Item 6A - Update Memo and attachmentsU.S. Department of Homeland Security
Region VIII
Denver Federal Center, Building 710
P.O. Box 25267
Denver, CO 80225-0267
www.fema.gov
R-8 EHP
November 17, 2017
Mr. Steve Turner, A.I.A.
State Historic Preservation Officer
History Colorado
1200 Broadway
Denver, CO 80203
SUBJECT: Section 106 Determinations of Eligibility and Effect, University of Colorado –
Boulder Campus Bridge Replacement and Land Improvement Project, Boulder
County, Colorado. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Project
HMGP DR-4145-86R; SHPO Project # 66455
Dear Mr. Turner,
This letter and the associated documents constitute a request for concurrence on determinations
of eligibility and effects for the project referenced above. The project is located in Boulder
County on the campus of the University of Colorado (CU) at Boulder along Boulder Creek. This
project consists of the removal of two existing bridges over Boulder Creek at 21st Street and 23rd
Street. A new pedestrian bridge will be constructed, elevated above the 100-year floodplain, and
will replace both crossings. Please refer to the enclosed site plan for the proposed alignment. The
bridge will connect to pathways on the north and south sides of the creek. In 2016, the University
was considering several alternative locations for two new bridge replacements. Recently, the
University has decided to move forward with removing the 21st Street Bridge and the Stadium
Bridge, but replacing both bridges with a single pedestrian bridge. The selected design is
reflected in the enclosed plan sheets. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
the lead federal agency, contributing funding to the project through the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program.
Area of Potential Effect (APE): The proposed APE includes the limits of disturbance from the
proposed undertaking, including the construction limits and areas that may be disturbed by
grading and staging. The APE is expanded to include the cultural resource boundaries for
resources affected by the project. The 21st Street Bridge and Stadium Bridge both exist within the
limits of disturbance; the APE is expanded to include the limits of resource 5BL8821, which
includes stone walls constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Please refer to the
enclosed APE Map for additional details.
Survey Methodology: Pinyon Environmental, Inc. (Pinyon) Archaeologist and Principal
Investigator, Thomas Carr, conducted an intensive on-site pedestrian survey for archaeological
resources on July 21, 2016; a re-visitation of the site was conducted on May 9, 2017, to conduct
Mr. Turner
November 17, 2017
Page | 2
www.fema.gov
a pedestrian survey of the refined APE. Please note that the APE presented in the Cultural
Resource Technical Memorandum (May 19, 2017) has been slightly enlarged to reflect the
current limits of construction. The expansion is minimal and takes place in paved and previously
disturbed areas; therefore, an additional site visit was not conducted. The survey was conducted
under Mr. Carr’s state archaeological survey and testing permit, #2016-70.
Pinyon Architectural Historian Mark Serour conducted the initial site visit and historic resource
survey in the summer of 2016. A follow-up site visit was conducted by Pinyon Architectural
Historian Ashley L. Bushey on May 9, 2017.
Tribal Archaeology: The project APE is in a heavily pre-disturbed urban area. No recorded
prehistoric archaeological resources were identified in the APE through the file search.
Pedestrian surveys conducted for the project did not identify any prehistoric archaeological
resources or historic tribal resources. None of the historical archaeological resources identified in
the project area demonstrate historic tribal associations. Therefore, no tribal consultation was
conducted.
Determinations of Eligibility
Stadium Bridge (5BL13422): The Stadium Bridge was constructed in 1967. The bridge is
constructed of steel and concrete, including a concrete deck and a steel and concrete
substructure. The bridge is not connected to significant events in history, and therefore it is not
significant under Criterion A. The bridge is also not connected to significant persons in history,
and therefore is not significant under Criterion B. Further, the bridge does not exemplify a type
of bridge design, is not aesthetic, and does not represent the work of a master; therefore, the
bridge is not significant under Criterion C. In addition, the bridge is unlikely to yield additional
information important in history or prehistory; therefore, the resource is not significant under
Criterion D. Because the resource does not meet any National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) Criteria, the resource is not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP.
21st Street Pedestrian Bridge (5BL13421): The 21st Street Bridge is a pedestrian bridge
carrying pedestrian and bicycle traffic across Boulder Creek from the Boulder Creek Path to the
CU – Boulder Campus. The bridge contains stone piers and abutments and a steel superstructure.
The superstructure was constructed ca. 1950, and is supported by stone piers and abutments that
appear to date to two distinct periods of construction based on visual inspection. The lower
components of the piers and abutments are similar in construction to stone retaining walls in the
immediate vicinity of the resource, which are attributed to construction by the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930s. The upper sections of the stone piers and abutments are
similarly constructed; however, the stone appears to be derived from a different source or has
experienced different weathering. This suggests the piers and abutments were altered or
rehabilitated after their initial construction, possibly in conjunction with the introduction of the
steel superstructure in the 1950s. The resource is significant under Criterion C in the area of
Community Planning and Development for its 1950s construction and aesthetic design. The
1950s are relatively late to see examples of masonry bridges, as bridge construction during this
period was trending towards the use of steel and concrete materials and slab and girder
construction. This resource, though much of its extant construction dates approximately two
decades after the surrounding CCC stonework, was constructed using similar materials and
construction, creating continuity in the built environment. The resource is recommended eligible
for inclusion on the NRHP.
Mr. Turner
November 17, 2017
Page | 3
www.fema.gov
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Stonework (5BL8821): This site is composed of eight
terraces created by rubblestone retaining walls likely constructed by the CCC in the 1930s. The
walls are largely dry-laid; however, some are patched with cement mortar. The walls are up to
five feet tall. CU has undertaken improvements to the Folsom Field football stadium in recent
years, including removal of some of this stonework to accommodate those improvements.
However, most of the historic material remains intact. The stone bridge piers and abutments of
the 21st Street Bridge are considered a contributing feature of the resource. The site is considered
eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criteria A and D for association with the CCC and for
data potential, respectively. The site boundary does not encompass all of the CCC-related stone
wall construction in the area; mitigation strategies outlined below recommend a full Class III
survey of the resource, which may include a boundary re-evaluation.
Determinations of Effect
Stadium Bridge (5BL13422): The Stadium Bridge will be removed to accommodate
construction of the new pedestrian bridge. Because the resource is not eligible for inclusion on
the NRHP, the work will result in a determination of no historic properties affected with regard
to resource 5BL13422.
21st Street Pedestrian Bridge (5BL13421): The 21st Street Bridge will be removed to
accommodate construction of the new pedestrian bridge. The project will remove the stone piers
and abutments associated with the 21st Street Bridge. Because the project will remove historic
material and diminish integrity of the site, the project will result in a determination of adverse
effect with regard to resource 5BL13421.
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Stonework (5BL8821): This site includes the stone
abutments and piers of the 21st Street Bridge, and the adjacent terraced stone retaining walls. The
project will remove the stone piers and abutments associated with the 21st Street Bridge. The
project intends to avoid direct impacts and removal of the terraced stone walls; however,
installation of the new bridge may require removal of short sections of the walls, as seen on the
enclosed file 5BL8821 Areas Anticipated for Removal. Because the project will remove historic
material and diminish integrity of the site, the project will result in a determination of adverse
effect with regard to resource 5BL8821.
Mitigation
Based on the pedestrian surveys of the APE and discussions with representatives from the CU
Planning, Design, and Construction Department, the final project plan to remove the 21st Street
Bridge would constitute an adverse effect to resources 5BL8821, CCC Stonework, and
5BL13421, 21st Street Bridge. This determination is a result of the proposed removal of the stone
abutments on the 21st Street Bridge and potential removal of sections of the CCC Stonework
retaining walls.
The recommended determination of adverse effect under Section 106 will require mitigation. A
draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is included for review. Recommended mitigation
includes the following elements, summarized below and fully described in the enclosed draft
MOA document.
I. Photographic Documentation
o Photography and mapping to OAHP Level II standards
II. Historic Property Inventory
Mr. Turner
November 17, 2017
Page | 4
www.fema.gov
o Completion of a Class III survey of the APE performed by CU staff or contractors
that meet the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards
III. Public Interpretation
o Educational interpretive plan which may include signs, displays, or other
mechanisms. Content and location will be coordinated with FEMA and Colorado
SHPO
IV. Demolition and Construction
o FEMA will require that project-related activities be performed in a manner that
minimizes ground disturbances and avoids impacts to existing resources to the extent
possible, and that work is performed in a manner that meets all Local, State, and
Federal statutes, codes, and regulations.
We respectfully request your comments on the APE and concurrence with the determinations of
eligibility and effect outlined above. We also request your review and comments on the draft
MOA enclosed within this submission. Should you have questions or require additional
information, please contact me by telephone at 303-235-4926 or email at
richard.myers2@fema.dhs.gov.
Sincerely,
Richard Myers
Deputy Regional Environmental Officer
Enclosures: Cultural Resource Technical Memorandum 08.18.2017
APE Map
Site Plan Sheets
Inventory Forms – 5BL.13422, 5BL.13421, 5BL.8821
Areas Anticipated for Removal Photos (5BL8821)
Draft MOA
- 1 -
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
COLORADO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,
THE COLORADO DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,
AND THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER, REGARDING THE
CAMPUS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT
BOULDER, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of
Homeland Security proposes to administer FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
funding pursuant to Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended, through the Colorado Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Management (DHSEM) to the University of Colorado Boulder (the University)
for the campus pedestrian bridge replacement flood mitigation project (Undertaking); and
WHEREAS, the University applied to FEMA for HMGP funding to remove and replace existing
bridges to increase storm-water conveyance in order to minimize future flood damage within the
Boulder Creek Corridor on the University campus; and
WHEREAS, the Undertaking has been reviewed in accordance with the executed Statewide
Programmatic Agreement between FEMA, Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), and Colorado DHSEM (2014 CO Programmatic Agreement); and
WHEREAS, FEMA has defined the undertaking’s area of potential effects (APE) as the limits
of disturbance from the proposed undertaking, including the construction limits and areas that
may be disturbed by grading and staging. The APE is expanded to include the cultural resource
boundaries for resources that may be affected by the project. The 21st Street Bridge and Stadium
Bridge both exist within the limits of disturbance; the APE is expanded to include the limits of
resource 5BL8821, which includes stone walls constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps.
WHEREAS, FEMA, in consultation with the Colorado SHPO, has determined that the 21st
Bridge (site number 5BL.14321) and Civilian Conservation Corps Stonework (site number
5BL.8821) are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and
WHEREAS, FEMA has determined that the Undertaking will have an Adverse Effect on site
number 5BL.14321 and site number 5BL.8821, and the Colorado SHPO has concurred with this
determination in a letter dated ########; and
WHEREAS, FEMA has invited Colorado DHSEM as the Recipient and the University as the
Sub-recipient to become signatories to this Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and
WHEREAS, FEMA has notified the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on
########, regarding its intent to prepare a MOA to resolve the Adverse Effect and satisfy its
Section 106 responsibilities pursuant to the 2014 CO Programmatic Agreement and 36 CFR Part
- 2 -
§800.6 (a)(1), and the ACHP has declined to participate, pursuant to 36 CFR §800.6(a)(1)(iii);
and
WHEREAS, FEMA and the University have accomplished appropriate public outreach through
publication in the Boulder Daily Camera on October 24, 2016, and the CU Boulder Today daily
campus newsletter on April 21, 2017. Coordination with the Boulder Certified Local
Government was initiated on August 21, 2017. The University incorporated substantive
comments received from the public into the final project design of the Undertaking; and
WHEREAS, Tribal consultation was not conducted because the site is in a heavily pre-disturbed
urban area and no recorded prehistoric archaeological resources were identified in the APE.
Multiple surveys conducted for the project did not identify any prehistoric archaeological
resources or historic tribal resources, and none of the historical archaeological resources
identified in the project area demonstrate any historic tribal associations.
NOW, THEREFORE, FEMA, Colorado SHPO, Colorado DHSEM, and the University agree
that the Undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order
to mitigate the adverse effect of the Undertaking on historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
To the extent of its legal authority and in coordination with the Colorado SHPO, Colorado
DHSEM, and the University, FEMA will require that the following measures are implemented in
keeping with the timelines described in Section VIII – Period of Enforcement. FEMA and SHPO
must be provided an opportunity to review a draft of the documentation at least 30 days prior to
project implementation.
I. PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
Prior to project implementation, the University will compile and submit Level II photographic
documentation and maps of Site number 5BL.14321 and site number 5BL.8821, as per Appendix
C of the 2014 CO Programmatic Agreement, to the Colorado SHPO for inclusion in the
Colorado State Archives where it will be available for public use and reproduction. This will
include a comprehensive collection of photographs of significant architectural features and
typical building materials. Photographs shall include full oblique and contextual images of each
elevation and shall be keyed to a site plan The photographs shall be indexed according to the
date photographed, site number, site name, site address, direction, frame number, subject matter
and photographer’s name recorded on the reverse side in pencil. The digital photography
package shall include printed color copies of the digital photographs (on appropriate paper, per
NPS Photographic Policy), and a CD/DVD of the digital photographs.
II. HISTORIC PROPERTY INVENTORY
Prior to project implementation, the University shall complete a Class III survey of the APE.
Efforts may be directed toward the resurvey of previously designated historic properties and/or
districts which have undergone change or lack sufficient documentation, or the survey of new
- 3 -
historic properties and/or districts that lack formal designation. The University shall use staff or
contractors that meet Secretary of Interior Professional Qualification Standards for the
appropriate discipline as determined by FEMA in coordination with SHPO.
(https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm).
III. PUBLIC INTERPRETATION
FEMA and the University shall work with the Colorado SHPO to design an educational
interpretive plan. The plan may include signs, displays, and other similar mechanisms to educate
the public on historic properties within the APE. The content and location of interpretive signage
shall be coordinated with FEMA and the Colorado SHPO.
IV. DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION
To ensure the protection of any prehistoric or historic archeological resources that might be
located in the project area, FEMA will require that project-related activities be performed in a
manner that minimizes ground disturbances and avoids impacts to existing resources to the
extent possible. And, that the work is performed in a manner that meets all local, State, and
Federal statutes, codes, and regulations. FEMA will require that any fill used for back filling,
grading or ground restoration will be obtained from a commercial source, and that no on-site
grading of previously undisturbed soil shall take place.
V. POST-REVIEW DISCOVERIES
A. It is possible that previously unidentified archeological resources could be discovered
during ground disturbing activities. The APE for the project is considered to primarily
have potential to yield information on the period dating near early/mid-20th century.
Native American occupation, either related to the prehistoric or historic period, is not
expected due to extensive ground disturbance that occurred within the APE during
construction and modification of the original bridges and other infrastructure.
B. If archaeological deposits are identified during construction, the following procedures
shall be followed:
1. Work will be halted in the vicinity of the discovery and in the surrounding area
where further subsurface remains can reasonably be expected to occur.
2. The University will notify FEMA within 24 hours of the discovery.
3. The University will take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the
archaeological site until FEMA concludes consultation with the Colorado SHPO
(and Tribes as appropriate).
4. A qualified archeologist representing the University will immediately inspect the
work site and assess the nature of the affected archeology. The result of the site
inspection will be reported to FEMA within 7 days following completion.
- 4 -
5. FEMA will notify the Colorado SHPO (and Tribes as appropriate) at the earliest
possible time and consult to develop actions that will take the effects of the
Undertaking into account. The University may participate in this consultation.
6. FEMA will develop written recommendations reflecting its consultation with the
SHPO/Tribes and may require the University to modify the project as necessary to
implement these recommendations. The notification shall describe FEMA’s
assessment of NRHP eligibility of the property and proposed actions to resolve
adverse effects if the property is determined to meet the National Register Criteria
(36 CFR Part 60.6), in accordance with the 2014 CO Programmatic Agreement.
Work in the affected area shall not proceed until both (a) the development and
implementation of appropriate data recovery or other recommended mitigation
procedures, or (b) the determination is made that the located remains are not
NRHP eligible..
VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Should any signatory or concurring party to this MOA object at any time to any actions
proposed or the manner in which the terms of this MOA are implemented, FEMA shall
consult with such party to resolve the objection. If FEMA determines that such objection
cannot be resolved, FEMA will:
A. Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including the FEMA’s proposed
resolution, to the ACHP. The ACHP shall provide FEMA with its advice on the
resolution of the objection within thirty (30) days of receiving adequate
documentation. Prior to reaching a final decision on the dispute, FEMA shall prepare a
written response that takes into account any timely advice or comments regarding the
dispute from the ACHP, signatories and concurring parties, and provide them with a
copy of this written response. FEMA will then proceed according to its final decision.
B. If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the thirty (30)
day time period, FEMA may make a final decision on the dispute and proceed
accordingly. Prior to reaching such a final decision, FEMA shall prepare a written
response that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the
signatories and concurring parties to the MOA, and provide them and the ACHP with
a copy of such written response.
C. FEMA's responsibility to carry out all other actions subject to the terms of this MOA that
are not the subject of the dispute remain unchanged.
VII. ANTICIPATORY DEMOLITION
FEMA agrees that it will not grant assistance to the University, which with intent to avoid
the requirements of this MOA or the NHPA, has intentionally significantly adversely
affected a historic property to which the assistance would relate, or having legal power to
prevent it, allowed such adverse effect to occur. FEMA may, after consultation with the
- 5 -
ACHP and the Colorado SHPO, determine that circumstances justify granting such
assistance despite the adverse effect created or permitted by the University.
VIII. PERIOD OF ENFORCEMENT
This MOA will continue in effect for five years from date of signing. At that time,
FEMA and the Colorado SHPO may elect to extend the period of enforcement through an
amendment, in writing, to this MOA. The signatories may also elect to revise the MOA
and will consult in accordance with the 2014 CO Programmatic Agreement to make such
revisions.
IX. AMENDMENTS
This MOA may be amended when such an amendment is agreed to in writing by all
signatories. The amendment will be effective on the date a copy signed by all of the
signatories is filed with the ACHP.
X. TERMINATION
A. If any signatory to this MOA determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried
out, that party shall immediately consult with the other parties to attempt to develop
an amendment per Stipulation VIII, above. If within thirty (30) days (or another time
period agreed to by all signatories) an amendment cannot be reached, any signatory
may terminate the MOA upon written notification to the other signatories.
B. Once the MOA is terminated, and prior to work continuing on th e undertaking,
FEMA must either (a) execute an MOA pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6 or (b) request,
take into account, and respond to the comments of the ACHP under 36 CFR § 800.7.
FEMA shall notify the signatories as to the course of action it will pursue.
XI. EXECUTION OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
A. Execution of this MOA by FEMA and the Colorado SHPO and implementation of its
terms evidences that FEMA has afforded the ACHP an opportunity to comment on
the demolition project associated with the campus pedestrian bridge replacement
flood mitigation project and its effects on historic properties and FEMA has taken
into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties.
B. This MOA may be executed in counterparts, with a separate page for each signatory,
and FEMA will ensure that each party is provided with a fully executed copy. The
Agreement shall become effective on the date of the last signature to this Agreement.
- 6 -
EXECUTED:
SIGNATORY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
By: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________
Michael E. Hillenburg
Hazard Mitigation Assistance Branch Chief
FEMA Region VIII
By: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________
Steven E. Hardegen
Regional Environmental Officer
FEMA Region VIII
- 7 -
EXECUTED:
SIGNATORY
HISTORY COLORADO
By: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________
Steven Turner, AIA
State Historic Preservation Officer
- 8 -
EXECUTED:
INVITED SIGNATORY
COLORADO DIVISION OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
By: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________
XXXXX
Director of Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
- 9 -
EXECUTED:
INVITED SIGNATORY
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER
By: _____________________________________ Date: ___________________
XXXXX
University of Colorado Boulder
DATE: December 6, 2017
TO: Landmarks Board
FROM: James Hewat, Marcy Cameron
SUBJECT: Update Memo
Letter to the City Council
Each year boards and commissions have the opportunity to write a letter to the City Council to
communicate priorities and/or issues to the governing body prior to its retreat in January. This
year’s letters are due December 15th, 2017. Discuss draft letter at meeting (Ronnie Pelusio).
Section 106 Review Documentation for the University of Colorado’s plans for bridge
replacement over Boulder Creek (see attached) – Discuss at meeting.
Colorado Preservation Incorporated Saving Places Conference
The 2018 Saving Places Conference will take place Jan. 31 to Feb. 3, 2018 in Denver. Information
is available on the Colorado, Preservation, Inc. website. Contact staff if you are interested in
attending by Nov. 29, 2017.
ON-GOING PROJECTS
Atrium Building / Public Market
Discussion is ongoing in considering whether the Atrium Building might be used as a Market
Hall on a temporary or permanent basis. Historic Boulder has agreed to continue keeping the
March 2015 application to landmark the Atrium on hold as exploration of these options
continues. Update at meeting.
Boulder Public Library Master Plan
A copy of the Master Plan is attached. Discuss at meeting.
The Civic Area
Their webpage has been updated to provide current information on the historic resources in the
Civic Area.
Selected Recently Approved Landmark Alteration Certificates (Annotated).
See attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
CU Bridge Replacement Section 106 Review
Boulder Library Master Plan memo and information
1
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: David Farnan, Library and Arts Director
Jennifer Phares, Deputy Library Director
Devin Billingsley, Senior Budget Analyst
DATE: Tuesday, November 28, 2017
SUBJECT: Boulder Public Library Master Plan project update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the study session is to update City Council on the status of the Boulder
Public Library (BPL) Master Plan and to present options for funding the goals and ensure
long-term financial sustainability of the library system. Staff will provide the following
information for council’s consideration:
• Brief overview of what the library is and does.
• Major accomplishments since the 2007 Boulder Public Library Master Plan.
• Highlights from input received from community.
• Brief overview of significant projects planned for the next five years and
estimated ongoing costs associated with each.
• Outline of options for funding these projects and ensuring financial sustainability
for years to come.
It is assumed the Council, Library Commission and staff all agree that the community
deserves a great library system. To achieve this, a financial sustainability model for the
BPL should be explored. If there is a desire to expand programs and services to meet
community expectations as well as to address operating needs, then enhanced funding
options need to be explored. Staff seeks direction from council to investigate library
funding and governance structure options. A summary of the options is presented at the
end of this memo and will be included in the Library Master Plan update. During the
study session, the staff and Library Commission would like to discuss the following four
questions with council.
2
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
1. Does council have questions about the role of the library in the 21st century?
2. Does council have questions about the community input related to expanding
programs, services, and new facilities?
3. Does council have questions about the options for funding and governance
structure of the library system outlined in this memo?
4. Does council have any direction for library staff to pursue additional analysis of
and planning for the funding and governance options to be presented in the
upcoming, updated BPL master plan tentatively scheduled to be presented for
adoption in March 2018?
MASTER PLAN PROJECT UPDATE
BPL’s master plan update began in 2016 with research about community needs and
issues identification. This research entailed reviewing city wide master plans from
multiple departments and review of community reports such as the Trends Report from
the Community Foundation, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the
Community Perception Assessment. This research and subsequent interviews with local
leaders in business, education, human services and city government provided a
framework for developing questions and surveys for gathering the community’s input.
Independent consultants were hired to conduct and analyze the results of an online
community survey, conduct focus groups, interviews, and benchmark Boulder against
comparable libraries in the state of Colorado and nationally. Eighteen of 100 invited
community leaders participated in a Master Plan Community Thought Leaders dialogue
to talk about how the library may contribute to making Boulder the kind of community its
residents desire. More than 350 community members participated in a two-day project
kick-off event, The Library Lab in which participants were asked to share their ideas for
the future of BPL. The community survey was completed by 1,752 respondents. Eight
focus groups were conducted with 86 participants.
During September and October 2017, BPL hosted four open house meetings and attended
the citywide “What’s Up Boulder” open house to check in with the community about the
draft master plan goals. More than 180 community members participated in these events.
The library commissioners have provided staff with critical support and direction
throughout the project at monthly meetings, during Library Commission’s annual retreat,
and several study sessions by reviewing the information collected from the research,
giving input on the design of the community survey and engagement activities, assisting
the staff and consultants to host several of the events, and giving input on the
development of the draft master plan goals and the options to ensure financial
sustainability for the library system.
3
OVERVIEW
What BPL is
Libraries in the 21st century are no longer simply depositories of books and information.
They are community gathering places, vital components in a region's knowledge
economy, a resource for families, and a great social equalizer providing free and open
access to resources for everyone in the community1,2. BPL plays critical roles in helping
children learn to read and assisting adults in acquiring new skills, earn high school
diplomas, and find jobs. BPL supports immigrants by offering free classes and resources
so they can learn to speak, read, and write English, and apply for U.S. citizenship. BPL
also provides patrons with access to and training on basic and sophisticated, high-end
technology to which they may otherwise not have access. In an emerging freelance
economy, libraries are re-asserting their position as the original co-working space and
BPL is no different, serving many professionals in this way. Perhaps as much as
anything, BPL is a welcoming public space that is free and open to everyone.
