HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.20.13 PRAB Packet
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
West Senior Center Creekside Room
909 W. Arapahoe Avenue
May 20, 2013
6:00 p.m.
AGENDA
All agenda times are approximate
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (6:00)
II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (6:05)
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (6:10)
This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or concerns to the
Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled later in the
meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on the need for
parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers are limited
to 3 minutes.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA (6:25)
A. Approval of minutes from April 22, 2013
B. Informational Items
(1) Park and Planning Update
(2) Recreation Update
V. ITEMS FOR ACTION (6:30)
A. Parks and Recreation Master Plan 1 st Public Hearing
VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSIONIINFORMATION (7:30)
A. Voice and Site Tag Program
B. Civic Area
C. Boulder Reservoir Changes - 41h of July Event
N C3
VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (7:45)
A. Parks and Recreation Fees 33- 0
r- o
r >m-n
VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS (8:00) 0
37°
w R
X- ri cn ~
IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: June 24, 2013 (8:00) o Q ro
X. ADJOURN (8:00) w m
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
FUTURE BOARD ITEMS
(prepared May l7, 2013)
Department of Parks and Recreation Mission
The mission of the city of Boulder Parks and recreation Department is to provide safe, clean and beautiful
parks and facilities and high-quality leisure activities for the community. These services shall enhance
residents' health and well-being and promote economic vitality for long-term community sustainability. We
will accomplish this through creative leadership, environmentally sustainable practices and ►he responsible
use of available resources.
Rcp,ular/Ongoing Updates
• Park Development Update
• Master Plan Update
Next Board Meeting Items (June)
• Pottery Program RFP update
• Master Plan 2nd Public Hearing and Action
• Budget Update
• 2014 Cyclocross Nationals
• Discussion on Proposed Fees
Future Items
• 7/22/13 - Civic Area Update
City Council Meetings on P & R Items
• 5/28/13 - Council Master Plan Study Session 8-9 p.m.
• 8/27/13 - Council Master Plan Study Session (tentative)
• 9/17/13 - Council Master Plan Public Hearing
Tours and Study Sessions
• 7/25/13 - Planning Board Master Plan Review
2013 PRAB Meeting Dates
• June 24, 2013
• July 22, 2013
• August 26, 2013
• September 23,2013
• October 28, 2013
• November 18, 2013
• December 16, 2013
City of Boulder
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board /
West Senior Center Creekside Room
909 W. Arapahoe Ave
April 22, 2013
Summary Meeting Minutes
To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in detail, please go
to the following link: www.bouldeEparks-rec.org
Board Present:
Michelle Estrella, Rick Thayer, Myriah Conroy, Kelly Wyatt, Mike
Conroy, Mike Guzek, Marty Gorce
Staff Present:
Kirk Kincannon, Jeff Dillon, Alice Guthrie, Sarah DeSouca, Sally Dieterich, Jeff
Haley, Jennifer Bray, Alison Rhodes, Stacy Cole, Mike Eubank, Catherine
Williams
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
11. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Fstrella nominated Thayer for board chair. WyadKeconded the motion. There
were no other nominations. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Conroy (Mynah) nominated Conroy (Mike) for board vice chair. Wyatt seconded
the motion. There were no other nominations. The motion passed unanimously,
7-0.
Kelly Wyatt and Marty Gorce were introduced as newly appointed PRAB
inembers. Wyatt was givelfthe oath of office on April 3, 2013 and Gorce was
givers the oath of oiTicc on April 16, 2013 by Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board secretary Sally Dieterich.
III. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS
Kineannon provided the following timeline update on future board items:
• 5/20/13 PRAB master plan public hearing
• 5/20/13 PRAB meeting - Mobile food vending
• 5120113 PRAB meeting - July 4 event planning
• 5/20/13 PRAB meeting - Civic area update
• 5/20/13 PRAB meeting - Cyclocross update
• 6/24 PRAB meeting - Pottery lab RFI and RFP update
• 6/24/13 PRAB meeting - Department master plan 2nd public hearing
0 5/28/13 Council study session - Department master plan - 8 to 9 p.m.
1
• 8/27/13 Council study session- Department master plan-- 7:30 to 9:00
p.m.
• 9/17/13 Council meeting - Department master plan public hearing
IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation was opened.
John Bird, resident, representing the Professional Disc Golf Assn., thanked staff
for the disc golf course at Valmont City Park, He asked that disc golf be included
on department surveys and requested more funding for course upkeep.
Public participation was closed.
V. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of minutes from March 18, 2012.
The minutes from March 18, 2012 were approved as amended.
B. Informational Items
1. Park Development Update
Written updates on these items were provided to the Board as part of the packet
materials. Board Chair Thayer explained that these items are informational items
that require no Board action or discussion. If the Board prefers more detailed
information or discussion, that item. would be to Agenda Item VI, Items
for Discussion/Information.
VL ITEMS FOR ACTION
There were no Items for Action.
VII. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION
A. Request to Rename Canyon Park to Emma Martinez Park
DeSouza spoke on this item, indicating that the department received a request
from bihil Hernandez and Euvaldo Valdez to rename Canyon Park, located at
Canyon Blvd. and 21" St., to Emma Martinez Park. She added that a formal
application was submitted to the city in March 2013. In advance of this request
being presented to the city manager, PRAB was asked for their support of the
proposal.
Conroy(Myriah) made the following motion:
That PRAB support the renaming of Canyon Park to Emma Martinez Park.
Conroy (Mike) seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
2
B. Master Plan Draft Plan
Rhodes provided a short verbal update on the master plan and timeline next steps:
• 5/20/13 PRAB meeting - first public hearing
• 5/27/13 City council study session
• 6/24/13 PRAB meeting - Second public hearing
• 7/25/13 Planning board meeting - Public hearing and plan
recommendation
• 8/27/13 City council study session
• 9/17/13 City council meeting Public hearing and acceptance
VIII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT
A. Valmont City Park Update
Kincannon presented a brief verbal update on this item. He said that the existing
metal building (poultry barn) has become a sa - /health hazard, so the
department is going to council with an adj e to base (approximately
$150,000) for dismantling the metal po of the building, then proceeding with
the planning process and possible dev nt of artnership for building re-
use.
Eubank provided a brief verbal update on progra tivity at Valmont Bike Park.
He said that cycling groups are coming from aroun w Id, partnering with
cycling groups is increasing and C[7 is becoming; invo . He added that the bike
park is considered to be a state of the art facility for ii ustry standards.
B. Boulder ex-+ oir D`oot Lake Seasonal Wildlife Closures
Informatio his ite as provided as a written update.
C. Boulder Res osal
Kincannon said that has e W ng with police, fire and the Boulder
County sheriffs office •opose a programmatic change regarding alcohol use
on the 4th of July. He adde this item will come to PRAB at the May meeting
as an information/discussio item.
D. Civic Area Update
Dillon provided a timeline update on the status of this item:
• 5/6/13 - Public meeting scheduled
• 5/20/13 - Civic Area representatives have requested to present at PRAB
meeting to receive PRAB input
• 5/23/13 - Possible group board meeting/open house to receive input
• 8/13 - Civic Area group to present recommendation to council
Guthrie announced the YSI Art Show opening reception to be held May 2, 2013
from 5-7 p.m. at the North Boulder Recreation Center.
IX. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Conroy (Mike) announced that he is stepping down as PRAB representative for
the PLAY Foundation. He added that if any PRAB members are interested to
contact him.
The PRAB appointed Estrella to assume the vacant position of representative to
the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC).
X. NEXT BOARD MEETING: May 20, 2013
XI. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
APPROVE PARKS AND
R.ECREATIO SORY BOARD
Rick Thayer'
Board Chair
Attest:
Sally Dieterich
Recording Secretary
4
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Kirk W. Kineannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Sarah DeSouza, Senior Manager of Communications,
Marketing and Partnerships
Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager
SUBJECT: Consent Agenda
DATE: May 20, 2013
A. Minutes Approval of minutes from April 22, 2013
B. Informational Items
1. Park Development Update
Division Name: Parks Planning
Supervisor: Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Pineview Park
The first phase of construction on the west side of the Farmer's Ditch is complete including
sidewalk improvements, installation of a new picnic table, minor road improvements within the
Cloverleaf Drive right of way, turf seeding and a rep lacement/renovation of the existing
irrigation system. The second phase of construction will begin on the east side of the
Farmer's ditch will begin in June of 2013. Improvements will include sidewalk
improvements, installation of a new playground, new site amenities, turf seeding and
replacement/renovation of the existing irrigation system. Construction is expected to last through
August 2013.
Harlow Platts Fitness Station Renovation
13 new fitness stations have been installed at Harlow Platts Community Park. Construction
at Harlow Platts Park began February of 2013 and has been completed
Columbia Cemetery
A low concrete seat wall is being installed along the south side of the new storage building.
In June, work will also begin on a new irrigation system throughout the Cemetery. The north
side of Anderson Ditch that runs through the Cemetery will also receive sheet piling to stop
the ditch from seeping into the northern portion of the Cemetery. Repair of some of the
historic headstones has begun and will continue throughout the summer.
Boulder Reservoir
Entry Gate Enhancements- On schedule to be open for use by Memorial Day weekend.
Asphalt and concrete roadway sections are now complete. Entry buildings are nearing
AGENDA ITEM IV-B PAGE 1
completion, photovoltaic have been installed and major utility work is complete. Landscape
planting installation will begin at the end of the month
Environmental Inventory - Biohabitats has been hired to complete a full inventory and
assessment of the Boulder Reservoir. This year long project will include vegetation and
wildlife surveys and mapping in conjunction with a biological species impact report that will
be specific to the recreation impacts throughout the Reservoir on the park's natural systems.
North Shore Trail Improvements - The department has partnered with the Youth Corps to
repair and improve sections of the north shore trail system. This work will focus on
realigning sections to make use of improved grades and slopes for greater longevity and trail
experience. Work will occur during May and June of this summer.
Sanitary Utilities - completion work has been pushed to early fall to avoid service outages
that may affect the visitor experience throughout the south shore. Work will begin in early
fall and is anticipated to take 1-2 months, based on weather.
Water Main Installation - design is nearing completion and permitting approval with
planning and development. Project will begin in mid fall to avoid visitor experience conflicts
during the busy season along the south shore. The project will take approximately 3-4
months, based on weather. The department will be working closely with the utility
department throughout the project to ensure consistency with citywide utility installation and
quality standards.
Signage - Proposals are being requested to develop a Reservoir facility-wide signage
program. The signage plan will outline an approach to provide a consistent signage program
and brand throughout the Reservoir. This program will include: directional/way finding,
educational, interpretive, and regulatory information.
Feeder Canal Bridge Replacement - A partnership has been developed with Northern Water
to plan, design, and install a new pedestrian bridge over the feeder canal on the north shore.
The project will undergo initial site review and planning throughout the summer with
design beginning this fall. Construction is expected in 2014.
2412 Capital Improvement Program
Mesa Memorial Park
On Tuesday, April 23rd the Parks and Recreation Department presented the final
improvement plan and construction schedule for the development of Mesa Memorial
Park. The meeting was also an opportunity for the public to provide suggestions for an
official park name.
There was general agreement that the plan should be implemented as presented. The
Department will be working with the consultant on the project to address any outstanding
design issues. There was also general agreement that moving forward with a schedule
that begins park construction in the spring of 2014 is the most realistic.
2
The Parks and Recreation Department is in the process of reviewing park name
suggestions that have been submitted. A list of possible park name will be available for
review at a later date.
Elks Neighborhood Park:
Construction to begin in June and continue through the fall of 2013. The park will be
closed during the construction period. Improvements to the Park will include a new
playground, revitalized picnic shelter, and open play lawn area, natural areas, new trees,
and a raw water irrigation system.
2. Recreation Update
Division Name: Recreation
Supervisor: Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Pottery Program Update
A Pottery Lab Working Group (PLWG), comprised of 12 members (community, staff
and PRAB), was established in February of 2012 to make consensus recommendations to
the Parks and Recreation Department on ways to ensure the sustainability of the pottery
program. The working group explored issues on two options: 1) keeping the Pottery Lab
as a city program; and 2) moving the Pottery Lab outside the city organization to a
nonprofit organization, public/private partnership, or other entity.
The majority of the PLWG recommended that the City explore the public-private
partnership option. A Request for Information/Interest (RFI) was issued on March 29,
2013 with a proposal deadline of April 26, 2013. Three proposals were submitted and
information provided will be used to develop the Request for Proposal (RFP) for
Management and Operations of the Pottery Lab. The RFP is tentatively scheduled to be
issued at the end of May, 2013.
Scott Carpenter Park Parkini4 Changes
The department has coordinated with Parking Services to institute a three-hour parking
limit in the Scott Carpenter Park parking lot that will be enforced Monday-Friday 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. year round. This will ensure that there is adequate parking for park and
pool patrons. Historically, the parking lot on 30th Street has been used for long-term
parking by nearby businesses, restricting the availability of parking for park and pool
patrons. New signs will be installed in the parking lot by May 18. Parking Services will
patrol the lot and ticket cars that violate the parking limit. Enforcement will begin on
Monday, May 20 with a one week warning period that ends on Saturday, May 26.
Information will be provided to neighbors, patrons and members of the public by all the
communication avenues available including the department's website, enews letter, email
lists, social media, as well as signage and flyers at the site. Staff will update the PRAB
on the success of the program at the end of the summer.
J
'CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2013
AGENDA TITLE: First Public hearing and Discussion of the 2013 Boulder Parks and
Recreation Master Plan Update
PRESENTERS: Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager
Jeff Haley, Planning Manager
Alison Rhodes, Master Plan Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) to
review and discuss the DRAFT 2013 Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update
(master plan). The DRAFT master plan is included as Attachment A.
The master plan provides guidance and policy direction on the opportunities and needs
for parkland, recreation facilities and programs related to the services provided by the
City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD). The master plan update is
structured within the context of the city's Sustainabi I ity f=ramework which is reflective of
the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and the city's Priority Based Budgeting
approach. The intent of the master plan is to guide the department over the next five
years, and shape the delivery of department provided park and recreation services in a
manner that is consistent with city sustainability goals and that meets the community's
level of service standards.
Most importantly, the master plan clearly frames the major policy issues. Under current
f Wal conditions, BIRD must make two major shifts in current service delivery to align
with community priorities:
• Shift from a practice of directly delivering recreation programs, to one where BPRD
facilitates the delivery of high quality recreation programs.
• Shift from a practice that continues to develop new parks and facilities with existing
current funding, to one of prioritizing current funding for the ongoing operations and
maintenance of existing parks and facilities.
Agenda Item V-A page 1
This approach is critical if the department is to be successiltl in meeting the predominant
community expectations within current funding levels.
Guidance fi•om this public hearing and the May 28, 2013 study session with City Council
will be incorporated in the final master plan. Another public hearing and consideration
for plan recommendation to City Council is scheduled for June 24, 2013.
BACKGROUND:
Flie trYtster plan provides guidance and direction to the department about the
opportunities and' 1' 1 needs for parkland, recreation facilities and programs within the
Boulder community. This plan is an update to the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation
2006 Master Plan and includes standards for levels of park and recreation services and
facilities in the city, along with identifying development priorities, a Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), and an implementation strategy. It guides the City of
Boulder to more equitably allocate services and meet identified deficiencies and
shortfalls in the system as improvements are made for the future
This planning effort is called for as a key implementation strategy under the city's
primary planning document, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The city's
Sustainabi I ity Framework is a tool created to ensure departmental master plans align with
and advance the goals and priorities of the City Council and community, and is based on
the BVCP and the city's Priority Based Budgeting Approach. The Sustainability
Framework is comprised of seven categories:
• Community Character
• Natural Environment
• Energy and Climate
• Economic Vitality
• Community Well-Being & Safety
Mobility and Connectivity
• Good Governance
Community Engagement
A critical and ongoing part of the master plan is the community engagement process. This
process involved stakeholder interviews, public open houses, public surveys, online
engagement, and other significant efforts to target outreach to important, under-
participating groups. The engagement program also included a community leader
Pathfinders M Workshop, staff interaction, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB)
study sessions, and City Council study sessions. A summary of the public engagement
methodologies and findings can be found at http://bit./l OgLDWu.
Themes
Six core themes, which emerged frorn the research and community engagement process,
have shaped the strategies that are the focus for future action and decision-making for
Boulder's parks and recreation master plan:
• Community Health and Wellness
Agenda Item V-A page 2
• Taking Care of What We I lave
• Financial Sustainability
• Building Community and Relationships
• Youth Engagement and Activity
• Organizational Readiness
Policy Guidance
Through the master plan process, the department has had regular discussions and study
sessions with the PRAB, which has been instrumental in shaping the policies of the master
plan. In addition, in November 2012, a joint study session with the PRAB and City
Council focused on the policy guidance the department was seeking related to four policy
issues: BPRD's role and priority services, adjusting services to trends, balancing
community good programming with revenue production and also balancing maintenance of
existing assets with the desire for new development.
ANALYSIS
The six themes of the master plan clarify the community's values for the parks and
recreation system. If the department is to best serve those values, resources that are
currently available must be refocused.
Funding
The BPRD is responsible for an average of $25 million annually in operating and capital
expenditures with access to other funding sources for one-time capital expenses. As is the
case for other city departments, the inflationary costs of personnel, energy and materials
coupled with the increasing costs of aging assets, and operations and maintenance costs for
new facilities, department expenses are projected to outpace available funding (see figure
1). In order to ensure that the BPRD operates within its funding allocations and revenue
generated, it must continue to adjust service provision and facility maintenance and
operations levels. The master plan emphasizes the important of ensuring that the highest
community park and recreation priorities (as defined by the six themes of the master plan)
are met.
Gap Growth A
Backlog Increasing $8.3 Capital
Operation Costs Increase
New Parks (ex. Valmont) Improvement Bond
New Sustainable Operation Practices
(ex. Integrated Pest Management) "t Ut ,_,.-Mess
r'o
ding
~xpan
Gap Growth
3-5% each year
Actual
Budget $19.74 $25.4
(million)
Year 2000 2013
*Adjusted to Conswmer Price index for 2013 - 2000 actual budget is $26.6 million adjusted
Figure 1: Department Gap
Beginning in 2016, an opportunity exists to address high priority park and recreation
needs as a result of retiring debt service. Considerations for use of this finding include,
but are not limited to:
• Fund deterred maintenance
• Improve/increase service standards for maintenance operations
• Focus programming on health and wellness, and youth
• Increase financial assistance for underserved populations
• Maintain adequate contingency funds
With a maintenance backlog estimated at approximately $27 million, difficult trade-off
decisions must be made by the department about how to manage and operate facilities and
provide programs. The City's C1P guidelines prioritize the maintenance of current assets
over the development of new facilities. The community, through the planning process, has
indicated strong support for this concept of prioritization. Based on current economic
conditions, revenue and expenditure projections, finding is not sufficient to maintain all
existing system assets and build new park and recreation facilities without comparable
trade-offs. Figure 2 shows the projected 2016 funding levels for current practices and the
recommended use for a fiscally constrained plan.
530.0
2016 Uses of Funding
.525.0 -
53.2 $3,0
520.0
Unallocated
■ Renovation and Refurbishment
515.0 $9.7
59.7 ■CapitalImprovement Program
1 Rec Programs and Services
510.0 ■QperationsandMaintenance
■Admin stration
$6.9 SB.d
$5.0 +
Current F scally Constrained Recommended Fisca ly
Constrained
i
Figure 2: 2016 Uses of Projected Funding
Agenda Item V-A page 4
Development of any new facilities will require additional funding. The policy guidance
provided by the master plan requires the (a) completion of a full feasibility study to clarify
demand and current facility supply, and (b) identification of the Total Cost of Facility
Operations (TCM) before any new facilities can be considered. The master plan - which
identities areas for further investigation - clarifies that development of new facilities,
cannot occur without additional funding.
At the same time, BPRD must respond to the community's values related to recreation
programs and activities by providing adequate facilities and programs accessible to the
entire community. In order to focus programming on health and wellness and ensure
programs are accessible to all community members, the department will need to shift
service delivery and resource allocation as well as implementation of best practices in
program lifecycle management and evaluation.
Limited funding requires careful balance to meet
community needs and values.
Funding Plan Scenarios
To address this challenge, the master plan presents three alternatives for the parks and
recreation system to meet critical needs, to maintain relevance with the community, and to
continue to provide a strong quality of life in the city.. The three alternatives listed below
follow the city's business planning approach that requires departments to prepare for a
future without increased revenue. This approach acknowledges the potential for a stark
fiscal reality leading to the rebalancing of priorities (and their associated expenditures)
using three-tiers of fiscal alternatives. Each alternative reflects different assumptions about
available resources. The investment required for the action and vision alternatives depends
upon the nature of the additional funding.
1. The FISCALLY CONSTRAINED alternative plans for prioritized spending
within existing budget targets. This targets funding for renovations and capital
improvements related to existing parks and facilities. The plan ensures unallocated
Agenda Item V-A page 5
funding (from retired debt service and unallocated CIP) reduces the deferred
maintenance backlog and increases annual operations and maintenance (O&M) to
levels required to maintain assets. Recreation programs and administration would
be largely funded at current levels necessitating the redirection of existing
resources, over time, from current programs to the highest priority community
programs.
2. The ACTION alternative describes the additional services or capital improvement
that could be undertaken when additional funding is available. The additional
capital investment required to accomplish this varies depending on the projects that
are funded and must include funding for O&M as well as annual repair and
renovation to maintain facilities for the full life-cycle costs.
3. The VISION alternative represents the complete set of services and facilities
desired by the community. This scenario increases Levels of Service (LOS) to
comparable levels of surrounding benchmark communities, replaces aging facilities
such as Scott Carpenter Pool with a modern aquatics center, and upgrades existing
recreation centers to expand use and increase programs for youth and health and
wellness. The costs for these investments vary widely and require both increases in
CIP funding and operating funds to cover the full life-cycle costs.
Each of the alternatives is described for the system's three inter-related elements:
• Park Land - the land base that provides areas for active and passive recreation as
well as the location for park and recreation assets.
• Recreation Facilities - these are the major park assets that provide both active and
passive recreation opportunities, from playgrounds to picnic shelters to major
recreation centers.
• Recreation Programs - these are the planned activities that provide instruction,
socialization, competition, and learning to a wide range of community members and
visitors to Boulder.
The Future BPRD
The process of developing the master plan is an important step in the department's analysis
of current conditions, and identifying a vision of the future. The final outcome of the
master plan is important in that it identifies for the department, the city organization, and
the community that BPRD has the need to recreate itself as a results-oriented and
collaborative organization that is creative, innovative and capable of measured risk taking.
Most importantly, the master plan clearly describes how the department must shift to
respond to community values. The process has reinforced the impotlance of ensuring
resources are aligned with the highest community park and recreation priorities. To do
this, BPRD must make two major changes in current service delivery:
• A shift from BPRD directly delivering recreation programs to a role where BPRD
facilitates the delivery of high-quality recreation programs.
Agenda Item V-A page 6
A shift from BPRD developing new parks and facilities with existing funding to
13PRD prioritizing the ongoing operations and maintenance ofexisting parks and
facilities with existing funding.
Key trade-offs must occur if the department is to align services within existing funding.
