HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROST Plan Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Adopted Dec. 17, 2007 - Resolution No. 4087BOZEMAN PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS (PROST) PLAN ADOPTED DECEMBER 17, 2007????????????????????
?????
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 1-8 1.6 Planning Area 1-9 1.7 Planning Process and Public Outreach 1-11 1.8 Process for Amendment 1-13 1.9 State Law Requirements 1-16 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 3-11 3.3 Non-City/Non-County
Recreation Facilities 3-14 3.4 Land Acquisition, Development and Maintenance 3-16 3.5 City of Bozeman Parks Division 3-18 3.6 City of Bozeman Recreation Division 3-20 3.7 User Groups
3-21 3.8 PROST Survey Results 3-21 CHAPTER 4 – RECREATION PROGRAMS EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.0 Introduction 4-1 4.1 History/Background Information 4-1 4.2 City of Bozeman Recreation Division
4-2
Table of Contents Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page ii CHAPTER 4 – RECREATION PROGRAMS EXISTING CONDITIONS, CONTINUED 4.3 Partnerships 4-5 4.4 Trends in Recreation Programming
4-6 4.5 Issues and Needs 4-7 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 5-11 5.5 Partnerships 5-11 5.6 PROST Plan Survey Results 5-12 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 6-5 6.5 Partnerships
6-7 6.6 PROST Plan Survey Results 6-7 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 7-18 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 8-3 8.3 Watercourse Setbacks 8-4 8.4 Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication Proposals 8-5 8.5 Parkland Dedication Requirements 8-7 8.6 Incentives for High Density and/or Infill
Development 8-10 8.7 Parkland Dedication Criteria 8-11 8.8 Street Frontage 8-12 8.9 Shared Use Paths 8-14 8.10 Phased Developments 8-16 8.11 Financial Guarantees for Park Improvements
8-16
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 10-3 10.3 Parkland Maintenance 10-5 10.4 Recreation Programs 10-7 10.5 Recreation Facilities
10-8 10.6 Open Space Acquisition and Maintenance 10-13 10.7 Trail Acquisition 10-14 10.8 Trail Development 10-16 10.9 Trail Maintenance 10-18 10.10 Other 10-20 10.11 Top Ten Capital
Facility Recommendations 10-22 10.12 Top Ten Non-Facility Recommendations 10-23 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)
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)
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 3-12 Table 3-4: Parks Division Maintenance Activities and Standards 3-19 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
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 8-8 Table 8-2: Large US Cities Park
Acres per 1,000 Population 8-8 Table 8-3: City of Bozeman Parkland Projections – 2005 through 2025 8-9
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.
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.
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 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:
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.
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 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:
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 1-6 · 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 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 preparations 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction Page 1-7 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. 12. In parks acquired through the dedication process,
waivers of right to protest the creation of a park maintenance special improvement district (SID) should 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 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 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.
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 1-8 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 2008. 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 longrange 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. 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 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction Page 1-9 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 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. 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).
Figure 1 PROST Plan Planning AreaO Planning Area City of Bozeman Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTONHUFFINE STUCKY
BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH SOURDOUGH MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL Parks, Recreation, Open Introduction Space and Trails Plan Page 1-10
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction Page 1-11 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? 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 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?
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 1-12 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 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
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
desire for equestrian use on some trails, the need to protect park improvement funding sources and ensuring the homeowners’ associations are adequately maintaining parks. At their October
11, 2007 meeting the RPAB voted unanimously to recommend approval of this plan to the Bozeman City Commission. · Bozeman City Commission Public Hearing The Bozeman City Commission held
a public hearing on this on October 22, 2007. Six members of the public commented on the proposed plan. Comments were provided regarding the desirability of asphalt shared use paths,
allowing infill development to provide cash-in-lieu of
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction Page 1-13 parkland dedication, including equestrian facilities and trails in Bozeman’s recreational amenities, the need for
a City Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator, the need for trail signage and safe street crossings, acquiring as much as land as possible now to hedge against escalating land costs, and getting
open space bond money to spend in Bozeman. The City Commission voted unanimously to adopt the proposed plan with amendments. A final draft of the plan was prepared, incorporating all
of the amendments requested by the City Commission, and was formally adopted via resolution on December 17, 2007. 1.8 PROCESS FOR AMENDMENT 1.8.1 Amendments to the Parks, Recreation,
Open Space, and Trails Plan The PROST Plan should be reviewed and revised as needed every 5 years. 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. A 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.
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 1-14 Growth Policy Amendments Note: Length of time for review depends upon scheduling constraints. Step 1 Step 2 Step
3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Application submitted to Planning Department Application reviewed for completenes s Application deemed complete1 Application deemed incomplete Application
returned to applicant Development Review Committee Meeting #1 Development Review Committee Meeting #2 Development Review Committee Meeting #3 Staff Report prepared Planning Board public
hearing and recommendation City Commission public hearing and decision2 Notification to applicant Note: All applications will be noticed in compliance with Chapter 76 of the Bozeman
Unified Development Ordinance. 1A determination that the submittal is complete means that all required materials have been submitted, or a written narrative provided explaining why materials
are not provided or are not applicable. 2After the City Commission holds a public hearing hearing and makes a decision on a Growth Policy Amendment, they must approve a resolution amending
the growth policy at a regular meeting before the Growth Policy Amendment is completed.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction Page 1-15 Preparation of or Amendments to Individual Park Master Plans Note: Length of time for review depends upon scheduling
constraints. Submit proposal to the Parks Division1 Parks Division uses a checklist to determine if a Park Master Plan Amendment is required Master Plan Amendment is required Group prepares
a formal proposal RPAB considers the proposal, and may elect to gather additional information, seek public input and evaluate pros and cons Entire RPAB makes a recommendation on proposal
Proposal/RPAB recommendation forwarded to City Commission City Commission public hearing and decision Notification to applicant 1If a park master plan is prepared for a newly dedicated
park, as part of the development review process, plans will be submitted to the Planning Department instead of the Parks Division. The Planning Department will be responsible for scheduling
the proposal for consideration by the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board (RPAB) and and the City Commission. Group submits proposal to Parks Division1 Master Plan Amendment is not required
Group works directly with the Parks Division to implement
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 1-16 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 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, in conjunction with RPAB, would be responsible for organizing,
scheduling and providing notice for these activities with assistance from the City’s Neighborhood Coordinator. When a park master plan is being prepared for a newly dedicated park, as
part of the development review process, the plan must be submitted to the Planning Department. The Planning Department then arranges for RPAB and the Parks Division to review the proposed
plan. 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. When a
park master plan is being prepared for a newly dedicated park, as part of the subdivision review process, the Planning Department will schedule the proposed plan for consideration by
the City Commission. 4. After the proposal is approved or conditionally approved by the City Commission, the applicant must submit 2 copies of the new or amended park master plan to
the Parks Division. The copies go the Parks Division if it’s a new or amended park master plan for an existing park. The copies go to the Planning Department if it’s a park master plan
for a newly dedicated park created through the development review process. 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. When a park master plan is being prepared for a newly dedicated park, as part of the subdivision review process, the Planning Department
will prepare a resolution and schedule it for City Commission consideration. 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Introduction Page 1-17 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 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 term protection, is
Introduction Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 1-18 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. 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.
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.
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 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.
Figure 2 Streams & Ditches O City of Bozeman Planning Area Ditch Stream Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTONHUFFINE
STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH SOURDOUGH MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Community Profile
Page 2-3
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 outmigration 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
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.
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 Bu
reau. 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 2 0.0% 4 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 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 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 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 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 1930 1940 1960 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.
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 22.724.3 28.1 30.3 29.230.7 29.9 25.2 23.6 24.6 28.029.6 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 Year Median 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.
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 singlehousehold
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-1 Parks/Recreation Facilities ExistingC CHoAnPdTitEioRn 3s 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:
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 667 acres of park within the City of Bozeman, and another 166 acres of County park within the
planning area, for a total of approximately 833 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.
