HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-07_Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) P_11
Report compiled on October 17, 2007
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Jody Sanford, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) Plan
October 1, 2007 Draft
MEETING DATE: Monday, October 22, 2007
PUBLIC HEARING
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission adopts the October 1, 2007 draft of the PROST
Plan, with all of the revisions listed in the attached memo dated October 16, 2007, based on a
recommendation of approval from the Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB).
BACKGROUND: The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB), in conjunction with City
staff and many community groups, have been working on the attached PROST Plan for several
years. They are now forwarding the document to the City Commission for final review and
adoption.
This document provides a framework for integrating existing facilities and programs and further
developing a system of parks, recreation facilities and programs, open spaces, and trails. Specifically,
this plan will be used to:
· Establish City policies regarding parks, recreation, open space, and trails
· Evaluate development proposals
· Evaluate and provide a basis for grant applications
· Provide a basis for regulatory requirements
· Evaluate and prioritize the expenditure of public funds for land acquisition, development,
and maintenance for recreational lands and facilities
· Influence the preparation of individual park master plans
· Determine the siting of new parks, recreation facilities, open spaces, and/or trails
· Assist the Recreation Division in developing recreation programs
The RPAB held a public hearing on this proposed plan on September 20, 2007. Seventeen members
of the public attended this hearing and a summary of their comments is attached. At their October
11, 2007 meeting the RPAB voted unanimously to recommend that the City Commission accept and
adopt this plan.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Staff is not aware of any unresolved issues. However, it is important to
note that there are some recommendations in this document that differ from current policy, practice
and regulations. Special attention should be paid to the contents of Chapters 8 (Policy Issues) and 10
(Recommendations and Implementation).
72
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time, but may include costs to
acquire, development, operate and maintain recreational facilities. There may also be additional costs
associated with developing and providing recreational programming. However, this document also
identifies many options and opportunities for new and/or increased revenue sources such as grants,
special improvement districts, user fees, etc.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Jody Sanford at jsanford@bozeman.net if you have any
questions.
APPROVED BY: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST Plan) – October 1, 2007 DRAFT
Memo from Jody Sanford dated October 16, 2007
Memo from Sandy Dodge, RPAB Chairman, dated October 16, 2007
Summary of the RPAB’s September 20, 2007 public hearing
Public comment letters
73
BOZEMAN BOZEMAN BOZEMAN BOZEMAN BOZEMAN PPPPPARKSARKSARKSARKSARKS,,,,,
RRRRR ECREAECREAECREAECREAECREATIONTIONTIONTIONTION,,,,,
OOOOOPEN PEN PEN PEN PEN SSSSS PPPPPAAAAACECECECECE
AND AND AND AND AND TTTTTRAILSRAILSRAILSRAILSRAILS
(PROST) PLAN(PROST) PLAN(PROST) PLAN(PROST) PLAN(PROST) PLAN
OCTOBER 1, 2007 DRAFT
74
City of Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
This certifies that the Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan has been
duly adopted by the Bozeman City Commission by City of Bozeman Resolution No.
XXXX dated XXXXX.
Bozeman City Commission
Jeff Krauss, Mayor
Sean Becker
Kaaren Jacobson
Steve Kirchhoff
Jeff Rupp
Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Sandy Dodge, Chair
Terry Baldus
Anne Banks
Gene Brooks
David Cook
Elizabeth Davis
Adam Fruh
Chris Guy
Sue Henning
Joanne Jennings
Ted Koterwas
Cynthia Mernin
Robert Wade
William VandenBos
75
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Table of Contents
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES iv
TABLES v
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Plan 1-3
1.2 Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board 1-3
1.3 Core Values, Vision and Guiding Principles 1-4
1.4 Overview of Other Park and Recreation Plans 1-5
1.5 Relationship to Other Adopted Planning Documents 1-7
1.6 Planning Area 1-9
1.7 Planning Process and Public Outreach 1-9
1.8 Process for Amendment 1-12
1.9 State Law Requirements 1-13
CHAPTER 2 – COMMUNITY PROFILE
2.0 Introduction 2-1
2.1 Regional Recreation Context 2-1
2.2 Hydrology 2-2
2.3 Weather and Climate 2-4
2.4 Demographic Profile 2-4
2.5 Annexation 2-10
2.6 PROST Plan Survey Results 2-10
CHAPTER 3 – PARKS/RECREATION FACILITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.0 Introduction 3-1
3.1 Inventory of Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities 3-2
3.2 Additional Facilities 3-10
3.3 Non-City/Non-County Recreation Facilities 3-12
3.4 Land Acquisition, Development and Maintenance 3-13
3.5 City of Bozeman Parks Division 3-15
3.6 City of Bozeman Recreation Department 3-17
3.7 User Groups 3-18
3.8 PROST Survey Results 3-19
CHAPTER 4 – RECREATION PROGRAMS EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.0 Introduction 4-1
4.1 History/Background Information 4-1
4.2 City of Bozeman Recreation Department 4-3
76
Table of Contents Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page ii
CHAPTER 4 – RECREATION PROGRAMS EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONTINUED
4.3 Partnerships 4-4
4.4 Trends in Recreation Programming 4-4
4.5 Issues and Needs 4-6
CHAPTER 5 – OPEN SPACE EXISTING CONDITIONS
5.0 Introduction 5-1
5.1 History/Background Information 5-1
5.2 Inventory of Open Space 5-2
5.3 Open Space Acquisition, Development and Maintenance 5-2
5.4 Open Space Groups/Organizations 5-10
5.5 Partnerships 5-10
5.6 PROST Plan Survey Results 5-11
CHAPTER 6 – TRAILS EXISTING CONDITIONS
6.0 Introduction 6-1
6.1 History/Background Information 6-1
6.2 Classification of Trails 6-3
6.3 Land Acquisition, Development and Maintenance 6-3
6.4 Trail Groups/Organizations 6-4
6.5 Partnerships 6-6
6.6 PROST Plan Survey Results 6-6
CHAPTER 7 – SERVICE LEVELS
7.0 Introduction 7-1
7.1 Neighborhood Parks 7-2
7.2 Community Parks 7-8
7.3 Playgrounds 7-10
7.4 Park Maintenance 7-16
7.5 Recreation Facilities 7-20
7.6 Park and Trail Amenities 7-30
7.7 Trails 7-32
7.8 Recreation Programming 7-33
CHAPTER 8 – POLICY ISSUES
8.0 Introduction 8-1
8.1 Wetlands 8-1
8.2 Ponds and Lakes 8-2
8.3 Watercourse Setbacks 8-3
8.4 Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication Proposals 8-4
8.5 Parkland Dedication Requirements 8-6
8.6 Incentives for High Density and/or Infill Development 8-9
8.7 Parkland Dedication Criteria 8-10
8.8 Street Frontage 8-11
8.9 Shared Use Paths 8-13
8.10 Phased Developments 8-14
77
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Table of Contents
Page iii
CHAPTER 9 – PLANNING FRAMEWORK
9.0 Introduction 9-1
9.1 Goals and Objectives 9-1
CHAPTER 10 – RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
10.0 Introduction 10-1
10.1 Parkland Acquisition 10-1
10.2 Parkland Development 10-2
10.3 Parkland Maintenance 10-5
10.4 Recreation Programs 10-6
10.5 Recreation Facilities 10-8
10.6 Open Space Acquisition and Maintenance 10-11
10.7 Trail Acquisition 10-12
10.8 Trail Development 10-14
10.9 Trail Maintenance 10-15
10.10 Other 10-17
10.11 Top Ten Capital Facility Recommendations 10-19
10.12 Top Ten Non-Facility Recommendations 10-19
CHAPTER 11 – FUNDING OPTIONS
11.0 Introduction 11-1
11.1 Federal and State Funding Sources 11-1
11.2 Gallatin County Funding Sources 11-3
11.3 Local Funding Sources 11-4
11.4 Private Funding Sources 11-6
11.5 Innovation 11-6
11.6 Interjurisdictional Equity 11-7
CHAPTER 12 – DEFINITIONS 12-1
APPENDIX A – COMMUNITY RECREATION NEEDS SURVEY AND RESULTS A-1
APPENDIX B – USER GROUPS SURVEY AND RESULTS B-1
APPENDIX C – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CITY OF BOZEMAN PARKS C-1
APPENDIX D – USER GROUPS, SAMPLE CONTRACT & FIELD USE POLICIES D-1
APPENDIX E – POSSIBLE CROSS-COUNTRY SKI TRAIL LOCATIONS E-1
APPENDIX F - NRPA RECREATION FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS F-1
APPENDIX G - DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR PARK AND TRAIL SIGNAGE G-1
APPENDIX H - GUIDELINES FOR PARKLAND GRANT FUNDS H-1
PROST TRAIL PLAN MAP (IN SLEEVE)
78
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Figures
Page iv
FIGURES
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
Figure 1: PROST Plan Planning Area 1-10
CHAPTER 2 – COMMUNITY PROFILE
Figure 2: Streams & Ditches 2-3
CHAPTER 5 – OPEN SPACE EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 3: Open Space and Conservation Easements 5-3
CHAPTER 6 – TRAILS EXISTING CONDITIONS
Figure 4: Existing Trails 6-2
CHAPTER 7 – SERVICE LEVELS
Figure 5: Developed Neighborhood Parks Service Area in the NE Quadrant 7-4
Figure 6: Developed Neighborhood Parks Service Area in the SE Quadrant 7-5
Figure 7: Developed Neighborhood Parks Service Area in the SW Quadrant 7-6
Figure 8: Developed Neighborhood Parks Service Area in the NW Quadrant 7-7
Figure 9: Developed Playgrounds NE Quadrant 7-11
Figure 10: Developed Playgrounds SE Quadrant 7-12
Figure 11: Developed Playgrounds SW Quadrant 7-13
Figure 12: Developed Playgrounds NW Quadrant 7-14
Figure 13: Soccer Field Service Area – 2 Mile Service Radius 7-25
Figure 14: Baseball/Softball Field Service Area – ½ Mile Service Radius 7-26
Figure 15: Basketball Court Service Area – ½ Mile Service Radius 7-27
Figure 16: Tennis Court Service Area – ½ Mile Service Radius 7-28
Figure 17: Volleyball Court Service Area – ½ Mile Service Radius 7-29
PROST TRAIL PLAN MAP (IN SLEEVE)
79
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Tables
Page v
TABLES
CHAPTER 2 – COMMUNITY PROFILE
Table 2-1: Average Temperatures in Fahrenheit Scale by Month - 1892 through 2004 2-4
Table 2-2: Average Precipitation in Inches by Month - 1892 through 2004 2-4
Table 2-3: Historic Population Trends for Bozeman & Gallatin County - 1900 through 2000 2-5
Table 2-4: Population Estimates for Bozeman and Gallatin County - 2000 through 2004 2-5
Table 2-5: Population Projections - 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025 2-6
Table 2-6: Gender Percentages for Bozeman and Gallatin County -1910 through 2000 2-6
Table 2-7: Population by Age for Bozeman and Gallatin County - 1930 through 2000 2-7
Table 2-8: Montana’s Ranking in Per Capita Income - 1930 through 2004 2-9
Table 2-9: Acres Annexed to the City of Bozeman by Year - 1995 through 2004 2-10
Table 2-10: Responses to PROST Survey Question 1 by Age Group 2-11
Table 2-11: Responses to PROST Survey Question 3 by Age Group 2-11
Table 2-12: Responses to PROST Survey Question 5 by Age Group 2-11
Table 2-13: Responses to PROST Survey Question 8 by Age Group 2-12
Table 2-14: Responses to PROST Survey Question 10 by Age Group 2-12
Table 2-15: Responses to PROST Survey Question 13 by Age Group 2-13
CHAPTER 3 – PARKS/RECREATION FACILITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 3-1: Inventory of Parks within the City of Bozeman 3-3
Table 3-2: Inventory of County Parks within the Planning Area 3-7
Table 3-3: Acres of Existing Parkland by Type in Acres – 1997 and 2005 3-10
Table 3-4: Parks Division Maintenance Activities and Standards 3-16
CHAPTER 5 – OPEN SPACE EXISTING CONDITIONS
Table 5-1: Conservation Easements In and Near the Bozeman Planning Area 5-2
Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman 5-4
Table 5-3: Inventory of County Open Space within the Planning Area 5-9
CHAPTER 7 – SERVICE LEVELS
Table 7-1: Acres of Developed Neighborhood Park – Bozeman and Peer Communities 7-2
Table 7-2: Developed Neighborhood Parks in the Northeast Quadrant 7-3
Table 7-3: Developed Neighborhood Parks in the Southeast Quadrant 7-3
Table 7-4: Developed Neighborhood Parks in the Northwest Quadrant 7-8
Table 7-5: Acres of Developed Community Park – Bozeman and Peer Communities 7-9
Table 7-6: Developed Community Parks by Quadrant 7-9
Table 7-7: Maintenance Staff per Acres of Maintained Park – Bozeman and Peer Communities 7-16
Table 7-8: Annual Park Budget – Bozeman and Peer Communities 7-17
Table 7-9: Recreation Facilities – Bozeman and Peer Communities 7-19
Table 7-10: Assessment of Future Recreation Facility Needs 7-30
Table 7-11: Miles of Trails Level of Service – Bozeman and Peer Communities 7-32
80
Tables Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page vi
CHAPTER 8 – POLICY ISSUES
Table 8-1: Peer Communities Park Acres per 1,000 Population 8-7
Table 8-2: Large US Cities Park Acres per 1,000 Population 8-7
Table 8-3: City of Bozeman Parkland Projections – 2005 through 2025 8-8
81
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction
Page 1-1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 1933 Mrs. E. Lina Houston wrote: “On the school grounds of the cities and in most of the rural
districts, plots have been set aside for playgrounds with equipment of various kinds. Beall Park is a
municipal park and playground under supervision, with the grounds equipped with special apparatus,
ballgrounds, tennis courts, picnic grounds, bandstand for summer use, and with a large plot of ground
made into a skating rink in the winter time. A beautiful community building or recreation center was
built and presented to the City by Mrs. E. Broox Martin, the ground having been secured from Mrs. W.
T. Beall through funds raised by private subscription. Trees and shrubs have been added to those raised
by pioneers. Bogert Grove Park was purchased by the City, and for a time was used as a tourist park by
the City, but is now used for picnics and for Boy Scout gatherings. Cooper Park was presented to the
City through the efforts of Walter Cooper, and is a beauty spot used for picnics in the summer.”
This quote indicates the long and proud tradition the community has of citizen concern and effort
related to parks and park facilities. This statement also is indicative of the many means by which the
City has acquired parks and facilities through the years, methods such as private donation, citizen fund
raising drives and purchase by the City. Acquisition of parkland and facilities today still requires a variety
of tools and methods. While there are many innovations in parkland acquisition and facility financing,
what remains is the strong community commitment to meeting the recreational needs of our City’s
citizens.
The City’s slogan is “Bozeman: The Most Livable Place.” The City’s parks, recreation programs and
facilities, open spaces, and trails play a vital role in defining Bozeman as “the most livable place.” This
plan represents the City’s desire to proactively plan for these amenities; to achieve excellence in meeting
both current and future needs.
Parks, recreation programs and facilities, open spaces, and trails are community amenities that
contribute greatly to the quality of life enjoyed by Bozeman area residents. In fact, the 2005 Community
Characteristics and Opinion Survey, conducted as part of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan update process,
identified “access to outdoor amenities and recreation” as one of Bozeman’s most desirable community
characteristics. These resources contribute to the quality of life in many ways, including:1
1. Engaging Citizens in Their Community
· Create a sense of community.
· Provide places for people to connect and interact in a shared environment.
· Channel positive community participation by getting diverse people to work together
toward a shared vision.
2. Improving Public Health
· Provide people with contact with nature, known to confer certain health benefits and
enhance well-being.
82
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 1-2
· Engage children in health-promoting physical activity.
· Increase fitness and reduce obesity by providing physical activity opportunities.
· Mitigate climate, air, and water pollution impacts on public health.
3. Helping Children Learn
· Offer children the daily benefits of direct experience with nature—the motivation to
explore, discover, and learn about their world.
· Offer children a sense of place, self-identity, and belonging as an antidote to social
alienation, vandalism, and violence.
· Engage children in informal, experiential learning through play and shared experiences
with peers, laying the foundation for effective formal education.
4. Creating Safer Neighborhoods
· Provide access to nature adjacent to residential area to relieve stress, reducing aggression.
· Offer gathering places where neighbors form social ties that produce stronger, safer
neighborhoods.
5. Revitalizing Community
· Revive distressed areas by creating central walking, resting, and meeting places.
· Attract investment through revitalization, including park and recreation improvements.
6. Developing the Economy
· Increase property value.
· Increase municipal revenue.
· Attract and retain affluent retirees.
· Attract knowledge workers and talent.
· Encourage homebuyers to purchase homes.
7. Creating a Green Infrastructure
· Preserve essential ecological functions and protect biodiversity.
· Shape urban form and buffer incompatible uses with a system of green infrastructure.
· Reduce public costs for built infrastructure for stormwater management, flood control,
and transportation.
8. Providing for Arts and Cultural Programs
· Provide venues for artistic events and activities.
· Provide settings for in-depth and long-term partnerships between communities and
artists.
· Develop or revitalize parks through arts and cultural activities.
· Develop new audiences for arts and cultural programs and arts organizations.
83
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction
Page 1-3
9. Promoting Tourism
· Provide sites for special events and festivals that attract tourists.
· Provide sites for sports tournaments, which can be major sources of tourism and
economic benefits, especially for smaller cities.
10. Implementing Smart Growth
· Enhance mixed development and redevelopment strategies by offsetting higher density
developments with accessibility to green space.
· Strengthen the urban core and protect the fringe from overdevelopment by creating
green space.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
In general, this plan provides a framework for integrating existing facilities and programs and further
developing a system of parks, recreation facilities and programs, open spaces, and trails. Specifically,
this plan will be used to:
· Establish City policies regarding parks, recreation, open space, and trails
· Evaluate development proposals
· Evaluate and provide a basis for grant applications
· Provide a basis for regulatory requirements
· Evaluate and prioritize the expenditure of public funds for land acquisition, development, and
maintenance for recreational lands and facilities
· Influence the preparation of individual park master plans
· Determine the siting of new parks, recreation facilities, open spaces, and/or trails
· Assist the Recreation Division in developing recreation programs
1.2 BOZEMAN RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY BOARD
The City of Bozeman has had a Recreation Board for over 50 years. In 1957 the Board was called the
Board of Public Recreation, and by 1966 it was known as the City Recreation Board. On March 26,
1973 the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County and the Bozeman School District entered into an Interlocal
Agreement to establish a joint Community Recreation Department. The Interlocal Agreement provided
for the establishment of a Community Recreation Board that consisted of 12 members, and for
Administrative Trustees who were responsible for the operation of the Community Recreation
Department. In 1983 the Interlocal Agreement was dissolved and the board became the City Recreation
Board. The City Recreation Board was reorganized in May of 1990 to include parks, and the 12 member
group was renamed the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB). Later, two student
representatives were added create the current configuration of fourteen members who are appointed by
the Bozeman City Commission. The RPAB is charged with the responsibility of developing plans for
the parks, recreational programs and facilities, open spaces, and trails in the City of Bozeman, including
the regular evaluation and updating of said plans. In addition to the preparation of plans, the RPAB is
responsible for the following:
84
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 1-4
· Make recommendations to the City Commission on all matters regarding parks, recreation, open
space, and trails.
· Review program and facility fees and recreation issues that may arise.
· Assist City departments in reviewing park and trail designs in proposed developments.
· Assist City departments in evaluating recreation programs and activities.
· Aid user groups in obtaining Park Improvement Fund Grants for development of City parkland.
· Assist in the development of individual park master plans for the City’s parks.
· Support all groups who aid in planning, developing, maintaining City parks, trails, and recreation
facilities.
· Work with City departments to develop, maintain, and modify the Unified Development
Ordinance and the City’s growth policy.
· Take on such tasks as may be assigned by the City Commission.
1.3 CORE VALUES, VISION, AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1.3.0 Vision
An active community with parks, recreation facilities and programs, trails, and open spaces that are
ample in quantity and outstanding in quality to meet the needs of all of our citizens.
1.3.1 Mission
To enhance the quality of life of the City’s citizens through the provision of high quality parks,
recreation facilities and programs, trails, and open spaces.
1.3.2 Guiding Principles
· Provide recreational opportunities that are accessible and affordable to all members of the
community.
· Use public places to create a sense of community and foster social interaction.
· Strengthen relationships through shared recreation and play.
· Promote an active and healthy citizenry.
· Engage citizens in learning, arts, and culture.
· Affirm the community’s commitment to responsible land use and stewardship of the natural
environment.
· Support and enhance the community’s economy.
· Protect and enhance the beauty of the community.
· Provide transportation options and connections.
85
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction
Page 1-5
1.4 OVERVIEW OF OTHER PARK AND RECREATION PLANS
1.4.1 1975 Bozeman Park and Recreation Inventory and Work Plan
The Bozeman City-County Planning Staff completed the Bozeman Area Work Plan in 1975. The plan is
an analysis of inventories and surveys developed to determine community recreational needs and the
adequacy of the existing facilities to fulfill the present as well as future needs. It led to the formulation of
development recommendations and plans for each park, or park area, within the Bozeman area.
In 1980, the Community Recreation Board completed a study of the Bozeman Recreational Program.
The study included an inventory of existing parks, their development status, a compilation of user
groups and their needs, and recommendations. This study identified the following areas of concern:
1. A low level of public involvement and support for the City of Bozeman Recreation Department;
2. Inadequate financial support and responsibility assignment to the Recreation Department by the
City and County;
3. Inadequate recreation opportunities for the school age population; AND
4. Lack of a current recreation site acquisition and development schedule.
The study recommended the following:
1. Rural areas should be assisted in providing recreation for youths through participation in
voluntary associations and park development planning.
2. Joint funding by the City and the County should be provided for the Bozeman Recreation
Department.
3. The Bozeman Recreation Department and Gallatin County Subdivision Review Office should
coordinate efforts on the disposition of parklands.
4. Policy statements and an Interlocal Agreement should be developed that will better serve a
renewed dedication to the concept of cooperative community recreation.
1.4.2 1989 Gallatin County Recreation Plan
This plan was prepared by the Gallatin County Planning Office. It contained a detailed inventory and
description of all public and private park, recreation and school lands in Gallatin County. It also
included an analysis of past growth and development in Bozeman and the Bozeman area. The plan
suggested the adoption of subdivision park location and development criteria, cash-in-lieu fund
disbursement criteria, and linear park linkages. The plan called for more City-County cooperation
regarding recreation concerns.
The plan included a survey that was conducted from August to September, 1986. In addition to a group
of concerns that could be addressed by a multi-purpose park and other developed parks, the specific
recreation needs that were most often cited by respondents included:
· More fishing spots
· Better access to public lands
· More swimming facilities outside of the Bozeman area
· More cross-county ski trails
· More soccer, baseball, and softball fields
· More open space in the form of parks and linear trails
86
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 1-6
The conclusions drawn in the 1989 Gallatin County Recreation Plan generally reinforced the “Findings
and Recommendations” chapter (Chapter 1) of a 1979 County plan entitled “Plan for Gallatin County
Outdoor Recreation and Open Space,” despite the fact that ten years had elapsed between the
preparation of the two plans.
1.4.3 1997 Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails (POST) Plan
This document was prepared by the RPAB and first adopted in 1992. In 1997, the plan was updated
and reformatted to combine four previously separate planning documents into one plan, including:
Bozeman Area Parks, Open Space, and Trails POST Master Plan, August 1992; Bozeman Parks, Open
Space, and Trails Plan Update, 1995; City of Bozeman Parks Master Plans, 1992; and the Bozeman Area
Trails Classification, Design, Maintenance, and Construction Standards.
The 1997 compilation includes detailed information and maps for existing parks and recreation facilities;
discusses the maintenance of existing parks; discusses future park, trail, and open space needs; provides
park development and land acquisition recommendations; and provides a synopsis of responsible parties
and a timeline for implementation. Specific recommendations include:
1. In addition to parkland for passive forms of recreation, Bozeman should continue to acquire
parkland suitable for active recreation development at a ratio of approximately 6.25 acres per
1,000 population.
2. Where possible, acquire or develop parkland useable for core activities for existing and future
residents in locations that will have a service ratio of at least ¼ mile.
3. Designing pedestrian access can have a significant effect on increasing park service radii in new
developments, and should be of primary concern in the planning process.
4. Bozeman needs more facilities for organized sports.
5. Facilities for organized sport competition and practice may be best supplied, as is currently done,
by providing a series of specialty facilities in specific locations.
6. A large regional park could potentially provide a location for many of the needs for organized
sport facilities.
7. Developed facilities for organized competitive sports such as softball, baseball, and soccer are
not needed in every developed park. Opportunities for active recreation (core activities) may
well be best accomplished by providing multi-purpose fields in combination with picnic areas,
playgrounds, and areas for passive recreation in the majority of Bozeman’s parks.
8. Bozeman needs more areas for picnics, especially parks with covered facilities that can
accommodate groups of 20 to 50 people.
9. The records of park size, location, ownership, and intended use need to be kept in a fashion that
makes them easy to retrieve and review.
10. In the interval between park acquisition and development (usually by dedication) park
boundaries can become obscured and take over by adjacent uses. The City should make sure
that property boundary markers are maintained in the development process.
11. Parks that have been dedicated but not slated for immediate development should have a master
plan completed and adopted. This should become part of the public record. Where
appropriate, a minimum budget should be provided to begin implementation of park master
plans.
87
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction
Page 1-7
12. In parks acquired through the dedication process, waivers of right to protest the creation of a
park maintenance special improvement district (SID) should be considered.
1.4.4 Connecting Communities: 2001 Gallatin County Trails Report and Plan
This plan was prepared by the Gallatin County Trails Advisory Committee, which was formed as an
advisory committee to the Gallatin County Planning Board. As part of the planning process, the
Committee inventoried all existing trails including Forest Service trails, and information about existing
trails was compiled into a computer database. Committee members met with city councils, school
districts, non-profits, county boards, and other public interests to gather ideas and information.
The Connecting Communities Plan serves as both a resource guide and a trails network vision. Planning
Boards, Subdivision Review Boards, developers, school districts, and others can use the trail
development siting guidelines and the extensive supporting appendices in all trail projects.
Combining the trail planning experience of the committee with public input, the trails network vision
was created. The highest priorities were for recreational trails and for safe transport to connect towns
and community amenities. Countywide, the highest priority trail is one linking Belgrade and Bozeman.
Other high priority trail corridors are: Bozeman to the “M” trail, Springhill to Bozeman, Four Corners
to Bozeman, Four Corners to Gallatin Gateway, and Three Forks to Trident. A general principle that
should guide future trail development is the linking of residential neighborhoods with schools, parks,
shopping, and longer distance commuter trails.
1.4.5 Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)
The SCORP describes Montana’s supply of public outdoor recreation facilities, trends in demand for
those facilities, key outdoor recreation challenges and issues in Montana, and statewide goals, objectives,
actions and priorities for enhancing outdoor recreation in the years 2003 to 2007. The purpose of the
SCORP is to outline Montana’s five-year plan for outdoor recreation management, conservation, and
development. It provides the strategic framework for recreation facility managers to use as a guideline in
planning and prioritizing resources, and includes a timeline for implementation. The SCORP also
identifies Montana’s top priority statewide and regional outdoor recreation needs, and specifies a
process for allocating funding to state and local projects based on those needs.
The SCORP is required in order for the State to be eligible for federal Land & Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) funds. Since 1965, the LWCF program has provided more than $32 million to Montana
for state and local outdoor recreation projects, which are administered by Montana Fish, Wildlife &
Parks (FWP), plus an additional $3.5 billion for projects on federal lands.
1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ADOPTED PLANNING DOCUMENTS
1.5.1 Bozeman 2020 Community Plan
The City’s growth policy, the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, was adopted on October 22, 2001 and is
scheduled for review and update in 2007. A growth policy is a new term for what has commonly been
referred to as a comprehensive plan or master plan. Any of these terms refer to a long-range plan meant
to guide the development and public policy decisions which shape the physical, environmental,
economic, and social character of the area included in the plan. A growth policy includes maps and
policies which depict land uses, and direct those uses and the arrangement of future uses.
88
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 1-8
The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan is organized into 13 separate chapters or elements, which include:
· Chapter 1 – Dealing with Change · Chapter 8 – Environmental Quality & Hazards
· Chapter 2 – Introduction · Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, Trails & Open Spaces
· Chapter 3 – Background · Chapter 10 – Transportation
· Chapter 4 – Community Quality · Chapter 11 – Public Facilities and Services
· Chapter 5 – Housing · Chapter 12 – Subdivision Review
· Chapter 6 – Land Use · Chapter 13 – Implementation and Policies
· Chapter 7 – Economic Development
Each element contains background and technical information, goals, objectives, and implementation
policies. However, some of the important, and often technical, background information for some of the
elements is found in separate documents. This plan, the Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails
Plan, is one of these separate documents. Other such documents include:
· Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update (scheduled for update in 2007);
· 1997 Critical Lands Study for the Bozeman Area;
· North 19th Avenue/Oak Street Corridor Master Plan;
· Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Facility Plans; and
· Downtown Improvement Plan.
These plans have been adopted by the City of Bozeman, and are discrete documents subject to public
review and revision independent of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The currently adopted version of
the plans listed, and all accompanying appendices, amendments, and adopted modifications, as amended
from time to time, are adopted by reference and incorporated into the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan as if
set forth in full. In the event of conflicts between these other element documents and the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan, the policies of the 2020 Plan will supersede the other plan. Copies of these other
documents are available for review or checkout at the City of Bozeman’s Department of Planning and
Community Development. Copies are also available for review at the Bozeman Public Library.
1.5.2 Neighborhood and Subarea Plans
The City also engages in neighborhood and subarea planning. Examples of such plans include the North
19th Avenue/Oak Street Corridor Master Plan and the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan. These plans allow the
investigation of more detailed issues which would be burdensome to examine in a community-wide
planning process. Neighborhood and subarea plans allow for a greater degree of citizen participation in
planning efforts which will directly influence their place of residence or work. The smaller scale of plans
allows local land owners, residents, and others most affected by the finer detail of the neighborhood
plan a greater autonomy than would be likely if the fine level details were determined as part of a
community-wide plan. The neighborhood or subarea plan will provide a context to evaluate
development proposals and the connections through them and to the surrounding community. The
principal focus is expected to be on a finer-grained land use pattern, parks and trail locations, and other
land use concerns rather than on substantial policy requirements.
This plan shall influence and inform matters related to parks, recreation, open space, and trails contained
in neighborhood and subarea plans. However, where the is a conflict between the Bozeman Parks,
Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan, and a neighborhood or subarea plan, the neighborhood or subarea
plan will supersede.
89
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction
Page 1-9
1.5.3 Individual Park Plans
The City has individual park plans for many of Bozeman’s parks. Many of these plans were prepared by
Landscape Architect Dick Pohl. These existing plans contain the following information: existing
conditions and needs analysis, master plan recommendations, project development budget, and maps.
In 2002, the City began requiring developers to provide park plans for parks within their developments.
The developers propose the plan, and the plan must ultimately be reviewed by the RPAB and approved
by the City Commission. There is a significant backlog of parks without plans. The preparation of
plans for these parks should be undertaken over time by City staff and/or continued use of consultants.
The individual park plans shall be in compliance with the policies contained in this document, as well as
any applicable regulatory requirements.
1.6 PLANNING AREA
The planning area for the Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan is the same as for the City’s
other facility plans, including the wastewater, water and stormwater plans. It is also the same planning
area proposed for the update of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. This planning area contains the City
of Bozeman, as well as a 1- to 2-mile area around the City (please refer to Figure 1). The planning area
is approximately 66 square miles (42,400 acres) in size (including the City of Bozeman).
1.7 PLANNING PROCESS AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
The content of this plan was prepared, reviewed, and refined through countless meetings of the RPAB,
RPAB committees, public outreach and participation events, and final approval hearings with the
recommendation-making boards and the Bozeman City Commission. As with any long-range planning
project, the City was committed to encouraging and facilitating public involvement in this important
planning process. The Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan planning process included
several opportunities for public participation and input, including the following specific events and
activities:
· Bozeman Recreation Activities and Facilities Survey
A statistically valid mail-back survey was sent to a sample of 1,000 households in February 2005.
The addresses were randomly selected, via a computer program, from the City’s land records.
Approximately 315 surveys were returned, resulting in a confidence level of 95 percent and a
margin of error of 5.5 percent. The survey collected information regarding the adequacy of
recreational programs and facilities, recommendations to improve recreation opportunities,
which recreational activities and facilities are most popular, park use and maintenance, trail use
and maintenance, and prioritization of funding. The survey questions along with responses are
included in Appendix A.
· Focus Groups – Round 1
This focus group session was held in September 2005 for the development community – land
developers, architects, engineers, and planners. Eighty-eight invitation letters were sent out with
a set of pre-determined questions, including:
1. What kind of information should the PROST Plan include to help you with the overall
design of developments?
90
91
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction
Page 1-11
2. What kind of information should the PROST Plan include to help you prepare individual
park plans?
3. If it were up to you which types of recreational lands and/or facilities would you want in
your development to meet the needs of future residents?
4. Given that the provision of parks and trails is required, what can the PROST Plan do to
make your job easier?
5. Do you have any suggestions regarding the formatting or organization of the document
to make it user-friendly?
· Focus Groups – Round 2
This focus group session was held in September 2005 for the general public. Several display ads
ran in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. The discussion focused on identification of issues related
to parks, recreation, open space and trails.
· Development Community Meetings
Representatives of the development community — including land developers, architects and
engineers — were invited to meetings with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board’s PROST
Plan Committee. The Committee was especially interested in working with the development
community since they are involved to such a large extent in the provision of recreational lands
and facilities within the City.
· User Groups Surveys
Surveys were sent to 66 groups that use City of Bozeman parks and/or recreation facilities, with
25 surveys returned. The survey collected information regarding program descriptions, number
of participants, season or dates of program(s), ages served, percentage of participants that are
county residents vs. City residents, program fees, parks and/or recreation facilities used by the
group, adequacy of existing parks and recreation facilities, and facility needs. A copy of the
survey, along with a summary of the results, is included in Appendix B.
· Trail Stakeholders
A group of trail stakeholders participated in the preparation of the trail-related sections of this
document. Specifically, the stakeholder group worked on developing trail definitions and
specifications, preparing a new trail plan, identifying trail-related issues and problem areas,
recommending trail implementation strategies, and identifying potential sources of funding for
trails. Represented groups included: Bozeman Area Bike Advisory Board, Big Sky Wind
Drinkers, Bridger Ski Foundation, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, Gallatin Valley Land
Trust, Gallatin County Trails Committee/Gallatin County Board of Park Commissioners,
Montana State University, and the development community.
· Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Public Hearing
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board conducted a public hearing on the proposed plan on
Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 7:00 pm at the Lindley Center. Seven RPAB members, 6 City
of Bozeman staff members and 17 members of the public attended. Comments were provided
regarding the need for safe trails throughout the community, the need for more soccer fields, the
92
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 1-12
desire for equestrian use on some trails, the need to protect park improvement funding sources
and ensuring the homeowners’ associations are adequately maintaining parks.
· City Commission Public Hearing
1.8 PROCESS FOR AMENDMENT
1.8.1 Amendments to the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan
Because the Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails Plan is part of the City’s growth policy, and in
light of the time and effort invested in the preparation of this plan, a growth policy amendment
application and review is required to amend the plan. The growth policy amendment requires that the
following criteria be met:
1. The proposed amendment cures a deficiency in the growth policy or results in an improved
growth policy which better responds to the needs of the general community.
2. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either
between the goals and the maps or between different goals; if inconsistencies are identified, then
additional changes must be provided to remove the inconsistencies.
3. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy.
4. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant
portion by:
a. Significantly altering acceptable existing and future land use patterns, as defined in the
text and maps of the growth policy;
b. Requiring unmitigated larger and more expensive improvements to streets, water, sewer,
or other public facilities and which, therefore, may impact development of other lands;
c. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated
impacts on facilities and services; or
d. Negatively affecting the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents.
5. The proposed amendment must be approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the total
membership of the City Commission.
Growth policy amendment applications are obtained from and submitted to the Department of
Planning and Community Development.
1.8.2 Preparation of or Amendments to Individual Park Master Plans
1. Groups/citizens interested in preparing an individual park master plan or amending an existing
park master plan contact the Parks Division with a proposal. The Parks Division uses a
checklist to assess if the proposal would require a park master plan amendment. If the proposal
would not require a park master plan, and the Parks Division finds the proposal to be
acceptable, the group/citizen works directly with the Parks Division to implement the proposal.
2. If a park master plan amendment is required, the applicant prepares a formal submittal,
including a new or revised park master plan, and submits it to the Parks Division which
schedules the item for consideration by the RPAB. Before making a recommendation, the
RPAB may ask the applicant to prepare and implement a public outreach plan. The RPAB and
93
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction
Page 1-13
the City’s Neighborhood Coordinator will work with the applicant to design the public outreach
plan. The RPAB may also decide to form a subcommittee, seek additional information, and/or
conduct a public meeting before making a recommendation. The Parks Division would be
responsible for organizing, scheduling and providing notice for these activities with assistance
from the City’s Neighborhood Coordinator.
3. Once the RPAB makes a recommendation on the proposal, the Parks Division will schedule the
proposal for consideration by the City Commission as a regular agenda item.
4. After the proposal is approved or conditionally approved by the City Commission, the applicant
must submit 7 copies of the new or amended park master plan to the Parks Division.
5. The Parks Division will prepare a resolution formally adopting the new or amended park master
plan and schedule the item for City Commission’s Consent Agenda.
1.9 STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS
Section 76-3-621, Montana Code Annotated (MCA) contains the following requirements:
1. Except as otherwise allowed, a subdivider shall dedicate to the governing body a cash or land
donation equal to:
a. 11 percent of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels of one-half
acre or smaller;
b. 7.5 percent of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than
one-half acre and not larger than 1 acre;
c. 5 percent of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than 1
acre and not larger than 3 acres; and
d. 2.5 percent of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than 3
acres and not larger than 5 acres.
2. When a subdivision is located totally within an area for which density requirements have been
adopted pursuant to a growth policy under chapter 1 or pursuant to zoning regulations under
chapter 2, the governing body may establish park dedication requirements based on the
community need for parks and the development densities identified in the growth policy or
regulations. Park dedication requirements established under this subsection are in lieu of those
provided in subsection 1 and may not exceed 0.03 acres per dwelling unit.
3. A park dedication may not be required for:
a. Land proposed for subdivision into parcels larger than 5 acres;
b. Subdivision into parcels which are all nonresidential;
c. A subdivision in which parcels are not created, except when that subdivision provides
permanent multiple spaces for recreational camping vehicles, mobile homes, or
condominiums; or
d. A subdivision in which only one additional parcel is created.
4. The governing body, in consultation with the subdivider and the planning board or park board
that has jurisdiction, may determine suitable locations for parks and playgrounds and, giving due
94
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 1-14
weight and consideration to the expressed preference of the subdivider, may determine whether
the park dedication must be a land donation, cash donation, or a combination of both. When a
combination of land donation and cash donation is required, the cash donation may not exceed
the proportional amount not covered by the land donation.
5. In accordance with the provisions of subsections 5a and 5b, the governing body shall use the
dedicated money or land for development, acquisition, or maintenance of parks to serve the
subdivision.
a. The governing body may use the dedicated money to acquire, develop, or maintain,
within its jurisdiction, parks or recreational areas or for the purchase of public open
space or conservation easements only if:
i. The park, recreational area, open space, or conservation easement is within a
reasonably close proximity to the proposed subdivision; and
ii. The governing body has formally adopted a park plan that establishes the needs
and procedures for use of the money.
b. The governing body may not use more than 50 percent of the dedicated money for park
maintenance.
6. The local governing body shall waive the park dedication requirement if:
a. The preliminary plat provides for a planned unit development or other development
with land permanently set aside for park and recreational uses sufficient to meet the
needs of the persons who will ultimately reside in the development, and the area of the
land and any improvements set aside for park and recreational purposes equals or
exceeds the area of the dedication required under subsection 1;
b. The preliminary plat provides long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat; cultural,
historical, or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values, and the area of
the land proposed to be subdivided, by virtue of providing long-term protection, is
reduced by an amount equal to or exceeding the area of the dedication required under
subsection 1;
c. The area of the land proposed to be subdivided, by virtue of a combination of the
provisions of subsections 6a and 6b, is reduced by an amount equal to or exceeding the
area of the dedication required under subsection 1; or
d. The subdivider provides for land outside of the subdivision to be set aside for park and
recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will ultimately reside in
the subdivision, and the area of the land and any improvements set aside for park and
recreational uses equals or exceeds the area of dedication required under subsection 1.
7. The local governing body may waive the park dedication requirement if:
a. The subdivider provides land outside the subdivision that affords long-term protection
of critical wildlife habitat, cultural, historical, or natural resources, agricultural interests,
or aesthetic values, and the area of the land to be subject to long-term protection equals
or exceeds the area of the dedication required under subsection 1.
95
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction
Page 1-15
8. A local governing body may, at its discretion, require a park dedication for a minor subdivision.
A local governing body that chooses to require a park dedication shall specify in regulations the
circumstances under which a park dedication will be required.
9. Subject to the approval of the local governing body and acceptance by the school district
trustees, a subdivider may dedicate a land donation provided in subsection (1) to a school
district, adequate to be used for school facilities or buildings.
10. For the purposes of this section:
a. “Cash donation" is the fair market value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land; and
b. “Dwelling unit" means a residential structure in which a person or persons reside.
11. A land donation under this section may be inside or outside of the subdivision.
1 American Planning Association, City Parks Forum “How Cities Use Parks For…” Briefing Papers, 2002-2005.
96
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Community Profile
Page 2-1
CHAPTER 2
Community Profile
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides the context for evaluating the community’s recreational needs. For example, the
availability of recreational opportunities on nearby federally-owned lands is an important factor to
consider when evaluating the provision of land, facilities and programs for recreation. The presence of
major streams and rivers in the planning area strongly influences the location of parks, trails and open
space.
The climate of the area, specifically the cold and snow of winter and the relatively short summers, plays
an important role in the provision of recreational facilities and programs as well as decisions regarding
maintenance. Finally, understanding the demographic composition of our community is critical for
assessing the recreational facility and program needs of our citizens.
2.1 REGIONAL RECREATION CONTEXT
2.1.1 Yellowstone National Park
Bozeman sits northwest of Yellowstone National Park. From Bozeman, it is a 90-mile drive to the west
entrance of the park at the city of West Yellowstone and a 79 mile drive to the north entrance at
Gardiner. Yellowstone became the country’s first national park in 1872. Today, the park is an
International Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site, a wildlife refuge, and a favorite vacation spot.
Three major volcanic explosions that occurred in the last 2 million years formed the landscape of the
park. The volcanic explosion that formed the Yellowstone Caldera, or basin, occurred 600,000 years ago.
The volcanism that caused these eruptions still powers the park’s famous geysers, hot springs,
fumaroles, and mud pots.
Summer activities in the park include sightseeing, hiking, biking, camping, boating, fishing and
backpacking. Winter activities include cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, sightseeing, and
snowshoeing. The road between Gardiner and Cooke City is the only one open year-round to wheeled
vehicles.1
2.1.2 Gallatin National Forest
Bozeman is in close proximity to Gallatin National Forest lands, including the Bridger Range to the
northeast and the Gallatin Range to the south. This National Forest was established in 1899 and is part
of the Greater Yellowstone Area, the largest intact ecosystem in the continental United States. This 1.8-
million acre Forest spans six mountain ranges and covers large sections of Park, Gallatin, and Sweet
Grass counties. The Gallatin National Forest provides habitat for a full complement of native fauna,
including four federally listed threatened species – the grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald eagle, and the Canada
lynx. The forest is used for a wide range of recreational activities, including camping, hiking, hunting,
fishing, snowmobiling, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, cross-country skiing, and downhill skiing.
97
Community Profile Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 2-2
The Gallatin National Forest contains two Congressionally-designated Wilderness areas, the Absaroka-
Beartooth and Lee Metcalf Wildernesses. The Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area is an enormous and
rugged expanse of high-elevation country, sprawling across the eastern side of the Gallatin National
Forest, as well as portions of the Shoshone and Custer National Forests. Further to the west is the Lee
Metcalf Wilderness Area, divided into four separate units in the Madison Range. The Gallatin and
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests, as well as the Bureau of Land Management, share
landownership. Wild canyon country along the Madison River, forest and meadow areas filled with
wildlife, razor-like ridges leading to glacially carved peaks, and alpine lakes and meadows are all found in
these diverse wilderness segments.2
Bridger Bowl, the local downhill ski area, is located about 15 miles north of Bozeman. Bridger Bowl
offers 1,500 acres of terrain, with 69 trails served by 7 lifts. Bohart Ranch Cross County Ski Center, the
local nordic ski area, is located about 16 miles north of Bozeman. They offer 25 kilometers of groomed
trails ski trails, as well as snowshoe trails, situated on private and Forest Service lands. Both ski areas are
located in the Bridger Range of the Gallatin National Forest
Hyalite Canyon and Hyalite Reservoir are located south of Bozeman in the Gallatin National Forest.
They are named for the mineral that is found in the area. Hyalite Canyon is a tremendous recreational
resource near Bozeman, with facilities for camping, fishing, and hiking. Mountain biking, ice climbing,
and skiing are also popular activities. There are several wheelchair-accessible trails in Hyalite Canyon.
2.2 HYDROLOGY
Bozeman and the planning area are crossed with numerous rivers, streams and irrigation canals (see
Figure 2). These watercourses and associated riparian areas greatly influence the physical location of
recreational lands with many parks and open spaces containing watercourses, and many trails running
along watercourses. Most of the creeks flow from the southeast to northwest to the Gallatin River.
Major creeks and rivers within the planning area include:
· East Gallatin River, in the northeastern portion of the City and planning area;
· Bozeman (Sourdough) Creek, flowing through the east side of the City and joining with Rocky
Creek to form the East Gallatin River. Bozeman Creek has been channelized and rerouted into a
storm pipe as it flows through the center of town;
· Nash Spring Creek, Matthew Bird, and Figgins Creeks in the southern portion of the City of
Bozeman;
· Hyalite Creek, southwest of the City;
· Rocky Creek, flowing northwest along the Interstate through the northeast sections of the City
of Bozeman, and joining with Bozeman Creek to form the East Gallatin River;
· Bridger Creek, flowing west from Bridger Canyon, into the East Gallatin River
· Baxter Creek and Aajker Creek, flowing through the western part of the City; and
· East and West Catron Creeks, flowing south to north, through the middle of the City
Groundwater is another abundant resource in the Gallatin Valley. Generally, groundwater is near the
surface, and flows from south to north to the East Gallatin River. Locally high water tables of less than
ten feet below the surface are prevalent throughout the valley. Groundwater aquifers are recharged
through many sources. Recharge is received from infiltration from the many rivers, streams, and
irrigation ditches. In addition, faults located along the mountain fronts aid in recharge by distributing the
rain and snow runoff along their corridors.
98
99
Community Profile Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 2-4
2.3 WEATHER AND CLIMATE
The weather and climate of the Bozeman area is a significant factor to consider when planning for park
and recreation facilities and programs. The weather impacts a wide-range of considerations such as:
· The scheduling of warm verses cold weather recreation programs
· Maintenance of park and recreational facilities, which varies seasonally
· Installation of vegetation, new equipment, parking lot improvements, etc.
· Provision of seasonal activities such as ice skating/hockey and nordic skiing in the winter and
outdoor swimming and tennis in the summer
Tables 2-1 and 2-2 include temperature and precipitation data for Montana State University that was
compiled by the Western Regional Climate Center in 2005. The data represents a period of record from
April 8, 1892 to December 31, 2004.
Table 2-1: Average Temperatures in Fahrenheit Scale by Month – 1892 through 2004
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Maximum Temperature 31.3 35.3 42.3 53.7 63.1 71.5 81.1 80.2 69.1 57.5 42.0 33.7 55.1
Minimum Temperature 11.8 15.2 21.2 30.5 38.5 45.2 51.0 49.5 41.1 32.8 22.2 14.6 31.1
Source: Montana Climate Summaries, Western Regional Climate Center.
Table 2-2: Average Precipitation in Inches by Month – 1892 through 2004
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Total Precipitation 0.88 0.74 1.33 1.81 2.87 2.88 1.36 1.24 1.74 1.48 1.08 0.86 18.26
Total Snowfall 12.7 10.2 16.1 12.2 4.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.8 5.3 10.9 11.5 84.5
Snow Depth 5 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2
Source: Montana Climate Summaries, Western Regional Climate Center.
Bozeman is located at an elevation of 4,793 feet above sea level. The average growing season is 107
days.
2.4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
2.4.1 Population
Historic Population Trends. Although Bozeman’s growth was significant during the 1990s, from a
percent change perspective, the 1990s had the fifth greatest rate of population change of the 20th
century at approximately 22 percent. Since 1900, the greatest rate of population change occurred during
the decade of 1900 to 1910 when the population grew by approximately 49 percent. This decade was
characterized by the advent of dry land farming techniques and a resulting homestead boom, which
dramatically increased the City’s population. The decade between 1960 and 1970 had the second greatest
rate of population change between 1900 and 2000. During this ten-year period, the City’s population
increased by approximately 40 percent. This population boom is attributed to the first wave of out-
migration from urban areas to the Rocky Mountain West, and the “get back to nature” movement of the
1960s. The decades between 1930 and 1940, and 1940 and 1950, had the third and fourth greatest rate
of population change of the century. During these ten-year periods, the City’s population increased by
100
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Community Profile
Page 2-5
approximately 26 percent and 31 percent respectively. This population increase is often associated with
the boom in the tourism economy as Yellowstone National Park became a popular destination for
pleasure seekers.
Table 2-3: Historic Population Trends for Bozeman and Gallatin County – 1900 through 2000
City of Bozeman Gallatin County Year Population Percent Change Population Percent Change
Bozeman as
Percent of County
1900 3,419 — 9,553 — 35.8%
1910 5,107 49.4% 14,079 47.4% 36.3%
1920 6,183 21.1% 15,864 12.7% 39.0%
1930 6,855 10.9% 16,124 1.6% 54.9%
1940 8,665 26.4% 18,269 13.3% 47.4%
1950 11,325 30.7% 21,902 19.9% 51.7%
1960 13,361 18.0% 26,045 18.9% 51.3%
1970 18,670 39.7% 32,505 24.8% 57.4%
1980 21,645 15.9% 42,865 31.9% 50.5%
1990 22,660 4.7% 50,463 17.7% 44.9%
2000 27,590 21.8% 67,831 34.4% 40.7%
Source: Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Census Bureau.
Recent Population Trends. Table 2-4 contains population estimates for the City of Bozeman and
Gallatin County for the years 2000 through 2005. These numbers are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Annual Time Series (ATS) of Population Estimates. Each year the Population Estimates Program
produces estimates of households, housing units, distribution of households by age of householder, and
persons per household, by state. The reference date for these estimates is July 1.
Table 2-4: Population Estimates for Bozeman and Gallatin County – 2000 through 2005
City of Bozeman Gallatin County Year Population Percent Change Population Percent Change
Bozeman as
Percent of County
July 1, 2000 27,911 — 68,278 — 40.8%
July 1, 2001 28,713 2.9% 69,812 2.2% 41.1%
July 1, 2002 29,526 2.8% 71,106 1.9% 41.5%
July 1, 2003 30,868 4.5% 73,328 3.1% 41.9%
July 1, 2004 32,414 5.0% 75,637 3.1% 42.9%
July 1, 2005 33,535 3.5% 78,210 3.4% 42.8%
Source: Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places and Counties, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.
As noted previously, the planning area for this document extends beyond the City of Bozeman. In
order to accurately evaluate and address the recreational needs of the entire planning area, an estimate of
the population of the entire planning area is needed. According to the Gallatin County GIS Office’s
structure layer, there were approximately 2,769 dwelling units in the planning area outside of the City of
Bozeman. When the County’s average household size of 2.46 is multiplied by this number, a population
estimate of 6,812 results, for an estimate of approximately 40,347 people for the entire planning area.
101
Community Profile Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 2-6
Population Projections. The Montana Census and Economic Information Center (CEIC) provides
population projections for the State of Montana and all Montana counties. These projections were
prepared by NPA Data Services, Inc. Population projections for the PROST Plan Planning Area were
developed by Morrison-Maierle, Inc. for preparation of the City’s Wastewater Facility Plan3. The
methodology for Morrison-Maierle, Inc.’s projections are available for review at the Department of
Planning & Community Development.
Table 2-5: Population Projections – 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025
2010 2015 2020 2025
PROST Plan Planning Area 42,700 54,500 69,500 88,700
Gallatin County 80,774 86,344 92,060 97,743
State of Montana 988,874 1,037,405 1,090,686 1,148,162
Source: NPA Data Services, Inc.
Population Projections and Study Boundary, Morrison Maierle, Inc., February 16, 2005.
All of this population information suggests that the population of the City of Bozeman, Gallatin County
and the PROST Plan planning area is growing rapidly. Proactive planning will be needed to ensure that
the City’s recreational facilities and programs can keep pace with the population growth of the
community. These population numbers will be used in later chapters to evaluate the level of service the
City is currently providing and to prepare an assessment of needs for recreational facilities and
programs.
2.4.2 Gender
Bozeman and Gallatin County represent a gender anomaly where men have outnumbered women since
the 1950s. Nationwide, men represented 49.1 percent and women 50.9 percent of the population in the
2000 Census. At the state level, men comprised 49.8 percent and women 50.2 percent of the population
in 2000. Gender represents a factor to be considered when planning for recreation facilities and
programs because recreational interests vary based on gender. For example, studies by Leisure Trends
Group indicate that the top ten recreational activities for women include walking, aerobics, exercise,
biking, jogging, basketball, lifting weights, golf, swimming and tennis, whereas the top ten recreational
activities for men include golf, basketball, walking, jogging, biking, lifting weights, football, hiking,
fishing and hunting.4
Table 2-6: Gender Percentages for Bozeman and Gallatin County – 1910 through 2000
City of Gallatin City of Gallatin City of Gallatin City of Gallatin City of Gallatin
Bozeman County Bozeman County Bozeman County Bozeman County Bozeman County
Male 51.5% 56.7% 48.3% 52.2% 48.9% 52.2% 48.4% 52.1% 51.1% 52.8%
Female 48.5% 43.3% 51.7% 47.8% 51.1% 47.8% 51.6% 47.9% 48.9% 47.2%
City of Gallatin City of Gallatin City of Gallatin City of Gallatin City of Gallatin
Bozeman County Bozeman County Bozeman County Bozeman County Bozeman County
Male 51.2% 51.7% 51.0% 51.1% 51.3% 51.4% 51.2% 51.1% 52.6% 52.0%
Female 48.8% 48.3% 49.1% 48.9% 48.8% 48.6% 48.8% 48.9% 47.4% 48.0%
1950
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
1910 1920 1930 1940
Source: Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Census Bureau.
102
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Community Profile
Page 2-7
Based on historical data, we could expect the trends of men outnumbering women in the City of
Bozeman and Gallatin County to continue into the future.
2.4.3 Age
Nationwide, median age is increasing, which is attributable to several trends including increased
longevity and aging of the population born during the Baby Boom after World War II (1946 to 1964).5
In fact, Montana, Florida, Wyoming, Maine, New Mexico and North Dakota are all predicted to have at
least 25 percent of their population represented by persons age 65 and over by 2030.6
Table 2-7: Population by Age for Bozeman and Gallatin County - 1930 through 2000
Under 5 years 509 7.4% 1,371 8.5% 653 7.5% 1,440 7.9% 1,107 9.8% 2,491 11.4% 1,261 9.4% 3,026 11.6%
5 to 9 years 595 8.7% 1,569 9.7% 593 6.8% 1,387 7.6% 760 6.7% 1,768 8.1% 1,075 8.0% 2,560 9.8%
10 to 14 years 694 10.1% 1,765 10.9% 650 7.5% 1,502 8.2% 636 5.6% 1,419 6.5% 1,044 7.8% 2,314 8.9%
15 to 19 years 669 9.8% 1,579 9.8% 801 9.2% 1,758 9.6% 872 7.7% 1,652 7.5% 1,702 12.7% 2,617 10.0%
20 to 24 years 581 8.5% 1,249 7.7% 880 10.2% 1,759 9.6% 1,699 15.0% 2,544 11.6% 1,841 13.8% 2,730 10.5%
25 to 34 years 906 13.2% 2,067 12.8% 1,425 16.4% 2,775 15.2% 1,875 16.6% 3,597 16.4% 1,514 11.3% 3,208 12.3%
35 to 44 years 1,049 15.3% 2,425 15.0% 1,120 12.9% 2,275 12.5% 1,309 11.6% 2,627 12.0% 1,520 11.4% 3,093 11.9%
45 to 54 years 829 12.1% 1,877 11.6% 1,107 12.8% 2,425 13.3% 1,068 9.4% 2,101 9.6% 1,167 8.7% 2,419 9.3%
55 to 64 years 567 8.3% 1,230 7.6% 734 8.5% 1,604 8.8% 991 8.8% 1,952 8.9% 924 6.9% 1,767 6.8%
65 to 74 years 324 4.7% 744 4.6% 477 5.5% 928 5.1% 650 5.7% 1,159 5.3% 815 6.1% 1,487 5.7%
75 years and over 130 1.9% 244 1.5% 225 2.6% 416 2.3% 358 3.2% 592 2.7% 498 3.7% 824 3.2%
Unknown 20.0%40.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%
Total 6,855 100.0% 16,124 100.0% 8,665 100.0% 18,269 100.0% 11,325 100.0% 21,902 100.0% 13,361 100.0% 26,045 100.0%
Under 5 years 1,306 7.0% 2,415 7.4% 1,120 5.2%2,994 7.0% 1,288 5.7% 3,476 6.9% 1,366 5.0% 3,935 5.8%
5 to 9 years 1,321 7.1% 2,760 8.5% 919 4.2%2,718 6.3% 1,294 5.7% 3,621 7.2% 1,120 4.1% 4,029 5.9%
10 to 14 years 1,273 6.8% 2,867 8.8% 951 4.4% 2,649 6.2% 983 4.3% 3,416 6.8% 1,185 4.3% 4,328 6.4%
15 to 19 years 3,223 17.3% 4,565 14.0% 3,319 15.3% 5,143 12.0% 2,565 11.3% 4,369 8.7% 3,184 11.6% 6,002 8.8%
20 to 24 years 4,025 21.6% 5,046 15.5% 5,802 26.8% 7,755 18.1% 4,878 21.5% 6,305 12.5% 6,621 24.1% 9,187 13.5%
25 to 34 years 2,187 11.7% 3,928 12.1% 3,923 18.1% 8,177 19.1% 4,088 18.0% 8,945 17.7% 4,701 17.1% 10,059 14.8%
35 to 44 years 1,375 7.4% 2,977 9.2% 1,519 7.0% 4,281 10.0% 3,008 13.3% 8,470 16.8% 3,168 11.5% 10,568 15.6%
45 to 54 years 1,444 7.7% 3,084 9.5% 1,144 5.3%3,044 7.1% 1,439 6.4% 4,273 8.5% 2,781 10.1% 9,308 13.7%
55 to 64 years 1,020 5.5% 2,245 6.9% 1,219 5.6%2,871 6.7% 1,061 4.7% 3,103 6.1% 1,183 4.3% 4,645 6.8%
65 to 74 years 759 4.1% 1,425 4.4% 849 3.9% 1,844 4.3% 1,091 4.8% 2,751 5.5% 885 3.2% 2,982 4.4%
75 years and over 737 3.9% 1,193 3.7% 880 4.1% 1,389 3.2% 965 4.3% 1,734 3.4% 1,315 4.8% 2,788 4.1%
Unknown 00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%
Total 18,670 100.0% 32,505 100.0% 21,645 100.0% 42,865 100.0% 22,660 100.0% 50,463 100.0% 27,509 100.0% 67,831 100.0%
1950
Gallatin
County
City of
Bozeman
19601930 1940
Gallatin
County
City of
Bozeman
Gallatin
County
Gallatin
County
1970
City of
1990
City of
City of
Bozeman
City of
Bozeman
Bozeman
Gallatin
County
1980
City of
Bozeman
Gallatin
County Bozeman
Gallatin
County
2000
City of
Bozeman
Gallatin
County
Source: Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Census Bureau.
