HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-07_Parks,Recreation,Open Space and Trails(PROST)Plan_2
Report compiled on November 14, 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, November 19, 2007
WORK SESSION
RECOMMENDATION: The City Commission directs staff to prepare a final draft of the PROST
Plan to present with a resolution to finalize adoption of the document.
BACKGROUND: The City Commission conducted a public hearing on the PROST Plan on
October 22, 2007. At that time the Commission voted 5-0 to adopt the PROST Plan with the
revisions listed in an October 16, 2007 memo from Jody Sanford and revisions enumerated in the
City Commission minutes.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: At the October 22, 2007 public hearing the City Commission
expressed a desire to have work session on the PROST Plan. The focus of the work session would
be on PROST Plan implementation. A memo is attached that provides additional details regarding
PROST Plan implementation.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Precise 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:
Memo from Jody Sanford dated November 14, 2007
Cost information for the City of Missoula’s aquatic facilities
Information from Alta Planning & Design regarding Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator positions
3
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 Implementation
DATE: November 14, 2007
MEETING DATE: November 19, 2007
A. CHAPTER 8 – POLICY ISSUES
Staff has three general comments regarding implementation of these policy recommendations. First, the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) makes many references to adopted facility plans, codes or
design standards for detailed implementation suggestions rather than including all of the details in the
UDO. For example, Section 18.44.010.E refers people to the Uniform Fire Code when designing dead-
end streets or Section 18.44.050 refers people to the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2001 Update
for right-of-way and construction standards for streets. Similarly, it is anticipated that the UDO would
be edited to refer to the PROST Plan to avoid repeating all of the details of the PROST Plan in the
UDO.
Second, most of the policy recommendations in Chapter 8 reflect current City practices and procedures.
However, many of these current practices and procedures are not written down anywhere and are
therefore sometimes perceived as being arbitrary. Inclusion of the City’s practices and procedures in the
PROST Plan, including the rationalization for those practices, provides greater consistency and
predictability to all involved in the development review process.
Finally, staff and the RPAB do not recommend initiating UDO edits just to include these
recommendations. Instead, these recommendations should be considered during the next round of
general UDO edits.
1. Section 8.1 - Wetlands
This section of the PROST Plan reinforces current practice. Implementation of the section will
require a minor edit to the UDO. The edit to Section 18.50.100 of the UDO would generally state
that when considering a proposal to grant parkland dedication credit for wetlands the Recreation
and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB), Wetlands Review Board (WRB) and City Commission will use
the criteria listed in Section 8.1.2 to evaluate the proposal.
4
Page 2
2. Section 8.2 - Ponds and Lakes
Implementation of the section will require minor edits to the UDO. The edits to Sections 18.50.040
and 18.50.050 of the UDO would generally state that when considering a proposal to accept a pond
or lake as dedicated parkland, and whether to grant parkland dedication credit for a pond or lake, the
RPAB and City Commission will use the criteria listed in Section 8.2.2 to evaluate the proposal.
3. Section 8.3 – Watercourse Setbacks
This section of the PROST Plan reinforces current practice. Implementation of the section will
require minor edits to the UDO. The edits to Sections 18.50.050 and 18.50.070 of the UDO would
generally state that the City does not allow watercourse setbacks to count towards parkland
dedication requirements, but that the City may accept watercourse setbacks as dedicated parkland if
part of a larger block of park (Cattail Creek is an example).
4. Section 8.4 – Cash in Lieu of Parkland Dedication Proposals
This section of the PROST Plan reinforces current practice. Implementation of the section will
require a minor edit to the UDO. The edit to Section 18.50.0300 of the UDO would generally state
that when considering a proposal for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, the RPAB and City
Commission will use the criteria listed in Section 8.4.4 to evaluate the proposal.
5. Section 8.5 – Parkland Dedication Requirements
This section of the PROST Plan makes a policy recommendation, based on the analysis and
established level of service standards contained in the document, that the City not revise the
parkland dedication requirements downwards. This section of the plan also recommends that other
innovative means of acquiring parkland, such as the creation of a charitable foundation, be evaluated
to augment the acquisition of parkland via the land development process. No action needed at this
time.
6. Section 8.6 – High Density and Infill Projects
This section reinforces current practice and no regulatory changes are recommended. It should be
noted that high density and infill projects are listed in Section 8.4 as reasons to consider accepting
proposals for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication.
7. Section 8.7 – Parkland Dedication Criteria
This section of the PROST Plan reflects current practice. Implementation of this section will require
minor edits to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The edits to Sections 18.50.040 and
18.50.050 of the UDO would generally state that when considering a proposal for parkland
dedication, the RPAB and City Commission will use the criteria listed in Section 8.7 to evaluate the
proposal.
8. Section 8.8 – Street Frontage
This section of the PROST Plan needs to be revised prior to final adoption to reflect current
practice. This section will be used to provide guidance for situations when 100 percent street
frontage may not be required, and what stipulations may apply to developments where 100 percent
street frontage is not provided (signage, fencing, etc.). This may require minor edits to the UDO in
Section 18.50.060 and Section 18.46.040.
5
Page 3
9. Section 8.9 – Shared Use Paths
Item 5 of Subsection 8.9.2 needs to be revised to indicate that shared use paths that are not provided
in-lieu of sidewalks may be asphalt, provided that the property owners association maintains them
instead of the City. The clarified requirements for shared use paths will necessitate edits to Section
18.44.10 of the UDO.
10. Section 8.10 – Phased Development
The policy recommendation in this section should be included in a new section in Chapter 18.50 of
the UDO.
B. CHAPTER 10 – RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Parkland Acquisition
1. Section 10.1.1
a. Establish an ad hoc RPAB committee, including City staff and RPAB members, to
develop a proposal for a new cash-in-lieu system.
An ad hoc committee had already been formed to discuss the cash-in-lieu valuation system. The
committee included a real estate appraiser, developers, Ron Brey, Tim Cooper, planning staff,
RPAB members and parks division staff. The committee met once, but has been largely inactive
since. The committee should be reactivated and start meeting again.
b. Seek legislative change at the state level if needed.