Support from the PRAB and City Council will be critical in ensuring the department is
able to respond to special interest groups and community members whose interests may
not align with those of the broader community as identified in this extensive process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the PRAB conduct the public hearing and provide feedback to the
Department for the DRAFT Master Plan Update.
NEXT STEPS:
Guidance from the PRAB and this public hearing, and also from the May 28, 2013 City
Council study session, will be incorporated in the final master plan. The approval
process for the final plan is:
➢ PRAB June 24,2013- Second Public Hearing and Plan Recommendation
i' Planning Board July 25, 2013: Public Hearing and Plan Recommendation
City Council Aug. 27,2013: Study Session Reserved
➢ City Council Sept. 17,2013: Public Hearing and Plan Acceptance
ATTACHMENTS:
A. DRAFT Master Plan
Agenda Item V-A page 7
~ l~l I~rJli~r
['arks & Recreation
City of Boulder
Parks and Recreation
2013 Master Plan
DRAFT Version 4 for PRAB
511612013
'Adnowledgements
City Council
Matt Appelbaum, Mayor
Lisa Morzel, Deputy Mayor
Suzy Ageton
KC Becker
Macon Cowles
Suzanne Jones
George Karakehian
Tim Plass
Ken Wilson
City Manager's Office
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Pau11. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Members
Richard Thayer, Chair
Mike Conroy, Vice Chair
Myriah Conroy
Michelle Estrella
Martin Gorce
Michael Guzek
Kelly Wyatt
Special Thanks to Bob Yates, Past Chair
Parks and Recreation Department
Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director
Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Ahbie Poniatowski, Senior Business and Finance Manager
Jeff Haley, Planning Manager
Alison Rhodes, Master Plan Project Manager
Staff Technical Advisory Group
Kathleen Alexander
Paul Bousquet
Tina Briggs
Sherri Brown
Stacy Cole
Doug Cook
Colleen Fitzgerald
Callie Hayden
Jeff Haley
Matt Hickey
Lisa Martin
Teri Olander
Derrick Tripp
Steve Whipple
Catherine Williams
DRAFT 2 May
Acknowledgements.~
Pathfinders"
City of Boulder Parks and Recreation staff along with:
Heidi Brinkman BCI
Kenneth Hotard Boulder Area Realtors Association
Mary Ann Mahoney Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau
Leisha Conners Bauer Boulder County Community Services
Stephen Jones, Boulder County Audubon Society
Morgan Lommele Boulder Moutainbike Alliance
Paul J. Fetherston City of Boulder
David Driskell City of Boulder Community Planning and Sustainability
Lesli Ellis City of Boulder Community Planning and Sustainability
Molly Winter City of Boulder DUHMD
Karen Rahn City of Boulder Human Services
Valerie Maginnis City of Boulder Library & Arts
Mike Patton City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
Randall Rutsch City of Boulder Public Works - Transportation
Jeff Arthur City of Boulder Public Works- Utilities
Brea Bond, MD Clinica - Peoples Clinic
Simon Smith Clinica - Peoples Clinic
Susan Connelly Colorado Chautauqua Association
Crystal Gray Community Member
Ramona Clark Growing Gardens
Katherine Buckley Growing Up Boulder
Lee Shainis Intercambio
Mike Conroy Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Michael Guzek Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Kelly Wyatt Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Bob Yates Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Colleen King PLAY Boulder Foundation
Renae Foxhoven South Boulder Little League
Cheryl Kent University of Colorado Recreation Services
Louise Chawla University of Colorado Environmental Design
Nicole Cavalino VIA Mobility Services
Chris Coker YMCA of Boulder Valley
Sophie Duncan Youth Opportunities Advisory Board
Bridger Tomlin Youth Opportunities Advisory Board
• Recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on
June XX, 2013.
• Recommended by the Planning Board on July XX. 2013
• Accepted by Clty Council on September XX, 2013.
Boulder City of 2013
PART ONE
The Setting
DRAFT
Introduction
City of Boulder 2013 Parks and '
V2 I
{ YY ,~yy U f r}'~ f
tie ln~ y J p 1 t., J
411
Iko 0.,
ri z ///''/"''''~~I ',mss c;•~~:ifiy r t;
'fit
per,
~ Y <
'Y A
l,wi} ~r: Ir t' 1kT (Ll.a3~7:30 .mss -
t5Y
Figurr~ J. i Map of Bouirier in relation to the Rocky Mountains and Denver
Introduction
Since Boulder's earliest days as a mining town over 150 years ago,
access to nature and parks and recreation have played a vital role
in the community's transition from an outpost to a metropolitan
center. Today, the city's system of urban parks, open space, trails,
plazas, recreation centers, programs, and special events are major
contributors to Boulder's nationally acclaimed high quality of life.
The parks and recreation system developed into what it is today as
a direct result of decades of work, leadership, and investment by
community members and leaders. It is a major community asset that
repays those investments every day. The system achieves this through
returns in higher property values; improved neighborhoods, families,
and community members; enhanced lives and job performance
as individuals exercise, play, and relieve stress. The greener, more
beautiful and sustainable urban environment adds to Boulder's
majestic natural setting that helps attract tourists and new businesses
while retaining a highly qualified workforce.
6 May DRAFT of Boulder 2013 Park~ and Recreation Nlastcr Plan Chapter I
The 2013 Boulder Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan =
Update is intended to help today's leaders and community members
make sound and fruitful decisions that will help the community
maintain and enhance our system of recreational assets and
opportunities within the city for years to come.
Overview of Boulder -
Figure 1.3 Chautauqua Park
Location
With a population of approximately 97,000, Boulder is the 11 th-most-
populous city in the state of Colorado. Located in north-central
Boulder County at an elevation of 5,430 feet, the city is 25 square
miles and approximately 25 miles northwest of Denver. Boulder sits
within the Boulder Valley, the meeting point of the Rocky Mountains
and the Great Plains. The Flatirons to the west of the city are widely
recognizable features and a part of Boulder's wide variety of
protected natural and recreation areas.
History
Boulder Valley was originally home to the Southern Arapaho tribe of
Native Americans, several other tribes routinely visited the area. In
1858, gold seekers established themselves in the area, and, in 1861,
the Territory of Colorado was created by Congress to support the
growing mining industry. To encourage economic stability, the town
campaigned to bring railroad service and the University of Colorado
to Boulder. In 1871 the town of Boulder was incorporated.
Also developing in the late 1800s was the concept of the
Chautauqua, a movement focusing on adult education and
enlightenment. Boulder is home to one of the few remaining
Chautauqua institutions in the US, a testament to the community's
long-standing value of the arts and recreation. After World War II, the
Boulder population grew, but not without an eye toward managed
growth, preserving historic and natural treasures, and building a strong
economy. In 1959, Boulder voters approved the "Blue Line" city-
charter amendment, which restricted city water service to altitudes
below 5,750 feet in-an effort to protect the mountain backdrop from
development.
In 1951, residents overwhelmingly voted in favor of amending the city
charter to combine the long-standing parks and recreation divisions
and establish a Department of Parks and Recreation (BPRD). Today,
BPRD manages over 1,800 acres of urban parkland and 138,000
square feet of recreation center space, plus many other recreation
facilities.
(ity of :ouldlet 2013 Parks and RKre-ation Master Plan (hapterl Moy DRAFT
In 1967, Boulder voters became the first in the nation to tax
Master Plan Benefits themselves to acquire open space to preserve buffer areas, natural
• Ensure the public health, welfare, and areas, and the mountain backdrop. As a result, today the open
safety of the community Space and Mountain Parks Department f OSMP) manages a system
of 45,000 acres of open-space lands surrounding the city, and an
• Assess the current state of the park extensive trail system visited by walkers, hikers, bicyclists, dog walkers,
and recreation system runners, and others.
• Guide the development of the park
and recreation system within a Boulder Today
community
Today, Boulder is widely regarded as a progressive community with
• Provide a foundation for financial a vibrant arts, recreation, and entertainment scene. It is known
security of the department for its high quality of life, physically active community members,
• Develop a tool for rational decision- and many options for fine dining, as well as for being a top tourist
making destination. Boulder is home to the University of Colorado, which
enrolls approximately 30,000 students. Sustainable initiatives
• Engage the public in discussing issues and environmentalism are key components to the overarching
and developing solutions environmental ethic of the city. The community is home to
• Coordinate the various functions of many "green" initiatives ranging from transportation to building
the department and other municipal construction to water and energy conservation.
agencies
• Create feasible actions to translate the About the Master Plan Update
strategic concepts of the plan into This plan provides an update for the City of Boulder Parks and
actual implementation Recreation 2006 Master Plan. The plan provides standards for levels
of park and recreation services and facilities in the city, along with
development priorities, a Capital Improvement Program, and an
implementation strategy. It will help the City of Boulder to more
equitably allocate services and to meet identified deficiencies and
shortfalls in the system for the future.
Besides providing an inventory of the facilities, properties, and
programs and an analysis of use and demand, the plan also
documents the extensive public and stakeholder input obtained
throughout the process. This community input provides a framework
for confirming core values and goals. The synthesis of information,
public feedback, and measurable and definable goals and
objectives can help the community act and invest in the system in a
rational, system-wide approach that aligns with community priorities.
Finally, the plan describes the political and administrative processes
that can be instituted to make public funding dollars for parks and
mY recreation go further and to make the city's parks and recreation
ro department and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board stronger
-a. and more transparent to the public. Altogether, this refocusing of
rL 1 priorities can engage the community's passion for recreation and
improve the City of Boulder's capacity for action to provide a better
future.
Figure 1.4 Community Open House
Moy • Chapterl
Phase I Phase it Phase III
Inn 1011- Nov 1072 Nr"v A N 2 reb 2012 Feb 2OJ3 • Aug 10J 3
~ ~ a f
•Benchmarking I -Plan Integration -Recommendations
-Research Reporis -Levels of Service .Action Plan
Analysis
-Public Input .Mission •Investment
-Stakeholder -Core Programs •Strategy
Involvement -Funding Priorities
Research Includes: Community Engagement Includes:
• Trends and Demographics - Stakeholder Interviews
• Plans and Policies Review - Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
• Charter, Mission and Vision Review • Staff Technical Advisory Group
• Assets and Benchmarking h~! vQ • Online Discussions
• Financial Sustainability o Community Survey
• Organization Analysis - Public Workshops
• Other Survey Findings - Outreach to Other Boards
and Commissions
Key
Themes
Policy
Directive
City Council
Figure 1.5 Master Planning Process
Community Engagement
A critical and ongoing part of the master plan update is the
community engagement process, which is necessary to effectively
deliver a community-oriented park and recreation system. A
balanced, open, and collaborative engagement process builds
community-wide trust in the plan and the process. Community
engagement is carefully planned in order to create an outcome
that will secure support for, and the ultimate approval of, the master
p{an update by the City Council, advisory groups, city management,
department staff, and the diverse groups that utilize BPRD's services.
Community engagement during the planning process included the
following key elements.
Boulder City of 2013
Stakeholder Interviews
Starting in January 2012, the project team conducted interviews
with key stakeholders representing a wide variety of user groups,
community leaders, city staff, the DRAB, and special interest groups.
Public Open Houses
In late October 2012, BPRD staff hosted public meetings focused
on the master plan update. An additional public open house
was held in April 2013 to review research findings and preliminary
recommendations.
Public Surveys
A random, stratified sample of the community was drawn to
provide statistically representative results. Surveys were distributed in
September 2012, and a total of 663 useable surveys were returned,
yielding a response rate of 20.7% and a confidence interval of 3.8% at
a confidence level of 95%. An identical survey was made available to
any member of the community as an additional tool for engagement,
however, results were kept separate.
Online Engagement
The public was kept informed about the project using several web-
based methods. The Eppley Institute managed a non-city website
to share information and collect feedback. Staff also maintained
a webpage on BPRD's public website. In addition, the department
hosted discussions on the master plan on the City of Boulder's virtual
town hall, inspireboulder.com.
Targeted Outreach
In an effort to connect with underparticipating groups, BPRD
engaged youth, minorities, and other special populations
in conversations and focus groups. Staff met with the Youth
Opportunities Advisory Board (YOAB), the Human Relations
Commission, the Fairview High School Student Council, members of
Intercambio, Companeras, and the Boulder Counter Latina League,
and this outreach is ongoing.
Pathfinders"` Workshops
Two workshops, led by the Eppley Institute in February 2013, were
designed to refine consensus and develop specific strategies for
the master plan. One involved stakeholders from throughout the
community, including representatives from other city departments,
and the other involved BPRD staff representatives.
Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
Comprised of staff members from across the department, members
served as subject matter experts to verify information and research for
accuracy.
10 May DRAF1 City of BoOder 2013
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB)
The PRAB played a significant role in the master plan update by
attending public meetings, reviewing background research, advising
on the master plan's direction, and recommending the plan to the
city council. In addition. PRAB held eight study sessions from February
2012 through may 2013 related to the master plan update. The PRAB's
guidance has been instrumental in shaping the policies of the master
plan.
City Council Involvement
As the final body to accept the master plan update, the city council
was engaged throughout the project. PRAB and the city council
convened for a three-hour study session on the master plan update in
November 2012. Two council members also attended the community
Path finders"A workshop. In May 2013, a follow-up study session will allow
the city council an opportunity to discuss the draft plan.
(itv of Boulder 2013 DRAFT
12 May DRAFT Ot~ of Putildei 201 11 Pxk,~ )nd Recreation fA,~~tci Phri (hapter I
2 Planning
Frameworks
City of Boulder 2013 ♦ DRAFT
1 1
unity sustain W commFramework ab
■rr
Good Einergy& •
Economic Governance
Y : + safety & Vitality Climate Commundy 1
Community Character
Natural Well-Being Accesslble~&
Environment Connected
Boulder Valley Community
Comprehensive Plan
A
a
Boulder Parks Other
and Recreation City of Boulder
Master Plan Master Plans
.t a ~f..i.. .
Agency Partnerships
open space and Mountain Pais Boulder Valley School District
Public Works Boulder County Public Health
r7 , * Human services
• Boulder County Parks and Open space
Library
ism
,011
Recreation Figure 2.1 Community Sustainability from BVCP
Introduction
c This planning effort is called for as a key implementation strategy
under the city's primary planning document, the Boulder Valley
i Comprehensive Pion (BVCP). Boulder's park and recreaflon programs
are tangible ways to shape neighborhoods and to move the
- community toward the vision of becoming one of the most sustainable
Figure 2.3 Related Plans and livable communities in the world. Communities like Boulder
are continuously evolving in ways that reflect ongoing changes to
economic, political, social. and environmental processes. Community
members, local organizations, and their governments collaborate to
produce plans to inform and guide that evolution and thus pursue the
best future possible.
°ta, y Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
ustalnabfllt
The city's main plan, the 2010 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Environmental Economic (BVCP), outlines core values and guidance to achieve sustainability,
Health Vitalit intergovernmental cooperation, organized urban development,
expansion of utilities services, and other initiatives. The sustainability
social framework is particularly critical to the parks and recreation master
Equity plan update and focuses on principles of environmental, economic,
Figure 2.2 Sustainability 3-legged Stool and social sustainability along with an emphasis on community
DRAFT 14 May
SUSTAINABIUW MATRIX correlation: (4 G
High Mod Low
Community Sustainabflity Framework -51 Key Themes 11 Val _L. 0 9
community
Health & ® & Wellness 0
Health
Taking Care of ® 0
What We Have
Financial
Sustainability
& Rela Community
® ® ®
& Relationships (4 G 0
Youth Engagement ® ® 0 0
& activity
Organizational ® ® ® 0
Readiness
`V
The recommendations and actions of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
will align the Key Themes with the Community Sustainabiiity Framework.
Figure 2.4 Sustainabiliity Matrix
engagement. As with all city master plans, this update lakes its overall
policy direction from the BVCP. Figure Xk: illustrates the planning
framework adopted by the city council in the BVCP. kef~e to the
Supplemental Topical Report on Related Planning Documents for
additional discussion.
Boulder City of DRAFT 15
Sustainability Goals
In addition to other planning documents, it is important to consider the
city's Sustainability Framework, which was built upon the foundation
of fhe BVCP and the Priorify Based Budgfing results, and includes
environmental quality, social health, and economic vitality. Applying
Boulder's Sustainability Framework to planning requires consideration
of seven strategy areas. At the intersection of all these areas is the
community's ability to sustainably meet its needs now and in the
future. Categories that directly relate to the facilities and services that
BPRD provides to the community are:
Natural Environment
Green infrastructure is an interconnected system of green
spaces that con4erves natural ecosystem values and functions,
sustains clean air and water, and provides a wide array
of benefits to people and wildlife. Parks play an important
ecological function in mitigating urban development, As the
community builds out, so too must its green infrastructure.
Safety and Community Well-Being
II Boulder strives to promote a healthy community and to address
social and cultural inequities, recognizing that environmental,
economic, and social sustainability are built upon full
community involvement. Boulder's park and recreation system
provides one of the most effective ways to build a sense of
community and improve quality of life. The community can
participate in activities that strengthen the mind, spirit, and
body. In turn, parks and recreation programs build social
capital, the backbone of a strong and engaged community.
Economic Vitality
Boulder parks are a source of positive economic benefits; they
enhance property values, increase municipal revenue, and
attract businesses, homebuyers, workers, and retirees. When
linked properly with local visitor service providers, parks and
recreation often emerges as an "engine" that drives tourism
in the community by providing access to unique features,
programs, and experiences such as special events and festivals.
Recreation facilities provide sites for sports tournaments and
athletic events, which can be major sources of tourism and
economic benefits.
Good Governance
Supporting the community's strategic decision-making with
timely, reliable, and accurate data and analysis based on
current research is critical for meeting all sustainability goals.
Managing assets for the full lifecycle cost and maintaining
existing infrastructure promote a healthy and safe community
while contributing to financial sustainability. In addition, using a
16 May DRAFT (hapteQ
lifecycle management approach for recreation services that
calls for planning, implementing, and evaluating programs
is imperative to effectively meet diverse and changing
community needs. Utilizing best management practices and
new technology and providing professional development are
necessary to effectively and efficiently manage all operations
and provide good customer service.
Energy and Climate
Urban parks cool and clean the air, improve and modify local
wind circulations, and better regulate precipitation patterns.
Recreation centers and other facilities also have a major role
in implementing energy policies. Recycling, composting, and
high-efficiency lighting and heating/cooling systems can
dramatically reduce the city's carbon footprint and contribute
to the financial and environmental sustainability of the Boulder
community.
Community Character
F -i Boulder's compact, interconnected urban form helps ensure
the community's environmental health, social equity, and
economic vitality. An urban park system helps to define the
shape and feel of a city and its neighborhoods. Boulder's urban
parks, which include parkland, plazas, greenways, landscaped
boulevards, public malls, and civic spaces, help define the
community's layout, real estate value, traffic flow, public
events, and the civic culture.
Accessible and Connected Community
BPRD works to maintain and develop a balanced and well-
connected system of parks and recreation facilities that is
linked to all modes of travel. Linking parks, greenways, river
corridors, and other natural or restored lands to create an
interconnected green-space system provides benefits for
people, wildlife, and the economy. It helps connect people
and neighborhoods, provides opportunities for exercise that
can counter today's trends in obesity and adult-onset diabetes,
and enhances emotional well-being by bringing nature "close
to home."
DRAFT City of Boulder 2013 Parks and Recreation Ma5ter Plan (hapter 2 Moy
The Benefits Approach
Boulder's park and outdoor recreation opportunities, along with
natural open space, greenbelts, trails, mountain views, and access
to thousands of acres of wilderness, lend character to the city. Urban
parks add charm to neighborhoods, increase property values, and
provide a balance between nature and development.
A parks and recreation master plan needs to adopt a wide
perspective, viewing BPRD as one provider in the context of a
broader community-wide parks and recreation system, will to be most
effective in serving the city's holistic interests. The four distinct elements
illustrated in Figure XX and listed below should be fostered and
balanced within the community-wide parks and recreation system-
Individual Benefit #1: Individual Development
Parks and recreation provide for a well-balanced and healthy
community. In the resident survey, respondents pointed to health
Community benefits as the top reason for recreating. Recreation provides the
/ individual with a renewed sense of self-worth. Play provides an
opportunity to engage our creative self, regardless of age.
Benefit #2: Community Building
Economy Environment a' park and recreation systems are one of the most effective tools for
d, ca building a sense of community and improving quality of life. Parks
channel positive community participation by getting diverse people
to work together toward a shared vision. Volunteer participation
is an important part of community building through our parks and
Figure 2.5 individual Contribution to recreation system.
Susf jinabiiity
Benefit #3: Economic Enhancement
Parks improve property values, attract people to live and work in the
community, and persuade retirees to stay in the area. Economic
revitalization of neighborhoods and town centers is enhanced by
investment in parks that in turn attract private investment capital. Our
parks and recreation facilities and programs are riot only enjoyed by
community members but also attract visitors and contribute to the
local tourism markets.
Benefit #4: Environmental Stewardship
Our natural areas retain and filter storm water, serve as buffers
between incompatible land uses, lend definition to neighborhood
areas, provide links between residential areas, parks, and schools,
and protect wildlife and fish habitat while providing recreation
opportunities close to home.
18 May DRAH City of Ratilder 20) 3 Parks and Rficseat~en Master Plan Chapter2
3 BPRD
DRAFT System
Park Type Current Undeveloped Total
Neighborhood Parks 306.74 acres 19.42 acres 326.16 acres
Community Parks 149.66 acres 19.00 acres 168.66 acres
City/Regional Parks 716.88 acres 274.68 acres 991.56 acres
Civic Spaces 316.79 acres 0.00 acres 316.79 acres
Total 1,490.07 acres 313.10 acres 1,803.17 acres'
'Park acreage in 2030 if undeveloped land is Improved
Figure 3. 1 Parkland ClossiFlcation
Introduction
Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) manages a premier
system of over 1,800 acres of parkland in approximately 100 parks
and offers more than 2,500 programs for community members of all
backgrounds, ages, and abilities. The department is responsible for
approximately $274 million in park facilities. This includes 288 acres
of managed turf and irrigated park lands, 15 miles of greenway
trails, 38,500 urban trees, 43 athletic fields, 40 playgrounds, 36 park
shelters, 40 tennis courts, and an additional 47 mixed courts used
for basketball, handball, or skate parks. In addition, the department
manages the Flatirons Golf Course, Boulder Reservoir, Valmont City
Park, Pearl Street Mall, and numerous other public facilities.
Parkland
Urban park systems generally provide a wide array of diverse settings
for diverse uses, and this is certainly the case for the community of
Boulder. Of the 1,800 acres of parkland within the city limits, 1,490
are developed for use and an additional 313 are reserved for future
development. Over half of these acres are natural areas that connect
with larger open spaces and greenbelts. A park classification system,
based upon industry best practices, community engagement, and
benchmark research, has been developed by BPRD to develop an
equitable system of parks for the city (see Figure XX).
~ V
f~
Neighborhood parks typically range in size between five and 20 acres
cnd are usually located within walking distances of neighborhood
residences. In Boulder, smaller parks with playgrounds sized
41a ARLO, t-)etween one and five acres are also included in this classification.
1'leighborhood parks are often considered the most fundamental
! park type in a city's system. Examples include North Boulder Park and
h , Melody Park.