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 P x x x RECYCLING
CENTER BABCOCK 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 1 C x x x x C x x BEALL ART CENTER BOGERT 7.4915 S CHURCH AVE & BOGERT PL Public City C x 1 1 W x P x x x C x x 2 x x PAVILLION, STAGE BOZEMAN POND 16.5 HUFFINE
LN & FOWLER AVE Public FWP C x x x x P P x x C/V x x 2 x 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 City S/O x W x P x C 5 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
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 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 G x x x V x x 2 x FISHING FERGUSON MEADOWS, PARK 1 0.6 CASCADE ST & MINERAL AVE/SANDERS DR Public 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 17.72 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 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/S x 2 1 x W P x 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/S x 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
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 C x P x 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/S x 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/S x x 2 C x x x C x 3 SPORTS
COMPLEX 28.8154 HAGGERTY LN Public City S x 5 x x C P x 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 W x 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
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 667.3 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 Irrigation Legend: W – Well; C – City water Parking Lot Legend: G – Gravel; P – Paved Restroom Legend: C – City sewer; V -Vault
Notes: 1. Park acreages were obtained from subdivision final plats on file in the Bozeman Engineering Department. Where no final plat figures were available, the City’s GIS system was
used used to calculate park acreages. This inventory includes all parks in the City on December 31, 2005. 2. 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.
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 xNONE BRIARWOOD HILLS 1.2900 BRANDON TRAIL RD PUBLIC N x x DITCH BUCKSKIN WILLIAMS 10.2200 WAGON BOSS DR & ANNETTE PARK DR PUBLIC N x x x P x xDITCH BURKE,
PART 3 0.8349 S CHURCH AVE PUBLIC O x x x x G x x SLEDDING HILL CASHMAN 0.9884 BOGART DR PUBLIC N DITCH 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 xSTREAM, 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
RD PUBLIC N x x DITCH MCLEOD 7.7400 SUNDANCE DRIVE PUBLIC O x x x x x xSTREAM MINDER 3.2015 CHESTNUT GROVE AV PUBLIC N x x P x x xLAKE NASH 19.1070 NASH RD & S 3RD AVE PUBLIC N x x x
x x NORDTVEDT 1.4540 ERIK DR & DONEGAL DR PUBLIC Nx xP x PAINTED HILLS TRAIL 24.6810 BOZEMAN TRAIL RD PUBLIC L x G x x SEASONAL STREAM 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 VALLEY CENTER 6.3890 STUBBS LN & DURANGO LN PUBLIC N x x 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 166.0 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 Notes: 1. Park acreages were obtained from Gallatin County’s parkland inventory that was prepared in 2005
by County staff. This inventory includes all County parks within the Planning Area included in the 2005 inventory.
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. Bogert Park, an example of a Community 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-9 · 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. Bronken Park, an example of a Special Use Park 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 communitywide 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 trails, and nature viewing and study. They can also
function as greenways. Development should be kept to a level that preserves the integrity of the resource. Tuckerman and Burke Parks are examples of Natural Areas/Open Lands.
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-10 Tuckerman Park, an example of a Natural Area/Open Lands Park 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. Gallagator
Trail, an example of a Linear Park
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-11 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. East Gallatin Recreation Area, an 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.
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-12 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. 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-13 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 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
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-14 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 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. Beall Park Recreation Center 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:
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-15 · High school gym and track; · Chief Joseph/Sacagawea Middle Schools gyms, softball
fields and tennis courts; · Elementary school gyms, playgrounds and ice skating rinks; · 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 nonschool 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. 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)
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-16 · 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 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-17 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. 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
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-18 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; · 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-19 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 $1,800 per acre of park for all City park acreage (667).
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 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
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-20 Operations and Maintenance Services Level of Service Standards 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. 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
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Page 3-21 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 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.
Parks/Recreation Facilities Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 3-22 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. 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Page 4-1 Recreation Programs ExistingC CHoAnPdTitEioRn 4s 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 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
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.
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.
The Recreation Department administers the T-ball program (photo by Bruce Pitcher Photography) 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 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
Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 4-4 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
Recreation Division organizes the Sweet Pea Children’s Run during the annual Sweet Pea Festival 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Page 4-5 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. The Recreation Division
has seen increases in attendance for preschool programs such as this soccer class for 2 and 3 years olds 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
Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 4-6 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 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 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
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Page 4-7 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 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 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.
Recreation Programs Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 4-8 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 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions Page 5-1 Open Space ExistingC CHoAnPdTitEioRn 5s 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.
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 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.
O Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTON HUFFINE STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH SOURDOUGH
MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 5-3 OpeFnigSupraece3and Conservation Easements Open Space Existing Conditions Planning
Area Open Space Gallatin Valley Land Trust Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Montana Land Reliance Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation City of Bozeman
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 5-4 LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTS Laramie 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 area Durham Ave
0.0371 Public City Parcel Drainage area Durham Ave & Springbrook Ave 0.3867 Public City Parcel Drainage area Springbrook Ave & Harmon Wy 0.0653 Public City Parcel Drainage area Harmon
Wy & New Holland Dr 0.0653 Public City Parcel Drainage area Durston Rd & Mineral Ave 0.1041 Private Private Parcel Stormwater detention Mineral Ave & Toole St 0.1125 Private Private
Parcel Stormwater detention Cascade St & Mineral Ave 0.1115 Private Private Parcel Stormwater detention Ferguson Ave & Toole St & Durston Rd 0.3186 Private Private Parcel Common open
space for stream & ditch Ferguson Ave & Toole St & Cascade St 0.3156 Private Private Parcel Common open space for stream & ditch Ferguson Ave & Cascade St & W Babcock St 0.4895 Private
Private Parcel Common open space for stream & ditch Ferguson Ave 0.3660 Private Private Parcel 60' utility/public access easement Kimball Ave 0.1740 Private Private Parcel 60' utility/public
access easement Cascade St & Clifden Dr & Stafford Ave 0.0947 Private Private Parcel 30' utility/public access easement Cascade St & Clifden Dr & Stafford Ave 0.0944 Private Private
Parcel 30' utility/public access easement Fowler Ave & Ravalli St 0.2190 Public Private Easement 10' wide pedestrian & bicycle trail easement W 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 space Rogers Wy & Rose Ct 0.0727 Public Private Parcel Common open space & public access easement Rogers
Wy 0.0370 Public Private Parcel Common open space & public access easement Peace Pipe Dr & Graf St & Little Horse Dr 13.8732 Private Private Parcel Common open space Morning Sun Dr &
Peace Pipe Dr 3.3576 Private Private Parcel Common open space Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions Page 5-5 LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTS Peace Pipe Dr & Little Horse Dr & Rain Roper Dr 12.0484
Private Private Parcel 20' perpetual public easement; pedestrian use only N 19th Ave & Tschache Ln 0.8191 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway common open space wasement N 19th
Ave & Commerce Wy 0.6876 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway common open space wasement Simmental Wy and Dead Man's Gulch 0.6375 Public Private Parcel S 22nd Ave & Remington
Wy & W Kagy Blvd 0.7101 Private Private Parcel Ditch Huffine Ln & Auto Plaza Dr 3.1321 Public Private Parcel 15' wide public access trail & bike path easement Competition Dr 0.1709 Public
Private Easement Open space Auto Plaza Dr & Competition Dr 0.6515 Private Private Parcel Open space Auto Plaza Dr 0.4348 Private Private Parcel Open space Cottonwood Rd & Auto Plaza
Dr 0.3028 Private Private Parcel Open space Cottonwood Rd & Fallon St 0.2315 Private Private Parcel Open Space S Black Ave & E Story St 0.1360 Private Private Parcel Private open space
S Black Ave & E Story St 0.0552 Public Private Easement Pedestrian easement Farmall 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 Bozeman