With nearly one million visitors in 2016, BPL is one of the busiest public locations in the
city of Boulder. Through partnerships with the Boulder Small Business Development
Center, Boulder Housing Partners, Intercambio Uniting Communities, The Latino
Chamber, the Boulder County Farmers’ Markets, University of Colorado’s ATLAS
Institute, and CU Science Discovery, and several start-up entrepreneurs and small (and
not so small) businesses, BPL is a critical public anchor for the community in business,
sustainability, and cultural development. The community makerspace, BLDG 61, is a
model for libraries internationally and functions as a de facto incubator for innovators,
entrepreneurs, and inventors with multiple patent applications and several businesses
launching from the space in the less than two years it has been in operation.
What BPL does
Libraries are still about books. They are BPL’s brand, but they are not its sole business.
BPL had slightly more than 1.5 million circulations of materials last year. That equates to
nearly 15 books and movies for every man, woman, and child in Boulder. More than 40%
of those were circulations of children's books. Providing patrons with library materials is
a substantial portion of BPL’s operations. Purchasing, processing and physically moving
books to and from patron's homes and back to the shelves at the library accounts for 60 to
70% of BPL’s ongoing operating costs from material costs to the cost of staff doing the
work. In addition to circulation of physical materials, BPL has seen nearly 160% growth
in patrons’ use of e-books, and streaming music and movies over the last four years.
While it seemed like a possibility a few short years ago, that the size of libraries would
start to be reduced in response to patrons shifting their use to e-books, the explosive
growth in popularity and use of e-books and streaming services has not correlated with a
decline in demand for print resources. Some patrons find it more convenient to read
multiple mediums. BPL’s circulation of physical materials, e-books, and streaming music
1 Rising to the Challenge – Re-Envisioning Public Libraries. Aspen Institute Report.
http://csreports.aspeninstitute.org/documents/AspenLibrariesReport.pdf
2 Branches of Opportunity. Center for an Urban Future.
https://nycfuture.org/pdf/Branches_of_Opportunity.pdf
4
and movies is higher than it has ever been. The transition of some patrons from using
print materials to exclusively using e-books and streaming services has allowed the
library to reallocate some of the space that was once devoted to housing print collections
to create more space for individuals and groups to use the library. Similarly, the number
of visitors to Boulder’s libraries continues to grow.
Last year, BPL worked with its consortium partners and other local municipal libraries to
create a non-profit Flatirons Library Consortium (FLC). Consortium operations, formerly
managed by BPL staff, were outsourced and the FLC opened its membership to more
municipal libraries. The FLC has more than doubled its membership, making available
twice as many books and materials to BPL patrons with no increase in direct cost.
Further, expanding the FLC strengthened its member libraries’ ability to negotiate
contracts with book and database vendors as a group, allowing all libraries to purchase
more materials at reduced cost.
Over the past three years, attendance at BPL’s children and family literacy-based
programs like storytime, 1000 Books Before Kindergarten, book-rich environments, and
summer reading have grown by nearly 100%. In addition, STEAM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, Art, Math) programs, which did not exist three years ago, now bring in
12,000 to 15,000 participants annually. Participants range in age from 4 to 94, and are
learning new skills and experimenting with everything from technology to textiles to
bioengineering and wood craft, together. With more than 100,000 patrons attending
programs in 2016, BPL’s program attendance is one of the highest in Colorado, and rivals
much larger library systems.
The community makerspace, BLDG 61, launched almost two years ago, attracting
thousands of participants and winning multiple awards. BLDG 61 programs have been
sustained by a series of community grants. BLDG 61 is a high-tech shop with laser
cutters and 3D printers, as well as a full-scale, advanced woodworking shop, and has
become a platform for local entrepreneurs to test their ideas with an audience.
Two notable, grant-funded BLDG 61 programs are: the Tree Debris to Opportunity
(TreeOpp) program, funded by the John S. and James L Knight Foundation’s Cities
Challenge Grant; and the Build, Learn, Design, Grow Apprenticeship, funded by the
Jacques Littlefield Foundation. The TreeOpp program provided the opportunity for
persons currently experiencing homelessness to learn advanced wordworking techniques
from BLDG 61 creative technologist staff. Participants in the 12-week program used
wood harvested from city Ash trees that were infested with Emerald Ash Borer.
Participants sold the tables, cutting boards and decorations they created at the Boulder
County Winter Market, with the revenues being used to continue support for the program.
The Build, Learn, Design, Grow Apprenticeship provided an apprenticeship opportunity
to 36 teen students in BLDG 61. Each student was given a stipend and a budget to
develop an idea for a product or amenity that could be used in business or benefit the
community. BLDG 61 also hosted several well-attended, low-tech textile and engineering
workshops from spinning wool to learning about the physics of fidget spinners.
5
BPL continues to be the go-to place for many visitors and community members who do
not have access to computers and high-speed internet at home. BPL provides patrons with
free high-speed wireless internet access, public computers, and advanced productivity
software.
Put simply, the growth and success experienced by BPL during the past four years has
been remarkable! Since 2014, BPL increased the hours open to the public by 11%,
opened a new “corner” library in north Boulder, and expanded program and event
offerings resulting in a 100% increase in overall program attendance. The number of new
borrowers grew by 20%. Visits to the libraries have grown 8%. E-book use grew by
160%. In 2016, due in part to this growth and to innovative partnerships and creative
programs, BPL was honored as 2016 Colorado Library of the Year by the Colorado
Association of Libraries.
BPL staff accomplished all of this with minor changes to the budget and a 2% reduction
in full-time equivalent (FTEs) staff positions.
Four years ago, along with the renovation of the Main Library, approximately $1 million
was invested in new, automated materials sorting systems. The systems were designed to
more efficiently process returned materials and reduce the number of physical touches to
materials by staff. Materials sorting systems were installed at the Main Library, and at the
George Reynolds and Meadows branch libraries. BPL also invested in patron self-service
stations to check out materials and pay late fees. These investments enabled the library to
restructure and reallocate staff to provide more individual and personal customer service,
open the BLDG 61 Makerspace, and to create a new workgroup that focuses on
programs, events, and outreach to the community.
It is worth noting that much of BPL’s success with new programs and the dramatic
increase in attendance over the past three years is attributable to a significant degree to an
increase in investment from the Boulder Library Foundation (BLF). The BLF is a 501(c)
(3) nonprofit organization led by a volunteer board of directors and supported by
individual donors and community partners in Boulder. In the past four years, the BLF
contributed approximately $1.2 million to BPL to increase program offerings. The
foundation’s investment was vital in launching STEAM programs, the Jaipur Literature
Festival, sensory concerts for families with children on the autism spectrum, the
continuation of free films and concerts, as well as all the upfront costs to build and equip
the BLDG 61 Makerspace. BLF’s generosity and leadership has been vital in introducing
a whole new generation of people to the library. BPL has used the funds from the BLF to
leverage another $300,000 in grants and community support.
The foundation of the public library in America has always been about the principles of
free and open access to information and literacy in all its forms, and the protection of
First Amendment rights for everyone. From learning to read, to learning English, to
learning advanced computer coding and programming, to becoming eligible to apply for
U.S. citizenship, to obtaining a high school diploma or advanced degree, the library is an
informal learning platform that respects the rights of the learner above all else. BPL is a
6
bridge for the community, providing the space for self-directed, life-long learning
experiences and tools for hands-on collaboration with librarians, public partners,
volunteer tutors, and creative technologists to learn, explore and enrich its members’
lives.
BPL Future
Libraries in general, and BPL in particular, are experiencing an historic resurgence as
community gathering places. BPL is the busiest library of its size on a per-capita basis in
Colorado. But BPL is not just a busy place, like all public libraries, it is a core service in
a democratic society.
Civil society performs a number of critical functions; it provides a buffer
between the individual and the power of the state and the market, it creates
social capital, and it develops democratic values and habits. By design
and tradition, the public library is the essential civil society institution.
Through the provision of space, information, access to tools, and
inspiration, it enables all the others.
Don E. Eberly. The Meaning, Origins and Applications of Civil Society
BPL is a trusted and inclusive place of learning and innovation, a place for the
community to come together, for its members to talk to and learn from each other about
the issues of the past, present and future. If BPL is going to continue to fulfill its potential
as being an engine of social and economic mobility, a platform for civic education and
dialogue, and to create hands-on, collaborative learning environments which address the
needs of 21st century learners, then far greater financial and institutional support will be
required in the years ahead.
The library master plan will outline the community’s vision and goals for BPL and guide
investment priorities for reinvesting and renewing library services to build a robust
community library system for the next 10 years. The updated Boulder Public Library
Master Plan will include goals to accomplish the following:
• New buildings and designs to meet current and future needs.
• Increased staff to expand library hours so all locations are open on a consistent
schedule at least 66 hours per week
• Further development of creative partnerships with both non- and for-profit
companies that are mission-driven, and with missions consistent with BPL to
continually expand the library’s program offerings.
• Development of workshare and incubator spaces by expanding on the concept of
the BLDG 61 Makerspace in other appropriate library facilities.
• Increased marketing and promotion of library services to convey the value of the
community’s investment.
• Building further upon successful collaborations like the Flatirons Library
Consortium to expand library offerings to the community.
• Expansion of programs and services through outreach to underserved community
members.
7
• Engage other city and civic agencies to partner with BPL to deliver services and
reach a broader representation of the community by extending BPL’s facilities as
neutral spaces for civic dialogue and discussion.
• Invest in the renovation of BPL’s north building to expand the rental of the
Canyon Theater at affordable rates to support the cultural life of Boulder and
address the community’s need for a mid-sized theater space.
These are some of the things the community asked of its library. But as important, or
perhaps more importantly, the staff and Library Commission ask that council not only
consider all the community goals and aspirations, but to also consider the options for
funding these goals and to manage the ongoing financial sustainability of BPL going
forward.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS SINCE THE 2007 MASTER PLAN
During the past 10 years, the library has accomplished most of the goals and objectives in
the 2007 Library Master Plan. Some of the most notable accomplishments include:
• Restoring library hours to provide greater access to information and
community resources. In April 2015, the library opened the George Reynolds
Branch Library and the Meadows Branch Library one additional day per week
(for seven days per week operation) with no budget impact. This was
accomplished by staff restructuring, and adjusting the schedule for operating
hours at the Main Library. These changes allowed the library to expand its
offerings of morning children’s storytimes.
• Security of facilities. In 2007, BPL’s budget was increased to hire a contract
security officer at the Main Library for 35 hours per week. The hours were
expanded to have one security officer on-duty all hours the Main Library was
open to the public in 2010.
• Leading edge center for information technology. While not likely what library
staff and the Library Commission envisioned when this goal was written more
than 10 years ago, opening the BLDG 61 Makerspace at the Main Library has
certainly fulfilled the intention of the goal for the library to provide a leading-
edge space, state-of-the-art technology, outreach and training for patrons.
• Library Facilities Renovation. In 2009, the library completed a facilities
sustainability study, which outlined capital needs to renovate and introduce
greater efficiency for maintaining city-owned library facilities. The Boulder
community approved a capital improvement bond ballot issue in 2011 that funded
$2.5 of $4.5 million in renovations of the Main Library. The renovations were
completed in April 2014, and included the creation of a new family-friendly
children’s area, a teen space, welcoming and open spaces that support a greater
feeling of safety in the facility, more and comfortable public seating, a café on the
library bridge, and more public meeting spaces. During 2015 and 2016, both the
George Reynolds and Meadows branch libraries received modest renovations,
reconfiguring staff space to improve efficiency of processing library materials and
to create more welcoming, patron-friendly spaces.
8
• Automated materials handling, materials security, and self-service
equipment. From 2014 through 2016, new equipment was installed at the Main
Library and the Meadows and George Reynolds branch libraries to facilitate
automated check-in and sorting of library materials, patron self-service for
checking out materials and paying late fees, and to support inventory management
and security of library materials. The introduction of these technologies allowed
staff to focus on more direct, customer-focused service and improved patron
access to library materials.
• Flexible service points. In conjunction with the Main Library renovation, all
library staff members collaborated to create a customer service philosophy for the
library that models the city’s vision of “Service Excellence for an Inspired
Future.” From that philosophy statement, the front-line staff developed a model
for mobile service that was introduced when the renovation of the Main Library
was complete. Mobile service makes library staff more accessible to patrons by
bringing them out from behind the service desks to assist patrons wherever they
need it in the library. The change has been a win-win for patrons and staff alike.