It’s possible that the committee’s work will result in recommendations for legislative changes at
the state level. If this is the case, it could be included in the City’s other legislative priorities.
c. Revise the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as needed.
If an alternative cash-in-lieu valuation system is developed Section 18.50.030 of the UDO will
need to be revised accordingly.
d. Use the criteria in Section 8.4.3 to evaluate cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication proposals.
This recommendation reinforces current practice. Implementation of the section will require a
minor edit to the UDO. The edit to Section 18.50.0300 of the UDO would generally state that
when considering a proposal for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, the RPAB and City
Commission will use the criteria listed in Section 8.4.3 and 8.4.4 to evaluate the proposal.
2. Section 10.1.2
a. Encourage off-site parkland dedication to aggregate and consolidate parkland
dedications, especially in currently underserved areas. AND
b. Encourage adjacent property owners to work together on development plans to
aggregate and centralize their parkland dedications.
The UDO already allows off-site parkland dedication to facilitate the aggregation and
consolidation of parkland. No additional changes, regulatory or otherwise, are recommended at
this time.
3. Section 10.1.3
a. Use the criteria contained in Section 8.1.2 when evaluating proposals to dedicate
wetlands. AND
6
Page 4
b. Use the criteria contained in Section 8.2.1 when evaluating proposals to dedicate
ponds or lakes. AND
c. Formalize the policy of not allowing watercourse setbacks to count towards parkland
dedication requirements by revising the UDO. AND
d. Use the parkland dedication criteria contained in Section 8.7 when evaluating
proposals.
Please refer to items A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.7 above.
4. Section 10.1.4
a. Maximize parkland dedication requirements allowable by state law. AND
b. Continue methods used to augment the parkland dedication or cash-in-lieu of parkland
dedication process, including grants, land donations, fundraising, etc. AND
c. 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.
Please refer to item A.5 above. Researching, developing and implementing new parkland
acquisition funding sources would involve work by the RPAB and several City departments.
5. Section 10.1.5
a. Obtain parkland through the development review process or other methods as
appropriate.
Sections 18.50.040 ad 18.50.050 of the UDO should be amended to simply state that the
PROST Plan should be consulted when making decisions regarding park use and location.
6. Section 10.1.6
a. Revise the City’s development regulations to reflect the policy contained in Section 8.10
“Phased Developments.”
Please refer to item A.10 above.
Parkland Development
7. Section 10.2.1
a. 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.
It will take some effort by Parks Division and Planning Department staff to develop a list of
parks with plans and parks without plans, and secure copies of all approved plans. However, this
task should not require any additional consideration for budgeting and staffing purposes. This
would be a great project for an intern!
b. 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.
No additional changes, regulatory or otherwise, are recommended at this time.
c. 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.
7
Page 5
The Parks Division plans to budget for the preparation of 3 to 4 park master plans in each fiscal
year. They will try to find someone who will prepare the plans at a reduced rate, or would be
willing to donate some of their time.
d. Revise and update existing individual park master plans as needed or proposed,
following the procedure described in Section 1.8.2.
No additional changes, regulatory or otherwise, are recommended at this time.
e. 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.
This is already City practice and is required in Section 18.78.060.P of the UDO.
8. Section 10.2.2
a. 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.
No additional changes, regulatory or otherwise, are recommended at this time. It’s just
something to keep in mind when siting new parks.
b. Parking lots should be provided as needed, especially when on-street parking is not
available. AND
c. Evaluate the establishment of parking requirements for parks and recreational facilities,
and include in the UDO if deemed appropriate.
This will be more of an issue where 100 percent street frontage is not provided. The UDO
should include parking requirements for parks which would require minor edits to the UDO in
Section 18.50.060 and Section 18.46.040.
9. Section 10.2.3
a. Continue to seek school district comments on development applications.
We’re already doing this. The issue has been the quality and timeliness of comments received
from the School District. Continued cooperation and dialogue with BSD#7 will help. No
additional changes, regulatory or otherwise, are recommended at this time.
b. Work with the school district to secure agreements related to joint development, use and
maintenance.
This has been difficult to secure in the past. However, a change in the BSD#7’s administration
and facilities staff may increase future opportunities. Members of the RPAB recently met with
the new Superintendent, and cooperation, coordination and dialogue are anticipated.
c. Continue with City representation on the school district’s Long-Range Planning
Committee.
We’re already doing this. No additional changes, regulatory or otherwise, are recommended at
this time.
10. Section 10.2.4
a. 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.
It will take some effort by Parks Division and Planning Department staff to develop a list of
parks with plans and parks without plans, and secure copies of all approved plans. However, this
task should not require any additional consideration for budgeting and staffing purposes.
8
Page 6
b. 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.
Educate these groups as opportunities arrive.
11. Section 10.2.5
a. Conduct preconstruction meetings and on-site inspections to ensure that parks are
being properly developed.
Section 18.78.060.P.j of the UDO already requires that a preconstruction meeting be held prior
to any park construction work and the Parks Division has been conducting preconstruction
meetings.
b. Educate the development community and contractors regarding the City’s design
guidelines for parks. AND
c. Advise developers about their park construction requirements during the development
review process.
The City has been using the Design Guidelines for some time. A reference to the Guidelines was
included in the last round of UDO edits. The inclusion of the Guidelines in Appendix C of the
PROST Plan will also increase awareness of the requirements. The Planning Department may
also consider distributing the Design Guidelines with the UDO.
d. Upgrade existing parks, as needed and as opportunities arise, so they are in
conformance with the design guidelines for parks.
This isn’t change because the City already budgets funds for park improvements. This is a goal
of having all parks meet the basic requirements outlined in the Guidelines over time.
12. Section 10.2.6
a. The location for signage should be included on all park plans.
Section 18.78.060 of the UDO should be amended to require a signage plan as part of the Park
Master Plan.
b. New signage must comply with the signage design requirements included in Appendix
G.