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 5-6 LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTS Stanford Dr & Wagonwheel Rd 1.3388 Private Private
Parcel Drainage easement Oxford 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 walking Greek Wy & Faculty Ct 0.0239 Public Private
Easement Easement for walking Greek Wy & S 3rd Ave 0.0184 Public Private Easement Easement for walking Greek Wy 0.0160 Public Private Easement Easement for walking Gallatin Park Dr 0.1558
Private Private Parcel Utility easement Gallatin Park Dr 1.7074 Private Private Parcel Gallatin Park Dr 2.0979 Private Private Parcel Utility easement E Valley Center Rd & N 19th Ave
1.5692 Private Private Easement 50' public greenway corridor Westridge Dr 0.1800 Public Private Easement 15' trail easement Evergreen Dr 5.5332 Private Private Parcel Common open space
with private road within the open space W College St 0.9763 Public Private Parcel Common area Blackbird 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 easement N 15th Ave 0.7269 Private Private Parcel Oak St & N 19th Ave 2.2125 Public Private Easement 50' greenway easement McIlhattan Rd 0.4549 Public
Private Easement Trail easement Par Ct & Birdie Dr 0.4844 Public Private Parcel 20' common open space & public linear trail corridor easement Boylan Dr 0.3366 Public Private Easement
20' public linear trail corridor easement Boylan Dr & Story Mill Rd 0.1730 Private Private Parcel Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions Page 5-7 LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTS Equestrian Ln 0.0175 Public Private Easement Utility
easement & pedestrian walkway Equestrian Ln 0.0185 Public Private Easement Utility easement & pedestrian walkway Equestrian Ln & Vaquero Pkwy & Caballo Ave 0.0105 Public Private Easement
Utility easement & pedestrian walkway Equestrian Ln & Vaquero Pkwy & Caballo Ave 0.0113 Public State Easement Utility easement & pedestrian walkway Baxter 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 easement Research Dr 1.8373 Private Private Parcel Parking lot Ravalli St & E Granite Ave 0.0711 Private Private Parcel Common open space Granite Ave & Fallon
St 0.0559 Public Private Easement 10' pedestrian walkway trail easement Huffine Ln & Ferguson Ave 1.1285 Public Private Easement Pedestrian easement Valley Common Dr & Ginella Wy 0.2397
Private Private Easement 40' common open space easement Mathew Bird Cir & Graf St 4.0517 Private Private Parcel Detention ponds, 20' public pedestrian access easement Graf 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 easement Graf 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 space N 14th Ave & N 15th Ave 0.4642 Private Private Parcel Access/parking/landscaping Oak St & N 14th Ave & N 15th Ave 2.0714 Private
Private Parcel Access/parking/landscaping N 14th Ave & N 15th Ave 1.2704 Private Private Parcel Access/parking/landscaping Matheson 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 easement Matheson Wy & Roy St 0.0142 Private Private
Easement 15' pedestiran easement Village 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 Bozeman
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 5-8 LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTS Village 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 easement N 19th Ave & W Stevens Wy 1.2348 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway corridor/common
open space easement W Stevens Wy & N 19th Ave 0.4571 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway corridor/common open space easement N 19th Ave & N 22nd Ave 0.1743 Public Private Easement
50' public greenway corridor/common open space easement N 19th Ave & N 22nd Ave & Durston Rd 1.0691 Public Private Easement 50' public greenway corridor/common open space easement Oak
St & Maplewood St 0.1183 Public Private Easement 35' public stream corridor/common open space easement Maplewood St & Windsor St 0.8545 Public Private Easement 35' public stream corridor/common
open space easement Windsor St & N 22nd Ave 0.2498 Public Private Easement 35' public stream corridor/common open space easement Fallon St & Ferguson Ave 1.0903 Public Private Easement
30' linear park/trail easement Fallon St & Ferguson Ave 2.4110 Public Private Easement 30' linear park/trail easement Stillwater Creek Dr 0.7386 Public Private Easement 30' linear linear
park/trail easement Overbrook 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 trail Baxter Ln & Tschache Ln 1.7246 Public Private Easement 70' waterway & pedestiran trail easement N 19th Ave & Tschache Ln & Baxter Ln 1.9479
Public Private Easement 50' greenway Highland Blvd 0.1708 Public Private Easement 10' pedestrian access Gallatin Center development 0.2578 Public Private Easement 75' public open space/linear
trail Max Ave & Burke St 0.1352 Public Private Easement 25' public utility & sidewalk access easement Max Ave & Burke St 0.3463 Public Private Easement 25' public utility & sidewalk
access easement Catron St 1.2444 Public Private Easement 75' public open space/linear trail easement Gallatin Center development 0.5778 Public Private Easement 20' utility/linear trail
easement Valley Center Rd & Catron St 0.7705 Public Private Easement 50' public open space/linear trail easement Valley Center Rd 0.8757 Private Private Parcel Common area for stormwater
retention facilities Valley Center Rd 0.4524 Public Private Easement 12' pedestrian easement to be within 50' of Valley Center ROW Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City
of Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions Page 5-9 LOCATION ACRES ACCESS OWNERSHIP TYPE COMMENTS N 15th Ave & Oak St 0.2921 Public Private Easement
25' pedestrian easement Sourdough Rd 0.2277 Public Private Easement 20' trail corridor easement Broadwater St & Meagher Ave 0.0575 Private Private Parcel Common open space Meagher Ave
0.0521 Private Private Parcel Common open space W Babcock St 0.1244 Private Private Parcel 10' wide access easement between common open spaces Broadwater St & Choteau Ave 0.0493 Private
Private Parcel Common open space Meagher Ave 0.0843 Private Private Parcel Common open space Meagher Ave 0.0402 Private Private Parcel Common open space TOTAL 127.4649 Notes: Open space
acreages were obtained from subdivision final plats on file in the Bozeman Engineering Department. Where no final plat figures were available, the City’s GIS system was used to calculate
open space acreages. This inventory includes all open space in the City on December 31, 2005. Table 5-2: Inventory of Open Space within the City of Bozeman NAME ACRES ACCESS LOCATION
PARKING COMMENTS Franklin Hills Subdivision 5.0200 Public Brandon Trail Rd & Dulohery Ln Access is not obvious Manley Meadows 0.0000 Public Mcilhattan Rd Meadowbrook Estates 0.7386 Public
Dogwood Dr Paved Subdivision buffer Myers 18.2000 Public Triple Tree Rd Gravel Rae Subdivision 0.0847 Public Chestnut Grove Ave Condo's backyard Rae Subdivision 0.0000 Public Dogwood
Dr Well location Stonegate Subdivision 3.0590 Public Mcilhattan Rd & Barclay Dr Valley Center Subdivision 6.3890 Public Stubbs Ln & Durango Ln Walker Property 21.2050 Public Campbell
Rd & Springhill Rd TOTAL 54.6963 Notes: Table 5-3: Inventory of County Open Space within the Planning Area Open space acreages were obtained from Gallatin County’s open space inventory
that was prepared in 2005 by County staff. This inventory includes all County open spaces within the Planning Area that were included in the 2005 inventory.
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 5-10 Private open space in Sundance Springs, a residential planned unit development subdivision Private
open space in the Valley Commons Business Park, a commercial planned unit development subdivision
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Open Space Existing Conditions Page 5-11 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
openspace 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
Open Space Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 5-12 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Trails Existing Conditions Page 6-1 Trails ExistingC CHoAnPdTitEioRn 6s 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 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.”
ExiFsitginugreTr4ails O Class I Trails Class II -IV Trails Planning Area Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTONHUFFINE
STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH SOURDOUGH MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL Trails Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan
Page 6-2
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 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.
Trails Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 6-4 Trails in Burke Park 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
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Trails Existing Conditions Page 6-5 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. Trailhead in the New Hyalite View Subdivision 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
Trails Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 6-6 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. 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
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Trails Existing Conditions Page 6-7 map allowed the group to better view existing trails, and determine where future trails are needed for
connections. 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 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.
Trails Existing Conditions Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 6-8 Story Mill Spur Trail Shared use path along South 3rd Avenue
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-1 SeCrvHicAeP LTeEvRe l7s 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
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.
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.
Developed NFiegiugrheb5orhood Parks Service Area in the NE Quadrant O City of Bozeman Planning Area Service Area for Developed Neighborhood Parks Developed Neighborhood Parks Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan STORY MILL MCILHATTAN ROUSE MAIN MOUNT ELLIS BRIDGER CANYON Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 7-4MANLEY
GRIFFEN N 7TH OAK PEACH I-90
Developed NFiegiugrheb6orhood Parks Service Area in the SE Quadrant O Service Area for Developed Neighborhood Parks Developed Neighborhood Parks Planning Area City of Bozeman Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan SOURDOUGH S CHURCH NASH TAYABESHOCKUP KAGY Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-5 GOLDENSTEIN S 3RD HIGHLAND
MAIN S 8TH WILLSON
Developed NFiegiugrheb7orhood Parks Service Area in the SW Quadrant OCity of Bozeman Planning Area Developed Neighborhood Parks Service Area for Developed Neighborhood Parks Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan CHAPMAN PATTERSON S 19TH STUCKEYService Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 7-6 BLACKWOOD GOOCH HILL HUFFINE COTTONWOOD
JOHNSON FOWLER KAGY LINCOLN
Developed NFiegiugrheb8orhood Parks Service Area in the NW Quadrant O City of Bozeman Planning Area Developed Neighborhood Parks Service Area for Developed Neighborhood Parks Bozeman
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails PlanHARPER PUCKETT I-90 DAVIS OAK FLANDERS MILL CATAMOUNT Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-7 BAXTER FERGUSON
DURSTON N 19TH HUFFINE MAIN COTTONWOOD
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 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.