Patrons receive a warm welcome when they enter the libraries and more
individual and personal service, and staff have found more satisfaction with their
work because they are able to make direct, meaningful connections with patrons.
While steps were taken to address both, two key goals from the 2007 Library Master Plan
were not fully realized: building a full-service north Boulder branch library and
expanding outreach. It is clear from patron use of the NoBo Corner Library, the
community’s response to the library’s outreach efforts focused on early literacy, and from
the results of the current master plan project community survey, that these are still
considered priorities by the community and therefore still worth accomplishing.
KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
BPL spent the past several months conducting an extensive community engagement
process for the master plan project. Several individual and stakeholder group interviews,
focus groups, and community feedback workshops were conducted. The community
survey received thousands of responses with detailed comments about what patrons value
about the library. Staff also read several recent city department master plans and the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan - especially as it detailed projections of future
growth and character of neighborhoods to identify community priorities and needs
collected during those projects. Staff used the reports from the library’s patron database
Gale’s Analytics On Demand demographics analysis tool to analyze current and potential
future service areas by demographics such as population, households with children, and
economic and ethnic diversity. Staff also analyzed the locations of all current BPL
cardholders and the average length and time of vehicle trips to reach the nearest library
location. Several key community priorities and trends became apparent that staff and the
Library Commission would like to share with council now, before completion of the
updated Boulder Public Library Master Plan.
9
New facilities
Most of the growth in Boulder over the last 30 years and the projected growth in the
future is primarily east and north of downtown Boulder3. While there is a consistent
homogeneity of the demographics throughout Boulder, the areas east and north show a
statistically significant percentage of households with children, more economic diversity
and a significantly higher percentage of households that speak a language other than
English at home (Attachment A). The residents of north Boulder and Gunbarrel
expressed enthusiasm to expand or open library facilities and services in those areas
during the focus groups and check-in meetings with the community on the draft Master
Plan goals. The survey also requested that respondents rank in importance a series of
ongoing and future projects. Gunbarrel and north Boulder residents placed a high priority
on opening or expanding services. Similarly, during all of the Master Plan community
engagement activities and meetings, many north Boulder residents requested that the
NoBo Corner Library be upgraded to a larger, full-service branch library. A full-service
north Boulder Library has been a goal for the library since the 2007 Boulder Public
Library Master Plan, and was originally envisioned as a top priority of the North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan in 1988.
Gunbarrel neighbors want more conveniently located and easier access to library
services. Most community members shared that their drive from Gunbarrel to any of the
current library locations is time consuming and inconvenient. Many patrons also wish to
minimize their carbon footprint. Some shared that they drive to surrounding cities to visit
libraries and couple their trips to those libraries to run errands and shop. There is
support and interest in Gunbarrel getting any type of library services. But many of the
residents who came to the feedback sessions said they would welcome a corner library
like what currently exists in north Boulder.
Expanding programs and services
The community places a high priority on access to library materials. Numerous requests
for more books, more e-books, and more availability of streaming and downloadable
resources were made via survey responses and during the community engagement
activities and meetings. There was also significant interest expressed in expanding the
BLDG 61 Makerspace, incorporating a makerspace in the future full-service North
Boulder Branch Library, and expanding maker programs to the other branch libraries.
Lastly, some in the community strongly advocated for expanding the capacity of the
Canyon Theater in the north building of the Main Library to provide an affordable
performance space for local groups.
Safety concerns
Through the survey and during the community check-in meetings, some patrons
expressed that they do not consistently feel safe when they visit the Main Library. These
patrons often cited discomfort with sharing space with other members of the community
that they perceive as homeless or transient, or witnessing other patrons exhibiting
3 2015-2040 Projections - Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/BVCP_Projections_Summary_Formatted_082815 -1-
201508281637.pdf?_ga=2.182312111.9257700.1509980835 -1720780512.1489675207
10
behavior or accessing electronic information that they find objectionable. The staff and
Library Commission acknowledge that there are several opportunities to address these
concerns including:
• providing educational information about the public library as a place where all are
welcome if they observe the rules of conduct.
• evaluating the configuration and management of public spaces in the library
where people typically gather and implementing improvements that effectively
support the equitable use of space, and
• improving the security officer presence and their skills with consistent
enforcement and de-escalation.
Sustainability
The capital and ongoing operating funding support necessary to fulfill the community’s
vision for the library system is not insubstantial. While firm estimates have not yet been
obtained, fair preliminary estimates for new buildings, more programs and services for
the underserved, and improved security of library facilities will require an increase
somewhere between $1.5 to $2 million annually in ongoing operating funding, and
require approximately $6 to $12 million in one-time capital funding. This includes $5
million to build a full-service North Boulder Branch Library which will be funded by the
Capital Improvement Tax approved by the voters in Nov. 7, 2017. All measures of BPL’s
business have grown significantly over the past four years: increased visitors, increased
program attendance, increased materials circulation, and increased new cardholders. It
has been accomplished with fewer staff and minimal new budget dollars. As a result, the
libraries are operating with some deficiencies. Opening the George Reynolds and
Meadows Branch libraries an additional day per week without more staff is one
significant example. Staff for BLDG 61 and a programs, events, and outreach work group
was done through a reallocation of current positions from other divisions in the library.
At present, BPL has over 132,731 total cardholders. The City of Boulder population is
approximately 108,000. Staff’s analysis shows that while most households in Boulder
have BPL cardholders, nearly 40,000 of those cardholders live outside the Boulder city
limits, indicating that BPL is a regional hub. Many of these are assumed to be
commuters, university students, and patrons living in unincorporated Boulder County and
neighboring cities. Increasing funding for BPL as described above to address ongoing
operating budget shortfalls and to meet the goals identified by the community is a
moderate request, that would put its funding at an average level per user when compared
to other Colorado public libraries. Maintaining high quality library services and meeting
the current demands of the community necessitates investigating new funding options
that will ensure sustainability.
FUNDING SOURCES FOR OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL NEEDS
BPL is currently supported through a combination of a 0.33 mill dedicated property tax
and City of Boulder Sales and Use tax. In 2018, it is expected that property taxes will
generate approximately $1.24 million to fund library operations. Sales and use tax will
generate approximately $6.94 million for library operations.
11
Boulder Library Foundation
Additionally, BPL also receives annual grant support for programs and events from the
Boulder Library Foundation (BLF). The BLF is in its 43rd year of supporting the Boulder
Public Library, a testament to the hard work and dedication of the 13-member volunteer
board and many community members who believe in the value of their public library.
Over the past four years, the BLF has contributed nearly $1.2 million in funds to support
library programs and events. The BLF has committed to awarding the library up to
$250,000 in grant funding each year for the next three years, and shaped its fundraising
and investment strategies around meeting that goal.
General Fund and Library Fund
The Library Fund is a restricted fund that serves as a depository of BPL’s 0.33 mill
dedicated property tax, grant revenues, and gifts and contributions intended solely for
library use. Revenues generated in the Library Fund support approximately 16% of
BPL’s $8.26 million in operating expenditures, with the General Fund directly covering
the remaining 84%. The Library Fund’s estimated year-end 2017 balance is
approximately $350,000. Most of this balance is comprised of donor-restricted gifts and
contributions.
The Library Fund described above was established in 2016 following a voter approved
charter change. Prior to the charter change, BPL’s operating budget was funded from a
previous version of the Library Fund. This fund, while called out separately in name,
existed within the General Fund and allowed for the commingling of restricted and
unrestricted revenue sources, i.e. dedicated property taxes mixed with sales and use tax
transferred in from the General Fund. When the new Library Fund was established, the
balance that had accumulated over the years in the old Library Fund was set aside within
the General Fund to be used for future library needs. This reserved balance is $2.05
million.
Development Excise Taxes and Impact Fees
In the 1980s, the city began collecting Development Excise Taxes (DETs) from new
residential development to be used for “library facilities that are attributable to growth.”
Excise taxes are one-time revenues used to fund capital costs attributable to new
development and require voter approval. In 2009, the city shifted from DETs to Impact
Fees for BPL. Impact Fees are also one-time revenues from residential development used
to fund system improvements needed to accommodate growth or development. However,
these fees do not require voter approval and are instead based on a nexus study that
assesses the reasonable impact of proposed development on existing capital facilities. The
last study was conducted in 2015 and set fees “at a level no greater than necessary to
defray such impacts directly related to proposed development” relative to BPL’s current
capital stock and level of service. As such, impact fees may not be imposed to remedy
any existing deficiency.
The balance of DET and Impact Fees collected for the library reside in the city’s Capital
Development Fund and are available to apply to capital improvements, including
12
collection materials expansion, that are attributable to new growth. The community’s
request for new library facilities in north Boulder and Gunbarrel would address growth-
related needs and therefore would be eligible for at least partial funding from DET and
Impact Fee revenue. BPL’s current balance of DETs is $1.52 million and its balance of
Impact Fees is $989,000.
Blystadt-Laesar House proceeds
The library has $368,000 in proceeds from the sale of the Blystadt-Laeser House at 1117
Pine St. sitting in a restricted account within the General Fund. The house was purchased
in late 1986 to supplement the archival storage needs of the Carnegie Branch Library.
After the purchase, the house was determined to be inadequate for its intended use, and
when it was sold in 2002, the intention was to use sale proceeds to fund other archival
storage options such as digitization.
Facilities, Renovation, and Replacement Fund
BPL makes annual contributions, when feasible, to the Facilities, Renovation and
Replacement Fund (FR&R) based upon a combination of Public Works- Support
Service’s facility capital renovation and replacement projections, as well as savings for
future renovation projects envisioned by library staff. These contributions have been used
in the past to fund projects such as window replacement, floodproofing, roof repairs,
branch library renovations, etc. BPL’s current balance in the FR&R Fund is $373,000.
To meet the needs and priorities identified by the community and to address community
growth BPL will either need increased ongoing support from the city’s General Fund or
to pursue another form of governance and funding.
OPTIONS FOR FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
The 2007 Library Master Plan recommended that the library consider restructuring its
governance and funding model to secure a higher level and more stable funding through
a regional model. A summary of the cities and counties where current BPL cardholders
reside is in Attachment B. The fact that one third of BPL cardholders reside outside of
Boulder city limits makes this an important consideration for council.
While there are several options for library governance and/or funding besides municipal
governance and funding, forming a library district or a regional library authority are the
two options that are feasible for BPL.
The Colorado Library Law “Quick Guide” Comparison of Library Districts and a
Regional Library Authority is in Attachment C.
Library districts are the most common form of governance and funding for libraries in
Colorado. A map of Colorado library jurisdictions is Attachment D. While Colorado
Library Law defines the regional library authority as an option for library governance
and funding, there are none in Colorado.
13
Library District
A library district is a local entity other than a county, municipality, township or school
district that is authorized by state law to establish and operate a public library as defined
by the National Center for Education Statistics. It has sufficient administrative and fiscal
autonomy to qualify as a separate government entity. While special districts such as fire
and water and sewer districts are grouped together and governed by title 32 under
Colorado law, libraries are a distinct form of district and governed in Colorado by title
24. Fiscal autonomy of libraries requires support from local taxation dedicated to
library purposes (e.g., a library tax). The residents within the boundaries of the district
must produce a majority vote in favor of being included in the district, and must approve
any new or increased library taxes within the district boundaries.
If a library district is formed to include the city limits, the city council would appoint a
library district board. If a library district’s boundaries would include areas outside of the
city limits, city council would likely also need to appoint at least one at-large member to
a governing board. This board would then function independently of the city
government, with primary responsibilities of hiring a library director, approving
expenditures and overseeing all district strategy and accountability for operational
efficiencies. The district would assume responsibilities for all administrative functions
(human resources, finance, facilities management, insurance, employee benefits and
retirement, etc.) or choose to contract with the city or other entities to provide these
services. All library employees would become employees of the district.
The City Council and Library Commission would consult the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan and work with Boulder County commissioners to identify district
boundaries which would include areas of unincorporated Boulder County that do not
have adjacent areas with other entities providing municipal or district library services.
Regional Library Authority
A regional library authority is an entity created by an agreement between two or more
governmental units. These can be cities, counties, special districts and/or school
districts. This option requires voter approval to establish a combination of property and
sales tax to fund library operational and capital costs. The government entities involved
would either appoint a board of directors, or selected members of the City Council
might serve on the board of a regional library authority. Though Colorado State
legislation authorizing the formation of a regional library authority has existed for
several years (CRS 24-90-110, et. seq.) there are no such entities in Colorado now.