103
Community Profile Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 2-8
Over the past several decades the median age in Montana has been greater than for the US as a whole.
Montana’s median age was 33.8 years in Census 1990 and 37.5 years in Census 2000, while median age
in the US as a whole was 32.9 years in 1990 and 35.3 years in 2000.7 This trend is expected to continue
with median age for Montana projected to be 41.5 years by 2015 and 46 years by 2030 compared to 37.4
years in 2015 and 39.0 years in 2030 for the US as a whole.8 Montana women are predicted to continue
to reach an older age than men, with the median age for women predicted to be 47.7 years by 2030
compared to 44.2 years for men.9
Locally, the population of Gallatin County is also aging, although the population of Gallatin County is
still significantly younger than the population as a whole statewide and nationwide. In 2000, the median
age in Gallatin County was 30.7 years, which was an all time high. This is up from a low of 23.6 years in
1970. The City of Bozeman is bucking the aging trend. In 2000, the City had a median age of 25.4
years, which was 12.1 years less than the statewide median age and 9.9 years less than the nationwide
median age! Bozeman’s median age actually declined from 25.8 years in 1990. Bozeman’s median age
hit its zenith of 30.3 in 1940. Like Gallatin County, Bozeman’s all time low for median age was also in
1970 at 22.7 years.
Graph 2-1: Median Age for Bozeman and Gallatin County – 1930 through 2000
25.4
25.8
23.9
22.7
24.3
28.1
30.3
29.2
30.7
29.9
25.2
23.6
24.6
28.0
29.6
27.6
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
YearMedian Age
Gallatin County
City of Bozeman
Source: Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: Median age for Bozeman in 1930 – 1960, 1980 and for Gallatin County 1930 – 1950 was calculated by the Department of Planning
and Community Development in 2005 because this information was not available from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Bozeman’s youthful relatively youthful population is attributable to the presence of Montana State
University. Approximately 12,000 students attend MSU, with most living in the PROST Plan planning
area. Many students do not have the responsibilities that come with a family, a career and running a
household, and tend to have more time available for various types of recreational activities.
104
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Community Profile
Page 2-9
The increasing numbers of seniors in our population will require safe and ready access to a variety of
activities that range from fitness and sports programs, to hobby and craft opportunities, and computer
clubs and travel clubs. Seniors will be looking for activities that combine fitness with fun.
2.4.4 Income
As illustrated in the table below, Montana’s ranking among the states for per capita income has trended
downwards since a high of 14 in 1950.
Table 2-8: Montana’s Ranking in Per Capita Income - 1930 through 2004
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004
30 19 14 28 34 34 43 46 45
Source: Per Capita Personal Income, Montana Rank, 1929-2004, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) attributes this trend mainly to
“declines in resource-based industries, which historically provided family-wage jobs (mining, forestry,
agriculture, ranching, manufacturing). Those jobs have not been replaced by other industries providing
family-wage jobs to the same workforce. While there has been growth in the government, services,
retail, wholesale, construction, communications, and public utilities sectors, many jobs in the highest
growth sectors are low-paying jobs (e.g., retail, services). Moreover, education and workforce
training/re-training programs have not kept up with economic changes.”10
Gallatin County’s per capita personal income was $19,074 at the time of the 2000 Census, compared to
only $16,104 in Bozeman. In 2000, per capita income was $21,587 nationwide and $17,151 statewide.11
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gallatin County’s per capita personal income had risen
to $27,211 in 2003. This ranked 5th in the state and was 107 percent of the state average of $25,406, and
86 percent of the national average of $31,472.12 2003 figures for Bozeman were not available.
The SCORP notes that “because of Montana’s struggling economy and low income population,
affordability of outdoor recreation is a key issue, as is the limited ability of businesses and citizens to pay
higher taxes for it.”13 Given that the per capita income figures for Bozeman are so low, affordability of
recreation activities is of particular concern.
Income also influences housing choices. With housing affordability increasingly becoming an issue in
Bozeman, an increasing number of households are housed in multifamily configurations. Households in
multifamily developments may have less yard space available for recreation than those in single-
household structures. Therefore, the provision of adequate public park space becomes even more
important.
2.4.5 Ethnicity
In 1990 Bozeman’s population was 95.9 percent white and 1.4 percent Hispanic or Latino.14 By 2000,
Bozeman’s population was 93.8 percent white and 1.6 percent Hispanic or Latino.15 These numbers
illustrate that Bozeman is not very ethnically diverse, but is becoming slightly more diverse over time.
Increased diversity will bring with it a need for a different mix of recreational facilities. As the county
becomes more globalized, sports and recreational activities popular in other nations will gain more
exposure in this country. For instance, the large demand for soccer may in part be stimulated by new
arrivals from countries with a strong soccer tradition. Recreation programming should emphasize the
value of diversity, through activities such as fairs and celebrations, language and arts classes.
105
Community Profile Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 2-10
Along with the growing diversity of our community comes the increasing use of other languages, most
notably Spanish. The Recreation and Parks Divisions should evaluate which materials should also be
provided in Spanish. Emphasis should be placed on materials that are critical to health and safety such
as safety signage on playground equipment.
2.4.6 Disability
According to the 2000 Census, of the City’s 5 years and over population, approximately 5,000 people
had some sort of sensory, physical, mental or self-care disability. Increasingly, people with disabilities
are leading active, independent lives, and are requiring recreational facilities and programs that are
accessible and inclusive. Universal design and access should be provided whenever and wherever
feasible, and in many instances is mandated by law.
2.4.7 Non-traditional Families
Our society increasing includes non-traditional families, such as families headed by single men and
women, grandparents raising their grandchildren, adoptive families and families headed by same-sex
couples. Many of these families may feel isolated and unwelcome within existing recreation programs.
Recreation providers should be cognizant of these issues, and strive to make all feel welcome and
supported.
2.5 ANNEXATION
As the population of the City increases so does the physical size of the City in order to accommodate
the housing, workplaces and services needed to support the population. Growth in the size of the City
influences not only the amount of recreation programs and facilities needed to serve the community, but
also the location of those facilities. The growth of the City also influences the City’s ability to efficiently
maintain recreation facilities. Table 2-9 illustrates annexation activity in the City during the past ten
years.
Table 2-9: Acres Annexed to the City of Bozeman by Year – 1995 through 2004
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999* 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
540.14 11.50 958.96 90.04 104.06 632.09 794.06 222.746 186.582 484.467
Source: City of Bozeman, GIS Department, 2005.
*In 1999, 0.1239 acres were de-annexed from the City of Bozeman.
2.6 PROST PLAN SURVEY RESULTS
As noted in Chapter 1, a community survey was conducted as part of the preparation of the PROST
Plan. Other than population data, age information is the most important demographic determinant in
assessing recreation needs. As such, age was the only demographic information collected in the survey.
Analyzing survey responses by age group elicited some interesting and informative results.
Question 1. Analysis of age as it related to Question 1 indicates that older respondents (age 60 years and
over) were more likely feel that the recreation opportunities available in our community are adequate to
meet the recreation needs of their household; 71 percent either agreed or strongly agreed that their
needs were being met while only 10 percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed that their needs were
being met.
106
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Community Profile
Page 2-11
Table 2-10: Responses to PROST Survey Question 1 by Age Group
Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Uncertain No Opinion No Response
20-34 years 61% 6% 24% 2% 6% 0% 0%
35-59 years 60% 10% 18% 5% 3% 2% 2%
60 and over 51% 20% 8% 2% 7% 2% 10%
Note: Only two respondents in the Under 20 years category completed the survey and are statistically insignificant, and are therefore not included.
Question 3. Cross-tabbing age and the results of Question 3 indicate that the recreational activities of
most importance to households varied depending upon age.
Table 2-11: Responses to PROST Survey Question 3 by Age Group
All Age Groups 20-34 years 35-59 years 60 years and over
1. Hiking/walking 1. Hiking/walking 1. Hiking/walking 1. Hiking/walking
2. Biking 2. Biking 2. Biking 2. Picnicking
3. XC skiing 3. Running/jogging 3. XC skiing 3. Relaxing
4. Swimming 4. Disc golf TIED Swimming 4. Swimming 4. XC skiing
5. Relaxing TIED Running/jogging 5. XC skiing TIED Soccer 5. Running/jogging 5. Biking
Note: Only two respondents in the Under 20 years category completed the survey and are statistically insignificant, and are therefore not included.
Hiking/walking was the most important activity for all age groups. However, more passive activities,
Picnicking and Relaxing, received the second and third highest ranking from the 60 years and over age
group. By comparison, in the other two age groups more active activities (biking, running/jogging,
cross-country skiing) were ranked second and third. It is interesting to note, but not unexpected, that
disc golf and soccer were among the top five most important activities listed in the 20-34 years age
group. However, disc golf and soccer were not listed in the five most important activities in any other
age group or for all age groups combined.
Question 5. Analysis of answers to Question 5 against age data shows that the top five facilities were
the same for the 35-59 years and 60 years and over age groups, as well as when all age groups were
aggregated together. However, the top five facilities listed by respondents in the 20-34 years age group
varied slighting, and they were the only age group with Dog parks and without Arts/cultural facilities in
their top five most important facilities.
Table 2-12: Responses to PROST Survey Question 5 by Age Group
All Age Groups 20-34 years 35-59 years 60 years and over
1. Trails 1. Trails 1. Trails 1. Trails
2. Parks 2. Parks 2. Parks 2. Parks
3. Open space 3. Swimming pools 3. Open space 3. Open space
4. Arts/cultural facilities 4. Dog parks 4. Arts/cultural facilities 4. Arts/cultural facilities
5. Swimming pools 5. Open space 5. Swimming pools 5. Swimming pools
Note: Only two respondents in the Under 20 years category completed the survey and are statistically insignificant, and are therefore not included.
107
Community Profile Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 2-12
Question 8. Cross-tabbing age and the results of Question 8 show that the rates of park usage were
very similar for the 20-34 years and 35-59 years age groups. However, park usage by people in the 60
years and over age group was significantly less, with only 37 percent indicating that their household used
City parks Very Frequently or Frequently (compared to 67 percent and 65 percent for the 20-34 years
and 35-59 years age groups respectively). Seven percent of the 60 and over age group responded that
their household never uses City parks.
Table 2-13: Responses to PROST Survey Question 8 by Age Group
All Age Groups 20-34 years 35-59 years 60 years and over
Very frequently 29% 35% 32% 11%
Frequently 31% 32% 33% 26%
Occasionally 29% 25% 26% 45%
Seldom 9% 8% 9% 11%
Never 2% 0% 0% 7%
Note: Only two respondents in the Under 20 years category completed the survey and are statistically insignificant, and are therefore not included.
Question 10. Analysis of the results of Question 10 against age data indicates that the rates of trail
usage were very similar for the 20-34 years and 35-59 years age groups. However, trail usage by people
in the 60 years and over age group was significantly less, with only 52 percent indicating that their
household used City trails Very Frequently or Frequently (compared to 68 percent and 70 percent for
the 20-34 years and 35-59 years age groups respectively). Seventeen percent of the 60 and over age
group responded that their household never uses City trails.
Table 2-14: Responses to PROST Survey Question 10 by Age Group
All Age Groups 20-34 years 35-59 years 60 years and over
Very frequently 41% 43% 41% 33%
Frequently 27% 25% 29% 19%
Occasionally 19% 20% 19% 21%
Seldom 8% 11% 7% 10%
Never 5% 1% 4% 17%
Note: Only two respondents in the Under 20 years category completed the survey and are statistically insignificant, and are therefore not included.
Question 13. When the results of Question 13 are cross-tabbed with age data it show that the 20-34
years age group felt that recreation program and facility funding should be a priority with 59 percent
answering Very High or High. By comparison, only 41 percent of 60 years and over households felt
that recreation program and facility funding should be a Very High or High priority.
108
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Community Profile
Page 2-13
Table 2-15: Responses to PROST Survey Question 13 by Age Group
All Age Groups 20-34 years 35-59 years 60 years and over
Very high 21% 20% 21% 14%
High 33% 39% 30% 27%
Medium 31% 25% 32% 28%
Low 6% 5% 7% 5%
Very low 1% 0% 1% 2%
No opinion 8% 11% 9% 24%
Note: Only two respondents in the Under 20 years category completed the survey and are statistically insignificant, and are therefore not included.
1 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Park Service, Yellowstone National Park website, 2005.
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Gallatin National Forest website, 2005.
3 These same population projections have been endorsed by the City Commission for use in the City’s other facility and long-range plans, including:
Water Facilities Plan, Stormwater Facilities Plan, Transportation Plan Update and the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan Update.
4 Fun Facts on Leisure, Leisure Trends Group website, 1990-2000.
5 National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division and Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, 2001.
6 Release Highlights: April 21, 2005, Montana Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Information Center.
7 American FactFinder, 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Census Bureau.
8 Interim Projections of the Population by Selected Age Groups for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2030, U.S. Census
Bureau, April 21, 2005.
9 Release Highlights.
10 Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: 2003–2007 (SCORP), Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
11 American Factfinder.
12 Regional Economic Accounts, BEARFacts 1993 –2003, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2005.
13 SCORP.
14 American Factfinder.
15 Ibid.
109
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions
Page 3-1
CHAPTER 3
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions
3.0 INTRODUCTION
City parks and recreation facilities provide the cornerstone of the City’s recreation system. Bozeman’s
first park, or at least the first park that was labeled as such, was Cooper Park. The park was platted by
Nelson Story, John Dickerson and Walter Cooper in 1883 as a part of the Park Addition to the City of
Bozeman, Territory of Montana. The park was dedicated as “City Park” on May 27, 1890, and was
renamed Cooper Park in 1924 upon Walter Cooper’s death. Cooper was a prominent local pioneer,
businessman, and politician.
Park Addition to the City of Bozeman, 1883
Bozeman Avant Courier newspaper ran an article entitled “Bozeman’s First, but Not Last Park” on May
10, 1883. That article provided the following description of the park:
110
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 3-2
“Improvements on the City Park have so far progressed that the ground will soon be
ready to dedicate to the municipality. The ground was seeded early this week, and is now
being fenced and set in trees. This most eligible ground…is 660 x 330 feet, and consists
of about six acres, donated by Story, Cooper, and Dickerson from the center of their
new Park Addition. Water from Story’s spring on the hill will course through the
enclosure, furnishing a steady supply to stimulate the growth of trees and grass…Walks
have been staked out from each of the four corners in curved lines, with a circle in the
center and trees are being set out every alternate twenty feet on either side…In after
years this will be one of but a series of parks about this beautiful and picturesque city…”
Other early parks in Bozeman include Southside, Lindley and Bogert Parks, which were dedicated in the
early 1920’s. Bogert Park is named for John Bogert, the original owner of the land and Bozeman’s first
mayor.
3.1 INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILTIES
At the end of 2005, there were approximately 650 acres of park within the City of Bozeman, and
another 158 acres of County park within the planning area, for a total of approximately 800 acres of
park in the planning area. Table 3-1 contains park and recreation facilities information for City parks,
and Table 3-2 contains similar information for County parks. The following classifications are used to
define Bozeman’s parks. Information regarding locational and size criteria is drawn from the National
Recreation and Park Association’s Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines.i
Mini Park. Mini parks are used to address limited, isolated or unique recreational needs. They are often
developed as tot lots to provide recreational opportunities for young children with slides, swings, spring
toys and the like. They may also function as landscaped public use areas in commercialized parts of
town. The service area for a mini park is a ¼-mile radius around the park in a residential setting.
Accessibility by way of interconnecting trails, sidewalks, or low-volume residential streets increases use
opportunities. Recognizable public access should be provided with at least 50 feet of frontage on a
public or approved private street. In terms of size, they are generally between 2,500 square feet and one
acre in size. Soroptomist and Creekside Parks are good examples of mini parks.
Neighborhood Park. Neighborhood parks are the basic unit of the park system, and serve as the
recreational and social focus of the neighborhood. Focus is on informal recreation for all age groups
and geared towards those living within the service area. Neighborhood parks should be centrally located
within their service area, with access uninterrupted by non-residential roads and other physical barriers.
The service area of a neighborhood park has a ¼- to ½-mile radius.
The site should be accessible from throughout its service area by way of interconnecting trails,
sidewalks, or low-volume residential streets. Ease of access and walking distance are critical factors in
locating a neighborhood park. A neighborhood park should have a minimum of 50 percent frontage on
a public or approved private street. Neighborhood parks are generally 3 to 10 acres in size. Leftover
parcels of land that are undesirable for development are also generally undesirable for neighborhood
parks and should be avoided. It is more cost-effective to select a site with inherent aesthetic qualities,
rather than trying to recreate them through extensive development. Facilities include playgrounds;
informal playfields or open space; basketball, tennis and volleyball courts; ice skating; trails; and picnic
and sitting areas. Cooper, Jarrett and Southside Parks are good examples of neighborhood parks.
111
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-3 Table 3-1: Inventory of Parks within the City of Bozeman NAME ACRES LOCATION ACCESS OWNERSHIP CLASSIFICATION DEVELOPED? BEACH BASEBALL/SOFTBALL BASKETBALL DOG PARK FOUNTAIN HORSESHOES ICE SKATING IRRIGATION MULTI USE FIELD PARKING LOT PICNIC TABLE PICNIC SHELTER PLAYGROUND RESTROOMS SIDEWALK SOCCER SWIMMING POOL TENNIS COURT TRAILS VOLLEYBALL COURT OTHER ACTIVITY COMMENTS ALDER CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK 1 0.098 S 3RD AVE & BROOKDALE DR Public City L x W x x ALDER CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK 2 0.5401 S 3RD AVE & ALDER CREEK DR Public City L x W x x ALDER CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK 3 0.5166 S 3RD AVE & CAMBRIDGE DR Public City L x W x x ALDER CREEK, PHASE 2, PARK 1 0.568 SUMMERSET DR & BROOKDALE DR Public City M ALLISON 3.001 ARNOLD ST Public City N x AASHEIM FIELDS 5.255 W BABCOCK ST & FOWLER AVE Public City S x 1 W Px x 4 x RECYCLING CENTERBABCOCK MEADOWS, PHASE 1, PARK 1 0.08 WEST BABCOCK STREET Public City B x BABCOCK MEADOWS, PHASE 1, PARK 2 1.98 W BABCOCK ST & VIRGINIA WY Public City L x x x BABCOCK MEADOWS, PHASE 1, PARK 3 0.35 DONNA AVE Public City L x x x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 1, PARK 1 0.41 BOSAL ST & GALLATIN GREEN BLVD Public City M x W x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 1, PARK 2 0.63 EQUESTRIAN LN & GALLATIN GREEN BLVD Public City M x W x x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 1, PARK 3 1.69 VAQUERO PKWY & BAXTER LN Public City N W x x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 2A 1.7363 VAQUERO PKWY & EQUESTRIAN LN Public Private O x x x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 2C, PARK 1 3.677 VAQUERO PKWY Public City N x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 2C, PARK 2 0.1358 FERGUSON AVE & LASSO AVE Public City L x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 2C, PARK 3 0.2442 MILKHOUSE AVE Public City M x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 2D, PARK 1 0.0568 LASSO AVE Public City L x BAXTER MEADOWS, PHASE 2D, PARK 2 0.7243 EQUESTRIAN LN Public City N x BAXTER SQUARE, PHASE 1, PARK 1 1.2644 SARTAIN ST Public City N W x BAXTER SQUARE, PHASE 1, PARK 2 0.6262 BAXTER LN Public City M W x BEALL 2.2 N BOZEMAN AVE & E VILLARD ST Public City N x 1 x 1Cx x x x C x x BEALL ART CENTER BOGERT 7.4915 S CHURCH AVE & BOGERT PL Public City C x 1 1 Wx Px x x C x x 2x x PAVILLION, STAGE BOZEMAN POND 16.5 HUFFINE LN & FOWLER AVE Public FWP C x x x x P Px x C/V x x 2x FISHING BRENTWOOD, PHASE 1, PARK 1 2.571 BRENTWOOD AVE & ANNIE ST Private Private L W x x BRENTWOOD, PHASE 1, PARK 2 0.262 WOODLAND DR & W OAK ST Private Private B x x BRENTWOOD, PHASE 1, PARK 3 0.508 ANNIE ST & BRENTWOOD AVE Private Private M x C x x x BRENTWOOD, PHASE 2, PARK 1 0.321 WOODLAND DR Private Private B W BRENTWOOD, PHASE 2, PARK 2 1.3414 MOUNTAIN ASH AVE Private Private B W BRENTWOOD, PHASE 2, PARK 3 0.079 MAPLEWOOD ST & W OAK ST Private Private B W x BRIDGER CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK 1 3.15 BOYLAN RD Private Private N x x BRIDGER CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK 2 0.47 PAR CT & STORY MILL RD Private Private O x BRIDGER CREEK, PHASE 2 1.7 AUGUSTA DR Private Private N x W x BRIDGER CREEK, PHASE 3 4.8 STORY MILL RD & MCILHATTAN RD Public City L x BRONKEN 39.06 COTTONWOOD RD Public City S/Ox Wx Px C 10 x BROOKSIDE 0.504 N 25TH AVE & W BABCOCK ST Public City B BURKE, PART 1 40.6497 S CHURCH AVE Public City O G x x SLEDDING HILL CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK A 3.001 CATTAIL ST Public City L x W x x CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK B 5.763 CATTAIL ST & CATRON ST Public City N x W x x Park Classification Legend: M – Mini Park; N – Neighborhood Park; C – Community Park; S – Special Use Park; O – Natural Areas/Open Lands; L – Linear Park; R – Regional Park; B – Buffers Irrigation Legend: W – Well; C – City water Parking Lot Legend: G – Gravel; P – Paved Restroom Legend: C – City sewer; V - Vault 112
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-4 Table 3-1: Inventory of Parks within the City of Bozeman NAME ACRES LOCATION ACCESS OWNERSHIP CLASSIFICATION DEVELOPED? BEACH BASEBALL/SOFTBALL BASKETBALL DOG PARK FOUNTAIN HORSESHOES ICE SKATING IRRIGATION MULTI USE FIELD PARKING LOT PICNIC TABLE PICNIC SHELTER PLAYGROUND RESTROOMS SIDEWALK SOCCER SWIMMING POOL TENNIS COURT TRAILS VOLLEYBALL COURT OTHER ACTIVITY COMMENTS CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 2, PARK C 0.707 BLACKBIRD DR & CATRON ST Public City N x W x x CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 2, PARK D 0.965 BLACKBIRD DR & CATTAIL ST Public City N x W x x CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 2, PARK F 0.802 TYPHA CT & BLACKBIRD DR Public City L x CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 3 4.4 BLACKBIRD DR & CATAMOUNT ST Public City N x x CENTENNIAL 2.5151 N TRACY AVE & W COTTONWOOD ST Public City N x W x x x CHRISTIE FIELDS 8.2918 S BLACK AVE & E MASON ST Public City S x 3 x C x x C x COOPER 4.1 S 8TH AVE & W KOCH ST Public City N x x C x x x CREEKSIDE 0.1716 N ROUSE AVE & E LAMME ST Public City M x C x x EAST GALLATIN RECREATION AREA 89.1735 MANLEY RD Public FWP R x x 2 P Gx x x V x x 2x FISHING FERGUSON MEADOWS, PARK 1 0.6 CASCADE ST & MINERAL AVE/SANDERS DRPublic City M x C x x FERGUSON MEADOWS, PARK 2 0.113 DURSTON RD & SANDERS DR Public City B x C x FERGUSON MEADOWS, PARK 3 0.108 DURSTON RD & FERGUSON AVE Public City B x C x FERGUSON MEADOWS, PARK 4 0.226 DURSTON RD & MINERAL AVE Public City B x C x GALLAGATOR LINEAR 1 0.8309 E COLLEGE ST Public City L x x GALLAGATOR LINEAR 2 0.6143 E GARFIELD ST & S BLACK AVE Public City L x x GALLAGATOR LINEAR 3 0.0122 W LINCOLN ST & S WILLSON AVE Public City L x x GALLAGATOR LINEAR 4 1.3594 W LINCOLN ST & SOUTH 3RD AVE Public City L x x GARDNER PARK 0.98958 GARDNER PARK DR Public City O GLENWOOD MEADOWS 0.6454 MEAGHANS WY Private Private O W GRAFS EAST 14.4084 GRAF ST Public City O x x GREENWAY, PARK 1 1.588 DURSTON RD & N HUNTERS WY Public City L x x x GREENWAY, PARK 2 1.049 DURSTON RD & N HUNTERS WY Public City L x x x HARVEST CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK 1 2.3721 DURSTON RD & ROSE ST Public City N x W x x HARVEST CREEK, PHASE 2, PARK 2 2.4388 ROSE ST & ANNIE ST Public City N x W x x HARVEST CREEK, PHASE 3 & 4, PARK 3 4.8673 ANNIE ST & W OAK ST Public City N x W x x HARVEST CREEK, PHASE 5, PARK 4 3.0686 FARMALL ST & DURHAM AVE Public City N x 1 W x x HAUSER 2.064 E KAGY BLVD Public City O x HEADLANDS, PARK 1 0.677 HEADLANDS DR & POWDER PARK CT Public City M W HEADLANDS, PARK 2 0.561 HEADLANDS DR & POWDER PARK CT Public City L x W x HEADLANDS, PARK 3 1.208 HEADLANDS DR Public City L x W x HEADLANDS, PARK 4 0.766 HEADLANDS DR & BUCKS RUN CT Public City L x W x JARRETT 1.886 WESTRIDGE DR Public City N x C x x x x JOSEPHINE 4.32 KENYON DR Public City O x CITY WATER TOWER KIRK 13.3 N 20TH AVE & W BEALL ST Public City C/Sx 21 x W Px x x C x x SKATE PARK LANGOHR 4.41 S TRACY AVE & W MASON ST Public City N x x x x LANGOHR GARDENS 12.361 S TRACY AVE & W MASON ST Public City N/Sx W x x x x COMMUNITY GARDEN, CLIMBING ROCK LAUREL GLEN, PHASE 1, PARK 1 3.0607 ANNIE ST & GLENWOOD DR Public City N x LAUREL GLEN, PHASE 1, PARK 3 0.43 GLENWOOD DR & DURSTON RD Public City N x Park Classification Legend: M – Mini Park; N – Neighborhood Park; C – Community Park; S – Special Use Park; O – Natural Areas/Open Lands; L – Linear Park; R – Regional Park; B – Buffers Irrigation Legend: W – Well; C – City water Parking Lot Legend: G – Gravel; P – Paved Restroom Legend: C – City sewer; V - Vault 113
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-5 Table 3-1: Inventory of Parks within the City of Bozeman NAME ACRES LOCATION ACCESS OWNERSHIP CLASSIFICATION DEVELOPED? BEACH BASEBALL/SOFTBALL BASKETBALL DOG PARK FOUNTAIN HORSESHOES ICE SKATING IRRIGATION MULTI USE FIELD PARKING LOT PICNIC TABLE PICNIC SHELTER PLAYGROUND RESTROOMS SIDEWALK SOCCER SWIMMING POOL TENNIS COURT TRAILS VOLLEYBALL COURT OTHER ACTIVITY COMMENTS LEGENDS, PHASE I 0.764 PINNACLE STAR ST Public City O x x LINDLEY 15.483 E MAIN ST & BUTTONWOOD AVE Public City C x x Cx Px x x C x x x CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING NE NEIGHBORHOOD POCKET PARK 1.0975 N WALLACE AVE & FRONT ST Public City N x x x SMALL POND NEW HYALITE VIEW, PARK 1 11.7402 N SPRUCE DR Public City N x x x NEW HYALITE VIEW, PARK 2 3.341 CHERRY DR Public City O x NEW HYALITE VIEW, PARK 3 27.6751 CHERRY DR Public City O x NORTH 9TH, PARK 1 0.5042 W OAK ST & N 9TH AVE Public City O NORTH 9TH, PARK 2 1.5101 N 9TH AVE Public City O NORTH GRAND FIELD 2.3636 N GRAND AVE & W COTTONWOOD ST Public City S x 4 W NORTH MEADOWS 1.017 MICHAEL GROVE AVE & W VILLARD ST Public City N x 1 C x x OAK SPRINGS 10.6218 FERGUSON AVE & ANNIE ST Public City N REGIONAL PARK 100 BAXTER LN & FERGUSON AVE Public County R ROSE 20.512 W OAK ST & WOODLAND DR Public City C/S x DISC GOLF SACAJAWEA 0.19341 N 7TH AVE Public City M/Sx C x x VISITOR/INFO CENTER SANDAN PARK 3.1228 FEN WY & DOWNY LN Public City N x W x SOROPTMIST 0.2089 E MAIN ST & S ROUSE AVE Public City M x C x x SOURDOUGH TRAIL 4.5404 GRAF ST Public City L x SOUTHSIDE 2.4173 W COLLEGE ST & S 5TH AVE Public City N/Sx x 2Cx x x C x 3 SPORTS COMPLEX 28.8154 HAGGERTY LN Public City S x 5 x x C Px x C x x x RECYCLING CENTER ( PARKING LOT) SPRING MEADOWS 2.2411 GRAF ST Public City L x x STORY MILL 2.7849 STORY MILL RD Public City L x SUNDANCE SPRINGS, PARK 1 1.4471 GRAF ST & E FIELDVIEW CIR Public City L x x SUNDANCE SPRINGS, PARK 2 2.4763 GRAF ST & SILVER CLOUD CIR Public City L x x TUCKERMAN 10.02 GOLDENSTIEN LN Public City O G x VALLEY COMMONS 0.54 VALLEY COMMONS PARK DR & FALLON ST Private Private N x W x VALLEY CREEK, PARK 1 0.32989 RAVALLI ST & GOLDEN VALLEY DR Public City L x x VALLEY CREEK, PARK 2 0.05854 RAVALLI ST Public City L x x VALLEY CREEK, PARK 3 0.05854 GOLDEN VALLEY DR Public City L x x VALLEY UNIT 8.594 DURSTON RD & CASCADE ST Public City N x 1 Wx x x x x VALLEY WEST 4.81 W BABCOCK ST & CLIFDEN DR & HANLEY AVE Public City N x W x x x x VALLEY WEST, PHASE 2 7.49 CASCADE ST & CLIFDEN DR Public City N x W x x VILLAGE DOWNTOWN 0.7663 VILLAGE DOWNTOWN BLVD Public Private L C x x WALTON HOMESTEAD 1.1153 N 15TH AVE & JUNIPER ST Public City N x W x x WEST BABCOCK (HRDC), PARK 1 0.79 W MENDENHALL ST & N 24TH AVE Public City O x WEST BABCOCK (HRDC), PARK 2 0.81 NORTH 24TH AVE Public City M W x x x HRDC HEADSTART PLAYGROUND WEST BABCOCK (HRDC), PARK 3 1.12 N 24TH AVE & W BABCOCK ST Public City O x WEST MEADOWS 0.887 CANDLE LN & E FIELDVIEW CIR Public City L x WEST WINDS, PHASE 1A, PARK 1 1.9 W OAK ST & BUCKRAKE AVE Public City N W x x Park Classification Legend: M – Mini Park; N – Neighborhood Park; C – Community Park; S – Special Use Park; O – Natural Areas/Open Lands; L – Linear Park; R – Regional Park; B – Buffers Irrigation Legend: W – Well; C – City water Parking Lot Legend: G – Gravel; P – Paved Restroom Legend: C – City sewer; V - Vault 114
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-6 Table 3-1: Inventory of Parks within the City of Bozeman NAME ACRES LOCATION ACCESS OWNERSHIP CLASSIFICATION DEVELOPED? BEACH BASEBALL/SOFTBALL BASKETBALL DOG PARK FOUNTAIN HORSESHOES ICE SKATING IRRIGATION MULTI USE FIELD PARKING LOT PICNIC TABLE PICNIC SHELTER PLAYGROUND RESTROOMS SIDEWALK SOCCER SWIMMING POOL TENNIS COURT TRAILS VOLLEYBALL COURT OTHER ACTIVITY COMMENTS WEST WINDS, PHASE 1A, PARK 2 1.085 HUNTERS WY & TSCHACHE LN Public City N W x x WEST WINDS, PHASE 1B, PARK 1 0.2786 GALE CT & TSCHACHE LN Public City L W x x WEST WINDS, PHASE 1B, PARK 2 0.2486 TEMPEST CT & TSCHACHE LN Public City L W x x WEST WINDS, PHASE 1B, PARK 3 0.2755 N 24TH AVE & TSCHACHE LN Public City L W x x WESTFIELD 4.3973 WAGONWHEEL RD & OXFORD DR Public City N x C x x WESTGATE, PARK 1 0.415 W MENDENHALL ST & W BABCOCK ST Public City O WESTGATE, PARK 2 0.84 W MENDENHALL ST & HUNTERS WY Public City O WESTGLEN 0.75 DROULLIARD AVE & MERIWETHER AVE Public City M x WESTLAKE 5.9 N 5TH AVE & W TAMARACK ST Public City N/S x x x x BMX PARK, COMMUNITY GARDEN, CHILDRENS MEMORIAL GARDEN WESTRIDGE EAST 0.86 SPRING CREEK DR Public City N x WESTRIDGE NORTH 1.6 HIGHLAND CT & HILL ST Public City N WESTRIDGE NORTH 2.3 WESTRIDGE DR & HILL ST Public City N WESTRIDGE SOUTH 1.05 SPRING CREEK DR & CIRCLE DR Public City N WILLOW 0.3574 MICHAEL GROVE AVE Public City O x x DETENTION POND YELLOWSTONE PEAKS PARK 0.6033 SUNLIGHT AVE Private Private M W TOTAL 650.54 Park Classification Legend: M – Mini Park; N – Neighborhood Park; C – Community Park; S – Special Use Park; O – Natural Areas/Open Lands; L – Linear Park; R – Regional Park; B – Buffers Irrigation Legend: W – Well; C – City water Parking Lot Legend: G – Gravel; P – Paved Restroom Legend: C – City sewer; V - Vault 115
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-7 Table 3-2: Inventory of County Parks within the Planning Area NAME ACRES LOCATION ACCESS CLASSIFICATION DEVELOPED? AMENITIES BASEBALL BENCH BRIDGE COVERED BENCH IRRIGATION PARKING PICNIC TABLE PLAYGROUND MULTI USE FIELD TRAILS VISTA WATER COMMENTS ANNETTE PARK 4.7800 ANNETTE PARK DR & SOURDOUGH RD Public N x x SEASONAL STREAM ARROWLEAF HILLS 9.5700 ARROWLEAF HILLS DR & ARNICA DR Public N x x WETLAND, SEASONAL BLUEGRASS MEADOWS 4.2500 NEWMAN LN & COMFORT LN Public N x G x x NONE BRIARWOOD HILLS 1.2900 BRANDON TRAIL RD Public N x x DITCH BUCKSKIN WILLIAMS 10.2200 WAGON BOSS DR & ANNETTE PARK DRPublic N x x x P x x DITCH BURKE, PART 3 0.8349 S CHURCH AVE Public O x x x x G x x SLEDDING HILL CLOVER MEADOWS 3.5950 FORT ELLIS RD Public N x x x x SEASONAL STREAM ADJACENT TO FREEWAY FORT ELLIS LEISURE COMMUNITY, PARK 1 6.7451 FORT ELLIS RD & GOLDEN TROUT WY Public L x SEASONAL STREAM FORT ELLIS LEISURE COMMUNITY, PARK 2 0.3000 FORT ELLIS RD & GOLDEN TROUT WY Public L x SEASONAL STREAM FRANKLIN HILLS 2.0400 FRANKLIN HILLS DR & DULOHERY LN Public N x x x x x DITCH GENESIS BUSINESS PARK 1.5200 STUCKY RD & DISCOVERY DR Public N x x x x x P x x STREAM, POND HYALITE HEIGHTS 11.1740 WILDFLOWER WY & PARK VIEW PL Public N P x x JAMES 3.4354 HAGGERTY LN Public N x SEASONAL STREAM LAZY TH ESTATES 14.5470 TERRENCE LOOP RD & PATTERSON RDPublic N x x DITCH MINDER 3.2015 CHESTNUT GROVE AV Public N x x P x x x LAKE VALLEY CENTER 6.3890 STUBBS LN & DURANGO LN Public N x x NASH 19.1070 NASH RD & S 3RD AVE Public N x x x x x NORDTVEDT 1.4540 ERIK DR & DONEGAL DR Public N x x P x PAINTED HILLS TRAIL 24.6810 BOZEMAN TRAIL RD Public L x G x x SEASONAL STREAM CASHMAN 0.9884 BOGART DR Public N DITCH RIVERSIDE MANOR 2.1295 RIVERSIDE DR Public N x SHAKIRA 2.0880 HARPER PUCKETT RD Public N x SPRINGHILL PARK 1.4627 SPRINGHILL LN Public N x STONEGATE 6.3760 STONEGATE DR Private N x STONEGATE LINEAR PARK 5.3680 STONEGATE DR & BARCLAY DR Public L x STREAM WILLIAMS 4.6739 GOLDENSTIEN LN Public N x x x x x YELLOWSTONE PEAKS 6.0470 SUNLIGHT AVE Private O x NORTH PORTION OF THESE LOTS TOTAL 158.3 Park Classification Legend: M – Mini Park; N – Neighborhood Park; C – Community Park; S – Special Use Park; O – Natural Areas/Open Lands; L – Linear Park; R – Regional Park; B – Buffers Parking Lot Legend: G – Gravel; P – Paved 116
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 3-8
Community Park. Community parks are larger in size and serve a broader purpose than neighborhood
parks. Their focus is on meeting the recreational needs of the entire community. They allow for group
activities and offer other recreational opportunities not feasible – nor perhaps desirable – in a
neighborhood park.
Optimally, the site should be between 20 and 50 acres in size; however the actual size should be based
on the land area needed to accommodate desired uses. The site should be serviced by arterial and
collector streets, as well as the community trail system. Parking lots should be provided as necessary to
accommodate user access. The site’s natural character should play a very significant role in site
selection, with emphasis on sites that preserve unique landscapes within the community and/or provide
recreational opportunities not otherwise available.
Potential recreation facilities include playgrounds; basketball, tennis and volleyball courts; informal
ballfields for youth play; ice skating rinks (temporary); swimming pools or swimming beaches; trails,
including cross-country ski trails; individual and group picnic/sitting areas; general open space; unique
landscapes and features; nature study areas; and ornamental or native plant gardens. Lindley Park is a
good example of a community park in terms of size and mix of uses. Bogert Park is a good example of
a community park in terms of the mix of uses.
Special Use Park. The Special Use classification covers a broad range of parks and recreation facilities
oriented toward single-purpose or specialized use. Special uses generally fall into three categories:
· Historic/Cultural/Social Sites – Unique local resources offering historical, educational, and
cultural opportunities. Examples include historic downtown areas, performing arts facilities,
arboretums, ornamental/native plant gardens, sculpture gardens, indoor theaters, public
buildings, and amphitheaters.
· Indoor Recreation Facilities – Examples include community centers, senior centers, sports
stadiums, community theaters, indoor hockey arenas, and indoor swimming pools.
· Outdoor Recreation Facilities – Examples include tennis centers, sports complexes, golf courses,
disc golf courses, hockey arenas, BMX parks and skate parks.
Recreation need, community interests, the type of facility, and land availability are the primary factors
influencing location and size. Special use facilities should be viewed as strategically located community-
wide facilities rather than as serving well-defined neighborhoods or areas. The site should be accessible
from arterial and collector streets where feasible. The Adam Bronken Sports Complex is a good
example of a Special Use Park.
Natural Areas/Open Lands. Natural resource areas are lands set aside for preservation of natural
resources, remnant landscapes, open space, and visual aesthetics or buffering. These lands typically
consist of:
· Individual sites exhibiting natural resources;
· Lands that are unsuitable for development but offer natural resource potential. Examples
include parcels with steep slopes and natural vegetation, drainage ways and ravines; and
· Protected lands, such as wetlands, riparian areas and ponds.
Resource availability and opportunity are the primary factors determining location and size. Although
natural areas are resource rather than user based, they can provide some recreation opportunities such as
nature viewing and study. They can also function as greenways. Development should be kept to a level
117
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions
Page 3-9
that preserves the integrity of the resource. Tuckerman and Burke Parks are examples of Natural
Areas/Open Lands.
Linear Parks. Linear parks contain pathways that serve a number of important functions:
· They tie park components together to form a cohesive park, trail, recreation, and open space
system;
· They allow for uninterrupted and safe pedestrian and bicycle movement between parks and
throughout the community; and
· They provide an opportunity for resource-based outdoor recreation.
Land availability and opportunity are the primary factors determining location. Many linear parks will
follow natural features such as watercourses, while others will follow man-made features such as
abandoned railways. Linear parks should be at least 25 feet wide for general trail use, with additional
width required for parks used for cross-country skiing.
Linear parks can be developed for a variety of different recreational activities. Most notable are hiking,
walking, jogging, bicycling and cross-country skiing. The Gallagator and Story Mill Spur Trails are
examples of Linear Parks.
Regional Parks. Regional parks are similar to community parks in terms of uses and facilities but are
scaled to meet the recreational needs of a region. Regional parks are generally larger in size (50 acres or
more), with larger and/or more numerous facilities. The scale and service area of a regional park makes
possible more extensive facilities that may be cost prohibitive at the community level. The service area
for a regional park is generally countywide for most uses, but would draw from a multi-county area for
special events such as concerts and sports tournaments.
The site should be serviced by arterial and collector streets, as well as the countywide trail system.
Parking lots should be provided as necessary to accommodate user access. The East Gallatin Recreation
Area is a good example of a regional park.
Buffers. Strips of land used to buffer residential development from busy streets or incompatible
adjacent uses, but not providing recreational uses. Buffers are frequently landscaped but may, in some
cases, remain as natural areas. Buffers have been counted as parkland in the past. Current City policy
instead designates these areas as common open space to be owned and maintained by the property
owners association.
It should be noted that not all existing parks comply with these service area or size requirements.
Instead, these classifications provide guidance for the creation of new parks. Also, some parks are a
combination of types. For example, Bronken Park is both a Special Use Park due to the sports fields, as
well as a Natural Area/Open Lands park due to the natural portion of the park.
Table 3-3 outlines the quantity of Neighborhood, Community and Special Use parks in the planning
area by type and level of development, in 1997 and in 2005. This table illustrates the tremendous
increase in the amount of parkland in the planning area since 1997. This large increase is attributable to
the considerable amount of residential land development that has occurred since the mid 1990s.
118
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 3-10
Table 3-3: Acres of Existing Parkland by Type in Acres – 1997 and 2005
Neighborhood 1997 2005
Parks Undeveloped Developed Total Undeveloped Developed Total
Planning Area Total 63 4 67 129 129 258
Community 1997 2005
Parks Undeveloped Developed Total Undeveloped Developed Total
Planning Area Total 31 701 101 21 531 78
Special Use Parks 1997 2005
Undeveloped Developed Total Undeveloped Developed Total
Planning Area Total 4 37 41 21 118 139
1It appears that there were more acres of development Community Park in 1997 than in 2005 because many of the parks designated as
Community Parks in 1997 have been redesignated as Neighborhood Parks in 2005, including Beall, North Grand, Cooper, Southside, Langohr,
and Graf Parks.
3.2 ADDITIONAL FACILTIES
In addition to recreation facilities in the City parks, the Recreation Division operates and manages these
recreation faculties.
3.2.1 Bozeman Swim Center
The Swim Center is located at 1211 West Main Street on School District #7 property and is connected
to the Bozeman Senior High School. The pool was built by the City of Bozeman in 1975. The indoor
aquatic facility construction is of cinder block with a floor area of 21,000 square feet. The facility
features a 50-meter X 58-foot pool that ranges in depth from 3½ to 9 feet. There are two
shower/locker rooms; a mechanical room which houses the pumps, motors, three heat exchangers,
chlorination and filtration systems; and hot tub equipment. The electrical and chlorine rooms are
attached to the exterior of the facility. There is a cleaning supply storage room and a front heater room,
two offices and a south facing tot-lot with a small piece of playground equipment and a picnic table for
birthday parties. The facility has a hot tub, fitness equipment corner, 10-foot platform, a ¼-meter diving
board, and various fitness equipment. The facility is used seven days a week all year round; hours vary
with times of year and programs scheduled.
Existing Condition. Fair. The Swim Center is 30 years old which is older than pools typically last. The
facility has had energy efficient updates and has been well maintained, including the installation of a new
pool shell and front-end heating and ventilation system in 2007.
3.2.2 Bogert Pool
Bogert Pool is located at 325 South Church Street and was completed in July of 1938. The bath house is
of cinder block construction. The pool heating system was added in 1949. In 1959, fire badly damaged
the facility resulting in major reconstruction of the building and heating system. In 1975, the facility was
remodeled to the current configuration of two pools. The small pool is 20- X 25-yards, and ranges in
119
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions
Page 3-11
depth from 1 to 2.5 feet. The larger pool is 25- X 25-feet, and ranges in depth from 3 to 9 feet. Seven
feet were added to the west deck in the 1990s, and 22 feet were added to the south deck in 2001. The
facility offers lounge chairs, picnic tables, shade structures, a small duck slide in the shallow pool, a 7-
foot drop slide and a 26-foot tower slide with three tubes in the large pool. The bath house offers
shower and locker rooms and a large guard station. The front restrooms have been converted into
restrooms/family change rooms. The mechanical/filter room houses the pumps, motors, boiler, heat
exchanger, filtration system and sanitation system. The facility is open seven days a week from the
second Saturday in June through Labor Day in September.
Existing Condition. Poor. The pool was constructed 70 years ago and last renovated 32 years ago.
There is a fracture in the walls that runs around the gutter line, which impacts the structural integrity of
the pool. The plumbing system under the pool shell could also fail at anytime. The shower and locker
rooms are dated, and parking at Bogert Park is unsafe and inadequate for the facility.
3.2.3 The Lindley Center
The Lindley Center is located at 1102 East Curtiss Street, and was built by the Elk’s Country Club for a
golf course clubhouse. In the early 1950s, the club split and formed the Riverside Country Club and
Valley View Country Club golf courses. At this time, the Moose Lodge took over use of the facility. The
City acquired the Elks Country Club, now called the Lindley Center, and all of its land (68 acres) on
December 12, 1962. City Commission Resolution 1062, authorized “…the purchase of lands for
cemetery and park purposes...” The 1972 Master Plan outlines the development of a large park on the
old Elks Country Club land. The current building is located on a portion of the land designated for
recreational uses. The United Commercial Travelers operated the facility for 25 years as a club house
and rented the facility out for community use. The City of Bozeman took over operations of the facility
in 1990, and remodeled the facility as needed to comply with building and fire codes. The Lindley
Center is a 3,000 square foot log structure with a basement for storage. The facility has a small office,
two restrooms, a large kitchen and storage space in the kitchen. The facility is used 7 days a week with
varying hours depending on recreation office hours, programs and rentals.
Existing Condition. Fair. The Lindley Center needs improvements to the landscaping, flooring,
windows, entry and decks, exterior walls, and the basement.
3.2.4 Beall Park Recreation Center
The Beall Park Recreation Center is located at 415 North Bozeman Avenue, and was built by Ella
Martin in 1927 as a recreation center for community-wide use. The only conditions Ms. Martin
placed on the use of the building was that the “house be used for the purpose of which it is built,
namely, a community center, where young and old of Gallatin Valley may gather and enjoy
themselves and indulge in wholesome recreation…and that the City of Bozeman accept the
responsibility of ownership and take suitable care of the building thereafter.” The City Commission
adopted Resolution No. 81 which set aside funds to maintain the facility for 15 years. The 2,400
square foot rock and wood framed structure was the first playground building in the City of
Bozeman. It was used as a recreation center until 1937 when a childcare center was added. Starting
sometime before 1970 only the childcare center use existed in the building. From 1983 to the fall of
2006 the facility housed the Beall Park Art Center. In 2006-2007 the building was renovated back to
its original design, and to comply with building and fire codes to the greatest extent possible.
Recreation Division offices were added to the northeast comer of the building, and a small kitchen
120
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 3-12
has been added in the center of the facility. The facility is used seven days a week with varying
hours depending on recreation programs and rentals.
Existing Condition. Excellent. In 2006-2007 the building was renovated back to its original design as
much as codes allow. Recreation Division offices were added to the northeast corner of the building
and a small kitchen was been added in the center of the facility. Renovations will be completed by July
1, 2008.
3.3 NON-CITY/NON-COUNTY RECREATION FACILITIES
3.3.1 School District #7
The School District’s land holding and facilities — specifically their playing fields and playgrounds —
provide important recreation amenities within the City. In fact the School District’s policies state that
“because of the value of the district’s playing fields and the community’s total recreational opportunity,
the fields may be used by all residents.” The district does charge a fee for organized use of their
facilities to cover the costs for maintenance, capital expenses and energy. The following school facilities
are available for public use:
· High school gym and track;
· Chief Joseph/Sacagawea Middle Schools gyms, softball fields and tennis courts;
· Elementary school gyms, playgrounds and ice skating rinks;
· Babcock Fields (West Babcock Street and Fowler Lane); and
· Emerson Fields (West Babcock Street, west of the Emerson Cultural Center).
The Willson School Auditorium is also available to the community for a fee, with preference given to
school-related activities. Because Bozeman currently lacks a performing arts center the Willson School
Auditorium provides an important venue for the performing and cultural arts in our community.
Of course district-sponsored activities, including curricular and co-curricular functions, retain first
priority in the use of district facilities. Further, the use of district facilities must be compatible and
appropriate to the facility and its surrounding area. The use cannot result in construction, damage or
undue wear, or pose a hazard to children or others. Activities which endanger others or cause damage
to fields and lawns are prohibited. If damage occurs, the school district will make a reasonable effort to
obtain restitution for the damage.
During the 2005 Legislative Session, state law was amended to allow subdividers to donate their required
parkland dedication to the School District, subject to approval by the City Commission and acceptance
by the School District Trustees. The land to be donated must be adequate for use as school facilities or
buildings.
Currently, the School District limits the use of school property and recreational facilities during non-
school hours and during the summer. For example, the School District will remove nets from
basketball courts or fence off playground equipment on District property to discourage their use. On
the other hand, the District has legitimate concerns about liability, and wear and tear on their grounds
and facilities. The District is also concerned about damage to their facilities such as graffiti. The City
should continue to work with the School District to establish mutually beneficial and acceptable
agreements and arrangements to meet the recreational needs of the community.
121
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions
Page 3-13
The City and School District should continue to work cooperatively to share existing facilities, and to
collocate new school and park facilities wherever possible. The need for cooperation and collaboration
will be even more acute should the School District seek to use parkland dedications to secure land for
new schools. The mutual benefits accrued from joint school and park properties will likely far outweigh
the challenges described above. An opportunity to operate a joint school and park property may come
sooner instead of later as the School District considers constructing a new elementary school on their
property on West Babcock Street, property that is adjacent to Aasheim Fields Park. It is interesting to
note that the 1979 Gallatin County Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan included the following
finding, “it is recommended that the County acquire, develop, and maintain park sites on a cooperative
basis with other agencies or groups, such as school systems, when possible.”
3.3.2 Montana State University
Montana State University’s recreational facilities are also of great importance to the community. Most
of the University’s facilities are available for use by non-University groups subject to usage fees and
prioritization of scheduling for University-related activities. The following are some of the University
facilities most often used by the community:
· Lambert Fields (8 Fields)
· Roskie Fields (4 Fields)
· Gatton Field
· 7th & Kagy Fields (4 Fields)
· Outdoor running track
· Outdoor and indoor tennis courts
The University also provides indoor gymnasium facilities for the use of students, faculty and staff.
These facilities meet the day-to-day exercise needs of the University community.
3.4 LAND ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE
3.4.1 Acquisition
The City is able to acquire land for parks and recreational facilities through a variety of means. The first
method is provision of land through the land development process, and the vast majority of recreational
lands within the City’s are provided in this manner. The procedures and requirements for providing
land for parks and recreational facilities through land development are outlined in the City’s
development regulations. The development review process provides a predictable and equitable,
although somewhat piecemeal, means of acquiring new land for recreational uses where the demand is
met by those creating the demand. Land acquisition through land development usually results in the
dedication of land to the City; however land may be provided for parks and recreational facilities
without being dedicated to the City as follows:
· The development is a planned unit development or other development with land permanently
set aside for park and recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will
ultimately reside in the development. The park and recreational land in these developments is
frequently private; however the City’s development regulations provide incentives for the
provision of public access. An example of this is the Sundance Springs Subdivision, which is a
planned unit development. Sundance Springs contains a significant amount of open space
provided through the planned unit development process, which is owned and maintained by the
122
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 3-14
property owners in the development. Most of the open space is private and is provided for the
enjoyment of Sundance Springs residents.
· The development is a land subdivision created by rent or lease – for manufactured housing
communities, condominiums, recreation vehicle parks – with land permanently set aside for
residents of the development. The park and recreational lands in these developments are
typically private with no public access and are maintained by the property owners in the
development.
· The developer provides for land outside of a development to be set aside for park and
recreational uses. This land could be dedicated, but it could also be a public access easement on
privately-owned land. The easements will be held by the City of Bozeman. The City’s
responsibilities for these easements would be same as for dedicated land.
The City also obtains land for park and recreational uses through fee simple acquisition by purchase or
donation. Land can be purchased using a variety of funding sources, including cash-in-lieu fees, grant
monies, private donations, etc. The City can also engage in more innovative arrangements to purchase
land such as land swaps. Tuckerman Park was obtained by fee simple acquisition from a developer. A
variety of funding sources were used to purchase Tuckerman Park, including donation of some of the
value of the land by the developer.
Finally, the City acquires land for park and recreational uses by obtaining authority over lands owned by
other public entities. An example of this type of arrangement is a part of the East Gallatin Recreation
Area and the Bozeman Ponds. Both sites are owned by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, but are
leased, operated and maintained by the City.
Most of the County parkland that is within the planning area but outside the City of Bozeman was also
obtained through the land development process. The County is subject to the same State law specified
parkland dedication requirements as the City.
3.4.2 Development
The City’s development regulations require that the following minimum improvements be made before
land is dedicated to the City: leveling, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing with
turf type mowers, installing an underground irrigation system including a well. The Parks Division has
established Design Guidelines for parks and playgrounds (please see Appendix C).
The City makes improvements to parks and other recreational lands as part of the capital improvements
program. For example, during FY05 the Parks Division installed restrooms and storage at the Softball
Complex, installed and seeded berms at Rose Park, developed the North Meadows Park, installed a trail
to the Children’s Memorial Park, and installed a dog beach at the Bozeman Ponds. The City uses a
variety of funding sources and mechanisms to develop recreational lands, most of which are described in
Chapter 11.
The City also partners with a variety of groups to improve City parks and other recreational lands,
including: Gallatin Valley Land Trust, property owners associations, user groups, service organizations,
nonprofit organizations, and clubs. Development is accomplished with a variety of funding sources and
combinations, including budgeted capital improvement funds, cash-in-lieu funds, City Park
Improvement Grant funds, private donations, and grant monies. Many improvements are also
completed with the use of donated time, labor and materials.
123
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions
Page 3-15
Park and recreational land improvements are typically made in conformance with an adopted individual
park master plan. Individual park master plans exist for many of the City’s older parks. In 2002, the
City’s development regulations were amended to require the preparation and adoption of individual park
master plans for all newly dedicated parkland to guide development of the land. Individual park master
plans will eventually need to be prepared for all of Bozeman’s parks to provide guidance for the
development of each park.
Most of the County parkland that is within the planning area but outside the City of Bozeman remains
undeveloped. The few parks that are developed were developed by the property owners associations.
3.4.3 Maintenance
Most existing City parks are maintained by the City Parks Division. A more thorough description of the
Parks Division’s maintenance responsibilities are described in Section 3.4 below. The Parks Division
also partners with a variety of groups for assistance in maintaining City parks and other recreational
lands, including: Gallatin Valley Land Trust, property owners associations, user groups, service
organization, and nonprofit organizations and clubs.
Most parks dedicated since the beginning of 2004 are being maintained by property owners associations
because the City Parks Division lacks the funds, equipment and personnel to maintain new parks while
maintaining an acceptable level of service for existing parks. It is expected that park maintenance by
property owners associations would cease if and when a Citywide park maintenance district, or an
equivalent alternative, is created.
The City’s development regulations require the preparation of a park maintenance plan for all newly
dedicated parks. These plans are required to contain the following information, including identification
of a responsible party:
· Maintenance information, including levels of maintenance and a maintenance schedule;
· Weed control plan; and
· Plan for garbage collection, snow removal and leaf removal.
Gallatin County does not have a Parks Department. Therefore, most of the County parkland that is
within the planning area, but outside the City of Bozeman, is maintained by the property owners
association.
3.5 CITY OF BOZEMAN PARKS DIVISION
3.5.1 Overview
The City’s Parks Division is responsible for operating, developing and maintaining City parks and other
City property. The Division’s major objectives include:
· To maintain the City’s parks in a condition of which the City would be proud;
· To participate in the implementation of adopted individual park master plans;
· To acquire and develop new parks;
· To continue adding, upgrading, and maintaining safe, quality playground equipment in the parks;
124
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 3-16
· To provide expanded maintenance to restrooms, litter control, turf care, and playground
equipment;
· To improve, maintain and expand the trail system;
· To oversee and coordinate volunteer, grant funded and neighborhood park improvement
projects; and
· To assist other divisions and departments in the City of Bozeman as needed or directed.
3.5.2 Structure
The City has a Parks and Recreation Department, with the Parks and Recreation Director serving as the
department head. The Parks Division is part of the Parks and Recreation Department, with a Parks and
Cemetery Superintendent having responsibility for park and cemetery administration, and the
development and maintenance of City parks, Sunset Hills Cemetery and all public lands and facilities
associated with these.
3.5.3 Operations
The operations and maintenance services provided by the Parks Division, including their level of service
standards, are presented below. The City maintains approximately 250 acres of formal turf and
approximately 230 acres of natural areas, as well as 5 ice skating rinks.
In addition to operations and maintenance services provided by the Parks Division, they participate in
approximately 20 Park Improvement Grant projects, manage approximately 15 user group agreements,
and oversee an average of 12 volunteer projects each year. The Parks Division also maintains 30+ dog
sanitation stations. The Parks Division employs 6 permanent employees; approximately 15 additional
employees are hired seasonally. The Parks Division has had only 6 fulltime, permanent employees since
1968.