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
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 playground fort (see Helena's new fort at Memorial Park) · Need playgrounds for grandchildren. · Playground equipment at Bogert Park
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ [ [ [ [ DevelopFeigduPrleay9grounds NE Quadrant O City of Bozeman Planning Area Service Area for Playgrounds ^ City Playground [School Playground Bozeman Parks, Recreation,
Open Space and Trails Plan STORY MILL MCILHATTAN ROUSE MAIN MOUNT ELLIS BRIDGER CANYON Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-11 MANLEY GRIFFEN N 7TH OAK
PEACH I-90
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ [ [ [ [ [ DevelopFiegdurPela1y0grounds SE Quadrant O City of Bozeman Planning Area Service Area for Playgrounds ^ City Playground [School Playground Bozeman Parks,
Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan SOURDOUGH S CHURCH NASH TAYABESHOCKUP KAGY Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 7-12 GOLDENSTEIN S 3RD HIGHLAND MAIN
S 8TH WILLSON
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ [[ [ DevelopFiegdurPela1y1grounds SW Quadrant OCity of Bozeman Planning Area Service Area for Playgrounds ^ City Playground [School Playground Bozeman Parks, Recreation,
Open Space and Trails Plan CHAPMAN PATTERSON S 19TH STUCKEY Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-13 BLACKWOOD GOOCH HILL HUFFINE COTTONWOOD JOHNSON FOWLER
KAGY LINCOLN
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ [ [ [DevelopFiegdurPela1y2grounds NW Quadrant OCity of Bozeman Planning Area Service Area for Playgrounds ^ City Playground [School Playground Bozeman Parks, Recreation,
Open Space and Trails PlanHARPER PUCKETT I-90 DAVIS OAK FLANDERS MILL CATAMOUNT Service Levels Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 7-14 BAXTER FERGUSON DURSTON N 19TH
HUFFINE MAIN COTTONWOOD
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.
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 667 acres of City parkland, the maintenance staff per acres
of maintained parkland would be 1 : 32. 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.
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.
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 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 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 northeast, southwest, and southeast quadrants 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.
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 0 65 yds x 100
yds or more 16 11 0 0 44 10 4 12 0 0 9.7 5 Total 35 14 29 0 44 28 7 38 7 2 20.4 5 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 : 6,332 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 baseball Softball & 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.
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 pools 0 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/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
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. Additional fields are planned at the regional park and at Aasheim 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
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?”
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 to include a skatepark in the regional park.
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 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.
" O Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTON HUFFINE STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH SOURDOUGH
MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-25 Soccer FFiiegldurSee1rv3ice Area 2 Mile Service Radius " City
of Bozeman Planning Area " Bronken Park
$% # ! " ' O Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTONHUFFINE STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH
SOURDOUGH MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL STORY MILL Parks, Recreation, Open Service Levels Space and Trails Plan Page 7-26 Baseball/SoftFbiaglulrFeie1ld4 Service Area ½ Mile Service Radius
BRIDGER CANYON ' Christie Fields ! Aasheim Fields " Kirk Park # North Grand Fields $ Sports Complex 1 % Sports Complex 2 Planning Area City of Bozeman
! # ' $ % " O Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTON HUFFINE STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER
NASH SOURDOUGH MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-27 BasketballFCigouurert1S5ervice Area ½ Mile Service
Radius City of Bozeman Planning Area Basketball Courts ! Beall Park " Bogert Park # Harvest Creek $ Kirk Park % North Meadows Park ' Valley Unit Park
" ! # City of Bozeman Planning Area # Chief Joseph Middle School ! Bogert Park " Southside Park O Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH
HILL BAXTER DURSTONHUFFINE STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH SOURDOUGH MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL Parks, Recreation, Open Service Levels
Space and Trails Plan Page 7-28 Tennis CFoiguurtreSe1r6vice Area ½ Mile Service Radius "
" ! O Bozeman Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTON HUFFINE STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH SOURDOUGH
MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Service Levels Page 7-29 VolleyballFCigouurret S1e7rvice Area ½ Mile Service Radius
City of Bozeman Planning Area ! Bozeman Ponds " East Gallatin Recreation Area
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 and soccer fields. 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 and soccer fields. 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 5 14 17 21 27 35 Football 1 : 8,000 2 4 5 6 8 11 Baseball/softball
1 : 2,500 15 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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. Protected wetlands in dedicated parkland in Cattail
Creek
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 8-2 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. 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues Page 8-3 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. 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 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.
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 8-4 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 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). The City would accept the dedication of watercourse setbacks if part of a larger
park area like in Kirk Park
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues Page 8-5 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. However, the City will allow watercourse setback be dedicated
to the City as parkland if part of a larger park area. The City also 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. Finally, 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-inlieu 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 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.
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 8-6 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 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 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. 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
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues Page 8-7 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-inlieu 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 18.7 acres of park for every 1,000 City residents. According to to Table 8-1, Bozeman’s park acres per 1,000 population is the same as the average of
18.7 acres per 1,000 population for 5 of Montana’s largest and fastest growing cities (Billings, Bozeman,
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 8-8 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 667 (2005) 35,750 (2005) 18.7 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 29,686 (2005) 20.2 Average 864 70,837 14.2 Average of Montana cities 954 47,743 18.7 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 14.2 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 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues Page 8-9 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 15,336 667 18.7 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 18,894 757 17.7 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 24,115 889 16.3 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 1,056 15.2 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 1,103 12.4 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.
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 8-10 As shown in Table 8-3, it is estimated that Bozeman will have approximately 1,103 acres of park, or 12.4 acres of
park per 1,000 population, by 2025 if the current parkland dedication requirements remain in place. The 12.4 acres of park per 1,000 population in 2025 is slightly less than the current
average park acres per 1,000 population of 14.2 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 18.7 acres of park per 1,000 population. By
2025, this ratio is expected to decrease to 12.4 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 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues Page 8-11 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.
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 8-12 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues Page 8-13 · 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. Cooper Park is an example of a park with 100 percent street frontage which is the City’s
standard for street frontage 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 The City’s current requirement of street frontage along 100 percent of its perimeter on public or
private streets of roads should remain in effect. The City may consider and approve a park with less than 100 percent, but not less than 50 percent, of the perimeter when it is necessary
due to topography, the presence of critical lands, or similar site constraints. If less than 100 percent perimeter frontage
is provided, the following additional requirements should be considered: 1. Additional land should be provided in the park to provide the parking not being provided on street. This
may necessitate the development of park parking requirements. Land used for a park parking lot should not count towards the parkland dedication requirement.
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 8-14 2. 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. 3. Direct pedestrian access should be provided to the park perimeters that lack street frontage. 4. 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 must comply with Parks
Division specifications. Street frontage for private open space should 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. 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 users such as adults on bikes, skateboarders who are generally restricted from standard sidewalks, and for children and beginner
bicyclists who may not feel comfortable using a bike lane. 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. Because shared use paths require ample street right-of-way, and due to development constraints throughout the City, the system of shared
use paths 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues Page 8-15 · 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. Shared use path along North 19th Avenue 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. 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.
Policy Issues Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 8-16 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 whenever provided in-lieu of a City standard
sidewalk. Shared 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. 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. 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
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Policy Issues Page 8-17 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 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, and
installing an underground irrigation system. Required improvements could also include improvements required by the City Commission as a condition of approval. A new playground in the
Valley West Development
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 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.
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.
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.
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, selfreliance, 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.
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 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.
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. · 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.
· 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 “Phased Developments.” 10.1.7 Recommendation Provide public access to parks owned
by homeowners’ associations as County parks are annexed to the City of Bozeman. Implementation Strategies · 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-3 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. · 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.
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-4 · 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. · 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-5 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. 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. 10.2.10 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 Strategies · 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. 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.
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-6 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. 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-7 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. . 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.
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-8 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. 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-9 · 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. Picnic shelter at the Bozeman Ponds
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-10 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. Playground at Kirk Park 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-11 · 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. Baseball diamond at Aasheim Fields
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-12 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. Basketball court at Valley Unit Park 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-13 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. The dog beach at Bozeman
Ponds 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.
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-14 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-bycase 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-15 · 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. · 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. · Amend individual park plan(s) as needed.