Community parks are larger than neighborhood parks, up to 100
acres, and generally include a mix of natural areas and developed
r igure 3.2 North Boulder Park facilities. They provide space for recreational activities that serve
20 May DRAFT Chapter3
Current Acres Total Acres
The Asset Management Topical Report
21% contains a full inventory of parkland.
2195 1875 18% 0 Neighborhood
Com munity
10% 9% City/Regional
48% 55% E] Other
figure 3.3 Parkland Inventory
a wider population than the surrounding neighborhood and are
intended to serve a larger geographic area of the city. Boulder's three
are Foothills, East Boulder and Harlow Plaits Community Parks.
City and regional parks are large, often up to 300 acres, and serve
the entire community. They can provide space for high-intensity
recreational activities as well as large tracts of open space. These
areas frequently attract visitors from outside of the community.
Valmont City Park and the Boulder Reservoir are examples of this type.
Other land types are managed for various uses not characterized
by the classifications above. These include areas like Columbia
Cemetery, the historic Harbeck House, Pearl Street Mall and the Civic
Area around the Municipal Complex, including the library grounds
and City Hall. This also includes the Boulder Creek Bike Path and a
number of community garden sites.
BPRD also manages natural areas and urban forests along stream
corridors and on open parcels that are still undeveloped and reserved
for future park sites. In addition to these natural areas, many of the
existing developed parks have acres that have been left natural or
are adjacent to natural areas, including Valmont City Park and Harlow
Plaits Community Park. However, these areas attract wildlife and BPRD Facility Inventory
invasive plant and aquatic species that require management similar Aquatic Facility 5
to that required on open space property. Recreation Center 3
Golf Course 1
Diamond Ball Field 24
Rectangular Field 20
Recreation Facilities Playground 40
Skate Park 1
BPRD also operates $200 million in major facilities and equipment, Bike Park 1
of which $50 million is in cooperation with the Facilities and Asset Dog Park 4
Management (FAM) division of the Public Works Department. These Picnic Shelter 34
facilities support both general informal use by the public as well as Tennis Court 40
specialized or scheduled use for athletic competitions, recreation Community Garden 4
programs, or other events. Recreation facilities have highly specialized The Asset Management Topical Report
maintenance and management requirements and are subject to in AppendixX contains a full inventory
different standards than urban parkland. of recreation facilities.
Figure 3.4 Faclitty Inventory
Oty of Boulder 2013 Parks and Recreation f,~aster Plan, Chapter 3 May DRAFT 21
Active recreation facilities operated by BPRD include tennis courts.
recreation centers, aquatic facilities. ball diamonds, and rectangular
fields. While some of these facilities can be used for different activities,
many are single or narrow purpose. Active recreation facilities are
typically more costly to develop and operate over time. Community
decisions about the provision of these facilities generally take into
consideration the extent of the user base, lifecycle management
costs, and existence of similar facilities in or near the community.
Passive or community recreation facilities include playgrounds, picnic
shelters, community gardens, and some open rectangular fields for
use that is unstructured and informal. These facilities play a significant
role in giving parks their character, and as a result of their broader use,
a wider segment of the general public tends to access them. While
passive/community recreation facilities are usually less expensive
to develop and maintain, they also have notable lifecycle costs
associated with their management,
Some specialized recreation facilities such as the Flatirons Golf Course,
dog parks, the Valmont Bike Park, and skate parks are suited only
for specific uses. While these facilities can garner a lot of visibility
and support, they can also end up serving only a narrow slice of the
community and can be the most costly facilities to maintain and
operate over time. Departments typically conduct thorough needs
assessments before committing to the development and ongoing
maintenance of specialized facilities, carefully vetting plans with the
community, advisory boards, and governing bodies.
Recreation Programs
BPRD is a major - and, in some ways, the dorninant - provider of
recreation services in Boulder. It offers over 2,500 individual recreation
programs each year to both Boulder residents and non-residents.
Major program areas are listed in Figure XX, along with their average
number of registrations and annual revenue. These figures tell
only part of the story, however. Not all programs require advance
registration; there are many that are open to "drop-in" participation.
Also, not all programs generate income, particularly those that
provide community benefits. BPRD's other processes for tracking
program participation and outcomes are currently being revised to
improve their effectiveness, and this plan provides several strategic
recommendations on how to collect and evaluate recreation
program data.
Most programs are held at one of the three recreation centers
managed by BPRD, but they are also conducted at other department
facilities. Some aquatics programs take place at Scott Carpenter
Pool and Spruce Pool. All pottery programs and services are held at
the City of Boulder Pottery Lab. Several sports programs are held at BPRD Recreation Programs
East Mapleton Ball Fields, Pleasant View Fields, Martin Park, and Stazio Registrations Revenue
Softball Fields. The Iris Studio is used for some dance, Pilates, and mind Aquatics 2,735 $191,855
& body (e.g., yoga, chi kung) programs. Through partnerships, other Dance 2,316 298,988
EXPAND 1,331 86,664
programs take place at non-BPRD locations such as the East Boulder Fitness 997 81,907
Senior Center and CU. Gymnastics 5,631 652,045
Mind & Body 1,890 146,666
Pilates 790 78,201
Aquatics, dance, fitness, mind & body, Piiates, pottery, sports, Pottery 1,024 178,583
and weight training all offer both adult programming and youth Reservoir 450 84,521
programming. Special interest activities such as drawing, painting, Special Sports Interest 342 342 49,790 5,052 1,167,336
cooking, and drama are also available for all ages. In addition, the Weight Training 985 164,358
Boulder Reservoir provides programs including sailing lessons, water S1 694 2,398
sports, and summer day-camp. .overage, 2009-2011
The Recreation Programs & Services
Many programs, like those that introduce participants to basic fitness Topical Report in Appendix X contains a
activities or teach people to swim, are offered not only to serve the full listing of all BPRD programs.
individual, but also to provide a community benefit. Community Figure 3.5 Recreation Programming
programming, as it is sometimes called, also includes EXPAND (Exciting
Programs and New Dimensions) and YSI (Youth Services Initiative).
EXPAND provides a variety of therapeutic recreation services to
community members with disabilities. The YSI Program provides youth
ages six to 18 with after-school and summer programs as well as
special events and trips.
A number of special events are also offered by BPRD, sometimes in
collaboration with other city departments or organizations. These
include community cleanup days, father & daughter dances, special
nature programs, art fairs, races, and parades.
Other Providers
The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department is not the only provider
in the overall system of park and recreation services in the community.
Organizations from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors all play
a role in offering programs and/or facilities that relate to parks and
recreation.
Acreage of Nearby Providers
Other Providers of Parkland - - -
OSMP
The Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) maintains land around school BCPO 45,000
CP05 35,000
properties, and these lands are frequently used as de facto parks - USFS 1,500,000
especially those with playgrounds, athletic fields. and pathways. The NPs 266,000
Boulder Library manages small parcels of land that receive occasional CPW 14,000
use for activities like concerts or events. The Transportation Division of Other 1,000
the Public Works Department maintains many of the city's greenways TOTAL 1,861,000
and trails within the city limits.
Figure 3.6 Other Providers
.
May DRAFT 23
The dominant provider of open space is the Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department (OSMP), which manages 45,000 acres.
Boulder County Open Space (BCPOS) provides an additional 35,000
acres of open space and 110 miles of trails. The US Forest Service
(USFS) manages Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests, which
provide outdoor recreational opportunities. Rocky Mountain National
Park, managed by the National Park Service (NIPS), is approximately
one hour from Boulder. Also, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) has
several state parks near Boulder, including Eldorado Canyon, Golden
Gate Canyon, and St. Vrain State Parks.
Other Providers of Recreation Facilities and
Programs
In addition to providing small outdoor spaces for events, the
Boulder Library occasionally offers film screenings, art shows, and
literary events. In addition to operating part of the East Boulder
Community Center, the Department of Human Services offers cultural,
recreational, wellness, and educational programs for youth, families,
and seniors. While not a City of Boulder agency, Boulder County Public
Health provides programs that promote positive health behaviors and
environmental practices.
Most other providers of recreation facilities and programs are from
the nonprofit or private sector, The YMCA of Boulder County and
the University of Colorado manage recreation centers comparable
to those provided by BPRD, There are many private businesses that
provide specialized programs and facilities for activities such as yoga,
Pilates, golf, and fitness. Nonprofit athletic organizations coordinate
seasonal schedules and tournaments and often utilize the facilities
of BPRD. Other special-interest organizations also play a role in
conducting programs.
Organizational Structure
An overarching goal of the master plan update is to investigate the
department's role as a provider of park and recreation services in
the community and to make recommendations about the structure
of the department to allow for greater effectiveness. The city charter
articulates the most fundamental expectations of the department
and directs DRAB to advise BPRD staff on parks and recreation matters,
The department is led by a Director, appointed by the City Manager.
There are then three divisions to accomplish the department's mission.
The Administrative Division manages functions such as budgeting,
marketing, communications, information systems, and technology
management. The Parks and Planning Division is responsible for the
day to day operations of the parks system, planning and development
24 May DRAFT ',-It, Qf Poulder 2013
of new parks, and renovation of existing parks and facilities, The
Recreation Division operates the department's recreation facilities
and manages recreation programming.
DRAFT City of So uldet 2013 Park5 and Recteation Master Plan Chapter3 Moy
26 May DDRAFT Oty of Bouldei 2013
4 Community
Trends
City of Boulder 2013 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Chapter4 May DDRAFT 27
%of County
Population Population
400,000 609E
350,000 - - -
300,000 - - - - - -
250,000
200,000 ~*r 309!.
150000---
-
201%.
- - - - 100,000
50,000 - - zo%
o
Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
IloiddrrCnuniy I~1,88`) 18'),675 2?11.33° 291.BRL i 2.1fl, ;b6.Cjla
City of Boulder 63,500 76,685 83,312 99,093 97,706 110,000 114,00
%of County Population 48.1% 40.4% 37.0% 34.0% 33.2% 33.1% 31.1%
Source: 2010 Census and City of Boulder Planning
Figure 4.1 Boulder Population Growth Chart
Examining the key issues and evolving trends of the community
provides a critical backdrop to other research findings and helps
compose an accurate, comprehensive depiction of community
needs, Exploring the key issues and trends relevant to parks and
recreation in Boulder will set the stage for the meaningful strategic
recommendations of this r-naster plan.
Boulder's Population
Since 1970, the city's population has grown at a rate of about 1.6%
annually, from 66,870 to 97,706 in the year 2010. With an estimated
99,700 residents in 2013, the population has remained about the
same since. representing the lowest rate of growth in a generation.
However, growth is predicted to occur between now and 2030 at
a rate of about 1To each year, bringing the number of residents to
approximately 114,000, The growth rate of Boulder County is expected
to increase at a noticeably higher rate than that of the City of Boulder.
As a result, the percentage of the county's population living in the City
of Boulder will continue to decrease, with more growth likely to occur
in neighboring Longmont.
Boulder Development Patterns
Areas of the city are becoming less suburban and more urban. Over
the past decade, over 3,000 new housing units have been developed.
Approximately five million square feet of commercial and industrial
space have been built as well. However, the city limits have not
28 May DRAFT Cit, of Part,-., and fo~, Pian Chapterci
expanded significantly, contributing to the trend of "infill" and the
urbanization of Boulder.
Boulder has undertaken several initiatives to control urban sprawl and
has adopted policies to manage growth. The city has inslituted taxes
and ordinances to preserve open space and prevent urban services
like water and sewer from expanding outside of a defined boundary,
Additionally, Boulder is home to many "green" initiatives ranging
from transportation to building construction to water and energy
conservation.
Land Use and Housing Trends
Municipal policies restricting urban sprawl have had the intended
effect of maintaining a distinct urban edge and community
separation focusing development in urban areas. Areas where
significant change is anticipated are the Gunbarrel area, East Boulder,
and Boulder Junction. New infill developments in residential zones
will likely include a variety of housing types across a range of prices,
including more affordable units than currently exist in most Boulder
neighborhoods. The 2010 American Community Survey reports that
more than half of the homes in Boulder are occupied by renters as
opposed to owners, as commonly found in university communities.
This differs from trends across Boulder County, the State of Colorado,
and the United States, where more than 50% of homes are owner-
occupied.
In their analysis of data from the 2010 Decennial Census, the City
of Boulder Department of Community Planning & Sustainability
observed that the number of individuals per household in Boulder has
decreased almost continuously since 1470. Since that time, Boulder
has been below the national, state, and county averages for people
per household. In 2000, the national average was 2.54 individuals
per household, Boulder was 2.20, At the time of the 2010 Census, the
national average was 2.58, and Boulder was 2.16. In recent years the
neighborhoods of North Boulder, Williams Village, East Boulder, and
Central Boulder added more new households than any other part of
the city. Most future housing is anticipated to be attached housing,
and the demand for high qualify urban parks and open space will
continue.
Additionally, if rezoning and residential development of infill sites
occurs, this may eventually require the city to acquire and develop
new parkland for urban open space and recreation. Considering
growth patterns, these sites may not be large enough to provide
larger parks, so smaller neighborhood parks, pocket parks, or urban
plazas will likely need to be considered.
Cit) of :BoLilder 201) Parks and Recreation blaster Plan Chapter4 May DROT 29
100%
9wo
80% -
70%
60% '
50%
40% iq
30%
20%
10% - -
0°1
City of Boulder United
-Occupancy Colorado
Boulder County States
Renter-occupied 53.1% 37-;% I 34.1% 31.61%
Owner-occupied 46.996 623% I 65.9% 65.4%
Table 4.2 Boulder Renter to Owner Chart
Wellness. Culture
Boulder is a highly active community that cares deeply for both
individual and community wellness. Additionally, there is a community
mentality to promote healthy living in all aspects of service provision,
including environmental health. Sustainable initiatives are key
components to the overarching environmental ethic of the city.
Question:
To what degree do parks and recreation Issues related to public health bear significant relevance to the
contribute to Boulder being a physically provision of parks and recreation in Boulder, especially in terms
healthy communityi'
of social and environmental sustainability. Residents of Colorado.
particularly Boulder, are more active than many other people in the
country. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that
/ 53.9%a of Coloradans get the recommended amount of physical
r/ activity, compared to only 48.1% of the national population. While
Colorado is still the healthiest state, its residents are growing less
healthy by the year, Many Coloradans, particularly today's youth, are
increasingly sedentary. As a result, state childhood obesity rates (14.2%
i in 2009 - an increase of 4.3% from 2007) are a cause for attention
among park and recreation professionals.
GreatiyContributes 80-711. Recreation Trends
Somewhat Contributes 18.5% The city is known by many because of the abundance of recreational
Does not Contribute 0.2% opportunities available to those who reside or visit here. Recreation
Can't say/noopinon providers span the public, private, and nonprofit sectors and represent
Figure 4.4 BPRD Health Contribution an ever-growing array of activities. Among the most popular active
recreation pursuits in the community are swimming, yoga, Pilates,
running, and fitness activities. According to the 2012 Sporting Goods
Manufacturers Association report, fitness sports remained the most
popular physical activity in the nation. The national participation rate
is approximately 60%, and activities such as boot camp-style training 1 in 5 BVSD high school students
have led this set of activities. In addition, activities such as spinning watch 3+ hours of TV each day.
(stationary cycling) are growing in popularity. Health and wellness
have been pushed to the forefront of park and recreation agencies
in recent years, and, in 2012, the National Recreation and Park
Association established a health and wellness pillar, thus recognizing it
as a critical area to focus their efforts.
1 i 3 BvsD fie school boys
Boulder residents' tendency to refer individual, non-team activities u
~ p use computer r games for
such as fitness activities is consistent with broader trends, which have 3+ hours each day.
shown a decrease in team sports and athletics, especially for adults. Figure 4.3 BvSD Statistics
Nationally, with the exception of soccer, team and individual sports
pafticipation has decreased since 2001. In the last two years, indoor
volleyball, slow-pitch softball, and tackle football have experienced a
decline of at least 10% in overall participation. Sports such as baseball,
basketball, flag football, and soccer have experienced a smaller
decline. Ultimate frisbee, beach volleyball, rugby, lacrosse, field
hockey, and most racquet sports have seen the only participation
increase over the last two years. National trends confirm that
traditional pastime sport activities have a declining participation trend
while nontraditional sporting activities are on the rise.
Like much of the US, Colorado is experiencing declining youth
participation in outdoor recreation activities. In his book, "Last
Child in the Woods: Saving Children from Nature Deficit Disorder", Question:
Richard Louv coins the term "nature deficit disorder" to describe How much do you agree that it is
the phenomenon of many of today's youth not experiencing the important for BPRD to promote physical
social, mental, and physical benefits of being outside and recreating, and mental well-being?
Moreover, young adults become significantly less active as they enter
adulthood, from about the ages of 17 to 22.
w
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Somewhat Disagree 1.9%
Strongly Disagree
Figure 4.6 BPRD Health Promotion
:ouldpi 2013 Parks and Reveation Master Plan Chapter4 May DRAFT
32 Moy DRAFT Ov, cf 3ciolder 2013 Pjrk~ ~md Re(reatiori AbsterPlan Chapter 4
5 Needs
Assessment A
Oty i Boulde; 2013 Recteation Master Kin Chapter 5 May DPAFT 33
Benchmark Communities Needs Assessment Methods
Benchmark Scale Pop. Accurately assessing needs is one of the fundamental parts of
Boulder, CO 97,385 planning. Informed by data about the situation and environment,
Broomfield, Co Regional 55,869 timely and appropriate decisions need to be made about how
Foothills PRO, CO Regional 90,000
Fort Collins, CO Regional 143,986 to meet the community's demand with a supply of the right mix
S. Sub PRO, CO Regional 150,000 of services. Demand is derived from multiple sources: community
Westminster, CO Regional 106,114 engagement, research on trends, findings from benchmark
Ann Arbor, MI National 113,934
Asheville, NC National 63,393 communities, and related research. Supply is informed by policy
Berkeley, CA National 112,580 guidance, organizational structure, available resources, and other
Bloomington, IN National 80,405 factors. As such, conducting a needs assessment requires a synthesis
Naperville PRO, IL National 143,000
Tempe, AX National 161,719 of a wide array of inputs that ultimately yield valuable information
about how to establish Level of Service (LOS) standards.
The Benchmark Analysis Topical Report
contains an analysis of all data points.
Figure 5.1 Benchmark This needs assessment utilized a triangulation approach to derive
findings that inform service levels for the department. One source was
the community engagement activities discussed earlier in Chapter 1,
which included open houses, stakeholder meetings, the community
survey, and PathfinderSM meetings. Another source was the research
drawn from topical reports developed as part of the planning process.
Benchmarking was also used to assist Boulder in comparing its park
and recreation facilities, programs, and administration to cities
determined to be desirable comparisons.
Eleven benchmark communities were selected after input from staff,
stakeholders, and the planning team. A total of 93 data points were
gathered from the benchmark cities on a variety of parameters
pertinent for comparison to the Boulder parks and recreation system.
Figure XX provides a summary of the key comparison parameters and
Bead, OR nnArbor,Ml results. The Needs Assessment should be validated by department
B rkztey,CA Naperville. lb O staff on an annual basis. This can be done by reviewing local
,4 0 Bloominelon, IN participation data, national park and recreation trends, data from
~~Ofr
Tvnpe, AZ AsMvllle, NCO future community surveys, and program evaluation reports.
Findings on Recreation Demand
Access to close-to-home parks, playgrounds, and picnic areas is highly
valued by residents according to the community survey and public
meetings. This aligns with research suggesting that neighborhood
0Foil Coilins parks in close proximity to homes provide opportunities for children to
8oudo experience nature and engage in physical activity.
Broomfield
Westminster
FocthillsPROa South Natural areas were found to be important to the community.
Suburban PRO
Approximately nine out of 10 community survey respondents indicated
that it was "very important" to have forests and natural areas in
Boulder.
Figure 5.2 Benchmarks
34 May r
Flexible and adaptable spaces for diverse forms of recreation was
requested. Specific comments cited the importance of providing
spaces that can be used for playing athletic sports on an informal
basis and open fields that can be used for special events or passive
recreation.
Fitness is the most popular recreation activity according to local
participation estimates and national trend research. Activities such
as running, aerobics, stationary cycling, yoga, and exercising to
music have shown increases nationally in recent years. Community
engagement input placed a very high importance on promoting
physical and mental well-being, and there was a strong desire for
BPRD to continue to provide fitness programs regardless of whether
they are offered elsewhere in the community.
Outdoor activities like hiking and recreational canoeing and kayaking
are increasing in popularity nationwide. Other activities such as wildlife
viewing and camping are relatively popular in the Front Range region,
including Boulder. BPRD's overall use at the Reservoir has increased
since 2009 with some of the highest growth recorded in the north
shore/ Coot Lake area.
Nontraditional sports such as ultimate Frisbee and lacrosse have seen
modest participation increases both locally and nationally in recent
years. However, participation in traditional team and individual sports
such as football, baseball, softball, and basketball has decreased
nationally since 2007, BPRD's sport programs have followed the
national declining trend.
The availability of recreation facilities such as ball diamonds,
rectangular fields, and pools emerged as an issue and appears to
be a result of a number of conditions, including: scheduling conflicts
and high demand during prime times, lack of multi-use fields, lack
of coordination with Boulder Valley School District (BVSD), Boulder
County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS), and a slightly lower Level
of Service than surrounding communities. Better active and strategic
management of facility scheduling, the improvement of multi-use
fields and coordination with other providers is likely to resolve this issue.
Athletic Fields and Aquatic Needs Assessments should be conducted
regarding demand of specific facilities, including studying the financial
and operational implications of new development.
Level of Service Analysis
Needs are expressed through a Level of Service (LOS) analysis that
considers all findings. Numeric LOS metrics are most commonly used
(ity r Boulder 2013 DRAFT
' Level of Service (LOS) Acres Needed by 2030
(Acres per 1,000 residents) to Maintain 2006 Standard
2006 LOS Standard Current LOS ,
In In 2030 Projection
Park Type Benchmark Cities Boulder 1 (Full Development)
Neighborhood Parks 3.00 3.15 2.71 +21.84 acres
Community Parks 1.50 1.54 1.45 +5.34 acres
City/Regional Parks i 1.00-3.00 7.36 8.55 -643,56 acres
Total 7 5.50-7.50 12.05 + 12.71 -616.38 acres
Figure 5.4 Park LOS
when analyzing parkland and recreation facilities so as to express
acreage or availability in per capita terms. However, effective
assessments of recreation programs often rely more heavily on other
factors, such as specific programming trends.
Total urban parkland includes all Parkland
classifications, both current acreage The analysis and projections of future parkland needs are based
and those planned for development. upon industry and community standards in addition to other needs
It also includes an additional 316.79 assessment research. Table XX provides an overview of the LOS for the
acres of other land types managed by urban parkland provided by BPRD.
BPRD by not tracked for benchmarking Given Boulder's existing acreage and the high LOS for urban parkland,
purposes, such the the Flatirons Golf
Course, Stazio Softball Complex, the the community is well poised to meet future needs. In fact, with the
Civic Area, and Pearl Street Mall. total supply of acreage available for development, the amount
of open space supplied by OSMP and other providers, and the
availability of land associated with schools, it is anticipated that there
will not be any additional requirements to acquire new lands, This
is dependent on existing undeveloped lands being developed in
balance with growing recreation needs and maintaining a balance of
developed and natural areas in urban parks. It also assumes:
• New single-use or specialized facilities will be targeted to the larger
city or community park sites, freeing up neighborhood parks for
more appropriate uses that currently have single-use facilities that
Urban Park Acres per 1,000 residents are often reserved for leagues or team play.