Compliance with the signage design requirements will be achieved through inclusion of signage
on the Park Master Plan. The Parks Division will be ordering/making the signage to ensure
consistency. Section 18.50.080 of the UDO should be amended to indicate that signage is a
required improvement for all newly dedicated parks. The Parks Division is considering using
kiosks for park signage, with a test kiosk being placed in Beall Park. The kiosks would allow the
City and neighborhoods to provide information. The kiosk signs would cost approximately
$0.00 each.
c. Install signage in existing parks as funding becomes available.
This would be an on-going budget item to provide standardized signage in all City parks without
signage. The Parks Division would encourage neighborhood organizations to purchase a kiosk
for their neighborhood park because they can use it to distribute information.
13. Section 10.2.7
a. Consult the list of recommended amenities when reviewing proposed new or revised
park plans.
9
Page 7
Page 7-31 of the PROST Plan provides a list of desirable park amenities by park type. This
recommendation is a reminder that these guidelines should be consulted when reviewing and
approving proposed park plans.
b. Install planned park amenities as funding becomes available and opportunities arise.
This isn’t change because the City already budgets fund for park improvements. This
recommendation is a reminder that the list on Page 7-31 should be consulted whenever park
improvements are proposed.
c. Ensure that all installed amenities comply with any applicable design guidelines
contained in the Appendices of this document.
Section 18.78.060.P of the UDO already requires compliance with the Design Guidelines. This
requirement would apply to improvements by the City or by developers.
14. Section 10.2.8
a. Provide street frontage for City parks and public open space in compliance with the
policies contained in Section 8.8.2 of this plan.
We’re going to stay with the 100 percent street frontage requirement which does help a lot with
parking. No additional regulatory changes are recommended at this time.
b. Parking lots should be provided as needed, especially when sufficient on-street parking
is not provided. AND
c. Evaluate the establishment of parking requirements for parks and recreational facilities,
and include in the UDO if deemed appropriate.
This will be more of an issue where 100 percent street frontage is not provided. The UDO
should include parking requirements for parks which would require minor edits to the UDO in
Section 18.50.060 and Section 18.46.040.
15. Section 10.2.9
a. Evaluate which means of dedication are available and implement as appropriate.
Ray Center, a local engineer and surveyor, is evaluating what it would take to dedicate the use of
Centennial, Soroptimist, Burke Parks and the Library land as parkland. Mr. Center will provide
the Parks Division with an estimate of how much it will cost to accomplish this. The Parks
Division has budgeted $10,000 to complete this task.
Parkland Maintenance
16. Section 10.3.1
a. Work with the Information Technology Department to develop a computerized system
and develop a process for updating information.
There is currently an effort underway to implement a GIS-based “Asset Management System”
which will include the ability to manage inventories, maintenance, and work-orders for the
Water, Sewer, Streets, and Forestry Departments. It would be very feasible to investigate adding
and maintaining park information with the same system. This solution would cost within the
range of $6,000-$8,000 depending on desired functionality, etc. (plus annual maintenance fees).
The funds spent would hopefully be recouped in increased staff efficiencies.
b. Purchase equipment to facilitate use of the system, including remote access from the
field.
The Parks Division would need to purchase at least one rugged tablet pc, similar to what is
currently being used in the Water/Sewer Department = $5,000+
10
Page 8
c. Provide Park Division employees with training to use, update and maintain the
information.
This could be accomplished with the above mentioned “Asset Management” application –
training costs may vary depending on number of users, etc.
d. 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.
City staff, including Planning and Engineering, would need to determine the correct labeling and
consistently apply the system during project review. No cost associated with this.
17. Section 10.3.2
a. As the City’s size and amount of parkland increases, increase the City’s capacity to
maintain parks with additional staff and equipment.
This is long-term consideration to enhance the Park Division’s capacity for maintenance as the
City, and the amount of parkland in the City, continues to grow. The need to repair and/or
replace maintenance equipment is on-going. The Parks Division will address this in the annual
budget process.
b. Establish park maintenance standards for facilities being maintained by the City, and
review the standards from time to time and identify areas for improvement.
The Parks Division has maintenance standards that they use. They need to update and revise the
standards as needed.
18. Section 10.3.3
a. Establish a process for review and approval of the maintenance plans by the Parks
Division.
This is a procedural item. The Parks Division is already reviewing proposed park plans which
usually include the maintenance plan. We just need to make sure that they are reviewing the
maintenance plans for all new parks that will be maintained by property owners associations.
b. Ensure that the City’s requirements for maintenance plans are adequate, and revise the
UDO as needed.
The UDO already contains detailed requirements for maintenance plans. No additional changes,
regulatory or otherwise, are recommended at this time.
19. Section 10.3.4
a. Formalize this policy in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
Section 18.72.030.D of the UDO does include parks in the list of items property owners
associations may be responsible for maintaining. However, the UDO should be amended to
require the provision of a maintenance plan whenever a park will be maintained by the
homeowners association. The UDO edit should also require that the maintenance plans be
reviewed and approved by the Parks Division.
b. Provide staff to monitor maintenance on a regular schedule to ensure compliance.
The Parks Division has not been able to do a lot of compliance monitoring due to limitations on
the availability of staff. It is hoped that the use of the GIS-based Asset Management Program
would facilitate compliance monitoring by providing up-to-date information regarding
maintenance responsibilities for each City park and by facilitating scheduling.
11
Page 9
Recreation Programs
20. Section 10.4.1
a. Conduct age specific focus groups and/or surveys of recreation needs, and develop and
implement comprehensive recreational planning for each demographic group. AND
b. Conduct program surveys. AND
c. Monitor demographic change in the community, such as population growth, changes in
household composition, population aging, income characteristics, etc. AND
d. Monitor social change in the community, such as time use patterns, lifelong learning,
environmental awareness and stewardship, technology and communications innovation,
etc.
The Recreation Department will develop a plan to accomplish these goals, and have the plan
adopted by the RPAB.
21. Section 10.4.2
a. 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. AND
b. Increase general operating budget for staff in order to provide recreation programs.
The Recreation Department will address this through the annual budget process.