3.5.4 Funding and Budget
The Parks Division budget was approximately $1.2 million in FY06, almost all of which comes out of
the City’s general fund. Therefore, in FY06 the City will spend about $2,500 per acre of park
maintained by the City (280 acres) or $1,846 per acre of park for all City park acreage (650). The City
will spend about $33.50 per capita on parks in FY06.
Table 3-4: Parks Division Maintenance Activities and Standards
Operations and Maintenance Services Level of Service Standards
Mowing
Core Parks 1 time per week
Sports Fields 2 times per week
Natural Parks 2 times per year
Fertilization
Developed Parks 3 times per year
Sports Fields 4 times per year
Natural Parks 2 times per year
125
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions
Page 3-17
Operations and Maintenance Services Level of Service Standards
Activate all irrigation systems By May 15 for all parks
Winterize all irrigation systems By October 31 for all parks
Leaf mulch and pick-up All parks
Playground inspection – 18 playgrounds 1 time per week
Playground repairs Same day
Trails – 50 miles of trails
Inspections 2 times per month
Maintenance 2 times per year
Weed Control – 170 acres
Round-Up 3 times per year
Broadleaf 2 times per year
Noxious 2 times per year
Weedeating 2 times per week
Garbage collection – 130 garbage cans 7 days per week
Police all grounds 5 days per week
Building maintenance and repairs – 18 buildings Same day
Restrooms cleaned and maintained 7 days per week
Response to complaints Within 2 days
Sidewalk plowing – 8 miles Complete walks by 10:00 am
3.6 CITY OF BOZEMAN RECREATION DIVISION
3.6.1 Overview
The City's Recreation Division is responsible for operating, developing and maintaining the City's
recreation facilities. The Division’s major objectives include:
· To operate, maintain and remodel as necessary the Bozeman Swim Center in order to keep the
facility looking and functioning like new for the community;
· To operate, maintain and remodel as necessary Bogert Pool in order to extend the functional life
of the facility as long as possible;
· To operate, maintain and renovate the Lindley Recreation Center as needed in order to keep the
building functional for recreation programs and community events;
· To operate, clean, maintain and renovate the Beall Park Recreation Center in order to have a top
notch community center and headquarters for the Recreation Division;
· To acquire land for and develop new aquatic facilities; and
· To acquire land for and develop a Community Recreation Center and aquatic facility.
126
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 3-18
3.6.2 Structure
The Recreation Division’s structure has changed numerous times in the history of its operations.
Currently, the Division is part of the Parks and Recreation Department, with the Parks and Recreation
Director serving as the department head. The Recreation Superintendent is responsible for recreation
administration, the recreation programs and the aquatic programs. The recreation programs are operated
by the Recreation Program Manager and recreation leaders, and the aquatics programs are operated by
the Aquatics Director, Assistant Aquatic Director and lifeguards/instructors.
3.6.3 Operations
The operations and maintenance services provided by the Recreation Division include the recreation
programs as described in Chapter 4; maintenance and repairs to the Bozeman Swim Center and Bogert
Pool; the Lindley Center; and the Beall Park Recreation Center.
In addition to programs, and operations and maintenance services for recreation facilities, the
Recreation Division handles approximately 400 facility reservations for the Lindley Center and the Beall
Park Recreation Center, 9 major user agreements for the pools, over 100 contracts for reservations for
general public group usage of the pools, and over 300 bookings for birthday parties. The Division also
assists recreation user groups in their requests to use the facilities, publicize their programs and events,
and operate their programs. The Division operates as a center for information distribution regarding
recreation opportunities in Bozeman. The Division currently has 6 full-time employees, approximately
20 part-time aquatic staff members who work year round, 10 summer seasonal lifeguards and recreation
leaders, 3 winter seasonal recreation leaders, and 2 part-time recreation leaders who work year round.
The part-time and seasonal employees amount to 8.65 full time equivalent employees.
3.7 USER GROUPS
The City issues licenses to various user groups for the use of City parks. A list of licensed user groups,
and a sample contract, is contained in Appendix D. The contracts typically stipulate, amongst other
things, the following:
· Dates of use
· A hold harmless agreement for the City
· Required fees
Appendix D also contains the Field Use Policies for user groups which outlines the following
requirements:
· Conditions of premises, field preparation, lights, restrooms, litter control and snow removal
· Security deposit requirements
· Liability insurance requirements
· Utilities and concessions
· Process for improvements in parks
Not all groups that use City parks and/or recreation facilities for organized activities have contracts with
the City. The City should seek to obtain contracts with any groups where such an agreement would be
127
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions
Page 3-19
appropriate. The contracts would allow the City to better schedule the use of parks and/or recreation
facilities, ensure proper use and care of City lands, and to protect against liability issues.
3.8 PROST SURVEY RESULTS
A community survey was conducted as part of the preparation of the PROST Plan. Of the 315 survey
respondents, 161 listed parks as one of the recreational facilities that are most often used by members of
their household; this is 51 percent of the respondents. In addition, many respondents selected facilities
that are featured at some City parks, including: baseball fields (17), beaches (40), dog parks (54), football
fields (7), ice rinks (31), soccer fields (27), softball fields (14), swimming pools (80), and tennis courts
(22).
Of those who selected parks as a recreational facility most often used by members of their household,
and rated the adequacy of the parks, 17 percent found them to be Excellent, 49 percent rated them as
Good, 21 percent indicated Adequate, and 13 percent found them to be Inadequate.
When asked how often City parks were used by members of their household respondents answered as
follows: 31 percent Very Frequently, 29 percent Frequently, 29 percent Occasionally, 9 percent Seldom,
and 2 percent Never.
When asked to rate the maintenance of City parks used by members of their households, respondents
indicated the following: 15 percent Excellent, 42 percent Good, 30 percent Adequate, 4 percent
Inadequate, 2 percent Poor, 5 percent Did Not Use, and 2 percent No Response.
When asked to list specific park maintenance problems, the following were listed: dog waste, unleashed
dogs, garbage, more restrooms, open restrooms, better restroom maintenance, weeds, tennis court
repair, playground equipment maintenance, and general park maintenance.
Of the 315 survey respondents, 77 listed swimming facilities as one of the recreational facilities that are
most often used by members of their household; this is 24 percent of the respondents.
Of those who selected swimming facilities as a recreational facility most often used by members of their
household, and rated the adequacy of the pools, 17 percent found them to be Excellent, 40 percent
rated them as Good, 30 percent indicated Adequate, 7 percent found them to be Inadequate and 6
percent found them to be Poor.
When asked to list a recommendation to improve the City’s recreation opportunities, more and/or
better pools was the 7th most often noted recommendation (11 people gave this suggestion). However,
when asked which recreational activities are most important to members of their household, 75 out of
315 respondents listed swimming as one of the activities most important to their household.
When asked what additional recreational facility would you like to see developed in our community,
several respondents (10 out of 315) indicated more and/or better pool facilities. Finally, when asked
what recreation activity and related facility should be the highest priority for the City, 17 respondents
(out of 315) answered more and/or better pool facilities.
128
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 3-20
More detailed descriptions of specific facility and maintenance needs, as described in the Community
Recreation Needs Survey, are provided in Chapter 7, Service Levels and Chapter 8, Policy Issues. All
responses to the survey are contained in Appendix A.
i Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines, National Recreation and Park Association, 1996.
129
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recreation Programs Existing Conditions
Page 4-1
CHAPTER 4
Recreation Programs Existing Conditions
4.0 INTRODUCTION
The Bozeman Recreation Division provides services to individuals and recreation groups throughout
the community. The Division anticipates recreation demands, and provides recreation programs and
facilities to address identified needs. The Recreation Division offers programs that teach individuals
basic skills as well as life-long healthy habits. The Division provides opportunities for area residents at
the Beall Park Recreation Center, Lindley Center, Swim Center, Bogert Pool, in the City parks and other
recreation areas throughout Bozeman.
4.1 HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Recreation programs began in 1929 when Mrs. Ella Clark Martin traveled to Utah and hired Miss Eva
Pack as the first playground supervisor in Bozeman. Miss Pack worked for the City at Beall Park during
the summer months and at Montana State College as the Athletic Director during the school year. Her
salary was paid for by Mrs. Martin. Mrs. E. Lina Houston wrote in 1933 that “Beall Park is a municipal
park with playgrounds, equipped with special apparatus, ball grounds, tennis courts, picnic grounds,
bandstand for summer use, with a large plot of ground made into a skating rink in the winter time. A
beautiful community building or recreation center was built and presented to the City by Mrs. Martin,
the ground having been secured from Mrs. W.T. Beall through funds raised by private subscription.
Trees and shrubs have been added to those raised by pioneers. Bogert Grove Park was purchased by
the City, and for a time was used as a tourist park by the City, but now is used for picnics and for Boy
Scout gatherings. Cooper Park was presented to the City through the efforts of Walter Cooper, and is a
beauty spot used for picnics in the summer.”1
In the April 1957 A.A.U.W Report, under the section heading of Recreation Administration, it was
stated that “there is a park and recreation department in the City with a professional recreational
director and a park crew for maintenance. The annual expenditure on public recreation facilities is
$17,850. The money comes from City taxes and fees from the swimming pool and skating rinks.”
The 1958 City Plan for Bozeman lists a variety of summer activities including swimming, baseball fields,
playgrounds and special activities. Winter activities were listed as ice skating, sledding, volleyball, and
square dancing. The Recreation Department used Bogert Pool, the parks and the school facilities for
programs.
In 1960 the City Recreation Board was the first of several organizations to go on record as favoring an
indoor-outdoor type pool. In 1961 a new swimming pool was recommended as the number one
recreation need in Bozeman. “In 1961, a swimming pool committee composed of members representing
the City, schools, and the Chamber of Commerce conducted a study on the needs of a new pool and
recommended that the City and public schools jointly finance and operate an indoor-outdoor type
pool.”2 Community service groups joined in the promotion of a new swimming pool through such fund
raising activities as the Rotary and Kiwanis Club’s 1966 slow pitch softball game. Recommendations
came from a 1966 Bozeman Chamber of Commerce committee to build a new pool with phase 2 being
to remodel Bogert Pool, and that this be in a general obligation bond presented to the taxpayers for
130
Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 4-2
approval in 1966. The School Board and the City both agreed but costs escalated and no action was
taken in 1966. A 1971 School District and City building bond issue was narrowly defeated by outlying
voters. In 1974 the City of Bozeman bond issue passed.3
The Bozeman Swim Center opened its doors to the public for swimming in November of 1975. By
1980 the Swim Center was faced with rising operational and energy costs, and the City was facing
increasing challenges related to operation and management of the facility. A Blue Ribbon Study
Commission was formed to make recommendations and hire a new pool manager
4.2 CITY OF BOZEMAN RECREATION DIVISION
4.2.1 Overview
The City’s Recreation Division is responsible for developing and providing recreational programming.
The Division’s major objectives include:
· To improve conditions in our community by offering recreation opportunities that enhances the
quality of life.
· Through our recreation programs, to enhance individual respect and acceptance of people of
different ages, abilities, income levels, races, religions, cultures and beliefs.
· To offer opportunities for fun, family involvement, excitement, challenges and life-long learning.
· To provide opportunities that will promote health, well-being, and assist in the reduction of
stress.
· To provide recreation activities which are essential to the development of our youth. Our
recreation programs offer opportunities for youth to build self-esteem, self-reliance, positive
self-images, resiliency factors, lifetime skills, leadership and reduce negative social activity.
· To provide economic benefits to the City by generating revenue for the general fund, the
business community, and by reducing community healthcare costs.
· To train a productive, efficient and effective workforce.
The Division’s major objectives for the Aquatics Program include:
· To provide safe, clean and user-friendly facilities.
· To provide affordable recreational and fitness opportunities for families to interact in an aquatics
environment.
· To provide children affordable opportunities for supervised safe play during non-school hours.
· To offer individuals, especially seniors, the opportunity to improve and or maintain their
physical health and provide social opportunities so they may prolong independent living in
addition to living longer.
· To teach the community, ages 3 months and older, in current swimming techniques and how to
be safe in and around the water.
· To schedule the aquatic facilities at an affordable rate for groups; i.e. swims teams, synchronized
swim team, SCUBA, kayak and others.
· To offer a setting for individuals to have a sense of accomplishment, be creative and improve
their psychological well-being.
131
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recreation Programs Existing Conditions
Page 4-3
· To provide aquatic recreation opportunities for teenagers so as to reduce negative social activity
and to offer this age group leadership, social and work skills.
4.2.2 Operations and Recreation Services
The Recreation Division offers numerous recreation opportunities that are designed to enhance the
quality of life of the Bozeman residents. Programs are offered to meet the community’s needs. For
example, the Children’s Triathlon was designed to help families and children ages 6-12 become
physically active in order to keep childhood obesity low. The T-ball program was re-designed to educate
the coaches and parents in regards to healthy snacks. The T-ball program for ages 4-8 also trains
coaches in order to allow all children to keep moving while learning hand-eye coordination skills, and
develop sharing and socialization skills.
4.2.3 Existing programs
The Recreation Division offers entry level summer classes in almost every aspect of recreation including
sports, arts and crafts, science, babysitting, cooking, animals, nature, first aid and CPR, swimming,
environmental awareness, healthy living skills, hiking, running, dance, music and movement, outdoor
adventure skills, and plants. The Division offers leadership programs for youth ages 11-17 through the
Jr. Leader and Jr. Guard Programs. Youth are provided the opportunity to explore the outdoors
through hikes and backpack trips. Special events for ages 3-12 are a great way to try new recreation
activities and make new friends. The 3-5 year olds participate with an adult in their special events. This
program has been very popular, with over 200 kids in attendance at a number of the fun events. The
special events for youth ages 5-12 special vary each week and from year to year to provide excitement,
skill building and fun. The special events for youth operate throughout the year when the kids are out
of school. A preschool program also continues through the school year. The Division offers other
special events, and partners with other recreation groups to offer events. An example of the special
events are preschool parties, birthday parties, Letters and Phone Calls from Santa, Snowfest, Easter Egg
Hunt, Summer Activity Round-up, the Children’s Triathlon and the Sweet Pea Children’s Run.
The Aquatic Division offers safety, fitness and fun year round. The swimming lesson program ensures
the health and well-being of individual City residents as well as school groups by providing swim
technique training and instruction in basic water safety. The aquatic programs encourage families to
actively recreate together by offering Family Night Specials and classes in canoeing, kayaking and
snorkeling. The pools offer special events such as dive-in movies, pizza nights, moonlight swims,
goldfish swims, dog swims and more. The professional water safety program trains lifeguards, swim
instructors and professional rescuers. The program also contributes to life-long fitness and health by
introducing patrons to the properties of the water through water fitness classes, water walking and
jogging, and lap swimming.
The Swim Center serves as a rental facility for user groups such as the High School Swim Team, the
Bozeman Barracudas Swim Team, the Bozeman Stingrays Synchronized Swim Team, Bozeman Masters
Swim Team, SCUBA, kayak associations, Scouts, church and military groups.
Bogert Pool offers one of the best learn-to-swim programs for youth age 3 months to 15 years in the
country. We guarantee children age 7 and up will be able to swim 5 yards on their front and back after
the first set of lessons or lessons are free until they can do so.
The Division operates two indoor facilities for the community to rent for meetings, dinners, receptions,
reunions and other special occasions. The Lindley Center came on line for rentals in 1989 and the Beall
Park Recreation Center in 2007.
132
Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 4-4
For more information regarding the facilities that are operated and maintained by the Recreation
Division, please refer to Section 3.2.
4.2.4 Evaluation of Existing Recreation Programs
The Recreation Division has seen a large increase in attendance with the preschool (ages 2-5) programs,
and has seen a steady decline in the summer attendance for ages 6-12. This may be due to the fact that
both parents are working and need day-long child care for their children, competition for other
recreation providers, and the fact that parents can no longer drive across town in five minutes. There
has also been a decrease in swimming lesson attendance at Bogert Pool partly due to working parents
and the addition of other swim lesson providers in the community. While swimming lesson numbers
have decreased the program still has more participants than any other youth program. Other City
recreation programs, such as T-ball, recreational swimming and water fitness, have seen slight increases
in attendance.
4.2.5 Funding and Budget
The Recreation Division is funded by the City’s general fund. Fee and reservation revenue from the
Division goes into the general fund. The Division’s operating expenses for FY06 were $811,032 and
revenue generated was $493,419. Therefore, the City spent approximately $25.00 per capita on
recreation programs and facilities in FY06.
4.3 PARTNERSHIPS
The RPAB and Parks and Recreation Department believe that recreation programs that can be operated
by other recreation groups should be run by the special interest groups. Municipalities across the
country are currently trying to move from government-operated sports league to user group operated
leagues. The Bozeman community had the foresight in the early 1970’s for “the Department to rely
heavily on the use of volunteer organizations in the Community Recreation Program. The supporters of
a current interest in a recreation activity are encouraged and assisted in forming an organization that is
capable of offering a quality recreation opportunity. This program operation approach assures
community interest, citizen participation and cost efficiency. The Division strives to provide the
volunteer association with the necessary facilities, and through cooperation the facilities are supported
by labor, material and funds from the user volunteer organizations.”4 The Recreation Division’s job is
to assist the user groups in every way possible. Groups and businesses that offer recreation
opportunities are not viewed as competition, but are respected for the quality programs they are able to
provide our citizens. With this philosophy the City Recreation Division is able to fill the gaps in
recreation programming such as T-ball and preschool programming.
The Division serves the public as an information source regarding recreation opportunities, the trail
system and City parks. The RPAB, through infobozeman.com, provides a complete up-to-date list of
recreation offerings in Bozeman.
4.4. TRENDS IN RECREATION PROGRAMMING
4.4.1 Historic National Trends
Ancient civilizations recognized the values and impacts upon society of open space, physical activity,
and recreational pursuits. In the early 1900s, the pioneers of the modern park and recreational
133
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recreation Programs Existing Conditions
Page 4-5
movement created recreation for a society faced with industrialization, immigration and urbanization.
In the 1990s, the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) shifted focus from managing
activities to experiences and then to benefits as our society experienced a shift to a new economy based
upon information and technology where our lives are changing at a rapid rate. The new economy values
quality of life and people more than the old economy. The three general categories of benefits associated
with recreation programs include improved conditions, prevention of a worse condition, and realization
of a psychological experience. We have moved from activity-centered to benefit-based recreation, from
provider to partner, from professional-centered to participant collaboration, and from individual to
society. The benefits of recreational opportunities impact not just the individual participant but society
as a whole, including the environment and the economy.
4.4.2 Current National Trends
Current trends have been studied and documented for the last ten years by the RRPA, the California
Park and Recreation Society, and by numerous other recreation governing bodies. The future will
include the participation and interrelations of many groups in order to be successful. Articulating of
core values, stating of a clear vision for the future, and creating a strong mission will all be important.
Follow-up and the marketing of values, vision, mission, plans, and programs will all also be vital.
4.4.3 State of Montana Recreation Trends
According to the Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) “outdoor
recreation managers need to focus not only on facilities and programs for youth and young adults, but
increasingly for mature adults. One-in-five Montanans will be age 65+ by 2025.” Montana currently
has the fourth oldest population in the U.S. As noted in the SCORP Plan and in the Census date
presented in Chapter 2, Gallatin County’s population percentage change from 1990-2000 was 34.42
percent. Therefore, the demand for recreation programs and facilities will continue to grow along with
our high population growth rate. It will be important to see additional revenue sources to fund the
recreation programs. The SCORP also states that “because of Montana’s struggling economy and low
income population, affordability of outdoor recreation is a key issue, as is the limited ability of
businesses and citizens to pay higher taxes for it. This is one area where tourism benefits Montana;
nonresidents help pay for outdoor recreation facilities and programs. Montana’s recreation managers
need to provide more opportunities for visitors to spend money to support enhanced facilities and
services.”
4.4.4 Trends in Bozeman
The following recreation trends have been observed in Bozeman, and form the basis for the goals,
objectives and implementation strategies outlined in Chapters 9 and 10:
1. Recreation is critical to the economic vitality and the livability of our community. Recreation is
instrumental in the quality of life, which is important in attracting and retaining businesses and
residents.
2. Demographics are changing. As noted in Chapter 2, there is an increase in population, the
population is aging (life expectancy was 47 in 1900, while today it is 75), income inequality is
becoming wider, and we will have an increasingly diverse customer base.
3. It does not appear that the technology and communication revolution will slow down any time
soon.
4. American’s time-use patterns have changed. In Bozeman we now spend more time driving to get
to where we want to go. We have more families with two parents working; people increasingly
134
Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 4-6
feel a need to be productive at all times. The average TV viewing time is 12 hours a week,
which illustrates that the greatest percentage of leisure hours is spent watching television. Stress
reduction, customer satisfaction, and helping community members develop balanced lives will
be important roles for the recreation profession in the future.
5. There are many more for profit and non-profit recreation providers in our community thus
making Target Market Segments a common practice. Recreation programs now target individual
sports, fitness, dependent care, youth development, senior services, and a wide variety of arts
and entertainment.
6. Social trends are toward health and wellness, lifelong learning, improving conditions or the
prevention of a worse condition.
7. Environmental stewardship and awareness opportunities are being emphasized.
4.5 ISSUES AND NEEDS
This section documents statewide and local issues and needs that influence the types and number of
recreation facilities and programs that are needed in the community. The RPAB conducted a formal
community-wide mail survey in 2006. The results of this survey are described in Section 3.8, and are
listed in Appendix A.
1. The State SCORP plan states 10 goals that emerge from its assessment of needs throughout the
state. Number one and two on the list pertain directly to the City of Bozeman’s Recreation
Division:
· Increase the quality and/or quantity of local swimming facilities.
· Enhance local recreation facilities for youth.
2. The Bozeman’s community facility needs are the same as those defined in the State’s plan:
· Develop two new family-oriented leisure aquatic centers, one being located on the
Southside of town and the other in the North or Northwest part of town.
· Develop a Community Recreation Facility with and indoor-outdoor aquatic component
connected to a large community park.
3. The Recreation Division direction should be to offer programs that provide:
· Opportunities to encourage citizens of all ages to include recreational activities as part of
their daily lives. This will encourage our aging population to remain active and healthy,
and will address the growing childhood obesity issue. People recreate in areas where
they are skilled, and feel comfortable and safe; we should offer opportunities that teach
entry level skills in a large variety of activities.
· Develop healthy family relationships and creating strong, resilient families by providing
opportunities for families to recreate together. Families that play together, stay together.
· Develop preschool programs in order to teach parents how to play with their children,
and providing parents with ideas of how to recreate with their children.
· Develop character-building and team/friendship programs, especially for youth, which
are inclusive and designed for win/win. These programs should help individuals
135
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recreation Programs Existing Conditions
Page 4-7
establish values, and build confidence and self-esteem which can improve their chances
of success in their life.
· Stewardship of our lands is more vital now than ever before so programs should be
offered that educate in the protection of our environment and our valuable out-of-door
resources.
4. The following implementation tools are recommended to address the trends, issues and needs
identified in this Chapter:
· Create a method to communicate the vision and values of recreation to the community.
· Expand resources and identify new resources and strategic partnerships in order to fund
our programs. More than ever there is a need to impact public policy.
· Expand professional competencies, and provide professional and continuing education
that increases skills in the core competencies that will be needed for success in the
future.
· Integrate a recreation ethic into all aspects of our society, especially in the K-12
educational experience.
· Conduct research so as to influence public opinion and policy, and demonstrate results
and the best practices in the field.
11996 Bozeman Park Report
2A. Glen White, November 27, 1967
3Bozeman Swim Center Analysis, Past, Present, and Future, April 1985.
4E.Lina Houston, Early History of Gallatin County, Montana, 1933.
136
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions
Page 5-1
CHAPTER 5
Open Space Existing Conditions
5.0 INTRODUCTION
Open space protection and preservation in Montana may seem like a contradiction in terms. However,
rapid urban development in many parts of the state threatens the beautiful and pristine landscapes that
make Montana unique. The Bozeman area is one of these locations where the rapid conversion of open
lands to urban and suburban development threatens remaining open lands.
The term “open space” refers to conservation lands, recreation and agricultural lands, forest lands,
greenways or green buffers along streets, or any other open lands. Open space can also include water
bodies such as lakes or ponds. Open space provides numerous benefits to society, direct and indirect,
short-term and long-term, including:
· Everyday life can be busy and stressful, and open spaces can provide the opportunity for escape,
exercise, and relaxation.
· Open space helps to maintain healthy natural systems which play an important role in
environmental and ecological protection.
· Open space and scenic areas are a primary factor in attracting and retaining economic
investment.
5.1 HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Most of the public and natural open lands in the City of Bozeman, such as Burke Park or Tuckerman
Park, are categorized as natural parks and not as open space. Most of the non-park open space in the
Bozeman area is private open space, often in planned unit developments (PUDs) or clustered
developments. The City has long allowed PUDs where regulatory standards, such as setbacks or lot
sizes, can be relaxed in exchange for public goods. Historically, the public good obtained through the
PUD process consisted of protecting at least 30 percent of the development as open space. In addition,
development regulations in the Bozeman area have allowed density bonuses in exchange for the
clustering of homes and the protection of open space. Frequently, there are public access easements,
most often for trail corridors, across or through these private open spaces.
The City of Bozeman currently does not have a public open space acquisition and management program
like other Montana cities such as Missoula and Helena. Both Missoula and Helena have urban open
space plans, and funding from open space bonds for urban open space acquisition and management.
The Bozeman area does benefit from close proximity to an abundant amount of public lands, primarily
National Forests. Some of the most-loved and often used open lands in the Bozeman area, such the
“M” Trail and Hyalite Canyon, are located in National Forests. The City of Bozeman does own a
significant amount of open space up Sourdough Canyon; however this area is managed primarily as a
public drinking water resource. The road is used extensively for non-motorized recreation: hiking, dog
walking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing and horseback riding.
137
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 5-2
5.2 INVENTORY OF OPEN SPACE
In 2005, there were approximately 127 acres of non-park open space within the City of Bozeman, with
another 55 acres in the County but within the planning area. The open space within the City is shown
on Figure 3. An inventory of open space within the City is presented in Table 5-2 on Page 5-4 through
5-9, and an inventory of County open space within the City is presented in Table 5-3 on Page 5-9.
In addition, there are approximately 1,600 acres of conservation easements in and near the Planning
Area. These properties are privately owned without public access, but provide important benefits such
as aesthetic views, wildlife habitat and protection of on-going agricultural operations.
Table 5-1: Conservation Easements In and Near the Bozeman Planning Area
OWNERSHIP ACRES EASEMENT ADMINISTRATION LOCATION
Private Land 156 Gallatin Valley Land Trust South of Fort Ellis and west of Mount Ellis
Private Land 69 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Huffine Ln
Private Land 40 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Gooch Hill
Private Land 78 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Durston
Private Land 23 Gallatin Valley Land Trust East of Saber and west of Tayabeshockup
Private Land 1.5 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Kagy Blvd and Sourdough Rd
Private Land 1.0 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Between South Rouse Ave and Church Ave
Private Land 312 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Sourdough
Private Land 50 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Frontage Rd
Private Land 141 Gallatin Valley Land Trust Sourdough
Private Land 66 Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Sourdough Canyon Rd
Private Land 162 Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Sourdough Canyon Rd
Private Land 295 Montana Land Reliance Bridger Canyon Rd
Private Land 189 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Nash Rd
Private Land 44 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Nash Rd
TOTAL 1,628
Source: Natural Resource Information System, State of Montana, 2005.
5.3 OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE
5.3.1 Acquisition
As stated previously, most of the open space in the Bozeman area is created through the PUD process,
the clustered development process or the placement of conservation easements. These open spaces are
private; however some have public access easements. Lands acquired by the City that meet the
definition of open space (i.e., Burke Park or Tuckerman Park) are currently labeled as parks and not as
open space.
5.3.2 Development
The quality that typically defines open space is the lack of development. Open space is defined as land
or water area devoid of buildings and other physical structures except where accessory to the provision
of recreation, including but not limited to benches, picnic tables and interpretive signage. Typically,
improvements such as trails or benches are installed by and paid for by the private property owner.
5.3.3 Maintenance
Because most of these open spaces are privately owned, they are also privately maintained. However,
most have maintenance plans in place that have been reviewed and approved by the City or County.
Maintenance usually addresses noxious weeds, water quality, range management and fuels suppression.
138
139
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 5-4 LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTSLaramie Dr 0.5328 Private Private Parcel Fallon St & Laramie Dr 0.4982 Private Private Parcel Laredo Dr & Fallon St 0.9833 Private Private Parcel Laredo Dr 0.0766 Private Private Parcel Laredo Dr & Golden Valley Dr 0.0817 Private Private Parcel Huffine Ln & Fowler Ave 0.8314 Private Private Parcel Durston Rd & Michael Grove Ave 0.1882 Private Private Parcel Hunters Wy 0.0380 Public City Parcel Drainage areaDurham Ave 0.0371 Public City Parcel Drainage areaDurham Ave & Springbrook Ave 0.3867 Public City Parcel Drainage areaSpringbrook Ave & Harmon Wy 0.0653 Public City Parcel Drainage areaHarmon Wy & New Holland Dr 0.0653 Public City Parcel Drainage areaDurston Rd & Mineral Ave 0.1041 Private Private Parcel Stormwater detentionMineral Ave & Toole St 0.1125 Private Private Parcel Stormwater detentionCascade St & Mineral Ave 0.1115 Private Private Parcel Stormwater detentionFerguson Ave & Toole St & Durston Rd 0.3186 Private Private Parcel Common open space for stream & ditchFerguson Ave & Toole St & Cascade St 0.3156 Private Private Parcel Common open space for stream & ditchFerguson Ave & Cascade St & W Babcock St 0.4895 Private Private Parcel Common open space for stream & ditchFerguson Ave 0.3660 Private Private Parcel 60' utility/public access easementKimball Ave 0.1740 Private Private Parcel 60' utility/public access easementCascade St & Clifden Dr & Stafford Ave 0.0947 Private Private Parcel 30' utility/public access easementCascade St & Clifden Dr & Stafford Ave 0.0944 Private Private Parcel 30' utility/public access easementFowler Ave & Ravalli St 0.2190 Public Private Easement 10' wide pedestrian & bicycle trail easementW Babcock St & Clifden Dr & Stafford Ave 0.1022 Public Private Parcel W Babcock St & Clifden Dr & Stafford Ave 0.6197 Public Private Parcel W Babcock St & Hanley Ave & Kimball Ave 0.3765 Public Private Parcel Alexander St & Clifden Dr & Stafford Ave 0.0971 Public Private Parcel Alexander St & Clifden Dr & Stafford Ave 0.0983 Public Private Parcel Ferguson Ave & W Babcock St 0.3519 Public Private Parcel Kimball Ave & W Babcock St 0.0699 Public Private Parcel Mountain Ash Ave & Brentwood Ave 0.0251 Public Private Parcel 10' wide walkway trail easements (its a parcel)Mountain Ash Ave & Brentwood Ave 0.0294 Public Private Parcel 10' wide walkway trail easements (its a parcel)Brentwood Ave & Woodland Dr 0.0531 Public Private Parcel 10' wide walkway trail easements (its a parcel)Rogers Wy & Annie St 1.4967 Public Private Parcel Common open spaceRogers Wy & Rose Ct 0.0727 Public Private Parcel Common open space & public access easementRogers Wy 0.0370 Public Private Parcel Common open space & public access easementPeace Pipe Dr & Graf St & Little Horse Dr 13.8732 Private Private Parcel Common open spaceMorning Sun Dr & Peace Pipe Dr 3.3576 Public Private Parcel Common open spaceTable 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman140
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions
Page 5-5
LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTSPeace Pipe Dr & Little Horse Dr & Rain Roper Dr 12.0484 Private Private Parcel 20' perpetual public easement; pedestrian use onlyN 19th Ave & Tschache Ln 0.8191 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway common open space wasementN 19th Ave & Commerce Wy 0.6876 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway common open space wasementSimmental Wy and Dead Man's Gulch 0.6375 Public Private Parcel S 22nd Ave & Remington Wy & W Kagy Blvd 0.7101 Private Private Parcel DitchHuffine Ln & Auto Plaza Dr 3.1321 Public Private Parcel15' wide public access trail & bike path easementCompetition Dr 0.1709 Public Private Easement Open spaceAuto Plaza Dr & Competition Dr 0.6515 Private Private Parcel Open spaceAuto Plaza Dr 0.4348 Private Private Parcel Open spaceCottonwood Rd & Auto Plaza Dr 0.3028 Private Private Parcel Open spaceCottonwood Rd & Fallon St 0.2315 Private Private Parcel Open SpaceS Black Ave & E Story St 0.1360 Private Private Parcel Private open spaceS Black Ave & E Story St 0.0552 Public Private Easement Pedestrian easementFarmall St & Annie St 0.0393 Public Private Parcel Annie St & Farmall St 0.0401 Public Private Parcel Annie St & Lily Dr 0.0391 Public Private Parcel Lily Dr & Annie St 0.0398 Public Private Parcel Lily Dr & Rose St 0.0389 Public Private Parcel Rose St & Lily Dr 0.0377 Public Private Parcel Rose St & Oliver St 0.0496 Public Private Parcel Oliver St & Rose St 0.0472 Public Private Parcel Durston Rd & New Holland Dr 0.0237 Private Private Parcel Durston Rd & New Holland Dr & Springbrook Ave 0.0655 Private Private Parcel Durston Rd & Springbrook Ave & Hunters Wy 0.1036 Private Private Parcel Wagonwheel Rd & Concord Dr 0.0595 Private Private Parcel Concord Dr & Fieldstone Dr 0.0919 Private Private Parcel S Tracy Ave & Hoffman Dr 1.2465 Private Private Parcel Hoffman Dr & S Black Ave 0.9035 Private Private Parcel S Black Ave & Accola Dr 0.6750 Private Private Parcel S Black Ave & E Mason St 0.5784 Private Private Parcel S Black Ave & E Mason St 0.4272 Private Private Parcel S Black Ave & E Mason St 0.0733 Private Private Parcel S Tracy Ave & E Mason St 0.9535 Private Private Parcel Fairway Dr 0.8532 Public Private Parcel Fairway Dr 0.8333 Private Private Parcel Ivan Ave 0.2950 Private Private Parcel Ivan Ave 0.2477 Private Private Parcel Cornell Dr & Stanford Dr 0.2533 Private Private Parcel Cornell Dr & Wagonwheel Rd 2.6169 Private Private Parcel Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman141
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 5-6
LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTSStanford Dr & Wagonwheel Rd 1.3388 Private Private Parcel Drainage easementOxford Dr 0.1275 Private Private Parcel Oxford Dr & Cambridge Dr 0.0934 Private Private Parcel S 3rd Ave & Alder Creek Dr 0.1649 Private Private Parcel Heritage Dr & Wagonwheel Rd 0.0595 Public Private Parcel Lexington Dr 0.1132 Private Private Parcel Wagonwheel Rd & Lexington Dr 0.0595 Public Private Parcel Lexington Dr 0.1236 Private Private Parcel S 3rd Ave & Brookdale Dr 0.1710 Private Private Parcel S 3rd Ave & Wagonwheel Rd 0.9141 Private State Parcel Wagonwheel Rd & Fieldstone Dr 0.0561 Private Private Parcel Fieldstone Dr 0.0701 Private Private Parcel Hunters Wy 0.0380 Public Private Parcel Greek Wy & S 5th Ave 0.0224 Public Private Parcel Easement for walkingGreek Wy & Faculty Ct 0.0239 Public Private Easement Easement for walkingGreek Wy & S 3rd Ave 0.0184 Public Private Easement Easement for walkingGreek Wy 0.0160 Public Private Easement Easement for walkingGallatin Park Dr 0.1558 Private Private Parcel Utility easementGallatin Park Dr 1.7074 Private Private Parcel Gallatin Park Dr 2.0979 Private Private Parcel Utility easementE Valley Center Rd & N 19th Ave 1.5692 Private Private Easement 50' public greenway corridorWestridge Dr 0.1800 Public Private Easement 15' trail easementEvergreen Dr 5.5332 Private Private Parcel Common open space with private road within the open spaceW College St 0.9763 Public Private Parcel Common areaBlackbird Dr & Catron St 0.7008 Private Private Parcel Blackbird Dr & Downy Ln & Savannah Dr 0.4098 Private Private Parcel Cattail St & Blackbird Dr 0.4223 Private Private Parcel Catron St 1.0213 Private Private Parcel Warbler Wy 0.4906 Private Private Parcel Broadwater Ct & Broadwater St 0.0634 Private Private Parcel Broadwater Ct 0.0471 Private Private Parcel Broadwater Ct 0.0729 Private Private Parcel Broadwater Ct & Sanders Ave 0.0133 Private Private Easement 8' wide pedestrian access easementN 15th Ave 0.7269 Private Private Parcel Oak St & N 19th Ave 2.2125 Public Private Easement 50' greenway easementMcIlhattan Rd 0.4549 Public Private Easement Trail easementPar Ct & Birdie Dr 0.4844 Public Private Parcel 20' common open space & public linear trail corridor easementBoylan Dr 0.3366 Public Private Easement 20' public linear trail corridor easementBoylan Dr & Story Mill Rd 0.1730 Private Private Parcel Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman142
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions
Page 5-7
LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTSEquestrian Ln 0.0175 Public Private Easement Utility easement & pedestrian walkwayEquestrian Ln 0.0185 Public Private Easement Utility easement & pedestrian walkwayEquestrian Ln & Vaquero Pkwy & Caballo Ave 0.0105 Public Private Easement Utility easement & pedestrian walkwayEquestrian Ln & Vaquero Pkwy & Caballo Ave 0.0113 Public State Easement Utility easement & pedestrian walkwayBaxter Ln & Vaquero Pkwy & Caballo Ave 0.0114 Public Private Easement Baxter Ln & Vaquero Pkwy & Caballo Ave 0.0121 Public Private Easement Riata Rd & Fjord Ct 1.0905 Private State Parcel Riata Rd & Kimberwicke St 2.6564 Private Private Parcel Equestrian Rd & Riata Rd 0.1276 Private Private Parcel Donna Ave & W Babcock St 0.2234 Private Private Parcel Westridge Dr & Arnold St 0.3763 Public Private Parcel 20' recreational & utility easementResearch Dr 1.8373 Private Private Parcel Parking lotRavalli St & E Granite Ave 0.0711 Private Private Parcel Common open spaceGranite Ave & Fallon St 0.0559 Public Private Easement 10' pedestrian walkway trail easementHuffine Ln & Ferguson Ave 1.1285 Public Private Easement Pedestrian easementValley Common Dr & Ginella Wy 0.2397 Private Private Easement 40' common open space easementMathew Bird Cir & Graf St 4.0517 Private Private Parcel Detention ponds, 20' public pedestrian access easementGraf St & Mathew Bird Cir 0.1574 Private Private Parcel W Fieldview Cir & Graf St 3.6338 Private Private Parcel Detention ponds, 20' public pedestrian access easementGraf St & W Fieldview Cir 0.1899 Private Private Parcel E Fieldview Cir 2.4727 Private Private Parcel 20' public pedestrian access easement Graf St & E Fieldview Cir 0.1843 Private Private Parcel Meriwether Ave & Cameahwait St 0.3875 Private Private Parcel Detention pond, open spaceN 14th Ave & N 15th Ave 0.4642 Private Private Parcel Access/parking/landscapingOak St & N 14th Ave & N 15th Ave 2.0714 Private Private Parcel Access/parking/landscapingN 14th Ave & N 15th Ave 1.2704 Private Private Parcel Access/parking/landscapingMatheson Wy 0.3018 Private Private Parcel Jessie Wy & Roy St 0.6694 Private Private Parcel Matheson Wy & Roy St 0.6460 Private Private Parcel N 15th Ave & Durston Rd 0.1491 Private Private Parcel Matheson Wy & Durston Rd 0.0749 Private Private Parcel Matheson Wy & Durston Rd 0.1259 Private Private Parcel Matheson Wy & Roy St 0.0165 Private Private Easement 15' pedestiran easementMatheson Wy & Roy St 0.0142 Private Private Easement 15' pedestiran easementVillage Downtown Blvd 1.0749 Private Private Parcel Village Crossing Wy 0.0577 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd 0.0298 Private Private Parcel Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman143
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 5-8
LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTSVillage Downtown Blvd & Village Crossing Wy 0.0482 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd & Village Crossing Wy 0.0478 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd 0.0307 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd 0.0292 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd 0.5281 Private Private Parcel Village Crossing Wy 0.0503 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd 0.0295 Private Private Parcel Village Crossing Wy 0.0647 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd 0.2108 Private Private Parcel Village Crossing Wy 0.6123 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd & N Broadway Ave 0.1070 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd & Front St 0.1135 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd 0.1108 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd 0.0529 Private Private Parcel Village Downtown Blvd & Front St 0.6462 Private Private Easement 25' linear park/trail easementN 19th Ave & W Stevens Wy 1.2348 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway corridor/common open space easementW Stevens Wy & N 19th Ave 0.4571 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway corridor/common open space easementN 19th Ave & N 22nd Ave 0.1743 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway corridor/common open space easementN 19th Ave & N 22nd Ave & Durston Rd 1.0691 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway corridor/common open space easementOak St & Maplewood St 0.1183 Public Private Easement 35' public stream corridor/common open space easementMaplewood St & Windsor St 0.8545 Public Private Easement 35' public stream corridor/common open space easementWindsor St & N 22nd Ave 0.2498 Public Private Easement 35' public stream corridor/common open space easementFallon St & Ferguson Ave 1.0903 Public Private Easement 30' linear park/trail easementFallon St & Ferguson Ave 2.4110 Public Private Easement 30' linear park/trail easementStillwater Creek Dr 0.7386 Public Private Easement 30' linear park/trail easementOverbrook Dr 0.2321 Public Public Easement 25' transportation pathway easement (Gallagator Trail)Overbrook Dr & S 7th Ave 0.0355 Public Private Road 10' public pedestrian trail easement centered over existing trailBaxter Ln & Tschache Ln 1.7246 Public Private Easement 70' waterway & pedestiran trail easementN 19th Ave & Tschache Ln & Baxter Ln 1.9479 Public Private Easement 50' greenwayHighland Blvd 0.1708 Public Private Easement 10' pedestrian accessGallatin Center development 0.2578 Public Private Easement 75' public open space/linear trailMax Ave & Burke St 0.1352 Public Private Easement 25' public utility & sidewalk access easementMax Ave & Burke St 0.3463 Public Private Easement 25' public utility & sidewalk access easementCatron St 1.2444 Public Private Easement 75' public open space/linear trail easementGallatin Center development 0.5778 Public Private Easement 20' utility/linear trail easementValley Center Rd & Catron St 0.7705 Public Private Easement 50' public open space/linear trail easementValley Center Rd 0.8757 Private Private Parcel Common area for stormwater retention facilitiesValley Center Rd 0.4524 Public Private Easement 12' pedestrian easement to be within 50' of Valley Center ROWTable 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman144
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions
Page 5-9 NAME ACRES ACCESS LOCATION PARKING COMMENTSFranklin Hills Subdivision 5.0200 Public Brandon Trail Rd & Dulohery Ln Access is not obviousManley Meadows 0.0000 Public Mcilhattan RdMeadowbrook Estates 0.7386 Public Dogwood Dr Paved Subdivision bufferMyers 18.2000 Public Triple Tree Rd GravelRae Subdivision 0.0847 Public Chestnut Grove Ave Condo's backyardRae Subdivision 0.0000 Public Dogwood Dr Well locationStonegate Subdivision 3.0590 Public Mcilhattan Rd & Barclay DrValley Center Subdivision 6.3890 Public Stubbs Ln & Durango LnWalker Property 21.2050 Public Campbell Rd & Springhill RdTOTAL54.6963Table 5-3: Inventory of County Open Space within the Planning AreaLOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTSN 15th Ave & Oak St 0.2921 Public Private Easement 25' pedestrian easementSourdough Rd 0.2277 Public Private Easement 20' trail corridor easementBroadwater St & Meagher Ave 0.0575 Private Private Parcel Common open spaceMeagher Ave 0.0521 Private Private Parcel Common open spaceW Babcock St 0.1244 Private Private Parcel 10' wide access easement between common open spacesBroadwater St & Choteau Ave 0.0493 Private Private Parcel Common open spaceMeagher Ave 0.0843 Private Private Parcel Common open spaceMeagher Ave 0.0402 Private Private Parcel Common open spaceTOTAL127.4649Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman
145
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 5-10
5.4 OPEN SPACE GROUPS/ORGANIZATIONS
5.4.1 Gallatin County
The Gallatin County Open Space Bond was passed by the voters in the fall of 2000. The bond, in the
amount of $10 million dollars, is for the purpose of preserving open space in Gallatin County by
purchasing land and conservation easements from willing landowners for the following purposes:
managing growth, preserving ranches and farms, protecting wildlife habitat and water quality of streams
and rivers, providing parks and recreation areas. The Gallatin County Commission has appointed a 15
member citizens' advisory committee, (Gallatin County Open Lands Board) to oversee the grant
program. The Open Lands Board reviews all applications and makes project funding recommendations
to the County Commissioners, who have the authority to spend the bond money.
By County resolution the Commissioners must appoint a majority of ranchers and farmers to serve on
the Open Lands Board. The mission statement of the Open Lands Board is to work with the citizens of
Gallatin County to preserve natural lands and encourage the economic viability of agriculturally
productive lands. This is accomplished through voluntary programs that ensure the protection of open-
space lands, either in perpetuity or for a term of years; and through the identification or establishment of
funding sources, tax measures and other incentives. By law the County Commissioners must hold public
hearings explaining what projects have been recommended for funding from the bond money. This
process allows full public disclosure and input.
5.4.2 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
This state agency works with property owners to protect and enhance critical wildlife habitat. They
negotiate and administer conservation easements. The Bozeman Ponds and East Gallatin Recreation
Area are both owned by FWP, but are managed by the City of Bozeman as City parks.
5.4.3 Gallatin Valley Land Trust
GVLT is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to the conservation of open space,
agricultural land, wildlife habitat, and the creation of public trails in southwestern Montana.
5.4.4 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is an international, nonprofit wildlife conservation organization
whose mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. Land protection projects
include land acquisitions and conservation easements.
5.4.5 Montana Land Reliance
The MLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan land trust that strives to provide permanent protection for
ecologically and historically important private lands. MLR works with Montana's private landowners,
both one-on-one and in neighborhood-based groups, to provide long-term conservation strategies to
protect the economic and natural elements of their land and their neighborhoods. Conservation
easements are the primary tools used by MLR to achieve these goals.
5.5 PARTNERSHIPS
The partnership with the GVLT is critical for the expansion of the City’s trail system. Often important
trail corridors and connections lie on private property, and GVLT’s expertise and experience is critical
146
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions
Page 5-11
for negotiating with the landowner and securing the needed easements. GVLT also contributed
significantly to the maintenance of trail easements.
The City also partners with property owners associations for the maintenance of private open space and
trail easements. The City’s development regulations contain requirements for the development and
maintenance of common areas, including common open space, by property owners associations.
However, there is always room for improvement in ensuring that private open spaces, and trail corridors
with public access easements, are adequately maintained.
5.6 PROST PLAN SURVEY RESULTS
As noted in Chapter 1, a community survey was conducted as part of the preparation of the PROST
Plan. Of the 315 survey respondents, 106 listed parks as one of the recreational facilities that are most
often used by members of their household; this is 34 percent of the respondents. Open space was the
third most often used recreation facility after trails and parks. When asked which recreation activity and
related facility should be the highest priority for the City, open space was the third most often listed
facility after trails and parks.
147
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Trails Existing Conditions
Page 6-1
CHAPTER 6
Trails Existing Conditions
6.0 INTRODUCTION
Trails are very important to the citizens of Bozeman. In fact, the PROST Plan survey indicates that
trails are the most-used recreational facility in the City. Trails provide a wealth of community-enhancing
benefits, including:
· Trails facilitate exercise and offer a cost-effective weapon against the staggering health-care costs
associated with the sedentary lifestyle.
· Trails provide safe transportation corridors for people to move throughout the community on
foot or on bike.
· Trails provide an opportunity to experience nature and enjoy the outdoors.
· Trails can enhance property values and contribute to the community’s tourism economy.
6.1 HISTORY/BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Planning for trails and trail corridors has its roots in the early 1900s. Several planners and landscape
architects were advocating for the creation of parkways and interconnected park systems. The early
leader in greenway planning was John Charles Olmsted, who wrote “while there are many things small
and great which may contribute to the beauty of city…unquestionably one of the greatest is a
comprehensive system of parks and parkways” regarding the City of Portland, OR’s park system.
Radburn, NY, designed in 1929 by Clarence Stein and Henry Wright, was one of the first planned
communities in the United States. The design of Radburn introduced a number of new planning ideas,
including the “super-block” concept, cul-de-sac (cluster) grouping, and interior parklands. Radburn also
featured a trail system (known as “park walks”) for the separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to
promote safety. Every home was planned with access to the park walks.
The movement for the creation of trail systems emerged in the mid- to late 1980s as urban
conservationists, neighborhoods, and “friends” groups around the country coalesced around a shared
vision for creating a community where ribbons of green would flow through every neighborhood.
These groups typically embraced smart growth’s central tenet of containing urban sprawl through
compact urban form, but their support was contingent on the quid pro quo that streams, wetlands, and
wildlife habitat be protected, and restored where necessary, to provide access to nature within a short
walk or bicycle ride from home.
By 1983, the Bozeman Area Master Plan contained “linear parks” as a park category. Linear parks were
described as “corridors of land which provide public access between different locations for recreational
or transportation purposes…improvements can include facilities to aid walking, hiking and bicycling,
and rest stations.”
148
149
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Trails Existing Conditions
Page 6-3
6.2 CLASSIFICATION OF TRAILS
In 2005, there was approximately 48 miles of trail within the planning area (see Figure 4). Of this,
approximately 42 miles are natural fines trails (Classes II – IV) and approximately 6 miles are paved,
shared-use trails (Class I). Although the term trail is generally defined as “way designed for and used by
pedestrians, cyclists and other similar uses,” the City of Bozeman uses several subcategories of trails
including:
Class IA. These trails are heavily used with full access, and are designed for recreational and commuter
use along major transportation corridors. These trails are designed to permit two-way traffic using an
impervious surface material such as asphalt or concrete. These trails are 12 feet wide with full ADA
accessibility.
Class IB. These trails are the same as Class IA trails with the exception of being 10 feet wide. These
trails are typically used in interior subdivision settings where Class I trails are appropriate, but a full 12
feet width is not necessary.
Class IIA. These trails receive heavy to moderate use with a very high degree of ADA accessibility.
They are intended for multiple non-motorized, recreational and commuter use. Class II trails are
constructed of natural fines and are 6 feet in width.
Class IIB. These trails receive moderate use and provide moderate ADA accessibility depending on
grades and/or obstacles. Construction standard is the same as Class IIA.
Class III. These trails receive moderate to low use and are typically 3 feet in width. They are either
natural trails developed by use, or constructed with natural fines. ADA accessibility is extremely limited.
Class IVA. These trails are generally mowed corridors used for ski trails in winter, or occasional special
activities such as cross-country running meets, and are 16 feet in width.
Class IVB. These trails are the same as Class IVA trails with the exception that they are 10 feet in
width.
Class V. These trails are used for equestrian traffic, and when constructed parallel to pedestrian trails
are built with a sufficient buffer and physical barrier between them to prevent horse/pedestrian
conflicts.
6.3 LAND ACQUISITION, TRAIL DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE
6.3.1 Land Acquisition
The acquisition of land for trail development currently occurs in four basic ways. 1. The land is
dedicated as parkland which would include linear parks and trails within neighborhood, community,
regional or natural area/open lands parks; 2. Public trail easements across private lands are purchased or
donated; 3. Trails are placed within the public right-of-way; these are typically Class I shared-use trails;
and 4. Non-public right-of-way, such as railroad right-of-way, is used.
150
Trails Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 6-4
6.3.2 Trail Development
Most trails in newly developing parts of the City are installed by the developer. The City may install or
make improvements to trails as part of the capital improvements program. For example, during FY05
the Parks Division installed a trail to the Children’s Memorial Park.
The City also partners with a variety of groups to install trails, including: Gallatin Valley Land Trust,
property owners associations, user groups, service organizations, nonprofit organizations, and clubs.
Development is accomplished with a variety of funding sources and combinations, including budgeted
capital improvement funds, cash-in-lieu funds, City Park Improvement Grant funds, private donations,
and grant monies. Many improvements are also completed with the use of donated time, labor and
materials.
The proposed location of trails, as well as planned trail-related improvements, within the City must be
reviewed and approved by the City. In addition, trail development must comply with the City’s
standards, including construction, materials, depth, width, etc. (see Appendix C for Design Standards).
Most of the trails within the planning area, but outside the City of Bozeman, were installed by the
developer or the property owners association.
6.3.3 Trail Maintenance
Most existing trails are maintained by the City Parks Division. A more thorough description of the
Parks Division’s maintenance responsibilities are described on Page 3-15 through 3-17. The Parks
Division also partners with a variety of groups for assistance in maintaining City parks and other
recreational lands, including: Gallatin Valley Land Trust, Bridger Ski Foundation, property owners
associations, user groups, service organization, and nonprofit organizations and clubs.
Most trails in new developments created since the beginning of 2004 are maintained by property owners
associations because the City Parks Division lacks the funds, equipment and personnel to maintain new
trails while maintaining an acceptable level of service for existing trails. It is expected that maintenance
of linear parks by property owners associations would cease if and when a Citywide park maintenance
district, or similar alternative for funding, is created.
Most of the trails within the planning area but outside the City of Bozeman are maintained by property
owners associations.
6.4 TRAIL GROUPS/ORGANIZATIONS
There are several groups in the Bozeman area that contribute greatly to the planning, acquisition,
development and maintenance of trails. These groups include:
Gallatin County Trails Advisory Committee. This committee was appointed in 1999 as a formal
advisory committee to the Gallatin County Planning Board. It includes eleven volunteer committee
members from around the county, with a mix of experience and skills relating to public trails. The Trails
Advisory Committee is charged with two primary tasks: 1) to inventory existing trails and planned trails
in Gallatin County, and 2) to develop a proposal for a countywide trail system. This second task includes
developing criteria for siting trail corridors, identifying potential corridors, estimating costs and other
resource requirements for the potential trail corridors, and setting priorities among the possible new
trails.
151
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Trails Existing Conditions
Page 6-5
Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT). GVLT is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the
conservation of open space, agricultural land, and wildlife habitat and the creation of public trails in and
around Gallatin County. GVLT has been a leader in planning, building, and maintaining trails in the
Bozeman area through their Main Street to the Mountains Trail System program. In particular, GVLT
has been instrumental in obtaining easements and other links between critical sections of the trail
system. For example, as a result of GVLT’s persistent negotiations, the Montana Rail Link leased the
Story Mill Spur Trail to the City of Bozeman for ten years.
Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board. This Board is comprised of citizen volunteers who are
appointed by the City Commission. Board members have knowledge of bicycling and/or traffic safety in
the Bozeman area. The Board is advisory to the City Commission on matters which may have an impact
on bicycling, including usage of public streets and other public ways. The Board provides advice to the
Commission regarding bicycling issues pertaining to the PROST Plan and the Transportation Plan, and
the Board is also represented on the Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC).
Rotary Club. Rotary is a service organization of business and professional leaders worldwide who
provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill
and peace in the world. The two local Rotary Clubs have been very involved in trail and park acquisition,
development, and maintenance.
Montana Conservation Corps. The Montana Conservation Corps teaches the rewards of service and
instills values that carry throughout life. The MCC seeks to achieve its mission by performing service
projects which have a lasting and beneficial impact on our natural environment and communities. Many
of the MCC’s service projects involve restoring, building, and maintaining trails.
Gallatin County Board of Park Commissioners. The Gallatin County Board of Park Commissioners
was formed pursuant to the authority granted under in Sections 76-16-2301, et. seq., MCA. The Board's
mission is to provide a system of interconnected parks and trails for a wide range of recreational
opportunities for Gallatin County. The Board adopted the following goals for its strategic plan to move
toward a higher recreational level of service for the residents of the county:
· Goal 1 - Complete Master Plan for Parks and Recreation
· Goal 2 - Address the issues of operation and maintenance requirements for county parks and
trails
· Goal 3 - Update current rules and regulations
· Goal 4 - Implement existing Trails Plans
· Goal 5 - Involve the community in the planning, development, and maintenance of county parks
and trails
These groups often work closely with each other. For example, during the spring of 2000 the Bozeman
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, the Gallatin County Trails Advisory Committee, GVLT, and City
and County staff worked together to prepare a countywide inventory of existing trails using global
positioning system (GPS) technology. This inventory was very useful for the preparation of a future
trails map for the Bozeman area, as well as a future trail map for all of Gallatin County. The GPS trail
map allowed the group to better view existing trails, and determine where future trails are needed for
connections.
152
Trails Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 6-6
Bridger Ski Foundation. The Bridger Ski Foundation (BSF) is a non-profit community based
volunteer organization that provides organized recreational and race programs for the three skiing
disciplines: Alpine, Nordic, and Freestyle. The Nordic ski program has been grooming ski trails at
Lindley Park for 30 years and has enjoyed a cooperative relationship with the City of Bozeman. BSF is
working with GVLT to include some winter grooming, where appropriate, of the Main Street to
Mountains Trail System. BSF advocates for Nordic skiing as an amenity in our health-oriented
community. They also view Nordic skiing as an important economic tool for the Bozeman area as BSF
is increasingly able to conduct ski racing events that attract skiers and fans from around the world. The
Bridger Ski Foundation and GVLT have worked together to identify many possible future ski trails.
Please refer to Appendix E.
6.5 PARTNERSHIPS
The partnership with GVLT is critical for the expansion of the City’s trail system. Often important trail
corridors and connections lie on private property, and GVLT’s expertise and experience is critical for
negotiating with the landowner and securing the needed easements. GVLT has also contributed
significantly to the maintenance of trail easements.
As stated above, the City partners with BSF for the grooming of Nordic ski trails in the winter.
Grooming has been occurring at three in-town venues, including Lindley Park, Bridger Creek Golf
Course and the Snowfill site on the City’s landfill property.
The City also partners with property owners associations for the maintenance of private open space and
trail easements. The City’s development regulations contain requirements for the development and
maintenance of common areas, including common open space, by property owners associations.
However, there is always room for improvement in ensuring that private open spaces and trail corridors
with public access easements are adequately maintained.
6.6 PROST PLAN SURVEY RESULTS
As noted in Chapter 1, a community survey was conducted as part of the preparation of the PROST
Plan. Of the 315 survey respondents, 221 listed trails as one of the recreational facilities that are most
often used by members of their household (70 percent of the respondents) and 216 listed
walking/hiking as one of the recreational activities that are most important to the members of their
household (69 percent of respondents). When asked to think of a recommendation to improve the
City’s recreation opportunities, more and/or better trails was the most frequently listed response.
When asked to list an additional recreational facility they would like to see developed in our community,
more and/or better trails was the most frequently listed response. Finally, when asked which recreation
activity and related facility should be the highest priority for the City, more and/or better trails was the
most often listed facility.