20 • South Valmont City Park will be planned for development with a
balance of active and passive multi-use facilities, but assuming a
15 fiscally constrained outlook.
-PL Median • Area III Park Reserve will only be planned for long-term future
io 0 enchmark needs if funding is available for the vision plan.
Q O~rl Median . Partnerships with BVSD will be established for joint use of
elementary schools and potential use of athletic fields.
Regional Median
5
Recreation Facilities
acres 0 The following recreation facilities classifications are intended for use
Figure 5.5 Urban Park Median as guidelines to analyze and plan for a recreation facility inventory
FKisting j Benchmark Cities Comparison
Regional LOS
Facility Type LOS per Quantity Current LOS All LOS Median Median TPL LOS Median*
Aquatic Facility (Outdoor) 100,000 i 2 2.05 2.49 1.79 n/a
Aquatic Facility (indoor) 100,000 3 3.08 1.94 2.08 n/a
Recreation Center 100,000 3 3.08 n/a n/a 3.5
Golf Course 100,000 1 1.03 1.4 2.08 0.7
Diamond Ball Field 10,000 24 2.46 2.45 2.89 1.6
Rectangular Field 10,000 20 2.05 1.32 5.22 n/a
Playground 10,000 40 4.11 3.96 3.96 2.2
Skate Park 100,000 1 1.03 1.24 1.33 0.4
Dog Park 100,000 5 5.13 i 1.54 1.56 0.6
Picnic Shelter 10,000 34 3.49 2.71 4.73 n/a
Tennis Court 10,000 40 4.11 I 2.44 2.44 1,8
Community Garden 100,000 4 4.11 1.22 0 n/a
Figure 5.7 Facility LOS
that represents and reflects the interests of the Boulder community, * TPL LOS Median refers to the Trust for
accounts for relevant national trends, provides direction for future Public Land's (TPL) City Park Facts
recreation facility management, and fits within current and future Median for 2012. City Park Facts is a
funding levels. Table XX provides a summary of the current and project of The Trust for Public Land, the
projected LOS for each facility type based on the current population nation's largest national nonprofit
(i.e., 97,385) and provides a summary of the benchmark communities. organization working to create and
improve neighborhood parks. Through
an annual survey, TPL'sCenter for City
Park Excellence maintains the nation's
The greatest demand for LOS increases is likely related to aquatics, most complete database of park facts
fitness, athletic fields and close-to-home outdoor/nature activities. for the 100 most populous U.S. cities
Research indicated that swimming is one of the top-ranked
aspirationa( sports for people of all ages, and according to community
engagement, scheduling time for the use pool lanes is difficult, Further
analysis should be conducted to determine if this demand issue can
be addressed through alternative scheduling arrangements.
Because fitness activities in general remain popular, the LOS for fitness-
oriented recreation facilities should be maintained. While many other
providers can be found in Boulder, survey results indicated that there
was a strong desire for BPRD to continue to provide fitness programs
and facilities regardless of whether they are offered elsewhere in the
community. This is in conflict with the department's limited funding
and national trends and the type of service provision can be changed
to reflect fitness trends. With the growing number of private fitness
clubs such as yoga studios, BPRD can continue to provide fitness
programs (as desired by the community); however, a shift to more
drop-in and facilitative service provision may be necessary.
Boulder City of 2013
Ensuring close-to-home opportunities for community members to
enjoy nature may be associated with parkland levels of service, but
it is also important to plan for adequate facilities to facilitate outdoor
recreation in an urban setting. Therefore, there is a need to continue
to provide playgrounds, picnic shelters, and community gardens in
future years.
How important is it for BPRD to provide Recreation Programs
recreation programs for....
Determining LOS adjustments for recreation programs relies on much
c. ~,of the same research and data used for the recreation facility LOS
analysis. However, quantitative level-of-service metrics are used less
frequently when assessing recreation programs. In fact, a needs
II assessment often addresses issues regarding the management and
it Is ESSENM for BPAD to provide administration of programming.
recreation programs to the following
population groups.,.
Figure 5.7 Populaffon Service
In terms of the programs themselves, fitness, yoga, swimming, weight
lifting, and nature programming are likely to be the most popular
in coming years, and service levels for these program areas should
be closely monitored. Fitness sports remained the most popular
physical activity in the nation, with a national participation rate of
approximately 60%. Yoga participation has increased over the last
several years, and swimming remains one of the top aspirational
interests for individuals of all ages. The number-one aspirational interest
for ages 13-44 is working out with weights. This interest is reflected in
the nationwide positive trend of weight training participation.
• youth sports
-beginners .advanced youth
.low income youth and adults
and adults Sports programs In general, a major priority of the department is to make informed
.people with for adults
disabilities management decisions based on budgeting and financing metrics.
In particular, policy decisions regarding specific recreation programs
often consider the extent to which the cost to deliver a program
Taxes Balance users can be recovered. However, decisions are increasingly informed by
Who should pay more? another factor: the degree of social or public good that the program
provides to the community. Social-good programs differ from private-
good programs in that the latter provide benefits that are generally
exclusive to the individual, while the former enhance the health,
Cornmunily„divd~,al safety, and livability of the community. It is necessary to identify
who benefits? how programs and services compare in terms of community versus
Figure 5.6 Fee Balance individual benefit as well as high versus low degree of cost recovery.
Another general need observed during the process involves the
lifecycle management of programs and services, particularly after
programs have been implemented. Program evaluations play a
vital role in informing management decisions and currently appear
to be underutilized at BPRD. A lifecycle management approach to
recreation programs involves establishing clear, measurable program
objectives and then measuring how well the program achieved those
stated objectives.
38 May DRAFT ChapterS
The method of delivering recreation programs and services is
changing, and a recent international trend has been to leverage
partnerships to conceive, design, implement, evaluate, and retire
programs. Boulder has innumerable opportunities to pursue public-
private, public-nonprofit, and public-public partnerships. In fact,
many of BPRDFs existing programs have a critical dependence upon
partnerships. In order to sustain the provision of programs over the long
term, a number of key partnership relationships must continue to be
cultivated and strategically managed.
It may be particularly valuable to examine the provision of so-called
traveling competitive programs, which we define in this plan as either
team or individual recreation activities provided by BPRD that have
been established to compete with teams within leagues in a broader
geographic area. Certain BPRD dance and gymnastics programs
participate in tournaments and travel to other communities during
a competitive season. These are worthy of review because they are
generally provided by non-governmental organizations, including
other organizations in the Boulder community. While it may indeed
be appropriate to continue this model of service delivery in Boulder,
additional policy guidance and analysis are warranted before
developing recommendations for alternative methods for providing
these activities.
Organizational Assessment
Organizational assessments are a typical component of park and
recreation master plans. They are frequently complex and represent
the opinions of many sectors of the community, and importantly, the
employees, leaders, managers, and executives of the organization, The complete Organizational
This complexity creates a tapestry of approaches to assess, and then Assessment contains four parts:
make recommendations to improve the organization. Findings and
recommendations from the BPRD organizational assessment are Position analysis: a competency analysis
summarized below. for individual positions and the
organization as a whole.
Competency Focus
Organizational culture: results of
BRPD has position descriptions and requirements to perform the qualitative assessments and an
duties in programs, parks, and facilities but some are not current or organizational survey.
reflect published professional or agency standards. That is not to Department alignment: strategies,
say that BPRD staff are not qualified to perform duties required of including staffing structures, position
them, however, it does suggest that an internal focus on technical- gaps, and realignment of duties to
professional competencies of the staff, as they are hired, developed improve culture and external
or trained, and promoted, needs to be more externally focused relationships.
on standards than on the evolution of employee abilities within the
department. The Future BPRD organization:
observations for strategic actions that
move BPRD toward becoming a more
effective organization.
City of Boulder F Recreation
Culture
An organization's culture is made up of many parts, many visible
and some invisible. BPRD's culture is a complex combination of post
department structures (including from Mountain Parks), different
leadership patterns provided by past directors. long tenured
employees who have been through many changes, and declining
funding and resource availability over the past years. The culture
that developed presents many challenges to the current BPRD
employees and leaders and can be addressed by a deliberate and
careful internal focus to enhance the culture. In turn, this will improve
organizational performance and effectiveness. A priority commitment
to; a) align BPRD priorities of staff with those of the community, b)
enhance communication throughout BPRD, c) develop organization
behaviors that reinforce desirable cultural themes of collaboration,
teamwork, high performance, trust, measured risk taking, innovation
and staff development, and d) improved employee understanding of
governance and public policy decision making is needed at BPRD.
Alignment
Like any organization, alignment adjustments need to be made to
improve effectiveness and better meet changing community need as
identified in master plans. BPRb has experienced many reorganizations
in the last ten years and while these have, in port, shown to be
needed, there is a need to better align the organization with the
trends, needs, and standards identified in the master plan. To this end,
no significant reorganization is found to be necessary but instead a
gradual repurposing of positions, realignment of priorities that may
affect positions, and adjustments to grade and compensation. These
are recommended for implementation over the next three fiscal
years and efforts were made to reassign staff where possible to similar
higher priority duties. These recommendations ultimately create no
additional budget impact. The recommendations do, if followed,
create a more flexible and agile organization that can better adjust
to rapidly changing and clearly visible community need. It is clear
from the assessment that BPRD does need to quickly implement matrix
team structures that allow groups of people to work outside current
hierarchy and chain of command to meet emerging community
needs in parks, recreation and facilities.
The Future BPRD
It is clear that the Boulder community values and expects a great deal
from their park and recreation department. In order to meet these
demands. BPRD will have to focus on becoming a high performing
organization which has specific requirements including:
1. Establishing clear visions that are supported by flexible and
achievable strategic plans, and clearly articulated philosophies
that set the standards for everyone's behavior.
40 May •
2. Emphasizing customer retention in their programs and business
processes.
3. Clarifying the leadership role, the behaviors employees must
exhibit to execute the organization's strategies, and the difference
between management and leadership activities each individual
performs.
4. Implementing processes that reinforce strategy, setting up work
flows and tasks, and using a wide variety of metrics to measure
work.
5. Creating a set of well-established values that are the deep drivers
of employee behavior and are well understood by the vast
majority of the employees.
In the end, BPRD has the need to create employees and an overall
organization that is a results-oriented, collaborative organization
that is creative, innovative and capable of measured risk taking that
provides a team framework of support and trust.
Shift from
direct delivery of recreation programs
to...
F1 facilitative delivery of recreation programs
through partnerships with outside providers
Shift from
development of new parks and facilities
to...
maintenance of exisiting parks and facilities
within existing budgets
(it) of Boul der 2013
Conclusion: Key Issues and Observations
While the system is strong, there are challenges to be met to maintain
the quality and accessibility of the system. Through research.
observation, community engagement. and analysis. six themes
emerged that frame the overall key issues facing BPRD and the parks
and recreation system.
Figure 5.8 Valmont Bike Fork
Community Health and Wellness
• The community recognizes strongly that parks and recreation
contribute to Boulder being a physically healthy community, to the
quality of life of community members, and to a sense of place.
• According to public input, the department should focus on public
health, community engagement, and cultural activities.
• Programming should be accessible to all members of the
community, and certainly to youth and those with low incomes or
disabilities.
• Programs should address changing trends such as the aging
population and the desire for more flexibility in programming to
meet today's lifestyles.
_ - '
PL-
Fiqure 5.9 Boulder RPtervoir
Take Care of What We Have
• Strong support was received for improved maintenance and use
of existing facilities over building new ones.
42 May DRAFT City Of BUL11der 2-013 Pmksind Recrtationlillin ChapterS
• Asset and facility operations only marginally reflect a lifecycle
approach; it is difficult to account for the total cost of facility
ownership (TCFO).
• Data on facilities is incomplete, preventing an accurate depiction
of their condition and utilization. As a result, this has also hampered
prioritization and decision-making.
• Direction and a long-term planning framework are needed in
order to balance demand for new and/or highly specialized
facilities with sustaining maintenance and operations for existing
facilities.
r
Financial! Sustainability
Figure S. !0 Pearf Street MaD
• Department resources are limited and do not support all current
demands for services and cannot meet all needs under an "all
things to all people" approach.
• BPRD should shift from developing new parks and facilities
with existing funding to prioritizing the ongoing operations and
maintenance of existing parks and facilities with existing funding.
• Recreation programs lack a consistent methodology for
tracking the total costs of service delivery, including allocating
the appropriate costs to the appropriate facilities, adequately
budgeting program inception and evaluation, and systematically
reviewing programs for sunset.
• Cost recovery for certain programs is an identified goal, but
additional consensus is needed on cost-recovery methods -
specifically in terms of cost-recovery targets for different program
types and consistency in calculating cost recovery.
• The low-income scholarship/subsidy program does not have
dedicated funding, and there has been little evaluation regarding
the effectiveness of the program.
City of Bouldpr 2013 Parks and Aprreation hllasipr Plan Chapter 5 Moy DRAFT 43
' . #
e,•
Figure 5.11 Unknown Park
Building Community and Relationships
• Civic spaces and close-to-home parks were recognized as an
important component of building strong neighborhoods and
making social connections.
• The public stated a desire for more events in parks and facilities
to engage the community, for example block parties and local
celebrations.
r'
I~. _
Figure S. J2 East Boulder Community Park
Youth Engagement and Activity
• A need and desire to more actively engage youth with places,
facilities, and programs.
• Access to nature should be facilitated through connectivity to the
parks.
• Access to programming could be maximized through partnerships,
an enhanced scholarship program, and improved use of
technology (e.g., social media).
1
. r~Ms,~ti $ r ~ il►
1
Organizational Readiness Figure S. )3 Pathfinder Meeting
• Some duplication of service delivery among other providers is
appropriate in order to provide adequate coverage, but the
existing degree of duplication is too high.
• BPRD should shift from delivering recreation programs directly to a
role where BPRD facilitates program delivery among community
partners.
• Outcome evaluation for programs is limited to rudimentary
assessment due to IT limitations and business practices.
• Facilities and programs do not track attendance with consistent
methods. In many cases, it is difficult or impossible to differentiate
between registration and actual attendance statistics.
• Departmental operations appear to be hamstrung by
inefficiencies in organizational structure and communication.
• No consistent formal mechanism exists to create, maintain, or
evaluate partnerships with similar providers in the community.
DRAFT Oly of SuldeF 2013 Parks and RL-creatiun klaster Plan Chapter 5 May
PART TWO
The Plan
Boulder 46 May DRAFT C~ty of
•
Vision r
Goals
City r 2013 DRAFT
Boulder Park and Recreation Strategic
Foundation
Mission
BPRD will promote the health and well-being of the entire
Boulder community by collaboratively providing high-quality
parks, facilities, and programs.
We envision a community where every member's health
and well-being is founded on unparalleled parks, facilities,
and programs.
There is strong public support for maintaining and improving Boulder's
parks, recreation facilities, and programs in order to enhance
residents' quality of life. Public support, however, is defined around
residents' key concerns and priorities. Based on the findings from
the research and community engagement, a number of strategic
directions for Boulder Parks and Recreation Department are proposed
to begin the process of reshaping of parks and recreation services
to meet community expectations. These strategic directions are
intended to empower the full capacity of the Boulder parks and
recreation system; to resolve the issues revealed in the research
process; and to set the stage for development of a high quality,
equitable system of parks and recreation land, facilities, and services.
To be successful the Plan will require the focused energy, commitment
and resources of the city, other government agencies, local
businesses, user groups and the general population.
The foundation of Boulder Parks and Recreation is built on the
department's mission and vision, as well as a banner, (AKA
catchphrose, motto, tagline) and guiding principles. Each of the
principles and strategies are based on the public involvement process
and inform individual goals, objectives and specific actions and
recommended policies that have emerged through this process and
will be necessary to carry out the intent of the Plan.
Implementation of the recommendations presented in this chapter
will require incremental action planning and follow-through on a one
to five year basis. Together, these goals provide a framework for the
Department to work toward effective implementation of Boulder Parks
and Recreation plans including the Master Plan. To succeed, specific
tasks as well as individuals responsible for leading them will need to be
identified as initiatives are moved forward.
• and
Recreation Master Plim ChapterG
48
Guiding Principles
There are several overarching principles that guide all aspects of the
department's services. These principles form the basis for service
excellence in implementing the Master Plan.
Sustainable Practices
Ensuring an environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable
future is an overarching priority for the Boulder community. BPRD will
serve as a leader in using and promoting sustainable practices in
every aspect of providing parks, facilities, and programs.
Partnerships
Providing a high-quality park and recreation system for the Boulder
community requires constant collaboration with stakeholders and
other service providers. BPRD will actively foster and maintain
partnerships within the community to provide the most effective and
efficient facilities and services possible.
Health as Our Fundamental Purpose
It is well established that physical activity and leisure contribute to
our individual health, and that the presence of park and recreation
services enhance the quality of health in our community. BPRD
considers our fundamental purpose to provide an excellent
infrastructure of parks, facilities, and programs that makes healthy
lifestyles for all members of the community possible.
The Common Good
BPRD exists to provide programs and facilities that strengthen
the community through physical wellness, environmental health,
economic vitality, and social equity. Ensuring that park and recreation
services promote the public good and are accessible to all is not
always easy, but is recognized as critical to the welfare of the entire
community.
Service Excellence
Providing high-quality programs and facilities forms the basis of
yielding high-quality experiences and outcomes, Founded upon a
passion for offering these services and the City of Boulder's vision,
BPRD staff are committed to providing superlative experiences for all
users.
Continuous Improvement
Identifying, and applying emerging best practices makes programs
and services more effective, and helps maintain relevance and
legitimacy as our community and work evolves. BPRD emphasizes the
continuous improvement of parks, facilities, and programs through
ongoing evaluation and enhancement.
Themes
Six core themes emerged from the community engagement process
as the basis for future action and decision-making for Boulder's
parks and recreation plan. These themes are the product of a
comprehensive, and on-going public engagement process. The sir,
themes include:
• Community Health and Wellness
• Taking Care of What We Have
• Financial Sustainability
• Building Community and Relationships
• Youth Engagement and Activity
• Organizational Readiness
The public input, extensive research, and best practices review in
the Boulder Parks and Recreation Plan, have resulted in strategic
directions that will reshape the Boulder parks and recreation system
to reflect community need and emerging issues. The Plan continues
the vision Boulder has of a high quality, equitable system of parks and
recreation land, facilities, and services. The resulting strategic direction
will focus energy, commitment and resources of the municipality,
other departments, local businesses and user groups to revitalize,
where necessary, and maintain, where appropriate, our parks,
recreation facilities and programs to be one of the best in rile world.
Strategic Framework
Clearly, parks and recreation facilities, in the public's opinion, are
not just a luxury. they are important building blocks to creating a
healthy community. Parks are one of the most visible and positive
public services, affect the lives of all age groups, contribute to
quality of life and are participated in voluntarily. In addition, the park
system balances individual growth, community building, economic
development, and environmental stewardship at the local level
through the following strategic framework. BPRD's commitment to
public engagement in this Master Plan Update has been rigorous and
included broad segments of the community. Continued dedication is
critical to the Strategic Framework.
These six key themes directly inform the development of strategic
recommendations for the Parks and Recreation Department.
Departmental policy statements are presented for each theme,
along with a set of long-range goals that describe the desired future
condition of the Boulder parks and recreation system and possible
initiatives for achieving the long-range goals. Implementation
methodology and the department's annual strategic action planning
process are described in Chapter 4.
50 May DRAFT (hapte16
(intentionally left blank)
City of Bouldei 2013 d Remati(in MastprPldn Chapter 6 May DRAFT 51
Theme 1 Community Health and Wellness
Overview
Parks provide measurable health benefits, from encouraging direct contact
with nature and a cleaner environment, to opportunities for physical activity
and social interaction. Throughout the master planning process, the Boulder
community has indicated a desire for Parks and Recreation to focus on
public health and wellness through parks, facilities and programs. National
trends indicate that obesity rates, especially among children, are rising
in Colorado and Boulder, emphasizing the important role that Parks and
Figure 6.1 Valmont Bike Fark Recreation services can continue to play in keeping Boulder a healthy and
vibrant community.
Policies
• All BPRD services will emphasize the important and unique
mission of the Department to enhance the public health and
wellness of the community.
• The Department will provide for Boulder citizen health
and wellness through deliberate and thoughtful design of
programs, facilities, parks, and services.
• The Department will serve as a facilitator, collaborator, and
leader with local organizations in efforts to improve the
community's health and wellness.
• BPRD will use a lifecycle management approach in
recreation program, and facility asset management to
ensure service provision remains aligned with community
interests.
• Park and recreation services are available and accessible to
all.
Primary Sustainability Categories for This Theme
Safety &
Community
Well-Being
DRAFT 52 May 1 Chapter
Long-Range Goals Initiatives
• Park and recreation services a. Conduct user satisfaction and use survey.
remain aligned with the public b. Conduct annual review and evaluation of existing programs to ensure
interest in health and wellness. alignment with mission.
c. Review new programs for fit with department mission.
• Parks and facilities will be a. Partner with Transportation and Greenways to enhance connectivity
provided to meet and/or exceed and safe routes to parks and schools.
proximity standards. b. Review population data to determine distribution by age, gender,
income and ethnicity.
c. Partner with other agencies (e.g. BVSD) to ensure parks and
playground facilities are within % mile of residents.
• Analyze health impacts of a. Review Health Impact Assessment (HIA) best practices with
department services. service provider roundtable members and together develop health
measurements for Boulder. Link to program objectives.
b. Communicate annual data findings to community members and
partners.
• Use data to evaluate services a. Annually review research on best practices, local and national trends.
through a life-cycle approach. b. Develop and implement standardized measurement and evaluation
processes based on identified and measurable program objectives.
c. Enact a best practice that requires partners to record and report
information/data that is compatible with BPRD evaluation
frameworks.
• Leverage partnerships with health a. Organize regular roundtable discussions with key stakeholder agency/
providers and allied agencies that organizations to coordinate provision of services and activities.
contribute essential components
to the overall health of Boulder.
(ity of 'ouldpi 2013 Parks and Recreatiori Masti?r Plan Chapter 6 May DRAFT
Theme 2 Taking Care of What We Have
Overview
_ The maintenance of existing facilities and parks was a consistent theme with
the public and civic leaders. There is a clear preference for spending tax
ti revenue on maintaining or enhancing existing park and recreation facilities.
With an increasing backlog of over $27 million in repairs for existing
facilities, Boulder will need to identify ways to allocate limited resources
to ensure the long-term viability of the park and recreation system for the
future.
Figure 6.2 Boulder Reservoir
Policies
• BPRD shall ensure adequate resources are available
to maintain and operate assets within community
sustainability goals by implementing a life-cycle approach.
• An asset management system that tracks asset condition,
critical systems maintenance, and repair and rehabilitation
requirements will be implemented and used in making park
and facility investment decisions.
• The proposed development of any new park and facility
assets shall be evaluated through a feasibility study that
includes a needs assessment, user profile, projected
participation analysis, development funding method,
lifecycle cost pro forma, and alternative development trade-
off analysis.
• BPRD shall seek and develop partnerships and opportunities
to leverage maintenance and capital building funds.