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-16 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. 10.7.6 Recommendation Provide public access
to trails owned by homeowners’ associations as developments containing trails are annexed to the City of Bozeman. Implementation Strategies · 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. 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-bycase basis. Implementation Strategies · Edit the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance as needed.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-17 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. · 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. Standardized trail signage is needed to ensure visibility, accessibility, usability and
safety
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-18 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. 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-19 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. Trail amenities, such as this
bridge in Valley West, should be inventoried in the City’s GIS-based asset management system 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 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.
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-20 · 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.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-21 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-pet-related issues and activities. 10.10.6 Recommendation Address vandalism and graffiti in City parks.
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-22 Implementation Strategies · Increase police patrols of City parks. · Implement patrol beats
to allow an officer to be more familiar with neighborhoods and citizens in their assigned area; to promote community oriented policing; and give officers opportunity for more focused
preventative patrols, building checks and traffic enforcement. 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.
All estimated costs are presented in 2007 dollars. · Complete development of Rose Park Estimated cost: $155,000 to complete restrooms; install an asphalt parking lot with curb and gutter;
landscaping such as berms, soil and seeding; and installation of power. Possible funding source: general fund, park improvement grants, private donations · New aquatics center Estimated
cost: $6 million (does not include the cost of land) Possible funding source: general obligation bonds, user fees, foundation · Multipurpose community recreation center Estimated cost:
$16 million (does not include the cost of land) Possible funding source: general obligation bonds, user fees, memberships, impact fees, foundation · BMX facility at Westlake Park Estimated
cost: $110,000 to complete restrooms; install an asphalt parking lot with curb and gutter; and installation of power. Possible funding source: general fund, park improvement grants,
private donations · New outdoor swimming pool on the west or northwest side of the City Estimated cost: $5 million (does not include the cost of land) Possible funding source: general
obligation bonds, user fees, foundation · Tennis courts to increase the City’s level of service Estimated cost: $75,000 to construct one new court with sub-grade, concrete, acrylic surfacing,
fencing, nets and posts (does not include the cost of land). Economies of scale accrue from constructing multiple courts at one time. Possible funding source: general fund, special improvement
district, impact fees, park improvement grants, user groups, private donation, foundation
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Recommendations and Implementation Page 10-23 · Off-leash dog parks Estimated cost: $35,000 to 45,000 depending on amenities, includes fencing,
landscaping, water service, irrigation system, benches, surfacing and dog stations (does not include the cost of land). Possible funding source: general fund, special improvement district,
impact fees, park improvement grants, user groups, private donation, foundation · Playground equipment so all homes are within ¼ mile of a playground Estimated cost: $25,000 for a small
installation and up to $50,000 for a large one like Bogert Park Possible funding source: general fund, special improvement district, impact fees, park improvement grants, private donation,
foundation · Multiuse fields (soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse, etc.) Estimated cost: $ $1.00 to 2.50 per square foot (depending on the need for amended soils) which includes seeding,
rough grade, irrigation system and fertilization (does not include the cost of land) Possible funding source: general fund, special improvement district, impact fees, park improvement
grants, user groups, private donation, foundation · Basketball courts Estimated cost: $25,000 to $30,000 Possible funding source: general fund, special improvement district, impact fees,
park improvement grants, private donation, foundation 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. Costs estimates are provided where costs can be estimated.
All estimated costs are presented in 2007 dollars. · 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 Estimated cost: Alta Planning and Design provided some information about similar positions in the region. Financial compensation for these
positions ranged from $40,000 to $60,000 per year. This salary reflects the fact that most positions have degrees in Engineering or Planning, with at least three years of experience.
Possible funding source: general fund · Evaluate and implement a Citywide parks maintenance district or some
equivalent alternative
Recommendations and Implementation Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan Page 10-24 · 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 Estimated cost: As part of the City’s asset management
system it would cost $6,000 to $8,000 for the software depending upon the desired functionality. There are also annual maintenance costs for the software. It would cost an additional
$5,000+ for a rugged tablet pc. Possible funding source: general fund · 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
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 vehiclecaused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 inlieu 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 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
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
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.
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
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.
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. 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.
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.
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 manmade 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.
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
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
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. 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
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 7th Ave1 2 3 4 Main St Main St 7th Ave
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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
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)
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
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
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.
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 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
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
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 fol
ks) 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
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 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.
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.
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 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
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
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!
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.
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
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
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!
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-4 PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-5 USER GROUP SURVEY RESPONSES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11a 11b BWAG Mary Ann Nielsen 586-7005 315 North Church Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 amnielsen315@aol.com
Monday a.m. hiking group Between 5 and 30 participate Every Monday 50's, 60's, & 70's 10% 90% Yes 10¢ per day BWAG's Patti Steinmuller 763-4145 14665 Spanish Peaks Trail, Gallatin Gateway,
MT 59730 psteinmul@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 quil Bushwacker 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 driver Bozeman & Belgrade Girl Scouts Debra Tew & Anissa Leininger 587-7553 &388-0456 130 Comfort Lane, Bozeman, MT
59715 & 402 Helen Drive, Belgrade, MT 59714 Unknown Nature Study for girls ages 5-17. ~280 Bozeman ~200 Belgrade All year 5-17 and adult leaders 280 ? Yes $12 a year for all activities.
Gallatin Valley Softball Association (GVSA) Terry Baldus 586-4717 P.O. Box 25, Bozeman, MT 59771 tbaldus@bozemank12.mt.us Provide adult softball opportunity. 100 teams, ~1,800 participants
April 1 -September 1 16-69+ 65% 35% yes $700 per team, $35 per person Ultimate Frisbee Julie Keck 586-7806 402 N. Church Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715 ranchofrid@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) ~200 1) April -October 2) Memorial
Day Weekend 16-45 100% 1) no 2) Memorial Day weekend 1) no 2)$25 per person Bozeman Amateur Hockey Association Jim Cannata 587-7144 608 Babcock Street #1, Bozeman, MT 59715 jae.sc@avicom.net
Youth & adult hockey leagues at Haynes Pavilion provide public skating and ice rental. 160 adult -130 youth & parents 11/1 -4/1 4 to 60 Yes Varies by group $130 -$400 Bozeman Stingrays
Laura Catlin 585-7535 1030 Doane Road, Bozeman, MT 59718 We 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
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-6 12a 12b 13 14 15 16 Other BWAG Bozeman Lake, Cherry Creek, and the "M" Trail Middle Cottonwood, North Cottonwood, South Cottonwood, Sypes Canyon,
Hyalite Trails, Sourdough Canyon, Stone Creek, Battle Ridge, Olson Road, Triple Tree, Lava Lake, Bear Canyon Not applicable Yes 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 l ldb hb We 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 tha Sourdough 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 famili BWAG'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 Poo We look forward to the new County Park. Bozeman & Belgrade Girl Scouts Variety of parks. Belgrade -Lewis & Clark Park and others. Not applicable Yes No Gallatin Valley Softball
Association (GVSA) Sports complex Yes, additional in the future Yes. At this time, no growth space is available. In ten years, two fields. Yes. Assistance with maintenance. Ultimate
Frisbee Showers 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 Association Gallatin 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 Stingrays Swim 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.
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11a 11b Bozeman Masters Swim Club Suzi Thompson 586-9799 3150 West Graf Street, #9, Bozeman, MT 59715 suzi.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 year Bozeman Barracudas Swim Club Jason James 570-1903 P.O. Box 804, Bozeman, MT 59771 bozemanbarracudas@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 team We 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 Club Stuart Whitehair 587-4200 P.O. Box 6493, Bozeman, MT 59771 montanaBuff@hotmail.com
Midget basketball program for 5th & 6th grade boys & girls 170 Late October -mid December 10-13 (5th & 6th grades) 60% 40% Yes $35 Bozeman Blitzz Futbol Club Bill Locke -President Jen
Gummer -Administrator 579-5516 P.O. Box 4349, Bozeman, MT 59772 fcbprez@bozemansoccer.org State/Regional competitive soccer 13+ boys & girls State Developmental Soccer 11-12 boys & girls
Local Developmental Soccer (Blitzz Micro) 5-12 boys & girls 300+ State/Regional 600+ Local ~1,000 total U13+ April -June, U11/12 -April -June, Local (Micro) -May-June 5-18, some 19 boys
& girls girls 90% 10% Yes $375 State $60 Local
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-8 12a 12b 13 14 15 16 Other Bozeman Masters Swim Club Bozeman Swim Center -primary, Bogert Pool, East Gallatin Recreation Area, Hyalite Reservoir
Not applicable The 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 i The 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 Club Bozeman Swim Center (Bogert Pool has been used by our team in the past). Not applicable No. 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 bulkh Ideally, 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 equipme I 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 need Our 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, bring Gallatin Empire Lions Club Bozeman Senior High Gymnasium Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Bozeman Blitzz Futbol Club Bronken Fields MSU
Intramural Fields, School District Fields (Babcock/Sac.) Not applicable No. 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.