In terms of trail maintenance, 15 percent rated it Excellent, 42 percent Good, 30 percent Adequate, 5
percent Inadequate and 2 percent Poor; 5 percent of respondents did not use the trails and 1 percent did
not respond. The most frequently listed maintenance problems included: dog waste, mud and puddles
on trails, unleashed dogs, garbage, weed control and bikes in Burke Park.
153
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-1
CHAPTER 7
Service Levels
7.0 INTRODUCTION
When planning for community facilities and services, communities need to not only identify which
public facilities and services are important to community quality, but they must also define what
constitutes “adequate” provision of community facilities and services. To determine adequacy, local
communities develop yardsticks or standards. Level of service (LOS) standards are measures of the
amount (and/or quality) of the public facility being provided to meet that community's basic needs and
expectations. LOS measures are typically expressed as ratios of facility capacity to demand by existing
and projected future users. For instance, the amount of parkland currently needed in a particular
community may be determined by comparing the ratio of existing park acres per 1,000 population to the
community's desired level of parks relative to population. The gap between the two ratios is the
currently needed park acreage. As the community grows in population, the objective will be to provide
enough additional acreage to maintain the community's desired ratio of park acres to 1,000 population.
Level of service standards serve multiple purposes, including:
· Provide a benchmark for evaluating service deficiencies in existing neighborhoods.
· Define what new public facilities and services will be needed to support new development.
· Provide a basis for assuring that existing services are maintained as new development is served.
· Alert public officials to opportunities for improved efficiency and savings.
· Move beyond quantitative measures and provide measures for the quality of facilities and
services provided.
· Provide an opportunity for neighboring jurisdictions to coordinate LOS standards to assure
consistency.i
Traditionally, park planners have relied upon standards provided by the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA). In 1971, the NRPA published the National Park, Recreation and Open Space Standards
which guided the park and recreation field during the 1970s. During the late 1970s, the NRPA enlisted
the assistance of over 180 individuals, representing all segments of recreation, parks and related
disciplines, to publish the Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines in 1983. The standards
were again updated and published as the Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines in 1996, and
this document is still in use today. The NRPA standards include recommendations for amount of park
and recreation facilities per quantity of people, suggestions for a classification system of parks and
facility space standards, and guidelines for park planning processes.
While these national standards provide a useful framework for evaluating community resources, it is
recognized that national standards are not going to provide an adequate assessment of the recreational
needs of particular communities. Instead, communities must develop their own standards that reflect
their unique conditions, resources and needs, for use in evaluating recreation needs. The NRPA
standards are typically used to present a big picture view of park, recreation, and open space planning
154
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-2
across the nation. The NRPA publication in use today does describe various methods communities can
use to develop their own, community-specific LOS standards.
Also, while LOS standards are very good for determining amount, they are not effective for evaluating
quality; an emphasis on obtaining an adequate quantity of recreational amenities much be balanced
against ensuring that those amenities are usable and safe. Therefore, this discussion of level of service
for parks, recreational facilities and programs, open space and trails will focus on both the quantitative
and qualitative aspect of recreational amenities. Further, an examination of the quantity of recreational
facilities and services available in the Bozeman will also address the geographic distribution and service
areas of current and future facilities and services.
7.1 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
7.1.1 Acres of Developed Neighborhood Park Per 1,000 Population
The NRPA recommends that communities provide 1 to 2 acres of developed Neighborhood Park per
1,000 population. Currently, Bozeman has approximately 3.0 acres of developed Neighborhood Park
per 1,000 population. As shown in Table 7-1, the average amount of developed Neighborhood Park in
regional peer communities is 2.1 acres per 1,000 population, which is consistent with the NRPA
recommendations. However, the average standard for developed Neighborhood Park in the peer
communities is 3.1 acres per 1,000 population. Bozeman would like to maintain its current level of
service for Neighborhood Park acreage. Therefore, Bozeman’s level of service will be 3.0 acres per
1,000 population, which is consistent with the average standard for developed Neighborhood Parks in
the peer communities.
Table 7-1: Acres of Developed Neighborhood Park – Bozeman and Peer Communities
City Boulder, CO Fort Collins, CO Greeley, CO Loveland, CO
Population 107,340 126,848 77,000 50,608
Developed Parkland in Acres 325 315.73 197 114.6
Developed Park Acres/1,000 Pop 3 2.5 2.5 2.3
Parkland Acres Standard/1,000 Pop 1.5 2.5 2.5 5
City Boise, ID Billings, MT Missoula, MT Bellevue, WA
Population 199,975 98,000 57,057 117,000
Developed Parkland in Acres 197.25 385 140 155
Developed Park Acres/1,000 Pop 1 3.9 2.5 1.3
Parkland Acres Standard/1,000 Pop 1.5 4 2.5 3
City Bellingham, WA Redmond, WA Average of Other Bozeman, MT
Population 67,171 44,020 Communities 31,6602
Developed Parkland in Acres 58.5 45.45 193 95
Developed Park Acres/1,000 Pop 0.89 1.03 2.1 3.0
Parkland Acres Standard/1,000 Pop N/A 5 3.1 3.0
Source: Peer community data was collected in March 2004 by EDAW, the consultants who prepared the Master Parks and Recreation Plan for
the Greater Missoula Area, and is reprinted here with permission from the City of Missoula. Population estimates from 2004 were used.
155
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-3
7.1.2 Location of Developed Neighborhood Parks
The City was divided up into quadrants as follows to analyze the level of service being provided by
developed Neighborhood Parks: Northeast (north of Main St and east of N 7th Ave), Southeast (south
of Main St and east of S 8th Ave) Southwest (south of Main St and west of S 8th Ave) and Northwest
(north of Main St and west of N 7th Ave).
Northeast Quadrant. Table 7-2 includes the developed Neighborhood Parks located in the Northeast
quadrant. As shown in Figure 5, the ½-mile service area for these parks adequately provides for the area
south of I-90, west of Broadway Ave, north of Main St and east of N 7th Ave. Some residential areas
farther to the north, such as parts of Bridger Creek Subdivision, Headlands Subdivision and the
manufactured home park located off of Bridger Canyon Dr, are not provided with very good access to
developed Neighborhood Parks. However, these neighborhoods are within close proximity to the East
Gallatin Recreation Area, which is a large Regional Park. Also, several new developments in the area
(Legends I, Legends II and Creekwood) will include some Neighborhood parkland to fill in the gaps.
Generally, this quadrant is well-served by developed Neighborhood Parks.
Table 7-2: Developed Neighborhood Parks in the Northeast Quadrant
BEALL 2.2 N BOZEMAN AVE & E VILLARD ST
BRIDGER CREEK, PHASE 2 1.7 AUGUSTA DR
CENTENNIAL 2.5151 N TRACY AVE & W COTTONWOOD ST
NE NEIGHBORHOOD POCKET PARK 1.0975 N WALLACE AVE & FRONT ST
WESTLAKE 5.9 N 5TH AVE & W TAMARACK ST
Southeast Quadrant. Table 7-3 includes the developed Neighborhood Parks located in the Southeast
quadrant. As shown in Figure 6, the ½-mile service area for these parks adequately provides for the
area, except for the neighborhood east of Lindley Park and residential development along Haggerty
Lane such as the Comstock Apartment complex. The southernmost parts of the Sundance Springs
development are also underserved with developed Neighborhood Park, but are in close proximity to
several natural parks such as Tuckerman and McLeod Parks. Generally, this quadrant is well-served by
developed Neighborhood Parks.
Table 7-3: Developed Neighborhood Parks in the Southeast Quadrant
COOPER 4.1 S 8TH AVE & W KOCH ST
JARRETT 1.886 WESTRIDGE DR
LANGOHR 4.41 S TRACY AVE & W MASON ST
LANGOHR GARDENS 12.361 S TRACY AVE & W MASON ST
NEW HYALITE VIEW, PARK 1 11.7402 N SPRUCE DR
NORTH MEADOWS 1.017 MICHAEL GROVE AVE & W VILLARD ST
SOUTHSIDE 2.4173 W COLLEGE ST & S 5TH AVE
WESTFIELD 4.3973 WAGONWHEEL RD & OXFORD DR
Southwest Quadrant. As shown in Figure 7, there are no developed Neighborhood Parks in the
Southwest quadrant at this time. Therefore, residential uses in this area are not being adequately served
with parks. Residential developments in the area include: housing between Kagy Blvd and Lincoln St
near the campus, new multihousehold development off of Kagy Blvd and west of S 19th Ave, housing
on the MSU campus and housing north of College St and south of W Main St.
156
157
158
159
160
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-8
Northwest Quadrant. Table 7-4 includes the developed Neighborhood Parks located in the
Northwest quadrant. As shown in Figure 8, the ½-mile service area for these parks adequately provides
for the area, except for some residential uses south of W Babcock St and north of W Main St and
residential uses north of the Interstate. Also, some new developments that appear unserved merely do
not yet have their Neighborhood Parks developed at this time. These developments include Baxter
Meadows, Laurel Glen and Baxter Square. Generally, this quadrant is well-served by developed
Neighborhood Parks.
Table 7-4: Developed Neighborhood Parks in the Northwest Quadrant
CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK B 5.763 CATTAIL ST & CATRON ST
CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 2, PARK C 0.707 BLACKBIRD DR & CATRON ST
CATTAIL CREEK, PHASE 2, PARK D 0.965 BLACKBIRD DR & CATTAIL ST
HARVEST CREEK, PHASE 1, PARK 1 2.3721 DURSTON RD & ROSE ST
HARVEST CREEK, PHASE 2, PARK 2 2.4388 ROSE ST & ANNIE ST
HARVEST CREEK, PHASE 3 & 4, PARK 3 4.8673 ANNIE ST & W OAK ST
HARVEST CREEK, PHASE 5, PARK 4 3.0686 FARMALL ST & DURHAM AVE
SANDAN PARK 3.1228 FEN WY & DOWNY LN
VALLEY COMMONS 0.54 VALLEY COMMONS PARK DR & FALLON ST
VALLEY UNIT 8.594 DURSTON RD & CASCADE ST
VALLEY WEST 4.81 W BABCOCK ST & CLIFDEN DR & HANLEY AVE
VALLEY WEST, PHASE 2 7.49 CASCADE ST & CLIFDEN DR
WALTON HOMESTEAD 1.1153 N 15TH AVE & JUNIPER ST
7.2 COMMUNITY PARKS
7.2.1 Acres of Developed Community Park
The NRPA recommends that communities provide 5 to 8 acres of developed Community Park per
1,000 population. Currently, Bozeman has approximately 7.1 acres of developed Community Park per
1,000 population. As shown in Table 7-5, the average amount of developed Community Park in
regional peer communities is 2.8 acres per 1,000 population, which is significantly less than the NRPA
recommendations. The average standard for developed Community Park in the peer communities is 4.6
acres per 1,000 population, which is also less than the NRPA recommendations. Bozeman would like to
maintain its current level of service for Community Park acreage. Therefore, Bozeman’s level of service
will be 7.0 acres per 1,000 population, which is well within the NRPA recommended range.
161
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-9
Table 7-5: Acres of Developed Community Park – Bozeman and Peer Communities
City Boulder, CO Fort Collins, CO Greeley, CO Loveland, CO
Population 107,340 126,848 77,000 50,608
Developed in Acres 173 308.2 390 147.7
Developed Park Acres/1,000 Pop 1.6 2.4 3.4 2.9
Parkland Acres Standard/1,000 Pop 1.5 5.5 5 2.5
City Boise, ID Billings, MT Missoula, MT Bellevue, WA
Population 199,975 98,000 57,057 117,000
Developed in Acres 975.2 265 344 N/A
Developed Park Acres/1,000 Pop 4.9 2.7 2.5 N/A
Parkland Acres Standard/1,000 Pop 4.7 3 N/A 13
City Bellingham, WA Redmond, WA Average of Other Bozeman, MT
Population 67,171 44,020 Communities 31,660
Developed in Acres N/A 68.5 334 2251
Developed Park Acres/1,000 Pop N/A 1.6 2.8 7.1
Parkland Acres Standard/1,000 Pop N/A 1.5 4.6 7.0
Source: Peer community data was collected in March 2004 by EDAW, the consultants who prepared the Master Parks and Recreation Plan for
the Greater Missoula Area, and is reprinted here with permission from the City of Missoula. Population estimates from 2004 were used.
1The number for developed community park (225 acres) includes parks classified as community parks, special use parks and the East Gallatin
Recreation Area which is classified as a regional park.
7.2.2 Location of Developed Community Parks
The City was divided up into quadrants as follows to analyze the level of service being provided by
developed Community Parks: Northeast (north of Main St and east of N 7th Ave), Southeast (south of
Main St and east of S 8th Ave) Southwest (south of Main St and west of S 8th Ave) and Northwest (north
of Main St and west of N 7th Ave). The East Gallatin Recreation Area, which is classified as a Regional
Park, is included in this analysis as a developed Community Park. North Grand Fields, Aasheim Fields,
Bronken Park, Christie Fields and the Sport Complex, which are classified as Special Use Parks, are also
included in this analysis as developed Community Parks.
Table 7-6: Developed Community Parks by Quadrant
QUADRANT NAME ACRES LOCATION
NE EAST GALLATIN RECREATION AREA 89.1735 MANLEY RD
NE NORTH GRAND FIELD 2.3636 N GRAND AVE & W COTTONWOOD ST
NW AASHEIM FIELDS 5.255 W BABCOCK ST & FOWLER AVE
NW BOZEMAN POND 16.5 HUFFINE LN & FOWLER AVE
NW BRONKEN 39.06 COTTONWOOD RD
NW KIRK 13.3 N 20TH AVE & W BEALL ST
SE BOGERT 7.4915 S CHURCH AVE & BOGERT PL
SE CHRISTIE FIELDS 8.2918 S BLACK AVE & E MASON ST
SE LINDLEY 15.483 E MAIN ST & BUTTONWOOD AVE
SE SPORTS COMPLEX 28.8154 HAGGERTY LN
162
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-10
Community Parks are, by definition, meant to serve the entire community. However, it is important
that Community Parks are equitably distributed across the community so that different areas of the City
have convenient access to Community Park facilities. As shown in Table 7-6, the Northwest and
Southeast quadrants are amply served by Community Parks. The Northeast quadrant has two
Community Parks but is not as well served as the Northwest and Southeast quadrants; consideration
should be given to siting additional Community Park in the Northeast quadrant. Finally, the Southwest
quadrant has no Community Park facilities. The City is currently experiencing a significant amount of
growth in the Southwest quadrant, and effort should be made to site Community Park areas in this
quadrant.
7.3 PLAYGROUNDS
Playgrounds are typically located within parks, and often playgrounds represent the primary facility at a
mini-park. Playgrounds are also located at elementary schools, and these playgrounds are included in
this analysis. Playgrounds represent an important recreational amenity for young children. As such, the
service area for a playground is about ¼-mile so it is within walking or biking distance for small children.
Also, it is important for playgrounds to have amenities such as benches nearby so parents and
grandparents have a place to sit. There are specific safety, design and construction requirements for the
installation of new playgrounds. The Bozeman Parks Division regularly inspects playground equipment
for wear and tear to ensure safety, and performs maintenance work and replacement as needed. In the
Community Recreation Needs Survey, when asked to list “what additional recreational activity that is not listed
would you like to see developed in our community,” more/better playground equipment was the most
frequently cited response. Other playground equipment related comments from the survey include:
Can you think of a recommendation to improve the City’s recreation opportunities?
· Better playground equipment for children.
· Install playground equipment for kids at Cooper Park.
· Require developers to install playground equipment in parks when developing subdivisions.
· What ever happened to park equipment such as swings, slides, merry-go-rounds, teeter-totters?
As long as this equipment is not neglected in its maintenance, the public would use at own risk.
What additional recreational activity that is not listed in question 3 would you like to see
developed in our community?
· Better fencing, more equipment for preschoolers.
· More modern play equipment - what is up with that antique metal death trap at Bogert?
· Playground equipment in every neighborhood. We have to travel quite far for a good park and
we live in town.
· Playground equipment.
· Playgrounds for young children.
What additional recreational facility would you like to see developed in our community?
· A park with excellent playground equipment (learners’ fort).
· Kids playground fort (see Helena's new fort at Memorial Park)
· Need playgrounds for grandchildren.
· Playground equipment at Bogert Park
163
164
165
166
167
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-15
These comments illustrate that the community’s recreational needs would be better served by more
playground equipment, better/newer playground equipment, a greater variety of equipment and
playgrounds in close proximity to places of residence. In regard to more and better/newer playground
equipment, emphasis will need to be placed on obtaining playground equipment in newly developing
parks and to install/replace playground equipment in older parks.
In regard to the proximity of playgrounds, Figures 9 through 12 illustrate the geographic distribution of
playgrounds throughout the City and the ¼-mile service area around each playground. For this analysis,
the City was divided up into quadrants as follows to analyze the level of service being provided by
developed Community Parks: Northeast (north of Main St and east of N 7th Ave), Southeast (south of
Main St and east of S 8th Ave) Southwest (south of Main St and west of S 8th Ave) and Northwest (north
of Main St and west of N 7th Ave).
Northeast Quadrant. There are several areas in this quadrant which are not being adequately served
with playground facilities. These areas include: all phases of the Bridger Creek Subdivision, Headlands
Subdivision and the manufactured home park off of Bridger Canyon Dr. Much of the Northeast
Neighborhood (north Main St. and east of Rouse Ave.) is also not adequately served at this time.
Finally, residential uses in the downtown business district are not being adequately served. Playground
equipment should be added to existing or new parks to fill in some of the service area gaps in this
quadrant.
Southeast Quadrant. There are several areas in this quadrant which are not being adequately served
with playground facilities. These areas include: the Graf Subdivisions west of Highland Blvd., the
Comstock Apartments off of Haggerty Ln. and residential uses along S Church Ave. Most of the
neighborhoods south of Kagy Blvd., with the exception of Figgins and Allison Subdivisions, are not
being served at this time. Finally, residential uses in the downtown business district are not being
adequately served. Playground equipment should be added to existing or new parks to fill in some of
the service area gaps in this quadrant.
Southwest Quadrant. There are no developed playgrounds in the Southwest quadrant at this time.
Therefore, residential uses in this area are not being adequately served with playgrounds. Residential
developments in the area include: housing between Kagy Blvd and Lincoln St near the campus, new
multihousehold development off of Kagy Blvd and west of S 19th Ave, housing on the MSU campus
and housing north of College St and south of W Main St. Playground equipment should be added to
new parks being developed in this area to fill in some of the service area gaps in this quadrant. Because
there are no existing Neighborhood or Community Parks in the part of town, there is no opportunity to
add playground equipment to existing parks.
Northwest Quadrant. There are several areas in this quadrant which are not being adequately served
with playground facilities. These areas include all of the residential development south of W Babcock St
and many of the newly developing areas. Undoubtedly, some of the new subdivisions, such as Harvest
Creek and Cattail Creek, will eventually have playgrounds. Playground equipment should be added to
existing or new parks to fill in some of the service area gaps in this quadrant.
168
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-16
7.4 PARK MAINTENANCE
7.4.1 Park Maintenance Staff Per Acres of Maintained Parkland
The City Parks Division currently maintains approximately 450 acres of parkland or approximately 70
percent of the City’s total dedicated parkland. The remaining 200 acres that are not being maintained by
the City Parks Division are either not being maintained at all or are being maintained by developers
and/or homeowner’s associations. The City has 6 fulltime park maintenance staff and 15 additional
seasonal maintenance staff. This is approximately 1 staff person per 21 acres of maintained park.
Compared to Bozeman’s peer communities in the region, Bozeman’s current level of service (based on
staff per acre maintained parkland) looks relatively good. However, if Bozeman’s Parks Division was
maintaining all 650 acres of City parkland, the maintenance staff per acres of maintained parkland would
be 1 : 31.
Table 7-7: Maintenance Staff per Acres of Maintained Park – Bozeman and Peer Communities
City Boulder, CO Fort Collins, CO Greeley, CO Loveland, CO
Population 107,340 126,848 77,000 50,608
Maintenance Staff 33 FT, 34 PT 4 FT, 13 PT N/A 52 FT
Acres Maintained 736.6 30 262 958
Maintenance Staff/Acres 1 : 11 1 : 3 N/A 1 : 18
City Boise, ID Billings, MT Missoula, MT Bellevue, WA
Population 199,975 98,000 57,057 117,000
Maintenance Staff 86 FT 13 FT, 25 seasonal 26 FT 52 FT + contracted
Acres Maintained 3,397 2,200 3,935 1,950
Maintenance Staff/Acres 1 : 39 1 : 88 1 : 151 1 : 42
City Bellingham, WA Redmond, WA Average of Other Bozeman, MT
Population 67,171 44,020 Communities 31,660
Maintenance Staff 29 FT, 32 seasonal 25 seasonal 37 FT, 24 PT, 27 seasonal 6FT, 15 seasonal
Acres Maintained 3,297 1,400 1,477 450
Maintenance Staff/Acres 1 : 54 1 : 56 1 : 51 1 : 21
Source: Peer community data was collected in March 2004 by EDAW, the consultants who prepared the Master Parks and Recreation Plan for
the Greater Missoula Area, and is reprinted here with permission from the City of Missoula. Population estimates from 2004 were used.
The NRPA does not have recommendations for level of service for maintenance staff per acre of
maintained parkland. Further, Bozeman’s peer communities have not established their own standards.
Therefore, there is little guidance available to determine what level of service is acceptable for park
maintenance staff per acre of parkland maintained.
The best source of information available for Bozeman is the Bozeman Community Recreation Needs Survey.
Survey results indicate that City residents are largely satisfied with park maintenance, with 86 percent of
respondents indicating that park maintenance is Excellent (12 percent), Good (43 percent) or Adequate
(31 percent). Only 10 percent of respondents felt that park maintenance is Inadequate (8 percent) or
Poor (2 percent). Specific park-related maintenance issues include (listed in order of magnitude of
concern): dog waste, unleashed dogs, garbage, more/open restrooms, weed control, restroom
maintenance, tennis court repair and playground equipment maintenance. Dog issues are far and away
the park maintenance issue of greatest concern. As such, this topic is discussed further in Chapter 8,
Policy Issues.
169
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-17
As the size and population of the City increases, and the amount of parkland owned by the City also
increases, the number of park maintenance staff will also need to increase correspondingly to maintain a
consistent level of service for park maintenance.
7.4.2 Park Maintenance Standards
The adequacy of park maintenance is also a function of what specific maintenance activities are being
performed and how often they are being performed. Table 3-4 on Pages 3-16 and 3-17 includes the
Park Division’s current maintenance activities and level of service standards. Again, there is little
information available regarding recommended maintenance activities and maintenance service standards.
Even if there were standards, each community is so unique that such standards would be difficult to
apply. Based on the Community Recreation Needs Survey, the community seems generally satisfied with the
maintenance activities currently being performed and the City’s current service standards. However, it
always recommended that the maintenance activities and service standards be reviewed from time to
time to identify areas for improvement.
7.4.3 Park Division Budget
Finally, the adequacy of park maintenance depends largely upon the funding available for park
maintenance activities. There are no NRPA recommended standards for park budget per resident.
Table 7-8 indicates the annual park budgets and park budget per resident for Bozeman and peer
communities. The average park budget per resident for all peer communities is $47.07. Bozeman’s park
budget per resident of $37.90 lags significantly behind. Again, it should be noted that property owners
associations are being required to maintain many of Bozeman’s newest parks because the Parks Division
lacks the resources to maintain additional parkland at this time. The fact that the Community Recreation
Needs Survey indicated a high level of satisfaction with the maintenance of City parks illustrates that
Bozeman is currently getting a tremendous bang for its buck; we have excellent maintenance with little
staff and a modest budget.
Table 7-8: Annual Park Budget – Bozeman and Peer Communities
City Boulder, CO Fort Collins, CO Greeley, CO Loveland, CO
Population 107,340 126,848 77,000 50,608
Annual Park Budget $4,874,841 $3,135,113 N/A $4,956,985
Budget Per Resident $38.43 $28.07 N/A $64.38
City Boise, ID Billings, MT Missoula, MT Bellevue, WA
Population 199,975 98,000 57,057 117,000
Annual Park Budget $6,866,581 $4,200,000 $1,200,000 $9,468,255
Budget Per Resident $34.34 $42.86 $21.03 $80.93
City Bellingham, WA Redmond, WA Average of Other Bozeman, MT
Population 67,171 44,020 Communities 31,660
Annual Park Budget $4,470,317 N/A $4,896,512 $1,200,000
Budget Per Resident $66.55 N/A $47.07 $37.90
Source: Peer community data was collected in March 2004 by EDAW, the consultants who prepared the Master Parks and Recreation Plan for
the Greater Missoula Area, and is reprinted here with permission from the City of Missoula. Population estimates from 2004 were used.
As the size and population of the City increases, and the amount of parkland owned by the City also
increases, the size of the Parks Division budget will also need to increase correspondingly to maintain a
consistent level of service for park maintenance.
170
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-18
7.5 RECREATION FACILITIES
7.5.1 Recreation Facility Service Standard Recommendations
Table 7-9 illustrates the level of service for recreation facilities being provided in Bozeman, expressed in
terms as a ratio to the City’s population, as compared to peer communities and National Recreation &
Park Association (NRPA) recommendations. A facility-by-facility analysis is provided below, including a
description of the level of service currently being provided. The recommended level of service standard,
including the reasoning behind the standard, is also provided. The Recreation and Parks Advisory
Board developed recommended level of service standards for recreation facilities based on a variety of
factors, including peer community comparisons, NRPA recommendations, PROST Plan Survey results,
User Group Survey results and knowledge of the community.
1. Soccer Fields
With a ratio of 1 soccer field per 2,261 people, Bozeman is providing a higher level of service
than the average of the peer communities (1 per 7,102) and the NRPA recommendation (1 per
10,000).
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 2,500 people
When compared to the NRPA recommendation, it appears that Bozeman is currently providing
a high level of service. Also, soccer fields were not in the top 10 responses to the following
PROST Plan Survey questions: “Can you think of a recommendation to improve the City’s
recreation opportunities and what additional recreational facility would you like to see developed
in our community?” However, the PROST Plan Survey did indicate that soccer fields are the 9th
most used facility in town. Comments from the User Group Survey indicate that additional
practice space is desperately needed. The 1 : 2,500 recommendation is for developed soccer fields.
Additional large grassy areas for practice areas would be in addition to the 1 : 2,500 ratio. More
general purpose grassy areas for soccer practice would help free up Bronken and Aasheim for
matches. Note: Additional soccer fields can also be used for other sports such as ultimate
frisbee, rugby and field hockey.
The NRPA recommends that soccer fields have a 1-2 mile service radius. As shown on Figure
13, the 2-mile radius service areas for the City’s soccer fields are heavily concentrated at the west
end of town. To maximize the level of service provided to Bozeman’s residents, based on the
service area location, additional soccer fields should be constructed in the south, north and east
parts of town.
2. Football Fields
With a ratio of 1 football field per 15,830 people, Bozeman is providing a higher level of service
than the average of the peer communities (1 per 18,789) but a lesser level of service than
recommended by the NRPA (1 per 10,000).
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 8,000
Bozeman football consists primarily of the Lion’s Club midget football. According to their User
Group Survey, they need two more football fields to accommodate their current users (Bozeman
only has 2 existing at Christie Fields). Therefore, it appears that 4 football fields are needed now
to meet the current need - 31,660/4 = 7,915 (rounded up to 8,000). According to the PROST
Plan Survey, football fields were the 14th most used facility in town. Two multi-purpose ballfields
are proposed for the softball outfields at the regional park, similar to the use at Christie Fields.
171
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-19 Table 7-9: Recreation Facilities – Bozeman and Peer Communities City Fort Collins, CO Boulder, CO Loveland, CO Greeley, CO Boise, ID Billings, MT Missoula, MT Bellevue, WA Bellingham, WA Redmond, WA Average of Other Bozeman, MT NRPA3 Population 126,848 107,340 50,608 77,000 199,975 98,000 57,057 117,000 67,171 44,020 Communities 31,6602 Recommendation Soccer Fields Size Undetermined 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.1 0 50 yds x 80 yds or less 19 3 0 0 0 18 3 26 7 0 7.6 7 65 yds x 100 yds or more 16 11 0 0 44 10 4 12 0 0 9.7 7 Total 35 14 29 0 44 28 7 38 7 2 20.4 14 Soccer Fields/Population 1 : 3,624 1 : 7,667 1 : 1,745 None 1 : 4,545 1 : 3,500 1 : 8,151 1 : 3,079 1 : 9,596 1 : 22,010 1 : 7,102 1 : 2,261 1 : 10,000 Football Fields BB/SB outfields 150 ft x 240 ft or less 11 0 0 5 0 8 used (6) 0 3 0 3.3 2 160 ft x 360 ft or more 0 0 0 0 9 8 1 2 4 0 2.4 0 Total 11 0 0 5 9 16 7 2 7 0 5.7 2 Football Fields/Population 1 : 11,532 None None 1 : 15,400 1 : 22,219 1 : 6,125 1 : 8,151 1 : 58,500 1 : 9,596 None 1 : 18,789 1 : 15,830 1 : 10,000 Softball & Baseball Fields Size Undetermined 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.3 4 fast pitch fields Field w/o fence and w/o lights 20 7 0 0 0 3 0 29 17 0 7.6 0 Backstop only and turf infield 0 public schools only 7 10 0 0 0 1 12 0 3.0 0 200-249 ft centerfield w/ lights 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0.6 0 200-249 ft centerfield w/o lights 0 5 0 0 23 27 12 0 0 0 6.7 4 250-299 ft centerfield w/ lights 0 7 0 5 0 0 0 3 2 0 1.7 4 250-299 ft centerfield w/o lights 19 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 2 0 3.3 2 300-359 ft centerfield w/ lights 9 1 0 1 0 5 2 6 5 1 3.0 1 300-359 ft centerfield w/o lights 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 3 3 0 1.5 0 360 ft or larger centerfield w/ lights 3 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 1 0 1.2 0 360 ft or larger centerfield w/o lights 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0.7 0 Total 51 23 22 17 33 47 22 47 45 9 31.6 15 1 : 12,000 baseballSoftball & Baseball Fields/Population 1 : 2,487 1 : 4,667 1 : 2,300 1 : 4,529 1 : 6,060 1 : 2,085 1 : 2,594 1 : 2,489 1 : 4,923 1 : 4,891 1 : 3,703 1 : 2,111 1 : 5,000 softball Outdoor Basketball Courts Full-size w/ lights 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 Full-size w/o lights 18 12 3 9 26 5 7 14 40 0 13.4 5 Half-size w/ lights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 Half-size w/o lights 0 0 0 0 1 6 6 4 3 0 2.0 1 Total 21 12 6 11 27 11 13 18 43 0 16.2 6 Outdoor Basketball Courts/Population 1 : 6,040 1 : 8,945 1 : 8,435 1 : 7,000 1 : 7,406 1 : 8,909 1 : 4,389 1 : 6,500 1 : 1,562 None 1 : 6,577 1 : 5,277 1 : 5,000 City-Operated Gymnasiums Full size City gymnasiums 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 4 1 1 1.5 0 City-Operated Gymnasiums/Population 1 : 63,424 1 : 35,730 1 : 25,304 1 : 77,000 1 : 199,975 None None 1 : 29,250 1 : 67,171 1 : 44,020 1 : 67,734 None N/A Tennis Courts With lights 25 4 18 12 0 0 3 9 0 0 7.1 0 Without lights 16 32 3 6 62 25 28 20 38 11 24.1 5 Total 41 36 21 18 62 25 31 29 38 11 31.2 5 Tennis Courts/Population 1 : 3,094 1 : 2,982 1 : 2,410 1 : 4,278 1 : 3,225 1 : 3,920 1 : 1,841 1 : 4,035 1 : 1,768 1 : 4,002 1 : 3,156 1 : 6,332 1 : 2,000 1This data was collected in March 2004 by EDAW, the consultants who prepared the Master Parks and Recreation Plan for the Greater Missoula Area, and is reprinted here with permission from the City of Missoula. 2Bozeman population estimates from 2004 were used. 3National Park and Recreation Association. 172
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 7-20 Table 7-9: Recreation Facilities – Bozeman and Peer Communities City Fort Collins, CO Boulder, CO Loveland, CO Greeley, CO Boise, ID Billings, MT Missoula, MT Bellevue, WA Bellingham, WA Redmond, WA Average of Other Bozeman, MT NRPA Population 126,848 107,340 50,608 77,000 199,975 98,000 57,057 117,000 67,171 44,020 Communities 31,6601 Recommendation Swimming Pools Indoor 25-m or yd 2 data unavailable 1 1 0 4 0 1 2 1 1.3 0 Outdoor 25-m or yd 0 data unavailable 1 2 3 2 1 0 2 0 1.2 1 Indoor 50-m or yd 1 data unavailable 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 Outdoor 50-m or yd 0 data unavailable 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0.3 0 Indoor aquatic center/leisure pool 0 data unavailable 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0.3 1 Outdoor aquatic center/leisure pool 1 data unavailable 1 3 0 1 6 tiny wading pools0 0 0 0.7 0 Total 4 data unavailable 3 8 4 9 8 2 5 1 4.1 2 Swimming Pools/Population 1 : 31,712 data unavailable 1 : 16,869 1 : 19,250 1 : 49,994 1 : 10,889 1 : 28,529 1 : 58,500 1 : 13,434 1 : 44,020 1 : 30,355 1 : 15,830 1 : 20,000 Ice Rinks Ice Rinks 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0.6 4 Ice Rinks/Population 1 : 63,424 None None None None 1 : 49,000 1 : 57,057 None 1 : 67,171 None 1 : 59,163 1 : 7,915 N/A Skateboard Parks Skateboard Parks 3 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 1 1 1.5 1 Skateboard Parks/Population 1 : 42,283 1 : 107,340 1 : 50,608 1 : 25,667 1 : 66,658 1 : 98,000 None 1 : 117,000 1 : 67,171 1 : 44,020 1 : 68,750 1 : 31,660 N/A Inline Hockey Rinks Inline Hockey Rinks 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 Inline Hockey Rinks/Population 1 : 126,848 1 : 53,670 1 : 50,608 1 : 77,000 None 1 : 98,000 None None None None 1 : 81,225 None N/A Dog Parks Dog Parks 2 4 1 1 5 0 1 2 0 1 1.7 2 Dog Parks/Population 1 : 63,424 1 : 26,835 1 : 50,608 1 : 77,000 1 : 39,995 1 : 98,000 1 : 57,057 1 : 58,500 None 1 : 44,020 1 : 57,271 1 : 15,830 N/A Disc Golf Disc Golf Courses 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0.8 0 Disc Golf Courses/Population 1 : 126,848 1 : 53,670 1 : 50,608 1 : 77,000 1 : 199,975 None None None 1 : 67,171 1 : 44,020 1 : 78,874 None N/A Volleyball Volleyball Courts 2 13 4 3 6 2 15 8 1 1 5.5 4 Volleyball Courts/Population 1 : 63,424 1 : 8,257 1 : 12,652 1 : 25,667 1 : 8,332 1 : 49,000 1 : 3,804 1 : 14,625 1 : 67,171 1 : 44,020 1 : 29,695 1 : 7,915 1 : 5,000 BMX Park BMX Park 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0.3 1 BMX Parks/Population 1 : 126,848 None None None 1 : 199,975 None None 1 : 117,000 None None 1 : 147,941 1 : 31,660 N/A 173
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-21
The NRPA recommends that the service area for football fields be based upon a 15 to 30
minute travel time. A 15 to 30 minute travel time would cover the entire City.
3. Softball/Baseball Fields
With a ratio of 1 softball/baseball field per 2,111 people, Bozeman is providing a higher level of
service than the average of the peer communities (1 per 3,703) and the NRPA recommendation
(1 per 12,000 for baseball and 1 per 5,000 for softball).
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 2,500
Based on the PROST Plan Survey and the User Group Survey, it appears that Bozeman is
currently providing a high level of service for practice and games fields for softball and baseball.
According to the survey, baseball fields and softball fields were the 11th and 12th most used
facilities in town respectively. The Gallatin Valley Softball Association indicated that they will
need 2 more fields to serve their members within the next 10 years. Four fields are planned at
the regional park.
The NRPA recommends that baseball/softball fields have a ¼ to ½ mile service radius. As
shown on Figure 14, the ½-mile radius service areas for the City’s baseball/softball fields are
currently not adequately serving the City. To maximize the level of service provided to
Bozeman’s residents, based on the service area location, additional baseball/softball fields
should be constructed whenever an opportunity arises.
4. Outdoor Basketball Courts
With a ratio of 1 court per 5,277 people, Bozeman is providing a slightly higher level of service
than the average of the peer communities (1 per 6,577) but a slightly lesser level of service than
recommended by the NRPA (1 per 5,000).
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 4,000
Based on the PROST Plan Survey and the User Group Survey, it appears that Bozeman is
currently providing a high level of service for basketball courts. The RPAB was comfortable
with the NRPA recommendation of 1 : 5,000 which is close to our current level of service.
However, the RPAB ultimately felt that there was slightly more demand in the community than
would be met at a ratio of 1 : 5,000. If a community center was ever constructed, it would likely
provide indoor basketball facilities.
The NRPA recommends that basketball courts have a ¼ to ½ mile service radius. As shown on
Figure 15, the ½-mile radius service areas for the City’s basketball courts are currently not
adequately serving the City. To maximize the level of service provided to Bozeman’s residents,
based on the service area location, additional basketball courts should be constructed whenever
an opportunity arises.
5. City-Operated Gymnasium
Without a City-operated gymnasium, Bozeman is not providing any service. The average level
of service of the peer communities is 1 per 67,734. The NRPA does not have a
recommendation for level of service for City-operated gymnasiums.
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 50,000
174
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-22
In the PROST Plan Survey, Indoor Recreation Center was the 5th most frequently mentioned
response for the following question: “What additional recreational facility would you like to see
developed in our community?” Bozeman’s population is projected to reach 50,000 between
2010 and 2015, which would provide some time to plan and budget for an Indoor Recreation
Center.
6. Tennis Courts
With a ratio of 1 tennis court per 6,332 people, Bozeman is providing a level of service that is
significantly less than the average of the peer communities (1 per 3,156) and the NRPA
recommendation (1 per 2,000).
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 2,000
In the PROST Plan Survey, tennis courts were the 4th most frequently mentioned response for
the following question: What additional recreational facility would you like to see developed in
our community? More/better tennis courts was the 3rd most frequently mentioned response to
the following question: Can you think of a recommendation to improve the City’s recreation
opportunities? Finally, tennis courts were the 10th most used facility in town. We did receive
User Group Surveys from the Bozeman B-League Tennis and the Bozeman Tennis Association.
Both use the Chief Joseph Middle School courts, and the BTA also uses the Southside Park
courts and the courts at the Anderson Tennis Center at MSU. B-League uses 4-6 courts to run
their program. There is concern regarding the community’s ability to meet demand for tennis
courts if the school district and University’s courts were not available to the public. It should be
noted that two of the courts at Chief Joseph Middle School, while not located on City property,
were constructed using Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funds and are available for use by the
public.
The NRPA recommends that tennis courts have a ¼ to ½ mile service radius. As shown on
Figure 16, the ½-mile radius service areas for the City’s tennis courts are currently not
adequately serving the City. To maximize the level of service provided to Bozeman’s residents,
based on the service area location, additional tennis courts should be constructed whenever an
opportunity arises.
7. Swimming Pools
With a ratio of 1 pool per 15,830 people, Bozeman is providing a higher level of service than the
average of the peer communities (1 per 30,355) and the NRPA recommendation (1 per 20,000).
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 10,000
In our fitness-oriented community there seems to be a lot of interest in swimming. In the
PROST Plan Survey, More/better pool facilities was the 7th most frequently mentioned
response to the following question: “Can you think of a recommendation to improve the City’s
recreation opportunities?” Swimming was the 4th most frequently mentioned response to this
question: “Below is a list of recreational activities available in the City; please check 3 of these
activities which are most important to members of your household.” Swimming pools were the
5th most used facility in town and the 3rd most popular response to: “What additional recreational
facility would you like to see developed in our community?” Finally, swimming pools were the 4th
most often mentioned response to: “In your opinion, what recreation activity and related facility
should be the highest priority for the City?”
175
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-23
User Group Surveys were returned by the Bozeman Barracudas Swim Club, the Bozeman
Masters Swim Club and the Bozeman Stingrays. Basically, the City’s pools do not meet modern
aquatic or swim competition standards. All three groups basically want a new aquatic center to
better accommodate competitions and practices. Also, there is not adequate time available at the
Swim Center for their group activities.
Swimming represents a popular recreational activity for aging residents of the community. As
Bozeman’s population ages, the need for adequate low-impact recreation and exercise
opportunities, such as swimming, will increase.
The NRPA recommends that the service area for swimming pools be based upon a 15 to 30
minute travel time. A 15 to 30 minute travel time would cover the entire City. However, both
of the City’s existing swimming pools are located east of North 19th Avenue. If and when
additional pools are constructed, consideration should be given to constructing them west of
North 19th Avenue.
8. Ice Rinks
With a ratio of 1 rink per 7,915 people, Bozeman is providing an excellent level of service when
compared to the peer communities (1 per 59,163). The NRPA does not have a recommendation
for level of service for ice rinks.
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 10,000
Ice skating was the 8th most important recreational activity for Bozeman households according
to the PROST Plan Survey. Also, ice rinks were the 8th most frequently used recreational facility.
However, it seems that Bozeman has adequate outdoor ice rinks available at this time. The
Bozeman Amateur Hockey Association did complete a User Group Survey, and indicated that
they use the Haynes Pavilion at the Gallatin County Fairgrounds. However, they stated that
their groups needs a dependable ice surface and recommended a refrigerated ice surface at
Bogert or one of the schools. A second indoor ice rink at the Fairgrounds is proposed. They
also indicated a need for water, sewer, phone, power, locker rooms and a viewing/seating area.
The NRPA does not provide a service area recommendation for ice rinks. However, all of the
City’s existing ice rinks are located east of North 7th Avenue. If and when additional ice rinks are
constructed, consideration should be given to locating them on the west side of the City.
9. Skateboard Parks
With a ratio of 1 skateboard park for 31,660 people, Bozeman is providing an excellent level of
service when compared to the peer communities (1 per 68,750). The NRPA does not have a
recommendation for level of service for skateboard parks.
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 30,000
Bozeman currently has one very nice skatepark. While the existing park is well-used by a small
percentage of the City’s population, the population is comprised largely of teenagers. Therefore,
this facility provides important recreation opportunities for this age group. It’s likely that
Bozeman will need an additional park in the future. In fact, there are plans to include a
skatepark in the regional park.
176
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-24
10. Inline Hockey Rink – Without a City-operated inline hockey rink, Bozeman is not providing
any service. The average level of service of the peer communities is 1 per 81,225. The NRPA
does not have a recommendation for level of service for City-operated gymnasiums. There is no
community demand for this facility so no recommended level of service standards is provided.
11. Dog Park
With a ratio of 1 dog park per 15,830 people, Bozeman is providing an excellent level of service
when compared to the peer communities (1 per 57,271). The NRPA does not have a
recommendation for level of service for skateboard parks.
Recommended Level of Service Standard – Create off-leash dog areas when and where
opportunities arise.
According to the PROST Plan Survey, dog parks are the 6th most used recreation facility in the
City. Bozeman is obviously a dog-crazed community so it make sense to have places people and
their dogs can recreate together. Instead of establishing a level of service standard, the RPAB
chose to recommend that the City try to fence off portions of new or existing parks to establish
off-leash areas when and where opportunities arise. The “Snowfill” site off of McIllhattan Road
is an example of a good location for a dog park. The NRPA does not provide a service area
recommendation for dog parks.
12. Disc Golf
Without a disc golf course, Bozeman is not providing any service. The average level of service
of the peer communities is 1 per 78,874. The NRPA does not have a recommendation for level
of service for City-operated gymnasiums. It should be noted that there is a lot of community
demand for this type of facility.
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 30,000
According to the PROST Plan Survey, disc golf was the 12th most popular recreational activity.
Disc golf was the 6th most numerous response to this question: Can you think of a
recommendation to improve the City’s recreation opportunities? The City needs a disc golf
course NOW to meet current demand, and efforts are underway to install a course at Rose Park.
The NRPA does not provide a service area recommendation for disc golf courses.
13. Volleyball
With a ratio of 1 volleyball court per 7,915 people, Bozeman is providing a higher level of
service than the average of the peer communities (1 per 29,695) but a lesser level of service than
recommended by the NRPA (1 per 5,000).
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 5,000
The City’s existing volleyball courts are outdoor courts at the Bozeman Ponds and East Gallatin
Recreation Area. According to the PROST Plan Survey, there does not seem to be a lot of
demand for volleyball. However, outdoor volleyball courts are relatively inexpensive to set up
and maintain. Several parks are planned (such as Cattail Lake) where there will probably be
good opportunities to install some more outdoor courts. A City-operated gym could offer
indoor volleyball. The NRPA recommends that volleyball courts have a ¼ to ½ mile service
radius. As shown on Figure 17, the ½-mile radius service areas for the City’s volleyball courts
are currently not adequately serving the City. To maximize the level of service provided to
Bozeman’s residents, based on the service area location, additional volleyball courts should be
constructed whenever an opportunity arises.
177
178
179
180
181
182
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-30
14. BMX Parks
With a ratio of 1 BMX park for 31,660 people, Bozeman is providing an excellent level of
service when compared to the peer communities (1 per 147,941). The NRPA does not have a
recommendation for level of service for BMX parks.
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 30,000
Bozeman currently has one developed BMX track at Westlake Park, and additional
improvements to the facility are being planned. While the existing park is well-used by a small
percentage of the City’s population, the population is comprised largely of teenagers. Therefore,
this facility provides important recreation opportunities for this age group. It’s likely that
Bozeman will need an additional park in the future, but there are more-pressing facility needs.
Appendix F contains NRPA recommendations for recreational facilities including: space requirements;
size and dimensions; orientation; units per population; service area; and location.
7.5.2 Assessment of Future Recreation Facility Needs
Table 7-10 provides an assessment of Bozeman’s recreation facility needs, based on the service
standards described above, for the years 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2025. This table illustrates that Bozeman
is currently in need of a few more football fields, basketball courts and volleyball courts. The City is also
currently in need of an additional swimming facility. However, the greatest current recreation facility
need is for additional tennis courts. Any development of new parks, or improvement of existing parks,
should be thoroughly examined for opportunities to add these needed facilities, especially the
development of new tennis courts.
Table 7-10: Assessment of Future Recreation Facility Needs
Facility/
Activity
Service
Standard
Existing
Facilities
2006
(35,750 pop)
2010
(42,700 pop)
2015
(54,500 pop)
2020
(69,500 pop)
2025
(88,700 pop)
Soccer 1 : 2,500 14 14 17 21 27 35
Football 1 : 8,000 2 4 5 6 8 11
Baseball/softball 1 : 2,500 15 14 17 21 27 35
Basketball 1 : 4,000 6 8 10 13 17 22
Gymnasium 1 : 50,000 0 0 0 1 1 1
Tennis 1 : 2,000 5 17 21 27 34 44
Swimming pools 1 : 10,000 2 3 4 5 6 8
Ice rinks 1 : 10,000 4 3 4 5 6 8
Skateboard park 1 : 30,000 1 1 1 1 2 2
Disc golf 1 : 30,000 1 1 1 1 2 2
Volleyball 1 : 5,000 5 7 8 10 13 17
BMX park 1 : 30,000 1 1 1 1 2 2
7.6 PARK AND TRAIL AMENITIES
As stated previously, LOS standards are very good for determining how much, but they are not
effective for evaluating quality. This section focuses on the amenities that make recreational lands and
facilities safe, functional and enjoyable. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board has established the
following lists of basic amenities needed to ensure the provision of high quality recreational lands and
facilities.
183
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-31
When evaluating proposed new park plans, and proposed amendments to existing park plans,
consideration should be given to the provision of these amenities. Further, these amenities should be
added to new and existing parks as funding is available.
Mini Parks Community Park/Regional Parks
Benches Benches
Play equipment or features Picnic tables
Trees Trees
Fencing Restrooms
Dog Station Trails
Play equipment or features
Dog stations
Neighborhood Park Drinking fountain
Benches Sports court
Picnic tables Open activity field
Trees Park Lot
Restrooms Ball fields
Trails Lake
Play equipment or features 1.5 inch frost free water service for ice rink
Dog stations Shelters/pavilion
Drinking fountain Swimming Pool
Sports court Recreation Center
Open activity field Parking lot
1.5 inch frost free water service for ice rink
Shelter Special Use Park
Benches
Picnic tables
Natural Lands/Open Space Trees
Trails Restrooms
Dog stations Trails
Bridges Play equipment or features
Dog stations
Drinking fountain
Linear Park 1.5 inch frost free water service for ice rink
Trails Sports court
Dog stations Open activity field
Benches Park Lot
Play equipment or features Ball fields
Shelter Shelters/pavilion
Bridges Swimming pool
Signage/totems Recreation center
184
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-32
All parks should include signage to increase visibility and accessibility, and make the public feel more
welcome. Trails should also have signage and totems to facilitate use and promote safety. The location
for signage should be included on all park plans, and comply with the signage requirements presented in
Appendix G.
7.7 TRAILS
There are no NRPA recommendations for miles of trail per 1,000 population. Therefore, trail mileage
in peer communities was examined to evaluate the level of service currently being provided in Bozeman.
As illustrated in Table 7-11, Bozeman is providing an excellent level of service for the provision of trails
with 1.34 miles of trail per 1,000 people. The average miles of trail for the peer communities were 0.55
miles per 1,000 people. Of the peer communities, only Boulder, Colorado is currently providing a
higher level of service with 1.42 miles of trail per 1,000 people.
Again, the PROST Plan survey revealed that of the 315 survey respondents, 221 listed trails as one of
the recreational facilities that are most often used by members of their household (70 percent of the
respondents) and 216 listed walking/hiking as one of the recreational activities that are most important
to the members of their household (69 percent of respondents). When asked to think of a
recommendation to improve the City’s recreation opportunities, more and/or better trails was the most
frequently listed response. When asked to list an additional recreational facility they would like to see
developed in our community, more and/or better trails was the most frequently listed response. Finally,
when asked which recreation activity and related facility should be the highest priority for the City, more
and/or better trails was the most often listed facility.
Table 7-11: Miles of Trails Level of Service – Bozeman and Peer Communities
City Population Miles of Trail Miles of Trail Per 1,000
Billings, MT 98,721 23 0.23
Bozeman, MT 35,750 48 1.34
Great Falls, MT 56,338 36 0.64
Missoula, MT 64,081 63 1.02
Boulder, CO 91,685 130 1.42
Denver, CO 557,917 85 0.15
Fort Collins, CO 128,026 25 0.2
Loveland, CO 59,563 16 0.27
Boise, ID 193,161 102 0.53
Coeur D'Alene, ID 40,059 14 0.35
Bellingham, WA 74,547 45 0.6
Redmond, WA 47,579 17 0.36
Average 120,619 50.33 0.58
Source: This information was collected via e-mail correspondence with peer community staff and from information posted on peer community web
sites.
185
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels
Page 7-33
Therefore, while the City is doing an excellent job of providing trails for the City’s residents, there is also
a tremendous amount of demand for additional trails. The City should seek to provide a slightly higher
level of service than is currently being provided with 1.5 miles of trail per 1,000 people. Based on this
recommended service standard, and the City’s population projections, trails miles per 1,000 people will
needed as follows: 2010 – 54 miles; 2015 – 64; 2020 – 104; and 2025 – 133.
Trails are unique in that they are popular with all age groups. In particular, trail usage is high for aging
residents of the community and provides the City with an excellent means of encouraging seniors to
remain active. As Bozeman’s population ages, the need for adequate low-impact recreation and exercise
opportunities, such as walking on trails, will increase.
In terms of trail location, the City’s trail system is fairly well distributed. A very important consideration
is the connection of trail segments to create longer and more usable trails for both recreation and
transportation uses.
In terms of trail user groups, the City’s trail system adequately provides for walkers, runners/joggers and
cyclists. However, Nordic skiing is becoming increasingly popular in the Bozeman area and Nordic
skiers are increasingly becoming an important user groups whose needs may not be met with the current
trail system and trail maintenance program. Several areas for Nordic skiing already exist, including
Lindley Park, Bridger Creek Golf Course, Sourdough Creek, the “Snowfill” site. However, additional
venues should be identified and developed in new developments as opportunities arise. For example, the
Bridger Ski Foundation has been working closely with Bozeman Deaconess Health Services to establish
a Nordic ski trail system in the new development proposed by BDHS on the east side of town. Nordic
skiing is also proposed for the 100-acre Regional Park. In addition to trails, Nordic skiing enthusiasts
also desire facilities for roller skiing for summer training. Roller skiing requires rolling terrain and a
smooth paved circuit free from heavy vehicle traffic. Again, the Bridger Ski Foundation and GVLT
have worked together to identify many possible future ski trails. Please refer to Appendix E.
The Park Division also maintains City trails that are not maintained by developers and/or property
owners. Therefore, the discussions regarding the level of service for Park Division maintenance staff
(Section 7.4.1) and Park Division Budget (Section 7.4.3) would also apply to trails.
Finally, trail safety is of utmost concern. All trails, and trail-related improvements such as bridges,
should be constructed in compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines contained in Appendix C. In
addition, the safety of trail and street crossings must be closely evaluated whenever such crossings are
proposed. Guidelines regarding safe trail and street crossings are presented in the Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan.
7.8 RECREATION PROGRAMMING
The use of LOS standards is geared towards the evaluations of capital facilities, and therefore the use of
LOS standards to evaluate the provision of recreation programs is challenging. The capital facility needs
of the City’s recreation programs – such as swimming pools and a recreation center – have already been
analyzed earlier in this chapter.
Of all the recreational opportunities provided by the City of Bozeman, recreation programming will
need to be the most flexible and nimble in terms of meeting the needs of the City’s citizenry. The shift
to a benefits-based paradigm of recreation programming, as discussed in Chapter 4, will require that
186
Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 7-34
programs be added, removed or modified based on the ever-changing needs of our community. Of
course as our population grows, the number of programs – and hence the number of staff, resources
and facilities needed to provide those programs – is going to have to increase over time. The challenge
will lie in evaluating what benefits the City’s residents desire to gain from recreational programs, and
determining which programs will most effectively provide the desired benefits.
Traditionally, decisions and choices about recreation programming have relied upon informed judgment
and intuition. While a reliance upon these types of subjective sources will continue, they will be
augmented by the incorporation of more objective data about the specific outcomes and benefits
accrued from such decisions and choices. The demand for some recreation programs is easy to assess.
For example, the number of children registered for T-ball provides a good indication of the demand for
T-ball, and the number of T-ball teams and coaches required. The demand for and benefits accrued
from other recreation programs may be more nebulous. The Recreation Division should devise a
rigorous program of survey, evaluation and recommendation to ensure that our recreation programs are
effectively and responsively addressing the need of the City’s residents.
i Municipal Research Services Center of Washington, Level of Service Standards: Measures for Maintaining the Quality of Community Life,
Report No. 31, September 1994.
187
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-1
CHAPTER 8
Policy Issues
8.0 INTRODUCTION
One important purpose of this document is to establish City policies regarding parks, recreation, open
spaces, and trails. The policy directives contained herein provide a basis for a variety of actions and
activities, including: evaluation of development proposals; preparation of regulatory requirements;
evaluation and prioritization for the expenditure of public funds for acquisition, development, and
maintenance; preparation of individual park plans; siting of new parks, recreation facilities, open spaces
and/or trails; and decision-making regarding recreation programming.
8.1 WETLANDS
8.1.1 Overview
Wetlands can provide important functions such as flood control and aquifer recharge, as well as
important values such as wildlife habitat and open space. It is also recognized that wetlands can provide
recreational benefits, especially for activities such as hiking, bird-watching and visual enjoyment.
Therefore, the protection and preservation of wetlands is encouraged by the City of Bozeman, and many
wetlands are protected by a myriad of federal, state and local regulations. Any particular wetland’s ability
to provide beneficial functions and values depends largely on the quality of the wetland, with quality
being determined by a variety of factors such as size, location, water source, and degree of disturbance.
The City has established the position that inclusion of wetlands within a park may be acceptable, and in
some cases desirable. There are three basic options regarding wetlands and their relationship to parks
and parkland. The first is to waive the parkland land dedication or cash-in-lieu requirements for wetland
areas. State law allows the City Commission to consider waiving land dedication or cash-in-lieu
requirements if “the proposed development provides long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat;
cultural, historical, archeological or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values.” With
this waiver, the wetlands area would not be dedicated to the City as parkland but would be owned by the
developer, property owners association, or other entity such as a land trust or conservation organization.
With the second option, the City would actually accept the wetland area as a parkland land dedication to
be owned by the public. The final option is to not grant parkland land dedication or cash-in-lieu waivers
for wetland areas or accept the land as a parkland dedication to the City.
Even though wetlands are left in a natural state, some maintenance (such as weed control) of these areas
will be required. In some instances the City will be willing and able to maintain wetland areas once a
Citywide park maintenance SID, or other similar funding mechanism, is developed. Otherwise, the
property owners association (or other applicable group) would typically be responsible for maintenance
based on an approved maintenance plan.
It would be possible to have a variety of wetland ownership and maintenance arrangements within one
development depending upon the size of the development, and size, location and quality of the wetlands
involved.
188
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-2
8.1.2 Policy Statement
The City will consider granting parkland land dedication or cash-in-lieu waivers for wetland areas or
accepting the land as a parkland dedication to the City on a case-by-case basis. If a wetlands is truly
“critical” in terms of functions and values, the proposal may have merit. The City will also make
decisions regarding maintenance on a case-by-case basis.
If the waiver is granted or a land dedication accepted, it should be subject to the following stipulations:
1. The intent to request the waiver or dedicate land must be stated with the subdivision
preapplication or concept plan.
2. The waiver must be requested with the preliminary plat or plan application, or the preliminary
plat or plan must indicate wetland areas proposed for land dedication.
3. With the preliminary plat or plan, the developer must provide evidence from a qualified person
or agency stating that the area proposed for protection is indeed critical in order for the proposal
to be considered.
4. With the preliminary plat or plan, the developer must provide an evaluation of the future
maintenance requirements for the wetland(s) and a preliminary maintenance plan, both prepared
by a qualified person or agency.
5. The proposal must be reviewed by, and receive a favorable recommendation from, the RPAB
and Bozeman Wetlands Review Board.
6. If City Commission agrees to grant the waiver or accept the land dedication, the Commission
may request that amenities such as benches, trails and interpretive signage be installed. If these
sorts of amenities will be installed, public access must be provided.
7. Others as needed.
These same principles would apply to resources other than wetlands such as: critical wildlife habitat;
cultural, historical or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values, as provided for in 76-3-
621, MCA.
8.2 PONDS AND LAKES
8.2.1 Overview
There are several locations in the planning area that contain waterbodies of varying size and quality. It is
recognized that these water features could provide unique water-related recreation opportunities such as
swimming, boating, fishing and beaches. These are the sorts of recreational activities currently provided
at the very popular Bozeman Pond and East Gallatin Recreation Area. The primary issues related to
ponds and lakes are whether parkland land dedication or cash-in-lieu requirements would be waived,
whether the waterbody would be dedicated to the City, and assignment of maintenance responsibility.