Primary Sustainability Categories for This Theme
IT I
R
I V Good
Safety & Governance
Community
Well-Being
54 . • • d Recreation
Long-Range Goals Initiatives
• Reduce maintenance backlog a. Develop Asset Management Program (AMP) and implement a
and identify adequate funding relational database for built assets as well as for urban forestry and
to sustain a satisfactory Facility natural resources.
Condition Index (FCI). b. Complete Facility Condition Index (FCI) assessment for all assets.
c. Adopt recommended park classifications and settings to aid in
resource allocation, with guidelines and Total Cost of Facility
Ownership (TCFO) for each-
d. Develop maintenance and safety standards.
e. Develop Forest Management Plan and update urban tree inventory.
• Develop an Asset Priority Index a. Conduct asset priority index assessment using best practices with
(API) that emphasizes adequate external stakeholders and public through annual "Park Report Card"
funding for operation and process.
maintenance of existing facilities b. Establish depreciation (sinking fund) account for operations and
over development of new maintenance of assets.
facilities.
• Provide multi-functional, flexible a. Conduct a follow up assessment on Sub-Area Plans to determine if
facilities that can accommodate a additional facilities are needed.
variety of unforeseen needs and b. Renovate appropriate current facilities for multi-purpose use.
recreation use trends.
c. Create additional artificial turf rectangular fields designed for multi-
purpose use.
d. Conduct site planning study for undeveloped acreage at Valmont City
Park to determine best multi-functional use of space.
e. Conduct long-range area study for the development of Area III Park
Reserve to meet future needs.
f. Conduct Aquatics Feasibility Study.
g. Conduct Athletics Fields Feasibility Study.
h. Conduct joint facility condition assessment of recreation centers with
Facilities & Asset Management (FAM).
• Appropriate data is collected, a. Develop CIP plan to meet LOS recommendations in alignment with
analyzed and routinely used TCFO using best practices.
to make decisions regarding b. Develop annual CIP and R&R evaluation process that includes regular
asset management and budget updates to FCl and API.
priorities.
c. Establish FCl target and provide depreciation fund to allocate 2.5%
of current replacement value (CRV) on an annual basis to maintain
desired FCI.
d. Conduct economic impact study for regional/national tournaments
and events.
City of Boulder 2013 Parks and Recreation Master Plan (hapterii May DRAFT 55
Theme 3 Financial Sustainability
Overview
iw Stakeholders and community leaders, recognize the limits to public funding
and the need to focus on core services as the most effective method of
allocating limited funding. Balancing multiple and increasing demands from
the public within existing resources is a challenge. Boulder community
F members support that parks and recreation services contribute to the social
welfare of the whole community.
Boulder parks are a source of positive economic benefits, enhance property
Hjure6.3 Pear(5treetMafl values, increase municipal revenue, bring in homebuyers, quality workforce,
and attract retirees. Parks and recreation often emerges as the "engine"
that drives tourism in the community. Parks and recreation facilities can
be used by both community memers and visitors through unique features
and programs, and provide unique experiences such as special events and
festivals.
Policies
• BPRD shall categorize services using a recreation priority
index based on the organizational mission, target
population served, service outcomes, contributions to
the Boulder sustainability framework, partnership value,
and redundancy with services provided by others in the
community in order to guide offerings.
• BPRD shall determine the actual cost of an activity or service
using a standardized method that emphasizes consistency of
data inputs and analysis methods.
• BPRD shall establish cost recovery rates and associated
pricing. Fees shall be based on the recreation priority
index, community versus individual benefit, cost to provide
services, and the prevailing market rate for comparable
services.
Primary Sustainability Categories for This Theme
M W
Economic Good
Vitality Governance
56 Moy DRAFT City i fledWIonoMaster Plan ~ Chapter
Long-Range Goals Initiatives
• Calculate total cost of facility a. Develop business plans for facilities and program areas.
ownership and of providing b. Identify direct and indirect costs of providing services.
services and utilize data in
resource allocation. c.. tandardize cost-recovery calculation to include indirect expenditures
and consistent application in all areas.
• Develop a Recreation Priority a. Establish program objectives to specify the outcome or impact desired
Index. by the program or service.
b. Categorize programs depending upon the degree of community or
individual benefit provided.
c. Establish Cost Recovery rates.
d. Identify funding sources, and implement service based pricing.
• Determine the appropriate a. Define and communicate funding sources of services.
portfolio of services to ensure and b. Evaluate the existing commercial use program fees.
promote financial sustainability
goals. c. Develop mechanism to "spin-off" appropriate programs to partners.
d. Establish framework for consolidating or ending recreation programs.
e. Develop protocol for ongoing monitoring of the services of other
providers to inform decisions about BPRD program and facility
offerings.
• Leverage partnerships, including a. Determine areas of highest-leverage partnership needs.
with foundations and non-profits, b. Grow relationships and leverage fundraising with foundations and
to increase funding and optimize non-profit partners.
service provision.
Theme 4 Building Community and Relationships
overview
Building community engagement and cultural activities through outreach
'`y= programs and initiatives was another theme. Civic spaces and close-to-
r t home parks were recognized as an important component of building strong
neighborhoods and making social connections. There is a desire to allow
4' ~w 3* for more community events in the parks and facilities that engage the local
community and neighborhoods.
Parks and recreation programs build social capital, which is the backbone
Figure 6.4 unknown Park to a strong and engaged community. Parks promote a healthy community
and address social and cultural inequities recognizing that environmental,
economic and social sustainability are built upon full community
involvement.
Policies
• BPRD shall build community through partnerships that are
mutually beneficial, mission focused, and grounded in BPRD
guiding principles as demonstrated in parks, facilities, and
programs.
• Parks and recreation services shall be promoted and
accessible to all community members.
• BPRD shall use inclusive and transparent community
engagement practices that encourage participation by all
community members.
Primary sustainability Categories for This Theme
safety & Community
Community Character
Well-Being
DRAFT 58 May
Long-Range Goals Initiatives
• Create and implement a strategic a. Establish partnership standards and guidelines and assign a staff
framework for developing member to manage overall process.
and managing community b. Identify partnership needs and actively seek out partnerships to meet
partnerships. needs.
• Ensure public engagement efforts a. Conduct user satisfaction and use survey.
include outreach to the full b. Develop comprehensive list of community groups.
community.
c. Develop and implement communication outreach plan.
d. Evaluate outcomes of outreach efforts to ensure goals are met.
• Develop relationships with a. Develop and implement outreach program for key stakeholders and
community leaders and groups.
organizations. b. Establish regular outreach with similar agency leaders such as OSMP,
YMCA, CU, BVSD, etc. as well as community leaders.
• Conduct regular community a. Develop community work groups to identify efficiencies and
program analysis to identify gaps partnership opportunities
or redundancies in services in b. Determine programs for shifts in service delivery and implement
order to coordinate program shifts.
offerings or service provision
by the appropriate agency/
organization.
• Services are promoted and a. Develop an enhanced financial aid program.
accessible to all community b. Explore opportunities to promote services to non-English speakers.
members.
City AWdO.2013 Pa& and Recreation Master Plan (hapter6 May DRAFT 59
Theme 5 Youth Engagement and Activity
' S AL- Overview
Like much of the nation, Colorado is experiencing declining youth
participation in outdoor recreation activities. There is a need to actively
■
.,t'-- engage youth with park places, facilities and programs that are placed-
based. This includes the need for facilities for youth sports as well as
providing more access to nature in the parks system. There was a strong
desire for after-school Programs in partnership with the Boulder Valley
School District (BVSD) and other non-profit organizations. The community
Figure 6.5 East Boulder Community Pork feels that youth should be a priority for the parks and recreation
department.
Parks offer children the daily benefits of direct experience with nature- the
motivations to explore, discover, and learn about their world and to engage
in health-promoting, physical activity. Parks engage children In experiential
learning through play and shared experiences with peers. Moreover, parks
provide a valuable resource for closing the educational achievement gap
and offer a vehicle for children's participation in community development,
citizenship, and democratic processes.
Policies
• BPRD shall enhance the health, safety, and overall
development of Boulder's youth through parks, facilities,
and services.
• BPRD shall support family activities that benefit youth and
build a strong sense of community and place.
Primary Sustainability Categories for This Theme
ONE
.o
safety & Community
Community Character
well-Being
60
Long-Range Goals Initiatives
• Involve youth in civic process, a. Create joint working group consisting of department leadership, PRAB
including service learning and and YOAB members.
decision-making. b. Identify new program opportunities and funding requirements.
c. Implement new programs as recommended and evaluate outcomes.
• Increase youth participation a. Evaluate existing service and participation levels.
in physical activity and nature b. Create youth programming work group with department staff.
programs.
c. Expand outreach to under-represented groups.
d. Develop enhanced financial aid program.
e. Develop social media plan to encourage youth engagement.
• Increase environmental a. Increase youth participation in department volunteer program.
awareness and conservation b. Partner with agencies to expand environmental awareness.
ethics among Boulder youth.
c. Review the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP).
d. Implement programming partnerships with OSMP, Forest Service and
other land management or conservation agencies.
• Balance nature play and a. Adopt nature play design guidelines and standards.
developed areas in parks to
improve youth exposure to the
outdoors.
• Leverage partnerships with a. Coordinate with other providers to develop comprehensive plan that
agencies that serve youth to provides for the most efficient use of resources and optimizes service
increase participation in all forms delivery.
of recreation, sport, outdoor b. Partner with youth recreation groups and create a Youth Sports
activities and play. Commission that reports to PRAB.
DRAFT L Cit~, of Boulder 2013 Parks and Re(reation Mister Plan Chapter6 May
Theme 6 organizational Readiness
overview
f _ Trends in the profession indicate a shift in management of public park and
recreation facilities from a more direct service provider to one where the
department helps facilitate and support both profit and non-profit entities in
providing recreation services and programs to be effective. This will require
new capabilities with an emphasis on delivery methods and enhancing staff
j~ development. Additionally, it is critical to create more business management
s , practices to leverage the use of new technologies, data driven decision-
Figure 6.6 Pathfinder Meeting making, and collaborative decision-making tools to prepare the organization
to respond to changes over time.
Policies
• BPRD will ensure the department workforce, structure, and
culture is designed and prepared to respond to community
needs.
• BPRD will develop a highly effective workforce that will
positively impact the community's health and quality of life.
Primary Sustainability Categories for This Theme
Fa
Good
Governance
62 May ►DRAFT City of Boulder 20,13 Pattiand Rweation Master Plan Chapter6
Long-Range Goals Initiatives
• BPRD's mission, vision and guiding a. Adopt the revised mission, vision, and guiding principles.
principles are clearly articulated b. Develop and implement a department communication plan
and supported by the community.
• Focus on overall workforce a. Identify professional competencies required for each position and
learning and development. review bi-annually.
b_ Identify and develop a plan to eliminate competency gaps in the
workforce.
c. Norm positions to ensure standards and competencies are similar at
like levels to ensure skills transfer.
d. Incorporate technical parks and recreation professional competencies
in employee evaluation system and development plans.
• Develop a results oriented, a. Develop an organization highly-skilled in cross-teaming.
collaborative, innovative b. Develop organization performance measures by functional area
organization. (Balanced Scorecard Approach).
• Strive for strategic alignment with a. Host a regular roundtable with community service providers.
partnerships and like-minded b. Evaluate all partnerships for alignment with BPRD mission.
organizations.
c. Create a comprehensive shared database with organizations that
includes common goals and action items to develop collaboration
opportunities.
d. Actively seek out partnerships to meet needs.
o'
Conclusion
The six themes presented in this chapter provide a framework for
addressing the needs of the park and recreation system that is
reflected by community input and overall city planning guidance.
Monitoring the effectiveness of the policies, long-term goals, and
initiatives is important to the success of the department, and efforts to
evaluate implementation should be rooted in quality data.
The action plan itself will lay out a progression of steps to identify the
most useful metrics and build capacity to collect and analyze the
data required to perform these assessments. Combined with the
ongoing involvement of PRAB, City Council, stakeholders, and the
community at large, the department's policy framework and action
plan can be adjusted on a regular basis to ensure the continued
provision of quality facilities and services.
64 aty,of Boulder 2013 Paft and e r
Financial
Framework
t'
Introduction
Following the economic downturn in recent years and the slow
recovery being experienced in Colorado and across the nation, the
City of Boulder continues a conservative budgeting approach. In spite
of the difficult financial climate, however, city departments continue
to provide high-quality facilities, programs and services to the
community. There are signs that the local economy is improving slowly,
and modest increases in the city's primary revenues, including sales,
use, and property taxes, may occur beginning in 2013. Regardless of
the uncertainties for the future, the city's budget reflects a continued
commitment to high standards of public service and efficient
service delivery. It assigns limited available funding to programs
supporting the highest community priorities, as defined by the Priority
Based Budgeting (PBB) goals and, in accordance with the Capital
Improvement Program's Guiding Principles.
The department is funded by multiple sources that vary in stability
and required use. Currently, the department has direct financial
management responsibilities of $25M on average annually for
operating and capital purposes, and has potential access to other
funding sources for one-time growth-related capital expenses. The
department provides an array of programs and services that benefit
the community (e.g., parks and playgrounds) to specialized users.
With community input, the department is revising its financial planning
efforts and decision-making framework to ensure resources take
care of existing facilities and parks and are allocated consistent with
priorities.
As discussed in the Needs Assessment, during the past five years, the
department's funding sources have remained constant. BPRD funding
sources are projected to grow at a modest rate (approximately
2-3%, depending on the source) over the next five years. At the same
time, due to the inflationary costs of personnel, energy and materials
coupled with the increasing costs of aging assets and operations and
maintenance of new facilities, expenses are projected to outpace
that growth. Thus, while the department's funding is more stable than
in past years, the gap between expenses and funding will only grow
if the department does not adjust its service provision and facility
maintenance and operations to ensure limited funding is spent to
meet the highest community priorities.
Financial Decision-Making
The City of Boulder has established a framework to make effective
use of the city's limited resources. Priority Based Budgeting (PBB) was
implemented with the 2011 budget process and is a tool to ensure
city service priorities are based on community goals and values, and
that these priorities should drive budget decisions. The goals and
Boulder 66 May DRAFT City of 2013 Parks and Rieveation Master Plan Chapter7
values were developed through an extensive community process.
Implementation of PBB is two-fold; follow best practices for allocating
resources to ensure fiscal health, and identify a prioritization scheme.
Programs and services are ranked and prioritized based on two sets of
criteria: (1) their ability to help the community achieve desired results
and (2) basic program attributes. These criteria are presented in the
figure below.
Community Results Goals Basic Program Criteria
.Accessible and connected community -Mandate to provide service
-Economically vital community -Change in demand for service
e Environmentally stable community -Reliance on City to provide service
.Healthy and socially thriving community .Self sufficient /cost recovery
.safe community -Cost avoidance / increasing inefficiencies
-Good governance
Figure 7.2 Goofs and Criteria
The P8B process has become an important tool not just for citywide
budget decisions but also for direct departmental decision-making
efforts. PBB is reviewed annually across the organization to ensure
community priorities are reflected in the services provided by the
department. PBB can be more effective as the department refines its
categories to better align with community values as demonstrated
in this planning process. Currently, however, the PBB process does
not include goals and criteria to assist in prioritizing capital budget
decisions.
In order to plan and prioritize capital investments, the Department
applies specific guiding principles based on the City's Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) guiding principles and the department's
2006 master plan goals. The departmental CIP framework is also
utilized to determine and plan CIP projects and make budget
decisions that are sustainable over fime. These criteria (e.g., safety/
compliance, commitment, efficiency, revenue) and priorities are also
focused on maintaining the integrity of the current infrastructure and
facilities before expanding and/or enhancing programs and facilities.
Oty of Bout der 2013 DRAFT
BPRD Funding Sources
Funding Sources and Uses
General Fund $4,618,343
The city's General Fund is supported by fees, sales, property and
other taxes. General Fund dollars are allocated to city departments
and projects by City Council through an annual budget process. Parks
and Recreation primar-ily uses its allocation to fund park and forestry
operations and department administration.
Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund $2,412,224
The Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (PPRF) is the department's
capital improvement and acquisition fund. Funded specifically from
■ 010 - General Fund property and development excise taxes the fund is for the dedicated
■ 111 - Lottery Fund purpose of acquiring land and renovating or improving existing parks
■ 118 - .25 Cent Sales Tax and recreational facilities. It may not be used to fund daily operations or
routine maintenance.
130 - RAF
230 - Permanent Parks and Rec Fund Recreation Activity Fund (RAF) $9,892,100
The RAF is used to operate and maintain the department's many
recreation, fitness and sports facilities and programs. RAF funds
are largely derived from program and facility use fees with some
supplemental funding from the General Fund (primarily to fund
subsidized programs for individuals with disabilities and youth from
families with low incomes).
.25 Cent Sales Tax Fund $7,124,262
The department receives voter-approved sales tax funds (.25 cent) that
are dedicated to acquiring, developing, operating and maintaining parks
and recreation facilities. In November 2012, voters renewed the tax with
an 85% voter approval, through 2035.
Lottery Fund $493,000
The city lottery fund is a special revenue fund that accounts for state
conservation trust fund monies allocated to local governments based on
population. State conservation trust fund monies are dedicated to parks,
recreation, and open space site maintenance and capital improvements.
The city receives about $800,000 on an annual basis from the state and
allocates $425,000 to the parks and recreation department.
68 May DRAFT (ili of Boulder 2011 Pirks,-irid Reo -,zilion, MEwpr Plan Chapter 7
Although the department's General Fund allocation is projected to keep
pace with key operational expenses, the fund is based on tax collections
and shared with other departments who provide core and essential city
services.
The city has recently experienced lower PPRF contributions due to a
decline in assessed property values. The PPRF is funded through a 0.9-
mill property tax, a development excise tax, and donations - all of these
revenue sources are sensitive to economic conditions. Other Department Funding
There are three other funds that
contribute to the department's
resources: the capital development fund,
the 2011 capital improvement fund, and
the Boulder Junction improvement fund.
All of these funds are capital
Most RAF user fee revenues, including recreation centers, golf, aquatics, improvement funds with monies
dedicated to specific capital
recreation programs, and the reservoir, experienced increases between improvements for parks and recreation
2010 and 2012. The general fund subsidy transfer to the RAF (about $1.6 facilities and land acquisitions in city
million annually) remained relatively constant over the last three years. growth areas.
The capital development fund accounts
for citywide development impact fee
collections allocated to growth-related
parks and recreation facility
development.
As with any sales tax, earnings are based on collections, so the source
of this fund is volatile but anticipated to maintain stability with the The 2011 capital improvement fund
accounts nts for the department's portion of
potential for minimal growth given improvement in the local economy. a citywide bond issuance to fund
The upcoming retirement of the bond debt associated with the .25 infrastructure improvements. This bond
sales tax present the City with an opportunity to clarify how to address was a one time infusion to be spent over
resource needs when additional funds become available in 2016. three years to decrease backlog on
existing assets. About $8.3 million in
revenue is budgeted in this fund in 2012.
Per the bonding restrictions, this funding
must be utilized by the end of 2014.
In 2011, the city's contribution was reduced based on the city's
to improvement
population. This allocation is expected to remain constant or increase was The Bo established in 2012 Junction
account nt f for
r
based on population growth projections. development excise tax and
construction-use tax revenue allocated
to fund park land and recreation facility
acquisition and development in the
Boulder Junction area.
City of Boulder 2013 Parks and DRAFT
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Projected Sources of Funds
General $ 4,604 $ 4,720 $ 4,838 $ 4,960 $ 5,085 $ 5,085
Permanent P&R $ 2,559 $ 2,559 $ 2,599 $ 2,662 $ 2,749 $ 2,790
Recreation Activity $ 10,363 $ 10,552 $ 10,748 $ 10,946 $ 11,110 $ 11,275
.25 Cent Sales Tax $ 7,470 $ 7,720 $ 7,979 $ 8,238 $ 8,502 $ 8,774
Lottery $ 425 $ 425 $ 425 $ 425 $ 425 $ 425
Total $ 25,421 $ 25,976 $ 26,589 $ 27,231 $ 27,871 5 28,349
Projected Uses of Funds
Administration* $ 4,958 $ 5,032 $ 2,911 $ 2,986 $ 3,062 $ 3,115
Operations & Maintenance $ 6,687 $ 6,837 $ 6,865 $ 7,022 $ 7,182 $ 7,245
Rec Programs & Services $ 9,492 $ 9,570 $ 9,699 $ 9,881 $ 10,067 $ 10,257
Capital Improvement Program $ 2,511 $ 1,321 $ 1,309 $ 1,407 $ 1,315 $ 1,315
Renovation & Refurbishment $ 1,050 $ 1,450 $ 1,462 $ 1,474 $ 1,487 $ 1,500
Total $ 24,698 $ 24,210 $ 22,246 $ 22,770 $ 23,113 $ 23,432
'Annual debt service payment is accounted for In Administration uses.
Projected AvailableFunding $ 723 $ 1,766 $ 4,343 $ 4,461 $ 4,758 $ 4,917
Figure 7.2 Funding Sources and Uses (in millions)
Financial Projection
The chart above projects the sources of funding and anticipated
expenses/uses based on current department priorities.
Beginning in 2016, an opportunity exists to address high priority
park and recreation needs as a result of retiring debt service.
Considerations for use of this funding include, but are not limited to:
• Fund deferred maintenance
• Improve/increase service standards for maintenance operations
• Focus programming on health and wellness and youth
• increase financial assistance for underserved populations
• Maintain adequate reserves
70 May e' i
Gap Growth
Backlog Increasing gap between expenses and funding
Operation Costs Increase Improvement Bond will The continue to grow unless the
New Parks (ex. Valmont) mp
New Sustainable Operation Practices K department adjusts its service provision
Integrated Pest Management) and facility maintenance and
(ex. Integ O~ BUSioe55 operations.
CbSt
d►n~
Ex~an
Gap Growth
3-5% each year
Adjusted
Budget $19.74 $25.4
(million)
Year 2000 2013
*Adjusted to Consumer Price Index-Actual 2000 budget was $19.74 miition, adjusted budget for 2013 is $26.6 million
Figure 7.4 Gap Growth
Implications for Park and Recreation
Master Plan
BPRD must be prepared to make changes related to resource
allocation in order to continue meeting the community's expectations
for its parks and recreation system. The current budget reflects an
economic reality that is not predicted to shift anytime soon, and it is
within this reality that the department must plan for the future. With a
maintenance backlog estimated at $27 million, the department faces
difficult trade-off decisions about how to manage and operate its
facilities and provide its programs.
The City's CIP guidelines prioritize the maintenance of current assets How would you allocate $100 in taxes....
over the development of new facilities. The community, through
the planning process, has indicated strong Support for this concept $13.73
of prioritization. Even with the indications of a modest economic $18 >1
turnaround and the renewal of the .25 Cent Sales Tax, funding is not $9.34
sufficient to take care of all aging assets and build new park and $9.15 $18.37
recreation facilities.