22. Section 10.4.3
a. Continue and advertise existing programs to help people with affordability, such as
allowing people to volunteer in exchange for payment for recreation programs. AND
b. Design and implement additional resources to ensure affordability such as sponsorships
and donations by others in order to offer additional free programming
The Recreation Department will develop and implement a plan to address issues of affordability;
they will continue what they are already doing but strive to improve.
23. Section 10.4.4
a. Offer recreation programs to teach about different cultures and countries.
The Recreation Department will develop goals and objectives to educate the community.
24. Section 10.4.5
a. Continue to serve as a source of information for recreational opportunities in the
community. AND
b. Continue to support the RPAB’s web site, infobozeman.com as a means of
disseminating information about recreation in Bozeman. AND
c. Continue other supportive activities such as facilities scheduling, special event planning,
activity registration, etc. to support recreation groups.
These are existing activities, and this recommendation simply encourages the continuation of
these services.
25. Section 10.4.6
a. Offer recreation programs that encourage healthy and active lifestyles. AND
b. Offer recreation programs for families to enhance family relationships and teach parents
skills for recreating with their children. AND
12
Page 10
c. Offer recreation programs geared towards youth and their unique needs. AND
d. Offer recreation programs where people can improve their professional competencies by
learning new skills and gaining additional knowledge. AND
e. Offer recreation programs that encourage civic engagement.
The Recreation Department will set goals and objectives regarding how and why they’ll
accomplish these recommendations.
Recreation Facilities
26. Section 10.5.1
a. Evaluate existing recreational facilities for structural stability and renovation options.
Funds have been allocated in the FY 08 budget for a consultant to evaluate the structural
stability of Bogert Pool. Once the recommendations are provided the Recreation Division will
forward a recommendation to the City Administration that will suggest we repair, renovate or
replace Bogert Pool. A similar process will be used as need for the Swim Center and the Lindley
Center facilities.
b. Fund needed renovations.
Funds will be requested based upon the consultant’s recommendations.
27. Section 10.5.2
a. Identify and acquire land for a community recreation center, possibly through the
parkland dedication process. AND
b. Evaluate possible funding sources for land acquisition and construction, and implement
the funding option(s) identified. See Chapter 11. AND
c. Budget for staff to develop and operate a recreation center, and for on-going
maintenance of the building and its grounds. AND
d. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
Based upon recommended level of service standards, the PROST Plan anticipates that the City
will need an indoor recreation center/gymnasium by 2015 which is when the City’s population is
projected to reach 50,000. The Recreation Department has budgeted $16 million for 2016 for
construction of an indoor recreation center. It is anticipated that the land for the center would
be obtained through parkland dedication, the facility would be constructed by issuing bonds, and
the operation and maintenance would be paid by user fees and memberships. For now all sizable
parkland dedications should be evaluated for such a use.
28. Section 10.5.3
a. Identify and acquire land for aquatics facilities, possibly through the parkland
dedication process. AND
b. Evaluate possible funding sources for land acquisition and construction, and implement
the funding option(s) identified. See Chapter 11. AND
c. Budget for staff to develop and operate new aquatics facilities.
Based upon recommended level of service standards, the PROST Plan anticipates that the City
should have 3 public pools now and 4 pools by 2010. The Recreation Department has budgeted
$6 million for 2010 for construction of an outdoor aquatics center. The Recreation Department
has also budgeted $5 million for 2011 for construction of another outdoor facility. It is
anticipated that the land for these facilities would be obtained through parkland dedication, the
13
Page 11
facilities would be constructed by issuing bonds, and the operation and maintenance would be
paid by user fees. For now all sizable parkland dedications should be evaluated for such uses.
Information regarding Missoula’s new aquatics facilities is attached. Their pools are operated as
an enterprise fund.
29. Section 10.5.4
a. Evaluate existing and planned parks for siting of a new covered facility or picnic shelter.
AND
b. Amend individual park plans as needed. AND
c. Explore various funding options, described in Chapter 11, for construction of additional
picnic shelters.
As the City’s population grows, and demand for additional sheltered picnic areas also grows,
consideration will need to be given to providing additional covered picnic facilities. It might be
possible for service organizations to pay for picnic shelters. For example, the Optimist Club paid
for the shelter at the Bozeman Ponds at a cost of $0.00 (will be provided at the work session).
30. Section 10.5.5
a. When evaluating new developments and park plans, include playgrounds in all
appropriate locations.
All newly prepared park plans should be considered for inclusion of a playground, even if the
developer will not be putting the playground in. Developers should always be encouraged to
install a playground, and many will to gain a competitive edge in the current housing market.
b. Add playground equipment to existing parks as funding is available and opportunities
arise.
Opportunities for new playground equipment arise from time to time without necessarily being
funded by the City. For example, the climbing structure in Langohr Park was largely funded by
private donations. PIG funds are available for playgrounds. The Parks Division estimates that it
costs $15,000 to $25,000 for a typical playground installation. A larger playground such as Bogert
Park would cost approximately $50,000. The Parks Division will begin budgeting to replace old
playground equipment instead of renovating equipment.
c. Ensure that all new playground equipment complies with the City’s design guidelines
contained in Appendix C.
Most new playground equipment available complies with ASTM, CPSC and ADA guidelines and
specifications so it shouldn’t be an added expense in newly developing parks. Installation of
playground equipment requires approval by the Parks Division.
d. Upgrade existing playground equipment as needed and as funding is available.
These activities are already occurring. The Parks Division plans to start budgeting to replace
older equipment rather than renovating to ensure compliance with the City’s design guidelines.
e. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
As opportunities for the installation of new play equipment arise it may be necessary to amend a
park plan. These activities can typically be accommodated by existing staff and shouldn’t require
the dedication of additional resources at this time.
31. Section 10.5.6
a. Increase the number of developed soccer fields in the northeast, southwest and
southeast quadrants of the City. AND
14
Page 12
b. Increase the amount of large grassy areas all over the City for use for soccer practice.