8.2.2 Policy Statement
It is the City’s policy that such waterbodies, if they are of a size and quality to provide recreational
opportunities, should be dedicated to the City. As such, the City will be responsible for maintenance
once a Citywide park maintenance SID, or other similar funding mechanism, is developed. Otherwise,
the property owners association (or other applicable group) would typically be responsible for
maintenance based on an approved maintenance plan.
189
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-3
If a waterbody is proposed for dedication to the City, the proposal is subject to the following
stipulations:
1. The intent to dedicate the waterbody must be stated with the subdivision preapplication or
concept plan.
2. The dedication of the waterbody must be shown on the preliminary plat or plan.
3. With the preliminary plat or plan, the applicant shall provide documentation that the lake or
pond is suitable for public recreation. A report by a qualified professional (engineer/hydrologist)
providing assurance that water quality, that is safe for swimming, kayaking, etc., will be
maintained. If mechanical or natural improvements, such as aeration or created wetlands, will be
needed to maintain water quality, details must be provided as to their specifications, cost
estimates, party responsible for installation and maintenance, and time frame for installation.
4. With the preliminary plat or plan, the developer must provide an evaluation of the future
maintenance requirements for the lake or pond and a preliminary maintenance plan, both
prepared by a qualified person or agency.
5. Public access to the entire shore of the lake or pond must be ensured, subject to environmental
constraints. Adequate public parking must be provided.
6. Adequate access and equipment for emergency response will be provided, typically including an
all-weather emergency access road and a parking area of sufficient size to accommodate several
emergency vehicles.
7. Drainage plans must be designed to adequately protect and maintain the water quality of the
pond or lake.
8. Motorized recreation will be prohibited.
9. The area of the waterbody, for parkland dedication purposes, will be measured from the high
water mark.
10. The proposal must be reviewed by, and receive a favorable recommendation from, the RPAB.
11. If appropriate, the City Commission may request that amenities such as trails, public restrooms,
boat launches, benches, etc. be installed with public access provided. Public access easements
should be provided if needed.
12. Others as needed.
8.3 WATERCOURSE SETBACKS
8.3.1 Overview
The City of Bozeman requires the provision of watercourse setbacks for all rivers, streams and
stream/ditch combinations in the City. The purpose of the setbacks is bank stabilization; sediment,
nutrient and pollution removal; and flood control. The width of the setback is variable depending upon
the watercourse, the presence of adjacent slopes or wetlands, and the extent of adjoining floodplain.
The watercourse setbacks are, by their very nature, attractive for use for a variety of recreational
activities. However, it is recognized that use of watercourse setbacks for recreational facilities - such as
trails – may not be compatible with the primary function of the setbacks; use of the setbacks could
increase issues of erosion, spread of noxious weeds, destruction of vegetation, and disposition of waste
and garbage. In fact, the City’s development regulations seek to restrict recreational use of the setbacks
190
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-4
by largely limiting trail construction to the 40 percent of the required watercourse setback that is farthest
from the watercourse (please see Section 18.42.100.B.5, Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance).
8.3.2 Policy Statement
Due to the inherent conflicts between water quality protection issues and recreation activities, it is
current City policy to not allow watercourse setbacks to be used to satisfy parkland land dedication
requirements or that any portion of the watercourse setback be dedicated to the City. The City does
allow a cash donation in-lieu of land dedication credit for the cost of constructing recreational trails if
public access is provided. A public access easement of at least 25 feet is typically provided. The City
also allows developers to count their watercourse setbacks as open space to satisfy the performance
point requirements for planned unit developments.
It is the City’s intent to continue with the current policy. The Unified Development Ordinance should
be amended to formalize this policy.
8.4 CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION PROPOSALS
8.4.1 Overview
State law requires that developers provide land for parks or a cash equivalent, known as cash-in-lieu of
parkland. In the past, developers have typically provided land with few requests to provide cash-in-lieu.
However, in recent years, the City has been presented with increasingly frequent cash-in-lieu proposals
with no policies or criteria in place to adequately evaluate these proposals. The issues related to cash-in-
lieu proposals are many and varied, and include the following:
8.4.2 Valuation
State law specifies that the value of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication must be based upon the value of
the unsubdivided and unimproved land. Although the City does require that the value be based upon
the annexed and zoned value of the land, the cash-in-lieu amount is never equivalent to the actual value
of the land. Therefore, getting the land instead of money is almost always a better deal.
The issue of avoided costs is also a factor. When a developer dedicates parkland, it must meet the
minimum requirements for improvements contained in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance
(irrigation system, seeding, sidewalks, street trees, etc.). Cash-in-lieu has no similar expense attached.
This makes cash-in-lieu automatically a better deal for the developer and results in loss of value to the
City.
The larger issue is related to the determination of fair market value. State law does not specify the
procedure for calculating fair market value. Instead, the City has developed its own system whereby the
developer provides an appraisal of the fair market value by a certified real estate appraiser of their
choosing. The current system yields unpredictable and inequitable results with values ranging from
project to project.
Other non-specific factors influence the value of land and hence impact appraisals. For instance,
proximity to existing water and sewer infrastructure would make land more valuable for development
but it is unclear whether it would be considered in determining a cash-in-lieu value. Similarly, are the
cash-in-lieu appraisals based upon the least developable parts of a tract (wetlands, steep slopes, etc.), the
191
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-5
most developable parts of a tract, or an average of the entire property? The current system lacks the
specificity required to ensure that the City is receiving a fair value.
Until state law is changed, and/or a better local system of valuing land for cash-in-lieu proposals is
achieved, cash-in-lieu requests will be regarded by the City only as a last resort. This stance limits the
City’s ability to meet the recreational needs of the community, and is also unfair to the development
community as there are often legitimate reasons to propose cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. A new
system for determining the amount of cash-in-lieu payments should be developed. The new system
should be based on a fixed per acre amount — that is agreeable to both the City and the development
community — to increase the predictability of the process and allow the evaluation of cash-in-lieu
proposals based upon their merits. The per acre amount would be subject to periodic review and
adjustment.
8.4.3 Cash-in-Lieu Criteria
Proximity to Existing Parkland. Arguments for cash-in-lieu proposals often invoke the issue of
proximity to existing parkland; additional parkland is not needed since the subject development is close
to an existing park. In some instances this argument has merit and a cash-in-lieu proposal may make
sense. However, decisions based on proximity arguments must also consider the type of existing park
and the needs of the area, in terms of the type and location for parks, as determined by this plan. For
example, a new development may be near an existing special use skatepark. A park may still be needed
in the new development to satisfy the non-skate recreational needs of its future residents.
In addition, adjacency to existing parks may provide unique opportunities to aggregate and consolidate
parkland into larger and more useful parks.
Size of Land Available for Parkland. When only small pieces of parkland are available it may be
preferable to get the cash-in-lieu. However, these small parcels might make perfect mini parks if need is
demonstrated by this plan. Again, this document will influence not only where parks are needed, but
how parks should be developed (i.e., playground equipment vs ball fields). Cash-in-lieu decisions will
need to consider the size of the land available for a park within the context of whether a park is needed
in the area, and if so what type of park is needed.
Housing Density/Infill Projects. At some point residential dwelling unit density becomes a factor
because a high-density project could have more units, thus more parkland requirement, than land
available to dedicate. This situation occurs frequently with infill projects. Cash-in-lieu may be the only
option in some cases. This must be balanced with the need to provide recreational opportunities for all
residents. Lower-density development is characterized by lots with yards, whereas high-density lots
typically do not have large yards; high-density development may, in fact, have a greater need for
parkland than low-density.
Trail Connections. In some instances a development may not be appropriate for the siting of a new
park, but land in the development could provide a key trail corridor connection. In these situations, the
trail connection should be obtained instead of cash-in-lieu.
Suitability Factors. Occasionally land will simply not be suitable for recreational uses and would
therefore not be appropriate for a park. The suitability may be diminished due to factors such as steep
slopes, extremely high groundwater (surface ponding), etc. In these cases, cash-in-lieu may be the only
viable alternative.
192
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-6
Service Area. State law states that cash-in-lieu funds can be spent only if the “park, recreational area,
open space, or conservation easement is within a reasonably close proximity to the proposed
subdivision.” The RPAB has determined that “reasonably close proximity” will be based upon the
service area of the park classification. For example, the service area of a neighborhood park is a ¼- to
½-mile radius around the park, and the use of cash-in-lieu within this service area would be considered
to be within reasonably close proximity.
8.4.4 Policy Statement
In consideration of the issues outlined above, the City’s policy regarding cash-in-lieu proposals is as
follows: The City will continue to discourage or reject cash-in-lieu proposals until the cash-in-lieu
valuation system is revised, except in situations involving high-density residential projects or
development of lands unsuitable for recreation lands where cash-in-lieu is the only option. Cash-in-lieu
proposals will be evaluated upon their merits with one or more of the following criteria being met:
1. The land is unsuitable for use as recreational lands due to physical constraints or dangerous
circumstances.
2. The subject property is within the service area of an existing park, AND the type, size and
location of the existing park meet the recreational needs of the residents of the subject property.
3. The size of the park parcel would meet only the mini-park standards, AND no mini-park is
needed to meet the recreational needs of the residents of the subject property.
4. The residential dwelling unit density of the project is such that no land is available for parkland.
5. Land in the development is not needed for trail connections.
6. Other special circumstances unique to the subject property as determined by the RPAB.
In addition to these criteria, the potential for aggregating and consolidating parkland and the
opportunities for providing off-site parkland dedication will also be considered when evaluating cash-in-
lieu proposals. All proposals for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication must be reviewed by, and receive a
favorable recommendation from, the RPAB.
8.5 PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS
8.5.1 Overview
In recent years, the City’s development regulations have been revised to require the greatest amount of
parkland dedication, or cash-in-lieu thereof, allowable by state law. The greatest amount allowable is
0.03 acres per dwelling unit where density is known, which generally includes all residential zoning
districts except for R-4 (Residential High Density District) and R-O (Residential Office District). Where
the density is unknown, usually in the R-4 (Residential High Density) and R-O (Residential Office)
districts, the greatest amount allowable by state law is 11 percent of the area of the land proposed to be
subdivided into parcels.
Discussion regarding parkland dedication requirements has focused on whether the amount of parkland
dedication required in Bozeman is greater than needed to meet the needs of the City’s residents now and
into the future.
8.5.2 Analysis
At the end of 2005, Bozeman had approximately 18.1 acres of park for every 1,000 City residents.
According to Table 8-1, Bozeman’s park acres per 1,000 population is close to, and even slightly less,
193
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-7
than the average of 20.0 acres per 1,000 population for 5 of Montana’s largest and fastest growing cities
(Billings, Bozeman, Helena, Kalispell and Missoula). Therefore, the amount of parkland in the
Bozeman, and the amount of parkland dedication required in Bozeman, is consistent with other similar
cities in Montana.
Table 8-1: Peer Communities Park Acres per 1,000 Population
City Park Acres Population Estimate Park/1,000 Population
Fort Collins, CO 800 (2006) 118,652 (2004) 6.7
Boulder, CO 1,000 (2006) 94,673 (2004) 10.6
Greeley, CO 647 (2006) 76,930 (2004) 8.4
Loveland, CO 447 (2006) 50,608 (2004) 8.8
Boise, ID 1,930 (2004) 211,672 (2002) 9.1
Coeur D'Alene, ID 409 (2006) 34,514 (2006) 11.9
Billings, MT 2,596 (2006) 96,977 (2004) 26.8
Bozeman, MT 650 (2005) 35,750 (2005) 18.1
Helena, MT 440 (2006) 27,196 (2004) 16.2
Kalispell, MT 336 (2006) 17,000 (2004) 19.8
Missoula, MT 750 (2005) 61,790 (2004) 12.1
Bellevue, WA 650 (2006) 117,000 (2002) 5.6
Olympia, WA 700 (2006) 42,514 (2005) 16.5
Redmond, WA 1,000 (2006) 47,600 (2005) 21.0
Walla Walla, WA 600 (2006) 29,686 (2005) 20.2
Average 864 70,837 12.2
Average of Montana cities 954 47,743 20.0
Source: Official web sites for each city.
Table 8-2 shows the park acres per 1,000 population for some of the largest cities in the US. It is
interesting to note that the average park acres per 1,000 population for these large cities is 6.8, which is
considerably less than the average park acres per 1,000 population of 12.2 for the regional peer
communities shown in Table 8-1. This is likely attributable to the fact the large cities have less
opportunity to urbanize undeveloped land and hence obtain any significant park area. Instead, growth
in these large cities often occurs through infill with the redevelopment of underutilized land.
Table 8-2: Large US Cities Park Acres per 1,000 Population
City Park Acres Population (2000) Park/1,000 Population
Minneapolis, MN 5,694 383,000 14.9
Washington, DC 7,504 572,000 13.1
Oakland, CA 3,712 399,000 9.3
Boston, MA 4,865 589,000 8.3
Los Angeles, CA 29,801 3,695,000 8.1
Baltimore, MD 5,091 651,000 7.8
San Francisco, CA 5,916 777,000 7.6
Philadelphia, PA 10,685 1,518,000 7.0
New York, NY 49,854 8,008,000 6.2
Long Beach, CA 2,887 462,000 6.2
Chicago, IL 11,645 2,896,000 4.0
Miami, FL 1,329 362,000 3.7
Average 11,582 1,692,667 6.8
Source: Harnik, Peter, "Inside City Parks," Washington, D.C, Urban Land Institute, 2001.
194
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-8
Table 8-3: City of Bozeman Parkland Projections - 2005 through 2025
Year Population Dwelling Units1 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2005 35,750 15,336 650.5 18.2
77 percent at 0.03 325 developed
11,809 SH units 325.5 undeveloped
23 percent at 11%
3,527 MH units
453 acres MH2
Year Population Dwelling Units3 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2010 42,700 18,894 740 17.3
77 percent at 0.03
14,548 SH4
23 percent at 11%
4,346 MH units
521 acres MH5
Year Population Dwelling Units3 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2015 54,500 24,115 872 16.0
77 percent at 0.03
18,569 SH4
23 percent at 11%
5,546 MH units
621 acres MH5
Year Population Dwelling Units3 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2020 69,500 30,752 1,039 14.9
77 percent at 0.03
23,679 SH4
23 percent at 11%
7,073 MH units
748 acres MH5
Year Population Dwelling Units3 Park Acres Park Acres/1,000 Pop
2025 88,700 39,248 1,086 12.2
77 percent at 0.03
30,221 SH4
23 percent at 11%
9,027 MH units
911 acres MH5
1Based on 2000 Census housing unit count of 11,644 plus residential dwelling unit permits issued 2000-2005.
2The City's GIS system indicates that 453 acres were used for MH units in 2005, which translates into 7.8 units per acre.
3Dwelling units is calculated by dividing the population projection by the average household size of 2.26 persons per unit.
4SH = single household. 77 percent is the percentage of residential units permitted since 1990 that are single-household.
5MH = multi-household. 23 percent is the percentage of residential units permitted since 1990 that are MH. 12 units per acre was used to
determine additional MH acres.
195
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-9
As shown in Table 8-3, it is estimated that Bozeman will have approximately 1,086 acres of park, or 12.2
acres of park per 1,000 population, by 2025 if the current parkland dedication requirements remain in
place. The 12.2 acres of park per 1,000 population in 2025 is consistent with the current average park
acres per 1,000 population for all peer communities included in Table 8-1.
It is important to recognize that approximately half of the City’s existing parkland is in a natural state.
Much of this parkland is intended to be natural, such as Burke Park. However, much of this parkland is
intended to be developed, but a lack of funds has resulted in its remaining undeveloped. This
unintentionally natural parkland typically provides few recreation opportunities. If the unintentionally
natural parkland was subtracted from the analysis depicted in Tables 8-1 through 8-3, the results would
be more sobering for Bozeman.
The City of Bozeman has also adopted a Workforce Housing Ordinance to address the shortage of
affordable housing for very low to moderate income households. According to this ordinance, the
parkland requirement for development, not otherwise exempted from dedication requirements, shall be
reduced by a 1:1 ratio based on the required square footage of the lot area necessary to provide
minimum compliance with the ordinance. For example, if 50,000 square feet of lots for workforce
housing units are required then there shall be a reduction in the required parkland area of 50,000 square
feet. This new ordinance will further erode the City’s ability to maintain the current level of service by
relying so heavily on parkland dedication with land development.
8.5.5 Policy Statement
Results of surveys, as well as park and facility usage, indicates that outdoor recreational amenities are
very important to Bozeman’s population. Analysis indicates that Bozeman’s current parkland dedication
requirements, and the amount of parkland currently within the City, are acceptable and are consistent
with the requirements and parkland amounts in other large and growing Montana cities. Further, the
City’s current parkland dedication requirements will yield a sufficient amount of parkland for our
growing community that is consistent in terms of acres per 1,000 population with peer communities in
the region. Therefore, the parkland dedication requirements used by the City should not be revised
downward.
Finally, Table 8-3 indicates that over time Bozeman’s ratio for parkland per 1,000 population will decline
with continued use of the current parkland dedication requirements. Currently, Bozeman has
approximately 18.2 acres of park per 1,000 population. By 2025, this ratio is expected to decrease to
12.2 acres of park per 1,000 population. Therefore, the current parkland dedication is not going to
allow the community’s parkland acres to keep pace with the City’s growing population. Measures to be
used in addition to the development review and parkland dedication requirement will be needed if the
City’s current level of service for parkland will be maintained into the future.
8.6 INCENTIVES FOR HIGH DENSITY AND/OR INFILL PROJECTS
8.6.1 High Density Projects
Density is encouraged in the City of Bozeman. The City’s development regulations are currently
structured in a way that requires parkland dedication for 10 or fewer dwelling units per acre in the R-1,
R-2 and RMH zoning districts, and for 12 or fewer dwelling units per acre in the R-3, R-4 and R-O
zoning districts. Therefore, parkland will not be required in high density residential developments for
any units above and beyond 12 dwelling units per acre. This functions as an incentive for developers to
construct high density residential projects.
196
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-10
8.6.2 Infill Projects
Infill development is encouraged in the City of Bozeman. When a residential infill project is proposed,
the developer can get parkland dedication credits for any residential units removed for the infill
development. For example, if 3 single-household residential units are removed for construction of a 12-
unit condo development, the developer would get credit for the 3 removed single-household units and
would only have to provide parkland for the 9 additional units. This results in an incentive for the
development of residential infill projects.
8.6.2 Policy Statement
These existing incentives for high density and/or infill residential projects represent an effective and
equitable tool for encouraging the densification of the City and the construction of infill developments.
The current policy should be retained and applied wherever appropriate.
8.7 PARKLAND DEDICATION CRITERIA
Parkland dedication through the development review process has historically been the predominant
method of land acquisition for parks. While parkland dedication through the development review
process has generally been effective for acquiring land, the current parkland dedication requirements, as
stipulated in state law, will result in fewer and fewer park acres per resident over time as shown in Table
8-3. Also, relying solely on parkland dedication through the development review process provides the
City with very little control over when, where and how parks are developed. Therefore, in addition to
development review a more reliable and nimble means of acquisition of land for parks is needed in to
augment the parkland dedication requirement and allow for the acquisition of critical areas as they
become available.
The goal of parkland dedication through the development review process should be to create parks
which provide recreational opportunities, protect or preserve unique natural features, or provide
linkages to existing or prospective facilities. As stated previously, land will generally be deemed more
valuable than cash-in-lieu until the cash-in-lieu system is revamped. When accepting a parkland
dedication, the dedication will be reviewed in relation to the qualitative merits of a specific proposal,
with a focus on the following criteria:
1. Compliance with the goals, objectives and policies of Bozeman’s growth policy and this
document.
2. Parkland dedications, with the possible exception of a natural amenity or linear parks, should
have excellent visible access and be easily identifiable and recognizable as a public space where
everyone is welcome.
3. Wherever possible, parkland dedications should implement recommended projects outlined in
this document. Any physical feature which is the focus of a corridor, such as a stream corridor,
railbed or ridgeline, shall be included in the dedication.
4. The size and shape, and/or purpose of the parkland proposed for dedication is appropriate for
the location; the topography is appropriate for the size and shape, or purposes of the proposed
dedication.
5. The dedication is situated and designed to ensure excellent physical accessibility from all
directions for the public and for reasonable maintenance purposes.
197
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-11
6. Wherever possible, parkland dedications should be contiguous to any existing parks.
Dedications from a multi-phased subdivision should normally be contiguous to one another.
7. The parkland dedication should be designed so that it may be adequately maintained.
8. Infrastructure and utility accesses which are located within park boundaries, such as stormwater
retention or detention ponds, will not be counted towards the minimum amount of parkland
required for dedication.
9. Consideration should be given to any other programmatic or physical concerns of the proposed
dedication, and significant and/or unique natural features.
10. Land dedication for linear parks should comply with the adopted PROST Plan Trail Map.
Any variation from these criteria must be found to produce a net result which exceeds existing
standards, or which will preserve and enhance significant natural qualities and amenities.
8.8 STREET FRONTAGE
8.8.1 Overview
For many years the City’s regulations required street frontage along at least 50 percent of a park’s
perimeter. In 2005, the City’s regulations were amended to require street frontage along 100 percent of
a park’s perimeter, with exceptions related to topography, critical lands, pedestrian access and off-street
parking. There are many reasons to require the provision of street frontage along City parks, including:
· Accessibility – To ensure that public parks are easily accessible from all directions.
· Safety – Having a high level of visibility, or “eyes on the park,” increases safety for park visitors.
· Crime Prevention – Similar to safety, having a high degree of park visibility decreases the
incidents of crime such as graffiti.
· Parking – Having street frontage and on-street parking can provide a tremendous amount of
parking for park visitors.
· Boundaries – In places where private backyards back up to public parks there is a tendency for
the private backyards, and related items such as sheds and personal storage, to encroach onto
the public land.
· Recognition – It is important the public lands that are provided to meet the recreational needs of
the community be easily identifiable and recognizable as public spaces where everyone is
welcome.
However, the RPAB has identified many reasons why having a significant amount of street frontage may
not be feasible and/or desirable, including:
· Safety – Vehicle traffic associated with street adjacency may present a hazard to children and
pets playing in parks.
· Resource Impacts - Vehicle use, and related impacts such as leaking oil or the transport of
noxious weed seed, can negatively impact resource- or critical land-based parks.
· Noise Impacts – Vehicle noise can be detrimental to a park experience, especially if parks are
used as an escape and an opportunity to enjoy nature.
198
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-12
· Visual impacts – The sight of vehicles can negatively impact the aesthetic qualities of a park, and
therefore diminish the enjoyment of the park.
· Visibility – Some park users may feel safer when private backyards back up to the park rather
than parked cars.
· Size – Some parks, especially mini parks, will simply be too small to allow for the provision of
significant street frontage.
Therefore, the challenge in policy development lies in the need to balance the benefits of street frontage
with the possibly detrimental aspects. We recommend requirements for street frontage based on the
differing classifications of Bozeman’s parks and the different amenities each park provides.
Street frontage requirements are also an issue in regards to private open space, where the pros and cons
of street frontage are similar to those of parks. However, open spaces are typically designed to provide
a natural landscape to protect natural resources, critical lands and aesthetic resources. Therefore, it is
possible that street frontage would be especially detrimental to some open spaces.
8.8.2 Policy Statement
Street frontage for City parks will be determined on a case-by-case basis, with a recommendation from
RPAB, based on the following guidelines:
1. All City parks, with the exception of parks intentionally planned to be Natural Areas/Open
Lands or linear parks, have street frontage along at least 25 percent of the park’s perimeter.
2. Park parking requirements should be developed, and all new Community, Regional and Special
Use Parks should comply with the requirements. Parking can be provided on-street, in a
developed parking area or a combination thereof. Land used for a park parking lot will not
count towards the parkland dedication requirement. Because most visitors to Mini and
Neighborhood Parks come from within the neighborhood, no parking requirements should
apply.
3. If private yards will be adjacent to a park, the boundary must be delineated by a RPAB-approved
natural or artificial barrier such as fencing, berming, landscaping, etc. The fencing allowed along
these boundaries should not exceed 4 feet in height, should be see-through and must be installed
by the developer to ensure the coordination of fence style, height and materials.
4. Public park entrances must be provided to the park perimeters that lack street frontage.
5. Small signs should be installed at all public entrances to a City park, with a larger park
identification sign being placed at the primary access to the park. All signage much comply with
Parks Division specifications.
Street frontage for private open space will be provided as follows:
1. No requirement for open spaces where no PUD performance points were granted for public
access.
2. For open spaces where PUD performance points were granted for public access, there should be
at least one 25-foot wide access with signage indicating that public access to the open space is
allowed.
199
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues
Page 8-13
8.9 SHARED USE PATHS
8.9.1 Overview
There is a desire to provide a shared use path system to provide recreation and transportation
opportunities through and around the City. Shared use paths, which are classified as Class I trails,
provide a unique opportunity for people to travel on bike, foot, skateboard, etc. on a facility that is
separated from adjacent streets. Shared use paths are available for uses, such as adults on bikes or
skateboarding, that are generally restricted on standard sidewalks.
Because shared use paths require ample street right-of-way, and due to development constraints
throughout the City, the system of shared use paths is recommend for a select few street corridors as
depicted on the PROST Trail Plan Map. When identifying which corridors were most suitable for
shared use paths, emphasis was placed on the following:
· Availability of street right-of-way;
· Feasibility of development of the facility, most often in undeveloped or underdeveloped areas;
· Proximity to community facilities such as schools, parks and the public library;
· Speed and traffic volume on the adjacent street.
In addition to the location of the shared use path system, there were many other issues that were
discussed and debated related to share use paths. These issues include the following:
· Surface – Some preferred an asphalt surface, especially for runners/joggers, the use of inline
skates, and the fact that snow and ice melt faster on asphalt. However, the City Engineering and
Street Departments preferred concrete, especially if the shared use paths are installed in-lieu of a
City standard sidewalk, due to superior longevity and ease of maintenance. The design life for
asphalt is 20 years while concrete is 8 to 80 years.
· Direction – There was some debate about whether shared use paths should be installed on both
sides of the street in all corridors identified to have shared use paths. There was some concern
that it would be difficult to successfully install paths on both sides of a street. However, safety
concerns dictate that shared use paths should be installed on both side of the street wherever
possible.
· Design – It is desirable to have some meander in the shared use paths. However, the width of
available right-of-way, especially on collector streets, makes it difficult to design a meandering
path. Therefore, if a shared use path is designed to meander, some additional easement may be
required from the adjacent property owner.
· Aesthetics – There was general consensus that concrete shared use paths are not particularly
attractive. Therefore, there is a desire to use colored concrete to increase the attractiveness of
the paths.
8.9.2 Policy Statement
1. Shared use paths in the City of Bozeman are meant to accommodate a range of non-motorized
users, including: bicyclists (children and adults), pedestrians, skateboards, inline skates, etc. The
only acceptable motorized users are powered wheelchairs/scooters used by disabled citizens.
2. Shared use paths should be installed in the locations depicted on the PROST Trail Plan Map.
200
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 8-14
3. Shared use paths should be installed on both sides of the street, with the users of the shared use
path moving in the same direction as adjacent traffic.
4. Crossings of shared use paths and streets should be signed and marked, or otherwise
demarcated, in compliance with guidelines and recommendations included in the Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan.
5. Shared use paths should be constructed of concrete, in compliance with the City’s Design
Guidelines contained in Appendix C, whenever provided in-lieu of a City standard sidewalk.
6. If a shared use path is designed to meander and adequate right-of-way is not available to
accommodate the meander, additional trail easement should be obtained from the adjacent
property owner.
7. Colored or dyed concrete should be used for shared use paths to enhance the attractiveness of
the facility.
8. In locations where a natural fines trail and a City-standard sidewalk converge, the facilities
should be combined into one larger shared use path.
8.10 PHASED DEVELOPMENTS
8.10.1 Overview
The City has had difficulties with multi-phased project (especially subdivisions) where the planned park
and/or recreation facilities are located in later phases. This situation creates many difficulties, including
the issues associated with people living in the earlier phases of the development who have a delay
(sometimes sizable) before recreation facilities are available to them. The City has also had situations
where later phases are never developed, leaving the residents of earlier completed phases entirely
without recreational facilities within their neighborhood.
8.10.2 Policy Statement
1. The location for all park and recreational facilities must be identified with the initial phase of a
multi-phased development.
2. Wherever possible, areas identified for park and recreation uses should be dedicated to the City
with the initial phase of the development. If dedication is not possible, easements should be
obtained with the initial phase for all lands identified for park and recreation uses, with the land
being dedicated incrementally and proportionally with each phase.
3. Wherever possible, areas identified for park and recreation uses should be improved in
compliance with City standards with the initial phase of the development. Incremental and
proportional improvement of park and recreation areas can be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
201
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Planning Framework
Page 9-1
CHAPTER 9
Planning Framework
9.0 INTRODUCTION
The statement of goals and objectives provides a framework for determining the community’s
recreational needs, and formulating recommendations and implementation policies for addressing those
needs. A goal is defined as the result or achievement toward which effort is directed. The goals
described in this document reflect general aspirations for the community’s park, recreation, open space
and trail amenities. An objective is defined as something that one’s efforts or actions are intended to
attain or accomplish. The objectives listed in this document represent more detailed descriptions of
desirable outcomes.
9.1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal 1 Accessibility
Objective 1. Ensure that public parks, trails and recreation facilities comply
with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to the
greatest extent possible.
Objective 2. Ensure that public park and recreational facility usage, and
recreation programming, is affordable for all.
Objective 3. Provide for adequate connections and access to public parks and
trails, including public parking, public transportation and trail
connections.
Objective 4. Create neighborhood parks that are conveniently located and
accessible to the neighborhoods they serve.
Goal 2 Education
Objective 1. Educate citizens regarding the location of public parks, trails and
recreational facilities in Bozeman.
Objective 2. Educate the public regarding rules, regulations and proper
etiquette for the use of public parks and trails to minimize
impacts and conflicts.
Objective 3. Enforce park rules and regulations to minimize impacts and
conflicts.
Objective 4. Educate residents about the availability of recreation programs.
Objective 5. Provide recreational programs that teach and promote
environmental awareness and stewardship.
Objective 6. Provide recreational programs that teach parents how to recreate
with their children.
202
Planning Framework Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 9-2
Goal 3 Funding
Objective 1. Establish regular and sufficient funding sources to acquire,
develop and maintain public parks, trails and recreational
facilities.
Objective 2. Establish regular and sufficient funding to provide the resources
necessary to meet the community’s recreational programming
needs.
Goal 4 Partnerships
Objective 1. Work with user groups, service organizations and other relevant
entities to develop new and enhance existing parks, trails and
recreation facilities.
Objective 2. Partner with user groups and service organizations to provide
recreation programs for the community.
Objective 3. Work with County, State and Federal governments to achieve a
coordinated approach to recreation services.
Objective 4. Coordinate with the School District to achieve mutually
beneficial recreational opportunities.
Goal 5 Connections
Objective 1. Continue to obtain new trail corridors and connectors for
existing trails through the development process in compliance
with the PROST Trail Plan Map.
Objective 2. Use trails to connect community facilities and institutions such as
schools, library and parks.
Objective 3. Connect Bozeman trails to Gallatin County and Forest Service
trails wherever feasible in accordance with the PROST Trail Plan
Map.
Goal 6 Usability
Objective 1. Ensure that new parks and recreation facilities are properly
located and sized, and that the land is suitable to support the
intended activities and functions of the park and/or facility.
Objective 2. Use regulatory and non-regulatory tools to enable and encourage
the creation of larger, more functional parks.
Objective 3. Ensure that adequate amounts of parkland or cash-in-lieu are
provided through the development process to meet the
recreational needs of the community now and into the future.
Objective 4. Increase and enhance trail-related amenities such as benches,
signage, pet sanitary stations and bridges.
Objective 5. Ensure that adequate facilities are available to support recreation
programs.
203
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Planning Framework
Page 9-3
Goal 7 Equity
Objective 1. Provide parks, trails, recreation facilities and programs that meet
the needs of all residents regardless of age, gender, economic
condition, physical or mental limitation, etc.
Objective 2. Ensure that park, trail, recreation facilities and programs are
provided to meet the needs of users in an equitable manner with
no user group(s) receiving preferential treatment.
Objective 3. Provide parks, trails, recreation facilities and programs
throughout the City in a geographically equitable manner; avoid
creating areas that are underserved or over-served in relation to
the rest of the community.
Goal 8 Predictability
Objective 1. Create standards for property owners associations that maintain
public parks and trails for inclusion in association bylaws.
Objective 2. Provide standards for trail construction and maintenance.
Objective 3. Require adequate maintenance plans for private open space in
planned unit developments.
Objective 4. Provide minimum requirements for improvements to newly
dedicated parkland.
Objective 5. Develop and provide standards for additional improvements to
dedicated parkland.
Goal 9 Safety
Objective 1. Upgrade and enhance existing park facilities, such as restrooms
and playground equipment, as financial resources permit.
Objective 2. Ensure that public parks and recreational facilities are maintained
and signed to ensure usability and safety.
Objective 3. Develop standards for safety.
Objective 4. Review plans for new park development to ensure compliance.
Goal 10 Planning
Objective 1. Identify, acquire and/or preserve significant open spaces within
the planning area.
Objective 2. Prepare individual park master plans for all new and existing
parks, and amend existing plans as needed.
Objective 3. Expand the City’s trail system in a predicable, logical and safe
manner.
Objective 4. Use GIS-based databases of parkland and trails for planning and
maintenance.
204
Planning Framework Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 9-4
Goal 11 Service
Objective 1. Ensure an excellent quality of life for Bozeman residents by
providing a high level of service for the amount and type of
recreation programs and facilities.
Objective 2. Provide a high level of service for the maintenance and safety of
parks and recreation facilities.
Objective 3. Support public sport and team play programs currently provided
by user groups.
Goal 12 Responsiveness
Objective 1. Ensure that recreation programming is responsive to the
changing needs and demands of the community.
Objective 2. Monitor socio-economic changes in City’s population and adapt
the City’s recreation program offerings accordingly.
Objective 3. Monitor trends in the field of recreation programming, such as
Target Market Segments recreational programming, and adapt the
City’s recreation programming as needed.
Goal 13 Health
Objective 1. Improve the health of the City’s residents by providing the
recreational facilities and program that promote healthy, active
lifestyles.
Objective 2. Use parks and open spaces to provide opportunities to
experience nature.
Objective 3. Mitigate air and water pollution with parks, trails and open
spaces.
Goal 14 Prosperity
Objective 1. Encourage economic vitality in the community by providing
recreational facilities that attract tourists, as well as new residents
and businesses, to our City.
Objective 2. Provide recreation programs that expand professional
competencies and provide professional and continuing education
opportunities to enhance the skills and knowledge of the City’s
workforce.
Goal 15 Community
Objective 1. Provide recreational opportunities that enhance family
relationships.
Objective 2. Provide recreation programs that enhance the self-esteem, self-
reliance, self-image, resiliency factors, life skills and leadership
skills of the community’s youth.
Objective 3. Use recreation as a tool to combat negative social activity such as
graffiti and vandalism.
Objective 4. Use recreational facilities and programs as forums for community
involvement and interaction.
205
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-1
CHAPTER 10
Recommendations and Implementation
10.0 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 7 provides an analysis of recreation facility and programming needs based on level of service,
Chapter 8 provides policy direction for addressing the recreational needs of the community and Chapter
9 provides a planning framework for recommendations. This chapter provides a summary of identified
community needs and provides recommended strategies for addressing those needs.
10.1 PARKLAND AQUISITION
10.1.1 Recommendation
Because the current system is not working well, revise the City’s cash-in-lieu of parkland
dedication system so that cash-in-lieu funds can be collected, amassed and used as needed to
fund parkland acquisition.
Implementation Strategies
· Establish an ad hoc RPAB committee, including City staff and RPAB members, to
develop a proposal for a new cash-in-lieu system.
· Seek legislative change at the state level if needed.
· Revise the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as needed.
· Use the criteria in Section 8.4.3 to evaluate cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication proposals.
10.1.2 Recommendation
Consolidate and aggregate parkland to develop larger and more functional parks wherever
possible.
Implementation Strategies
· Encourage off-site parkland dedication to aggregate and consolidate parkland
dedications, especially in currently underserved areas.
· Encourage adjacent property owners to work together on development plans to
aggregate and centralize their parkland dedications.
10.1.3 Recommendation
Ensure that land dedicated for parkland is suitable for recreational uses and promotes the goals,
objectives and policies of this plan.
Implementation Strategies
· Use the criteria contained in Section 8.1.2 when evaluating proposals to dedicate
wetlands.
206
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-2
· Use the criteria contained in Section 8.2.1 when evaluating proposals to dedicate ponds
or lakes.
· Formalize the policy of not accepting watercourse setbacks as dedicated parkland by
revising the UDO.
· Use the parkland dedication criteria contained in Section 8.7 when evaluating proposals.
10.1.4 Recommendation
Continue to provide a level of service for parkland of approximately 18.0 acres per 1,000 people.
Implementation Strategies
· Maximize parkland dedication requirements allowable by state law.
· Continue methods used to augment the parkland dedication or cash-in-lieu of parkland
dedication process, including grants, land donations, fundraising, etc.
· Develop and implement possible new methods to augment the parkland dedication or
cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication process, for example: establishment of a parkland
charitable foundation, a Citywide bond measure for the purchase of parkland, impact
fees, etc.
10.1.5 Recommendation
Provide neighborhood parks and community parks in underserved areas of the City as identified
in Chapter 8.
Implementation Strategies
· Obtain parkland through the development review process or other methods as
appropriate.
10.1.6 Recommendation
Require the provision of parkland in multi-phased developments in a logical and predictable
manner.
Implementation Strategies
· Revise the City’s development regulations to reflect the policy contained in Section 8.10
“Phase Developments.”
10.2 PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT
10.2.1 Recommendation
Prepare individual park master plans for all City parks to guide the development of the City’s
parkland.
Implementation Strategies
· Collect copies of all adopted individual park master plans, and make the plans available
to City staff and the public in the Parks Division offices and the Department of Planning
& Community Development.
207
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-3
· Continue to require that developers prepare individual park master plans for all newly
dedicated parkland. Evaluate the City’s individual park master plan preparation process
from time to time, and revise the Unified Development Ordinance as needed.
· Allocate funds in the City budget for City staff and/or consultants to prepare individual
park master plans for existing parks lacking an adopted plan.
· Revise and update existing individual park master plans as needed or proposed,
following the procedure described in Section 1.8.2.
· Require that individual park master plans include two plans – one depicting the full
build-out of the park and one depicting what initial improvements the developer will
provide. Amend the UDO to include this provision.
10.2.2 Recommendation
Ensure that regional, community and special use parks are served by adequate transportation
networks, and have adequate parking to avoid negative impacts on nearby neighborhoods.
Implementation Strategies
· Regional, community and some special use parks should be located on arterial and
collector streets, and should be served by the community trail and transit systems.
· Parking lots should be provided as needed, especially when on-street parking is not
available.
· Evaluate the establishment of parking requirements for parks and recreational facilities,
and include in the UDO if deemed appropriate.
10.2.3 Recommendation
Whenever opportunities arise, parkland dedications should be sited adjacent to existing or
proposed school sites to accommodate larger acreage for joint development and shared
maintenance by the City and school district.
Implementation Strategies
· Continue to seek school district comments on development applications.
· Work with the school district to secure agreements related to joint development, use and
maintenance.
· Continue with City representation on the school district’s Long-Range Planning
Committee.
10.2.4 Recommendation
Require that any improvements to City parks and recreational facilities be made in conformance
with an adopted individual park master plan.
Implementation Strategies
· Collect copies of all adopted individual park master plans, and make the plans available
to City staff and the public in the Parks Division offices and the Department of Planning
& Community Development.
208
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-4
· Make sure that City staff, user groups, service organizations, neighborhood
organizations, etc. are familiar with the process for preparation and amendment of
individual park master plans as described in Section 1.8.2.
10.2.5 Recommendation
Ensure that all new parks are constructed in compliance with the City’s design guidelines as
outlined in Appendix C.
Implementation Strategies
· Advise developers about their park construction requirements during the development
review process.
· Conduct preconstruction meetings and on-site inspections to ensure that parks are being
properly developed.
· Educate the development community and contractors regarding the City’s design
guidelines for parks.
· Upgrade existing parks, as needed and as opportunities arise, so they are in conformance
with the design guidelines for parks.
10.2.6 Recommendation
Include standardized signage in all City parks to increase visibility, accessibility, usability and
safety.
Implementation Strategies
· The location for signage should be included on all park plans.
· New signage must comply with the signage design requirements included in Appendix
G.
· Install signage in existing parks as funding becomes available.
10.2.7 Recommendation
Ensure that City parks include the desired amenities, based on park type, as shown on Page 7-31.
Implementation Strategies
· Consult the list of recommended amenities when reviewing proposed new or revised
park plans.
· Install planned park amenities as funding becomes available and opportunities arise.
· Ensure that all installed amenities comply with any applicable design guidelines
contained in the Appendices of this document.
10.2.8 Recommendation
Provide ample access and parking for City parks.
209
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-5
Implementation Strategies
· Provide street frontage for City parks and public open space in compliance with the
policies contained in Section 8.8.2 of this plan.
· Parking lots should be provided as needed, especially when sufficient on-street parking is
not provided.
· Evaluate the establishment of parking requirements for parks and recreational facilities,
and include in the UDO if deemed appropriate.
10.2.9 Recommendation
Ensure that all lands currently used for City parks are dedicated for that use, including but not
limited to Soroptmist, Centennial and Burke Parks.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate which means of dedication are available and implement as appropriate.
10.3 PARKLAND MAINTENANCE
10.3.1 Recommendation
Develop a GIS-based system to track park size, location, ownership, and intended use where
records are easy to retrieve and review for use in scheduling and conducting maintenance.
Implementation Strategies
· Work with the Information Technology Department to develop a computerized system
and develop a process for updating information.
· Purchase equipment to facilitate use of the system, including remote access from the
field.
· Provide Park Division employees with training to use, update and maintain the
information.
· Develop a more consistent labeling system for park, private and public open space, etc.
to denote ownership and access for use on subdivision plats and site plans.
10.3.2 Recommendation
Continue to provide a high level of service for park maintenance to meet the demands of a
growing community.
Implementation Strategies
· As the City’s size and amount of parkland increases, increase the City’s capacity to
maintain parks with additional staff and equipment.
· Establish park maintenance standards for facilities being maintained by the City, and
review the standards from time to time and identify areas for improvement.
210
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-6
10.3.3 Recommendation
Continue to require that developers prepare a maintenance plan for any parks or trails to be
maintained by the homeowners’ or property owners’ associations until a Citywide parks
maintenance district or some equivalent alternative is created.
Implementation Strategies
· Establish a process for review and approval of the maintenance plans by the Parks
Division.
· Ensure that the City’s requirements for maintenance plans are adequate, and revise the
UDO as needed.
10.3.4 Recommendation
Continue to require that homeowners’ or property owners’ associations maintain newly
dedicated parkland and trails within their development until a Citywide parks maintenance
district or some equivalent alternative is created.
Implementation Strategies
· Formalize this policy in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
· Provide staff to monitor maintenance on a regular schedule to ensure compliance.
10.4 RECREATION PROGRAMS
10.4.1 Recommendation
Research community needs and provide programs to ensure needs are being met.
Implementation Strategies
· Conduct age specific focus groups and/or surveys of recreation needs, and develop and
implement comprehensive recreational planning for each demographic group.
. Conduct program surveys.
· Monitor demographic change in the community, such as population growth, changes in
household composition, population aging, income characteristics, etc.
· Monitor social change in the community, such as time use patterns, lifelong learning,
environmental awareness and stewardship, technology and communications innovation,
etc.
10.4.2 Recommendation
Continue to provide a high level of service for recreational programming to contribute to the
quality of life enjoyed by Bozeman residents.
Implementation Strategies
· As the City’s size and population increases, increase the City’s capacity to provide
excellence in recreational programming by providing resources for additional staff,
equipment and facilities.
211
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-7
. Increase general operating budget for staff in order to provide recreation programs.
10.4.3 Recommendation
Ensure that City recreation programs and the use of City facilities are affordable for all.
Implementation Strategies
· Continue and advertise existing programs to help people with affordability, such as
allowing people to volunteer to pay for recreation programs.
· Design and implement additional resources to ensure affordability such as sponsorships
and donations by others in order to offer additional free programming
10.4.4 Recommendation
Develop recreational activities and events that celebrate Bozeman’s growing cultural and ethnic
diversity.
Implementation Strategies
· Offer recreation programs to teach about different cultures and countries.
10.4.5 Recommendation
Continue to provide support for community partners offering recreational and educational
opportunities.
Implementation Strategies
· Continue to serve as a source of information for recreational opportunities in the
community.
· Continue to support the RPAB’s web site, infobozeman.com as a means of
disseminating information about recreation in Bozeman.
· Continue other supportive activities such as facilities scheduling, special event planning,
activity registration, etc. to support recreation groups.
10.4.6 Recommendation
Use recreational programming to enhance our community.
Implementation Strategies
· Offer recreation programs that encourage healthy and active lifestyles.
· Offer recreation programs for families to enhance family relationships and teach parents
skills for recreating with their children.
· Offer recreation programs geared towards youth and their unique needs.
· Offer recreation programs where people can improve their professional competencies by
learning new skills and gaining additional knowledge.
· Offer recreation programs that encourage civic engagement.
212
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-8
10.5 RECREATION FACILITIES
10.5.1 Recommendation
Maintain existing recreational facilities to ensure they remain operational as long as possible.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate existing recreational facilities for structural stability and renovation options.
. Fund needed renovations.
10.5.2 Recommendation
Site and construct a community recreation center to provide year-round recreation for all age
groups.
Implementation Strategies
· Identify and acquire land for a community recreation center, possibly through the
parkland dedication process.
· Evaluate possible funding sources for land acquisition and construction, and implement
the funding option(s) identified. See Chapter 11.
· Budget for staff to develop and operate a recreation center, and for on-going
maintenance of the building and its grounds.
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
10.5.3 Recommendation
Develop two new revenue producing family-oriented leisure aquatic centers, one in the south
side of the City and the other in the north or northwest part of the City.
Implementation Strategies
· Identify and acquire land for aquatics facilities, possibly through the parkland dedication
process.
· Evaluate possible funding sources for land acquisition and construction, and implement
the funding option(s) identified. See Chapter 11.
· Budget for staff to develop and operate new aquatics facilities.
10.5.4 Recommendation
Provide additional covered facilities or picnic shelters that can accommodate groups of 20 to 50
people.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate existing and planned parks for siting of a new covered facility or picnic shelter.
· Amend individual park plans as needed.
· Explore various funding options, described in Chapter 11, for construction of additional
picnic shelters.
213
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-9
10.5.5 Recommendation
Develop additional playgrounds in all quadrants of the City and ensure that playground
equipment is safe.
Implementation Strategies
· When evaluating new developments and park plans, include playgrounds in all
appropriate locations.
· Add playground equipment to existing parks as funding is available and opportunities
arise.
· Ensure that all new playground equipment complies with the City’s design guidelines
contained in Appendix C.
· Upgrade existing playground equipment as needed and as funding is available.
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
10.5.6 Recommendation
Provide additional fields for soccer.
Implementation Strategies
· Increase the number of developed soccer fields in the northeast, southwest and
southeast quadrants of the City.
· Increase the amount of large grassy areas all over the City for use for soccer practice.
· Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks in underserved areas for their
appropriateness for developed soccer fields and/or informal practice areas.
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
10.5.7 Recommendation
Provide additional football fields.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks for their appropriateness for a
developed football field.
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
10.5.8 Recommendation
Provide additional baseball/softball fields so that all neighborhoods are included within a ½ mile
service area.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks in underserved areas for their
appropriateness for baseball/softball fields.
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
214
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-10
10.5.9 Recommendation
Provide additional basketball courts so that all neighborhoods are included within a ½ mile
service area.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks in underserved areas for their
appropriateness for basketball courts.
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
10.5.10 Recommendation
Provide additional tennis courts so that all neighborhoods are included within a ½ mile service
area.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks in underserved areas for their
appropriateness for tennis courts.
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
· Evaluate possible funding sources for tennis court construction, and implement the
funding option(s) identified. See Chapter 11.
10.5.11 Recommendation
Create off-leash dog areas when and where opportunities arise.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks for their appropriateness for fenced
off-leash areas.
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
10.5.12 Recommendation
Provide a disc golf course in the City of Bozeman.
Implementation Strategies
· Complete improvements to Rose Park to provide a disc golf course.
10.6 OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE
10.6.1 Recommendation
Develop a public open space acquisition and management program for the City of Bozeman,
similar to the programs in Missoula and Helena.
215
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-11
Implementation Strategies
· Prepare an open space plan, including an examination of possible funding sources such
as a Citywide open space bond.
· Examine other successful open space programs such as Missoula’s for ideas.
10.6.2 Recommendation
Once a public open space acquisition and management program is developed, some City parks
may be included in the open space program rather than the parks program.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate which City parks or other lands would best be labeled and managed in a public
open space program rather than as City parks.
10.6.3 Recommendation
Continue to require that property owners associations maintain open space within their
development. If a Citywide park maintenance district or some other similar alternative is created
consideration should given to the maintenance of open space with public access on a case-by-
case basis.
Implementation Strategies
· Ensure that developers are providing adequate open space maintenance plans, and
develop a process for review of these plans.
· Ensure that the City’s requirements for open space maintenance plans are adequate, and
revise the UDO as needed.
10.7 TRAIL ACQUISITION
10.7.1 Recommendation
Ensure that the trail system within the City connects with the Countywide trail system, and with
trails on state and federal lands where appropriate, and complies with the PROST Plan Trail
Map.
Implementation Strategies
· Coordinate trail planning with the Gallatin County Board of Park Commissioners, and
state and federal agencies.
· Review the adopted “Connecting Communities: 2001 Gallatin County Trails Report and
Plan” when evaluating trail development proposals, especially on the edges of the City.
· Support the community effort to construct a safe trail between Bozeman and Belgrade.
· Require that annexation proposals be accompanied by a master plan showing how any
contiguous parks, open space, and/or trails will be extended to and through the property
to be annexed, and ensure connections to existing or planned trails on developed or
undeveloped adjacent properties.
216
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-12
· Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to coordinate with County, State and Federal
government representatives.
· Implement the policies and recommendations of the Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan.
· Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to coordinate with County, State and Federal
government representatives.
· Continue cooperation with GVLT in trail planning.
10.7.2 Recommendation
Site of new trails to be consistent with the adopted growth policy, and with any adopted subarea
or neighborhood plan.
Implementation Strategies
· Require that the detailed information provided in subarea and neighborhood plans
include trails and trail connections.
· Review the adopted growth policy and any applicable adopted subarea or neighborhood
plan when evaluating the proposed location of a new trail,.
· Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to evaluate new trail proposals for compliance
with the adopted planning documents.
10.7.3 Recommendation
Continue to expand the trail system in the City in a logical, convenient and safe manner as
opportunities arise.
Implementation Strategies
· Consult the PROST Plan Trail Map when reviewing development proposals, and require
the provision of identified trail corridors or links as shown on the plan.
· Continue to work with GVLT to expand the Main Street to Mountains trail system.
· Work with the County to connect the trail system in the City to the County’s trail system.
· Work with property owners to secure trail easements for critical trail connections.
· Implement the policies and recommendations of the Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan.
10.7.4 Recommendation
Evaluate new trails or trail systems for suitability for cross-country skiing.
Implementation Strategies
· Work closely with GVLT and the Bridger Ski Foundation to review proposals for new
trails.
· If a new development will include trails for cross-country skiing, determine special
conditions related to grooming and maintenance responsibility, hours of use, parking, etc
on a case by case basis.
217
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-13
· Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
10.7.5 Recommendation
Provide a level of service for trails of 1.5 miles of trail per 1,000 people.
Implementation Strategies
· Implement the PROST Plan Trail Map as opportunities arise including development
proposals.
· Secure critical trail connections and segments, to create longer and more usable trails, as
funding becomes available and opportunities arise.
· Focus trail acquisition activities on connections and segments that connect community
facilities such as parks, schools, public library, etc.
· Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to coordinate trail acquisition for the City of
Bozeman.
10.8 TRAIL DEVELOPMENT
10.8.1 Recommendation
Provide a high level of accessibility and safe routes of travel to and from City parks, and between
other community facilities such as the public library, schools, and downtown.
Implementation Strategies
· Continue the City’s sidewalk installation, repair and replacement program.
· Implement the PROST Plan Trail Map.
· Improve existing trails and secure needed trail connections as opportunities arise.
10.8.2 Recommendation
Require that linear parks and public trail easements are at least 25 feet in width, recognizing that
additional width may be required for cross-country skiing trails to be determined on a case-by-
case basis.
Implementation Strategies
· Edit the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance as needed.
10.8.3 Recommendation
Ensure that all new trails are constructed in compliance with the City’s design guidelines as
outlined in Appendix C.
Implementation Strategies
· During the development review process classify all new trails to ensure that the proper
design guidelines are applied.
218
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-14
· Conduct preconstruction meetings and on-site inspections to ensure that trails are being
property constructed.
· Educate the development community and contractors regarding the City’s design
guidelines for trails.
· Upgrade existing trails, as needed and as opportunities arise, to comply with the PROST
Plan Trail Map.
· Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to ensure compliance with the City’s design
guidelines for new trail construction.
10.8.4 Recommendation
Include standardized signage on City trails to increase visibility, accessibility, usability and safety.
Implementation Strategies
· Include the location for signage on all linear park plans.
· Design new signage to comply with the signage design requirements included in
Appendix G.
· Install signage in key existing trail segments as funding becomes available.
10.8.5 Recommendation
Evaluate all trail and street crossings for safety and compliance with the crossing guidelines
contained in the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan.
Implementation Strategies
· Require that all new trail and street crossings comply with the guidelines contained in the
Bozeman Area Transportation Plan.
· Upgrade all existing trail and street crossings, where needed, so they comply with the
guidelines set forth in the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan.
· Review all proposed trail and street crossings for compliance with applicable engineering
and design standards.
· Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to coordinate safety measures for trail and street
crossings for the City of Bozeman.
10.8.6 Recommendation
Provide a 20-foot building setback from parks, including linear parks.
Implementation Strategies
· Amend the UDO as needed.
219
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-15
10.9 TRAIL MAINTENANCE
10.9.1 Recommendation
Continue to require that homeowners’ or property owners’ associations maintain newly
developed trails within their development until the adoption of a Citywide parks maintenance
district or other similar program.
Implementation Strategies
· Formalize this policy in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
· Provide staff to monitor maintenance on a regular schedule to ensure compliance.
10.9.2 Recommendation
Continue to require that developers prepare a maintenance plan for any trails to be maintained
by the homeowners’ or property owners’ association.
Implementation Strategies
· Edit Bozeman UDO to clarify that this requirements also applies to trails.
· Establish a process for review and approval of the maintenance plans by the Parks
Division.
· Ensure that the City’s requirements for maintenance plans are adequate, and revise the
UDO as needed.
10.9.3 Recommendation
Prepare a detailed trail and trail segment inventory using GIS technology including classification,
amenities, surface, etc. to use for planning new trails and trail segments, and for maintaining
trails.
Implementation Strategies
· Coordinate with GVLT, user groups, service groups, etc. to prepare a detailed inventory.
· Investigate the use of interns for inventory preparation, especially for mapping amenities.
10.9.4 Recommendation
Continue to improve trail conditions and maintenance.
Implementation Strategies
· Ensure that all new trails, and trail amenities such as bridges, comply with the City’s trail
design standards, and upgrade existing trails to comply with the standards as
opportunities arise.
· Increase the Parks Division’s capacity for trail maintenance, including weed control.
· Use the GIS-based trail and trail segment inventory to improve trail maintenance.
· Ensure that the trail maintenance plans provided by developers and/or property owners’
associations are adequate, and that the plans are being implemented.
220
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-16
· Launch a public education campaign that includes topics such as proper bike use, animal
control laws, and proper trail etiquette.
· Investigate more community-based efforts to maintain trails such as having community
groups or neighborhoods “adopt” a trail segment similar to the “Adopt a Highway”
program.
· Improve trail amenities such as signage, dog stations, benches, bridges, etc. as funding is
available and opportunities arise.
10.9.5 Recommendation
Continue to provide a high level of service for trail maintenance.
Implementation Strategies
· As the City’s size and amount of trail increases, increase the City’s capacity to maintain
trails with additional staff and equipment.
· Establish trail maintenance standards for facilities being maintained by the City, and
review the standards from time to time and identify areas for improvement.
10.10 OTHER
10.10.1 Recommendation
Ensure that City parks, recreation facilities and trails are accessible to the greatest extent
possible.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate existing City recreation facilities and trails for compliance with accessibility
standards, and make recommendations for facilities lacking in compliance.
· Allocate funds to make upgrades and improvements to existing facilities to achieve
greater accessibility.
· Review the plans for all new recreation facilities, and Class I and II trails, for compliance
with accessibility requirements.
· Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to evaluate trails for compliance with ADA
requirements and make recommendations.
10.10.2 Recommendation
Work with the school district to formalize agreements related to use of school district facilities
by the general public during non-school hours.
Implementation Strategies
· Work with the school district to secure agreements related to joint development, use and
maintenance.
221
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-17
10.10.3 Recommendation
Obtain user group contracts with all user groups that provide organized activities at the same
location on a regular basis, and intend to continue the activities for the foreseeable future.
Implementation Strategies
· Maintain an up-to-date list of user groups and contact information.
· Formalize contracts with identified user groups.
10.10.4 Recommendation
Provide materials, instructions, signage, etc. in other languages, Spanish in particular, as
necessary.
Implementation Strategies
· Evaluate City recreation and park materials and signage to determine which should be
provided in both English and Spanish, with emphasis on materials critical to protecting
life and safety.
· Identify community resources that can help translate materials as needed, and budget
accordingly.
· Budget funds to provide information in Spanish, with emphasis on larger, more
expensive items such as signage.
10.10.5 Recommendation
Address issues related to dogs in City parks and trails.
Implementation Strategies
· Enforce City ordinances related to dogs.
· Evaluate the possibility of hiring seasonal workers to patrol the public parks and issue
citations to people found to be violating City ordinances, and to educate and discuss
responsibility with dog owners. Implement this strategy if deemed appropriate.
· Consider revising City ordinances related to dogs to prohibit dogs from playground
areas in City parks.
· Evaluate the current pet licensing program for effectiveness and efficiency, and revise
the program as deemed appropriate.
· Initiate a public education program to inform pet owners about their responsibilities,
including pet ordinances and licensing requirements.
· Continue to provide dog stations in parks and trails, and provide adequate funds for bags
and waste removal.
· Include yearly removal of pet waste from parks and trails as part of the Bozeman
Clean up Day.
· Create a new City advisory board to work on pet-related issues and activities.
222
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 10-18
10.11 TOP TEN CAPITAL FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following capital facilities and/or capital improvements were identified during this planning process
to be the most important to the community based on survey results, public input and level of service
analysis. The list is not presented in order by priority.
· Complete development of Rose Park
· New aquatics center
· Multipurpose community recreation center
· BMX facility at Westlake Park
· New outdoor swimming pool on the west or northwest side of the City
· Tennis courts to increase the City’s level of service
· Off-leash dog parks
· Playground equipment so all homes are within 1/4 mile of a playground
· Multiuse fields (soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse, etc.)