$31.28
Development of any new facilities will require tradeoffs and or
additional funding. The policy guidance provided by the master Acquire additional parkland
plan requires the (a) completion of a full feasibility study to clarify Improve ADAaccessibility
demand and current facility supply, and (b) identification of the Add new park and recreation facilities
Total Cost of Facility Operations (TCFO) before any new facilities can Maintain existing facilities
be considered. The master plan, which identifies areas for further sc hool Provid seconnstionstroparks,
p , an d shops
investigation, clarifies that development of new facilities, cannot Provide additional recreation programs
occur without additional funding. Figure 7.) Allocation Chart
DRAFT 71
Simultaneously the department must respond to the community's
shifting values related to recreation activities, not only by providing
adequate facilities and programs to meet those needs, but by
making them accessible to the entire community. In addition, to
focus programming on health and wellness and ensuring programs
are accessible to all community members, the department will
need to shift service delivery and resource allocation as well as
implementation of best practices in program lifecycle management
and evaluation.
2016 Uses of Funding
$25.5M $25.6M
CIP and R&R = 2.5% CRV
R&R&CIP '5i.5M $2.010 Shortfall-$2.2M 51-3M
O&M Shortfall =$1.1M $6,9m $8,oM O&M = 4% CRV
Unallocated
Renovation and
Refurbishment (R&R)
$91M 593M ❑ Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
Operations and
❑Maintenance (O&M)
❑ Recreation Programs
and Services
Administration
$2.9M $2.9M
Current Recommended
Fiscally Fiscally
Constrained Constained
figure 7.5 20,16 Uses of Funding (in rniAions)
Figure XX depicts the projected uses of funds in 2016, and also the
recommended allocation required to take care of existing assets,
based on best practices in asset management.
72 May DRAFT Cit~ of Boulder 2013
Outcomes
City of Boulder 2013 Parks and Recreation I-laster Plan (hapter 8 May DRAFT 73
•
SPRD will promote the health and well-being of the entire
Boulder community by collaboratively providing high-quality
parks, facilities, and programs.
• MMM,
We envision a community where every member's health
and well-being is founded on unparalleled parks, facilities,
and programs.
Introduction
The facilities, programs, and services provided by BPRD form a high-
quality park and recreation system enjoyed by the entire community.
This system offers broad social, environmental, and economic benefits
to Boulder, and community members highly value these facilities and
services. Population pressures, evolving activity interests, development
patterns, demographic trends, and economic considerations all pose
challenges to the department, however.
The department's new mission and vision statements provide a
framework for addressing these needs. They provide the department
with a renewed focus on providing for the community's overall well-
being through collaborative relationships with partners. Indeed, the
realities of the city's financial situation underscore the importance
of developing and maintaining partnerships, and the outlook for the
future suggests that BPRD will face challenging trade-off decisions
about how to prioritize their limited resources on meeting the needs for
the community.
This chapter builds off of the financial information presented in the last
chapter by presenting alternatives for ways the parks and recreation
system will need to change in order to meet critical needs, to maintain
relevance with the community, and to continue to provide a strong
quality of life for the city.
Alternatives
The three alternatives listed below follow the city's financial planning
approach introduced in 2006 that requires each department to
prepare for a future without increased revenue. This approach
acknowledges a stark fiscal reality leading to the continuous
rebalancing of priorities, and their associated expenditures, using a
three-tier spending plan. Each tier reflects different assumptions about
available resources.
74 . DRAFT
The FISCALLY CONSTRAINED alternative plans for prioritized spending
within existing budget targets. The intention of this alternative is to
refocus and make the most of existing resources, the primary goal for
the department being to maintain services. The actions associated
with the FISCALLY CONSTRAINED alternative are those that are mostly
procedural or are operational changes that require limited or no
funding to accomplish.
The ACTION alternative describes the extra services or capital
improvement that should be undertaken when additional funding
is available. This includes strategically enhancing existing programs,
beginning new programs, adding new positions, or making other
strategic changes that would require additional operational or capital
funding. In coordination with the CMO, PRAB, and City Council, BPRD
would evaluate and analyze potential sources of additional revenue,
including but not limited to capital bond funding, program income,
grants, and existing or new taxes.
The VISION alternative represents the complete set of services and
facilities desired by the community. It is fiscally unconstrained but
can help provide policy guidance by illustrating the ultimate goals
of the community and by providing a tong-range look to address
future needs and deficiencies. In this master plan update, the VISION
alternative addresses aging facilities to make improvements in
operational effectiveness and the overall sustainability of the park and
recreation system.
Elements
The three alternatives are described for each of the system's three
inter-related elements.
Parks - the land base that provides areas for active and passive
recreation as well as the sitting of park and recreation assets. This
system of parks has a unique balance of developed urban areas with
amenities as well as natural features.
Recreation Facilities - these are the major park assets that provide
both active and passive recreation opportunities from playgrounds to
picnic shelters to major recreation centers.
Recreation Programs - these are the planned activities that provide
instruction, socialization, competition, and learning to a wide range of
community members and visitors to Boulder.
City of Boulder 2013 DRAFT
All of these elements fit together to form a park and recreation system
that is enjoyed by the entire community. Boulder's park and recreation
facilities provide broad benefits to the community including individual,
social, economic, and environmental benefits. Residents place a high
value on these facilities and services and have grown to expect high
standards from the city. The local economy benefits through attracting
and maintain an educated and healthy workforce, the local tourism
industry benefits through attracting visitors for special events and
extended vacations, and local businesses benefit with increased sales
producing tax revenues for the city.
As proposed in these alternatives, the parks and recreation facilities
along with programs and services are unified into a single system
forming links among the major parks, educational facilities, and local
neighborhoods with recreation services and programs geared to a
healthy community. Trails and greenways can be thought of as strands
that link parks and facilities together like a string of pearls. With the
implementation of this master plan update, the majority of Boulder
community members will be able to have recreation opportunities
close to their home with safe, walkable connections to parks and
recreation facilities throughout Boulder.
76 May
nor pc,iUOn un(y
o0
0
Fiscally L. ed Action Vision
Alternat, e: Alternative: Alternative:
Funding Allocations 7? $26.51V! $44.8M $64.3M
Reserve (5%) $1,112 $2,134 $3,064
Renovation & Refurbishment $3,262 $5,662 $7,262
Capital Improvement Program $2,309 $13,109 $23,109
Recreation Programs & Services $9,699 $10,199 $11,199
Operations & Maintenance i $7,296 $10,796 $16,796
Administration $2,911 $2,911 $2,911
Figure 8.4 Alternatives Allocation
City r Boulder 2013 DRAFT
Parkland LOS Strategic Alternatives
Level of Service (LOS) 2030 Strategic Altematives
( Acres per 1,000 residents) ( Acres per 1,000 residents)
Park Type Benchmark Cities Boulder Fiscally Constrained Action vision
Neighborhood Parks 3.00 3.15 2.71 2.81 2.81
Community Parks 1.50 1.54 1.45 1.45 1.45
City/Regional Parks 3.00 7.36 6.18 6.44 6.96
Total 7.50 12.05 10.34 10.70 11.22
Figure 8. 1 Parkland Al!erna!ive5
Fiscally Constrained Action Vision
• South Valmont City Park will • South Valmont City Park will be • South Valmont City Park will
be planned, but will not be planned, and some community be planned with balance of
developed without additional (playground and shelter) and community use facilities and
funding multi-use facilities will be athletic fields will be developed
developed (approximately 30 (approximately 90 acres).
acres) Would not include major
building development
• Some Neighborhood and • Remaining Neighborhood and • All neighborhood and
community parks currently community parks currently community parks
owned (25-26 acres owned (approx. 38 acres) currently owned (38 acres
approximately) will be will be improved including approximately) will be
improved including Violet Park, Heatherwood Park; some improved including Gunbarrel
Maxwell Lake Park and Foothills planned neighborhood parks urban park for city center and
Park and some planned and gaps may be developed some planned neighborhood
neighborhood parks and gaps parks and gaps may be
may be developed developed
• Current parks maintenance • Current parks maintenance • Current parks maintenance
will be emphasized through will be emphasized through will be emphasized through
upgrades to critical park upgrades to critical park upgrades to critical park
facilities with 50% of FCI facilities with 75% of FCI goals facilities and full FCI goals will
goals achieved (FCI target achieved (FCI target 0.7) and be achieved (FCI target 0.06)
of 0.10 from current 0.14) expanded O&M services and and expanded O&M services
and establish sinking fund to sinking fund and sinking fund
maintain facilities at new FCI
• Two existing parks will be • Four existing parks will be • Five existing parks will be
upgraded on an annual basis to upgraded on an annual basis to upgraded on an annual basis to
meet adopted design standards meet adopted design standards meet adopted design standards
78 . DRAFT
Continued...
Fiscally Constrained Action Vision
• Partnerships with Greenways • Partnerships with Greenways • Partnership to upgrade Tom
and Transportation will be used and Transportation will be used Watson Park to a community
to improve links in the system to improve links in the system park with improved facilities
• Civic Area planning and • Civic Area planning will • Boulder Reservoir major south
upgrades to existing park develop new enhancements as shore development will be
elements identified in Civic Area Master implemented per Reservoir
Plan Master Plan
• Develop design guidelines • Construct Boulder Junction • Develop area wide trail link
and standards for parks and Park improvements with along 51st Street at the
recreation facilities that include development impact funds Reservoir
new urban park models
• Update joint use agreement • Conduct facility condition • Fully develop Civic Area as
with BVSD for shared use reports on major aging community park based on
of neighborhood school buildings with FAM and develop outcomes of Civic Area Plan
playgrounds asset priority for each facility
to determine funding levels or
• Complete upgrades to Pearl methods to remove from park • Master Plan Area III for future
Street Mall inventory if appropriate parkland needs
DRAFT
Recreation Facility Strategic Alternatives
Level of Service (LOS) 2034 Strategic Alternatives
Existing I Fiscally
Facility Type - I Quantity LOS Per Existing LOS I Constrained _ Anion Vision
Diamond Ball Field 24 10,000 2.46 I 0 0 4
Rectangular Field 20 10,000 2.05 f 0 0 6
Playground 40 10,000 4.11 2 3 5
Dog Park I 5 100,000 0.51 0 0 1
Picnic Shelter i 34 10,000 3.49 2 4 6
Tennis Court 40 10,000 4.11 .4 -2 0
Community Garden I 4 100,000 4.10 0 1 2
Figure 8.1 Recreation Facility Alternatives
Fiscally Constrained Action Vision
• No new major structures or • Upgrade existing turf fields to • Building multi-sports complexes
buildings will be developed multi-use artificial turf where including 4 diamond and 6
appropriate rectangle fields suitable for
tournament play pending
athletic study and available
partnership funding
• Aquatics Study and feasibility • Develop new playgrounds • Provide upgrades to existing
analysis will be conducted recreation centers based on
outcome of facility study
• Athletic Field Study and • Provide ADA upgrades to • Develop new aquatics facility
feasibility analysis will be achieve 15% above compliance based on outcome of aquatics
conducted study
• Recreation facility study and • Add shelters to major park • Provide ADA upgrades to
analysis will be conducted sites. achieve 30% above compliance
• Partnerships with BVSD, • Add one community garden site
Boulder County, and CU will be
established to shared facilities
• Upgrades to existing facilities • Enhance aging infrastructure at
will continue recreation centers
• Provide ADA upgrades in
compliance with transition plan
• Provide upgrades to recreation
centers to repurpose existing
facilities
1 MWDROT City 1
What does it Cost?
Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO)
Estimated Life Cycle Current Replacement Total Cost of Facility
Amenity (Years) Value(CRV)" AnnualO&M• 1QYearR&R• Ownershlp(TCFO)*
Playground 25 $ 225,000 $ 9,000 $ 5,625 $ 464,063
Athletic Field 20 $ 1,700,000 $ 68,000 $ 42,500 $ 3,145,000
Shelter 30 $ 35,000 $ 1,400 $ 875' { $ 79,625
{
Pavillion (w/ Restroom) 30 $ 175,000 $ 7,000 $ 4,375 $ 398,125
Tennis Court 30 $ 85,000 $ 3,400 $ 2,125 $ 193,375
Basketball Court 30 $ 85,000 $ 3,400 $ 2,125 193,375
Asphalt Parking Lot 30 $ 390,000 $ 15,600 $ 9,750 $ 887,250
Dog Park 25 $ 425,000 $ 17,000 $ 10,625 $ 876,562
Skate Park 30 $ 925,000 $ 37,000 $ 23,125 $ 2,104,375
Community Garden 25 $ 60,000 $ 2,400 $ 1,500 I $ 123,750
Par Course 25 $ 85,000 5 3,400 $ 2,125 } $ 175,312
Disc Golf Course 20 $ 80,ODO $ 3,200 $ 2,000 $ 148,000
Estimated costs are based on concept level planning and do not include engineer level estimates.
Detailed cost estimates will be developed as part of the public outreach for projects.
Figure &.3 Total Cost for Operotlons
Figure XX illustrates the total costs for BPRD major assets.
Plan(hapter 8 May DRAFT
Recreation Programs and Services Alternatives
The development of a system plan for recreation program and services level of service is less clear than that for
physical assets like parks and community centers. The effort relies on three factors that are not easily quantified;
cost recovery goals that translate into fees/charges for services, market rate for fees/charges, and new program
service initiatives based on the community needs assessment. These three factors are the major considerations
under the Boulder funding scenarios that forecast alternative choices.
In considering the LOS for Recreation Programs and Services, BPRD business practices that establish fee/charge
rates for direct and indirect costs for services, as presented below, within the context of market willingness to
pay rate, and financial assistance need for community members who may not be able to afford user fees. In
addition, program and service business practices for recreation program lifecycle management also consider
outcomes, alignment with mission and high-quality programming, annual reviews, and duplication of services.
go mew 0
YOUTH PROGRAMMING Community Individual
Community benefit except where
program is for advanced level programs
Fiscally Constrained Action Vision
• Direct costs plus all indirect • Direct costs and partial • Dedicated tax and/or
y M costs recovered through fees/ indirect costs recovered alternative funded highest
" U donations/tax subsidy through increased alternative community good youth
funding programming
• Introductory level youth • Outdoor Recreation • Introductory level youth
programming and outdoor and Introductory youth programming is expanded by
programming emphasizing Programming expands by 10% 20%
health and wellness is and is available at multiple
expanded to meet community locations • Community desired programs
£ o values by eliminating or in outdoor, emphasizing
120
to brokering current BPRD health, and other areas will
a programs be expanded by 20%
• Advanced level programming
(including competitive and
travel programs) service
models are evaluated for
partnership delivery
82 May • e
ADULT PROGRAMMING Community Individual
individual benefit except where program
is for target population or aged
Fiscally Constrained Action Vision
•
.L Direct costs plus all indirect • Direct costs plus all indirect • Direct cost plus all indirect
LL costs recovered through fees costs recovered through fees/ costs recovered through fees/
alternative funding alternative funding
• Current adult programming • Alternative funding sources • Adult programming is robust
0
M r is evaluated to ensure allows BPRD to offer new and aligns with community
c a alignment with community trending programming priorities
a in
values
14
SPECIAL EVENTS community Individual
Community benefit with strong fundraising potential
through fees/charges, sponsors and donors
Fiscally Constrained Action Vision
o • Direct cost plus • Direct costs recovered • Direct costs recovered
W M partial indirect cost through alternative funding through alternative funding
(11 r-
L recovered through fees/ with minimal fees to with no event fee
donations/partnerships participants
o • Limited department special • 5 Additional focused special • 10 additional focused special
a events focus on health events are provided or events are provided or
o W and wellness, youth, and facilitated by the department facilitated by the department
a community building
City of BoWder 2013 Paris and 11"roWon Mast . er Plan . Mpter 8 M40RAFT 83
(TARGETED) COMMUNITY Community Individual
PROGRAMMING Targeted toward the special populations of the community with few,
if any opportunities to charge fees. Tax and/or donor supported
Fiscally Constrained Action Vision
• Direct cost plus partial • Alternative funding subsidizes • Costs are 100% funded
indirect cost recovered direct costs through alternative sources
° through fees/donations for low-income and special
population programs
LL
W • Tax revenue is allocated for
specific target populations
with specific outcomes
• Partnerships are leveraged • The Financial Assistance • Participation rates by
with BPRD resources to Program for low-income underserved groups and
enhance service to low- participants is enhanced special populations are
£ o income and underserved to facilitate broader representative of community
e groups participation demographics
0 c►
~ v
• Redundancies are reduced
to ensure effective use of
resources
84 m6y DRAFT City.olloulder 2013
Action
Plan
i DRAFT
Implementation and Next Steps
With the acceptance of this master plan update, BPRD commits to
the new mission, vision and guiding principles, as well as the initiatives
contained in the Fiscally Constrained Plan.
The Boulder Park and Recreation Master Plan identifies the system
wide levels of service that BPRD will use for implementation of an
annual `strategic action' planning process that will be an integral part
of the annual work plan and budgeting process.
With this master plan as a guide, BPRD's strategic action planning
process includes; a) reviewing the potential initiatives for the next 5
years followed by, b) a three year action plan, and c) a deliberate
planned annual process of evaluating the current year's action plan
with updated planning for the following three years. This approach is
adopted to ensure that the Boulder Park and Recreation Master Plan
is a living document that does not sit on a shelf but is used to improve
the overall system that reflects the stated goals of the community well
into the future.
The framework for this forecast is clear related to capital investment.
While the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the constrained plan
includes upgrades to existing facilities and parks with corresponding
O&M increases, the bulk of these funds are focused on lowering and
ruaintaining a FCI for current park and recreation assets at a desired
level, Action and Vision LOS Alternatives require additional funding
above the current constrained budget.
The forecast for recreation programs and services is also clear. In
the constrained plan, recreation programs would be funded at the
current levels, reinforcing the importance of ensuring resources are
directed at the highest community benefit programs. The department
will make trade-offs between current programs to develop new ones
and enhance programming that aligns with community priorities.
Action and Vision Alternatives witness a greater change in programs
and services to meet community needs. Alternative funding sources
allow for broader participation and increased levels of service.
a
City of loulldler20113 Parks and Renation Master Plan (hapter9
i
statusfton
n Plan an Cuffent
1 entation YearA~ don
Plih
~,Otme.n=r-
Actlon'Plan
:f. 1 1
t, 1' I•
I
e
c7
61ML ~4 4
Figure 9.1 Implementation and Next Steps
The Annual Action Planning Process
The Annual Action Planning Process is simple in its approach and
depicted in Figure X"i. The purpose of this deliberate process, started
prior to budget formation and in concert with PRAB, is to make mid-
course adjustments in the 3 year action plan in order to make the most
effective use of resources that meets community need.
Conclusion
Pending final I'kJ,L urr•,:i r'-
elan as a guide. BPRD will work to ensure i,
contribk-!te~ to a--rievina Comrr~uni:
City-ofBoWtWZ013'ParksanO.Oicreat!6nMastit Mdy.DRAFT 87
CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREA'T'ION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2013
AGENDA TITLE: Program enhancements to the Voice and Sight Tag Program.
PRESENTER/S
Kirk Kincannon, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager
Stephen B. Armstead, Environmental Planner, Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this discussion item is to update and seek input from the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (PRAB) on recommended program changes for the Voice and Sight Tag
Program (Tag Program) as it specifically relates to Parks and Recreation Department managed
lands. Recommendations to enhance the Tag Program will be presented to City Council on May
21, 2013.
The Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks staff evaluated changes for the Voice and
Sight Tag Program for several reasons:
• Monitoring concluded that compliance with some requirements of the Tag Program did
not ineet the standards set in OSMP's Visitor Master Plan (VMP)
• City Council identified the Tag Program among a number of overarching issues for
review
• The Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) has recommended that staff examine
potential enhancements to the Tag Program.
In addition to coordination with the Parks and Recreation and the Boulder Police departments,
OSMP and the OSBT have undergone an extensive process to review potential program
enhancements and provide opportunities for community input. The process has included two
community open houses, four OSBT study sessions, a study session with City Council and two
public hearings where the OSBT took action on recommendations to City Council.
AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE I
This memorandum presents the Tag Program enhancements that the OSBT has recommended
and highlights two items of discussion for PRAB:
l) Does PRAB recommend to City Council that the program changes apply to areas on Parks
and Recreation lands where voice and sight control is allowed`?
2) Does PRAB have input to City Council regarding the potential for dog control violations
occurring throughout the city (e.g. city parks) counting toward the revocation of "hag
Program privileges?
PUBLIC COMML;NI' AND PROCESS:
OSMP has received over 300 responses to provide feedback about the Tag Program. These
include both general comments and comments specifically about program enhancement options.)
OSMP held two open houses (May 24 and 30, 2012) for community members to discuss a
program evaluation and enhancement options with OSMP staff. Additionally, OSMP staff sent
emails to program participants, posted information on the OSMP Website, and distributed media
releases as part of the communication strategy for the Tag Program evaluation.
During study sessions in January, March and July of 2012, the OSBT provided staff with
feedback on potential Tag Program enhancements. The OSBT held a public hearing on Oct. 10,
2012 and unanimously recommended a number of program enhancements. OSMP staff and
OSBT members discussed the Tag Program evaluation with City Council at a study session on
Nov. 13, 2012. Council members supported the content and direction of the program
enhancements and suggested additional work to determine the details of the enhancements.
PRAB received an update on the process as an information item at the Boar'd's Dec. 17, 2012
meeting. Staff and the OSBT discussed the remaining program details at a study session on
Jan. 31, 2013. The OSBT held public hearings on April 10, 2013 and May 8, 2013 and
recommended a set of program changes to City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The Tag Program was included in the VMP as a trial program, the purpose of which was to
increase dog guardians' awareness of the requirements of voice and sight control and proper dog
management etiquette. The VMP predicted that an increased awareness of requirements would
improve compliance, thereby reducing conflicts and resource impacts as well as the likelihood
that such problems would increase in the future. The Tag Program was initiated in 2006 and has
remained largely unchanged.
In response to City Council and OSBT direction, along with monitoring results showing voice
and sight compliance below standards set in the VMP, OSMP staff has worked with community
members including the OSBT and City Council to evaluate enhancements to the Tag Program.
OSMP staff evaluated the enhancement options and prepared a report.' The report includes
background about the Tag Program and guidance from relevant plans. It also discusses to what
t The compendium of comments is lengthy (191 pp.) and was not included in the packet. It is available on the
OSMP Website at litti)://ww,,v.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf' VMP/overarching/12-
1113 C'otrncil Stud% Session C'omLndmm.ndf
hit_tbouldercolorado-L,m T[Ics oltintilxi~r't? it \'~1P1c~~cr,,rchin`!ftc~
Evaluation 1-25--13.pdl'--
AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 2
degree program objectives were achieved and analyzes the potential enhancement options and
strategies.
Pour study sessions with the OS13T and a study session with City Council provided staff with
feedback about potential Tag Program enhancements. The OSBT held public hearings on Oct.
10, 2012, April 10, 2013 and May 8, 2013 in recommending a set of program changes to City
Council (Attachment A).
The recommended enhancements include:
1. Information Session-Require Tag Program participants' attendance at an information
session ensuring greater awareness of the program requirements, goals and objectives.
2. Require proof of rabies vaccination-Require current rabies vaccination as a requirement
for- a dog's participation in the Tag Program and require City of Boulder residents to
provide a valid Boulder dog license as proof of vaccination and compliance with the city's
license requirement.
3. Education and Outreach Strategies-The implementation of education and outreach
strategies to inform and encourage compliance with the program requirements and share
information about how guardians can successfully manage dogs under voice and sight
control.
