Post by leokeeler on Apr 6, 2016 14:25:21 GMT -7
Last week at the Community Property Committee meeting, I presented the Soccer Field Report with a Recommendation to stop maintenance. Charlotte and Charlene asked for something in bullet form or shorter that could be put in a spring newsletter. The Following is what I have just provided to them.
Soccer Field for spring newsletter
In May 2002, GLA acquired the 20.261 acres known as the soccer fields from Church Universal and Triumphant, with the lands shown on COS 1729 as 16A. These 20 acres are surrounded by approximately 176 acres referred to as “Reserved Lands,” which are still owned by the Church. The soccer fields were placed under the GLA covenants on January 31st 2005, which, by Covenant 3.04, are Common Use Lands.
Approximately 30% of the 20.261 acres was developed as the soccer fields, complete with watering system and a concession building of 406 square feet, with 2 restrooms in the middle of the building. Mowing and watering costs of approximately $750 per year are included in annual budgeting and assessments, with an additional $850 building maintenance this year.
Uses of the 20 acres are limited by the Warranty Deed and a tripartite agreement. As part of the land deal, Park County, GLA and Church Universal and Triumphant entered into a Parkland Dedication Agreement on June 11, 2002. The warranty deed for the land contains the reversionary statement “Grantee is restricted to using the land for community recreation and sports activities. Any other use by Grantee will cause ownership of the land to revert to grantor.” In the Agreement GLA yielded, and Park County committed to accepting, the 20.261 acres to count towards any future County parkland requirements when the Church developed the “Reserved Lands.” The Agreement strengthens the restriction for recreational use with the requirement that “The GLA develops parcel No. 16A solely for community recreation and sports activities.” This agreement also burdens GLA with maintenance of all improvements constructed on the parcel.
Proposals to remodel the concession stand, or construct a new building at the site to accommodate GLA meetings would be a violation of both the Deed and Agreement. Decisions on future construction projects and uses of the land are guided by Covenant 7.01(c) and by Montana law 70-16-30. As Common Use Land, development projects and acceptance of long term maintenance obligations that will increase assessments must be approved by Landowners.
Developing recreational facilities increases land values, which will benefit the Reserved Lands originally, and possibly still, intended to be used for condominiums, apartments, and commercial facilities. Additional concerns Members must consider when selecting developments to be placed on the land are in the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine. The insurance coverage GLA holds for undeveloped lands may or may not cover recreational facilities that, by their nature, attract children. The oversight today’s courts provide to protect children are significantly more stringent than was held in the 1980’s. If the GLA were sued by anyone claiming to be harmed due to an attractive nuisance and the judgment by a court exceeds insurance coverage the extra would have to be covered by assessments to landowners.
Soccer Field for spring newsletter
In May 2002, GLA acquired the 20.261 acres known as the soccer fields from Church Universal and Triumphant, with the lands shown on COS 1729 as 16A. These 20 acres are surrounded by approximately 176 acres referred to as “Reserved Lands,” which are still owned by the Church. The soccer fields were placed under the GLA covenants on January 31st 2005, which, by Covenant 3.04, are Common Use Lands.
Approximately 30% of the 20.261 acres was developed as the soccer fields, complete with watering system and a concession building of 406 square feet, with 2 restrooms in the middle of the building. Mowing and watering costs of approximately $750 per year are included in annual budgeting and assessments, with an additional $850 building maintenance this year.
Uses of the 20 acres are limited by the Warranty Deed and a tripartite agreement. As part of the land deal, Park County, GLA and Church Universal and Triumphant entered into a Parkland Dedication Agreement on June 11, 2002. The warranty deed for the land contains the reversionary statement “Grantee is restricted to using the land for community recreation and sports activities. Any other use by Grantee will cause ownership of the land to revert to grantor.” In the Agreement GLA yielded, and Park County committed to accepting, the 20.261 acres to count towards any future County parkland requirements when the Church developed the “Reserved Lands.” The Agreement strengthens the restriction for recreational use with the requirement that “The GLA develops parcel No. 16A solely for community recreation and sports activities.” This agreement also burdens GLA with maintenance of all improvements constructed on the parcel.
Proposals to remodel the concession stand, or construct a new building at the site to accommodate GLA meetings would be a violation of both the Deed and Agreement. Decisions on future construction projects and uses of the land are guided by Covenant 7.01(c) and by Montana law 70-16-30. As Common Use Land, development projects and acceptance of long term maintenance obligations that will increase assessments must be approved by Landowners.
Developing recreational facilities increases land values, which will benefit the Reserved Lands originally, and possibly still, intended to be used for condominiums, apartments, and commercial facilities. Additional concerns Members must consider when selecting developments to be placed on the land are in the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine. The insurance coverage GLA holds for undeveloped lands may or may not cover recreational facilities that, by their nature, attract children. The oversight today’s courts provide to protect children are significantly more stringent than was held in the 1980’s. If the GLA were sued by anyone claiming to be harmed due to an attractive nuisance and the judgment by a court exceeds insurance coverage the extra would have to be covered by assessments to landowners.