· Basketball courts
10.12 TOP TEN NON-FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
The following non-facility recommendations were identified during this planning process as a priority
based on survey results, public input and level of service analysis. The list is not presented in order by
priority.
· Evaluate and implement new methods of acquiring and improving parkland
· Revise the City’s cash-in-lieu valuation system
· Fund a new Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator position
· Evaluate and implement a Citywide parks maintenance district or some equivalent alternative
· Prepare individual park master plans for all City parks
· Prepare and adopt an open space plan for the Bozeman planning area
· Improve and maintain detailed GIS-based inventories of parkland, open space and trails in the
City
· Create a new City advisory board for pet-related issues and activities
· Prepare City park and trail maintenance standards
· Expand the recreation programs offered by the City
223
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation
Page 10-19
224
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Funding Options
Page 11-1
CHAPTER 11
Funding Options
11.0 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapters of this plan identify issues with the City’s recreational facilities and programs, and
provide recommendations to address those issues. This chapter focuses on the financial mechanisms
that may be used to finance programs and projects. Recreation improvements and programs can be
financed via a wide-range of funding sources, including: federal, state, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman
and private alternatives.
11.1 FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING SOURCES
11.1.1 Community Transportation Enhancement Program
The Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) is a Montana program that makes
federal funds available for transportation related projects designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic,
and environmental aspects of Montana's intermodal transportation system. The CTEP allows for the
implementation of a variety of non-traditional projects.
The Montana Department of Transportation has elected to sub-allocate the enhancement funds to local
governments for selection and prioritization of local CTEP projects. Funds are distributed to eligible
local governments based on population figures provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. CTEP
activities are a sub-component of the Surface Transportation Program (STP). The funding policy and
procedural requirements that apply to the STP also apply to the CTEP. The funds may be used for:
1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, including: new or improved lanes, paths, or
shoulders for use by bicyclists, traffic control devices, shelters, and parking facilities for bicycles.
Other eligible uses under this category include bicycle racks, benches for pedestrian or bicyclist
use, and other bicycle or pedestrian related amenities.
2. Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites for the use and enjoyment of the
general public.
4. Scenic or historic highways programs.
5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
6. Historic preservation.
7. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for
pedestrian or bicycle trails).
8. Control and removal of outdoor advertising.
9. Archaeological planning and research.
10. Environmental mitigation to address water pollution due to highway runoff or reduce vehicle-
caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.
225
Funding Options Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 11-2
CTEP does require a local match of approximately 13 percent. The City of Bozeman has used CTEP
funds to finances trail and shared use path improvements.
11.1.2 Land and Water Conservation Funds
The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 established a federal grants program encouraging a
full partnership between national, state, and local governments in planning and funding outdoor
recreation projects. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Program (LWCF) is administered by
Montana State Parks, a division of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). Since 1965, Montana has
received over $34 million for outdoor recreation.
LWCF allows states to assist their political subdivisions by providing grants for the acquisition and
development of public outdoor recreation areas and outdoor facilities. In order to distribute dollars
equitably among local communities, a project rating system, the Open Project Selection Process, has been
developed to consider a variety of pertinent factors. Each application is rated based on this system and
the highest-ranking submissions are awarded LWCF funding.
A 50 percent match is required from the local community. In recent years, LWCF funds have been used
to finance projects such as park sprinkler systems, tennis courts, playground equipment and soccer fields
in communities throughout Montana. The City of Bozeman used LWCF funds to partially fund the
acquisition of Tuckerman Park.
11.1.3 Recreational Trails Program
The Recreational Trails Program is currently funded through the federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
administers the RTP funds at the state level, while the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
provides program oversight at the federal level. The State Trails Advisory Committee (STAC) is a
council that advises FWP on things such as RTP Program expenditures and a variety of recreational
trails issues. An advisory committee such as the STAC is a federal requirement in order for Montana to
be eligible for RTP funds.
RTP grant applicants (sponsors) can include federal, state, county or municipal agencies, private
associations and clubs. RTP grants may not exceed 80 percent of the total of an individual project. This
is a reimbursement program. After approval of all required documentation, FWP will reimburse the
sponsor for 80 percent of the actual documented costs incurred. Reimbursement of RTP funds will only
be approved for project expenditures incurred after the date of the signed project agreement between
the project sponsor and FWP.
For a number of years, GVLT has received $30,000 to $35,000 in RTP grants annually which have been
used for a wide variety of Main Street to the Mountains trail system projects. In FY07, the City received
$79,000 in RTP funding for acquisition and development of Ice House Park on the Galligator Trail.
11.1.4 Safe Routes to Schools
The Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) program is funded through an annual Federal-aid Highway
apportionment that includes expenditures for non-infrastructure (behavioral) and infrastructure
(construction) projects. The SRTS program is administered by the Montana Department of
Transportation who has contracted with the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies program for coordination
support. SRTS is not a grant program. It is a 100 percent federally funded reimbursement program and
requires no local match.
226
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Funding Options
Page 11-3
Non-infrastructure projects include community assessments, development of community action plans,
tracking and performance monitoring, public awareness campaigns, bicycle and pedestrian safety, health
and environment training, incentive programs, and enforcement efforts.
Infrastructure projects include crosswalks, sidewalks, pathways, bike racks, and speed trailers. All
infrastructure projects must be publicly accessible, within two miles of a K-8 school, and maintained by
a local government. School districts and local governments are eligible applicants for SRTS
infrastructure funding.
11.1.5 Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
The federal funds available under this program are used to finance transportation projects and programs
to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Eligible activities include transit improvements;
traffic signal synchronization; bike/pedestrian projects; intersection improvements; travel demand
management strategies; traffic flow improvements; and public fleet conversions to cleaner fuels. At the
project level, the use of CMAQ Funds is not constrained to a particular roadway system (i.e., State
Primary, State Urban, and NHS). Of the total received, 86.58 percent is federal and 13.42 percent is
non-Federal match. A requirement for the use of these funds is the estimation of the reduction in
pollutants resulting from implementing the program or project. These estimates are documented on an
annual report submitted to the FHWA.
11.1.6 Other Federal Programs and Grants
There are numerous other federal programs and grant opportunities that could help finance recreational
facilities and programs. For example, Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) funds from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development may be available for improvements directed towards
economic development. Or, National Institute of Health funds might be available for programs
developed to promote community health or senior health. The RPAB could work with the City’s
Grants Coordinator to identify grant or program funds for specific programs or projects.
11.1.7 Appropriations
The City is able from time to time to obtain appropriations for special projects by working with
Montana’s congressional delegation. However, the City still needs to apply for funds from the relevant
agency (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, Housing and Urban
Development, etc.).
11.2 GALLATIN COUNTY FUNDING SOURCES
11.2.1 Gallatin County Open Space Bonds
Gallatin County Open Space Bond measures were passed by the voters in 2000 and again in 2004. The
bond measures, in the amount of $10 million dollars each, are for the purpose of preserving open space
in Gallatin County by purchasing land and conservation easements from willing landowners for the
following purposes: managing growth, preserving ranches and farms, protecting wildlife habitat and
water quality of streams and rivers, providing parks and recreation areas. The Gallatin County
Commission has appointed a 15 member citizens’ advisory committee (Gallatin County Open Lands
Board) to oversee the grant program. The Open Lands Board reviews all applications and makes project
funding recommendations to the County Commissioners who have the authority to spend the bond
money. The County Commission recently allocated $75,000 of open space bond monies to purchase
the Bonn Property. Open space bond funds were also used to acquire the Regional Park.
227
Funding Options Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 11-4
11.3 LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES
11.3.1 General Funds
This fund provides revenue for most major City functions like the administration of local government,
and the departments of public welfare, including parks, recreation and forestry. Revenues for the fund
are generated through the general fund mill levy on real and personal property and motor vehicles;
licenses and permits; state and federal intergovernmental revenues; intergovernmental fund transfers;
and charges for services. The Park and Recreation Departments are almost entirely funded through the
General Fund. Recreation programs or capital projects may be financed through the General Fund,
typically in conjunction with other financing resources.
11.3.2 General Obligation Bonds
General obligation bonds are primarily used to finance capital facilities such as buildings and public
infrastructure, facilities that will provide service over many years. When the local government issues
debt to finance capital projects, paying for those projects over the course of twenty to twenty-five years,
the citizens who live in the community and benefit from the facilities are the same ones who pay for
them. When the local government issues a general obligation bond, it pledges its “full faith and credit”
to repaying the bond; the government promises to use its full powers of taxation to raise whatever
revenue is necessary to pay the principal and debt service. Bozeman’s ability to borrow is limited by a
debt ceiling based on a percentage of the City’s tax base. The use of general obligation bonds would be
most fitting for large, expensive facilities that would benefit the entire community such as a new aquatics
center. The City could also consider the use of a general obligation bond for the purchase of parkland
or open space, similar to the Countywide open space bond.
11.3.3 Special Improvement District
The City could use special improvement districts to make improvements to City parks. For example, an
SID could be formed in the northwest quadrant of the City to fund park improvements in that area.
The SID bond repayment would be made by the landowners receiving the benefit of the improvements.
A Citywide SID has been discussed for park maintenance, similar to the City’s existing Citywide SIDs
for street and street tree maintenance.
11.3.4 Development Impact Fees
Impact fees help to address the substantial fiscal impacts of new development by shifting costs to the
new development. The City of Bozeman already collects impact fees for water, sewer, streets and fire
improvements. The fees are collected when a building permit is drawn, and are based on the size and
number of residential unit, or the size of commercial projects. The City could initiate a system of
impact fees for parks. The City of Missoula collects impact fees for parks, and collected $104,237 in
FY2005 and $146,331 in FY2006. The City of Belgrade also collects impact fees for parks.
11.3.5 Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
TIF is based upon the premise that public improvements – such as street improvements – in declining
areas could spur private redevelopment, thereby increasing the property tax base, and the additional tax
revenues could be used to offset the costs of the improvements that had spurred redevelopment. The
City of Bozeman currently has three urban renewal districts – Downtown Improvement District, the
Northeast Urban Renewal District and the North 7th Avenue Urban Renewal District. TIF funds could
be used within these districts to fund recreation-related projects.
228
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Funding Options
Page 11-5
11.3.6 Developer Exactions
As allowed by state law, the City requires developers to dedicate parkland to the City, or pay a fee in-lieu
of parkland dedication, to meet the recreational needs of the future residents of their development. The
City requires that developers improve dedicated parkland by leveling any park area, amending the soil,
seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing, and installation of an irrigation system. The City also requires
that developers install trails as part of their required transportation improvements.
11.3.7 Park Improvement Grants
The City typically allocates approximately $150,000 for park improvement grants each fiscal year. These
funds are typically awarded to community groups, such as a user group or a neighborhood organization,
to fund improvements to City parks. This grant program requires that the requesting group provide a
match of their own funds, donations or labor in-lieu of to complete a project. The funds are awarded
on a competitive basis, with applications submitted in the fall of each year. The RPAB reviews and
ranks the applications based on established criteria, and forwards a recommendation to the City
Commission for final approval of the grant. Recent examples of park improvement grants include
$30,000 for pavilion at the Sports Complex and $40,000 for parking lot improvements at Bronken Park.
A copy of the City’s Guidelines for Parkland Grants is provided in Appendix H.
11.3.8 Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland
State law requires that developers provide dedicated parkland, or cash in-lieu of parkland dedication, to
provide for the recreational needs of the residents of the development. However, the current cash in-
lieu of parkland dedication system is flawed and cash in-lieu of parkland is rarely accepted (see Section
8.4 for a detailed analysis).
If the City’s cash in-lieu valuation system is revised, as is recommended in this document, the use of
cash in-lieu of parkland dedication could allow the City to collect funds to finance, or partially finance,
important parkland purchases. Having some cash on hand would also allow the City to take advantage
of critical parkland acquisition opportunities as they arise. The use of cash in-lieu of parkland funds
would provide the City with some control over the location, characteristics and timing of parkland
acquisition.
The City has established the following procedure for the expenditure of cash in-lieu of parkland
dedication funds:
1. A minimum of 50 percent of cash payments received from cash in-lieu of park dedication shall
be earmarked specifically for the development of park facilities outlined in this document.
2. Prior to the expenditure of cash in-lieu funds, projects within the City shall be jointly reviewed
by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board and the Superintendent of Recreation and Parks.
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board in cooperation with the Parks and Recreation
Director shall establish ranking and review criteria to ensure that the requirements of Section 78-
3-621(5), MCA and its successors are met. The joint recommendation of the Recreation and
Parks Advisory Board and the Superintendent of Recreation and Parks shall be forwarded to the
City Commission who shall make the final decision on cash in-lieu fund use.
3. In order to qualify for the expenditure of City cash in-lieu funds, an individual park master plan
must exist or be prepared for the park in question.
4. If the City Commission consents to the expenditure of cash in-lieu funds, they may cause the
work to be completed by City personnel or may enter into an agreement with another party to
229
Funding Options Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 11-6
complete the work subject to City standards and procedures. All terms of an agreement shall be
in compliance with applicable City financial and legal procedures and state law.
11.4 PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES
11.4.1 User Groups
User groups frequently raise funds to make improvements to parks through fees and/or fundraising by
members. In the past, funds raised by user groups have been provided as a match for City park
improvement grant funds.
11.4.2 Fundraising
Bozeman residents often contribute to private fundraising efforts to purchase parks or open space, or
fund improvements to City parks. For example, some of the funding raised to purchase the Bonn
Property was raised privately by residents of the neighborhood.
11.4.3 Private Donation
Individuals or families often make private donations of land for use as City parks or open space. For
example, Hauser Park was donated to the City. Often some of the value of the property is donated and
some of the value is paid for, as was the case when Burke Park was acquired. Private donation could
also consist of extinguishing development rights, especially when providing open space. Finally, the
provision of a trail easement across private property can be a form of private donation.
11.4.4 Foundations
There are hundreds of private foundations, many of which make grants for recreational facilities and
activities. For example, the American Hiking Society’s National Trails Fund provides grant funding to
grassroots organizations for establishing, protecting and maintaining foot trails in America. The Robert
K. Woods Foundation often funds community health initiatives. Some manufacturers of sports drinks
or foods fund recreation events such as a race. The RPAB could work with the City’s Grants
Coordinator to identify grant programs for specific activities or projects.
11.4.5 Naming Rights
The City currently has a policy regarding the naming of Bozeman parks, trails, or other recreation areas
or facilities. The proposed name must by appropriate to the area or facility being names; be easy and
concise to pronounce; have some historic significance, be a memorial, etc.; and not be similar to an
existing name. In terms of process, the proposed name is submitted to the RPAB for a recommendation
to the City Commission. If the name is approved by the City Commission, it is announced to the media
and the public, with the area/facility and usage described. Finally, a press release is issued and a
dedication ceremony is held. This existing policy does not include the collection of fees for naming
rights. The City could revise this policy to include a fee for naming rights.
11.5 INNOVATION
The use of parkland dedication or cash in-lieu thereof through the development review process,
combined with the parkland acquisition and development tools that have been traditionally used in
Bozeman, such as fundraising and private donation, are not going to sufficiently provide for recreational
facilities over time. If the City is going to maintain a level of service of approximately 18.0 acres of
230
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Funding Options
Page 11-7
parkland per 1,000 people, additional means of acquiring parkland and recreational facilities must be
devised.
One example that has been discussed is the creation of a community foundation where citizens can
make charitable contributions to support, enhance and increase the City’s recreational opportunities.
Donors could contribute to support the general activities of the foundation, or could donate funds for a
specific project. The City of Whitefish has had great success with a similar foundation.
There are many potential alternative methods of acquiring and developing parkland, open space and trail
corridors that should be explored by the RPAB, and any methods deemed appropriate should be
pursued.
11.6 INTERJURISDICTIONAL EQUITY
The City of Bozeman is surrounded by a significant amount of suburban and rural residential
development that is in the County. In many instances the parks provided in these County developments
are undeveloped or underdeveloped. As a result there is a large population of non-City residents that
use City parks on a regular basis but do not pay to acquire, develop and maintain City of Bozeman
parks. When evaluating parkland and recreation facility financing options, some consideration should
be given to opportunities that include residents living outside of – but in close proximity to – the City.
For example, a special improvement district created for park development could include City and
County properties.
City parks are also used by visitors, especially during the summer. In fact providing excellent parks and
recreation facilities is, and should continue to be, an important component of the City’s economic
development strategy. These visitors do contribute to the impacts on City parks without paying directly
to support the parks. Therefore, funding options, such as a local option sales tax (which would require
changes in state law), should be explored that would better capture tourists dollars to fund parks.
231
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Definitions
Page 12-1
CHAPTER 12
Definitions
AMENITY. Aesthetic or other characteristics of a development that increase its desirability to a
community or its marketability to the public.
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE. Any material of past human life, activities, or habitation that are of
historic or prehistoric significance. Such material include but is not limited to pottery, basketry, bottles,
weapon projectiles, tools, structures, pit houses, rock paintings, rock carving, graves, skeletal remains,
personal items and clothing, household or business refuse, printed matter, manufactured items, or any
piece of the foregoing items.
AS-BUILT PLAN. Construction plans prepared after the completion of construction in such a manner
as to accurately identify and depict the location of on-site improvements.
ACCESSIBILITY. Extent to which all persons are able to approach and utilize the City’s park and
recreation facilities and programs.
BIKE LANE. A portion of a roadway which has been designated by striping, signing and pavement
markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.
BIKE ROUTE. A facility shared with motorists and identified only by signs without any pavement
markings or lane stripes.
BOAT LAUNCH. Facility to launch and retrieve recreational boats from a trailer. Some are limited to
hand launching of smaller crafts such as canoes.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. Any building or infrastructure project that will be owned by a
governmental unit and purchased or built with direct appropriations from the governmental unit, or
with bonds backed by its full faith and credit, or, in whole or in part, with federal or public funds, or in
any combination thereof.
CASH-IN-LIEU OF DEDICATION. Cash payments which may be required of an owner or
developer as a substitute for a dedication of land or physical improvements.
COMMON OPEN SPACE. Undeveloped land within a subdivision that has been designated,
dedicated, reserved or restricted in perpetuity from further development and is set aside for the use and
enjoyment by residents of the development. Common open space shall not be part of individual
residential lots. It shall be substantially free of structures, but may contain historic structures and
archaeological sites, and/or recreational facilities for residents, including but not limited to benches,
picnic tables and interpretive signage as indicated on an approved development plan. Stormwater
control facilities for the benefit of the subdivision may also be located within common open space.
COMMON OWNERSHIP. Ownership by the same person, corporation, firm, entity, partnership or
unincorporated association; or ownership by different corporations, firms, partnerships, or
232
Definitions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 12-2
unincorporated association in which a stockbroker, partner, or associate, or a member of his family
owns an interest in each corporation, firm, partnership, entity or unincorporated association.
CONDOMINIUM. A building, or group of buildings, in which dwelling units, offices, or floor area are
owned individually and the structure, common areas, and facilities are owned by all the owners on a
proportional, undivided basis.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT. The grant of a property right or interest from the property owner to
the public or a nonprofit conservation organization stipulating that the described land shall remain in
perpetuity in its natural and open state, precluding future or additional development (with the exception
of any allowable structures or facilities).
CORE PARK. Used for Parks Department budgeting purposes, refers to parks that comprise the
“core” of the City’s park system. Those parks that the community uses the most, such as Lindley,
Bogert, South Side, Cooper, Beall and Kirk. The Parks Department targets the core parks for a higher
level of maintenance due to the popularity and diversity of uses at these parks.
CRITICAL AREA. An area with one or more of the following environmental characteristics: 1) steep
slopes; 2) floodplain; 3) soils classified as having high water tables; 4) soils classified as highly erodible,
subject to erosion, or highly acidic; 5) land incapable of meeting percolation requirements; 6) land
formally used for landfill operations; 7) fault areas; 8) stream corridors; 9) mature stands of native
vegetation; 10) aquifer recharge and discharge areas; 11) wetland and wetland transition areas; and 12)
habitats of endangered species.
CRITICAL WILDLIFE HABITATS. Biologically diverse areas containing habitats of endangered or
threatened plant or animal species; contiguous freshwater wetland systems, defined as the zone of
biologic diversity primarily supported by wetlands and wetland systems; and prime forested areas,
including mature stands of native species.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. A site or structure which is part of the area’s cultural heritage; that is,
which typifies a particular stage of human activity in the area. Cultural resources include archeological
sites, historic buildings and sites, and undisturbed natural sites that have historic or prehistoric
significance.
DEDICATION. The deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public use,
reserving no rights which are incompatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public use to
which the property has been devoted.
DENSITY, GROSS. The number of dwelling units per unit of land used for residential purposes, with
unit of land being the gross residential acreage.
DENSITY, NET. The number of dwelling units per buildable unit of land, excluding any land used or
to be used as street rights-of-way, parks, public buildings or private nonresidential uses.
DETENTION POND. A facility for the temporary storage of stormwater runoff.
DEVELOPMENT. Any man-made change to improve or alter real estate, including but no limited to,
subdivision of land, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filing, grading, paving, excavation or
drilling operations.
233
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Definitions
Page 12-3
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT. The rights, along with others such as mineral rights and water rights, that
are commonly associated with real property ownership. Development rights, subject to local, state, and
federal regulations, provide the legal basis for property development.
DISABILITY. Incapacity by reason of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction or other permanent or
temporary condition.
DONATION. A voluntary gift for which no valuable consideration is given in exchange.
EASEMENT. A grant by a property owner to the public, a specific person or persons, other than the
owner, for a right to use land for a specific purpose or purposes.
FACILITY. A place where an activity occurs.
FAIR MARKET VALUE. The price of a building or land that would be agreed upon voluntarily in fair
negotiations between a knowledgeable owner willing, but not forced, to sell and a knowledgeable buyer
willing, but not forced, to buy.
FEE SIMPLE. A form of land ownership that includes all property rights, including the right to develop
land.
FINISHED GRADE. The final elevation of the ground surface, that conforms with approved plans,
after completion of development.
FRONTAGE. That part of a park abutting on a street or way; except that the ends of incomplete
streets, or streets without an approved cul-de-sac, shall not be considered frontage.
GREEN. An open space available for unstructured recreation, with landscaping consisting of
maintained grassy areas, trees and other vegetation.
GREENWAY. Any natural or landscaped course for pedestrian or bicycle passage.
HABITAT. The sum total of environmental conditions of a specific place that is occupied by an
organism, a population or a community.
HISTORIC RESOURCE. A building, structure, object, district or site of historical, architectural,
archeological or cultural significance due to its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling
and association.
LAKE. A permanent body of open water five acres or more in size.
LAND TRUST. Private nonprofit organizations that work with private landowners to protect the
sensitive and important features of their property, primarily by fee simple acquisition of land by
donation or purchase or through conservation easements.
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD. A measure of the relationship between service capacity and
service demand for public facilities.
234
Definitions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 12-4
MULTI-USE PATH. An off-street path that can be used by several transportation modes, including
bicycles, pedestrians, and other non-motorized modes. Multi-use paths accommodate two-way travel.
NATURAL PARK. A park that is not occupied by any structures or impervious surfaces, and is
characterized by a condition arising from or found in nature and not altered by human intervention.
NATURAL RESOURCE. Existing natural elements relating to land, water, air, plant and animal life,
including but not limited to soils, geology, topography, surface and subsurface water, wetlands,
vegetation, and animal habitat.
OPEN SPACE. A land or water area devoid of buildings and other physical structures except where
accessory to the provision of recreation, including but not limited to benches, picnic tables and
interpretive signage.
PARK. An area that is developed and maintained for recreation, and is provided for the use and
enjoyment of the public.
PARKLAND. An area that is dedicated to the City and is suitable for recreational purposes; does not
include watercourse setbacks or detention/retention ponds, utilities, municipal infrastructure and other
similar facilities.
PATHWAY. A facility that accommodates the recreational and/or transportation needs of pedestrians
and bicyclists including sidewalks, bike lanes, multi-use paths and trails.
PLAYGROUND. A publicly owned area for recreational use primarily by children.
POND. A permanent or temporary body of open water which is less than 5 acres in size.
PRIVATE ACCESS. Recreational sites and facilities where only the residents of the development and
their guests have the ability and/or right to reach, enter or use.
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. A community association which is organized within a
development in which individual owners share common interests and responsibilities for open space,
landscaping or facilities.
PUBLIC ACCESS. The ability and right of the general public to physically reach, enter or use
recreational sites and facilities.
PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (PDR). A public program to pay landowners the fair
market value of their development rights in exchange for a permanent conservation easement that
restricts development of the property. PDR programs are strictly voluntary.
RECREATION. The pursuit of leisure-time activities. The recreational activity may be active, such as
swimming or playing ball, or passive, such as wildlife viewing or picnicking.
RETENTION POND. A facility to collect and hold stormwater runoff with no surface outlet other
than perhaps an emergency spillway.
RIVER. A free-flowing body of water from that point at which it provides drainage for a watershed of
25 square miles to its mouth.
235
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Definitions
Page 12-5
SHARED USE PATH. A Class I trail that is physically separated from motorized traffic by an open
space or boulevard strip, and is either within the street right-of-way or a public trail easement on private
property. Shared use paths may be used by bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers and
other non-motorized users.
STORMWATER. The flow of water which results from precipitation and which occurs immediately
following rainfall or snowmelt.
STREAM. A channel that carries flowing surface water, including perennial streams and intermittent
streams with defined channels, and excluding man-made irrigation and drainage facilities.
TRAIL. A way designed for and used by pedestrians, cyclists and other similar uses.
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. A process by which development rights may be
transferred from one parcel of land to another.
USABLE. In the context of parks, land that is suitable for the intended recreational use in terms of
physical characteristics such as grade, vegetation, presence of surface water,size, location, access, etc.
WATERCOURSE. Natural or once naturally flowing (perennially or intermittently) water including
rivers and streams. Includes natural waterways that have been channelized, but does not include man-
made irrigation or drainage facilities.
WATERCOURSE SETBACK. The required distance from the ordinary high water mark of a
watercourse to the nearest point of the applicable fence, structure, fill materials, parking area or other
similar improvement. Watercourse setbacks cannot be used to satisfy parkland dedication requirements.
236
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-1
APPENDIX A
Community Recreation Needs Survey
The Recreation and Parks Advisory Board of the City of Bozeman needs your ideas and recommendations for the
planning and development of our community’s recreation programs and facilities. Please help us evaluate the
recreation needs of our community by taking a few minutes to answer the following questions and returning your
answers to the Advisory Board in the enclosed, stamped envelope.
An anonymous donor has agreed to donate $1.00 to the Bozeman Food Bank for every survey response we receive.
Thanks for your participation and your help!
Your residence was randomly selected to participate in this community survey. All responses will remain completely
confidential. Thank you!
Sandy Dodge, Chairman
1. Would you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The recreation opportunities now available in our community are adequate to meet the recreation needs of
the residents of my household.
Please select the one best answer by placing a check in the appropriate space.
34 Agree strongly 55 Disagree 18 Uncertain at this time 6 No response
183 Agree 11 Disagree strongly 8 No opinion
2. Can you think of a recommendation to improve the City’s recreation opportunities?
175 Yes. (Please state recommendation in a few words) Please see attached for written responses.
113 No, I can’t think of any recommendation right now.
27 No response
3. Below is a list of recreational activities available in the City. Please check 3 of these activities which are
most important to members of your household.
16 Baseball 216 Hiking/walking 5 Skateboarding
19 Basketball 14 Hockey 19 Sledding
109 Biking (other than BMX) 39 Ice skating 35 Soccer
5 BMX 58 Picnicking 11 Softball
82 Cross country skiing 59 Relaxing 75 Swimming
25 Disc golf 4 Rollerblading 4 T-Ball
8 Football 59 Running/jogging 26 Tennis
22 Other – Please list: Please see attached for written responses. 35 No response
237
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-2
4. What additional recreational activity that is not listed in question 3 would you like to see developed in our
community?
76 Please list: Please see attached for written responses.
199 Can’t think of any right now
40 No response
5. Below is a list of some of Bozeman’s recreational facilities. Please check the 3 facilities which are most
often used by residents of your household.
86 (1) Arts/cultural facilities 31 (7) Ice rinks 27 (12) Soccer fields
17 (2) Baseball fields 9 (8) Indoor sports courts 14 (13) Softball fields
40 (3) Beaches 107 (9) Open space 80 (14) Swimming pools
54 (4) Dog parks 6 (10) Outdoor sports courts 22 (15) Tennis courts
7 (5) Football fields 161 (11) Parks 221 (16) Trails
17 (6) Other – Please list: Please see Item 6 below for “Other” facilities. 46 No response
6. How would you rate the adequacy of each of the 3 recreational facilities that you selected above?
Please list facility number and then check an appropriate rating for each facility.
Excellent Good Adequate Inadequate Poor No Response
List Facility Arts/cultural facilities 15 24 22 18 2 4
List Facility Baseball fields 2 6 3 4 2 0
List Facility Beaches 7 12 14 7 0 0
List Facility Dog parks 5 21 13 7 2 6
List Facility Football fields 2 2 1 2 0 0
List Facility Ice rinks 2 9 8 12 0 0
List Facility Indoor sports courts 1 2 1 4 0 1
List Facility Open space 20 35 23 23 2 4
List Facility Outdoor sports courts 1 3 1 0 0 1
List Facility Parks 27 76 33 21 0 3
List Facility Soccer fields 1 10 10 5 0 1
List Facility Softball fields 7 2 3 1 0 1
List Facility Swimming pools 13 31 23 5 5 3
List Facility Tennis courts 0 4 4 10 4 0
List Facility Trails 49 86 49 27 0 9
List Facility No response N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 49
Other: Ski hill 1 0 0 0 0 0
Other: Volleyball 0 0 0 1 0 0
Other: Sledding hill 0 0 1 0 0 0
Other: Christie Fields 0 0 1 0 0 0
Other: BMX park 1 0 0 0 0 0
Other: Golf course 1 2 0 0 0 0
238
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-3
Excellent Good Adequate Inadequate Poor No Response
Other: Paved trails for rollerblading 0 0 0 1 0 0
Other: Bike lanes and paths 0 0 0 2 0 1
Other: Skateboard park 0 0 0 2 0 0
Other: Children’s playgrounds 0 0 0 1 0 0
Other: Emerson ballroom 0 0 0 0 0 1
Other: Fairgrounds 0 0 0 0 1 0
Other: Folf courses (disc golf) 0 0 0 0 1 0
7. What additional recreational facility would you like to see developed in our community?
129 Please list: Please see attached for written responses.
145 Can’t think of any right now
41 No response
8. In the past 12 months, how often have members of your household made use of any of Bozeman’s City
parks?
AND
9. How would you rate the maintenance of the City parks that were used by members of your household?
Excellent Good Adequate Inadequate Poor Did not use No Response
Very frequently 20 37 23 8 3 0 0
Frequently 11 42 35 8 0 0 0
Occasionally 6 43 30 9 2 0 0
Seldom 0 14 10 1 0 3 1
Never 1 0 0 0 1 4 1
No response 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
10. In the past 12 months, how often have members of your household made use of any of the public trails in
Bozeman?
AND
11. How would you rate the maintenance of the public trails that were used by members of your household?
Excellent Good Adequate Inadequate Poor Did not use No Response
Very frequently 31 56 29 7 2 0 0
Frequently 11 42 22 5 2 0 2
Occasionally 4 28 26 2 0 0 0
Seldom 0 7 16 0 1 2 0
Never 1 0 1 0 0 14 2
No response 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
239
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-4
12. Can you think of a park or trail maintenance problem that should be addressed by the City?
129 Yes. (Please describe the problem in a few words) Please see attached for written responses.
169 No, I can’t think of a park or trail maintenance problem right now.
17 No response
13. If you were a Bozeman City Commissioner, how would you rank the funding priority of the City’s recreation
programs and facilities?
AND
14. How strongly do you feel about your response to the preceding question?
Strongly held opinion Moderately held opinion Mildly held opinion No Response
Very high 54 5 0 0
High 53 39 4 2
Medium 16 59 13 3
Low 8 10 0 1
Very low 1 0 1 0
No opinion 6 7 11 14
No response 1 0 0 7
15. In your opinion, what recreation activity and related facility should be the highest priority for the City?
In the space below, please list only 1 recreation activity and facility.
142 Please list: Please see attached for written responses.
104 No one recreation activity and facility should have highest priority.
49 No opinion at this time.
20 No response
16. Using the figure below, please indicate which of the four sections of the City includes your residence.
86 Section 1 35 Section 2 40 Section 3 150 Section 4 4 No response
17. In order to correlate the survey responses with Bozeman’s population profile, it would be very helpful if you
would indicate which year group below includes your present age.
2 Under 20 years 85 20-34 years 166 35-59 years 59 60 years and over 3 No response
N
.
City of Bozeman
7thAve12
34
Main St Main St7thAveN
.
City of Bozeman
7thAve12
34
Main St Main St7thAve
240
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-5
2. Can you think of a recommendation to improve the City’s recreation opportunities?
175 Yes. (Please state recommendation in a few words)
1. #1 Priority - Complete the 100 acre park on Baxter Lane. Let the community know about everything that is
available with a special flyer insert in the paper perhaps. If the community had more awareness & knowledge
more use and better funding opportunities.
2. Budgetary support from City and County for maintenance and expansion 2) continued large-block land
acquisition 3) continued work on trail corridors/connections.
3. A centralized, lighted sports complex. Force softball fields to share.
4. A community center that could house art education, physical education classes and community events.
5. A free or very low-cost Frisbee golf course. Keeping Peets Hill free of development. Marking the trails with
maps over by East Gallatin Recreation Area (I've gotten confused every time). Please fix the Bogart tennis courts!
6. A new swimming pool and more bicycle trails.
7. A new, larger outdoor pool.
8. A northern bike lane along Rouse is desperately needed. Also, more ice skating rinks.
9. A place for music, ballet, symphony, etc.
10. Acres of flat, grassy park land for whatever the citizens want to do on it (play, picnic, Frisbee, soccer, etc.).
11. Add more trails like linear park.
12. Addition of good bike paths.
13. Allowing folf to be played somewhere in town.
14. An ordinance requiring dog owners/walkers to clean up after their animals.
15. Another golf course.
16. Another skate-based park for skateboards.
17. At Bozeman Pond, by Mall - better trash pick-up (maybe adopted); ant control at some (the ants on the beach
make it undesirable).
18. Ban dogs in most parks so I don't have to walk in shit all the time.
19. Better access to ball fields of all types.
20. Better baseball facilities. Nicer parks are needed and more park area.
21. Better control over the parks as to dogs.
22. Better playground equipment for children.
23. Better soccer fields.
24. Better tennis courts; white-water canoe/kayak course.
25. Bicycle path on one side or the other on South Church/Sourdough to Kagy. There is just room enough for 2
cars passing each other. An accident is waiting to happen!!
26. Bike lanes connecting to various parks (including main streets, campus and Four Corners).
27. Bike lanes on busy roads.
28. Bike lanes would save lives.
29. Bike lanes, ice skating, trails.
30. Bike lanes, more park space, public ice rink, ultimate Frisbee fields, and trails.
31. Bike path.
32. Bike paths.
33. Bike paths, on road bike lanes, access to the top of Hyalite in the winter.
241
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-6
34. Bike-friendly streets.
35. Boat rental at East Gallatin Recreation Area.
36. Bozeman needs a new arts and performance center. Bozeman has too few places for children to go
(playgrounds). Bozeman has nothing for teenagers - no clubs, no cafes…
37. Build a new swimming pool.
38. City endorsement of YMCA; more continuous walk/bike trails and open parks; more kid activities.
39. Clean up dog poop in parks, archery range, get rid of gravel and add sand to East Gallatin Recreation Area,
better public basketball courts and community tennis courts, new folf course, county golf course, rollerblading
area (better sidewalks).
40. Clean, well-maintained parks are enjoyed by all (no dogs).
41. Complete Main Street to the Mountains trail system and develop more soccer space.
42. Construct a water park like Missoula has planned.
43. Construct more parks on west side of town where growth is occurring.
44. Continue to add/include greenspace walkways (as wide as at least one lot) within these tightly-packed newly
built subdivisions. See greenspace in Harvest Creek neighborhood parallel to Hunter's Way.
45. Continue to expand to meet growing need.
46. Continue to improve/expand/create bike lanes.
47. Control mud on trails. Improve (pave) Peets Hill parking lot.
48. Cooperate with Bridger Ski Foundation in developing/maintaining cross-country ski trails in and around town. In
fact, lead in this effort.
49. Create parks more equally - at least one lot in each subdivision (every 10 to 15 houses).
50. Creating more open space and parks by allowing "linear parks" is a waste of resources!
51. Develop disc golf course away from Lindley Park so the park can be used for other activities.
52. Develop parks in the newer subdivisions - i.e., Rose Park.
53. Disc golf.
54. Disc golf course, tennis courts.
55. Don't sell the library land!
56. Family aquatic center, recreation center.
57. Find more money for parks and recreation.
58. Fix the tennis courts at Bogert Park.
59. Folf course.
60. Folf course.
61. Free pool use for poor children.
62. Frisbee golf course on west side - with chains.
63. Give some more attention to the needs of people with disabilities on our trail system. But we don't need asphalt
trails. Need some additional parking space - out of the mud at Peets Hill.
64. Go-cart track, mini golf, tennis courts, folf course, tubing hill.
65. Have jogging lanes marked on the streets.
66. Have more responsible dog owners.
67. I hope new bike lanes on "new" Babcock will connect downtown with west end better! Can the pond/park (Fish
and Game) west of mall be expanded to the north? Our best parks should be bigger.
242
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-7
68. I will look for list of facilities in the Chronicle.
69. Improve sidewalks and trails to allow for better pedestrian access to various parks, etc.
70. Improved parking lot at Peets Hill.
71. Increase bike lanes on City streets.
72. Increase energy into maintaining Bogert Pavilion for hockey in winter.
73. Increase the mileage of bike paths in and around town.
74. Increase timeframe ice rinks are open and maintained (i.e., bring in snow to pack down if necessary; flood at
night and on weekends).
75. Increase walking trails (improve uneven old sidewalks) and add biking lanes along busy streets.
76. Indoor tennis facility.
77. Install playground equipment for kids at Cooper Park.
78. Interconnected bike paths.
79. Keep Bogert pool open longer in summer.
80. Keep dogs on leashes - enforce it.
81. Keep dogs out of "non-dog" areas! I own a large dog, yet I remember what it is like to fear them and to step in
their poop. You need to work harder on keeping dogs out of recreation areas.
82. Keep Southside Park open - gates are locked during winter due to skating - need access to playground.
83. Keep working on greenways/trails to Sourdough and the "M."
84. Keeping a wide-range of options for a diverse population.
85. Kids’ community center. Place to hang out - non formal.
86. Kids wading pool.
87. Larger outdoor pool/hot tub.
88. Maintain ice skating rinks longer in winter. I know it was an unusual winter this year but still…
89. Maintain open trail systems and surrounding land. Spend money on open space within the City. The Library is
a good example of potential loss of open space.
90. Maintain what you have!
91. Maintenance of facilities; noise barriers - policing rowdy patrons.
92. Make Southside Park skating rink a priority!
93. Maybe make more available to the west side of town. Past the Mall?
94. Maybe wading pools for the little kids - like Sacagawea Park in Livingston/or sprinklers like the ones in Chicago
parks for children.
95. More activities for families with children under 3 years old.
96. More and safer bicycle paths and more skateboarding areas.
97. More bike lanes and sidewalks.
98. More bike lanes on roads!! Some roads are narrow and full of potholes! And, when there are bike lanes please
keep them cleaner as they are often filled with gravel and rocks.
99. More bike lanes on streets and more trails for hiking/walking.
100. More bike routes in town/more bike trails.
101. More bike trails (routes) within City.
102. More dog parks (no leash). Keep Bogart ice rink.
103. More dog-specific parks leads to less dog waste elsewhere.
243
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-8
104. More financial support for parks maintenance and upkeep.
105. More hiking trails, especially in newly developing areas.
106. More linked trails.
107. More neighborhood parks.
108. More non-competitive recreational sports for youth.
109. More open space in new development areas.
110. More open space with trails, especially in new developments.
111. More outdoor sports like beach volleyball, tennis.
112. More park space, more open space.
113. More parks with updated equipment suitable for children of all ages and well-maintained.
114. More parks, a second public pool, more bike paths/lanes, more open space.
115. More parks, more open space.
116. More places to walk in nature.
117. More places to walk in nature.
118. More soccer, softball (youth) fields for children. Another swimming pool (indoor) or larger facilities.
119. More swimming access in the summer.
120. More swimming and fishing ponds.
121. More teen activities, kayaking, rock-climbing.
122. More tennis courts.
123. More tennis courts, more and safer bike lanes, leash dogs on Peets Hill - I got bit!
124. More trails.
125. More trails and bike paths
126. More trails to mountains.
127. More trails, parks and usable sidewalks!
128. More trails, particularly Triple Tree south to Bozeman Creek and north to Kagy and Story Hills to the "M."
129. More walking trails and/or dog parks/trails.
130. More walking trails in northwest section of town. Updated and safer playground equipment for kids.
131. My recreation is downtown shopping - having to move my car every 2 hours is absurd! Other cities don't treat
downtown shoppers like Bozeman does - ridiculous!
132. Need baseball fields for 16-18 year olds. Need place for disc golf.
133. Need to keep existing facilities maintained. Remove ugly prison yard chain link fence at Southside Park. Parks
and Recreation should be one entity and work together. Revenue producing sports such as softball and
swimming should fund other recreation programs.
134. New and improved skate park to meet the demands.
135. New and safer equipment.
136. New nice outdoor pools spread around the community.
137. New surfacing on the tennis courts in the parks.
138. No more cash-in-lieu of green space - less garbage in parks - trails in town linked.
139. Offer 50+ exercise program in yoga/tai chi after work.
140. Organized cycling opportunities for beginner riders. Better rollerblading opportunities.
244
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-9
141. Our experience in the parks, and in Bozeman in general, would be better if this City enforced leash laws.
142. Outdoor concert area, more trails.
143. Please heat the recreation center pool by the high school. My daughters (5 and 2 years) can barely go in the
pool because they get so cold. Thank goodness for the hot tub. I'd like to see Bogert Park's equipment updated.
144. Please improve/update the equipment at Beall Park so there is an adequate park on the north side.
145. Public mailing of all opportunities available, i.e. t-ball, swimming, etc.
146. Put more gravel on Sourdough Trail.
147. Reinstate folf at Lindley. The park had far more use when folf could be played without a fine from the Bozeman
police!
148. Renovate Bogert Park bandshell.
149. Require developers to install playground equipment in parks when developing subdivisions.
150. Safe recreational activities for teens.
151. Save Peets Hill, skating at Bogert Park with reasonable hours.
152. Save Soroptomist Park!!!
153. Seating for grandparents near play areas in the small parks for watching grandchildren.
154. Skate park for specifically bikes, expansion of BMX track.
155. Some attending to neighborhood pocket parks would be useful.
156. Some dog-free zones or parks would be nice.
157. Stop building housing developments on the beautiful open space around Bozeman.
158. Stop purchasing $50,000 mowers for a 3 month application!! Less expensive mowers work fine.
159. Strict enforcement of dog leash law and cleaning up poop after their pets.
160. Tennis court maintenance needs improving or more courts.
161. Tennis courts and basketball hoops open to the public (outdoor).
162. The youth "farm league" and "minors" baseball teams need better kept fields to play on. They have been full of
gopher holes and gophers. They are either tripping in the holes as the play the game, or watching the gophers
run in and out of the holes!
163. This City really needs a good dog park!
164. Throw out old, lazy "corrupt" Universal Athletic Service bureaucracy and get in new blood.
165. Trails, bike lanes and paths on more streets, port-a-potties in more parks and appropriate locations on trails.
166. We need a YMCA.
167. We need facilities to be maintained, expanded, and improved - soccer, basketball, tennis, bike lanes, and
parks.
168. We need more bike trails for students, seniors, children, and the developmental disabilities community.
169. We need more trails for walking, separate bike trails and open space with trails.
170. We want parks without dogs. Completion of parks on Oak St.
171. Website that shows what is available for recreation opportunities and locations.
172. What ever happened to park equipment such as swings, slides, merry-go-rounds, teeter-totters? As long as this
equipment is not neglected in its maintenance, the public would use at own risk.
173. Would like to see opportunities for non-competitive, just for fun, sports (baseball, volleyball, football, softball,
soccer). Available at more times than the standard seasons.
245
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-11
10. Bicycle paths and lanes throughout town/county
11. Bike paths and trails
12. Bike paths!
13. Birding
14. Boating on the lakes in the 100 acre park!
15. Bozeman has no adequate family swimming pool. Bozeman Swim Center (BHS) is not clean and water is too
cold and chlorinated. Locker rooms are small and not clean.
16. Clean and make user-friendly parks we do have
17. Connector trails
18. Cyclecross area with jumps
19. Disc golf has been absent in our community for 5 or 6 years - needs to be worked on so that we can have 2
courses ASAP!
20. Dog park
21. Downhill skiing
22. Downhill skiing, fishing
23. Fishing
24. Fishing
25. Fishing ponds and NO DOGS! Only clean fish!!
26. Frisbee
27. Golf course
28. Golf, lacrosse
29. Groomed cross-country skiing or bike trail around town
30. Horseback riding - cross country course or something like Herron Park in Kalispell, MT
31. Horseshoe pits
32. Horseshoes in a park (public pits)
33. Indoor soccer
34. Interpretive nature trail
35. Kayaking, rock-climbing, synchronized swimming
36. Lacrosse, outdoor survival, safety
37. Large open spaces with trees and water for leisure and play; open spaces are dissolving rapidly.
38. More actual biking/walking paths thru town. A park in the northeast neighborhood.
39. More bike-friendly streets
40. More community garden spaces (considered recreational for some).
41. More concern about the arts. We have quite an artistic community. If approached in the right way, this could be
part of the financial/economic base of Bozeman.
42. More modern play equipment - what is up with that antique metal death trap at Bogert?
43. More mountain bike trails
44. More walking or biking trails out of traffic
45. More walking or biking trails out of traffic
46. Outdoor bouldering (climbing) park, gardens (native species)
247
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-10
174. Yes, keep Peets Hill. Continue walking and biking trails. Make downtown more bike-friendly.
175. YMCA.
3. Below is a list of recreational activities available in the City. Please check 3 of these activities which are
most important to members of your household.
22 Other – Please list:
1. City band concerns each summer
2. Climbing
3. Climbing
4. Dog play opportunities - leash free
5. Dog walking
6. Dog walking/letting run free for a while
7. Driving up Gallatin Canyon
8. Fishing
9. Fishing (more kids pond type activities)
10. Golf
11. Golf
12. Golf, rock climbing
13. Horseback riding
14. Kayaking
15. Places to take my dog both walking and swimming
16. Play with children
17. Playground equipment
18. Playground equipment - swings, slides, etc.
19. Rock climbing
20. Skiing
21. Skiing/snowboarding (in town on rails)
22. We enjoy all activities
4. What additional recreational activity that is not listed in question 3 would you like to see developed in our
community?
76 Please list:
1. Acres to recreate with unleashed dogs
2. Adult soccer league??
3. Allowing people to slide rails in parks on ski/snowboards
4. Anything for toddlers
5. Ballroom dancing - spaces to do it
6. BBQ
7. Beach volleyball
8. Beach volleyball
9. Better fencing, more equipment for preschoolers
246
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-12
47. Outside music events
48. Places that permit and foster silence and contemplation
49. Platform tennis courts at Bogert or County Fairgrounds (fall/winter/spring sport)
50. Playground equipment in every neighborhood. We have to travel quite far for a good park and we live in town.
51. Playground equipment. Bogert pool is usually freezing as well.
52. Playgrounds for young children
53. Racquetball courts outside
54. Reasonable programs and activities/parks for children
55. Rock climbing
56. Rock climbing
57. Running courses with stations
58. Self-guided nature tours and natural history
59. Shooting range
60. Skiing
61. Sledding/tubing hill with tow rope
62. Snowboard park - lighted, after school
63. Soroptomist Park!!!
64. Teen center/dance hall
65. The arts - theater, music….
66. The City should "adopt" the swim team which would allow all income levels to participate and coordinate facility
use with other aquatic programs. A City basketball league for kids.
67. Uncouple Universal Athletic Service from local sports programs. Examine "books" of so-called non-profits!
68. Upgrade playground equipment
69. Volleyball
70. Volleyball
71. Volleyball (indoor and beach). Indoor volleyball needs an organized program.
72. Volleyball, Frisbee
73. Water park, miniature golf, go-carts, still wave
74. We need a park with a large lake or something like that
75. Wildlife watching (birds, forest/river/meander ecology)
76. Yoga/tai chi for 50+
7. What additional recreational facility would you like to see developed in our community?
129 Please list:
1. A City-wide trail system to avoid Durston and Babcock!
2. A great theater for musical events
3. A lap pool - restricted only to this purpose
4. A large outdoor amphitheater - seating for 5,000
5. A park with excellent playground equipment (learners’ fort) and picnicking spots.
6. A safer sledding area
248
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-13
7. Additional skate parks
8. Affordable space for our non-profit performance groups (theater primarily).
9. Amphitheater, more park area
10. Another dog-walking area (off leash)
11. Another outdoor pool
12. Arboretum
13. Areas that are "open space" but not developed for any particular "activity"; just left as it is.
14. Art/recreation center all in one
15. Arts and cultural facilities on the west side, ditto ice rinks and trails.
16. Arts and cultural facility
17. Arts at City Center
18. Arts center - theater, studios
19. Auditorium
20. Ballrooms
21. Baseball, soccer
22. Better cross-country ski trails
23. Better, more friendly dog parks with lakes
24. Bigger skate park
25. Bike lane South Third to Nash to South Sourdough
26. Bike lanes
27. Bike routes throughout town
28. Bike trails
29. Biodiverse natural areas
30. Bogert Park tennis courts could use new nets and resurfacing.
31. Botanic garden/park
32. Civic center
33. Coin-operated lights at tennis courts/basketball courts and at skate park. But please maintain existing
arts/cultural facilities to their maximum potential (Beall Park Arts Center needs to remain as such, not be
converted to offices.
34. Community indoor sports facility - soccer and floor hockey
35. Complex for the arts
36. Cultural center
37. Dance pavilion
38. Disc golf
39. Disc golf
40. Disc golf course
41. Disc golf courses
42. Downtown arts center
43. Expansion of swim center, especially locker room space and more room for exercise equipment.
44. Fishing access to East Gallatin River and bike paths
249
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-14
45. Folf courses
46. Garden community center - teaches kids how to grow their own food; the food that the kids grow/plant/cultivate
is donated or purchased by local businesses.
47. Girls fast pitch fields
48. Hang out for teens (non-authoritarian)
49. Horseback riding - cross country course or something like Herron Park in Kalispell, MT
50. I'd love to have a heated pool (for both winter and summer swimming).
51. Improve tennis courts and ice rinks maintenance/facility so season lasts longer.
52. Improved dog parks
53. Indoor building for users of Lindley Park - changing, warming, meeting, bathrooms - year round but especially
for all skiers in winter.
54. Indoor driving range/putting green/golf simulator
55. Indoor gym?
56. Indoor hockey (beside Ice Garden). Indoor place for music. Outdoor band shell (specifically designed).
57. Indoor shooting
58. Indoor swimming
59. Indoor tennis
60. Keep working on greenways/trails to Sourdough
61. Kids playground fort (see Helena's new fort at Memorial Park)
62. Large park with water sports
63. Larger baseball fields
64. Larger or multiple skate parks
65. Lindley folf course
66. Main Street to mountains trail
67. Miniature golf
68. Miniature golf, bumper cars
69. More bike lanes and paths with connectivity of paths
70. More bike trails
71. More dog parks
72. More indoor facilities - soccer, baseball practice, weight training.
73. More modern play equipment - what is up with that antique metal death trap at Bogert?
74. More neighborhood parks, more tennis courts
75. More open space, more parks
76. More poop dispensers for those who can't seem to pick up their dog poop.
77. More swimming!
78. More tennis courts and platform tennis played year-round
79. More trails
80. More trails
81. More walking/biking trails/bike lanes!
82. Need playgrounds for grandchildren.
250
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-15
83. Neighborhood parks in new areas.
84. None, but nicer bathrooms would be good
85. Open space and trails
86. Outdoor amphitheater
87. Outdoor concert amphitheater
88. Outdoor swimming pool
89. Outhouse at Peets Hill and near Lindley ski trails
90. Parks - undeveloped parks all over the City!
91. Parks with more benches, public swimming
92. Pedestrian and cycling paths and lanes throughout town.
93. Performing arts center
94. Performing arts center
95. Platform tennis tied to existing locker/shower building
96. Playground equipment at Bogert Park
97. Playgrounds
98. Port-a-potties in parks and along trails
99. Public pool
100. Recreation center
101. Recreation center, outdoor pool
102. Roller-skating rink (indoor)
103. Save Beall and create second. Open space and trails.
104. Shooting range
105. Skateboarding opportunities - indoor and outdoors
106. Skate park
107. Small concert place, 100 to 150 people
108. Soroptomist Park!!!
109. Special events center
110. Summer season ski jump hill
111. Swimming pool
112. Swimming pool (indoor)
113. Swimming pool (warm water and clean), performing arts center, club/cafes for teenagers
114. Swimming pools and ponds
115. Teen game center
116. Tennis courts
117. Tennis courts - inside and out
118. Trail from Peets Hill parking lot to new library. Do not sell any of this property! Do not sell Soroptomist Park!
119. Trails with night lighting for safety
120. Utilizing Lindley's amphitheater for outdoor music - or build new one if not sufficient
121. Wading pool with fountains, carousel, more biking trails
251
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-16
122. Warming huts at ice rinks
123. Water park or kid's fountain for little ones to wade in and get their feet wet. The stream at the park near Town
and Country is an example.
124. Waterslide park, race cars, etc.
125. Wellness facility
126. YMCA
127. YMCA
128. YMCA
129. YMCA
12. Can you think of a park or trail maintenance problem that should be addressed by the City?
129 Yes. (Please describe the problem in a few words)
1. "M" trail. No garbage cans and baggies available for dog poop.
2. Dog poo - more plastic bags, garbages. 2) Open and available restrooms.
3. A muddy Peets Hill during the spring thaw, but what can be done about that?
4. A place at park entrances where people could donate plastic bags for people to pick up after their dog mess
5. Bathrooms at all parks are frequently locked and need to be kept open everyday. Bogart’s basketball and tennis
courts are in a shameful state of disrepair. Kirk Park's sprinklers need protection for heads so City doesn't have
to keep replacing them.
6. Be sure dog bags are available to clean up after the animals
7. Better encouragement for people to ALWAYS pick up after their dogs even when business is done off trail - smell
can be horrendous. Fix the tennis courts! Dangerous!
8. Better weed control
9. Bike lanes!
10. Bikes on Peet's Hill on wet trails (including Wortman Trail) creates ruts and mud.
11. Bogert Park Pavilion bathrooms are almost always dirty, trash not emptied in a timely manner.
12. Bogert tennis court surface and replace with platform tennis (some cost, new sport?!?!)
13. Bozeman Ponds not always a clean area
14. Cleanliness?
15. Construction company messing up and not fixing the trail near our house.
16. Control mud on trails (linear trail, Peets Hill)
17. Cooper Park - the paths area is rutted and doesn't drain properly
18. Cutting grass
19. Dog crap on too many trails
20. Dog crap, red-chipped gravel at baseball diamonds.
21. Dog doo - people need to learn to clean up after their animals!
22. Dog droppings
23. Dog excrement too high - Cooper Park. Too many unleashed dogs.
24. Dog feces
25. Dog feces and unrestrained animals frightening my 4 and 6 year old daughters on the trails.
26. Dog leavings
252
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-17
27. Dog mess
28. Dog owners need to be fined $ for not picking up their poop. We do!!
29. Dog poop
30. Dog poop
31. Dog poop
32. Dog poop at Peets Hill
33. Dog poop bags needed
34. Dog poop clean up, trash, too many people
35. Dog poop!
36. Dog poop!
37. Dog poop! Need more benches for walking seniors.
38. Dog poop, unleashed rowdy dogs
39. Dog poop. In Jackson Hole, there are stations along trails with a waste basket/plastic bags specifically for dog
poop.
40. Dog poop/dogs
41. Dog shit
42. Dog turds in parks
43. Dog waste - maybe provide "doggie poop bags" at beginning of trails that people can take with them
44. Dogs and dog poop
45. Dogs and dog shit are polluting some trails/parks
46. Dogs at East Gallatin Recreation Park even though they are forbidden.
47. Dogs should be on leash or not allowed on Sourdough Ridge
48. Enforce that people pick up after their dogs!!! If a few tickets were given for people not picking up after their
dogs word would spread.
49. Enforce the dog on a leash on the trail
50. Enforce the leash law. Ticket people who walk dogs without a pooper scooper or bag in hand.
51. Enforcement of pet ordinances.
52. Enforcing: pick up your own dog poop. Hopefully after some tickets are given people will be more responsible -
then we won't need enforcement.
53. Far too much dog dirt on trails.
54. Fill in muddy areas.
55. Fill the low areas of Gallagator Trail to reduce post-rain puddles
56. For trails, please upgrade dirt surfaces to compacted gravel to reduce mud. Mow trail edges more frequently.
57. Galligator trail is muddy at times and people don't clean up after their dogs
58. Garbage, dog poop, Frisbee golfers in Lindley Park
59. Grooming bike trail in winter
60. Have people with dogs more aware of the need to pick up after them - baggies?
61. Hippies - smoking their drugs and using alcohol
62. I worry about dog poo on the ground
63. I'm concerned about bicyclists on Peets Hill to the water tower (impact on trails and danger to older folks)
253
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-18
64. In general terms, just keep clean and maintain what we have
65. Increasing use
66. Keep bathrooms cleaner
67. Keep bathrooms open, supplied and clean year-round, along with "warming huts" in winter
68. Keep trail trimmed
69. Kids swings too high. Not enough flowers in parks. Too much dog poop.
70. Litter from nearby construction sites
71. Maybe grate often in the spring after melt is over.
72. More benches at the "M" to take in the view
73. More bike paths around and through town.
74. More dog poop baggies and receptacles. More organized public clean-up days.
75. More private trails south from school on Arnold to the south and west
76. More private trails south from school on Arnold to the south and west.
77. More public encouragement to users to keep trails clean
78. More trail development
79. More trees need to be planted.
80. Mud on "M" trail and people making their own trails on the "M". My friend and I keep pulling brush over the
secondary thin trails.
81. Muddy trails need gravel or woodchips
82. Need control for people who walk their dogs in the parks that don't clean up the mess
83. Need to spend more time flooding Bogert Pavilion/rink
84. No leash law on linear trails
85. Non-respectful dog owners
86. Noxious weeds along trails, poor signs on Sourdough Trail
87. Park equipment is outdated and rundown
88. Parking at Peets Hill
89. Parking lot at Peets Hill
90. Parks don't get enough water - trees and bushes die. How about a volunteer group to "adopt a park."
91. People don't "pick-up" after their dogs.
92. People don't pick up after dogs. Picnic tables dirty
93. Plant more trees
94. Play equipment at Beall Park (next to the Arts Center) is outdated and sized for babies. It's fine to have a small
area for younger children, but we need an area for bigger kids too.