Regional library authority boundaries may include the Boulder city limits and some
other entity. Aside from Boulder Valley School District, there are few special districts
within Boulder County that would be appropriate with which to combine. The
Gunbarrel General Improvement District is one. This combination would include many
BPL users with property outside the city limits but it would by no means be
comprehensive.
14
ANALYSIS
At its most elementary level, the analysis of the options described above comes down to
two simple questions:
• Can the City of Boulder operate the library and meet master plan goals with the
current financial structure/resources?
• Should BPL users with property outside the city limits be asked to contribute to
library funding on a more equitable basis?
Nearly 1,800 library patrons and community members responded to the recent
community survey4. Seventy-two percent (72%) of respondents indicated they would
“support” or “strongly support” increasing their taxes to pay for library services. This is
something that needs further investigation.
Most public libraries measure funding and count metrics on a per capita basis. In
comparison to other public libraries in Colorado, BPL ranks in the upper third for per
capita funding (Attachment E). However, looking at a library’s funding and
performance on a per capita basis does not really show the actual success or busyness of a
library. In BPL’s case, these data points belie the fact that Boulder is a regional hub. No
library system of BPL’s size has a similar, disproportionate number of cardholders in
relation to population. Most Colorado libraries with even remotely similar user bases are
mountain resort towns (Attachment F). If library funding and metrics are analyzed per
registered user (cardholder), BPL drops down into the lower third in funding for
Colorado.
To go one step further in the analysis of Attachment E, if library funding is measured
based upon the number of people that use the system, instead of the legal service area
population, BPL would need an increased funding level of more than 33% or
approximately $4 million per year to achieve funding levels equivalent to that of the
Denver Public Library or to meet the average funding levels for medium or large libraries
on Colorado's Front Range.
Municipal governance and funding
Some advantages of municipal funding:
• A diversity of funding sources for the city’s General Fund.
• Some internal services such as information technology, human resources, finance,
etc. can be provided by the city at a lower cost than they likely would be available
on a contract basis.
Challenges of municipal funding:
• Competition of public services for priority and budget resources.
4 Community Engagement and Feedback Report – Boulder Public Library. https://boulderlibrary.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/2017-Community-Engagement-Survey-and-Focus-Group-Report-Library-Master-
Plan.pdf
15
Library district governance and funding
Some advantages of forming a library district include:
• Funding is secured directly from dedicated tax revenues rather than
competing with other city or county departments.
• City of Boulder general fund contribution of approximately $7 million
annually generated from sales tax revenue would no longer need to be used
to support the library.
• The 0.0333 property tax mill levy for Boulder property owners to fund
libraries may be rescinded. More investigation is required to determine this.
• A single purpose district can enhance taxpayer accountability and
organizational focus.
• Debt can be issued to fund capital projects, but funding received is not solely
restricted to capital costs.
• Unspent dollars can be retained for future years.
Some challenges of forming a library district include:
• Introduction of a new tax that requires voter approval.
• State budget limits and constitutional limits, such as TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of
Rights) and the Gallagher Amendment apply to library districts.
• The effect of the Gallagher Amendment means a disproportionate amount of
property tax is placed on commercial property.
• The transition year to a district is difficult, requiring a large commitment from the
board and staff.
• Funding is restricted to property taxes.
• Property taxes are subject to periodic property devaluations that could result in
service reductions. In the event of a downturn in the assessed property values, there
is usually a one or two-year delay in property tax collections to plan how to address
any decreased revenue.
Regional library authority governance and funding
Since a regional library authority does not currently exist in Colorado, a complete
understanding of the disadvantages is not known.
Some advantages of a regional library authority include:
• Funding received is not solely restricted to capital costs.
• Funding is secured directly from dedicated tax revenues rather than competing with
other city or county departments.
• Both sales and property taxes are funding sources.
• Debt can be issued to fund capital projects.
• Each library system may continue to be part of its city government.
16
Some disadvantages of a regional library authority include:
Since each of the governmental entities involved remain autonomous, establishing
clear operational agreements, roles and creating a board of directors can be complex.
Each governmental entity involved is responsible for generating the funds for its
contribution to support library facilities and services within the regional library
authority.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will complete the 2018 Boulder Public Library Master Plan and present it for City
Council consideration and adoption in March 2018.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Demographic analysis summary of Boulder households with BPL cardholders
B. BPL cardholders by area of residence
C. The Colorado Library Law “Quick Guide” Comparison of Library Districts and a
Regional Library Authority
D. Map of Colorado library jurisdictions
E. Funding level comparison of some Colorado public libraries
F. Library accounts and visits comparison
Service Area Population Households with BPL
cardholders
Average drive time to
nearest BPL location
Households with
or likely to have
children
Average household
income
Households with
Spanish speaking
members
Dwelling type Length of residence
Main Library (Includes
the Hill & CU campus)47,001 53.09%
0-5 minutes: 55%
5-10 minutes: 43%
10+ minutes: 2%
18.20%
Under $50k: 42.9%
$50-100K: 21.6%
$100-150K: 13.2%
$150K +: 14.7%
7.02%55% Single Unit
44% Apartment
0-4 years: 53%
5-9 years: 14%
10-19 years: 17%
20-29 years: 10%
30-49 years: 6%
Meadows Branch
Library
(Includes many of the CU
dorms)
25,175 46.17%
0-5 minutes: 92%
5-10 minutes: 7%
10+ minutes: 1%
20.30%
Under $50k: 39.2%
$50-100K: 25.6%
$100-150K: 14.5%
$150K +: 14.7%
6.97%55% Single Unit
43% Apartment
0-4 years: 46%
5-9 years: 13%
10-19 years: 17%
20-29 years: 13%
30-49 years: 9%
George Reynolds
Branch Library 18,687 63.53%
0-5 minutes: 90%
5-10 minutes: 10%
10+ minutes: 0%
24.70%
Under $50k: 22.3%
$50-100K: 27.2%
$100-150K: 19.5%
$150K +: 19.8%
3.70%86% Single Unit
13% Apartment
0-4 years: 44%
5-9 years: 16%
10-19 years: 21%
20-29 years: 13%
30-49 years: 6%
NoBo Corner Library 16,674 54.02%
0-5 minutes: 87%
5-10 minutes: 13%
10+ minutes 0%
32.20%
Under $50k: 27%
$50-100K: 23%
$100-150K: 18.5%
$150K +: 22.6%
11.66%77% Single Unit
23% Apartment
0-4 years: 49%
5-9 years: 15%
10-19 yrs: 20%
20-29 yrs: 14%
30-49 yrs: 2%
Gunbarrel 16,328 31.48%
0-5 minutes: 0%
5-10 minutes: 16.6%
10-15 minutes: 49.2%
15+ minutes: 34.2%
28.20%
Under $50k: 25.3%
$50-100K: 27.2%
$100-150K: 19.6%
$150K +: 19.4%
6.44%74% Single Unit
25% Apartment
0-4 years: 60%
5-9 years: 17%
10-19 years: 16%
20-29 years: 6%
30-49 years: 2%
Northeast Boulder
(Iris/Palo Park/ Valmont
neighborhoods)
7,717 49.51%
0-5 minutes: 0%
5-10 minutes: 85%
10+ minutes: 5%
28.40%
Under $50k: 43.9%
$50-100K: 23.9%
$100-150K: 14.2%
$150K +: 9.8%
13.10%44% Single Unit
54% Apartment
0-4 years: 53%
5-9 years: 18%
10-19 years: 18%
20-29 years: 9%
30-49 years: 2%
Boulder
(7 mile radius around the
Main Library includes
some parts of Louisville
and Superior)
132,857 49.23%
0-5 minutes: 21%
5-10 minutes: 61%
10+ minutes: 18%
22.80%
Under $50k: 34%
$50-100K: 24.5%
$100-150K: 16.3%
$150K +: 25.3%
6.74%67% Single Unit
32% Apartment
0-4 years: 49%
5-9 years: 15%
10-19 years: 19%
20-29 years: 12%
30-49 years: 6%
Demographic analysis summary of Boulder households with BPL cardholders
Data generated by service area boundaries from Gale Analytics on Demand in 2016
Attachment A
Attachment B
Area Cardholders % of Total
Boulder 92,176 69.45%
Boulder County (no city)ⱡ4,398 3.31%
Longmont*5,646 4.25%
Lafayette*3,601 2.71%
Louisville*2,148 1.62%
Broomfield*1,538 1.16%
Superior 1,860 1.40%
Denver 1,909 1.44%
Jefferson County 1,602 1.21%
Nederland 1,458 1.10%
Niwot 793 0.60%
Erie 896 0.68%
Lyons 774 0.58%
Westminster 844 0.64%
Adams County 661 0.50%
Weld County 364 0.27%
Aurora 264 0.20%
Arapahoe County 343 0.26%
Larimer County 69 0.05%
Ft. Collins 25 0.02%
Loveland 18 0.01%
Berthoud 6 0.00%
Other 11338 8.54%
TOTAL 132731 100.00%
*Areas served by other Flatirons Library Consortium libraries.
BPL Cardholders by Area of Residence
Data generated from BPL Patron Database 11/8/2017
ⱡ 75% are cardholders with addresses in unincorporated Boulder County (primarily north
Boulder and Gunbarrel). 25% are cardholders with addresses in small mountain towns
(i.e. Jamestown, Eldorado Springs, etc.)
Colorado State Library
201 East Colfax Ave., Room 309
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-866-6900
Fax: 303-866-6940
Web: www.ColoradoStateLibrary.org
Colorado State Library - 7/15/2010
Web Address: www.ColoradoStateLibrary.org
Colorado Library Law – The Quick Guide
Comparison of Library Districts and a Regional Library Authority
CRS 24-90-107,108,109,112,113.3, 114
CRS 24-90-110.7
Library District (LD)
CRS 24-90-107,108,109, 112,
113.3, 114
Regional Library Authority
(RLA)
CRS 24-90-110.7
Both
Definition:
Library District is a governmental unit
created by one or more cities or counties.
Library District is a political subdivision of
the state, like special districts, cities,
towns, and counties.
Regional Library Authority is a
governmental entity created by an
agreement between two or more
governmental units. These could be cities,
counties, and/or library districts.
Participants agree to finance, operate,
and maintain publicly-supported library
services for the agreed-upon regional
area.
Method of Establishment:
Library Districts are formed by a
resolution of ordinance from a city or a
county OR by a petition.
Specific requirements and procedures are
found in CRS 24-90-107
Any new or increased tax requires voter
approval.
Regional Library Authority (RLA)
Can’t be formed unless each
governmental unit passes a resolution
or ordinance AND has a contract with
the other units.
Resolution or ordinance must describe
legal service area (LSA) of the
authority, the governance, and state
that the electors shall approve sales
and/or use tax or any ad valorem tax
before taxes can be levied.
Boundary of the RLA may not be less
than the entire area of any municipality
and any other unit forming the RLA,
except that it may be less than the
entire area of a county.
Any new or increased tax requires
voter approval.
Both Library District and
Regional Library Authority
must hold at least one
public hearing addressing
the purposes, powers,
rights, obligations, and
responsibilities of each unit
which is forming the district
or library authority. The
Legal Service Area (LSA)
must be identified and
specify the mill levy or other
type and/or amount of
funding.
Any new or increased tax
requires voter approval.
Contract or written agreement:
CRS 24-90-109 (p)
A contract or inter-governmental
agreement (IGA) may be made after the
establishment of the district and after
appointment of trustees.
Contract for library services is between
each participating governmental unit and
the library district board.
CRS 24-90-110.7 (2)
Contract must be signed before the
establishment of the Regional Library
Authority (RLA).
Effected within 90 days.
Between each participating
governmental unit.
Must describe boundaries of the RLA.
Must address governance of RLA.
Attachment C
Comparison of Library Districts and a Regional Library Authority
The Quick Guide May 2010
Page 2 of 4
Library District (LD)
CRS 24-90-107,108,109, 112,
113.3, 114
Regional Library Authority
(RLA)
CRS 24-90-110.7
Both
Example: between the library district and
a school board OR the library district and
a municipality, OR the library district and
the county that will pay for extending
services to non-district residents.
CRS 24-90-113.3
A governmental unit (municipality, county,
school district) may contract to receive
library services from an existing library.
Contract must specify:
geographic area covered by contract
amount of money paid to library
length of contract
any other necessary information.
Must address financial obligations for
each unit in the RLA.