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11a 11b Bozeman BLeague Tennis Jim 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
Association Debbie Cadfield 582-9409 370 Star Ridge Road, Bozeman, MT 59715 thecanfields@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 Tournament Mid May -October All ages 66.60% 33.30% Yes Varies depending
on activity Bozeman Senior Center Judy Morrill 586-2421 807 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 bozsrctr@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 fee Montana Outdoor Science School Cassie Carter 582-0526 P.O. Box 502, Bozeman, MT 59771 ccarter@outdoorscience.org
Hands-on science programs for preschoolers through adults including summer camp, school programs, and community festivals. ~6,000 participants annually Year-round 3 years old and up
with the majority ages 5-12 70% 30% No Yes Scholarships are available varies depending on program, community festivals are free, summer camp averages $6 per hour. Gallatin Valley BMX
Bill Drysdale 580-9284 517 North 7th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 drysdale@montana.com BMX racing. 100 April 1-October 30 4 to 51 80% 20% Yes $5
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-10 12a 12b 13 14 15 16 Other Bozeman BLeague Tennis Chief Joseph Middle School Tennis Courts Not applicable I'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 t On 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 nor Bozeman Tennis Association New 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 and maintaining more courts. (I had More 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 th Bozeman Senior Center Centennial Park Annual Hiking Program, during the summer months, group hikes on trails throughout
Gallatin County (one day per week). Not applicable In 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 School East Gallatin Recreation Area, Beall Park, Bogert
Park, Lindley Park, Library, all open trails Most 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 re Gallatin Valley BMX Westlake BMX Park Not applicable Yes Indoor facility for winter time -fairgrounds stock show barn would work. Grass planted on the rest of park.
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10a 11a 11b Gallatin Gardeners Club Don Mathre 587-8666 731 South 12th Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59715 upldm@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 year Bozeman City Women's Basketball League Paula McMinn 587-0506 1311 Rainbow Road, Bozeman, MT 59715 bigskymama@bresnan.net
Basketball. 125+ January -March 7 to 10 weeks 18 & older 80% 20% Yes $440 per team Gallatin Valley USA Wrestling Dan or Angie Buckley 522-9422 2011 Lomas Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715 dangieb@bresnan.net
Youth wrestling club, provide coaching, training, and advancement for kids of all ages & levels. 4 -18 years old 80% 20% Yes $60 Little Bobcat Track Brian Stoppel 587-0566 2340 Butch
Cassidy Drive, Bozeman, MT 59718 bstoppel@imt.net Introduction to track and field. 200 -250 3 Saturdays in January 1-5 grades 75% 25% yes $15 per person Big Sky Wind Drinkers Bob Wade/Kathy
Brown 522-7064 407 Overbrook Drive, #19, Bozeman, MT 59715 kathybob2@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 Park Salal Huber-McGee 539-0216 332
S. Church Ave., Bozeman, MT 59715 salal72@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 participants market dates -Memorial Day weekend -beginning of October all ages unsure spans to include out of state visitors no Will take donations
and there is a vendor fee for Market $5 grower, $10 artist/crafter, $3 senior citizen or under 16 Sweet Pea Festival JoAnn Brekhus 586-4003 P.O. Box 1015, Bozeman, MT 59771 sweetpea@imt.net
Three day festival of the arts. 18,000 First full weekend in August 1-100+ unsure 60% yes Button price 2005 -$8 prepaid, $10 at gates. Gallatin Empire Lions Club -Midget Football Darren
Dobie 556-4604 3040 Rose St., Bozeman, MT 59718 ddobie@wsi-insurance.com 5th & 6th grade, boys/girls, tackle football. 350 September -November 10 to 13 50% 50% yes $65
Appendix B User Group Survey Page B-12 12a 12b 13 14 15 16 Other Gallatin Gardeners Club Bozeman Senior Center Gallatin County Fairgrounds (Farmers Market) Not applicable Yes No 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 League Meeting
Room -1 per year Not applicable Yes Nothing No Thanks. Gallatin Valley USA Wrestling Bozeman Senior High Wrestling Room, Bozeman High School Gym, Valley Ice Gardens Yes. If there was
an available usable area -needs to be able to lay down 2-3 wrestling mats and accommoda te 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 Track MSU 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 Drinkers Lindley Park, Burke Park,
Bogert Park, Lindley Center, various trails Kirk Hall, Triple Tree, Bozeman Creek, Bozeman Pond Area, many Forest Service trails No. 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 Park Bogert
park Not applicable Yes. 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 Festival Lindley Park No. We set up our event with our own equipment. Not applicable. No Gallatin Empire Lions Club -Midget Football Christie Fields
Not applicable Yes. 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.
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 parkland 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. Guidelines for Soils. The
soil will be deemed acceptable if it is less than 35 percent clay, 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, and topsoil depth will be at least ten inches. The sub-base, after grading, will be scarified to a depth of twelve inches to insure 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 will 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 will 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 Seeding ratios and mixes will 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 used instead of annual ryegrass. Athletic fields will be planted with new and improved Kentucky bluegrass (KBG) types and new cultivars
of perennial rye. Examples of some of the new, aggressive types of KBG’s are 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.
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks Page C-2 IRRIGATION Irrigation systems will be compatible with Maxicom systems. All water lines shall be schedule 40 PVC. Black
poly pipe is unacceptable for any mainline and may only be used for lateral lines when approved by the Parks Division. 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 (4) 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 shall be capable of producing
the specified gpm and coverage area and shall be set to manufacturers’ specifications. Electrical locate tape shall be installed along all main lines. Upon completion of installation
all warranty and maintenance information, as well
as well logs and pump warranties and information, if applicable, shall be supplied to the City of Bozeman Parks Division along with and an “as-built” map. Irrigation clocks shall be
Rain Bird ESP_MC with metal casing (for the purpose of consistency, being Maxicom compatible, training of employees, and to reduce vandalism). 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. Any well installed in a public dedicated park that is larger than two acres
must have a minimum potential of 100 gpm. 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 be signed accordingly. There
must be an adequate use zone area around equipment, approved material in the use zone, which meets impact attenuation criteria as specified in ASTM 1292, and accessibility guidelines
ASTM F 1951-99, and have adequate drainage. All installation plans, surfacing Certificate of Liability, 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. Playgrounds must be inspected
by a CPSI before opening playground to the public. 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 2 and 3/8 inch, line post will be 1 7/8 inch, top and bottom rails will be 1 1/4 inch. All post are to be set
in concrete, spaced at 10 foot intervals, and a concrete pad, 12 inches in width and 4 inches in depth, 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.
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks Page C-3 LAKES AND PONDS If the development includes a lake or pond that is dedicated to the public, the water shall be tested
twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall, by the developer until the Homeowner’s Association forms at which time the HOA assumes the responsibility for testing. Testing
shall include Fecal Coliform, Fecal Enterococci, Staphylococcus, and Pseudomonas, and copies of reports shall be submitted to the City of Bozeman Parks Division for their records. PUBLIC
RESTROOMS New park restroom plans and construction must be approved by Parks Division and must comply with the individual park master plan, if applicable. Any changes must be approved
and/or amended in the individual park master plan. Rest room buildings, plumbing, electrical, and general construction must meet or exceed all City, County, State, and Federal building
codes. Restrooms must meet or exceed all ADA and ADAAG guidelines. Unless otherwise approved, restrooms (building) exterior and interior walls must be of CMU construction. All exterior
walls must be insulated. The building will have a metal roof and rain gutters with down spouts. Security lights will be installed on two sides of the building. The building will consist
of a Women’s and a Men’s restroom with each rest room having fluorescent lighting and ventilation fan activated by a motion sensor switch. Each restroom will consist of 3 stalls. The
Women’s will have three 3 toilets and the Men’s will have two 1 toilets and one 1 urinal. Each restroom will have 1 sink, 1 soap dispenser, and 1 hand drier and/or 1 towel dispenser.