4. Consequences for 1.7olations-
a. Increased fines for offenses dealing with failure to have a voice and sight tag on an
off-leash dog and for dog-at-large and voice and sight violations.
b. Specifying dog-related violations that contribute to the loss of Tag Program privileges.
c. Clarifying the process for reinstatement after privileges have been revoked.
5. Participant Registration and. Renewal fees-Revise program fees including differential
fees for those residing outside of the City of Boulder and Boulder County and the addition
of an annual renewal fee to cover program costs.
ANALYSIS:
Applving Tag Program Changes to Parks and Recreation
Voice and sight tag privileges are allowed on several properties managed by the Parks and
Recreation Department including Coot Lake, the Boulder Reservoir and at Howard Heuston Dog
Park. Dog guardians must participate in the Tag Program to have dogs under voice and sight
control at these locations.
Voice and sight control regulations and the Tag Program have been uniformly applied on both
OSMP and Park lands where voice and sight control is allowed. Changes to the program since
its inception have also been consistently applied on OSMP and Park lands. A continued unified
application of Tag Program policy across the city ensures a more efficient delivery of services
and reduces the complexity of dog control requirements. It will continue to foster a consistent
city-wide approach to managing voice and sight control privileges.
Areas where Dog Control Violations Contribute to Tag Program Revocation
Under the existing regulations, a person with three convictions within two years is subject to the
loss of their Tag Program privileges. These existing rules apply to violations of the ordinance
AGENDA ITEM Vi-A PAGF. 3
prohibiting "I)ogs Running at Large" ' which includes both off=leash and voice and sight control
violations. Guardians are current(1V subject to loss of privileges for violations occurring on all
OSMP and Park lands in the city's jurisdiction. Dog-at-large convictions include both off-leash
and voice and sight control violations.
`f'lhe OSBT has recommended changes to the current program that would result in:
• additional dog violations contributing to the loss of Tag Program privileges,
• some more serious violations would cause revocation with a si ale conviction, and
• some less serious violations would result in loss of privileges after two convictions within
two years.'
The OSBT recommended that one conviction for the following offenses would result in loss of
voice and sight control privileges:
o aggressive dogs,
o dogs chasing or injuring wildlife or livestock, and
o violations involving a dog on OSMP of rules established for wildlife protection (i.e.
seasonal on-leash bear restrictions).
The OSBT recommended to council that convictions for aggressive animal or dogs
chasing/injuring wildlife or livestock anywhere in the city's jurisdiction should result in the
revocation of privileges.
Dog offenses that the OSBT recommended contribute to the revocation of privileges after two
convictions within two years include:
1. Dog-at-large, off-leash and voice and sight control violations (B.R.C. 6-1-16),
2. Violations of OSMP's area-specific on-leash or no-dog regulations
City Manager's Rules (B.R.C. 8-3-3),
3. Guardians not displaying a tag on off-leash dogs (B.R.C. 6-13-2), and
4. Failure to remove excrement (B.R.C. 6-1-18).
The OSBT recommended to City Council that violations for the four (two-conviction) offenses
listed above would only count toward revocation if they occurred on OSMP lands or other city
properties where voice and sight control privileges are allowed. Other areas within the
jurisdiction of the city including city parks would be excluded.
The Tag Program affects dog management in areas under the city's jurisdiction other than where
voice and sight control is allowed. City of Boulder animal control officers repeatedly encounter
dogs off leash in areas within the city limits where leash control is required. These areas include
most city parks. Animal control officers commonly hear that guardians claim or assert that their
Tag Program privileges extend to other areas in the city (see Attachment B). The inclusion of
the two-conviction offenses anywhere they occur in the City would result in a consistent policy
for dog control throughout the city's jurisdiction and encourage Tag Program participants to
3 City of Boulder Revised Code 1981 (B.R.C.) 6-1-16
Unless specially ordered by a,judge, revocation of voice and sight privileges does not affect the privilege of
walking leashed dogs where allowed.
AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 4
understand where voice and sight privileges extend (and where they do not). This is in part
addressed by the current Tag Program revocation process by including dog-at-large, off-leash
violations in city parks as violations that contribute to the loss of Tag Program privileges.
The OSBT provided several reasons they felt it was unnecessary to include violations for the two
conviction offenses leading to loss of privilege:
• The addition of the information session could clarify and amplify the importance of
compliance in areas where voice and sight control is not allowed,
• This change would have a more disproportionate effect on City of Boulder residents, and
• The other proposed revocation changes may contribute to increased compliance such as
adding violations that cause revocation and lowering the number of convictions that
cause revocation.
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD:
I . Does PRAB recommend that the program changes apply to areas on Parks and Recreation
lands where voice and sight control is allowed (Boulder Reservoir/Coot Lake/ Howard
Heuston Dog Park)?
2. Does PRAB have input to City Council regarding the potential for dog control violations
occurring throughout the city (e.g. city parks) counting toward the revocation of Tag
Program privileges?
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Tag Program Enhancement Recommendations
B: Memorandum from City of Boulder Police Department Animal Control Supervisor
AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 5
AYrACHMENT A
'l'ag Program Enhancement Recommendations
# Enhancement Recommendation
Require all program participants attend an information session. New program participants must
:attend a session before they can register in the program. During the first calendar year (2014),
l existing participants may remain active in the program and will have until Dec. 31 2014 to complete
the information session. The information session must be repeated every five years.
Require proof of current rabies vaccination for all dogs to be registered in the program. City of
Boulder residents are required to provide a valid City of Boulder dog license as proof' of current
2 rabies vaccination.
Require that all dogs on OSMP lands display a valid rabies vaccination tag.
Implement the following education and outreach strategies:
a) Increase outreach and education about training opportunities
b) Support stakeholder efforts
c) Revise and update the voice and sight video
d) Create refresher videos on requirements, etiquette or issues that will be phased in based on
time and cost
e) Use traditional and social media to provide instructive educational information to participants
f) Provide educational walks for dogs and dog guardians on a trial basis
g) Improve clarity and information on signs
h) Distribute palm cards explaining the Tag Program
3 i) Increase outreach and education to visitors without dogs about voice and sight control and
what to expect
j) Consider under specific conditions and on well-suited OSMP properties, opportunities for
special voice and sight control training events
k) Encourage clog guardians to become volunteer Trail Guides and provide additional training for
outreach with a dog
1) Participate in more dog-related outreach events; consider organizing another "'fag Wag" type
event
m) Promote information on dog-prohibited trails and add this information on the OSMP Website
n) Train all staff on the new regulations for informal educational opportunities
AGENDA 1'FEM VI-A PAGE 6
Increase lines for Voice and Sight Evidence Tag Required (B.R.C. 6-13-2) and Dog at Large
violations (B.R.C. 6-1-16) to $100 (maximum), $200 (maximum), and $300 (minimum) for first,
second and third or more convictions respectively. Provide mechanism for dismissal of tickets for
lawful participants who inadvertently failed to display tag.
The bond amount for dog-related City Manager's Rule violations (B.R.C. 8-3-3) will be increased to
4 $100.
E?ncourage courts to order such additions to tines as watching the voice and sight video, attending the
voice and sight information session, dog training, and/or demonstration testing for egregious or repeat
dog-related violations consistent with the nature of the violation. Community service for dog waste
violations may be particularly appropriate.
Revocation of program privileges will occur after one conviction of the following violations
involving a dog:
• Aggressive Animal Prohibited (B.R.C. 6-1-20),
• Failure to Protect Wildlife (or livestock) (B.R.C. 8-3-5), and
5 • Violations of City Manager's Rule (B.R.C. 8-3-3) involving wildlife protection.
Convictions of Aggressive Animal Prohibited and Failure to Protect Wildlife violations on OSMP and
other lands under the jurisdiction of the City of Boulder will be considered for revocation.
Revocation of program privileges will occur after two convictions in two years by a single guardian.
The following violations involving a dog apply:
• Dog at Large (B.R.C. 6-1-16)
• Failure to remove excrement (B.R.C. 6-1-18)
6 • Guardians not displaying a tag on off-leash dogs (B.R.C. 6-13-2)
• Violations of City Manager's Rule (B.R.C. 8-3-3) not involving wildlife protection.
Revocation of program privileges applies to the preceding violations on all OSMP lands and other
City of Boulder properties where voice and sight privileges are recognized.
A guardian with two revocations in three years or three revocations will lose his/her voice and sight
7 privileges for five years and may thereafter apply for reinstatement.
Require a minimum fine of $300 and a minimum one-year revocation period for a guardian with
8 revoked privileges having a dog off leash.
AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 7
Program privileges may be reinstated after successful completion of a reinstatement process.
Reinstatement from revocation due to a.conviction of aggressive dog or failure to protect wildlife
violations must include successful completion of the voice and sight evaluation test by the revoked
guardian and dog and the retaking of the information session by the revoked guardian. Reinstatement
9 from all other revocations will at least include the retaking of the information session by the revoked
guardian; and at the discretion of the courts may require successful completion of the voice and sight
evaluation test or other actions. Reinstatement will include payment of fees for the information
session, the voice and sight evaluation test (if required) and payment of a reinstatement fee.
The program registration and annual renewal fees will include a graduated fee structure for residents
of the City of Boulder, residents of Boulder County outside.the City of Boulder, and non-county
residents.
Program registration fees:
• City of Boulder residents ($13),
• Boulder County residents outside the City of Boulder (not to exceed $33),
• Non-Boulder County residents ($75), and
• The registration fee includes one guardian and one dog; the fee for each additional guardian in a
10 household is ($5) and the fee for each additional dog in a household is ($10).
Annual household renewal fee:
• City of Boulder Residents ($5),
• Boulder County residents outside the City of Boulder ($20), and
• Non-Boulder County residents ($30).
The additional guardian and dog registration fees will be waived for City of Boulder households who
meet income criteria consistent with the City of Boulder Food 'fax Rebate Program or the Parks and
Recreation Reduced Rate Program.
AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 8
ATTACHMENT B
Memorandum from City of Boulder Police Department Animal Control Supervisor
. I
x14 City of Boulder
Police Department
18053311Srrrer.BOULDER, Coi. RADO80301•303,441,3310
MEMO
TO: OSMP Staff
Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Janee' Boswell, Animal Control Supervisor; Boulder Police Department
Cc: Curtis Johnson, Commander
Greg Testa, Deputy Chief
DATE: April 4, 2013
REFERENCE: Voice and Sight Control Tag Revocation Provisions
Boulder Police Department, Animal Control Unit is responsible for the enforcement of all
animal-related ordinances within the City of Boulder. That includes all land within incorporated
city limits; public and private property, the Boulder Reservoir, Coot Lake, as well as the 62 city
parks. Animal Control Officers are also charged with the responsibility to manage designated
voice and sight control areas that fall within incorporated Boulder such as Howard Heuston Park
and the Reservoir.
That being said, the Animal Control unit has the opportunity to see the effects of the Voice &
Sight Control Tag Program throughout the entirety of Boulder. Officers contend with violations
ranging from aggressive animals, dogs harassing wildlife, to the frequent leash-law violation.
On a daily basis, Animal Control Officers encounter dogs off leash in areas within the city limits
where leash control is required. In an estimated 90% of the contacts that officers make for these
off-leash violations, guardians or keepers believe their off-leash privileges associated with the
Tag Program extend to all areas within the city.
The effects and impacts of the tag program are not isolated to OSMP property, as such; the
considerations for implementation and revocation should be addressed as a citywide issue.
Boulder has clear values and principles for the protection of wildlife and personal safety of the
community. It is essential that the city maintain a consistent message that these values are
imparted on all property, not just OSMP areas.
AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 9
The Police Department recommends that off leash or voice and sight control convictions should
apply to loss of Tag Program privileges regardless of the location within the city's jurisdiction
where the violations occur. This creates a consistent policy for dog control throughout the city's
jurisdiction and encourages Tag Program participants to understand where voice and sight
privileges extend (and where they do not). It also provides a consistent approach for guardians
and dogs convicted of being aggressive or endangering wildlife anywhere in the city.
AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 10
MEMORANDUM
'1'0: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: David Driskell, Executive Director, Community Planning and Sustainability
(CP&S)
Susan Richstone, Deputy Director, CP&S
Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Molly Winter, Director of Downtown and University Hill Management
Division and Parking Services
Kirk Kincannon, Director of Parks and Recreation
Patrick Von Keyserling, Communications Manager
Valerie Maginis, Director of Library and Arts
Karen Rahn, Director of Housing and Human Services
Sam Assefa, Senior Urban Designer, Project Coordinator
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Project Coordinator
Marie Zuzack, Planner 11
DATE: May 20, 2013
SUBJECT: Boulder Civic Area Project Update:
Draft Public Realm Plan and Key Choices
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this agenda item is to:
1. Provide an update on the Boulder Civic Area project since the boards/commissions and
City Council project check-ins held in February and March, including the NAIOP
Challenge and the May 6 public open house (Attachment A: Civic Area Process
Timeline), and
2. Get input from Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) on the following:
• Draft Public Realm Plan and Civic Park Improvements (Attachment B);
• Key choices for the Civic Area (Attachment C) related to parks and recreation and
the character of the parks.
• Draft implementation strategies outline (Attachment D)
AGENDA ITEM VI-B PAGE 1
If. PRAB ROLE IN THE BOULDER CIVIC AREA PROJECT
1'he Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is being provided information about parks and
recreation-related issues for the Civic Area project. The board's feedback on these issues will be
forwarded to City Council for council's June 4 meeting. PRAB will provide further input on
these issues at its July meeting.
City Council has approval authority for the Civic Area plan, which will include the following:
• "fhe Guiding Principles developed earlier in this process. (See link to principles.)
• A Visionary but general conceptual physical plan (rather than detailed master plan)
for the study area with descriptions about key directions and preferred choices, and
• An Implementation Phasing Plan with strategic steps to achieve the plan.
After plan approval, the city will continue to work with the community and the boards and
commissions with purview in the Civic Area, including PRAB, to seek input on next steps and
implementation.
111. PROJECT UPDATE
NAIOP
NA10P is the CU/DU real estate competition. CU's winning proposal for a mixed use project
included a community events center, private office building, city facilities, parking, and outdoor
cultural and arts space. It also highlighted the need for multiple private and public funding
sources to bring any project to fruition. A jury of professional developers, investors, architects,
financial experts and others reviewed and selected the winning proposal.
. - 4~.
,V 410P: CU ffinning student proposal, ,flay 2013
AGENDA ITEM VI-8 PAGE 2
PRAB Background
At its Feb. 25, 2013 meeting, DRAB received an overview ofthe results ofthe January Ideas
Competition and provided feedback on three initial Civic Area options and draft evaluation
criteria, Some of the feedback from DRAB, included:
• flan needs to address use of the area by the homeless and transient population.
• Plan must address financial feasibility of proposed uses such as the arts complex.
Draft Public Realm Plan and Civic Park Improvements
Based on input thus far in the project from the public, boards/commissions and council, the
preliminary direction for an overall plan is reflected in the draft "Public Realm Plan"
(Attachment B). The plan identifies the key physical components of the Civic Area and is
intended to serve as a guide for strategic decisions to enhance the area and establish new public
amenities. Consistent with the Civic Area guiding principles and building on the project
assumptions, it provides a roadmap for necessary public investments for improving safety,
functionality, and imageability. Elements of the plan include:
• Boulder Creek remains a natural corridor and focal point for the area.
• Existing buildings (New Britain and Park Central) are removed and most surface parking in
the High Hazard Flood Zone are relocated to wrapped structures at either end of the area to
improve life and property safety and create new parkland.
• Canyon Boulevard becomes a complete street to create more space and amenities for
pedestrians, bicycles, and transit.
• The Farmers' Market is expanded and enhanced.
46
t I J. ' Y L / A' r 'i!V t}y ~'ri ♦ ..7Y1 S' ~ u
" i?d7~f.`~` `~+irr .~7 l~f~t~~t~t •T ~.•ti. ~ ~~y , ~ T, i`~i F
_ ~ . Y ~ "tea-%•"" W-,,;~Y ~ ¢ rp ,.lf 1 ,'t["~ '4
Boulder" Creek is a central fewur e of the Civic Park, The Farmers' Alarket will remain.
AGENDA-ITEM VI-B PAGE 3
Key Choices
Attachment C summarizes the key choices that need to be considered to complete the
conceptual plan, as well as the some of the key victors and trade-offs associated with each
choice. The near term improvements poster is also included in this attachment. Choices of
particular interest to DRAB are listed below.
• Fanners' Market: Whether it should remain on 131t' (and expand) or relocate within the Civic
Area.
• Performing arts or community events center: Whether to create a new center and if so;
whether it would be mid-sized or smaller, either on the 13'h/14°i block or west of the library
(north of the creek).
• Other arts/cultural/science facilities: Whether to create new facilities for art, culture and/or
science education or other museum space, and if so, whether it would be new construction on
the 13"714 lb block, west of the library (either north or south of the creek), or a repurposing of
the Atrium or Municipal Building and whether to include additional public art in parks.
• Bandshell: Whether to maintain the bandshelI in its current location in the park and
rehabilitate it and program additional events or whether to move it within the Civic Area or
to another location.
136' Street: Whether to close 1381 Street to vehicles and transform it into an urban plaza and
expanded Farmers' Market space, maintaining thni-access for bicycles to Pearl Street.
Implementation Strategies
Staff has outlined draft implementation strategies, which will be used in the next steps of the
project to achieve the vision articulated in the plan (Attachment D). They include
programming, detailed planning and design, partnering and financing options. Further analysis
of the drag strategies is occurring over the next several months.
AGENDA ITEM VI-B PAGE 4
IV. NEXT STEPS
Based on feedback from the public, boards/commissions and council in May and June, staff will
continue more in-depth evaluation of all key choices and considerations for the Civic Area,
including site capacity, traffic impact and access, facility need/demand, adjacent use synergy,
social impacts, preliminary analysis of financial feasibility and more. The results of the
evaluation will inform completion of the draft Civic Area conceptual plan. City Council will
discuss and provide direction on the draft plan at a July 30 study session and consider approval
of the final plan in August or September.
Upcoming dates
• City Council - June 4
• Public open house or workshop - late June
• PRAB -July
• City Council draft plan study session - July 30
• City Council consideration of plan approval- August or September
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Civic Area Process Timeline
Attachment B: Draft Public Realm Plan and Civic Park Improvements
Attachment C: Key Choices
Attachment D: Draft Implementation Strategies Outline
AGENDA ITEM VI-B PAGE 5
ATTACHMEPITA
Process and Timeline (2012-2013)
Apr Jun Jon
2011 2012 Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2013 Fab Mar APT May Jun Jul Aug
nn. ena a/~Ya■a-/ ;a, enswquo nn - una >m ingS ,a aJa' a;zo
Ulo noo ~assumptlons I tIu cf a"d, 9125 f.+.)~ qwd n9
Rgnn i~l nalysls. 7n1
budr Ill u1,n~ s■
Cdr pn,opes„r,~ orek~ aer~ l,oi. ACpro✓alNeonnos
TI-
N Jul - Nov 2 t Nov 2012 - May 2O 13 May - Jun 2013,
c INVENTOR PT
a
DESIGN DETAIL &
-,IMPLEMENTATION
CYVEDI
Pmduct5: L,L DPPTJ G UIDING PAEE PfiELIM DRAFT APPR
f I PRINCIPLES : coNSTA oPTtoN DaAFZ PLAN PLAN
Daacr L t STRAT• PLAN
4lSION EGIES
5;
61 Cumpc•tlhon
Y Tradillonal . 1 tonltneand
(handson) tt with public)
Analysis
C
y , on 7 . ' Presereaton. public & Pref.
4+ house = Vision& Concepts vuwnnyc,eabw o 4on s Open
0 : Guiding 7mde cffs csnellurv p house
~ predm and "test Workshop
d Boulder Principles fitting" re: analysis
E Digital :"Workshop & preferences
CU 10
Ch (high tech)
Inspire Boulder:
CP1
C le,g., online idea
'+U 8oulder;Civ(cArea.com collaboraOon ODialogue, cont.
(e.g. online concepts}
Lr Info and 0warenest and survey))
Focused / Boards' 'K
.
Stakeholders and Commissions "h Z
E
® Focus groups Focusgroups c,
City Depts.
AGENDA ITEM V-13 PAGE 6
PLACE FOR ARTS CANYON BOULV}RQ°
uas<o- c v •ll }
Q
o:
CIVIC PARK + EEK
fl ,y~
.Y
Y.
LIFE SAFETY
CIVIC HEARTr HISTORIC STRUCTURES
• 1 ~ rye. ( ~r
ENHANCED ACCESS FARMERS" M44 T. FARMER'S DITCH TRANSIT CONNECTIONS
cr
m ~Lud ~ - -_7
< mac: ~ -
m
n D
m
nd
7
3
fD
7
W
Just imagine what it could become Attachment B
Civic Par
Improvements
r b. r ~l' .I _ .4 _Y.-•~~Ty]' l„ _ .C~ - ~ ,.r , ~ l h T . ♦ r I
is ry ~ s ~ ~ s ' " ~ ~ ~If r `s - t ~ ~ 'Yt~ ~ C~•• .
Y .qyj. t *3~i~1 C~ %'4,.,..cr~~ ~ ,.1- i ''f t r'-~3. ~~'h~l ~ •'1 ~ kf~Vr. -1T _ rT...~da~~1r.. r r ~t ~i+ ~ s. ~~'~•~Id'' M -'cr: "~kf I''~. .r`►.',~rrt~.-~,
IL iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillilI
Possible Park Program Elements: Considerations:
r_~ r Activating the parks will increase Inclusiveness In the area and a sense that the Civic Area is existing, fun,
North of the Creek: is a great lawn forgathering safe, famlly-friendly. and welcoming, Some considerations to move forward with site design indude:
and open space for musk and events. It could be
better programmed.
• Parks need adJacent"eyes on the park"and they need activity.
Isa more natural space with 0 Spaces should improve relationship with Surrounding uses e.., Library).
Intimate and shaded areas for nature exploration,
sue'" education, and play. In addttlon, the larger
expansive aleawhere parking Is could • Spaces should feel safe, inclusive.
accommodate a future relocation of the band
hell or Farmers Market - should ould those choices • Should create a variety of scales of spaces - intimate and large gathering spaces.
s
make sense -or other outdoor recreational of -
social uses
Central Park: h coinslarge and . improve What will it take to improve the park?