Must designate a financial officer.
Electors must approve sales or use
taxes, or ad valorem taxes.
May modify Legal Service Area (LSA)
boundaries after establishment.
How property or assets will be
disbursed; divided, or distributed.
Terms for contract continuation or
termination agreements;
Contracts can’t be terminated if there
are financial obligations unless escrow
payment arrangements are made.
Expected sources of revenue and any
other requirements.
Board of Trustees:
CRS 24-90-108
Board size must be 5-7.
Must be chosen from residents in the
Legal Service Area. (LSA)
initial board is appointed by
establishing governmental unit(s)
adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations
for guidance
vacancies to be filled as soon as
possible
bylaws must define ‘good cause’ for
removal of trustee
officer designations and how they’re
elected/appointed
meeting conduct rules
how to amend bylaws
length and term numbers of board
members
file bylaws with legislative body of
each governmental unit.
CRS 24-90-110.7 (2)(c)
Board of Directors – no size specified.
Contract with establishing governmental
units must specify:
number of directors
how appointed
terms of office
compensation (if any)*
how to fill vacancies
officers—how selected and duties
voting requirements for board action
a majority is a quorum, and is required
for actions.
* board members cannot be paid to serve
Powers and Duties:
CRS 24-90-10
Have supervision and care for library
property, rooms, and buildings.
Employ a librarian, and other staff as
recommended by librarian.
Prescribe salary and duties.
Submit budget, and certify the sums
necessary to operate in the coming
year.
CRS 24-90-110.7(3)
Acquire, construct, finance, operate, or
maintain public library services located
in the boundaries of the authority.
Make and enter into contracts.
Employ agents and employees.
Acquire, hold, lease, sell, or dispose of
real or personal property, commodity,
or service.
Attachment C
Comparison of Library Districts and a Regional Library Authority
The Quick Guide May 2010
Page 3 of 4
Library District (LD)
CRS 24-90-107,108,109, 112,
113.3, 114
Regional Library Authority
(RLA)
CRS 24-90-110.7
Both
Adopt a budget and make
appropriations.
Accept gifts, money, and property.
Hold and acquire land by gift, lease, or
purchase.
Lease, purchase, or build as needed.
Sell, assign, transfer, or convey library
property no longer needed.
Make a finding that the property is no
longer necessary. If property is going
to another governmental agency, a
finding isn’t needed.
Borrow funds with a short-term loan –
no longer than six months.
Authorize bonding of financial persons.
Conduct an annual audit.
Authorize purchase of library materials
end equipment.
Hold title to property given to library
Have authority to enter into contracts
Send the Public Library Annual Report
to the State Library.
May allow nonresidents to use the
library materials, equipment and
services.
Serve as a repository for school district
collective bargaining agreements.
Adopt, by resolution, rules respecting
the exercise of its powers and the
carrying out of its purposes.
Funding
CRS 24-90-107 (3) (a) (V)
Mill levy or other type/amount of funding
specified in the resolution or ordinance by
the establishing bodies OR in the
establishing petition.
CRS 24-90-112
CRS 24-90-112.5
May raise mill levy or issue bonds if
electors approve.
CRS 24-90-110.7(2)(f) and
CRS 24-90-110.7(3)
If the RLA levies taxes the contract must
state:
that the RLA adopt a resolution about
levying taxes or fees;
be fair with, and not impose undue
burden on anyone;
the taxes will conform other CRS
requirements
a designated financial officer to
coordinate collection
this person shall identify businesses
eligible to collect sales and use taxes.
Taxation powers:
Sales or use tax, or both
Ad valorem tax*
*A percentage of value tax. Sales,
income, and property taxes are three of
the more popular ad valorem taxes
All funding levies must be
approved by electors in the
legal service area of
the Library District or
Regional Library Authority
(RLA).
Attachment C
Comparison of Library Districts and a Regional Library Authority
The Quick Guide May 2010
Page 4 of 4
Library District (LD)
CRS 24-90-107,108,109, 112,
113.3, 114
Regional Library Authority
(RLA)
CRS 24-90-110.7
Both
State Constitution - Article X (TABOR)
Approval of any tax levy must conform to
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)
requirements.
devised by government.
State Constitution - Article X (TABOR)
Approval of any tax levy must conform to
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)
requirements.
State Constitution -
Article X (TABOR)
Approval of any tax levy
must conform to the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights
(TABOR) requirements.
Abolishment
CRS 24-90-114
Library District may be abolished only by
a vote of the registered electors in the
district. Board of Trustees will dispose of
the materials and equipment.
CRS 24-90-110.7 (2)(e)
The contract between the governmental
units shall specify the length of the
contract or method of termination of the
Regional Library Authority.
Note: Further specific Regional Library Authority powers, restrictions, and requirements are found in the full CRS
24-90-110.7 text: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdelib/librarylaw/part1#24-90-110.7
See also the Quick Guide for the Regional Library Authority at
www.ColoradoStateLibrary.org/LibraryLaw/download/QuickGuideRLA.pdf
* This is a rough, non-legal summary of the statutes. Consult with your respective city, county, or district lawyers for
legal advice on, and implications of, Colorado Library Law, or call the Colorado State Library for additional
information.
For further Public Library Information: www.ColoradoStateLibrary.org/LibraryDevelopment/PublicLibraries
Colorado State Library, 201 E. Colfax Ave., Room 309, Denver, CO 80203
voice: 303-866-6900, fax: 303-866-6940
Attachment C
Wyo mi n g
Utah
Ok l ah o maNewMexico
Neb r ask a
Kan s as
Arizona
YumaWeldWashington
Teller
Summit
Sedgwick
San Miguel
San Juan Saguache
Routt
Rio Grande
Rio Blanco
Pueblo
Prowers
Pitkin
Phillips
Park
Ouray
Otero
Morgan
Montrose
Montezuma
Moffat
Mineral
Mesa
Logan
Lincoln
Las Animas
Larimer
La Plata
Lake
Kit Carson
Kiowa
Jefferson
Jackson
Huerfano
Hinsdale
Gunnison
Grand
Gilpin
Garfield
Fremont
El Paso
Elbert
Eagle Douglas
Dolores
Denver
Delta
Custer
Crowley
CostillaConejos
Clear Creek
Cheyenne
Chaffee
Broomfield
Boulder
Bent
BacaArchuleta
Arapahoe
Alamosa
Adams
All Library Jurisdictions Statewide
Prepared by CIVICTechnologies. May 2011.
N
Colorado State Library
Library Districts
County Libraries
Municipal Libraries
Multi-Jurisdictional Libraries
County Boundaries
State Border
Attachment D
Library System Governance
Operating
Revenue
Operating
Expenditures
Expenditures
per Capita
Expenditures
per Registered
Borrowers
Difference between
Expenditures per Capita and
per Registered Borrower
Eagle Valley Library District district $4,481,284 $4,120,536 $98.53 $185.15 $86.92
High Plains Library District (Weld County)district $27,736,107 $16,845,943 $67.03 $144.29 $77.26
Rangeview Library District (Anythink / Adams County)district $14,041,957 $13,625,528 $37.90 $118.16 $80.26
Arapahoe Library District*district $29,000,000 $29,000,000 $90.81 $105.59 $19.64
Douglas County Libraries district $22,087,167 $21,034,336 $68.73 $98.55 $29.82
Pikes Peak Library District district $29,421,973 $25,745,063 $42.38 $95.04 $52.66
Denver Public Library city $44,001,954 $42,373,939 $65.30 $85.71 $20.41
Pueblo City-County Library District district $9,829,572 $9,658,363 $59.89 $79.95 $20.86
Mesa County Public Library District district $6,771,855 $5,608,851 $37.95 $70.89 $32.94
Loveland Public Library city $3,158,753 $3,158,753 $44.35 $63.22 $18.87
Jefferson County Library district $24,960,841 $23,977,594 $43.42 $62.22 $18.80
Boulder Public Library city $7,690,028 $8,223,136 $80.12 $58.56 ($25.36)
Louisville Public Library city $1,453,437 $1,510,988 $46.78 $56.91 $10.13
Poudre River Public Library District [Fort Collins]district $9,280,762 $8,473,850 $45.49 $52.81 $7.32
Broomfield/Eisenhower Public Library city $2,359,427 $2,328,907 $39.17 $43.17 $4.00
Longmont Public Library city $3,384,619 $3,256,590 $36.09 $35.92 ($0.17)
TOTAL $239,659,736 $218,942,377 $903.94 $1,356.15 $454.36
AVERAGE $14,097,631.53 $12,878,963 $53.17 $79.77 $26.73
Boulder Public Library (BPL) would need an operating budget of $11.4M to reach the average expenditure per registerd borrower. Since overhead costs such as Human Resources, IT,
Finance, Facilities, etc. are not billed directly to BPL, subtract 12% for overhead/economies of scale. The adjusted budget required for BPL to reach the average expenditure per user is
$10.03M.
Data generated from Library Research Service 2015 Colorado Public Library Statistics
Funding Level Comparison of Some Colorado Public Libraries
https://www.lrs.org/
2015 Total Revenue and Expenditures
*Voters passed a significant mill levy increase for Arapahoe Library District in 2016. Estimates provided by Arapahoe Library District administration.
Attachment E
Library System
Legal Service
Area
Population
Library Accounts as a
% of Population
Library In-
Person Visits
per Capita
Nucla Public Library 710 351%7.74
Vail Public Library 5,483 302%19.83
La Veta Public Library District 7,879 300%30.66
San Miguel Library District # 1/Telluride 7,879 233%41.81
Basalt Regional Library District 777 214%12.66
Rio Grande County Library District 11,543 198%3.9
Rocky Ford Public Library 4,000 183%14.14
Ridgway Public Library District 979 155%22.26
Hinsdale Library District/Lake City 374 149%0.13
Wray Public Library 2,367 146%8.37
Canon City Public Library 16,679 146%8.12
Cortez Public Library 9,007 144%18.87
Spanish Peaks Library District 6,711 138%13.22
Ouray Library District 1,033 133%8.56
Boulder Public Library 108,000 131%9.16
Nederland Community Library District 1,534 113%15.08
Longmont Public Library 92,858 93%6.48
Louisville Public Library 20,801 89%6.83
Estes Valley Public Library District Estes Park 6,362 89%13.53
Pueblo City-County Library District 163,591 84%8.94
Lafayette Public Library 28,261 81%5.37
Poudre River Public Library District Fort Collins 164,207 80%5.21
Denver Public Library 682,545 69%6.24
Loveland Public Library 76,897 66%5.33
Jefferson County Public Library 565,524 64%4.72
Douglas County Libraries 322,387 64%6
High Plains Library District (Weld County)285,174 45%5.76
Pikes Peak Library District Colorado Springs 465,101 43%5.44
Library Accounts and Visits Comparison
2015
Data generated from Library Research Service 2015 Colorado Public Library Statistics
https://www.lrs.org/public/data/csv/id/4008631/
Attachment F
CAMPUS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FLOOD
MITIGATION PROJECT UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER,
COLORADO
Document Index
1. Cultural Resource Technical Memorandum 08.18.2017
2. Project Plan Sheets 10.26.2017
3. APE Map 10.27.2017
4. Site Inventory Form 5BL.13422
5 Site Inventory Form 5BL.13421
6. Site Inventory Form 5BL.8821
7. Areas Anticipated for Removal (5BL8821) Photos
Memorandum
To: Brian Moffitt Date: August 18, 2017
Company: Colorado University - Boulder Phone: 303.492.1425
From: Thomas Carr, Archaeology; Ashley L. Bushey, Historian Pinyon Project #: 11664701
Delivery Method: via email at brian.moffitt@colorado.edu
Subject: Technical Memorandum Update Regarding Section 106 Cultural Resources, University of
Colorado Pedestrian Bridge Project, Updated August 18, 2017
The project is located in Boulder County on the campus of the University of Colorado (CU) at Boulder along
Boulder Creek. This project consists of the removal of two existing bridges over Boulder Creek at 21st Street
and 23rd Street. The 21st Street Bridge is a pedestrian bridge that is recommended eligible to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The 23rd Street Bridge (also known as Stadium Bridge) is a modern vehicle
structure that is not recommended as eligible to the NRHP. A new pedestrian bridge will be constructed,
elevated above the 100-year floodplain, and will replace both crossings; please refer to the enclosed site plan
(Attachment 1) for the proposed alignment. The bridge will connect to pathways on the north and south sides
of the creek. In 2016, the University was considering three alternative locations for two new bridge
replacements, and an archaeological survey memo was prepared at that time (Carr, 2016). Recently, the
University has decided to move forward with removing the 21st Street Bridge and the Stadium Bridge but
replacing both bridges with a single pedestrian bridge. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is
the lead agency funding the project. FEMA has requested the following from the University: revise the proposed
Area of Potential Effect (APE), collect additional archaeological data within the proposed APE, and provide an
updated cultural resources memorandum in order to move forward with consultation between FEMA and the
Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The proposed APE includes the limits of disturbance from the proposed actions as well as the Office of
Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) defined boundary for eligible resource 5BL.8821, CCC
Stonewalls (Attachment 2). Please refer to the APE Map (Attachment 3) for additional details.