Any and all windows will be of glass blocks. The building will have a utility room between the Men’s and Women’s restrooms measuring no less then 4 feet wide and run the length of the
restrooms. All plumbing and water lines will be within the utility room and easily accessible. The water meter will be located in the utility room. The building’s water lines will be
copper. The size of the main feed line to the building will be determined by the City of Bozeman. The floors in each restroom will have either a single 4 inch floor drain or a trench
drain. The utility room will also have a floor drain. The floor will slope to the drain with no low or flat areas that hold water. All the restrooms toilets, sinks, and urinals must
be stainless steel. Each toilet and urinals will have a motion sensor flush valve. The building will have a heating system large enough to keep each restroom and utility room from freezing
during winter months. The heating unit is to be located with in the utility room. Drinking fountains, showers and other amenities will be at the discretion of the City of Bozeman. TRAIL
CONSTRUCTION 1. Trail Classifications 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.
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks Page C-4 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. 2. Class I Trail Construction Class I trails must be constructed to support a minimum of
12,500 pounds. · Asphalt – Width of trails shall be a minimum of 10 feet, with a minimum cross slope of 2 percent or maximum of 5 percent and a 1 foot wide gravel border along each edge.
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 trail bed prior to construction.
The trail bed 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 gallon/square yard after installation. · Concrete – Width of trails shall be a minimum of 10 feet with a minimum cross slope of 2% percent or maximum of 5 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 lbs. per cubic yard of Fiber mesh. Where terrain allows, slope of trail should not exceed 12:1. 3. Class II Trail Construction 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 3/8th 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
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks Page C-5 must be approved by the City of Bozeman Parks Division. The trail bed must be filled up to original surface along both
edges with a cross slope of no less than 2 percent and no more than 5 percent to provide for water drainage. Tread mix must be rolled flat and compacted after installation, maintaining
a 2 to 5 percent cross slope. (If moisture content is not adequate for compaction, water should be added prior to rolling and compacting). Where terrain allows, slope of trail should
not exceed 12:1 with a cross slope no greater than 20:1 (5 percent) 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 trail section is completed. Minimum overhead clearance shall be 96 inches
for pedestrian and bike traffic, and 120 inches for equestrian traffic. 4. Street/Trail Connections Mid block trail crossings shall have a painted pedestrian crossing, with crossing
and advanced crossing signs at either end. Curb cuts shall be provided at all street /trail connections. 5. ADA Accessibility 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 96 inches,
to allow wheelchair turn around and passing. The height of the bridge is measured from the bridge deck to the bottom of the 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 the bridge does not require a rail it must have a 3 inch high curb on both sides along the entire length of the 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 ends of the bridge must have
no abrupt change in surface level greater than ½ inch. Cross slope shall not exceed 2 percent. Bridges must be rated for weight load distribution in accordance with ASTM standards and
display a permanent label indicating the load limit, year it was built and manufacturer. HILLSIDE GRADES Hillside grades 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. Appropriate measures such as hydoseeding, erosion control matting, or other approved measures shall
be taken to stabilize and allow for the specified re-vegetation of all disturbed parkland areas, regardless of slope.
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks Page C-6
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks Page C-7
Appendix C Design Guidelines for City of Bozeman Parks Page C-8
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;
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
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 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
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
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.
O VALLEY CENTER SYPES CANYON GOOCH HILL BAXTER DURSTON HUFFINE STUCKY BLACKWOOD PATTERSON JOHNSON COTTONWOOD FOWLER NASH SOURDOUGH MOUNT ELLIS BOZEMAN TRAIL BRIDGER CANYON STORY MILL
Appendix E Possible Cross-Country Skiing Corridors Page E-1 Possible Ski Trail Corridors Planning Area City of Bozeman Possible Cross-Country SkiinAgPCPEoNrrDidIXorEs
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 Location Requirements Dimensions Population Radius Notes Basketball Courts 1. Youth 1. 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 School 2. 5,040 -7,280 s.f. 2. 50 X 84 feet north -south walking or biking access. Outdoor courts in 3. Collegiate 3. 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-purpose 1,000 s.f. for 3-wall Minimum of 10 north -south. travel time facility. 3-wall usually
outdoor in park or feet to rear of 3-wall Front wall at north school facility. court. Minimum end. 20 20 feet overhead clearance. Ice Hockey 22,000 s.f. including Rink -85 X 200 feet
Long axis north -Indoor -1 per ½ -1 hour travel Climate is an important consideration support area (minimum 85 X 185 south if outdoor 100,000 time affecting the number of facilities.
Best as part feet). Additional Outdoor -depends of a multi-purpose facility. 5,000 s.f. support on climate area. Tennis Courts Minimum 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 in s.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 on both ends. Volleyball Courts Minimum 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 south feet clearance on all sides. Baseball 1. Official 1. 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 League 2. 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 feet Football 1.5 acres minimum 160 X 360 feet, with Fall season -long 1 per 20,000 15 -30 minutes Usually part of baseball, football,
soccer a minimum 6 feet of axis northwest to travel time complex in community park or adjacent to clearance on all sides. southwest. For high school. longer periods north -south. Soccer
1.7 -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 fields a minimum 10 feet southwest. For adjacent to schools or neighborhood parks. of clearance on sides. longer periods north -south.
Appendix F NRPA Recreation Facility Recommendations Page F-2 Facility Space Size & Orientation Units Per Service Location Requirements Dimensions Population Radius Notes ¼-mile Running
Track 4.3 acres Overall width -Long axis from 1 per 20,000 15 -30 minutes Usually part of high school, or in community 276 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, with 8 lanes is 32 feet finish line at northerly end. Multiple Recreation Court 9,840 s.f. 120
X 80 feet Long axis of courts 1 per 10,000 1 -2 miles (basketball, volleyball, tennis) is north -south. Golf Average 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 standard 2. 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 standard 3. 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 should not be over 20 miles from population center. Swimming Pools Varies on size of Teaching -Minimum None -care must be 1 per 20,000 (pools 15 to 30 minutes Pools for general
community use should be pool and amenities. of 25 X 45 yards, even taken in siting of should accommodate travel time planned for teaching, competitive and Usually ½ to 2 acre depth of
3 to 4 feet. lifeguard stations 3 to 5 percent of the recreational purposes with enough depth site. Competitive -in relation to after-total population at (3.4 meters) to accommodate
1
meter and 3 Minimum of 25 X 16 noon sun. one time. meter diving boards. Located in community meters. Minimum of park or school site. 27 s.f. of water surface area per swimmer. Ratio
of 2 : 1 deck vs water surface.
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 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.
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 Please contact the City of Bozeman’s Parks Division for specifications
for park signage, including posts and placement. SIGNAGE MAINTENANCE Signage maintenance shall be the responsibility of the entity responsible for maintaining trails and parkland within
the development.
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 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
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 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.