95. Please clean the restrooms at Bogert. Provide portable restrooms at Cooper.
96. Please let the public know when you weed-n-feed the grass in parks - perhaps put up small signs on grass that
has been sprayed
97. Please plant more trees and pines need pruning/shaping
98. Prevent erosion
99. Prevent the cutoffs by blocking with fence
100. Residents need to be educated about cleaning up after their dogs
254
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-19
101. Ridding the parks of dog poop
102. Ruts in Painted Hills trail, perhaps no bikes when wet?
103. Signs that have been vandalized on Story Mill Spur Trail
104. Snow melt does not drain off trails in some areas making a muddy trail
105. Snow removal, paving or better gravel layers to reduce mud
106. Some of the Bogert Park's equipment needs updating. A child could easily fall off the high areas.
107. Some of the trails are overgrown and you can't get through, also a lot of garbage is on the ground
108. Some trails need resurfacing (more gravel)
109. Sometimes the "M" trail gets a bit muddy, but within reason, can it be corrected?
110. South Church/Sourdough Road
111. Southside Park and not letting Cooper Park turn into one big dog kennel
112. Standing water on trails - fill in low spots
113. Surface trails to minimize mud problem (e.g., use "crushed fines"); more poop bags and garbage cans on Peets
Hill.
114. The City needs to get more active in cross-country ski trail maintenance - track setting verses letting the BSF dues
foot much of the bill. Everyone can use these tracks!
115. The play structure at Bogart badly needs painting. Tennis courts at Bogart and south side need resurfacing.
116. The trails are getting more and more use. We need more trails and more parks. We are an outdoor
community.
117. Too many dogs are destroying the natural vegetation in parks, especially Burke and Bozeman Ponds.
118. Too many loose dogs
119. Too much garbage and dog poop. More waste receptacles.
120. Trail to "M" is contaminated with dog excrement to the point of being unusable by non-dog owners
121. Trails are muddy in spring, but I don't know what improvement could be made.
122. Trails are too muddy, need gravel
123. Trails on Peets Hill get rutty from bikes
124. Trails sometimes too narrow (e.g., Painted Hills) or rutted by bikes; port-a-potties/restrooms
125. We have a neighborhood "park" that the City required the developer to set aside. It gets mowed two times per
summer. It has been 10 years and all it has is weeds.
126. Weed control and watering
127. Weed removal from trails. Little to no maintenance of parks.
128. Weeds cut regularly by Peets Hill/Lindley Park on newly purchase land
129. Wish that all the trails connected well like Park City
15. In your opinion, what recreation activity and related facility should be the highest priority for the City?
In the space below, please list only 1 recreation activity and facility.
142 Please list:
1. #1 outdoor paths and trails; #2 swimming for kids
2. 100-acre park (give some money to this group)!!!
3. A bicycle compatible road network
4. A community center with a decent state and adequate seating.
255
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-20
5. A new outdoor pool.
6. Acres of flat, grassy park land for whatever the citizens want to do on it (play, picnic, Frisbee, soccer, etc.)
7. An additional swimming pool
8. Arts and cultural center
9. Arts and culture
10. Arts/cultural
11. Arts/culture facility
12. At this moment, jeopardized trails/open space at Library site
13. Band shell
14. Baseball fields
15. Beall Park
16. Bike lanes for cyclists
17. Bike lanes to save lives
18. Bike paths
19. Bike routes
20. Bike trail grooming
21. Bike trails
22. Bike trails
23. Bogert hockey rink
24. Bogert really needs help and could be a fabulous park with better water facilities and updating!
25. Bogert tennis courts
26. Central recreation center (Lindley?) Neither Swim Center nor a mostly locked Lindley Center counts…
27. Conservation of open space.
28. Create more parks with updated, well-maintained equipment
29. Cultural/arts center, trails, open spaces
30. Cycling lanes
31. Develop Rose Park area. Swimming, recreation facility and park.
32. Developing parks in areas of new subdivisions.
33. Disc golf
34. Emerson/arts & culture, parks-trails-open space/100 acre park
35. Expanding the trail system
36. Fairgrounds
37. Family-oriented parks
38. Finish soccer complex
39. Fishing
40. Fort like structure like Memorial Park in Helena, or like the castle in Missoula
41. Girls fast pitch has been totally ignored and has to fight for space
42. Greenways and trail system
43. Heating the indoor and outdoor pools.
256
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-21
44. High-quality park and trail development and maintenance that keeps pace with growth.
45. Hiking trails
46. Hiking, biking trails
47. Hiking, walking and open space
48. Hiking/walking trails
49. Hiking/walking; new trails in south end of Bozeman to mountains.
50. Hockey - ice time for adults (as well as the kids)
51. Ice skating/hockey/ice rinks
52. Indoor swimming, nicer than high school's
53. Interlinked trail system through City!
54. Keep dogs out of parks
55. Kid's sports
56. Lighted centralized baseball/soccer/football park.
57. Lindley folf course
58. Maintain and create open space
59. Maintaining City parks - restrooms, trash pickup, tennis courts and play equipment
60. Maintenance of existing facilities (especially Bogert's basketball and tennis courts) and fast-track disc golf course
completion.
61. More baseball/soccer fields
62. More trails
63. Mountain biking and hiking trails
64. Multiuse trails (run/hike/bike)
65. New outdoor pool
66. New ski jump on Peets Hill
67. Night lighted parks and trails.
68. Obtaining as much open space/trails easements as possible
69. Open space
70. Open space
71. Open space
72. Open space - a dying resource; can't be replaced. Just look at any big city; they should have put it in while they
had the chance.
73. Open space and trails
74. Park and linked trail system
75. Park and trail maintenance
76. Park space
77. Parks
78. Parks
79. Parks
80. Parks
81. Parks
257
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-22
82. Parks
83. Parks
84. Parks and field maintenance for open space and sports
85. Parks and their use
86. Parks and walking/hiking
87. Parks, open space, tennis courts
88. Pedestrian trails - not only for recreation but means of getting around city by foot and bike
89. Peets Hill - I feel its more important than a new library
90. Peets Hill/Lindley - Sweet Pea Festival
91. Performing arts center
92. Performing arts center
93. Performing arts center, café/club for teenagers
94. Pool
95. Pool and Bogert Park
96. Pool, parks, trails
97. Probably children who need to learn how to swim, with a few hours for adults only
98. Protect our land within City limits!
99. Protecting Peets hill and trails
100. Quiet recreation and open space/parks
101. Recreation activity that can be used by all.
102. Recreation activity - knowledge; related facility - community center.
103. Recreation of the self-powered transportation/travel variety (biking/walking paths).
104. Skiing
105. Soccer and skating for kids and grandkids, but trails for me
106. Soccer, skating for kids and grandkids, but trails for me.
107. Southside Park
108. Special events center
109. Support of the regional park at Baxter Meadows
110. Swim Center and City Recreation Department
111. Swimming
112. Swimming facilities
113. Swimming pool
114. Swimming pool
115. Swimming pool facility
116. Teen hang out
117. Tennis courts
118. Tennis courts at Bogart.
119. Tennis or ice skating west of 19th
120. Trail system expansion, include cross-country ski trails
258
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-23
121. Trail system, especially Burke Park
122. Trail/park system
123. Trails
124. Trails
125. Trails
126. Trails
127. Trails
128. Trails
129. Trails
130. Trails
131. Trails
132. Trails and open space for hiking and play
133. Trails and parks
134. Trails and walking/hiking
135. Trails for biking and walking - encourage people not to drive as much.
136. Trails, bike trails
137. Universal events center, i.e. like the field house, could be used for music/hockey/rodeo/ice skating/circus and
other performances.
138. User-friendly, clean - NO DOGS
139. Walking trails in open space.
140. Walking, dog walking, Gallagator, Peets Hill.
141. We really need priority on the arts/cultural theater facilities and studios.
142. Willson School improved for performances.
Other comments:
1. Aren't softball fields the same as baseball fields? I use the high school and MSU tennis courts because the City
ones are in poor condition. I don't know how to fairly prioritize funding because I don't know all the issues the
City Commissioners face.
2. At Bogert Park, the equipment is extremely outdated and dangerous.
3. Beaches often dirty; Tennis court surface not maintained
4. Better ventilation of indoor pool would help - strong chlorine smell. Quality of life is what makes Bozeman so
appealing and keeps people balanced. Our youth/young adults need adequate recreational activities/facilities
to help keep them busy.
5. Bogart and Southside tennis courts are inadequate until redone. Recreation programs and facilities add to the
quality of our family lives.
6. Bogart pool in the summer is extremely crowded. Air quality in swim center appears dangerous?! Toxic levels
on some days?!
7. Bogert band shell needs repairs. Bogert's asphalt in pavilion has not been redone in 30 years. Park crews have
25 years of experience maintaining rinks, etc. and should be given more of a say in how they are managed.
8. Budget numbers not available to make an informed decision for question 13.
9. Even more trails would be better.
10. Fairgrounds needs pavement and more maintenance, but could be ticket for EVERYTHING!
259
Appendix A Community Recreation Needs Survey
Page A-24
11. For recreational facilities, trails should be unpaved. Thank you for asking!
12. Golf is not mentioned in the recreation activities list. As president of one of the soccer clubs, I am amazed at
how desperate we are for practice space! But, at least so far we keep finding some!
13. Hockey at Bogert rink need hours in winter. Peets Hill needs the land as promised by Library. The maintenance
of City parks is understaffed and under funded.
14. I am over 70 years old and do not use the parks. I enjoy seeing others use them.
15. Ice skating rink at the fairgrounds is excellent; the other rinks need maintenance.
16. In regards to Question 14, I don't know how funds are allocated.
17. Is there a place where all of the recreational activities available are listed and made known to everyone? Need
a guide to recreation. Everywhere in Bozeman is a dog park! Too much dog poop!! Enforce leash laws!
Thanks. Keep up the good work.
18. Keep kids out of trouble and keeps families together.
19. Kudos to GVLT
20. Maintenance in undeveloped parks is inadequate. Priorities: 1. public safety (jail problems) 2. City services like
water, sewer, etc. 3. public roadway (improvements to Durston/Babcock) 4. Parks
21. My husband and I are senior citizens (70+) so our recreational needs are different than that of young families.
22. Need more beaches. Protect the trails we have and develop more. Don’t sell all the land around trails!
23. Not enough open space. Trails need to be continuous. Need more tennis courts around town.
24. Park restrooms should be updated.
25. Recreation opportunities are adequate but have room for improvements and additions. Thank you for including
us in the project. I am a local kid born and raised here so this is a wonderful opportunity.
26. Recreation programs and facilities are directly related to quality of life in our community.
27. Recreational facilities are too expensive, need too much maintenance, and need too large of an area.
28. Retired - no interest
29. Schools must come first then recreation.
30. Thank you Bozeman service clubs.
31. The Bogert Park tennis courts are inadequate.
32. The City does well at park and trail maintenance; people using them are careless. Swimming pools are
important because water therapy is used a lot for health reasons.
33. The maintenance of City parks should be better.
34. This survey cost the City $0.74 per contact in postage alone, plus printing. Have you no better use for our
taxes?
35. Too many unleashed dogs and uncaring owners in parks and on trails. The "M" has literally gone to the dogs - I
was there a couple weekends ago and smelled the poop and saw the dogs!
36. Trail system is important.
37. Trails and green spaces as more development occurs.
38. Uses the ice rinks a lot, weather permitting.
39. Uses the MSU fields for soccer and not City facilities.
40. We have a big yard and there's usually too much dog poop at the parks.
41. We need generic flat playing fields and specific specialized spaces too! Livable city = economic vitality.
260
Appendix B User Group Survey
Page B-1
APPENDIX B
User Group Survey and Results
December 2, 2005
Contact Person
User Group
Street Address
City, State ZIP
RE: Bozeman Area Recreation User Group Survey
Dear Contact Person:
The City of Bozeman is currently preparing a new Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails
(PROST) Plan for the City of Bozeman. This document will become part of the City’s growth
policy to guide the acquisition, development and maintenance of recreational lands and
facilities, and will replace the currently adopted 1997 Parks, Open Space and Trails (POST)
Plan. The Bozeman Recreation & Parks Advisory Board is directing this planning effort.
As with any long-range planning project, the City is committed to encouraging and facilitating
public involvement in this important planning process. The City’s Recreation and Parks Advisory
Board is especially interested in obtaining input from recreation user groups due to their
frequent utilization of City parks and recreation facilities. As a user group representative we ask
that you take a few moments to complete the short enclosed survey, and return the survey in the
provided stamped and addressed envelope. Please return the survey no later than December
23, 2005
If you no longer are the contact person for this group, please contact Jody Sanford at 582-
2260. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this effort.
Sincerely,
Sandy Dodge, Chair
Bozeman Recreation & Parks Advisory Board
261
Appendix B User Group Survey
Page B-2
USER GROUP SURVEY
Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST Plan)
1. User group name:
2. Contact person: 3. Contact phone:
4. Contact mailing address:
5. Contact e-mail address:
6. Description of program(s):
7. Number of members/participants:
8. Season/dates of program(s):
9. Ages served by your program:
10. Percentage of members/participants that are City residents vs. County: City County
11. Is there a fee to participate? No Yes. How much?
12. Which parks and/or recreation facilities does your group use?
City of Bozeman parks and/or facilities Non-City of Bozeman parks/or facilities
Please list: Please list:
13. If not currently using City of Bozeman parks and/or recreation facilities, would your group like to use City of
Bozeman parks and/or recreation facilities? Yes No Not applicable
CONTINUED ON THE OTHER SIDE
262
Appendix B User Group Survey
Page B-3
14. Does the City of Bozeman park and/or recreation facility used by your user group adequately meet the needs of
the group?
Yes Not applicable
No. Please explain why:
15. What new or additional recreation facilities are needed in the City of Bozeman to meet the needs of your user
group now and in the future?
16. Do you have any specific needs regarding the City of Bozeman recreation facilities used by your group?
No Not applicable
Yes. Please describe:
Please feel free to add other comments:
PLEASE RETURN THE SURVEY IN THE PROVIDED STAMPED ENVELOPE.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY!
263
Appendix B User Group Survey
Page B-4
PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
264
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-5 USER GROUP SURVEY RESPONSES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11a 11bBWAG Mary Ann Nielsen586-7005 315 North Church Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715amnielsen315@aol.com Monday a.m. hiking group Between 5 and 30 participateEvery Monday 50's, 60's, & 70's10% 90% Yes 10¢ per dayBWAG's Patti Steinmuller763-4145 14665 Spanish Peaks Trail, Gallatin Gateway, MT 59730psteinmul@earthlink.net BWAG's is a lovely organized group of women who meet to provide activities that women enjoy doing together. The most popular activities are outdoor recreation such as; hiking, skiing (backcountry & x-c), bicycling, snowshoeing. Other activities are quilBushwacker Group (~20) Backcountry Group (~35)All year - Tuesdays Women of all ages from late teens to 80+50% 50% Yes 10¢ per hike or ski plus donation to driverBozeman & Belgrade Girl ScoutsDebra Tew & Anissa Leininger587-7553 &388-0456130 Comfort Lane, Bozeman, MT 59715 & 402 Helen Drive, Belgrade, MT 59714Unknown Nature Study for girls ages 5-17. ~280 Bozeman ~200 BelgradeAll year 5-17 and adult leaders280 ? Yes $12 a year for all activities.Gallatin Valley Softball Association (GVSA) Terry Baldus 586-4717 P.O. Box 25, Bozeman, MT 59771tbaldus@bozemank12.mt.us Provide adult softball opportunity. 100 teams, ~1,800 participantsApril 1 - September 116-69+ 65% 35% yes $700 per team, $35 per personUltimate FrisbeeJulie Keck 586-7806 402 N. Church Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715ranchofrid@mcn.net 1) Informal practice and game 3 nights a week (anyone welcome) 2) Memorial Day weekend tournament ~16 teams (participants from NW U.S. and Canada)1) ~20 per practice 2) ~2001) April - October 2) Memorial Day Weekend16-45 100% 1) no 2) Memorial Day weekend1) no 2)$25 per personBozeman Amateur Hockey AssociationJim Cannata 587-7144 608 Babcock Street #1, Bozeman, MT 59715jae.sc@avicom.net Youth & adult hockey leagues at Haynes Pavilion provide public skating and ice rental.160 adult - 130 youth & parents11/1 - 4/1 4 to 60 Yes Varies by group $130 - $400Bozeman StingraysLaura Catlin 585-7535 1030 Doane Road, Bozeman, MT 59718We are a team of synchronized swimmers. Our girls range in age from 8-18. The girls practice 2-5 times per week depending on ability/commitment. We also sometimes use the pool to host clinics/meets. We will host Regional's over memorial Day weekend.19 this year - up to 30 swimmers with 3-4 coaches.September to June - longer if our girls qualify for Nationals.8 to 18 Yes Depends on swimmer level $35 - $60 per month 265
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-6 12a 12b 13 14 15 16 OtherBWAG Bozeman Lake, Cherry Creek, and the "M" TrailMiddle Cottonwood, North Cottonwood, South Cottonwood, Sypes Canyon, Hyalite Trails, Sourdough Canyon, Stone Creek, Battle Ridge, Olson Road, Triple Tree, Lava Lake, Bear CanyonNot applicableYes Most of the dirt paths we use are in the County. Wood chip trails are very nice to walk on as it is easy on the joints.Yes. Peets Hill has many trails with large gravel which is not the best surface to walk upon hence many cut off dirt paths. Wood chips or pea lldb hbWe like to snowshoe in the winter and new paths or places for this activity would be very welcome!!BWAG's A new bicycle group is forming that uses the Galligator & other city trails. The Monday hiking group uses city parks and is submitting a separate survey (Mary Ann Nielsen). BWAG's formerly offered free skiing lessons at Lindley Park but discontinued thaSourdough Trail, Gallatin National Forest Trails, Yellowstone National Park, local golf courses (winter use - ski groomed & ungroomed).Maybe No. Our all day hiking/ski groups most often travel outside the city to go to trails or other locations where we can spend the entire day outdoors. As individuals however, BWAG's members use city parks and facilities to recreate on their own with familiBWAG's has a newly formed bicycling group which may increase their use of city trails and bike lanes. Individual BWAG's would bike more often if safety was better assured and more bike lanes were available. With increased interest in skate skiing, BWAG'Yes. With regular grooming and snowmaking (when appropriate) at Lindley Park, I think BWAG's are likely to use Lindley Park as a small group activity location. Several of our members participated in the Young at Heart water aerobics classes in Romney PooWe look forward to the new County Park.Bozeman & Belgrade Girl ScoutsVariety of parks. Belgrade - Lewis & Clark Park and others. Not applicableYesNoGallatin Valley Softball Association (GVSA) Sports complex Yes, additional in the futureYes. At this time, no growth space is available.In ten years, two fields. Yes. Assistance with maintenance.Ultimate FrisbeeShowers at Swim Center for tournament participants.MSU fields Yes Yes. Shower facilities are great. Playing fields (football/soccer sized); if more fields were available we would be interested in organizing a summer City league with 60+ participants.Yes. Field dimensions; 120 X 40 yards. We would need 2-3 fields for the City league. We use 6-8 for our tournament.Bozeman Amateur Hockey AssociationGallatin County Fairgrounds Yes Yes Refrigerated ice surface at Bogart Park or school to increase youth participation and lower overall costs.Water, sewer, natural gas, phone, 440 volt electric. Room for facilities, i.e. mechanical rooms, locker rooms, viewing area.As the area changes do we need a dependable ice surface, near the new library and existing elementary schools. Can the community afford ($250K+) and support ($30K per year) this amenity?Bozeman StingraysSwim Center MSU pool in Shroyer Gym for meets as the viewing is much better.Yes & No Yes it is fine for practice sessions. The staff of the Swim Center are wonderful to work with. Synchro is best when viewed from above, so the seating for an audience is not good. A larger, Olympic sized pool would also be ideal.Yes. Better security for personal items. Perhaps more larger lockers for swimmers to rent would help. The smaller ones do not hold swim gear, school gear, musical instruments, winter clothes, etc.I ran this past the Stingray Board so what you have is a compilation of many thoughts. 266
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11a 11bBozeman Masters Swim ClubSuzi Thompson586-9799 3150 West Graf Street, #9, Bozeman, MT 59715suzi.thompson@yahoo.com The Bozeman Masters Swim Club (BOZE) is an official United States Masters Swimming Program. In 2005, USMS and NIKE honored BOZE as the first recipient of the NIKE Award for United States Master Swimming. The entirely volunteer-based team welcomes adult 75+ Year round - including a short course meter, short course yard, long course meter, and open water swim season.18-82 95% 5% Yes $110 per yearBozeman Barracudas Swim ClubJason James 570-1903 P.O. Box 804, Bozeman, MT 59771bozemanbarracudas@yahoo.com We are a year round competitive program under the auspices of USA swimming that meets the needs of young athletes in learning racing techniques and preparing them to compete at levels ranging from state competition to nationals. Our goal is to provide th~90 registered members on our teamWe are a year round program with two distinct seasons. Short course which runs from Sept. to March and long course which runs from April to August.Our swimmers range in age from 6 years to 18 years old. The majority fall in the 7 to 10 year old category.90% 10% Yes We have a participation fee that ranges from $25 -$85 pre month depending on the group a swimmer is participating in. Gallatin Empire Lions ClubStuart Whitehair587-4200 P.O. Box 6493, Bozeman, MT 59771montanaBuff@hotmail.com Midget basketball program for 5th & 6th grade boys & girls170 Late October - mid December10-13 (5th & 6th grades)60% 40% Yes $35 Bozeman Blitzz Futbol ClubBill Locke -President Jen Gummer - Administrator579-5516 P.O. Box 4349, Bozeman, MT 59772fcbprez@bozemansoccer.org State/Regional competitive soccer 13+ boys & girls State Developmental Soccer 11-12 boys & girls Local Developmental Soccer (Blitzz Micro) 5-12 boys & girls300+ State/Regional 600+ Local ~1,000 totalU13+ April - June, U11/12 - April - June, Local (Micro) -May-June5-18, some 19 boys & girls90% 10% Yes $375 State $60 Local 267
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-8 12a 12b 13 14 15 16 OtherBozeman Masters Swim ClubBozeman Swim Center - primary, Bogert Pool, East Gallatin Recreation Area, Hyalite ReservoirNot applicableThe Bozeman Master Swim Club trains at the Bozeman Swim Center and Bogert pool. These two pools do not meet modern aquatic or swim competetion standards, as established by the Federation Internationale of Natation (FINA, the international governing body For the purpose of our team and our sport, the City of Bozeman needs a modern aquatic center (not necessarily a recreational facility), one dedicated to competitive swimming and other aquatic sports such as synchronized swimming, diving, water polo, open Yes. Currently, the Bozeman masters would like to conduct dedicated swim team practices and use all eight lanes at the Bozeman Swim Center on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 7:00 - 8:30 p.m. Given the ongoing growth of our program, we anticipate an iThe Bozeman Master Swim Club comments on this survey are limited to the City of Bozeman pool facilities, as a physical asset and not the operation thereof.Bozeman Barracudas Swim ClubBozeman Swim Center (Bogert Pool has been used by our team in the past).Not applicableNo. The facility does not adequately meet the needs of our program. It does not meet USA Swimming or FINA specifications to hold either a short course meet or a Regional, Sectional, or National level meet of any sort. There is no 25 yard pool (or bulkhIdeally, a 25 yard, indoor facility with eight lanes, a minimum depth of four feet (preferably closer to 6 or 10 feet minimum depth) with a separate warm up and warm down area, plenty of deck space, generous spectator seating, and storage for team equipmeI would like to be able to have another hour of time available in the afternoon for my team so that I can separate my younger novices from my Junior and Senior squads allowing all members of my team to get the space, time, and coaching attention they needOur swim meets, of which we have three a year, bring in between 250 and 350 swimmers each time (500 to 1000 people coming including family members). These are usually 2 or 3 day meets so that means families are staying and spending here in Bozeman, bringGallatin Empire Lions ClubBozeman Senior High Gymnasium Not applicableNot applicable Not applicableBozeman Blitzz Futbol ClubBronken Fields MSU Intramural Fields, School District Fields (Babcock/Sac.)Not applicableNo. 1) Late snow (you can't help that!) 2) Insufficient practice space for 20+ U11+ teams; we have been using MSU entirely for Micro (but they are backing out) 3) Bronken is great, but we overuse Babcock for practice and U11/U12 games.More flat grass, especially in February/March, but through June. Indoor winter training facility.Yes. We need to get the Bronken Parking lot paved in concert; C.O.B., Blitzz, Ayso - Figure out how to nuke gophers & prevent grass drowning at Bronken.We appreciate the professionalism and concern of Ron Brey, James Goehrung, Ron Dingman, and Thom White. We just need more grass! Regional Park may help. Feel free to contact us for more information. 268
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11a 11bBozeman B-League TennisJim Logar 1627 West Main Street, PMB 227, Bozeman, MT 59715 logar.j@msn.com A recreational tennis league for men and women of lower to intermediate abilities. USTA Levels 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5.Enrolled averages 40-45. Actual participation on any one day averages 18.Mid June to end of September. Monday & Wednesday 5:30 -7:00 p.m.18 & up 75% 25% Yes $45 includes $10 membership in Bozeman Tennis Association. (May omit if already a member.)Bozeman Tennis AssociationDebbie Cadfield582-9409 370 Star Ridge Road, Bozeman, MT 59715thecanfields@earthlink.net Annual Bozeman City Tennis Tournament held each July, league play Monday & Wednesday 5:30-8:30 mid June to mid September, various instruction programs.300 members, 125 participate in City Tennis TournamentMid May - OctoberAll ages 66.60% 33.30% Yes Varies depending on activity Bozeman Senior CenterJudy Morrill 586-2421 807 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715bozsrctr@montanadsl.net Mission - To provide social, recreational, nutrition, education, and health care services and information assistance for individuals over the age of 50, living in Gallatin County, Montana.Over 1,750 members, plus serve approximately 1,000 additional seniors per year who are not paid members.Throughout the year.Individuals over the age of 50.Yes $12 per year to be a member of the Senior Center, $5 per month - Computer Room use, $10 per month - Exercise Program, $5 per year - Carpenter Shop use feeMontana Outdoor Science SchoolCassie Carter 582-0526 P.O. Box 502, Bozeman, MT 59771ccarter@outdoorscience.org Hands-on science programs for preschoolers through adults including summer camp, school programs, and community festivals.~6,000 participants annuallyYear-round 3 years old and up with the majority ages 5-1270% 30% No Yes Scholarships are available varies depending on program, community festivals are free, summer camp averages $6 per hour.Gallatin Valley BMXBill Drysdale 580-9284 517 North 7th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715drysdale@montana.com BMX racing. 100 April 1- October 304 to 51 80% 20% Yes $5 269
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-10 12a 12b 13 14 15 16 OtherBozeman B-League TennisChief Joseph Middle School Tennis Courts Not applicableI'm guessing these courts may be considered city property although all our reservations are Lori King, in the Bozeman Public Schools Operations office. We require at least 4 to 6 courts reserved for us so the only other facility that is large enough is tOn occasion, we have put to use the roller squeegee left out on the courts. We do appreciate the port-o-potty at the southeast corner of the courts although I an not sure if it is specifically there for our use. We would appreciate the fixing of the norBozeman Tennis AssociationNew Southside Park Tennis Courts School District Tennis Courts on 11th, courts at Bobcat Anderson Tennis Center at MSU.Yes No. The new courts at Southside Park are wonderful and will be in constant use if they are properly maintained. Bogert Park courts have deteriorated to gravel - a real liability. The City needs to commit to building and maintaining more courts. (I hadMore courts! And low cost lessons to fill those courts.The Recreation Department needs to offer low cost tennis lessons for kids during the summer. It should also take advantage of grant opportunities through the USTA such as "Tennis in the Parks" to help fund these activities. I have heard many comments thBozeman Senior CenterCentennial ParkAnnual Hiking Program, during the summer months, group hikes on trails throughout Gallatin County (one day per week).Not applicableIn Centennial Park, we would love a paved walking trail that would go around through the park, with benches along the way. For our seniors who can't do the more aggressive hiking programs- this walking program could be a great addition.Montana Outdoor Science SchoolEast Gallatin Recreation Area, Beall Park, Bogert Park, Lindley Park, Library, all open trailsMost local trailheads and parks Yes, mostly - we would love more natural/open space areas and connected trails in Bozeman. We love the parks we use. We enjoy working with the City and would like to "streamline" the process for using parks for educational festivals.Covered pavilions and bathrooms at existing parks are great and we would love more. Interpretive signs in natural areas would be wonderful. More parks & trails with natural landscaping.Yes. We would like to establish and annual or long term agreement with the City to use parks for festivals and events. We would be very interested in partnering more with the City to hold City wide outdoor events that are free and of interest for all reGallatin Valley BMXWestlake BMX Park Not applicableYes Indoor facility for winter time - fairgrounds stock show barn would work.Grass planted on the rest of park. 270
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11a 11bGallatin Gardeners ClubDon Mathre 587-8666 731 South 12th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715upldm@montana.edu Monthly programs on topics of interest to gardeners - held at Bozeman Senior Center. Raise produce for sale at Farmers Market at the Fairgrounds. Funds raised are used on community projects , i.e. plantings for parks, etc.40 Once a month 20-90 80% 20% Yes $10 per yearBozeman City Women's Basketball LeaguePaula McMinn 587-0506 1311 Rainbow Road, Bozeman, MT 59715bigskymama@bresnan.net Basketball. 125+ January - March 7 to 10 weeks18 & older 80% 20% Yes $440 per teamGallatin Valley USA WrestlingDan or Angie Buckley522-9422 2011 Lomas Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715dangieb@bresnan.net Youth wrestling club, provide coaching, training, and advancement for kids of all ages & levels.4 - 18 years old80% 20% Yes $60 Little Bobcat TrackBrian Stoppel 587-0566 2340 Butch Cassidy Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718bstoppel@imt.net Introduction to track and field. 200 - 250 3 Saturdays in January1-5 grades 75% 25% yes $15 per personBig Sky Wind DrinkersBob Wade/Kathy Brown522-7064 407 Overbrook Drive, #19, Bozeman, MT 59715kathybob2@mac.com We are a running club. We host 25 Fun Runs a year and 6 major events. We also donate time and money to other groups that support running and recreation.240 All year 6 to 80+ 80% 20% Yes No Fun Runs are free, major events have entry fee.Friends of Bogert ParkSalal Huber-McGee539-0216 332 S. Church Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715salal72@yahoo.com Group of concerned friends and neighbors of Bogert Park interested in maintaining and rejuvinating the park - our fundraiser is Bogert Farmers Market.20+ members, 100's of participantsmarket dates - Memorial Day weekend - beginning of Octoberall ages unsure spans to include out of state visitorsno Will take donations and there is a vendor fee for Market $5 grower, $10 artist/crafter, $3 senior citizen or under 16Sweet Pea FestivalJoAnn Brekhus586-4003 P.O. Box 1015, Bozeman, MT 59771sweetpea@imt.net Three day festival of the arts. 18,000 First full weekend in August1-100+ unsure 60% yes Button price 2005 - $8 prepaid, $10 at gates.Gallatin Empire Lions Club - Midget FootballDarren Dobie 556-4604 3040 Rose St., Bozeman, MT 59718ddobie@wsi-insurance.com 5th & 6th grade, boys/girls, tackle football. 350 September - November10 to 13 50% 50% yes $65 271
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-12 12a 12b 13 14 15 16 OtherGallatin Gardeners ClubBozeman Senior Center Gallatin County Fairgrounds (Farmers Market) Not applicableYesNo We are open to ideas of plantings that we could purchase for placement in new City parks. We annually spend $1,000 - $2,000 each year on plantings.Bozeman City Women's Basketball LeagueMeeting Room - 1 per year Not applicableYes Nothing No Thanks.Gallatin Valley USA WrestlingBozeman Senior High Wrestling Room, Bozeman High School Gym, Valley Ice GardensYes. If there was an available usable area - needs to be able to lay down 2-3 wrestling mats and accommodate up to 100 kids.Not applicable We desperately need gym space - we use Valley Ice Garden for tournaments but it's cold and the mats freeze. It is hard to wrestle on frozen mats.Yes. Mats, place to store mats.Little Bobcat TrackMSU Fieldhouse, Shroyer Gym No Not applicable Indoor arena or gym big enough to have running on outside edge with field events such as high jump, etc. in middle.Not applicable MSU is working well at this time. Scheduling Fieldhouse during basketball season always a problem. Some discussion on moving K, 1, 2, grade program into another facility in town if available.Big Sky Wind DrinkersLindley Park, Burke Park, Bogert Park, Lindley Center, various trailsKirk Hall, Triple Tree, Bozeman Creek, Bozeman Pond Area, many Forest Service trailsNo. More public bathrooms. More trails and trail connectors. Paved shoulders or bike paths on major roads.Pedestrian friendly roadways. Yes. Restrooms on trails. Sorry this is late. It got lost in the holiday mail.Friends of Bogert ParkBogert park Not applicableYes. But sometimes it is challenging because of restrictions placed on us due to ex "no" accessing pavilion on the grass. Do all other user groups have the same rules? Consistency breeds respect.Better bathrooms - cleaner, doors to stalls? Is this something we can help with? Id love a list of small things that the Friends could help with for the year, a sort of wish list from the City of what they can't get to and perhaps we could….This is a fundraiser for the park - I'd love to get more help from the City (unified) in support of what this brings to the community - a friend, family, & neighborhood event open for all to enjoy - not a much better way to use a park?!I do want to say "Thank You" to everyone that has supported a good cause.Sweet Pea FestivalLindley Park No. We set up our event with our own equipment.Not applicable. NoGallatin Empire Lions Club - Midget FootballChristie Fields Not applicableYes. We are rapidly outgrowing the space.*Two more football fields.* Larger building on site with better restroom facility.Yes. *Two more football fields.* Larger building on site with better restroom facility. 272
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks
Page C-1
APPENDIX C
Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks
NEW PARK CONSTRUCTION
New park construction must be approved by the City of Bozeman’s Parks Division and the Recreation and
Parks Advisory Board, and must comply with the adopted PROST Plan and individual park master plan, if
applicable. Any changes must be approved and/or amended in the individual park master plan.
SOIL PREPARATION
All soils to be used on public park land shall be inspected by and meet the approval of City of Bozeman
Parks Division staff prior to installation, and shall meet the minimum depth requirement of 10 inches. All
rock in excess of 1 inch in diameter shall be removed. Soil tests (a sieve analysis and soil analysis) shall be
performed prior to planting to determine the classification and texture of the soils, along with any nutrient
deficiencies. The classification and texture will determine what amendments, if any, are needed while the
soil analysis will help correct any nutrient problems with a pre-plant fertilization.
The soil will be deemed acceptable if it is less than 35 percent clay and less than 70 percent sand, and 70
percent silt. Ph must not exceed 8.4. The soil will be screened at 1 inch minus for rocks and debris. Topsoil
depth must be at least 10 inches. The sub-base, after grading, will be scarified to a depth of 12 inches to
ensure drainage throughout the profile.
Amendments may vary depending on existing soils, but will generally consist of 60 percent coarse sand
(generally concrete sand), 20 percent organics (C:N ratio below 30) and 20 percent approved native soil.
Soils must be mixed, prior to installation, with a screener/mixer machine, or applied in layers on site and
mixed thoroughly with a deep rototiller. Depth of amended soil must be a minimum of 10 inches. There will
be no compaction following the grading process. Fertilizer, and the rate at which it will be applied, should
be dictated by the soil test report.
SEEDING
Ratios and mixes must be approved by the City of Bozeman Parks Division. Seeding will be applied with a
slit-type or drill-type seeder to insure good soil-to-seed contact. Before seeding, the soil shall be loosened to
a minimum depth of 6 inches in order to improve initial root development. The soil will not be compacted in
any manner. Sufficient compaction is readily achieved through the grading process and normal rainfall.
Fertilizer should be applied prior to planting to insure healthy plant development. Generally, a seed mix
combination of Bluegrasses and Rye are used in formally maintained parks. Some low maintenance
Kentucky bluegrasses that perform well are: Kenblue, Park, Plush, Vantage, Victa, Vanessa, Barblue, Parade
and S-21. Perennial ryegrass will be in instead of annual ryegrass. Athletic fields will be planted with one of
the newly improved Kentucky bluegrass types and new cultivars of perennial rye. Examples of some of the
new, aggressive types of Kentucky Bluegrasses are as follows: Award, Total Eclipse, Midnight, Nustar, Ram
I, Limousine and Touchdown. Lower maintenance parkland may require different seed mixes, and will be
specified by the Parks Division.
273
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks
Page C-2
IRRIGATION
Systems must be compatible with Maxicom systems. All water lines shall be schedule 40 PVC. Black poly
pipe is unacceptable. Pipe shall be installed at a minimum depth of 12 inches, with main lines at 18 inch
minimum depth. If this depth is unachievable, the Parks Division must be consulted. No stacking of
irrigation lines shall be permitted. Four inches of sand shall be placed beneath pipe, and 4 inches of sand
above the pipe, to prevent compaction and settling. Sprinkler heads will be installed on manufactured swing
joints (schedule 80 w/ o-rings). Heads to be installed must be approved by the Parks Division and shall be
gear driven, with interchangeable nozzle sizes, unless noted otherwise. The heads must be capable of
producing the specified gallons per minute and coverage area, and shall be set to manufacturer’s
specifications. Electrical locate tape shall be installed along all lines. Upon completion of installation, all
warranty and maintenance information, as well as well logs and pump warranties and information, if
applicable, and an “as- built” map shall be supplied to the City of Bozeman Parks Division.
WELLS
Wells installed on City of Bozeman property must be registered in the City’s name. All wells must have a
stainless steel screen at the intake.
PLAYGROUNDS
Playgrounds must be installed on parkland managed by the City of Bozeman. All playgrounds must be
approved by a Certified Playground Safety Inspector (CPSI) and meet ASTM F1487-01, CPSC and ADA
guidelines and specifications. Playgrounds shall be age appropriate, for area served, and be signed
accordingly. There must be an adequate use zone area around equipment, approved material in use zone,
which meets impact attenuation criteria as specified in ASTM 1292, and adequate drainage. All installation
plans, materials list, construction guidelines, maintenance information and manufacturer’s name must be
supplied to the City of Bozeman’s Parks Division upon completion of playground installation. All work will
be overseen and approved by a CPSI. No wooden structures will be approved.
FENCING
Fencing shall be constructed with 9 gauge, commercial grade, chain link fabric. All posts and top rails shall
be schedule 80 galvanized pipe. Corner post will be 2⅜ inch, line post will be 1⅞ inch, top and bottom rails
will be 1¼ inch. All posts are to be set in concrete, spaced at 10 foot intervals, and a concrete pad, 12 inches
wide and 4 inches deep, shall be installed beneath the fence line along the entire length. A bottom rail will be
installed between all sections of fence for the purpose of tying the fabric down as well as maintaining the
strength and integrity of the fabric. Appropriate heights of fences shall be determined by the City of
Bozeman Parks Division.
TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
1. Class I Trails
Class I trails must be constructed to support a minimum of 12,500 pounds. Unless otherwise
approved through a subdivision variance or a planned unit development, Class I trails provided in
lieu of sidewalks must be concrete.
· Asphalt – The width of the trail shall be a minimum of 10 feet with a maximum cross slope
of 2 percent, and a 1 foot wide gravel border along each edge. The trail bed shall be
excavated to a minimum depth of 11.5 inches. A soil sterilant, approved by the City of
Bozeman Parks Division, shall be applied to the trail bed prior to construction. The trail bed
274
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks
Page C-3
shall consist of a minimum of 9 inches of crushed gravel compacted to 95 percent of
maximum density as determined by AASHTO T99, unless otherwise dictated by sub-soil
type materials being compacted to road standard. The overlay shall consist of 2.5 inches of
asphalt compacted to 93 percent of maximum density, as determined by ASTMD 2041.
Construction seal shall be applied at 0.08 gallons/square yard after installation.
· Concrete – Width of the trail shall be a minimum of 10 feet with a maximum cross slope of
2 percent. The trail base shall consist of a minimum of 3 inches of crushed gravel
compacted to 95 percent of maximum density as determined by AASHTO T99. Concrete
shall be a minimum of 6 inches of M4000 reinforced with 1.5 pounds per cubic yard of Fiber
mesh. Where terrain allows, the slope of the trail shall not exceed 12:1.
2. Class II Trails
Class II trails shall be a minimum of 72 inches in width. The trail bed must be excavated 6 inches
deep, prior to installation of tread mix. Tread mix shall be installed in two parts. The first 3 inch lift
shall be of ¾-inch road mix, compacted, and then 3/8-inch minus gravel (natural fines). Natural
fines used for these trails shall consist of 80 percent sand, 10 percent silt and 10 percent clay. If the
material falls outside of these parameters, the City Of Bozeman Parks Divisions must be consulted
for approval or modification. If the natural fines tread mix does not contain enough clay or silt
binder, additional binder must be mixed in. Alternative soil stabilizer products are acceptable, but
must be approved by the City of Bozeman Parks Division. The trail bed must be filled up to the
original surface along both edges with a cross slope to provide for water drainage (maximum of 2
percent). Tread mix must be rolled flat and compacted after installation, maintaining a maximum 2
percent cross slope. (If moisture content is not adequate for compaction, water should be added
prior to rolling and compacting). Where terrain allows, the slope of the trail should not exceed 12:1
to provide for ADA accessibility. All damage to surrounding features and/or vegetation shall be
reclaimed immediately. Encroaching weeds, due to trail construction, shall be treated and controlled
for a minimum of 2 years after the trail section is completed. Minimum overhead clearance shall be
96 inches for pedestrian and bike traffic, and 120 inches for equestrian traffic.
Full ADA trail accessibility is defined as a slope not exceeding a 12:1 angle, and a cross slope of no
more than 2 percent. There can be no abrupt change in surface level greater than ½ inch.
BRIDGES
Bridges shall have a minimum width of 72 inches when 20 feet or less in length. Bridges exceeding 20 feet in
length shall have a minimum width of 96 inches, to allow wheelchair turn around and passing. The height
of the bridge is measured from bridge deck to bottom of stream or river. If the deck is more than 30 inches
high, a protective rail is required. Rails are to be 42 inches high, with at least one midrail at 34 inches, to be
used as a handrail. A protective barrier must be installed along the length of the rail system with either solid
paneling or vertical bars. Spacing between bars shall be no greater than 3.5 inches or less than 9 inches. All
bridges to be installed on public lands must be certified by a civil or structural engineer. If a bridge does not
require a rail, it must have a 4-inch high curb on both sides along the entire length of bridge. The deck
should be constructed of slip-resistant material. The deck of the bridge shall not exceed a 12:1 slope along
any part of its length. The deck and the ends of the bridge must have no abrupt change in surface level
greater than ½ inch. The cross slope shall not exceed 2 percent. Bridges must be rated for a minimum load
of 12,500 pounds, and display a permanent label indicating the load limit, year it was built and manufacturer.
275
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks
Page C-4
HILLSIDE GRADES
Hillsides within park landscapes shall be 7:1 when achievable, and no steeper than 5:1, to allow for
maintenance equipment access and to minimize water runoff.
276
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks
Page C-5
277
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks
Page C-6
278
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks
Page C-7
279
Appendix D Licensed User Groups, Sample Contract and Field Use Policies
Page D-1
APPENDIX D
Licensed User Groups, Sample Contract and Field Use Policies
LISCENSED USER GROUPS
· Fastpitch Softball · Little League Baseball
· Flag Football · Lone Mountain Gymnastics
· Friends of Bogert Park · Mat Dogs
· Gallatin Empire Lions Midget Basketball · Men's City Basketball League
· Gallatin Empire Lions Midget Football · Bozeman Blitzz Futbol Club
· Gallatin Gardeners’ Club · Montana Outdoor Science School
· Gallatin Valley Bicycle Club · Mountain One Volleyball Club
· Gallatin Valley BMX · Nike Tennis Camps
· Gallatin Valley Men's Adult Baseball League · Rocky Mountain Ropers
· Gallatin Valley USA Wrestling · Rugby Club
· Gallatin Valley YMCA · Sacagawea Audubon Society
· Galloping Dog Agility and Flyball Club · Scuba
· Girls Fastpitch · Senior Olympics
· Intramural Tennis · Southwest Montana Climbers Coalition
· Kayaking · Special Olympics
· Lacrosse · Speed Soccer
· Lewis and Clark Marathon · Sweet Pea Festival
· Li'l Bobcat Track · Ultimate Frisbee
· Li'l Hawks Wrestling
SAMPLE CONTRACT
LICENSE FOR USE OF
North Grand Fields
By the Bozeman Girl’s Fast Pitch Softball Association
2007
THIS LICENSE is given by the City of Bozeman, hereinafter referred to as the “City” to Bozeman
Girls Fast Pitch Softball Association, hereinafter referred to as “Fastpitch.”
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of North Grand Fields, located on 710 North Grand Avenue,
and;
WHEREAS, the Fastpitch provides activities for the community of Bozeman, and;
WHEREAS, the Fastpitch has provided these activities at the same location and intends to continue
for the foreseeable future to do so, and;
280
Appendix D Licensed User Groups, Sample Contract and Field Use Policies
Page D-2
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual promises contained herein, the City
hereby gives permission, revocable and terminable as hereinafter provided, to Fastpitch to use North Grand
Fields, during the period commencing April , 2007 until July , 2007, on the terms
and conditions as set forth below, and in the Field Use Policies, which Fastpitch, by affixing an authorized
signature to this license, promises to comply with and abide by.
Conditions
1. This permission is given to Fastpitch as an accommodation to Fastpitch and the annual
maintenance fee for the North Grand Fields shall be waived in lieu of a $500.00 donation into a
special project account created for North Grand Fields improvements. No property rights or
interest is intended to be conveyed by this agreement. Fastpitch acknowledges the title of the
City to the above-described property and agrees never to deny such title, or claim, at any time,
any interest or estate of any kind or extent whatsoever in the property by virtue of this license or
its occupancy or use hereunder.
2. The undersigned will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Bozeman, its officers,
agents, and employees against and from any and all actions, suits, judgments, claims, demands,
costs, expenses (including attorney’s fees) and liabilities of any character whatsoever, brought or
asserted for injuries to, or death of any person or persons or damages to North Grand Fields
arising out of, resulting from or occurring in connection with this license or the occupancy or
use hereunder.
3. This license shall be valid for the dates and times specified in the agreement and subject to
termination and renegotiation at the discretion of the City. Upon the expiration date or
termination of the license, any and all agreements between the City and the user shall be null and
void. Any renewal of the license shall be subject to review and renegotiation.
4. Any amendment or modification to this agreement or any provision herein shall be made in
writing and executed in the same manner as the original document and shall after execution
become part of this license, except as provided in the Field Use Policies regarding
Regulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _________ day of
_________ , 2007
City of Bozeman Bozeman Girls
Fastpitch Softball Association
_____________________ ______________________
Ron Dingman Angie Kent
Parks and Recreation Superintendent P.O. Box 1163
Bozeman, Montana 59771
586-8033
281
Appendix D Licensed User Groups, Sample Contract and Field Use Policies
Page D-3
FIELD USE POLICIES 2007
Breach of Contract/Violation
The City of Bozeman will notify the user group, in writing, of any breach in contract and or violation. Upon
receipt of this notice, the user group shall arrange a meeting to discuss the breach and/ or violation and
available remedies. If an agreement cannot be reached regarding a remedy, the City of Bozeman reserves the
right to revoke or terminate the permission hereby given at any time to the user group. Ten (10) days
written notice will be given, at a minimum, of such revocation or termination. The City of Bozeman may, at
its election, revoke or terminate the permission forthwith at any time without giving notice if the user group
fails to comply with, or abide by each and all provisions hereof.
Revocation
Upon revocation, surrender or termination of the permission hereby given, the user group shall quietly and
peaceably surrender their portion of the premises in the same condition as the premises were in at the time
the use commenced.
Condition of Premises
It is expressly understood and agreed that the user group agrees to maintain and leave all facilities clean, safe
and in a sanitary condition. Failure to do so will result in the user group paying all costs incurred by The City
of Bozeman to return the premises to its original condition.
Regulations
User groups shall abide by all regulations prescribed by The City of Bozeman, the Bozeman City
Commission, the Park Ordinance and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. The aforementioned
regulations may be modified, at will and shall become part of this license/agreement upon notice to the user
group.
User Group Fees
See specific contract/license for applicable fees.
Security Deposit
A $500.00 security deposit will be required from each user group. The deposit will be used for missing keys,
administrative costs and assessments against a user group. The deposit will be returned, in full, upon final
walk through if there are no infractions of an excessive nature.
Insurance
Each user group shall maintain $1,500,000 liability insurance, $750,000 per occurrence, insuring the City of
Bozeman and the user group against loss and liability for damages including, but not limited to, personal
injury, death, or property damage arising out of, or in connection with the use of the facility or park. In
addition, the policy or policies shall contain a provision that no cancellation thereof shall be effective by the
insurer without forty five (45) days written notice to the City of Bozeman and the insured user group. The
insurance must be in place and the user group shall provide proof of insurance satisfactory to the City of
Bozeman prior to the commencement of the use covered by this agreement or the use will not commence
as scheduled. Proof of insurance will be provided two (2) weeks prior to the commencement date of use
282
Appendix D Licensed User Groups, Sample Contract and Field Use Policies
Page D-4
Field Reservations
Once the fields have been reserved, with both the City of Bozeman and the user group agreeing to and
signing the contract/policies statement, only the above signed user group will have exclusive rights to the
field(s) and/or facility during time frames identified in each user group’s specific contract. There shall be no
SUB-LEASING of the field or facility. Sub-leasing of a field or facility shall be cause for forfeiture of any
security deposit and reevaluation of the user group agreement. Time frames not identified as exclusive in
the user agreement, will be open to the public.
Special Events
Events that require exclusive use of a park, field or facility, will be subject to a Special Use Permit similar to
the Park Reservation Permit. The Special Use Permit may be obtained at 814 North Bozeman Avenue and
information about the permit can be obtained via the City’s website. Any “pay to participate” events,
tournaments and/or clinics and camps will be subject to the Special Use Permit, and all responsibilities that
go with it. Exclusions to this policy include sanctioned events such as area, regional and state tournaments.
Contact(s)
The user group will be responsible for designating an individual, who will be the sole contact for the user
group. (A back-up contact should also be provided). They will be responsible for the initial walk-through,
the final walk-through, utility bills, keys checked out, and any assessment brought forth against the user
group.
Schedules
The user groups shall submit, through their appointed designee, a schedule of their events. In addition, the
user group will furnish a list of numbers and e-mail addresses of all officers.
Field Preparation
It is the sole responsibility of the user group to prepare the fields for game play and practice. On all turf
areas, approved athletic field water based paint will be applied instead of chalk Maintenance and care of the
infield/skinned area is the responsibility of the user group.
Field Lights
The field lights (if applicable) are the sole responsibility of the user group. This includes maintenance and
paying the utility bill. The City of Bozeman, upon receiving the utility bill, will contact the user group
designee with the amount owed. At that time, it is the responsibility of the user group to pay the bill before
the due date.
Utilities/Concessions
Utility charges incurred as a result of running or operating concession stands or buildings are the
responsibility of the user group, as are all maintenance issues related to the concession area. The City of
Bozeman will notify the appointed designee as outlined in the previous paragraph upon receipt of a utility
bill.
Restrooms/Litter
User groups will be responsible for policing grounds dugouts and fields for litter and equipment left out on
or near the fields. This includes, but not limited to, infield drags chalking machines, hoses and tarps. The
283
Appendix D Licensed User Groups, Sample Contract and Field Use Policies
Page D-5
garbage collected will be deposited into the trash receptacles located throughout the park. Tarps shall be
placed in proper areas. Other equipment shall be returned to the buildings or dugouts. Photographic and
written documentation will be made of excessive violations. User groups will be assessed $26.00 per hour in
order to return the area to its original condition.
Snow Removal
Snow removal by user groups is not allowed on any fields. If snow is plowed off, there will be a charge for
damages to irrigation heads, turf, fencing and any related items.
Improvements
Any changes, modifications or improvements to the park shall require a plan and must be approved by the
City of Bozeman’s Park Division prior to the work being done. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
schedule of work, time line, design details, notice of start and completion. City staff shall be notified
regarding guidelines on planning a project and any pre-conferences before the commencement of a project.
Thank You
For your cooperation, we are here to support your group and wish you success with your program in the
upcoming season.
284
O
VALLEY CENTER
SYPES CANYON
GOOCH HILLBAXTER
DURSTON
HUFFINE
STUCKY
BLACKWOOD
PATTERSON
JOHNSON COTTONWOODFOWLERNASH SOURDOUGHMOUNT ELLISBOZEMAN TRAIL
BRIDGER CANYONSTORY MILLAppendix E Possible Cross-Country Skiing Corridors
Page E-1
Possible Ski Trail Corridors
Planning Area
City of Bozeman
APPENDIX EPossible Cross-Country Skiing Corridors
285
Appendix F NRPA Recreation Facility Recommendations
Page F-1
APPENDIX F
National Recreation & Parks Association
Recreation Facility Recommendations
Facility Space Size & Orientation Units Per Service LocationRequirements Dimensions Population Radius NotesBasketball Courts 1. Youth1. 2,400 - 3,036 s.f. 1. 46 - 50 X 84 feet Long axis 1 per 5,000 ¼ - ½ mile Usually in school or recreation center. Safe 2. High School2. 5,040 - 7,280 s.f. 2. 50 X 84 feet north - south walking or biking access. Outdoor courts in 3. Collegiate3. 5,600 - 7,980 s.f. 3. 50 X 94 feet, with neighborhood and community parks, plus 5 feet unobstructed active recreation areas in other park settings. on all sides.Handball Court (3 - 4 wall)800 s.f. for 4-wall 20 X 40 feet Long axis 1 per 20,000 15 - 30 minutes 4-wall usually indoor as part of multi-purpose1,000 s.f. for 3-wall Minimum of 10 north - south. travel time facility. 3-wall usually outdoor in park orfeet to rear of 3-wall Front wall at north school facility.court. Minimum end.20 feet overheadclearance.Ice Hockey22,000 s.f. including Rink - 85 X 200 feet Long axis north - Indoor - 1 per ½ - 1 hour travel Climate is an important considerationsupport area (minimum 85 X 185 south if outdoor 100,000 time affecting the number of facilities. Best as partfeet). Additional Outdoor - depends of a multi-purpose facility.5,000 s.f. support on climatearea.Tennis CourtsMinimum of 7,200 36 X 78 feet with Long axis north - 1 per 2,000 ¼ - ½ mile Best in groups of 2 - 4. Located ins.f. single court 12 foot clearance south neighborhood or community park, or(2 acres for complex) on both sides; 21 adjacent to school.foot clearance onboth ends.Volleyball CourtsMinimum of 30 X 60 feet with Long axis north - 1 per 5,000 ¼ - ½ mile Same as other court activities (e.g. basketball).4,200 s.f. minimum of 6 southfeet clearance onall sides.Baseball 1. Official1. 3.0 - 3.85 acres 1. Baselines - 90 feet Locate home plate 1. 1 per 5,000 ¼ - ½ mile Part of neighborhood complex. Lighted minimum Pitching distance - so the pitcher is fields part of community complex. 60½ feet throwing across the Foul lines - sun and the batter Minimum 320 feet is not facing it. Line Center field - from home plate 400 feet plus through pitcher's 2. Little League2. 1.2 acres 2. Baselines - 60 feet mound run 2. Lighted 1 per minimum Pitching distance - east-northeast. 30,000 46 feet Foul lines - 200 feet Center field - 200 to 250 feetFootball1.5 acres minimum 160 X 360 feet, with Fall season - long 1 per 20,000 15 - 30 minutes Usually part of baseball, football, soccera minimum 6 feet of axis northwest to travel time complex in community park or adjacent toclearance on all sides. southwest. For high school.longer periodsnorth - south.Soccer1.7 - 2.1 acres 195 to 225 feet X Fall season - long 1 per 10,000 1 - 2 miles Number of fields depends upon popularity.330 to 360 feet with axis northwest to Youth soccer can be played on smaller fieldsa minimum 10 feet southwest. For adjacent to schools or neighborhood parks.of clearance on sides. longer periodsnorth - south.286
Appendix F NRPA Recreation Facility Recommendations
Page F-2 Facility Space Size & Orientation Units Per Service LocationRequirements Dimensions Population Radius Notes¼-mile Running Track4.3 acres Overall width - Long axis from 1 per 20,000 15 - 30 minutes Usually part of high school, or in community276 feet north to south, or travel time park complex in combination with football,Length - 600 feet northwest to soccer, etc.Track width for 4 to southwest, with8 lanes is 32 feet finish line atnortherly end.Multiple Recreation Court9,840 s.f. 120 X 80 feet Long axis of courts 1 per 10,000 1 - 2 miles(basketball, volleyball, tennis)is north - south.GolfAverage Length 1. Par 3 (18 hole)1. 50 - 60 acres 1. Varies from 600 - Majority of holes on 1. None ½ to 1 hour travel 9 hole course can accommodate 350 people 2. 9-hole standard2. Minimum 50 acres 2,700 yards north - south axis. 2. 1 per 25,000 time per day. 18 hole course can accommodate 550 3. 18-hole standard3. Minimum 110 2. 2,250 yards 3. 1 per 50,000 to 550 people per day. Course may be located acres 3. 6,500 yards in community or regional park, but shouldnot be over 20 miles from population center.Swimming PoolsVaries on size of Teaching - Minimum None - care must be 1 per 20,000 (pools 15 to 30 minutes Pools for general community use should bepool and amenities. of 25 X 45 yards, even taken in siting of should accommodate travel time planned for teaching, competitive andUsually ½ to 2 acre depth of 3 to 4 feet. lifeguard stations 3 to 5 percent of the recreational purposes with enough depthsite. Competitive - in relation to after- total population at (3.4 meters) to accommodate 1 meter and 3Minimum of 25 X 16 noon sun. one time. meter diving boards. Located in communitymeters. Minimum of park or school site.27 s.f. of water surfacearea per swimmer.Ratio of 2 : 1 deck vswater surface.
287
Appendix G Design Guidelines for Park and Trail Signage
Page G-1
APPENDIX G
Design Guidelines for Park and Trail Signage
SIGNAGE PLAN
The Developer shall prepare a signage plan for parks and/or trails in new developments, and the plan will
be reviewed and approved by the Parks Division. The signage plan will include:
· A map(s) showing sign locations.
· A list of signs, sign posts and sign totems to be installed, indicating content, materials and location
of each sign.
SIGNAGE INSTALLATION
The developer of any development where park and/or trail signage is installed shall be responsible for
paying the costs of signage materials and installation.
· The Parks Division will order signs, posts and totems with the developer reimbursing the Parks
Division for the cost of materials.
· The Parks Division will install signs, posts and totems with the developer reimbursing the Parks
Division for the cost of installation.
TRAIL SIGNAGE SPECIFICATIONS
Posts. At each signage location, signage shall consist of a post and a 10x10 totem installed to the following
specifications:
· Posts must be 8 feet tall with the bottom three feet buried.
· Concrete footings shall not be used.
· Posts shall be pressure treated wood.
· The bottom half of 10x10 totems shall be chemically treated to Parks Division specifications.
Placement. The placement of trail signage shall comply with the following guidelines:
· One post and one totem shall be installed at all intersections of trails with roads.
· One totem shall be installed at intersections between major trails routes.
· Signage shall be installed no more than 10 feet from the intersection of a trail with a sidewalk.