Historic Resources
The APE as defined in August 2016 included three historic resources, which were assessed for individual
eligibility to the NRHP:
• 19th Street Bridge
• 21st Street Bridge
• Stadium Bridge
Of these, only the 21st Street Bridge was recommended eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The updated project
scope and Section 106 APE has removed the 19th Street Bridge from the project.
Because the Stadium Bridge is recommended not eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, the removal of the Stadium
Bridge will result in a Section 106 determination of no historic properties affected.
The 21st Street Bridge was recommended eligible under Criterion C. The work will include removal of the
bridge superstructure, as well as the stone piers and abutments. Because the work removes significant physical
attributes of the resource, the work will result in a Section 106 determination of adverse effect, as outlined in
the initial documentation from August 2016.
Archaeological Resources
In July of 2016, a file search of the OAHP COMPASS database was completed to determine the presence of
any previously recorded archaeological resources in the original project vicinity. This area was larger than the
current APE extending approximately 800 to the west, to the location of the former 19th Street bridge that
was washed out in the fall of 2013. For this larger area, there are no recorded prehistoric archaeological
resources in the study area, but there are two historical archaeological sites (5BL.8821 and 5BL.10383). Both
sites are Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) stonework projects from the 1930s. When first recorded in
2001, archaeologist Pete Gleichman described these sites as one continuous area with three distinct sections
that stretched from the stonework behind Boulder High School and continued east towards Folsom Street.
The three sections were later assigned separate site numbers. The proposed 2017 APE contains only one site,
listed in the table below. Please refer to the 2016 report for a discussion of site 5BL.10383, which is located
outside of the refined APE.
Table 1. COMPASS/OAHP Search Results
Resource
Number Name Eligibility Recorder
5BL.8821 Civilian Conservation
Corps (CCC) Stonework Eligible (Field), 2001 Native Cultural Services
A pedestrian survey of the refined APE was conducted by Mr. Carr on May 9, 2017. Mr. Carr met with CU
Planning, Design, and Construction Department representative Brian Moffitt to discuss the potential impact of
the project on historical archaeological resources. The previously recorded historic site located in the
proposed APE (5BL.8821) contains historical archaeological components that are likely significant for their data
potential under NRHP Criterion D. These are Great Depression-era CCC stonework walls and associated
features that were constructed during the 1930s. This site is likely to contain features and artifact deposits
that could provide important data about the history of the site in the context of the following criteria:
construction, use, and interpretive potential. For this reason, it is considered archaeologically significant and is
eligible for listing on the NRHP.
At site 5BL.8821, the CCC stonework consists of four bridge abutments for the 21st Street Bridge (Attachment
4: Photo 1), and a series of terraced retaining walls (Attachment 4: Photo 2). The original construction level
for the bridge abutments was likely lower than their current height, as the construction and materials appear
to have different stonework. Some of the terraces contain historic pedestrian pathways (paved and unpaved)
(Attachment 4: Photo 5, 6, 14). The terraces were built to support a historic athletic field and foot-racing track
located at the top of the terrace, heading into Folsom Field. In a historic photograph of Folsom Field from
1937 the terraces and track are clearly visible (Attachment 4: Photo 16). The APE Map (Attachment 3) shows
the locations of photographs (Attachment 4: Photo 1 –15) taken at the site in 2016 and 2017. The site boundary
as identified when it was recorded by Gleichman in 2001 extends east beyond any identified features. The
pedestrian survey conducted by Carr (2017) also did not identify features in this area.
Impact Assessment and Next Steps
Within the Stadium Bridge limits of disturbance area (LDA), the demolition of the bridge and the construction
of the new pedestrian bridge will have no adverse impact on archaeological or historic features.
The 21st Street Bridge is slated for demolition, as indicated above. To accommodate the work, a portion of the
adjacent CCC wall may have to be removed. Removal of this physical material diminishes historic integrity of
design, workmanship, and materials and results in an adverse effect to resource 5BL.8821.
Based on the pedestrian surveys of the APE and discussions with representatives from the CU Planning, Design,
and Construction Department, the final project plan to remove the 21st Street bridge would have an adverse
effect on the historical archaeological resources associated with site 5BL.8821. Removal of the bridge will be
an adverse effect on the individual features, and it will affect the overall character of the CCC stonework sites.
The recommended determination of adverse effect under Section 106 will require mitigation.
Recommended mitigation could include Class III survey of the APE, archival quality maps and photographs, and
archaeological monitoring of the construction activities (which includes the construction of support footings,
and site grading). Final mitigation requirements will be determined in consultation among FEMA, SHPO, CU,
and any other consultation parties.
Enclosures
Attachment 1: New Pedestrian Bridge Overall Site Plan
Attachment 2: OAHP GIS map data for site 5BL.8821
Attachment 3: Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map
Attachment 4: Photograph Log
References:
Carr, Thomas, 2016. “CU Bridges Archaeological Considerations for APE”. Pinyon Environmental, Inc., Denver,
CO
Gleichman, Peter J., 2001. “A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Boulder Greenways, Boulder County,
Colorado”. Native Cultural Services for City of Boulder, Ms on file (BL.LG.R123), Colorado Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Denver, CO.
Attachment 1: New Pedestrian Bridge Overall Site Plan
Attachment 2: OAHP GIS map data for site 5BL.8821
Attachment 3: Area of Potential Effects (APE) Map
Attachment 4: Photograph Log
Photo 1 – 21st Street bridge, facing south (map location Photo 1).
Photo 2 – Stone wall on South bank of creek, facing southwest (map location Photo 2).
Photo 3 – Lower landing location for new bridge near 23rd St., facing south (map location Photo 3).
Photo 4 – Upper landing location for new bridge near 23rd St., facing north (map location Photo 4).
Photo 5 – Terraced retaining walls and paved pathway, facing west (map location Photo 5).
Photo 6 – Terraced retaining walls, facing east (map location Photo 6).
Photo 7 – Quarry drill hole on 21st Street bridge abutment (map location Photo 7).
Photo 8 – Boulder creek just west of 23rd Street bridge, facing west (map location Photo 8).
Photo 9 – The eastern end of the APE facing west (map location Photo 9).
Photo 10 – The base of the terraced stone retaining walls, facing southwest (map location Photo10)
Photo 11 – Damaged section of stone retaining wall, with pavement exposed, facing southwest (map location
Photo 11)
Photo 12 – Base of stone retaining wall at apex of arch, facing south (map location Photo 12).
Photo 13 – Additional terraced retaining walls located west of main group, facing southeast (map location
Photo13)
Photo 14 – Unpaved path with stone retaining walls, facing southeast (map location Photo 14)
Photo 15 – Modern flow structure west of 21st Street bridge (photo location Photo 15)
Photo 16 – Historic photo of Folsom Field from around 1937 (Denver Public Library X-11737)
PRELIMINARY PLANS - OCTOBER 2017 Know what's below.R Call before you dig.
PRELIMINARY PLANS - OCTOBER 2017
PRELIMINARY PLANS - OCTOBER 2017 Know what's below.R Call before you dig.
PRELIMINARY PLANS - OCTOBER 2017 Know what's below.R Call before you dig.
Document Path: Z:\PROJECTS\2016\11664701 CU CAMP Bridges\Figures\ArcMap\MXDs\HIST01APE.mxd
³0 15075Feet
CU Camp BridgesBoulder, Colorado
Site Location: Section 31, Township 1N, Range 70W, 6th Principal Meridian
Pinyon Project Number: 1/16-647-01
Drawn By: JAF
Reviewed By: ALB Figure: 1Date: 10/27/2017
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT
Area of Potential Effect
Stadium Bridge (5BL13422)
21st Street Bridge (5BL13421)
Civilian Coservation Corps (CCC) Stonework (5BL8821)
Resource Number: 5BL.13422
Temporary Resource Number: N/A
OAHP1403
Rev. 9/98
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Architectural Inventory Form
I. IDENTIFICATION
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined Eligible- NR
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible- SR
Determined Not Eligible- SR
Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
1. Resource number: 5BL.13422
2. Temporary resource number: N/A
3. County: Boulder
4. City: Boulder
5. Historic building name: N/A
6. Current building name: Stadium Bridge
7. Building address: N/A
8. Owner name and address: University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9. P.M. 6th Township 1N Range 70W
¼ of ¼ of SW ¼ of NE ¼ of section 31
10. UTM reference
Zone 1__ 3 ; 4 7 7 3 0 2 mE 4 4 2 8 8 2 6 mN
Zone 1__ 3 ; 4 7 7 3 1 1 mE 4 4 2 8 8 2 4 mN
Zone 1__ 3 ; 4 7 7 2 9 7 mE 4 4 2 8 7 9 8 mN
Zone 1__ 3 ; 4 7 7 2 8 9 mE 4 4 2 8 8 0 2 mN
11. USGS quad name: Boulder
Year: 1966 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lot(s): N/A Block: N/A
Addition: N/A Year of Addition: ________
13. Boundary Description and Justification: The boundary includes the footprint of the bridge including abutments
and approaches. The boundary includes all extant features of the resource.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building plan (footprint, shape): NA
15. Dimensions in feet: Length 80 feet x Width 15 feet
16. Number of stories: N/A
17. Primary external wall material(s): N/A
18. Roof configuration: N/A
Resource Number: 5BL.13422
Temporary Resource Number: N/A
19. Primary external roof material: N/A
20. Special features: N/A
21. General architectural description: The Stadium Bridge is a clear span that contains a steel girder
superstructure. The girders run the length of the bridge and are secured inside two concrete abutments on both
the north and south sides of Boulder Creek. A concrete slab forms the deck and it is flanked by cast iron railing.
22. Architectural style/building type: N/A
23. Landscaping or special setting features: The Stadium Bridge is approximately 80 feet in length as it spans
Boulder Creek. Both concrete abutments are embedded in the stream embankments of Boulder Creek on the
north and south side with the aid of concrete wing walls. A steep slope rises immediately from the south
embankment and climbs approximately 300 feet to campus above. The bridge is located in a riparian
ecosystem within a floodplain and cottonwood, willow, and buckthorn trees predominate.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: None
IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1967
Source of information: Engineering drawings, University of Colorado – Facilities Management Department
26. Architect: George Hanson and Joe Sallada
Source of information: Engineering drawings, University of Colorado – Facilities Management Department
27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown
Source of information: N/A
28. Original owner: University of Colorado - Boulder
Source of information: University Archives, Norlin Library, University of Colorado - Boulder
29. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): None.
30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s):
V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS
31. Original use(s): Vehicular travel
32. Intermediate use(s): Vehicular and foot/bicycle travel
33. Current use(s): Not in use
34. Site type(s): Bridge
35. Historical background:
The University of Colorado – Boulder experienced a two-decade period of expansion after World War II. In addition
to the main campus, the school acquired 220 acres of farmland and established the East Campus. The University
Resource Number: 5BL.13422
Temporary Resource Number: N/A
also established the Williams Village campus south of the main campus. In 1967, plans were drawn to allow for the
construction of a motorized vehicle bridge to provide campus access across Boulder Creek and the Stadium Bridge
was constructed. The bridge was later downgraded from a vehicular bridge to a pedestrian bridge.
36. Sources of information: Campus maps and engineering drawings located in Facilities Management, University
of Colorado - Boulder; Email communication/Recollections with Mr. William Deno, former University of Colorado -
Boulder employee; GLORY! COLORADO. Davis, William "Bud." Two volumes. Boulder, CO: Pruett Press, 1965,
2006; Websites - http://www.colorado.edu/masterplan/tour/bike/bike6.html;
http://boulderhistory.org/PDFs/BoulderCreekPathHistoryTour.pdf
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation:
Designating authority: N/A
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents
the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
X Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: None.