C bandsell, and train tracks. Improvee appearance
of the park and relationship to Fa rmets' Market,
and provide seatig and along
the Farmeerr's's Ditch Ottch for gathe ting. (See Additional site planning. Investment Strategy. Partnerships with organizations to
o gatherinng and eating. and eating. (a
the Far
bandshell key choices) provide programming. Coordination with Homeless Planning Group (See Near-term
Improvements.) AGENDA ITEM VI-B PAGE 8
Attachment C
Just imagine what it could become
Existing Farmers Market
& Market Hall
Where? R
Key Choices: Considerations:
~ e
r,
Clry has put recent
lO Keep on 13th street (and s~-Iin;3ThsmetMtrasPvctum. ke"xngthe 'l "
c~[ bcatbn rrwrxatns 25 years a taadlnon and K
expand number of stalls yPor¢dbYtherames'maket.P,oxlmlrytotlowntam
.,dP-1St-til benencW for the market and downtosnt. : fl.
and access). L~ ted oppomnroec to addtess makec space ne ds. as
wrgasconhgutadon,accessmdpwkmgneeds. The
exla0ng and FtrttaeFocadon o(lhe market should he _ +f
con9dered Arhanew'-kethaWttsuchapogtatn y~ T )
ekmemgettNClurled. t~" r ryiy ~ r ~ w~
Relocate within Civic Area. CaVoflelocatingthevuakrt. yr , y
0
ti• ' ; _Sr,T..' 'r" ;
Changeto75YeasdnadtsmaMpo"tWlydisrupting a _
successful opetauon m6A, the Ovic Atea. • r~_ _M1 It ` rKy _ e ,l;;
Nett' 1'e~r-Round Market Nrli
I it addition to the existing outdoor seasonal rnat-Wt, the city and rnarket have been exploring 7h ~y t l ` ',}3 = j;
f?'
the desirability of a small (approx. 7,000 sf) light. open but covered market that could operates L tali ;4e ' k e'er t'y.
year-roundbeside the Farmers'Marketand be combinedwith other mixed uses (such as restaurants and offices). The hall world only be built if the Farmers' Market stays on 13th
Street, since this is the only area out of the High Liacard Flood Zone that would be attractive to
the market.
Is No market hall.
Create new market hall on riot's.. su• w °a "W ad, .nt's[ , . I -Itlabi
°
enrronmarket a+i ry.
O _
13th Street. DpPOW 1. d-9, burldu,q log speclAC P,,j- and
n-d,. Sy,.,gywlrh adj-ttnel, Acc,-,idptgna I.L__ Asian
f
City I-` I"gedby r "f
Repurse Atrium _
eO '
r+ 1"~~ f~ntuonality of markrI tx+k ltln'~red by hullolm.
Building as market hall. ~Na"
nth, a.' n ~+^,ce ~~•c•. hafrDA rtE7A
Attac,in'.ent C.
Just imagine what it could become
Performing Arts /Community Events Center
Some Choices: Considerations: Where:
t~ M.y mns upponu+v[vesWssvvr tnevnumun~ryslydmmm9mgmmr.u.w na`:7;
No new center- U-NcomprlII III lrnsc,xen ury l:n,d and cotes to Gty co pu 11B landeIS-1 re fa Mbe+nas•d+,
ervbx7ofrpurbnnrytmnIh .nbsF:,ce matkerhal4ms ry.1T.' and mh If us,k
r'nrAJ tulhll a majw prr Iwlnmg a,tc Dap na th,• c<m,mun,ty-dgenciate
Create new mid-sized T-,-l. Addil-, e,rtihlllty is nec"":y to xdretT hl+anr+ ~nnd vuTlainablllN and -tlrec
pO :n,f+..n rural Mt comrnurri0• larrttrev 3`IOm.unnlMR woNd txtd ro.wki et•curxrrns 34-1 d.,y urn.
(p00-1t200 seat) w~elwch alarArry to+I trr,Js iv brmux teasa,a>,y anA n, evrnL vl~ Aingr•l.[Arrytnlgh1 Fe Oil.
Lw}t- vs~t6u mras tiM tld, iurct bTxt ldm vldv Tpxs• I.~g,•rmnpt+tp arcudxnudnr a mld ,lted
performing arts center. "t"'a'i weuslxrormn,bkvnlhanumdarvm~narMln(e.~.lannnynw~Lgtrocnaclry
~JI'~r:; Ih,t an• h,ny dui Ir,g Ire ,Liy. -
n Wuuld hwr Tmnlier impa<b ancl:w rouW h••Il,:.,tl+•r;, adiressvNr, :u~nmvmry = n
Create smaller (300-500 d%tOronrerr esl, mn•Ingspac.ennaputse nt rdpdcnnr eadbepartofamwof yyhatmi ht it [ake[obuildaCenter?
•s. B,n a Smaller fauhty rmght gmelaw wm ew t mrntor rnp wive a m,vknt nerd. Coco, tmnang. 9
and ownership m•nf addmm,al caproraekxT CWd MvtM mrtwee locatlrn,s and paslbry aT
seat} community events e~pantlonmllhraryiy.dleryaneam,spa« veaahlurystvdy Pnvau,lpl,hnrnnanr~nganddrnauu,ul
center. <iry land Purtr,enhrp wl~hn9+aprMt:3 nd::+yynlianunt
thatwould ensue s.,Ild r r in, and da lnlal,t uses
antl aravfp•mthr.,~,+. L:n.,rnn•c.cm~~nr.hn+,n,~~•-
I
AGENDA ITEM VI-9 PAGE 10
Attachment C
Just imagine what it could become
Arts/ Cultural/ Science Facilities
Some Choices: Considerations: Where:
No new-built arts space Doesnot IAp Imbed land aced I= other -(c9- w-K.a
IY
petfolminpatts;. No; IbWdIMJ at I spaxa Tray m Soppatunlty foi a mqa lily and un q-
for arts/culture/museums dMUmUm a dlSnk I. 0
Create new building for apanM.v, aJ,.n.u.pcr..,,W!t..«~~.,~;y.r~.gy,a;na,l,e,,,,«~al„d~,Hl •-•..I~•
rmryvp5..p vukY]114Yln.vvl l,~inr.'m..tc1 7~Lry heya el eaMxtriltY+ndvltal,y a~r~J{_ i#
art space .r m.tr dd.yu Ttw,e a.•a a. 1. ewntltflw and V f. hOlIM Wd MgWa• V'l l1,tr`
pa, h.c.,tul.. rdur.urce m.an<r,9 M1.rAavrS, Demand la dxu fxtunn is tn~ rit+nl,
fea4hklry,tuA3•~~~sybv~~.•irx..vy,tir..ito,tdd~esa hl5torl<IntegrltY af'frarKfet and Storage - s.
HulknaJ lfi,K~[Aldaar ndd,h•17th Ynen•lle. Thel3th sbeetslteBmaeln keeping
with BM.LA% pLLnang p.Knv -d-pi -d preference, ~.a
slmdar to'9•excrpt that exlsopg user of repwpmed Ixlllift such as n
Repurpose Municipal or rv,urrct lyvrl Bull Mgand the Anlum would have to be hwsrdd-h-
Atrium building
4GE.%-DA l c1•t V:.j~PAGE„
Just imagine what it could become Attachment C
Access and Mobility
Parking
rJ l~~'t 5 x r~ r r
Ow.
~ r.
dfi' =x V
Existing Parking Lots
in High Hazard Zone.
Initial Direction: Considerations: - -
r'-
Relocate majority of surface parking Uleandpropertysatety
Is addressed by iemm" parking fo- the tloodplain.
to wrapped parking structures on Th KproVdnapportuNryfwaddktonalpaikspare A
5pmgthens-Ming park NtaIltyand helps with water ;
either end of Civic Area and address goal yabng sxingpoluuon fromiuno _~~~~--.q~~~-~~,
5huc1urc4 parkinking g has as slgnlAanr high capital cost t _
chculadon,dependsons.1w apadty, access and nearby
new demand. Slung
would need [obe coordinated with llMary '~t ! r -
and possible configurauonof entrance, r A
AA1
w"ONWO f A
What will it take to create structured
parking? -
a
Addittc rnai feaslbiflty study, slang studies, and cowdlnatlon with CAGO and pi Vase
developmentswdllb,wy.wnarcenter.Fmmers'Nta IMLC d,d4ro t insure
suttnbk am W nts of parking, prmirnity, and good access, Update to the curient
transportation conneerlms plan fa the area will be needed as partor the
Implemen[auonplan,
J1 s fsCA R'cH ti' I.p a4GE t I
Just imagine what it could become AnachmentC
Access and Mobility
Connections
q.
13th Street: Considerations: r
No Orange to a mng cim.lalwn and r
Keep street open to vehicles access. Mhsed opportunity to nansfotm Important I t
(except during Farmers" Market hours). plI.oC1"cArea, 51pp°rteaccesstoWilne5sesand
® Close street to vehicles, transform into --de,moreeyer,tandpedesh y
space vnth amenities, sod, ds yethering places and
urban plaza and expanded Farmers` Public art, and of the Fanrm,
Malket Would malntain bike access. However.-nl
vchicular s ?'-s:
Market space with bicycle access, and tra ffic on 13th Sneer would he hlfled - Nsewhefe. probably to 14th 51reet, 15th 51i"t end
design to best relate and connect with d"°y'°"d-Old 'TMke"° igatl gbetwremCa"'°
81vd. and Arapahoe Ave by vehicle mare dlfhculL May •1" `
Pearl Street Mall, impact-eltinq bush _along 3311, Sneer
14th Street: Considerations:
0 Keep as is. ochange to exlsnngdrcuatknand ! .y
access. Main,ains access to Mufrresses
0 Convert to transit-only (on-street " ti cwrr~ Aft,
) TransitCente~ taped in[hefuNre Nowever,curtent -y -
traffic on 14th Street would be 00ted elsewhere, .
function to accommodate future bablyto l3thand 15th,and wouldmakenavlgaling ~ ems"
belween Canyon and Arapahoe by sNtkle trlore dimcult /
transit demand; maintain bike and May impact existing huslneeres a tong l4 Sheet
pedestrian access.
Convert to combination of transit - - - 4C A
and general use.
AI,ENDA IrVt 0.2 aa;;F +3
Attachment G
Canyon Boulevard:
ThlsstZ h'igh.ay is used by apprarlmalely 20,000 cats per day, cmnecllrq the BauiderYalley Peglon I Center Oh the ddwmx n area and cantfn i g mto Ilumoumains. It is
e_oanlerbelween Pead Slreel)Do J- and the Cwk Area.S,icyptionshaveemerged I. iedefine it, r-im andchesactn Thismayinctude mWng i lmaeafabwl.-d -
wilhadded spacefo+lnndscaping,and mlilmodal ~nitc-nIN K
Design asa"Complete Street"with place-making and multi-modal
improvements, including possible dedicated bike-lanes, generous' y-
pedestrian environment, and increased vegetation such as double
rows of trees on the south side, These improvements should create
an iconic entry into the downtown area.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Amenities &
Connections to Neighborhoods
The fundamental izcyckryadestrun tedllry Inthe Bien iy the Boulder O,.kP*h,Thb is-,T tans nanspalationfeittyend Itsakgnmenl and fu dcnpull be malntahxd. '
Another important Bicycle fadllry Is the [orlneclion of the Broedv.ay paM to th< t31h Street conlra-0ow runes. As noeed m the 13th Strret section chose, orre cha IlenQa .11 bn
to y'
-OW, this inpatant'oicydefadllty whlk still rmpmNng the famrerS Marbt operatlonz Anther Impostanl oath-south blcyclelp dnttlen cmrwhm is the I(XWI t Ih SPW
alignment with pedesb wn crossingsat Arnpehoe, Carrym end Yfilnut). These 6clllliesrmnen the rMghlaahood soullaof IheGvic Area and thepoemenddthe Drn town,as
wMlascmr tinglhe Mepkt HNlneghbahoodtolheChicArea, Each dthe se camecllans will bemaintarned.
A missing bicycle facility,Qwwnin theGty',Trenspalatw Mysler PMn,isan east-west caudal throug7l the CoVGrosefighbohu.-d. Reconnecllon lsln place flan i, -
BroadwaytolalhStreetbutaddillnrelworkwillaxedlo6edmelonealethiscorrlda eastol19th Snit, Aede. kyp ent will need loaccul before sane ofthe faclglin can fw
s+nrd~l
It e.a<`-" ~ Ito ~ -
.E c
S Spa '
..4 a+W9e..ne.....,....a <Xi a+..wee.namee..a
A,~Er:ca. lTC4 N.g~c4GE I 't
Just imagine what it could become AttachmentC
Bandshell
Some Choices: Considerations:
Keep the bandsheil in place . : ` ' Pleserwng rhebandshell In 115 miT2ns loorwt Is thebest
way ton, Antaln ft Ivttorlc Integrhy. Mint IehablhmOon, the eppearan:e
(and rehabilitate) a,-ndthe site and of the sbur=e could lmprme Butthecurrent
locadon may corsdnue [o have access and noise issues fa performancrs.
1, 1, Canyon eoukvard rlghtof-wq~ is rrshlctcd 6Y in Ixahon,
0 Relocate the bandsheil within HlM--ntcglltylscomprom-scd Atha mcm.
The functtonalsty o(Cenba{ perk could porentlally be improved, syNle the
the Civic Area (and improve axlstirghresandsitewntildbemalnta,ne,dforperkusec Amtr -W
albw Canyon 81ud. to 6e Improved as a complete sneer ro allz
addltl-A brcyde/pedesbr- use- The funcimn of and access to the
current park location) bandslsell mlghtpotentlally be unpr-l and posslble better synargY mrh
tS of park and surrounding uses thrs+.rgh o move,
O Move band5h a{~ outside ~I Ammeout-AdaddressesllfeandproWW
Hoed risk in the area by removing a anuctwe fmm the HHZ. The hlsta¢
Civic Area Integrity of the band shell is ognthoamy comp, omised in this scenario and
Its landmark tWW, could be feopardtied_
II-e
•si'_ '~~i'~'•' - Y . (!1~ Cfs ik .tea{-aP ~.q. r;'~-
-'a t
4
0!
1._, •,.a
.r 1 7e ~ yj T~ t+v..
a _ _
ILI,
. 4444[[[[~TTTT t .{..a ftlt.4
j ` ` r r r
- 1~ / ~ T - •i3~+` 'ice. M L~2.T'._• ~
ArENr)11 I*_•,r Vl.~ PAGE 15
ev Near-Term Improvements Attachment C
MOM
l r~ ds• rr_ r~ •
cy,
®
RnA
S
Emmons"
i -
What would you like to see happen in the Civic Area in r r r
the next few years?
• AGENDA ITEM V66 PAGE 16
Attachment D
Draft Implementation Strategies Outline
OS/08/13
What will the final Plan for the Civic Area include?
By fall of 2013, the Plan for the Civic Area will include:
a) The Guiding Principles developed earlier in this process.
b) A Visionary but conceptual physical plan (rather than detailed master plan) for the study area
with descriptions about key directions and preferred choices, and
c) An Implementation Phasing Plan with strategic steps to achieve the plan.
After plan approval, the city will continue to work with the community and various boards and
commissions with purview in the Civic Area to seek input on next steps and implementation. The seven
types of strategies identified below outline what it might take to accomplish the plan.
What inight it take to accomplish different options?
Seven strategies will lead to a highly effective and engaging Civic Area. These are not in any particular
order.
1. Coordination/Partnerships. Designate staff role(s) within the city to work across city
departments and with other partners (e.g., private land owners, nonprofit organizations, such as
the Farmers' Market and BMoCA, and others, such as the Homelessness Planning Group) to
carry out the plan. Integrate with city departmental planning projects.
2. Phasing/Prioritization "Roadmap." Identify initial project "catalysts" that will help spur private
investment and/or identify key steps necessary to sequentially and systematically work toward
the vision in the short-term and over time (e.g., some options may include coordination with
Boulder Housing Partners and Housing and Urban Development is necessary to enable
redevelopment of the site west of the library).
3. Detailed Planning and Design. Develop detailed site plans for certain parts of the Civic Area,
such as parks and plazas, infrastructure, and detailed mix of land uses, and further engage
community (e.g., master plans for the park land between the Municipal Building and the library
and the land just west of the library, and for 13`h Street and Canyon Boulevard.).
4. Construction. Following detailed site planning and engineering - construct infrastructure, street
improvements, art, informational pieces, park improvements or structures.
S. Land Use Code Update. If the Land Use Code is inconsistent with the desired plan, update the
code as necessary to achieve the vision. Code updates might lead to restrictions or incentives to
aid private development.
AGENDA [TEM VI-B PAGE 17
Attachment D
6. Programs. Work with or identify partners to collaborate on existing or expand new programs
(e.g., some options may include programming for activity in the area, or expansion of flood
education).
7. Investment Strategy. Last, but not least, identify a comprehensive portfolio of financing tools to
achieve phases of the vision, including possible new public financing such as a voter-approved
bond. The financial and investment strategy could include any combination of districts such as
general improvement districts, metropolitan districts and others; private financing;
endowments; public financing through bonds, certificates of participation, general fund, sales
tax; public improvements fees, state and federal grants leveraged (e.g., state Great Outdoors
Colorado funds for parks and open space, or National Endowment for the Arts); Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) alignment of priorities; urban renewal financing; and crowd source
funding. The proposed land uses and ownership (e.g., private or public) to some degree
determine what kind of financing strategies might be applicable. A mix of uses will take a mix of
strategies. For example some options may be:
• Arts/Culture private/public shared financing
• Housing private, public-private partnership, possible trust, lease by city
• City facilities public financing
• Offices or retail private/public partnership, city lease
• Parking Structure Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID) and user fees
Specific types of strategies to implement the Civic Area Plan miglit include:
• Develop a list of priority capital improvements which would require public investment, potentially
through a new capital bond initiative, grants, and regional partners. Examples include:
o Plan and construct bike and pedestrian improvements,.
o Plan and construct Canyon Boulevard improvements (complete street), working with CDOT,
o Plan and implement potential relocation of band shell,
o Plan and implement future phasing of the downtown transit center
o Plan and construct future phases of public parks and plazas.
• Plan and construct park space early-action catalytic project south of Boulder Creek.
• Develop wayfinding sign plan to better link focal points, such as the Sister City Plaza and Peace Garden
and downtown.
• Develop a detailed lighting plan for the Civic Area to improve feeling of safety.
• Prepare site planning for 1P Street Festival Street accommodating the Farmers' Market.
• Develop a Master Landscape Parks Plan and Phasing Plan for Central Park.
• Begin programming, feasibility and financing options for Arts/Museum types of uses.
• In specifically identified locations, acquire land and/or assemble smaller land parcels into larger parcels to
enable coordination of site planning.
• Consider land swap for city owned land and private land.
• Identify utility needs and potential costs.
Additional discussion will take place about implementation strategies.
AGENDA ITEM VI-B PAGE 18
CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2013
AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of Changes regarding 4`h of July at Boulder Reservoir
PRESENTERS:
Kirk Kincannon, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager
Stacy Cole, Boulder Reservoir Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Parks and Recreation Department has a goal of developing a safe, family-friendly
event at the Boulder Reservoir on the 0' of July holiday, consistent with the community
input received during the master plan update process. Aehievin this goal will require
instituting changes in the way the reservoir is managed on the 4` ` of July, including
managing the number of attendees, instituting an alcohol permit system and providing
family-friendly activities during the day. The department has worked closely with the
Boulder Police Department and Boulder Fire Department to develop a proposal.
Feedback from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) is requested on the
program and proposal that will be used in developing the final recommendation to the
City Manager. The proposal will be presented to City Council in an Information Packet
memo in early June.
ANALYSIS:
The 4`' of July holiday at Boulder Reservoir has historically been a very busy day with
high attendance numbers. Over the years, it has become the place with a reputation much
like that of the former Kinetics event, which ended in 2006. In 2012, record attendance
at the reservoir on July 4 was estimated at 10,000 persons, compared to 1,500-2,000 on a
busy summer Saturday. This resulted in management issues with overcrowding, patron
and staff safety, medical issues and alcohol controls and abuse. Several factors
contributed to this high attendance, including cancellation of the fireworks at Folsom
Field, good weather, a per-car entry fee at the reservoir (instituted in an effort to reduce
traffic congestion) and social media communication encouraging friends to come to the
reservoir.
Crowd actions of this nature at Boulder Reservoir are not consistent with the community
values and as a result the department is proposing changes that are designed to refocus
Agenda Item VI-C page I
the use of the reservoir on the 4th of July to a family-oriented event that include games,
activities, music, mobile food vending and fun for all ages.
To achieve that goal, the department is proposing to make the following changes:
• Increase the entry fee to $10 or $15 per person, and admit children 12 and under
for free.
• Permit alcohol sales to a vendor and have a designated area for a designated time
period for alcohol sales and consumption. No alcohol could be brought into the
reservoir with general gate admission.
• Increase Boulder Police Department presence at the south shore and north shore
to monitor for adherence to alcohol regulation and crowd control.
o Provide 10-12 police officers
o Close trailhead on 55th Street (10 parking spaces)
• Coordinate with the Boulder County Sheriff's Office for traffic control at Jay
Road and 51st Street as well as monitor parking in the Valhalla neighborhood, as
was done in 2012.
• Provide signage on 51st Street that informs motorists about changes at the
reservoir (no alcohol, must have a pre-purchased ticket).
+ Provide activities for patrons of all ages, including the following:
0 5K and I OK fun run in the morning
o Free activities (games, bounce houses, dunk tank, face painting)
o Mobile food vendors
o Water activities (kayaks, stand-up paddleboards)
o Live music with family-friendly bands
To be successful with these changes, the department will develop a robust
communication plan that will utilize all forms of local media (print, radio, Channel 8,
social media) and target segments of the population that have historically visited the
reservoir on this holiday. This will also include signage on roadways near the reservoir
including Jay Road and 51st Street.
This plan will require a city manager rule that prohibits possession and consumption of
alcohol at Boulder Reservoir for July 4 except in permitted areas
The department would like input from members of the PRAB on the following items:
• Feedback on the changes listed above
• Suggestions on other changes or improvements
ATTACHMENTS:
A. July 4, 2012 photos
Agenda Item VI-C page 2
ATTACHMENT A - July 4, 2012 photos
r, b
~r
' ~ ~ -yet t r• ~~e - : ~y :R~ 6 ~ Y:
tJ1~4•~ ~~i~,,"`'S y '1~",~i' ~~'`l"M'~. ~ du f ~ 1 ~6 :t ~ ~ ".L~+~ ~ - G,~ ,
gy~pp,,"~' ~k $x ~*It ~►r 2~ •,p
` r.
1..
t
1. M1
1 ff t-
Agenda Item VI-C page 3
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Kirk Kineannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation
Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent
Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager
Sarah DeSouza, Senior Manager of Communications,
Marketing and Partnerships
SUBJECT: Matters from the Department - Parks and Recreation Fees
DATE: May 20, 2013
A. Parks and Recreation Fees
The department is reviewing the potential fee changes as listed below in the context of 2014
fees and charges. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is being presented with a
Department Matter in relation to scheduling a June PRAB review and discussion of
department proposed admission and use fee changes. Currently, staff is reviewing the
following areas for fee changes that will be presented in June to PRAB:
Commercial Use Fees - Staff is currently reviewing the department's existing commercial
use fees. This analysis is being conducted within the context of Master Plan
recommendations to remain current with best practices. Over the last several years, the
department has seen a steady increase in the number of requests to use public park land for
commercial activities. The types of commercial activities currently being offered on park
land include: fitness/boot camp classes, yoga classes and sports camps. City ordinance
prohibits commercial private instruction by non-department staff at any of the recreation
centers or tennis courts.
Boulder Reservoir Fee - Staff is considering a proposal to institute an `off-season' entry fee
(per car fee and/or pass) for the Boulder Reservoir from the day after Labor Day until the
Saturday before Memorial Day. A reviewing of data from the past two years is being
conducted to determine the revenue potential and impact to users.
Valmont Bike Park Fees - In order to provide consistent management of Valmont City
Park, the department is considering the development of event and reservation fee structures
for the new disc golf course and the dog park. The department is also reviewing current fees
for the bike park use based on the past year's events and rentals.
AGENDA ITEM 4 VII-A PAGE I