
S-CURVE
DURSTON RDDURSTON RD
OAK ST
ANNIE ST
DURSTON RD
OAK ST OAK ST
WAL-MARTTSCHACHE
OAK ST
TAMARACK
BUS DEPOT
ROSE ST
HEMLOCK ST
FAIRGROUNDS
COLLEGE ST
PEACH ST.
KOCH ST
STORY ST
RAVALLI
DAY’S INN
ASPEN MEADOWS
FERGUSON AVERMSC
NORTH 19TH AVEINSET
FOUR CORNERS & BELGRADE INSET
WAL-MARTBRIDGER PEAKSTOWN CENTER(NORTH)N 7TH AVE.ELLIS ST
HA
G
G
E
R
T
Y5TH AVETOWN PUMPE BAXTER LN
SU
GV
DT
ARROWHEAD
SHEDHO
RN DRFRANK RD
QUALITY INN (IN BACK LOT)
BELGRADE
MADISON AVE.
W.
M
I
S
S
O
U
L
A
HUFFINE LANE
FOUR CORNERS & BELGRADE
CATTAIL
POSTOFFICE
CITYBREW
GALLATIN CENTER(STAPLES LOT)
SOC. SEC.
TOWN
PUMP
NORTH 19TH AVE
TRANSFER POINTS ROUTES INCLUDED
BLUELINE
YELLOWLINE
REDLINE
ORANGELINE
GREENLINE
STOP BOTH DIRECTIONSCOMMON STOPBUSSTOP
More current schedule information and updates406 - 587 - 2434 OR streamlinebus.com Pg. One : Drop-off Only Details
DOWNTOWN
HUB
MSU-STRAND
UNIONGALLATIN
VALLEY MALL
LEGEND
DIRECTION OVERLAP DROP - OFF ONLY
SU
GV
DT
BLUELINE YELLOWLINE REDLINEORANGELINE GREENLINE
DAYTIME SERVICE
87
323
From:Lee Hazelbaker
To:Scott Hedglin
Subject:Swimming Complex
Date:Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:12:01 PM
I hope this reaches you. We met yesterday as an Operations Committee and wouldlike to stay in touch with you as the project moves forward. We would like to be asaccommodating as possible but if there is a spot already on our route that would beideal. We are pretty locked in for the next two years with the schedule as it isbecause of financial issues.
Let's stay in touch and see what works out.
Lee
88
324
SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENT CORRESPONDENCE
325
From:Shockley, Sue
To:scott@arch118.com
Subject:Fairgrounds
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2013 3:08:59 PM
Scott, I’m glad you phoned this morning regarding the possible City
development to the east of the Fairgrounds, on the MDT property. The Fair
Board is very open to discussions regarding the shared use of parking space if a
City facility is actually developed on the that property. I have visited, briefly
with City Manager Chris Kukuski about that possibility. If you have further
questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sue
Sue Shockley, Manager
Gallatin County Fairgrounds Events Park
901 North Black Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-582-3270
"life is too short for drama, laugh insanely, love truly and forgive quickly"
89
326
From:Fellowship Baptist Church
To:scott@arch118.com
Subject:Re: Property at Oak & 27th, Bozeman
Date:Monday, November 04, 2013 3:12:36 PM
Hi Scott,
We have said numerous times to City officials that we would gladly do what we could to benefit our community, including any shared parking situations that may be advantageous on the site. Of course, we would like to know details before formally agreeing to anything, and half of the property is for sale right now, the sale of which may affect our ability to help with parking, but in general we would be happy to help any way we can.
Very sorry about the number, we are in the process of switching carriers. Until then, you can reach me at the number below.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve Van WinklePastor, Fellowship Baptist ChurchBozeman. MT.579-0139
On Nov 4, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Fellowship Baptist Church <info@fbc-mt.org> wrote:
Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4G LTE
-------- Original message --------Subject: Property at Oak & 27th, BozemanFrom: Scott Hedglin <scott@arch118.com>To: info@fbc-mt.orgCC: Property at Oak & 27th, Bozeman
Greetings-
I am a local architect who is working with the City of Bozeman to determinethe location of a possible new indoor/outdoor swimming facility. Rose Park(immediately east of your property) is one of the sites being considered.
The nature of my contact is to ask about the possibility of shared parking
90
327
if it is determined that Rose Park would best serve the City. In general,we intend to provide adequate parking on the Rose Park site, but if"overflow" parking becomes necessary, on occasion (such as swim meets, etc),would Fellowship Baptist be willing to enter into an agreement with theCity? Shared costs, time of need/availability, and various other concernswill need to be addressed. However, at this time, we are only inquiring asto whether or not you would be open to such an arrangement.
I apologize for the email, but the telephone number listed in the phone bookand online is disconnected.