· Signage shall not be installed in the right-of-way boulevard between the sidewalk and curb.
· Posts and totems must be separated from each other by at least 4 feet.
· Posts and totems may be installed on opposite sides of the trail.
· Posts and totems shall be installed no closer than 2 feet and no farther than 4 feet from the edge of
the trail, and shall not be obscured by trees, shrubs or other landscaping.
288
Appendix G Design Guidelines for Park and Trail Signage
Page G-2
Signage. Trail signage shall comply with the following guidelines:
· Trail signage posts shall have the following standard City signs attached:
1. No motorized vehicles.
2. Clean up after your dog and keep them under control.
· Signs on posts shall be oriented perpendicular to the trail, and shall face toward the street/sidewalk.
· Totems shall be routered on one or more sides for the placement of signs. The sign plan shall
specify the number, content and orientation of signs on each totem.
· All signs for totems shall be 7.75 inches square.
· Signs will be attached to posts according to Parks Division specifications.
· Signs will be attached to totems according to Parks Division specifications.
No motorized vehicles
POST
(two signs)
Clean up after your dog and keep them under control
Mainstreet to the Mountains Logo
Trail directions and distances
TOTEM
(three signs)
This trail maintained by (name of subdivision) Homeowners Association
PARK SIGNAGE SPECIFICATIONS
Posts. At each signage location, signage shall consist of …
Placement. The placement of park signage shall comply with the following guidelines:
Signage. Park signage shall comply with the following guidelines:
SIGNAGE MAINTENANCE
Signage maintenance shall be the responsibility of the entity responsible for maintaining trails and parkland
within the development.
289
Appendix H Guidelines for Parkland Grant Funds
Page H-1
APPENDIX H
Guidelines for Parkland Grant Funds
Please follow these guidelines when beginning, and while working on, your project:
1. The parkland grant funds you received were based on the plan submitted with your grant
application. Prior to beginning work on the project, you must submit a work plan to the Parks
Division.
2. Your work plan must include a site plan, project time line, phases of construction, documentation of
permits, any stopping points and all relevant plans and specifications. These must be submitted to
the Parks Division for approval prior to beginning work on the project. The plan can be mailed to
the City of Bozeman, Parks Division, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771. If you want to hand
deliver your plan, please take it to the City Shop Complex at 814 North Bozeman Avenue,
Bozeman, MT 59715.
3. All required matching funds must be accounted for prior to beginning construction. A list of any
cash and/or in-kind donations shall be sent to the Parks Division with your work plan. If your
organization has an active License for Use agreement with the City, all use payments must be current
and proof of insurance for the current year must be on file with the City.
4. One person will be selected by your group to act as the point of contact for the Parks Division in
organizing the work to be done. The name, address, and telephone contact information for that
person must be included in your work plan.
5. The actual contracting of work will be done by your group. The Parks Division will coordinate and
oversee the project. Anyone performing work on the project will be required to coordinate with the
Parks Division prior to starting work.
6. Your group is responsible for complete reclamation of any and all areas affected by your project’s
construction, including, but not limited to: grounds, fences, buildings, irrigation systems, etc. All
work must be done according to the standards developed by the Parks Division including but not
limited to: trail construction, irrigation systems, playground equipment, soil preparation and
conditioning, and seeding.
7. Your group is responsible for obtaining any required building, plumbing and electrical permits from
the Building Division, 582-2375, as well as calling for locate in the area you will be working in (1-
800-424-5555). It’s the law. You may call the Parks Division for park addresses, if needed.
8. Any tree planting must be coordinated with the Parks and Forestry Divisions, and a no-cost tree
planting permit must be obtained from the Forestry Division prior to planting trees on public land.
9. All contractors receiving payment from the City, for work performed, must have a current City of
Bozeman business license and a tax identification number. This information must be submitted to
the Parks Division as soon as you select your contractor(s) and on file with the Finance Department
before any payment will be made.
10. When you receive and approve an invoice for payment, the documentation from contractors will be
submitted to the Parks Division for payment directly to the contractor. Prior to payment, all work
will be inspected by the Parks Division to verify that the work has been completed properly.
Payments for materials will be made provided the materials are stored at a secure site. It is the
290
Appendix H Guidelines for Parkland Grant Funds
Page H-2
responsibility of each group to monitor their own budget. Please take care not to go over budget, as
the unfunded balance will be the responsibility of the grant recipient.
11. Please do not make promises about payment dates without first checking with Accounts Payable at
City Hall, 582-2334.
12. It will be the responsibility of each group to address problems with contractors and/or any other
problems connected with the project. The Parks Division will help in anyway it can.
13. Progress reports will be submitted to the Parks Division, at least every 6 months, once the award of
funds is announced.
14. In the event that a project is postponed, or there is no progress being made for a period of 12
months, the grant recipient may apply to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board for an extension
on the grant money. It will be the decision of the Board whether the grant remains intact, is
modified or revoked.
If you have any questions, or need assistance at any time, please call the Parks Division, at 582-3200. Thank
you for your efforts and your involvement in our City Parks. These improvements will benefit our entire
community.
291
å
å
å
åå
å
å
å
å
å
å
INTERSTATE 90 HWY S 19TH AVE LOVE LN GOOCH HILL RD DURSTON RD COTTONWOOD RD HUFFINE LN FOWLER LN FR
O
NT
A
G
E R
D
S 3RD AVE NASH RD
STUCKY RD
BLACKWOOD RD
E VALLEY CENTER RD
JOHNSON RD DAVIS LN SOURDOUGH RD BAXTER LN
W MAIN ST
M
C
IL
H
A
T
T
A
N
R
D
BIG GULCH DR
BOZEMAN TRAIL RD
PATTERSON RD
BRIDGER CANYON RD N 7TH AVE STORY MILL RD HARPER PUCKETT RD W OAK ST MANLEY RD FS 712 N 19TH AVE CHAPMAN RD FORT ELLIS RD W COLLEGE ST
W KOCH ST
E MAIN ST S 11TH AVE HIGHLAND BLVD HAGGERTY LN L ST TRIPLE TREE RD MOUNT ELLIS LN BEATTY RD KELLY CANYON RD SPRINGHILL RD GANT RD
W KAGY BLVD TAYABESHOCKUP RD E KAGY BLVD S 4TH AVE S 5TH AVE N 15TH AVE BRIDGER DR
FALLON ST NELSON RD JEEP TRAIL ANNIE ST S 6TH AVE S CHURCH AVE S WILLSON AVE N 25TH AVE LYNX LN S GRAND AVE PAINTED HILLS RD MCGEE DR W STORY ST
BAXTER LN E
RE
D
WIN
G
DR
N 27TH AVE OAK ST HUNTERS
WAY
N 5TH AVE HULBERT RD E
B
O
H
A
RT
L
N
MARY RD ROSE ST CANARY LN ELK LN
ELLIS ST S 8TH AVE S 15TH AVE C
E
D
A
R
S
T
STAR RID
GE
RD
W OLIVE ST
E GRIFFIN DR
DEE R CR EE K DR BEAR CANYON RD
HIDDEN VALLEY RD FLANDERS MILL RD W BEALL ST
W ALDERSON ST
W CURTISS ST S 7TH AVE W GARFIELD ST
F
R
O
N
T
S
T
LAKE RD ROBIN LN
GRAF ST CAYUSE TRL S ROUSE AVE W LAMME ST FEN WAY KAGY RD
HILLSIDE LN
W GRANT ST S 9TH AVE DRIFTER DR EQUESTRIAN LN N BLACK AVE ABAGAIL RANCH RD
CATRON ST
BLUEBIRD LN VANDYKEN RD S 10TH AVE N TRACY AVE E LAMME ST IDA AVE N GRAND AVE SANDERS AVE N 17TH AVE BECK DR VALLEY DR POTTE
R SID
ING
RD SIMMENTAL WAY S BLACK AVE WATTS LN W BABCOCK ST SIMMONS LN JAGAR LN N WALLACE AVE OLD
FARM RD
W LINCOLN ST JACK LEG LN W HARRISON ST
PEACE PIPE DR RESORT DR W OAK ST S 20TH AVE MEAGHER AVE ARNICA DR BUELL DR DOANE RD CHERRY DR S 23RD AVE PLUM AVE WESTRIDGE DR N BOZEMAN AVE THOMAS DR ROSE CREEK RD N 9TH AVE N 20TH AVE FOWLER AVE WESTERN DR WAGONWHEEL RD TEXAS WAY
LILY DR
RAINBOW RD
OAK ST N 3RD AVE BORDER LN ARNOLD ST N 22ND AVE WILDROSE LN TETON AVE W MENDENHALL ST
W GARFIELD ST
ROCKY CREEK RD STUBBS LN ENTERPRISE BLVD N 10TH AVE N 11TH AVE BIGELOW RD
T
R
O
O
P
E
R
T
R
L
QU INN D AVI D LN BOYLAN RD N CHURCH AVE PARK VIEW PL
PROSPECTOR TRL
CREEKSIDE DR SIR ARTHUR DR N 14TH AVE W PEACH ST FIRESIDE DR ROCKY RD
DRIFTWOOD DR RIATA RD HOLLY DR
MAIDE
N RO
CK R
D
OLIVER ST
FIS H H AT CH ER Y RD FAIRWAY DR N WILLSON AVE FIELDSTONE DR WMINERAL AVE S 14TH AVE L
O
N
G
H
O
R
N
R
D
SABER CIR E MENDENHALL ST
E TAMARACK ST CLONINGER LN W GRIFFIN DR
W VILLARD ST VIGILANTE TRL LA
K
E D
R
OLD WEST TRL TEMPORARY ROAD
GOLDENSTEIN LN BISON TRL HORSETAIL RD
GARDNER PARK DR S TRACY AVE DONNA AVE COTTONWOOD RD SHERIDAN AVE N FERGUSON AVE MEAGHER AVE RAVALLI ST TERRENCE LOOP RD CALICO DR
HEADLANDS DR S FERGUSON AVE NEW HOLLAND DR FLATHEAD AVE PARKWAY AVE BUCKHORN TRL DAMARELL RD ST
A
RN
ER
D
R RIDGE TRL E
O
AK
S
T
CATTAIL ST BRASS LANTERN CT BOBCAT DR
WILDFLOWER WAY SIERRA DR CATAMOUNT ST
E STORY ST SPRING CREEK DR N BROADWAY AVE N ROUSE AVE STONEGATE DR
AINSWORTH DR
TSCHACHE LN
W TAMARACK ST
MEAH LN CAN
Y
ON
V
I
E
W RD
N MONTANA AVE MOUNTAIN LION TRL STORY HILL RD MICHAEL GROVE AVE E PEACH ST
COMFORT LN
BOULDER BLVD S YELLOWSTONE AVE E GARFIELD ST
HEATHER LN
BROADWATER ST E HITCHING POST RD HALEY RD
HA YR AK E L N ARROWLEAF HILLS DR ALP HA D R PIN AVE W HITCHING POST RD LOMAS
DR
SACCO DR BOYD RD WILDA LN POPLAR DR CAMBRIDGE DR FALCON LN VALLEY GROVE DR EXPLORER TRL DAISY DR JOES WAY BENNETT DR GALE CT HITCHING POST RD N 24TH AVE N 27TH AVE CAMPBELL RD KIMBALL AVE SAXON WAY N 12TH AVE MAX AVE BO YLAN RD S 27TH AVE MANDEVILLE LN E GRANITE AVE WESSLEY WAY N 18TH AVE ASH D R N 21ST AVE N 16TH AVE N YELLOWSTONE AVE REDWOOD DR L
U
C
IL
L
E
L
N
LONGBOW LN WHEAT DR
MOSS BRIDGE RD
EVERGREEN DR N 23RD AVE NICKOLS PEAK TRL
JUNIPER ST N SWEETGRASS AVE FOWLER AVE DONEGAL DR CANNON CREEK RD SOURDOUGH RIDGE TRL MALTESE LN ACADEMY DR S BOZEMAN AVE WOODLAND DR TEAKWOOD DR WESTLAKE RD ARETE DR GOLD AVE OLD HIGHLAND BLVD ROSA WAY TEMPEST CT BUCKRAKE AVE BUTTONWOOD AVE BOOT HILL CT
LAMPLIGHT DR
DULOHERY LN MAYA WAY GALLATIN DR BIRDIE DR ADVANCE DR LASSO AVE COOK CT BIG HORN LN S 11TH AVE MONROE ST HILLCREST DR PANORAMA DR W
LAREDO DR LOXLEY DR HIGHLAND CT BOSAL ST FLANDERS CREEK AVE EASTWOOD DR SHADOW CIR A
U
G
U
S
T
A
D
R
LANCELOT LN DISCOVERY DR S WALLACE AVE TWIN LAKES AVE WHITETAIL RD
HILL ST MEADOW LN SUNLIGHT AVE STAFFANSON RD BRONCO DR
POTOSI ST
SNAPDRAGON ST
CONCORD DR
WATERS ST SECOR AVE LOO K FAR W A Y WHITE OAK DR LAUREL PKWY MEGHANS WAY DEER ST
TRADE WIND LN FORESTGLEN DR REMINGTON WAY CLIFDEN DR LARIAT LOOP CANDY LN P
E
A
R
S
T
COLTER AVE KNAAB DR
BAXTER DR BEDIVERE BLVD BUCKRAKE AVE WOLVERINE LN GALLATIN TRL CYPRESS AVE BEMBRICK ST
PATRICK ST S 12TH AVE DURHAM AVE LADEN LN YERGER DR PALETTE CT E SHADOW DR VIRGINIA DR YELLOWSTONE AVE PINNACLE STAR ST W SHADOW DR AAJAKER CREEK RD
DANUBE LN ARABIAN AVE BROOKDALE DR BLACKBIRD DR COVER ST LINDLEY PL BOGART DR LARAMIE DR CHAMBERS DR RAE WATER
LN
MAX AVE STAFFORD AVE STANFORD DR PATHFINDER TRL SOLAR WAY LINDVIG DR FRANKLIN HILLS DR
GEBHARDT TRL
QUAIL LN LAUNFAL LN HEMLOCK ST HARMON WAY E COTTONWOOD ST JOHN MAY LN CASCADE ST MYERS LN MERIWETHER AVE SUNNY MEADOW LN
FOX CT
C
A
P
E
A
V
E
COTTAGE LN DAWS DR S 16TH AVE CONESTOGA CIR ST ANDREWS DR PAR C
T
MATHESON WAY BRISBIN ST CARSON PL MULLAN TRL GOLF
WAY
TEAL CT
E ASPEN ST BRIGGS RD SUNDEW LN EDELWEISS DR ALDER CREEK DR ARROWWOOD DR BOXWOOD DR E BABCOCK ST
DAFFODIL ST POND ROW E MASON ST S 13TH AVE PERCIVAL PATH PALISADE DR BUNGALOW LN TAI LN BUR AVE CABALLO AVE WHISPER LN ROWLAND RD JAMES AVE
BRAJENKA LN
NOSTALGIA LN
ACCOLA DR
GOOBY RD LLOYD ST BARNETT LN BLACKMORE PL ERWIN AVE KIRSHA LN FOXTAIL ST DUDLEY DR BARCLAY DR CARBON ST SAXON WAY GLACIER CT
CUTTING ST
DIAMOND ST
MORROW ST FORBES AVE CANVAS CT
ALLEN DR SHERIDAN PL NASH CREEK RD
OLD BUFFALO TRL S 18TH AVE S 17TH AVE JEFFERSON CT
E HARRISON ST
W CLEVELAND ST
JOHNSON RD
BLACKWOOD RD
W BABCOCK ST
CA TTA IL ST S 3RD AVE E OAK ST
GOLDENSTEIN LN SOURDOUGH RD
RAVALLI ST
W OAK ST
GRAF ST
W BABCOCK ST N 7TH AVE FRONTAGE RD N ROUSE AVE S 3RD AVE N 9TH AVE FOWLER AVE BAXTER LN
DEER ST
IN
T
ER
ST
AT
E
9
0
H
W
Y
ANNIE ST GRAF
ST
N 3RD AVE W VILLARD ST N 11TH AVE W BEALL ST S TRACY AVE S BLACK AVE LILY DR
E KAGY BLVD S 27TH AVE Legend
å School
Landuse & Facility Planning Boundary
Existing Trail
Existing Bike Route
Existing Bike Lane
Existing Shared Use Path
Proposed Bike Lane
Stream
Proposed Shared Use Path
Proposed Trail Corridor
Park
Conservation Easement
1 0 10.5 Mile
¯
This map was created by the City of Bozeman GIS Department on 8/15/07 using imagery from 2001
This map is intended to be used as part of the development review process, to guide to community
decision-makers when properties are proposed for subdivision and development. This map shows
approximate locations of future trail corridors. These trail corridors were identified through GIS
analysis by city staff in cooperation with the Bozeman Parks and Recreation Advisory
Committee, the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board and the Gallatin Valley Land Trust
Community Trails Program. This analysis involved:
1) Identifying all parcels within the planning boundary that could potentially be further
subdivided and developed.
2) Identifying where trail corridors should be located on these parcels to serve existing and
future residents if these properties are developed.
If property owners choose not to develop their land, the trails shown on this map will not be created
unless the property owners voluntarily agree to do so.
PROST Plan Trail Map
292
planning • zoning • subdivision review • annexation • historic preservation • housing • grant administration • neighborhood coordination
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bozeman City Commission
FROM: Jody Sanford, Senior Planner
RE: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) Plan
DATE: October 16, 2007
MEETING DATE: October 22, 2007
At their regularly schedule meeting on Thursday, October 11, 2007 the Bozeman Recreation and Parks
Advisory Board (RPAB) voted to recommend approval of the October 1, 2007 draft of the PROST Plan
with the following revisions to the City Commission. These recommended revisions are based on public
input received at the September 20, 2007 public hearing before RPAB and upon written public comments
received to date.
1. Page 1-12, Section 1.8 – Add language requiring review and update of the plan every 5 years, similar
to the requirement for review and update of the growth policy every 5 years.
2. Page 1-12, Section 1.8 – Include a flowchart of the PROST Plan amendment process, and another
for the process for individual park master plan preparation and amendment. Also clarify when the
Parks Division vs. the Planning Department is responsible for scheduling individual park plans for
City Commission consideration.
3. Page 3-2, Section 3.1 – Revise sentence 1 to reflect 667 acres of park in the City (including Gardner
Park) and 166 acres in the County (including McLeod Park) for a total of 833 acres in the planning
area.
4. Page 3-3, Table 3-1 – Add a note at the bottom of Table 3-1 stating that park acreage were taken
from the face of final plats. Where no final plat figure was available, the GIS system calculated the
size of the park. Also note that the inventory is up-to-date through December 31, 2005.
5. Page 3-3, Table 3-1 – Add a note indicating that the definition of a developed park is a park that
satisfies the City’s basic requirements for dedicated parkland. These basic requirements include
leveling any park areas, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing, and installing an
underground irrigation system.
6. Page 3-3, Table 3-1 – Amend the table to remove soccer fields from Aasheim Fields to reflect the
school district’s impending use of the site for a new elementary school. Amend the number of
soccer fields at Bronken Park from 10 to 5.
7. Page 3-4, Table 3-1 – Change the acreage listed for Gardner Park from 0.98958 to 17.72. Update the
park acreage total on Page 3-6 from 650.54 to 667.27.
293
Page 2
8. Page 3-7, Table 3-1 – Amend the table to add McLeod Park, 7.74 acres, public, natural area/open
land, bench, bridge, parking, trails, vista, and stream. McLeod is being added to the Inventory of
County Parks within the Planning Area because the inventories are current through December 31,
2005 and McLeod became a City park in 2006.
9. Page 3-8, Section 3-1 – Include a reference to trails in the description of natural areas/open lands.
10. Page 3-7, Table 3-2 – Include a note that park acreages and other information came from the
County’s parkland inventory that was prepared by County staff. Also note that the inventory is up-
to-date through December 31, 2005.
11. Page 3-16, Section 3.5.4 – Change the last sentence to $1,800 per acre of park for all City park
acreage (667).
12. Page 5-4, Table 5-2 – Amend the table so that the open space located at Morning Sun Drive and
Peace Pipe Drive has only private access.
13. Page 5-4, Table 5-2 – Add a note at the bottom of the table indicating that acreages were determined
by reviewing final plats. If final plat figures were not available, the GIS system calculated the acreage.
Also note that the inventory is up-to-date through December 31, 2005.
14. Page 5-9, Table 5-3 – Include a note that open space acreages and other information came from the
County’s open space inventory that was prepared by County staff. Also note that the inventory is
up-to-date through December 31, 2005.
15. Page 7-16, Section 7.4.1 – Revise the final sentence of paragraph 1 to read as follows: However, if
Bozeman’s Parks Division was maintaining all 667 acres of City parkland, the maintenance staff per
acres of maintained parkland would be 1 : 32.
16. Page 7-18, Section 7.5.1 – Revise Item 1 (Soccer Fields) to reflect the loss of the fields at the W
Babcock St school district property. This section is proposed to read as follows:
With a ratio of 1 soccer field per 6,332 people, Bozeman is providing a higher level of service than
the average of the peer communities (1 per 7,102) and the NRPA recommendation (1 per 10,000).
Recommended Level of Service Standard – 1 : 2,500 people
When compared to the NRPA recommendation, it appears that Bozeman is currently providing a
high level of service. Also, soccer fields were not in the top 10 responses to the following PROST
Plan Survey questions: “Can you think of a recommendation to improve the City’s recreation
opportunities and what additional recreational facility would you like to see developed in our
community?” However, the PROST Plan Survey did indicate that soccer fields are the 9th most used
facility in town. Comments from the User Group Survey indicate that additional practice space is
desperately needed. The 1 : 2,500 recommendation is for developed soccer fields. Additional large
grassy areas for practice areas would be in addition to the 1 : 2,500 ratio. More general purpose
grassy areas for soccer practice would help free up Bronken and Aasheim for matches and
tournament play. Note: Additional soccer fields can also be used for other sports such as football,
lacrosse, ultimate frisbee, rugby and field hockey. Bronken Park should be expanded to
accommodate matches and tournament play.
The NRPA recommends that soccer fields have a 1-2 mile service radius. As shown on Figure 13,
the 2-mile radius service areas for the City’s soccer fields are heavily concentrated at the west end of
town. To maximize the level of service provided to Bozeman’s residents, based on the service area
location, additional soccer fields should be constructed in the south, north and east parts northeast,
southwest, and southeast quadrants of town.
17. Page 7-19, Table 7-9 – Revise the information on soccer fields (first row) to reflect 5 soccer fields in
the City of Bozeman.
294
Page 3
18. Page 7-25, Figure 13 – Remove Aasheim Fields.
19. Page 7-30, Section 7.5.2 – Revise this section to reflect 5 existing soccer fields. Amend sentence 4 to
read as follows: However, the greatest current recreation facility need is for additional tennis courts
and soccer fields.
20. Page 8-4, Section 8.3.2 – Revise this section to clarify that required watercourse setbacks may be
dedicated to the City, but will not count towards parkland dedication requirements.
21. Page 8-6, Section 8.4.4 – Revise the second sentence to read as follows: The City will continue to
discourage or reject cash-in-lieu proposals until the cash-in-lieu valuation system is revised, except in
situations such as high-density residential projects, development of lands unsuitable for recreational
lands and urban infill projects.
22. Page 8-6 and 8-7, Section 8.5.2 – Make adjustments to Bozeman’s park acreage in this whole section
(650 to 667), the park/1,000 population ratio to 18.7 and other adjustments as needed.
23. Page 8-13, Section 8.9.1 – Revise the third sentence to read as follows: Shared use paths are available
for users such as adults on bikes and skateboarders who are generally restricted on standard
sidewalks, and for children and beginner bicyclists who may not feel comfortable using a bike lane.
24. Page 8-13, Section 8.9.1 – Add a fourth sentence to the first paragraph that reads as follows: Finally,
shared use paths can provide important east-west connectivity for our trail system which is
composed primarily of north-south trails following stream corridors.
25. Page 8-13, Section 8.9.2 – Revise #5 to read as follows: Shared use paths should be constructed of
concrete whenever provided in-lieu of a City standard sidewalk. Share use paths may be constructed
of asphalt in other locations to be determined on a case-by-case basis. All shared use paths, whether
concrete or asphalt, shall be constructed in compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines contained
in Appendix C.
26. Page 8-14, Section 8.11 – Add a new policy statement regarding financial guarantees of park
improvements. This new policy statement will read as follows:
8.11 FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS
8.11.1 Overview
State law and the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance allow developers to financially
guarantee some development-related improvements. For subdivisions, developers can financially
guarantee infrastructure and other improvements, including park improvements, in order to file a
final plat. The City of Bozeman’s Planning Department charges a fee for financial guarantees of
$400 or 1 percent of the face value, which ever is greater.
In some instances, developers have been required to financially guarantee and pay the financial
guarantee fee for park improvements above and beyond the basic park improvement requirements
of leveling any park areas, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing, and installing
an underground irrigation system. In other words, the developers have been required to financially
guarantee park improvements that they are volunteering to install in addition to the basic
requirements of the City.
This circumstance results in a financial disincentive for developers volunteering to install additional
park improvements at their own expense. Over time, this could result in fewer park improvements
being installed by developers.
8.11.2 Policy Statement
The City of Bozeman will only collect a financial guarantee and charge the financial guarantee fee for
required park improvements. Required park improvements would include the basic improvement
requirements of leveling any park areas, amending the soil, seeding disturbed areas to allow mowing,
295
Page 4
and installing an underground irrigation system. Required improvements could also include
improvements required by the City Commission as a condition of approval.
27. Page 10-2, Section 10.1.3 – Revise the third implementation strategy to read as follows: In the UDO,
formalize the policy of not counting watercourse setbacks to satisfy parkland dedication
requirements, but allowing watercourse setbacks to be dedicated to the City.
28. Page 10-2, Section 10.1.7 – Add a new Recommendation as follows:
10.1.7 Recommendation
Provide public access to parks owned by homeowners’ associations as County parks are annexed to
the City of Bozeman.
Implementation Policy
• Require the provision of public access easements on parks owned by homeowners’
associations as land is annexed to the City.
• Revise the City’s annexation policy as needed.
29. Page 10-5, Section 10.2.10 – Add a new Recommendation as follows:
10.2.10 Recommendation
Ensure that water and sewer services lines are provided, in compliance with an adopted individual
park master plan, to facilitate development of parks.
Implementation Policy
• Require developers to install water and sewer stubs for any public park facilities requiring
water and sewer services, such as restrooms, with the installation of other water and sewer
infrastructure.
• Require that water and sewer stubs be installed in compliance with an adopted individual
park master plan.
30. Page 10-13, Section 10.7.6 – Add a new Recommendation as follows:
10.7.6 Recommendation
Provide public access to trails owned by homeowners’ associations as developments containing trails
are annexed to the City of Bozeman.
Implementation Policy
• Require the provision of public access easements on trails owned by homeowners’
associations as land is annexed to the City.
• Revise the City’s annexation policy as needed.
31. Page 10-17, Section 10.10 – Add a new Recommendation and Implementation Policies related to
enhance Police Department patrols in City parks to deter graffiti and vandalism.
32. PROST Plan Trail Map – New aerial photography is scheduled to be available in October of 2007. If
the new aerial is available and usable, the final PROST Plan Trail Map will incorporate this new
layer.
33. PROST Plan Trail Map – Add a note to the map stating that additional trail corridors not depicted
on the map may be desirable, and will be identified and obtained as opportunities arise.
296
Bozeman Recreation & Parks Advisory Board
P.O. Box 1230 · Bozeman, MT · 59771
Board Action
DATE: October 16, 2007
TO: Bozeman City Commission
FROM: Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
SUBJECT: PROST Plan
Honorable Mayor and Commissioners,
At our October 11, 2007 regular meeting, the Bozeman Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
unanimously approved and accepted the current draft of the PROST plan with the additions
contained in Jody Sanford’s submittal. The PROST plan represents several years of hard work:
Researching public opinion, examining national and statewide norms, holding discussions with
representatives from GVLT, the Bike Board, BSF, et al, developing policy and standards with
the City’s Recreation, Parks, and Planning staff, and lengthy deliberations by our RPAB
subcommittee and planner Jody Sanford.
The additions reflect a distillation of the public input received in writing and at our September
20th public forum.
The board fully supports this plan and recommends that the Commission accepts and adopts it as
official policy for future development.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Dodge, Chairman, RPAB
297
1
Bozeman Recreation & Parks Advisory Board
P.O. Box 1230 · Bozeman, MT · 59771
PROST PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
SEPTEMBER 20, 2007
7:00 PM LINDLEY CENTER
RPAB Members in Attendance: David Cook, Anne Banks, Bob Wade, Joanne Jennings, Sandy Dodge,
Adam Fruh, Bill VandenBos
City of Bozeman Staff in Attendance: Jody Sanford, Rick Fink, Sue Harkin, Jamie Siatta, Thom White, Ron
Dingman
Others: Lucia Stewart, Ted Lange, Kevin Click, Kurt Palmquist, Peter Gogan, Marianne Amsden, Judy
Blackmore, Carol Diffendaffer, Halsey Wallace-Bishop, Betsy Fordyce, James Mason, Russ Tuckerman,
Nancy Crawford, Beth Cochran, Anne Sherwood, Alan Kesselheim, Stuart Jennings
Sandy Dodge, Chair of the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, opened the hearing by welcoming
everyone and providing a brief overview. Jody Sanford provided some brief comments regarding the public
comment period, and opportunities for reviewing and commenting on the draft plan.
One member of the public lives in the NW Neighborhood. Her neighborhood wants trails connecting their
neighborhood to MSU and the Regional Park. They would like to have a shared use path along Fowler Lane.
One member of the public expressed concern about the loss of the soccer fields on West Babcock Street.
The school district owns the property and will be building a new elementary school on the site. She is
concerned that soccer fields didn’t have a higher priority.
One member of the public wondered why the trail planned along South 19th Avenue stopped at the planning
boundary. She also wondered who was going to pay to build and maintain all of these trails.
Another person was also concerned about the loss of the soccer fields on West Babcock Street, and the fact
that Aasheim Fields will be used for baseball instead of soccer.
Another person expressed support for more soccer fields in the City.
One member of the public had many specific, detailed questions about Gardner Park, McLeod Park, Triple
Tree open space, private open space, etc. He will provide his written comments to Jody.
A resident of the Cascade Neighborhood Association noted that his neighborhood was able to modify the
extension of Fowler Lane. We need to get as much land as we can now because as land prices escalate, land
for parks will become increasingly scarce.
Another person wants to see more soccer fields in the City, and is concerned that it is not more of a priority.
298
2
A member of the public stated that the City is not preserving an equestrian presence in the community as
the City grows. There are many horse owners and boarding facilities along proposed trail corridors. She
wants to see the equestrian lifestyle preserved with equestrian access to trails. The corridor along Hyalite
Creek between Cottonwood Road and South 19th Avenue is especially important.
A member of the public urged the City to protect the park improvement grant money because it is critical
for park improvements. He also encouraged the City to enforce park maintenance by homeowners’
associations.
A member of the public commended the RPAB for doing a good job addressing the needs of Nordic skiers.
299
From: Kimberly Kenney-Lyden
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:52 PM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: FW: Comment on PROST
From: Locke, William [mailto:wlocke@montana.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:02 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Comment on PROST
Folks,
I am a little concerned not to see the Soccer Education Foundation (dba Bozeman Blitzz Futbol Club) not listed
among licensed user groups given our long-standing obligations with respect to the Adam Bronken Memorial
Fields, and I am a bit surprised to see Micro soccer (which is actually Blitzz MicroSoccer) listed, as our Micro
games are all on MSU fields.
With the plans for a new school on the area that is now West Babcock fields, we will be in desperate straits in the
near future for soccer fields. I note it listed as one of your priorities. If you can think of any way to address that
issue, the four soccer clubs (see www.bozemansoccer.org: Bozeman Blitzz, Gallatin AYSO, Gallatin Valley Youth
Soccer, and Montana Avalanche) as well as the adult soccer league (see www.bozemansoccer.com) will certainly
be motivated to participate!
Sincerely,
Bill Locke Past President
Bozeman Blitzz Futbol Club
Page 1 of 1
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\FW Comment on PROS...
300
From: Rachel Pollack [rachel.pollack@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:22 PM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: Draft PROST plan
We love living in Bozeman. We would like to see
z a third swimming pool
z bike lanes on city streets that are actually safe and do not have cars parked in them or driving in
them
z a bike lane along South 19th that is separated from the road by a few feet
z playground equipment in all the parks: swings, slides, teeter-totters, jungle gyms, merry-go-rounds
that you push
z wading pools for kids in the parks
z a disc golf course
z another skate park
Current so-called bike paths in Bozeman are inadequate. Simply putting up a street sign that says Bike
Lane does not create a safe lane for bikes. All major streets, to be workable bike paths, would need paths
such as those along the new section of N. 15th. Any other type of "bike path" is worthless, especially to
children. Ideally, bike paths along roads would be separated from traffic.
There are also few places in the parks system that invite teenagers to get physical activity. We need folf,
more skate parks (especially ones with levels, for beginners, intermediates, etc.), basketball hoops,
miniature golf, and other activities that appeal to teenagers.
Thank you!
Rachel Pollack
Page 1 of 1
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\Draft PROST plan.htm
301
302
•P. O. Box 7021 • 25 N. Willson, Suite E • Bozeman, MT 59771 •
• 406-587-8404 • Fax 406-582-1136 • www.gvlt.org • landtrust@gvlt.org •
Date: July 31, 2007
To: Jody Sanford, Bozeman Planning Department
Ron Dingman, Bozeman Parks Division
Sandy Dodge, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Jon Henderson, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
Joe Gilpin, ALTA Planning & Design
From: Ted Lange, GVLT Community Trails Program
Re: PROST Plan – May 10, 2007 Public Comment Draft
Overall, GVLT strongly supports the trails elements of the draft PROST plan. We believe it is a
thorough and well conceived plan to guide the growth, maintenance and improvement of our
community trails system.
Following are specific comments and suggested changes to the PROST Public Comment Draft:
Conservation Easements (Pages 5-2 and 5-3, Table 5-1 and Figure 3) – Please correct the
information on GVLT conservation easements using the information submitted separately
by GVLT to Jon Henderson and Jody Sanford.
Watercourse Setbacks (Page 8-3, Section 8.3.1) – We recommend including the UDO
citation for the watercourse setback regulations pertaining to trails. This will make it much
easier for someone reading the PROST plan to quickly find the relevant regulatory language.
Shared Use Paths (Page 8-12 and 8-13, Section 8.9.1)
o East-West Connectivity – We recommend adding reference to the fact that shared
use paths along streets like Graf, College, Kagy and Tschache can provide important
east-west connectivity for our trail system which is composed primarily of north-
south trails following stream corridors.
o Increasing Cycling – Another important point to make is that shared use paths can
help achieve the goal of increasing the number of people who bicycle to destinations
around town. Many cyclists, such as children and beginners, who are not
comfortable using bike lanes are comfortable on a shared use path.
o Surface - Asphalt vs. Concrete (Page 8-13) – GVLT believes that the type and
amount of use that a shared use path needs to serve should be an important deciding
factor in deciding whether to surface it with asphalt or concrete. Meadow Creek and
Loyal Garden are two subdivisions where concrete shared use paths are being
installed along parkland greenways in lieu of sidewalks and also in lieu of Class II
natural fines trails. We believe this is an unfortunate decision because of the high
recreational use these paths will receive as important elements of the parkland for
these subdivisions. We recommend that in this section, and in Chapter 10 –
303
•P. O. Box 7021 • 25 N. Willson, Suite E • Bozeman, MT 59771 •
• 406-587-8404 • Fax 406-582-1136 • www.gvlt.org • landtrust@gvlt.org •
Recommendations and Implementation, the PROST plan should recommend that
when shared use paths are constructed in lieu of sidewalks along parkland or open
space greenways, they should be surfaced with asphalt to accommodate the high
recreational use that these amenities need to provide.
o Coordination with Bozeman Area Transportation Plan – Because of the
complex design and safety issues involved with shared use paths, we recommend
closely coordinating the final language for this section with the bicycle-pedestrian
consultants working on the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. Additionally, rather
than include shared use paths on the appended Trail Plan Map, we recommend
appending a separate map to be developed in conjunction with the Transportation
Plan.
Street Crossings (Page 10-14, Section 10.8.5) – As with shared use paths, because of the
complex design and safety issues involved with street crossings, we recommend closely
coordinating the final language for this section with the bicycle-pedestrian consultants
working on the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan. Additionally, rather than include
detailed guidance in Appendix H, we recommend referencing detailed guidance to be
included in the Transportation Plan.
Bicycle-Pedestrian Coordinator (Page 10-12 and 10-13, Section 10.7) – GVLT supports
the recommendation in 10.7.1, 10.7.2, and 10.7.5 to hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator.
A number of larger communities around the state employ Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinators,
and with the high rate and complexity of Bozeman’s growth we believe such a coordinator
would play a key role in ensuring that our community provides high quality alternative
transportation routes and recreational bicycle-pedestrian greenways. GVLT staff work in
partnership with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, the Bozeman Area Bicycle
Advisory Board, city staff, developers, neighborhoods and other concerned parties to try to
fill this role in the absence of a designated city coordinator. However, we believe it would be
most effective for all the parties involved to work through a coordinator.
GIS Inventories (Page 10-18, Section 10.12) – We recommend correcting recommendation
7 to state: “Improve and maintain the detailed GIS-based inventories of parkland, open
space and trails in the City that have been created and are currently maintained by the
Bozeman GIS Department and the Gallatin Valley Land Trust.”
Recreational Trails Program (Page 11-2, Section 11.1.3) – We recommend expanding and
correcting the final line, replacing it with language that states, “For a number of years,
Gallatin Valley Land Trust has received $30,000 to $35,000 RTP grants annually for a wide
variety of Main Street to the Mountains trail system projects. In FY07, the city received
$79,000 in RTP funding for acquisition and development of Ice House Park on the
Gallagator Trail.”
National Forest Foundation (Page 11-6, Section 11.4.4) – This section references the
“Forest Service Foundation”. This does not appear to be the correct name for the
foundation. The correct name is the “National Forest Foundation.”
304
•P. O. Box 7021 • 25 N. Willson, Suite E • Bozeman, MT 59771 •
• 406-587-8404 • Fax 406-582-1136 • www.gvlt.org • landtrust@gvlt.org •
Trail Location (Appendix C) – We recommend adding guidance that trails should be
located at least 10 feet from back and side-yard fences to provide a buffer and minimize
conflicts between trail users and homeowners.
Signage (Appendix G) – We believe that signage is an essential part of Bozeman’s trail
system. GVLT has invested considerable resources into designing, installing, maintaining
and securing funding for signage for the trail system. We hope to continue working with the
City and other interested parties to develop an effective signage policy for inclusion in
Appendix G.
Trail Plan Map – We recommend titling the fold-out map at the back of the PROST plan
and including references to it in the following sections of the plan:
o Parkland Dedication Requirements (Page 8-9, Section 8.5.5) and Parkland
Dedication Criteria (Page 8-10, Section 8.7) – Consider including a sentence stating
that future trail corridor acquisition should be guided by the appended Trail Plan
Map.
o Goals and Objectives – Connections (Page 9-2, Section 9.1.5) – For objectives 1
and 3, we recommend adding a reference to the appended Trail Plan Map.
o Recommendations – Trail Acquisition & Development (Pages 10-12 and 10-13)
– Recommendations 10.7.3, 10.7.5 and 10.8.1 all reference the “Bozeman Area Trail
Plan”, however this title is not on the map. It would also be appropriate to include a
reference to the Trail Plan Map in Recommendation 10.7.1, especially if Gallatin
National Forest trails and County Trail Plan trail corridors are added to the map.
Trail Map – Gallatin National Forest Trails – We recommend adding the GNF trails at
the southern end of the Bridgers to the Trail Plan Map. Since a connection to the “M” Trail
is one of the long term goals for the Main Street to the Mountains trail system as stated in
Recommendation 10.7.1, it is important to include this connection point for reference.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Ted Lange
305
DATE: September 4, 2007
TO: Jody Sanford, Bozeman Planning Department
Ron Dingman, Bozeman Parks Division
Sandy Dodge, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board
Joe Gilpin, ALTA Planning and Design
FROM: Members, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board
RE: PROST Plan – May 10, 2007 Public Comment Draft
We members of the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board are pleased to provide these
comments on the draft Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) plan. In general, we
strongly endorse the trails and bicycle lane components of the plan, and all the plan
recommendations.
We offer the following recommendations on priorities and strategies for enhancing our Bozeman
area bicycling paths, trails and lanes.
1. We can’t overstate the importance of the plan’s recommendation for a Bike/Ped
Coordinator for the city. This position is critical to ensure that bicycling and pedestrian
needs and interests are well represented in city decision-making. An all-volunteer
Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board cannot be expected to keep up with and provide
input to all new planning and development issues and agendas that affect bicyclists and
pedestrians.
2. While we endorse the network of natural fines and Shared-Use trails depicted on the Trail
Map as guidance for development of new plots of land, the enormous abundance of such
proposed paths in both the developed and undeveloped parts of the planning area calls for
priority-setting. We agree with Goal 10, Objective 3, that the trail system should be
expanded in a predictable, logical and safe manner. We offer the following principles for
setting path-development priorities consistent with this objective.
a. Given that Shared-Use Paths have inherent dangers if not available on both sides
of major streets and not designed according to the recommendations of the Alta
group (Alta Planning & Design, Technical Memorandum 6/24/07 Re: Sidepath
Issues Evaluation and Recommendations), it is essential that every arterial and
connecting street have marked bicycle lanes. Bike lane demarcation should be
included in every new street development, or re-development of existing arterials
and connector streets. South 19th is an example of an arterial that is dangerous for
bicycle travel due to the lack of bike lanes.
b. The paramount need in the city is for continuity of paths and bike lanes to
facilitate bicycle travel. An example of discontinuity is where the Story Mill Spur
trail empties onto Wallace Avenue. Wallace is an excellent choice for bicycle
travel, not least because it has a stoplight at the intersection with Main, and leads
to Peet’s Hill and the Galligator trail. However, Wallace needs a bike lane. We
understand some residents are calling for traffic calming measures along Wallace.
306
These should be consistent with bicycle travel. An example of a traffic calming
device is narrower auto lanes. This would facilitate the creation of demarcated
bicycle paths along this street.
Another example of discontinuity is where the Galligator Trail encounters the
Museum of the Rockies. We urge that the plan place a priority on negotiating
with the Museum to create a way the path can allow travel across its property,
such as gates and fences to protect the living heritage farm while still allowing for
logical bicycle and pedestrian traffic flow.
c. The priority for Shared-Use Path development, where it can be accomplished in
accordance with Alta recommended guidelines, should be placed on creating safe
and pleasant routes or “linear parks” for family groups, for example near primary
recreational centers. These include:
i. Pools
ii. Peets Hill/Bogert Park
iii. 100 acre park and YMCA
iv. The “M” trail
v. Bozeman Creek trail
d. Other bike lane, trail and Shared-Use Path development should prioritize ease of
access to major commercial centers that currently cater only to automobile traffic.
Areas that need clear bicycle routes to them include:
i. Gallatin Valley Mall
ii. North Seventh Avenue
iii. Commercial area around the intersection of Oak and 19th, and north on
19th
3. We endorse the call to evaluate trail crossings for safety. An example of a relatively
hazardous mid-block crossing is where the Galligator trail crosses Garfield Street. First,
the entries onto the path offer poor visibility to assess on-coming path traffic due to
overhanging vegetation. Second, the offset of the curb cuts from the path combined with
a narrow sidewalk also makes for dangerous entry and exit onto the path when meeting
on-coming path traffic.
4. A primary concern with the development of Shared-Use Paths is discontinuity. Bicyclists
traveling along a route should not be required to transfer from on-street bike lanes to
Share-Use Paths and back and forth. West Oak Street offers a dramatic example of a
non-uniform facility that is dangerous to bicyclists and pedestrians alike. Where the city
does not have a right of way along an entire corridor (for example, Oak Street between
19th and 7th), it should not develop Shared-Use Paths in a patchwork. Bike lanes should
be the first order of business along any arterial or connector street. We propose that in
order to avoid a patchwork of non-functional Shared-Use Paths, that developers be asked
to contribute cash and secure easements, and wait for Shared-Use Path development until
the city can complete an entire corridor. The PROST plan currently recommends
revision of the City’s cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. We recommend a further
revision to allow the city to accumulate cash and easements for the implementation of
complete stretches of Shared-Use Path so as to avoid the current patchwork of paths that
actually make bicycle travel more difficult, and more dangerous.
307
From: Anna & Peter Galindo [peternanna@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:41 AM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: Input for PROST
I cannot attend the scheduled meetings but would like to offer the following input for future plans:
The town has completely outgrown Bogert Pool. It is great, but just way too small. On any warm day it
is shoulder to shoulder in the water and out (as well as parking), and there are never nearly enough chairs.
A larger pool with a larger surround including grassy areas would be great!!!! We love their programs,
but it's just completely overtaxed with users. Or maybe a second pool somewhere else to split up
demand? Missoula has an amazing new splashpark -- we drive there on weekends just to go to that in the
summer.
Also, the town needs more consistent handicap sidewalk ramps in the neighborhoods, especially the
southside. Walking and biking to school with my little kids is hard without the ramps in lots of places.
Love the trails--how about more and better connections between them (like from the south end of the
Gallagator to Sourdough trail, kids have to go in street, there isn't even a sidewalk to connect them in
places).
How about some benches at the playgrounds for the tired moms who don't want to stand the whole time
watching their kids?
Thanks and good luck!!
Anna Galindo
902 S. Third
556-7111
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Page 1 of 1
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\Input for PROST.htm
308
From: Kathy Marcinko [marcinkos@msn.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:02 PM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: input on parks plan
Hi Jody,
I am unable to attend the meeting regarding the city's park plans tonight. Hopefully you are able to accept the
following comments instead.
I am quite concerned to see that soccer fields are not specifically listed on the top ten items. The Gallatin Valley
has well over 2,000 soccer players yet we have far less fields than other Montana cities (Helena has 12 +fields.
Great Falls: 12 -16 fields. Billings: 20 fields. Kalispell: 10 fields. Whitefish: 6 fields. Butte: 8 fields). Bozeman has 4
fields at the Bronken facility and Belgrade does not have any. For the past several years, players have been able to
use the multiple use fields located on West Babcock, however, the school district plans to build soon (this spring I
believe) at this location. That will be a big loss for youth players.
With the number of youth and adult soccer players in the city, Bozeman needs to place a higher priority on
providing more soccer specific and/or multiple use fields.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
Sincerely,
Kathy Marcinko
Phoenix Engineering
211 N. Grand Ave., Suite A
Bozeman, MT 59715
406-586-3748
kathy@bridgerphoenix.com
Page 1 of 1
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\ input on parks plan.htm
309
From: Tara L. Hastie
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:18 AM
To: Jody Sanford; Keri Thorpe
Subject: FW: Westlake Park
City of Bozeman Planning Department
Tara Hastie, Administrative Assistant
P.O. Box 1230, 20 E. Olive Street
Bozeman, MT 59771
PH - (406)582-2260 FAX - (406)582-2263
From: Johnson Family [mailto:dia@montana.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:48 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Westlake Park
I read in today's issue of the Chronicle (9-19-07) that the Westlake Park BMX track is a #5 priority in your PROST
Plan. It is me recollection from a past article in the Chronicle this summer that the Gallatin Valley BMX group did
not want to be at this park anymore due to their proximity to a bar and a trailer court that generate the typical
garbage and aftermath of drunken, irresponsible adults. What type of message are we sending to the children with
such an environment?
Has any thought been put into the idea of moving the BMX track to another location, such as Kirk Park, just south of
the skateboard area? It seems to me that there is a parcel of land that sits empty at this location. Is the 100 acre
regional park west of town an option?
Westlake Park is an embarrassment to the city and there has been very little upkeep of the park over the years,
except by the BMX group, who, per the summer article in the Chronicle, don't want to be there anymore. To top it
off, there is a wonderful Children's Memorial that gets very little attention by the general public, as most don't know
this property is a city park.
Please re-think spending any more precious tax dollars on such an eye-sore. Having a park, intended for our youth
and family gatherings, does not need to be located across the street from a drug-infested trailer court, transient
camps and a rowdy, drunken bar!
Thank you for allowing me to provide you with my concerns.
Page 1 of 1
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\FW Westlake Park.htm
310
From: Thoreson, Anne [anne.thoreson@bsd7.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:45 PM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan/Kirk Park
To: Jody Sanford
From: Anne Thoreson, 320 N. 21st Ave, Bozeman, MT
Re: September 20 Park and Recreation Meeting Input
I am not able to attend the meeting tonight and would like to express some
thoughts and concerns about the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan.
-The classification of Kirk Park is listed as Community/Special Use.
When looking at the descriptions of parks, Kirk Park is just over the recommended
size of a Neighborhood Park and far less than the size of a Community Park. If you take
away the area of the baseball fields and the skate park there is only about half open green space.
I feel this would qualify the park more as a neighborhood classification. In recent years this area
has been enclosed by three very busy streets...Main, 19th and Durston and it is
closest and only green space in the area. A neighborhood park like setting must be
preserved here. Shouldn't this park be catagorized as a Neighborhood Park?
- If the Community classification is instated I feel the parkland must remain green and not
be developed further other than green space, trees, natural habitat etc.....
- When the Kirk Park MASTER PLAN was changed a few years ago by the city to allow a skate park,
the neighborhood was affected. It definitely gave a different feel to the park and has increased
neighborhood concerns. I hope that when the new county park skate park is constructed and opened
that the city will continue to maintain upkeep at the Kirk Park Skate Park OR... preferably return that area of the
park to open green park space. Continuous upkeep and monitoring will be essential at the skate park.
I would like to visit with you about these concerns.
Thank you for your time. If you would like further clarifications of these concerns I can be reached
at 586-8546.
Anne Thoreson
Page 1 of 1
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\Parks Recreation Open S...
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
From: unclekensson@gmail.com [mailto:unclekensson@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Colin Beveridge
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:39 AM
To: Ron Dingman; Sue Harkin; Ron Brey; Jeff Krauss; gary@gvlt.org
Subject: Inadquate soccer facilities in Bozeman
Dear Board,
I have only been involved in Bozeman's youth soccer community for a
few weeks but I've been pleasantly astonished at the level of
participation, the skill on display and the attitude of players,
supporters and coaches.
However, compared to other cities in Montana, Bozeman and Belgrade
have very few fields available for youth soccer, and clubs are
desperately struggling to find suitable venues to host their matches.
It would be a calamity for soccer to be suffocated in Bozeman by lack
of space; I hope and expect that the Bozeman Recreation and Parks
Advisory Board will allocate resources to develop enough soccer fields
to accommodate the more than 1000 children who play soccer in this
city.
Yours faithfully,
Colin Beveridge
4479A W Babcock St
Bozeman, MT 59718
338
From: Lisa B. Tuckerman [puck.panda@bresnan.net]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 8:52 AM
To: Jody Sanford; Ron Dingman
Subject: Comments on PROST Plan Draft
Dear Jody and Ron - Thanks for hosting last night's public comment session. Please consider these comments for
inclusion in the Final Draft of this document for the Commission on October 20th.
1. The big map should be updated with current GIS photo due out in October. It seems too much growth has
occurred since 2001 to put these lines on such an outdated map. If the new map is not ready by the October
Commission meeting, include a provision to overlay the new map as soon as its available into the document.
2. Page 3.4; Table 3.1 - Gardner Park Acreage Size. Gardner Park is a City Park; 17.72 acres, donated by Olga
Gardner in 1973. See 3 Parks Master Plan - October 1, 2003 October Meeting Report (prepared by R. Pertzborn);
Page 7.
3. Ommission - Table 3.1 - McLeod Park is not listed as either a City or County Park. Ron confirmed that McLeod
Park is a City Park; the transfer from the County completed and is 7.74 acres (created in December 1968). See
Page 14 of same report on 3 Parks Master Plan.
4. Please Fact Check page 5.4; Table 5.2, bottom line refers to a Public Access at Morning Sun Drive and Peace
Pipe Drive. I believe this is only Homeowner's access and therefore private. If there is public access on your plat
map please let us know!!
5. Page 5.9; Table 5.3 - Please clarify for me the listing of Myers 18.2 acres at Triple Tree Road. It says public
access, gravel but the parking lot there is likely just 1/4 acre and faces on Sourdough Road. So what are the 18.2
public acres and where are they???
6. Chapter 10 - The key to this Plan is Chapter 10. How can you implement this plan with no additonal human
resources? Specifically sections 10.3 and 10.9. We know the process from pre-plat to final plat and handover to
HOAs is a mixed bag at best. A much better job can be done through implementation of these sections
immediately. This way you avoid HOAs having to handle planned parks and trails in poor condition from day 1 on
transfer from the original developer.
7. Cash in Lieu System for Parks Acquisition - We all know this system is broken although well intended. I agree
we should emulate Missoula's Open Space program and focus on generating cash to purchase land. Maybe the
next county wide open space bond issue should have designated monies for on-going easement acquisitons but
also a designated $ amount for acquiring active use parks.
Thank you for verifying that since 1968 the Parks Department for 39 years has had the same 6 FTEs. This is
obscene and unsustainable as mentioned several times in the document. I am sitting on the selection committee
for 1 new FTE at this writing but would argue we need at least 2 more positions are needed immediately. Also,
there are many references to anticipation of a city wide Parks Maintenance District. Some Commissioners will not
touch this until the completion of Police and Fire hires have taken place. I would argue this will be an on-going
battle and Parks will always lose unless someone leads a public charge!!
Police Enforcement - Last week's Chronicle indicating a potential of 12 new officers on 4 different beats throughout
the City need to work with the Parks Department to patrol graffiti and vandalism areas which are costing the
underfunded, understaffed Parks Department a huge amount of time.
10 years update on the current plan was too long. Andy Epple during the Bozeman 20/20 Planning Charettes
indicated that this updated PROST Plan was timely. I would argue the old plan was insufficient to handle the past 5
years of growth. If the projections in the new plan are remotely correct, this plan may also prove insufficient in a
shorter period of time than anticipated. Please consider an mandatory review of the usefulness of the document in
a 5 year window, not 10. If its working great but if not it will behoove us to update it again sooner.
Thanks for all the work on this document and volunteer work as well to produce this comprehensive, much needed
new document. When adopted it will be a good beginning point to enhance our Parks and Open Space
opportunities.
Page 1 of 2
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\Comments on PROST Pl...
339
From: Ted Lange [Ted@gvlt.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:36 PM
To: Ron Dingman; Jody Sanford; Sandy Dodge
Subject: re: finalizing PROST
Ron, Jody & Sandy,
I wanted to follow up re: GVLT’s PROST comments.
1) Most of them were fairly quick corrections and text changes…
> watercourse setbacks – give UDO reference
> reasons for shared-use paths… E-W connectivity… increasing cycling
> GIS inventories
> RTP grants history
> National Forest Foundation
Do these look OK? Will they be incorporated?
2) GVLT conservation easements correction – This is an important correction of
inaccurate data in the current draft. I want to make sure this gets fixed.
3) Street crossings & shared use paths – Are these just going to be brief references to
the transportation plan?
4) Signage – Do we have this all figured out? I think the last draft I saw looked pretty
good to me…
5) Trail Location – I still think this is a good idea, but probably not that big a deal if you
want to leave it out.
6) Trail Map – I think it’s really important to make sure it’s labeled with a title and
referenced in the text more that in the current draft. Have you made any decisions
about where to reference it in the text?
7) Concrete vs. Asphalt – It’s my understanding that RPAB has decided to accept the
Engineering Department’s insistence on concrete – even along parks. I’ve emailed the
runners to let them know that if they really care about this, they need to show up on
the 22nd so we’ll see if any of them do. GVLT’s position is that we’d like to see some
flexibility. Something like: “Along parks and greenways where high recreational use is
expected an asphalt surface may be considered.”
Page 1 of 2
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\re finalizing PROST.htm
340
Equestrian Use – What do you guys think about having a map with a few areas shaded
indicating areas that currently have high equestrian use, and then have text stating that
when developments are proposed in these areas, accommodation of equestrian use “should
be considered”. Don’t mandate anything, but do require a discussion of the issue?
Let me know what you think?
Ted
Ted Lange, Community Trails Program
Gallatin Valley Land Trust
406-587-8404
ted@gvlt.org
www.gvlt.org
Page 2 of 2
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\re finalizing PROST.htm
341
From: Anna & Peter Galindo [peternanna@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 3:44 PM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: PROST input
Ms. Sanford,
I wanted to send a quick note as the local trails plans are being updated to express our strong interest and
desire for the city to do everything it can to support and improve local cross-country skiing trail options
and grooming. Especially in town options. Winter is long here and we don't mind a bit when we have
good, close options to ski. Maybe more trails and grooming on the in-town trail system? More
coordination with the forest service? Grooming on more than one golf course? Anything would be great!
Thank you,
Peter & Anna Galindo
902 S. Third Ave.
Bozeman
556-7111
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search.
Page 1 of 1
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\PROST input.htm
342
supprt for bozeman year-round trail maintainence
From: mcwethy@montana.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:36 PM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: supprt for bozeman year-round trail maintainence
Hi Jody,
I just wanted to say I think it's great what Bozeman is doing with the maintainence
of trails around town and especially like the opportunity to use groomed ski trails
in the winter. Keep it up and thank you,
Dave McWethy
Sauny Sewell
317 S. th Ave.
Bozeman
Page 1
343
From: FlyCastMt@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 7:38 PM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: (no subject)
Greetings
I just wanted to voice my love of Bozeman ski trails. I really appreciate all the work people do to make the ski
trails better. Thanks
Leslie Dominick
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
Page 1 of 1
10/15/2007file://Y:\DPCD Plans\2007 PROST Plan\Draft 1\Public Comment\ski trails.htm
344
my thoughts on trails in Bozeman
From: Laurie McLennan [lauriesuemt@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 11:52 AM
To: Jody Sanford
Subject: my thoughts on trails in Bozeman
Jody,
I just wanted to let you know that as a regular trail user, I'd love to see even
more trails in Bozeman if possible. I mountain bike, run, cc ski and walk with my
dogs on the trails in and outside of Bozeman. The things that I think I would love
to see would be more options for groomed CC skiing in the city of Bozeman.
Sometimes I feel pretty ridiculous to get in my car and drive anywhere from 20
minutes to 2 hours (one way) to ski for an hour or two. I could envision walking
out my door and up to Peet's hill to get on a groomed ski trail and tour around the
area stopping for a coffee along the way. Having nice groomed in-town tails would
be a huge recreational benefit to our long winters and just one more reason to live
IN Bozeman as opposed to OUT of Bozeman. We sold our house 15 minutes outside of
Bozeman and moved into town where we could walk and bike to around town. Why not
add skiing to that list? I think a lot of folks would like to add that mode of
transportation and recreation to their list without the drive on snow packed roads
and burning gas! Bozeman could become a CC skiing Mecca!
The other thing I often think about while hiking or biking on the trails is that I
never see people in wheelchairs out on the trails. The addition of paved trails
would greatly benefit people confined to wheelchairs and to hand-cyclists wanting to
escape the roads and traffic. These trails could also be used by strollers,
rolle-rbladers and people wanting another option to muddy or wet trails.
Thanks for listening to my ideas!
Laurie Jungst
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
Page 1
345