AND
c. Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks in underserved areas for their
appropriateness for developed soccer fields and/or informal practice areas. AND
d. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
Based upon recommended level of service standards, the PROST Plan states that the City
currently should have 14 soccer fields and we only have 5 at Bronken Park. Although, it should
be noted that Bronken Park can be configured to have 10 smaller soccer fields. The community
has been relying heavily on the use of the school site on West Babcock Street, and will lose these
fields with the construction of the new elementary school. Therefore, the soccer field situation is
currently quite precarious. At this time, the most promising location for future soccer fields is
the Norton East Ranch, where soccer fields could tie into the existing soccer complex at
Bronken Park.
Staff and the RPAB are able to evaluate new and old parks for the appropriateness of soccer
fields. Staff can also ensure that a park slated for development as soccer fields includes soccer on
the master plan. The development review process results in land with amended soil and turf
grasses, so there should be little cost to the City in acquiring the land. Costs would be associated
with installation of soccer facilities which is estimated to be $2 to $4 per square foot. It would be
anticipated that the soccer user groups, representing 1,500+ kids playing soccer in the Bozeman
area, would assist with soccer field development with donated funds or in-kind donation of
labor and/or materials.
32. Section 10.5.7
a. Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks for their appropriateness for a
developed football field. AND
b. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
Based upon recommended level of service standards, the PROST Plan states that the City
currently should have 4 football fields and we only have 2. Staff and the RPAB are able to
evaluate new and old parks for the appropriateness of football fields. Staff can also ensure that a
park slated for development with football fields includes football on the master plan. The
development review process results in land with amended soil and turf grasses, so there should
be little cost to the City in acquiring the land. Costs would be associated with installation of
football-related facilities. It would be anticipated that the football user groups would assist with
field development with donated funds or in-kind donation of labor and/or materials.
33. Section 10.5.8
a. Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks in underserved areas for their
appropriateness for baseball/softball fields. AND
b. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
Based upon recommended level of service standards, the PROST Plan states that the City
currently should have 14 baseball/softball fields and we currently have 15. The possible creation
of additional fields at Aasheim Park will make things even better. No immediate action is really
needed for baseball/softball, at least none requiring funding for development purposes.
34. Section 10.5.9
a. Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks in underserved areas for their
appropriateness for basketball courts. AND
b. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
15
Page 13
Based upon recommended level of service standards, the PROST Plan states that the City
currently should have 8 basketball courts and we currently have 6. Staff and the RPAB can
review new and old parks for the appropriateness of basketball. No immediate action is really
needed for basketball courts, at least none requiring funding for development purposes. We’ve
had pretty good luck in recent years with developers installing basketball courts, at least a half
court. We should continue to encourage developers to install these facilities.
35. Section 10.5.10
a. Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks in underserved areas for their
appropriateness for tennis courts. AND
b. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed. AND
c. Evaluate possible funding sources for tennis court construction, and implement the
funding option(s) identified. See Chapter 11.
Based upon recommended level of service standards, the PROST Plan states that the City
currently should have 17 tennis courts and we currently have 5.
Staff and the RPAB are able to evaluate new and old parks for the appropriateness of tennis
courts. Staff can also ensure that a park slated for development with tennis courts includes
tennis on the master plan. The development review process results in land available for
recreational uses such as tennis, so there should be little cost to the City in acquiring the land.
Costs would be associated with development of tennis facilities which can be quite pricy. A new
asphalt tennis court would cost approximately $25,000 to $35,000 to construct and the asphalt
would have a life span of approximately 18 to 20 years. Asphalt courts need to have acrylic
resurfacing every 5 years for proper maintenance. The reconstruction of the tennis courts at
Southside Park cost approximately $75,000. However a post tension concrete slab construction
technique was used which is more expensive than asphalt; $50,000 was spent on concrete alone
at Southside. It would be anticipated that the tennis user groups could assist with tennis court
development with donated funds or in-kind donation of labor and/or materials. PIG funds were
used to partially fund the Southside Park project, and could be used for other tennis courts.
Developers should also be encouraged to install tennis courts.
36. Section 10.5.11
a. Evaluate existing parks and proposals for new parks for their appropriateness for fenced
off-leash areas. AND
b. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
There is no level of service standards for dog parks. The Snowfill site is proposed to be a dog-
friendly recreation area. A dog park is also proposed for the Regional Park. The main expense
associated with development of a dog park is fencing and landscaping. The Parks Division
estimates that it would cost approximately $7,000 for fencing, $5,000 for landscaping and $2,000
for irrigation (if needed) to create a new dog park.
37. Section 10.5.12
a. Complete improvements to Rose Park to provide a disc golf course.
It will cost approximately $150,000 to complete Rose Park. This includes the installation of a
parking lot and restroom facility. The Parks Division plans to include this project in their budget
proposal for the upcoming fiscal year.
16
Page 14
Open Space Acquisition and Maintenance
38. Section 10.6.1
a. Prepare an open space plan, including an examination of possible funding sources such
as a Citywide open space bond. AND
b. Examine other successful open space programs such as Missoula’s for ideas.
Preparation of an open space plan, which would analyze the potential for an open space
program in Bozeman, could be prepared in-house with dedicated long-range planning staff in
the Planning Department. The analysis in this plan would include an examination of other
municipal open space programs in other Montana cities.
39. Section 10.6.2
a. Evaluate which City parks or other lands would best be labeled and managed in a public
open space program rather than as City parks.
This is a very long-term consideration that is contingent upon the creation of an urban open
space program at some point in the future. No action needed at this time.
40. Section 10.6.3
a. Ensure that developers are providing adequate open space maintenance plans, and
develop a process for review of these plans. AND
b. Ensure that the City’s requirements for open space maintenance plans are adequate, and
revise the UDO as needed.
We already require this through the UDO so no changed, regulatory or otherwise, are needed at
this time. Instead, these are recommendations to evaluate, and if needed improve, the existing
system.
Trail Acquisition
41. Section 10.7.1
a. Coordinate trail planning with the Gallatin County Board of Park Commissioners, and
state and federal agencies.
b. Review the adopted “Connecting Communities: 2001 Gallatin County Trails Report and
Plan” when evaluating trail development proposals, especially on the edges of the City.
c. Support the community effort to construct a safe trail between Bozeman and Belgrade.
d. 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.
e. Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to coordinate with County, State and Federal
government representatives.
f. Implement the policies and recommendations of the Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan.
g. Continue cooperation with GVLT in trail planning.