Thanks for your time addressing this message. I look forward to hearingfrom you.
Scott Hedglin | AIA, NCARB, LEEDAP | architecture118 | 406-599-7549 | PO Box6723, Bozeman, MT 59771
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments, if any, may contain confidential and privileged material and are intended only for the person or entity to which the message is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, disclosure, or copying of this information is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately by reply e-mail, and destroy all copies of the original message.
91
328
1
Luke Jackson
From:Jimmy Talarico <jimt@ctagroup.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:05 PM
To:Luke Jackson
Cc:Andrea Stevenson; Kurt Ratz
Subject:YMCA parking
Luke,
This email is to summarize our conversation on the phone regarding parking at the YMCA site. As I mentioned, the
county will be redrawing the boundaries for the Y's leased area. They were open to redrawing based on the Y's parking
needs. And they were open to the idea of a shared parking agreement. We didn't talk specific numbers as to how many
spaces would be dedicated only to the Y versus shared with the county, but the general understanding is that both
parties are open to finding the best parking solutions at this location.
Hope that helps and let me know if you need any further clarification.
Thanks,
Jimmy
Jimmy Talarico
Architecture/Business Development o 406.922.7125
92
329
YMCA - City of Bozeman Partnership
Memorandum of Understanding – DRAFT
September 27, 2013
Purpose/Vision Statement:
The City and YMCA have mutual interests in providing recreation opportunities and desire to ensure that
people of all ages and economic levels are provided with the opportunity to enjoy a broad range of
health and wellness services provided by a well-planned aquatics and recreational facility. We recognize
that by working together we can more efficiently and effectively serve our community. We each bring
strengths to the table that can assist our partner in meeting their goals, and we recognize that each
other has unique organizational needs that must meet through any cooperative agreement. A fully
integrated partnership will result in combined service delivery that exceeds the services each could
provide individually.
Findings
The City is charged with the responsibility of providing public facilities for the purpose of leisure
time, recreation activities and health enrichment for the general public wellness of its citizens.
The City is currently planning for the construction of a new family aquatics center for the City.
The YMCA is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to building self-esteem and enriching body,
mind and spirit for persons of all ages and economic levels and addresses community needs
through wellness, leadership and family strengthening activities.
The YMCA is currently engaged in a capital campaign to construct a $10.5 million dollar multi-
purpose recreation center to meet the needs of YMCA members.
Both planned facilities are likely to include common components that could be shared (locker
rooms, activity and community gathering rooms, entry and lobby areas, mechanical systems).
Operating Concepts
The elements of a cooperative agreement for the construction and operation of an integrated recreation
and aquatics center (hereafter referred to as "Facility") can be described through the following four
divisions; Land/Infrastructure, Building, Operations, and Agreements
LAND/INFRASTRUCTURE
• The Gallatin Valley YMCA will lease or sell a portion of its 7 acres of land to the City to construct
the Facility
• The City will own or lease the property on which its building sits and will be a member of a
condominium association that jointly owns and operates the common joint-use areas.
• The YMCA will have sole ownership of the property under its building and will be a member of a
condominium association that jointly owns and operates the common joint-use areas.
• In exchange for leasing the land from the YMCA for $1, the City of Bozeman will join the YMCA
in the planning, design and construction of the Facility. Additionally, the City and YMCA will
jointly fund the infrastructure needed to construct the facility. This may include but not be
limited to; Vaquero Parkway and required sidewalks, water and sewer extensions and service
connections, parking lots, and landscaping
BUILDING
• Both parties find benefit in the design, construction and operation of a joint-use and fully
integrated facility
330
• The Facility will be designed so that it can be constructed and operated by either party should
the other party's circumstances delay their participation.
• Each party will be responsible for the construction cost of their portion of the Facility. The City
and YMCA will share equally in the construction costs of all joint use areas including site
improvements.
OPERATIONS
• The City will own and operate the aquatics portion of the Facility and the YMCA will own and
operated the multi-purpose recreation areas of the Facility. The common areas and joint spaces
will be owned, operated and maintained by both parties through a condominium association.
AGREEMENTS
• The Gallatin Valley YMCA and the City of Bozeman shall enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding that clearly defines the framework of a partnership to include
o Design costs and responsibilities as they relate to architect work, construction
manager, construction documents and timelines, bidding and award
• A payback agreement will outline the terms and conditions of reimbursement for costs incurred
by one party should the other party be unable to proceed at the agreed upon schedule
• The formation of a condominium association to manage, maintain, operate and insure the
common and shared-use areas
• Operating agreement
o The City and YMCA may find it beneficial to share personnel and duties such as
staffing the front desk
o Hours of operation and time block scheduling
o Membership costs and daily use fee structures
o Utility costs for common shared-use areas
331