å å åå å å å å å å å INTER STATE 9 0 HWY S 19TH AVE LOVE LN GOOCH HILL RD DURSTON RD COTTONWOOD RD HUFFI NE LN FOWLER LN FRONTAGE RD S 3RD AVE NA SH RD STU CK Y RD BLACK WOOD RD E VALLEY
CENTER RD JOH NSON RD DAVIS LN SOURDOUGH RD BAXTER LN W MA IN ST MCILHATTAN RD BIG G ULCH DR BO ZEMAN T RA IL RD PATTE RSON RD BRIDGER CANYO N R D N 7TH AVE STORY MILL RD HARPER PUCKETT
RD W OA K 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 TRI PLE TRE E RD MOUNT ELLIS LN BEATTY RD
KEL LY CANYON RD SPRINGHILL RD GA NT RD W KA GY BLVD TAYABESHOCKUP RD E KAGY BLVD S 4TH AVE S 5TH AVE N 15TH AVE BRIDGER DR FALLO N 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 RED WING DR N 27TH AVE OAK ST HUNTERS WAY N 5TH AVE HU LBE RT RD E BOHART LN MARY RD
ROSE ST CANARY LN ELK LN ELLIS ST S 8TH AVE S 15TH AVE CEDAR ST STAR RIDGE RD W OLIVE ST E G RI FFIN DR DEER CREEK DR BEAR CANYON RD HIDDEN VALLEY RD FLANDERS MILL RD W BEALL S T W ALDERSON
ST W CURTISS ST S 7TH AVE W GARFIELD ST FRONT ST LAKE RD RO BIN L N GRAF ST CAYUSE TRL S ROUSE AVE W LAM ME ST FEN WAY KAGY RD HIL LSIDE L N W GRANT ST S 9TH AVE DRIFTER DR EQUESTRIAN
LN N BLACK AVE ABAG AIL RANCH RD CA TRON ST BLUEB IR D 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 POTTER SIDING RD
SIMMENTAL WAY S BLACK AVE WATTS LN W BA BC OCK ST SIMMONS LN JAGAR LN N WALLACE AVE OLD FARM RD W LINCOLN S T JACK LEG LN W HA RR ISON 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 D R RA INBOW RD OAK S T N 3RD AVE BORDER LN ARNO LD ST N 22ND AVE WIL DROSE LN TETON AVE W MENDENHALL ST W GARFIELD ST ROCKY CREEK RD STUBBS LN ENTERPRISE BLVD N 10TH AVE N
11TH AVE BIGEL OW RD TROOPER TRL QUINN DAVID LN BOYLAN RD N CHURCH AVE PAR K VIEW PL PROS PECTOR TRL CREEKSIDE DR SIR ARTHUR DR N 14TH AVE W PEACH ST FIRESIDE DR ROCK Y RD DRIFTWO OD
D R RIATA RD HOLLY DR MAIDEN ROCK RD OLIVER ST FISH HATCHERY RD FAIRWAY DR N WILLSON AVE FIELDSTONE DR W MINERAL AVE S 14TH AVE LONGHORN RD SABER CIR E M ENDE NH AL L ST E TAMAR AC K
ST CLONINGER LN W GR IFFIN DR W VILLARD ST VIGILANTE TRL LAKE DR OLD WEST TRL TEMPO R AR Y ROA D GOLDENSTEIN LN BISON TRL HORS ETAIL RD GA RD NER P AR K DR S TRACY AVE DONNA AVE COTTONWOOD
RD SHERIDAN AVE N FERGUSON AVE MEAGHER AVE RAVALLI ST TERRENCE LOOP RD CALICO DR HEAD LANDS DR S FERGUSON AVE NEW HOLLAND DR FLATHEAD AVE PARKWAY AVE BUCKHORN TRL DAMARELL RD STARNER
DR RIDGE TRL E OAK ST CATTAIL ST BRASS LANTERN CT BOBCAT DR WILDFLOWER WAY SIERRA DR CATAMOUNT ST E S TORY S T SPRING CREEK DR N BROADWAY AVE N ROUSE AVE STONE GATE DR AINSWORTH DR TSCHACH
E LN W TAMA RA CK S T MEAH LN CANYON VIEW RD N MONTANA AVE MOUNTAIN LION TRL STORY HILL RD MICHAEL GROVE AVE E P EACH ST COMFORT LN BOULDER BLVD S YELLOWSTONE AVE E GARFIELD ST HEATHER
LN BR OADWATER S T E HITCHING POST RD HALEY RD HA YR AKE LN ARROWLEAF HILLS DR ALPHA DR PIN AVE W HITCHING POST RD LOMAS DR SACCO DR BOYD RD WILDA LN POPLAR DR CA MB RID GE DR FALCON
LN VALLEY GR OVE DR EXPLORER TRL DAISY D R JOES WAY BENNETT DR GALE CT HITCHING P OS T RD N 24TH AVE N 27TH AVE CAMPBELL RD KIMBALL AVE SAXO N WAY N 12TH AVE MAX AVE BOYLAN RD S 27TH
AVE MA ND EV ILLE LN E GRANITE AVE WESSLEY WAY N 18TH AVE ASH DR N 21ST AVE N 16TH AVE N YELLOWSTONE AVE REDWOOD DR LUCILLE LN LONGBOW LN WHEAT DR MOSS BRIDGE RD EVERG REEN DR N 23RD
AVE NIC KOLS PEAK TRL JUN IPER ST N SWEETGRASS AVE FOWLER AVE DONEGAL DR CANNON CR EE K RD SOURDOUGH RIDGE TRL MALTESE LN ACADEMY DR S BOZEMAN AVE WOODLAND DR TEAKWOOD DR WE STLAKE RD
ARETE DR GOLD AVE OLD HIGHLAND BLVD ROSA WAY TEMPEST CT BUCKRAKE AVE BUTTONWOOD AVE BOOT HILL CT LAMPLIG HT DR DU LOHERY LN MAYA WAY GALLATIN DR BIRDIE DR ADVANCE DR LASSO AVE COOK CT
BIG HORN LN S 11TH AVE MO NR OE S T T HILLCREST DR PANORAMA DR W LAR EDO DR LOXLEY DR HIGHLAND CT BOSAL ST FLANDERS CREEK AVE EASTWOOD DR SHADOW CIR AUGUSTA DR LANCELOT LN DISCOVERY
DR S WALLACE AVE TWIN LAKES AVE WHITETAIL RD HIL L S T MEADOW LN SUNLIGHT AVE STAFFANSON RD BR ONCO DR POTOS I ST SNA PDRAG ON ST CONCOR D DR WATE RS ST SECOR AVE LOOKFAR WAY WHITE OAK
DR LAUREL PKWY MEGHANS WAY DEER ST TRADE WIND LN FORESTGLEN DR REMINGTON WAY CLIFDEN DR LARIAT LOOP CANDY LN PEAR ST COLTER AVE KNAAB DR BAXTER DR BEDIVERE BLVD BUCKRAKE AVE WOLVERINE
LN GALLA TI N T RL CYPRESS AVE BEMBRIC K ST PATRICK ST S 12TH AVE DURHAM AVE LADEN LN YERGER DR PALETTE CT E SHADOW DR VIRGINIA DR YELLOWSTONE AVE PINNACLE S TA R ST W SHADOW DR AAJAKER
C REEK RD DA NU BE 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 GE BH AR DT TRL QU AIL L N LAUNFAL LN HEMLOCK ST HARMON WAY E C OTTO NW O OD ST JOHN MAY LN CASCADE S T MYERS LN MERIWETHER AVE SUN NY MEADOW LN FOX CT CAPE
AVE COTTAGE LN DAWS DR S 16TH AVE CONESTOGA CIR ST ANDREWS DR PAR CT MATHESON WAY BRISB IN ST CARSON PL MULLAN TRL GOLF WAY TEAL CT E A SP EN ST BRIGGS RD SUNDEW LN EDELWEISS DR ALDER
C REEK DR ARROWWOOD DR BOXWOOD DR E BABCOCK ST DAFFODIL S T POND ROW E MASON ST S 13TH AVE PERCIVAL PATH PALISAD E DR BUNGALOW LN TAI LN BUR AVE CABALLO AVE WHISPER LN ROWLAND RD JAMES
A VE BR AJENKA LN NO STALGIA LNACCOLA DR GOOBY RD LLOYD ST BARNETT LN BLACKMORE PL ERWIN AVE KIRSHA LN FOXTAIL ST DUDLEY DR BARCLAY DR CA RB ON ST SAXON WAY GLACIER CT CUTTING ST DIAMO
ND S T MORROW ST FORBES AVE CA NVAS CT ALLEN DR SHERIDAN PL NA SH CREEK RD OLD BUFFALO TRL S 18TH AVE S 17TH AVE JEFFERSON CT E HARRISON ST W CLEVELAND ST JOH NSON RD BLACKWOOD RD W
BA BCOCK ST CATTAIL ST S 3RD AVE E O AK S T GO LD ENSTEIN LN SOURDOUGH RD RAVA LLI ST W OA K ST GRAF ST W BABCOCK ST N 7TH AVE FRONTAGE RD N ROUSE AVE S 3RD AVE N 9TH AVE FOWLER AVE
BA XTER LN DEER ST INTERSTATE 90 HWY ANNIE ST GRAF ST N 3RD AVE W VIL LA RD S T N 11TH AVE W BEALL ST S TRACY AVE S BLACK AVE LILY D R 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 0.5 0 1 Mile ¯ This map was created by the City of Bozeman GIS Department on 12/11/07 using imagery from 6/15/07 PROST Plan Trail Map This map is intended
to be used as part of the development review process, to guide 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. Future trail corridors are
not shown through areas that are already built out with developed lots 20 acres or smaller. If any of these areas are redeveloped at higher densities, trail connections will be considered.
Because future growth patterns cannot be fully anticipated, future trails may need to be constructed in locations other than those shown on this map. All proposed developments reviewed
by the Bozeman Planning Department will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if a trail is needed regardless of whether they include a trail corridor shown on this map.