We are largely already doing all of these activities. These recommendations suggest that we keep
doing what we’re already doing. The only new item is the hiring of a Bicycle/Pedestrian
Coordinator. It’s unknown at this time how much this new position would cost the City. Some
17
Page 15
information about Bike/Ped Coordinators, provided by Alta Planning and Design, is attached to
this memo.
42. Section 10.7.2
a. Require that the detailed information provided in subarea and neighborhood plans
include trails and trail connections.
b. Review the adopted growth policy and any applicable adopted subarea or neighborhood
plan when evaluating the proposed location of a new trail.
c. Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to evaluate new trail proposals for compliance
with the adopted planning documents.
We are largely already doing all of these activities. No additional actions are required at this time.
These recommendations suggest that we keep doing what we’re already doing. The only new
item is the hiring of a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator.
43. Section 10.7.3
a. 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.
b. Continue to work with GVLT to expand the Main Street to Mountains trail system.
c. Work with the County to connect the trail system in the City to the County’s trail system.
d. Work with property owners to secure trail easements for critical trail connections.
e. Implement the policies and recommendations of the Bozeman Area Transportation
Plan.
We are largely already doing all of these activities. No additional actions are required at this time.
These recommendations suggest that we keep doing what we’re already doing.
44. Section 10.7.4
a. Work closely with GVLT and the Bridger Ski Foundation to review proposals for new
trails.
b. 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.
c. Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
We are largely already doing all of these activities. No additional actions are required at this time.
These recommendations suggest that we keep doing what we’re already doing. Special
conditions or requirements related to cross-country skiing will need to be developed on a case-
by-case basis due to the unique aspects of each project.
45. Section 10.7.5
a. Implement the PROST Plan Trail Map as opportunities arise including development
proposals.
b. Secure critical trail connections and segments, to create longer and more usable trails, as
funding becomes available and opportunities arise.
c. Focus trail acquisition activities on connections and segments that connect community
facilities such as parks, schools, public library, etc.
d. Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to coordinate trail acquisition for the City of
Bozeman.
18
Page 16
We are largely already doing all of these activities. No additional actions are required at this time.
These recommendations suggest that we keep doing what we’re already doing. The only new
item is the hiring of a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator.
Trail Development
46. Section 10.8.1
a. Continue the City’s sidewalk installation, repair and replacement program.
b. Implement the PROST Plan Trail Map.
c. Improve existing trails and secure needed trail connections as opportunities arise.
We are largely already doing all of these activities. No additional actions are required at this time.
These recommendations suggest that we keep doing what we’re already doing.
47. Section 10.8.2
a. Edit the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance as needed.
Section 18.50.110F of the UDO already requires that public access easements for trails be at
least 25 feet in width. The only UDO amendment would be the addition of language stating that
Nordic ski trails may need to be wider than 25 feet due the size of grooming equipment.
48. Section 10.8.3
a. During the development review process classify all new trails to ensure that the proper
design guidelines are applied.
This is a procedural change for staff and the RPAB. Specifically, we need to identify the
classification of a trail at the beginning of the development review process to ensure that the
proper standards, including ADA accessibility requirements, are being applied.
b. Conduct preconstruction meetings and on-site inspections to ensure that trails are being
property constructed.
Section 18.78.060.P.j of the UDO already requires that a preconstruction meeting be held prior
to any park construction work and the Parks Division has been conducting preconstruction
meetings for trails as well.
c. Educate the development community and contractors regarding the City’s design
guidelines for trails.
This is an on-going process. Having the Design Guidelines available in the appendices of the
PROST Plan will help.
d. Upgrade existing trails, as needed and as opportunities arise, to comply with the PROST
Plan Trail Map.
These sorts of upgrades are often funded by GVLT and/or the City Parks Division. Labor is
also often provided by MCC or volunteer groups.
e. Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to ensure compliance with the City’s design
guidelines for new trail construction.
Again, this would be a new position for the City of Bozeman. Other cities in Montana have
similar positions and we could find out how much their coordinators are compensated. Some
information about Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinators from Alta Planning & Design is attached.
49. Section 10.8.4
a. Include the location for signage on all linear park plans. AND
19
Page 17
b. Design new signage to comply with the signage design requirements included in
Appendix G. AND
c. Install signage in key existing trail segments as funding becomes available.
Requiring the installation of trail signage as part of the required subdivision improvements is a
new idea. This will need to be codified in the UDO. The submittal requirements for park plans
would also need to be revised in include signage information. It is expected that the trail signage
will cost approximately $$$ (to be provided at the work session). In regards to providing signage
in existing trail segments, creative funding sources should be explored such as asking businesses,
service groups or families to sponsor a sign.
50. Section 10.8.5
a. Require that all new trail and street crossings comply with the guidelines contained in
the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan.
Guidelines for safe trail and street crossings will be prepared by Alta Planning & Design and
included in the updated Transportation Plan. Recommendation a. merely states that these
guidelines should be applied whenever new trail and street crossings are proposed. In most
instances these improvements will be paid for by developers as part of their required street
infrastructure improvements.
b. Upgrade all existing trail and street crossings, where needed, so they comply with the
guidelines set forth in the Bozeman Area Transportation Plan.
Many of the existing trail crossings will only need minor modifications, such as striping and
signage, to comply with the Alta recommendations. The City Street Department would have the
capability to do most of these enhancements, including minor physical improvements such as
crossing islands.
c. Review all proposed trail and street crossings for compliance with applicable
engineering and design standards.
This is a minor procedural change to the review process.
d. Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to coordinate safety measures for trail and street
crossings for the City of Bozeman.
As previously discussed this would be a new position.
51. Section 10.8.6
a. Provide a 20-foot building setback from parks, including linear parks.
This would require an amendment to the UDO.
Trail Maintenance
52. Section 10.9.1
a. Formalize this policy in the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance.
Section 18.72.030.D of the UDO does include parks in the list of items property owners
associations may be responsible for maintaining. No additional changes, regulatory or otherwise,
are recommended at this time.
b. Provide staff to monitor maintenance on a regular schedule to ensure compliance.
The Parks Division has not been able to do a lot of compliance monitoring due to limitations on
the availability of staff. It is hoped that the use of the GIS-based Asset Management Program
20
Page 18
would facilitate compliance monitoring by providing up-to-date information regarding
maintenance responsibilities for each trail segment and by facilitating scheduling.
53. Section 10.9.2
a. Edit Bozeman UDO to clarify that this requirements also applies to trails.
The UDO already lists trails as the sort of facility that might be subject to a maintenance plan.
However, the UDO needs to be revised to state that a maintenance plan is required whenever
trails are proposed.
b. Establish a process for review and approval of the maintenance plans by the Parks
Division.
This is largely already being done. Minor procedural changes might be needed to ensure that
none are slipping through the cracks.
c. Ensure that the City’s requirements for maintenance plans are adequate, and revise the
UDO as needed.
If issues or problems arise over time the UDO should be amended as needed. However, no
action is required at this time.
54. Section 10.9.3
a. Coordinate with GVLT, user groups, service groups, etc. to prepare a detailed inventory.
GVLT is currently doing a wonderful job in maintaining our existing trail information. Jon
Henderson, the City’s GIS Manager, recommends that we enter into a “Memorandum of
Understanding” with GVLT in order to fully explore our cooperative opportunities. This could
also be accomplished using City staff but would require additional hardware (GPS) and staff
time resources.
b. Investigate the use of interns for inventory preparation, especially for mapping
amenities.
Interns would only be needed if GVLT and/or City staff resources were not adequate, or for
minor support projects. It would be better to use GVLT and/or City staff to ensure long-term
consistency and accuracy.
55. Section 10.9.4
a. 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.
This is largely a procedural item; make sure the Design Standards are consulted when reviewing
new trails. New trails are largely paid for by developers through the development process.
Upgrades for existing trails would likely be funded by GVLT, the City and/or volunteer efforts.
b. Increase the Parks Division’s capacity for trail maintenance, including weed control.
This is long-term consideration to enhance the Park Division’s capacity for maintenance as the
City, and the amount of trails in the City, continues to grow. The need to repair and/or replace
maintenance equipment is on-going.
c. Use the GIS-based trail and trail segment inventory to improve trail maintenance.
Although this system would require an initial outlay of approximately $5,000 for a pc tablet and
some training, it is hoped that these costs would be recouped via increased efficiencies in trail
maintenance.
21
Page 19
d. Ensure that the trail maintenance plans provided by developers and/or property owners’
associations are adequate, and that the plans are being implemented.
The UDO should be amended to require the provision of a maintenance plan if any trails within
a development will be maintained by the developer and/or homeowners association. The Parks
Division is already reviewing plans for proposed trails, including the maintenance plan. The issue
is monitoring to ensure that the maintenance plans are being implemented.
e. Launch a public education campaign that includes topics such as proper bike use,
animal control laws, and proper trail etiquette.
This is a fairly low cost effort that could make a big difference in behavior. We could use PSAs,
inserts in water/sewer bills, newspaper display ads, and information posted at parks and
trailheads.
f. 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.
The City has already done some of this with park maintenance. This system would require some
administration and training, but could help with maintenance of trail segments outside of newer
subdivisions.
g. Improve trail amenities such as signage, dog stations, benches, bridges, etc. as funding
is available and opportunities arise.
It’s not expected that the City would pay for all of these amenities. Instead, community groups
and individuals can and do volunteer their time and money to these efforts. For example, a City
resident asked friends and families to contribute funds to install a dog station in his
neighborhood park to memorialize a family pet that had died. The response was overwhelming,
and he was able to fund the installation of many dog stations in many parks.
56. ·Section 10.9.5
a. As the City’s size and amount of trail increases, increase the City’s capacity to maintain
trails with additional staff and equipment.
This is long-term consideration to enhance the Park Division’s capacity for maintenance as the
City, and the amount of trails in the City, continues to grow. The need to repair and/or replace
maintenance equipment is on-going.
b. Establish trail maintenance standards for facilities being maintained by the City, and
review the standards from time to time and identify areas for improvement.
The Parks Division already has trail maintenance standards. They will evaluate the standards
from time to time and make improvements as needed.
Other
57. Section 10.10.1
a. Evaluate existing City recreation facilities and trails for compliance with accessibility
standards, and make recommendations for facilities lacking in compliance. AND
b. Allocate funds to make upgrades and improvements to existing facilities to achieve
greater accessibility. AND
c. Review the plans for all new recreation facilities, and Class I and II trails, for compliance
with accessibility requirements. AND
22
Page 20
d. Hire a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator to evaluate trails for compliance with ADA
requirements and make recommendations.
Page 6-3 of the PROST Plan describes the different classes of trails within the City. Only Class
IA and IB trails are expected to have full ADA accessibility, and Class IIA providing a high level
of ADA compliance. Emphasis on ADA compliance will be focused on newly constructed trails
and trails being constructed using federal funds. Upgrades to existing trails to achieve greater
ADA accessibility will occur as opportunities and funds become available. A Bicycle/Pedestrian
Coordinator could be responsible for being knowledgeable about ADA requirements and
ensuring compliance for newly constructed trails.
58. Section 10.10.2
a. Work with the school district to secure agreements related to joint development, use and
maintenance.
This has been difficult to secure in the past. However, a change in the BSD#7’s administration
and facilities staff may increase future opportunities. Members of the RPAB recently met with
the new Superintendent, and continued cooperation, coordination and dialogue should continue.
59. Section 10.10.3
a. Maintain an up-to-date list of user groups and contact information. AND
b. Formalize contracts with identified user groups.
These activities are already being done by the Parks Division. This recommendation is largely
related to the fact that not all groups who use City parks on a regular basis have contracts.
60. Section 10.10.4
a. 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. AND
b. Identify community resources that can help translate materials as needed, and budget
accordingly. AND
c. Budget funds to provide information in Spanish, with emphasis on larger, more
expensive items such as signage.
The emphasis on multilingual information should initially focus on safety. For example,
consideration should be given to providing playground signage in Spanish or pool safety
information in Spanish. This is not expected to be a significant cost to the City.
61. Section 10.10.5
a. Enforce City ordinances related to dogs.
b. 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.
Many of the negative comments in the PROST Plan concern pet-related issues. It is up to the
City Commission if they want to allocate resources to increase enforcement.
c. Consider revising City ordinances related to dogs to prohibit dogs from playground
areas in City parks.
Dogs seem to be of special concern around small children. This would be a policy decision by
the Commission. No action is required unless directed by the Commission.
d. Evaluate the current pet licensing program for effectiveness and efficiency, and revise
the program as deemed appropriate.
23
Page 21
There is concern about the lack of compliance with the City’s pet licensing requirements.
Greater compliance with the licensing requirements could result in greater revenues that could
fund pet-related activities and facilities. Several options to encourage licensing could be
explored, including greater fees for noncompliance and an educational campaign.
e. Initiate a public education program to inform pet owners about their responsibilities,
including pet ordinances and licensing requirements.
This is a fairly low cost effort that could make a big difference in behavior. We could use PSAs,
inserts in water/sewer bills, information provided with pet licenses, newspaper display ads, and
information posted at parks and trailheads.
f. Continue to provide dog stations in parks and trails, and provide adequate funds for
bags and waste removal.
This is an existing program. This recommendation only encourages the continuation of a
successful program.
g. Include yearly removal of pet waste from parks and trails as part of the Bozeman Clean
up Day.
This is an existing annual event. This is more an issue of encouraging volunteers to pick up pet
waste in addition to garbage, and providing adequate supplies to pick up pet waste.
h. Create a new City advisory board to work on pet-related issues and activities.
The PROST Plan has illustrated a considerable amount of community concern related to pet
issues. It might be prudent to have a group of people to focus on solving some of these issues.
There could be an ad hoc committee of the RPAB rather than a new City advisory board.
24
25
26
BICYCLE COORDINATOR
In order to create, maintain, and implement programs and polices that support world-class bike
facilities, someone within the City must take responsibility for all programs related to cycling.
Concentrating the oversight and evaluation of all programs within a single position allows the
individual holding this position to have a clear idea of all programs underway. The individual can
better understand the needs of cyclists and prioritize project requests as they occur, and clarify
communication channels by serving as a single point of access for any person, agency, or club
needing information about Dubai's cycling network.
A person in this position is typically referred to as a bicycle coordinator. In the United States,
most cities or municipalities over 40,000 people have at least one person employed in this
capacity. Larger cities like New York and San Francisco often have a bicycle coordinator and
several assistants. Additionally, United States federal law requires each state Department of
Transportation to employ someone to oversee bicycle programs and facilities for the entire state.
The person in this position also frequently maintains oversight of pedestrian planning.
An analysis of bicycle and pedestrian job coordinator descriptions from the United States reveals
common ideas and guidelines that RTA should consider when designing the new job position.
The positions analyzed came from the following agencies: Kansas City, Kansas; State of Alaska
Department of Transportation; San Antonio, Texas; Miami Beach, Florida; Mesa, Arizona;
Asheville, North Carolina; Bloomington, Indiana; Carmel Indiana; and Ada County Highway
District, Idaho.
Job Title
The most frequently used job title is "Bike and Pedestrian Coordinator" with "Bike Program
Coordinator" and "Transportation Systems Coordinator" as other common titles.
Department
The position is most commonly located within the planning division. Occasionally the position is
grouped into public works. In cases where the position is encouragement driven, the position
may answer to the marketing department or travel options department.
Compensation
Financial compensation ranges from 40K to 60K annually. Most positions require full time
work.
General Job Description
Most descriptions include text similar to the general job description laid out in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the United States Transportation Funding Bill
passed in 1991, the first year the position was required at the state level. The person in this
position is responsible for "promoting and facilitating the increased use of non-motorized
modes of transportation, including developing facilities for the use of pedestrians and bicyclists
and public education, promotional, and safety programs for using such facilities.”
27
Essential Functions
While not exhaustive, the list below represents the most commonly mentioned job functions:
Communication
Responds to questions and concerns about cycling safety and other traffic matters. Represents
the government to other municipalities and government agencies on cycling matters, prepares
and presents presentations on cycling as necessary, maintains records of the education and
encouragement programs, initiates new programs as necessary, communicates with marketing
staff to create effective educational campaigns. This communication occurs through both oral
and written means.
Manual/physical
Conducts field studies to determine suitability for locations being considered for bicycle facilities;
evaluates candidate streets for bicycle facilities, gathers necessary dimensions for signing and
striping of those facilities, follows-up on new installs, responds to traffic concerns, and field
check completed work; reviews the work product of others to ensure compliance with
procedures and regulations
Mental
Conducts research and analyzes data to perform traffic studies (i.e., traffic accident data, striping,
and signing) to make recommendations to resolve bicycle and other traffic concerns. Collects
and analyzes data on the physical and traffic characteristics of streets and intersections in order
to determine the need for traffic control devices and/or bicycle facilities. Analyzes and tallies by
location, traffic accident reports received through local law enforcement agencies. Recommends
whether bicycle facilities should be established on a particular roadway. Evaluates technical
information and statistics.
Experience
Most positions require a Bachelors Degree in Traffic Operations, Civil Engineering or Planning
plus one to three years of experience in order to meet minimum job requirements.
Knowledge and Skills
• Knowledge of transportation standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
• GIS
• Ability to understand and interpret laws, regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines,
• Familiarity with social cycling clubs their needs and desires, ability to prepare brochures,
technical reports, press releases, and educational material
• Ability to maintain effective working relationships with developers and government staff
• Knowledge of necessary computer software including spreadsheets and word processing
• Project management
• Ability to negotiate and express ideas orally and in writing
28
• Research methods and procedures
• Understanding of the interaction between transportation and land use
• Knowledge of requirements related to bicycle activities associated with bicyclists of
various ages and skill levels
• Common safety concerns related to bicycles and knowledge of situations that commonly
lead to cyclist crashes and fatalities
29