40. Period of significance: N/A
41. Level of significance: National State Local
42. Statement of significance: The Stadium Bridge does not possess the requisite significance to be considered
eligible for listing on the NRHP. It is not connected with any significant events, nor is it associated with any important
or notable people; therefore, it is not significant under Criteria A or B. Regarding Criterion C, its form, design, and
style is not unique nor distinctive, and it does not represent the work of a craftsman or artisan. It is a common bridge
type with no defining engineering or aesthetic qualities. Mid-20th Century pre-stressed concrete bridge work is
ubiquitous in Colorado, and across the country. This resource is neither an early nor exceptional example. Therefore,
it is not significant under Criterion C. Further, the resource is not likely to yield additional information important in
history or prehistory.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: For resources that lack significance, integrity is
not assessed.
Resource Number: 5BL.13422
Temporary Resource Number: N/A
VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible Not Eligible X Need Data
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No _X__
Discuss: There are insufficient resources of similar type or period to create a cohesive district.
If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing
VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION
Photograph numbers: 5BL13422_1 to 5BL13422_3
Negatives filed at: Pinyon Environmental, Inc., 9100 W. Jewell Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80232
48. Report title: University of Colorado – Boulder Campus Bridge Replacement and Land Improvement Project
49. Date(s): June 24, 2016
50. Recorder(s): Mark Serour, Staff Historian
51. Organization: Pinyon Environmental, Inc.
52. Address: 9100 W. Jewell Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80232
53. Phone number(s): (303) 980-5200
NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and
photographs.
History Colorado - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 - (303) 866-3395
Resource Number: 5BL.13422
Temporary Resource Number: N/A
Resource Number: 5BL.13422
Temporary Resource Number: N/A
Resource Number: 5BL.13422
Temporary Resource Number: N/A
5BL13422_1: North Abutment
View: South
5BL13422_2: Underside of the
bridge looking towards the
south abutment.
View: North
Resource Number: 5BL.13422
Temporary Resource Number: N/A
5BL13422_3: Bridge deck
and railing.
View: South
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
OAHP1403
Rev. 9/98
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
Architectural Inventory Form
I. IDENTIFICATION
Official eligibility determination
(OAHP use only)
Date Initials
Determined Eligible- NR
Determined Not Eligible- NR
Determined Eligible- SR
Determined Not Eligible- SR
Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
1. Resource number: 5BL.13421
2. Temporary resource number: NA
3. County: Boulder
4. City: Boulder
5. Historic building name: None
6. Current building name: 21st Street Pedestrian Bridge
7. Building address: NA
8. Owner name and address: University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309
II. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
9. P.M. 6 Township 1N Range 70W
¼ of ¼ of SW ¼ of NE ¼ of section 31
10. UTM reference
Zone 1__ 3 ; 4 7 7 3 0 2 mE 4 4 2 8 8 2 6 mN
Zone 1__ 3 ; 4 7 7 3 1 1 mE 4 4 2 8 8 2 4 mN
Zone 1__ 3 ; 4 7 7 2 9 7 mE 4 4 2 8 7 9 8 mN
Zone 1__ 3 ; 4 7 7 2 8 9 mE 4 4 2 8 8 0 2 mN
11. USGS quad name: Boulder, CO
Year: 1966 Map scale: 7.5' X 15' Attach photo copy of appropriate map section.
12. Lot(s): NA Block: NA
Addition: NA Year of Addition: NA
13. Boundary Description and Justification: The historic boundary of the resource is defined by the footprint of the
resource, including bridge piers, abutments, and approaches. This includes all extant features of the resource.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building plan (footprint, shape): NA
15. Dimensions in feet: Length 80’ x Width 10’
16. Number of stories: NA
17. Primary external wall material(s): NA
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
18. Roof configuration: NA
19. Primary external roof material: NA
20. Special features: NA
21. General architectural description: The 21st Street Bridge is a pedestrian/bicycle bridge comprised of stone piers
and abutments with a steel girder superstructure. The superstructure was constructed ca. 1950, and is
supported by stone piers and abutments that appear to date to two distinct periods of construction based on
visual inspection. The lower components of the piers and abutments are similar in construction to stone
retaining walls in the immediate vicinity of the resource, which are attributed to construction by the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930s. The upper sections of the stone piers and abutments are similarly
constructed; however, the stone appears to be derived from a different source or has experienced different
weathering. This suggests the piers and abutments were altered or rehabilitated after their initial construction,
possibly in conjunction with the introduction of the steel superstructure in the 1950s.
22. Architectural style/building type: No Style
23. Landscaping or special setting features: The Stadium Bridge is approximately 80 feet in length as it spans
Boulder Creek. Both stone abutments are embedded in the stream embankments of Boulder Creek on both the
north and south side and the two (2) wall-style stone piers are equidistant from each other and the abutments,
and are stabilized in the creek bed. A steep wooded slope rises immediately from the south embankment and
climbs approximately 300 feet to the plain above. The bridge is located in a riparian ecosystem within a
floodplain and cottonwood, willow, and buckthorn trees predominate. Sparse shrubbery and non-native grasses
in existence as undergrowth. Tamped and loose alluvial soil.
24. Associated buildings, features, or objects: None
IV. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
25. Date of Construction: Estimate: ca. 1935; ca.1950 Actual:
Source of information: Visual Inspection and Engineering drawings, University of Colorado – Facilities
Management Department
26. Architect: Unknown
Source of information:
27. Builder/Contractor: Unknown
Source of information:
28. Original owner: University of Colorado – Boulder
Source of information: University Archives, Norlin Library, University of Colorado – Boulder
25. Construction history (include description and dates of major additions, alterations, or demolitions): The
superstructure was constructed ca. 1950, and is supported by stone piers and abutments that appear to date to
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
two distinct periods of construction based on visual inspection. The lower components of the piers and
abutments are similar in construction to stone retaining walls in the immediate vicinity of the resource, which are
attributed to construction by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930s. The upper components of the
piers and abutments are similarly constructed; however, the stone appears to be derived from a different source
or has experienced different weathering. This suggests the piers and abutments were altered or rehabilitated
after their initial construction, possibly in conjunction with the introduction of the steel superstructure in the
1950s.
30. Original location X Moved Date of move(s):
V. HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS
31. Original use(s): Pedestrian Bridge
32. Intermediate use(s):
33. Current use(s): Pedestrian Bridge
34. Site type(s): Pedestrian Bridge
35. Historical background:
After World War II the enrollment at colleges and universities across the country increased. This was due to several
reasons: the new GI Bill prompted former military personnel to pursue higher education; a return to peacetime and
prosperity allowed more high school graduates and older family members to afford to attend colleges and universities;
and the urgency of the arms, and eventual space, race involving competition between the United States and the
Soviet Union in technological advancements induced more high school graduates to attend institutions of higher
learning. The University of Colorado experienced this trend. Increased attendance brought growth in building and
infrastructure.
The 21st Street Bridge made use of local material, namely the sandstone used in construction of the piers and
abutments. The campus includes several stone walls in the immediate vicinity of the bridge attributed to construction
by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC); a make-work program in effect from 1933 to 1942 under Franklin Delano
Roosevelt’s New Deal. The lower portions of the piers and abutments on the 21st Street Bridge may have been
constructed during this period. The upper portions of the piers and abutments are also constructed in sandstone, but
demonstrates slightly different masonry construction, suggesting a different construction period. The mortar joints
demonstrate a different profile; the individual masonry units are complimentary but clearly different in color, and the
size of the masonry units are slightly different. The upper sections of the piers and abutments may date to ca. 1950
and the construction of the steel superstructure.
36. Sources of information:
Campus maps and engineering drawings located in Facilities Management, University of Colorado - Boulder; Email
communication/Recollections with Mr. William Deno, former University of Colorado - Boulder employee; GLORY!
COLORADO. Davis, William "Bud." Two volumes. Boulder, CO: Pruett Press, 1965, 2006; Websites -
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
http://www.colorado.edu/masterplan/tour/bike/bike6.html;
http://boulderhistory.org/PDFs/BoulderCreekPathHistoryTour.pdf
VI. SIGNIFICANCE
37. Local landmark designation: Yes No X Date of designation:
Designating authority:
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;
X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents
the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G (see Manual)
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Community Planning and Development
40. Period of significance: ca. 1950
41. Level of significance: National State Local X
42. Statement of significance: To maintain a strong sense of continuity in materials and style with the earlier Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC) stonework that appeared in the vicinity, the supporting elements of the 21st Street Bridge
were also constructed of stone. This effectively created a context of aesthetics along the Boulder Creek corridor.
Although stylistically the steel superstructure of the bridge is incongruous with the stone abutments and piers, the
structure as a whole is emblematic of the art of stone masonry in bridge building. Under Criterion C, the span retains
a large degree of artistic qualities present in the abutments and piers and is considered significant in the area of
Community Planning and Design for its method of construction, artistic value, and response to its built environment
context. The 1950s are relatively late to see examples of masonry bridges, as bridge construction during this period
was trending towards the use of steel and concrete materials and slab and girder construction. This resource, though
constructed approximately two decades later than the surrounding CCC stonework, including bridges and retaining
walls, was constructed using similar materials and construction, creating continuity in the built environment.
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: Most of the seven elements of integrity are
strong with the 21st Street Bridge. Although not connected with a specific important event or personality, the
structure’s location and setting do reflect the University’s growth and expansion during the post- WWII era. The
elements of feeling and workmanship display careful construction in keeping with earlier stonework design and
style already located in the immediate Boulder Creek corridor vicinity. While the wood decking is relatively
aesthetically incongruous with the supporting components, the bridge retains most of its original building
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
materials, maintaining integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. Possessing a high degree of historic
integrity, the resource is reflective of its significance and therefore eligible for inclusion on the National Register.
VII. NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY ASSESSMENT
44. National Register eligibility field assessment:
Eligible X Not Eligible Need Data
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes No X_
Discuss: There are insufficient resources of similar type or period to create a cohesive district.
If there is National Register district potential, is this building: Contributing Noncontributing
46. If the building is in existing National Register district, is it: Contributing Noncontributing
VIII. RECORDING INFORMATION
47. Photograph numbers: 5BL.13421_1 to 5BL13421_4
Digital files at: Pinyon Environmental, Inc.
48. Report title: University of Colorado – Boulder Campus Bridge Replacement and Land Improvement Project
49. Date(s): June 24, 2016
50. Recorder(s): Mark Serour, Staff Historian
51. Organization: Pinyon Environmental, Inc.
52. Address: 9100 W. Jewell Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80232
53. Phone number(s): 303.980.5200
NOTE: Please include a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad map indicating resource location, and
photographs.
Colorado Historical Society - Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 866-3395
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
5BL13421_1: East bridge
elevation showing stone bridge
piers in Boulder Creek and steel
superstructure.
View: Northwest
5BL13421_2: Bridge Pier
View: West
Resource Number: 5BL.13421
Temporary Resource Number: NA
5BL13421_3: North Abutment
View: Northeast
5BL13421_4: Bridge deck looking
north towards the Boulder Creek
Path used by bicyclists and
pedestrians along Boulder Creek.
View: South
Page 1 of 6
COLORADO CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY OAHP1405
Cultural Resource Re-Visitation Form Rev. 11/10
A Re-Visitation Form can only be used when a Management Data
Form and component forms have been previously filed with the
land managing agency and/or the Colorado Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation and no substantive changes to the
character of the site are required as a result of the current re-
visitation. Please use the Management Data Form and supporting
forms (archaeological component, linear, vandalism, etc.) when
changes are required to:
• Site type
• Linear resources
• Additional artifact assemblages and/or features
• Boundary size
• Vandalism
• NRHP recommendations
Official determination (OAHP use only)
Determined Eligible NR\SR
Determined Not Eligible NR\SR
Nominated
Need Data NR\SR
Contributing to NR Dist.\SR Dist.
Not Contributing to NR Dist.\SR Dist.
Supports overall linear eligibility NR\SR
Does not support overall linear eligibility NR\SR
1. Resource Number: 5BL.8821 2. Temporary Resource Number: N/A
3. Resource Name: CCC Stonework
4. Project Name/Number: Pinyon Environmental, Inc. Project No. 11664701, CU - Campus Bridges
5. Government Involvement: Local State Federal
Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency
6. Site Categories: (Check as many as apply)
Prehistoric: Archaeological site Paleontological site
In existing National Register District? Yes
No
Name:
Local Landmark? Yes No Name:
Historic: Archaeological site Building (s) Structure(s) Object(s)
In existing National Register District? Yes No Name:
Local Landmark? Yes No Name:
7. Owner(s) Name and Address: University of Colorado - Boulder; City of Boulder; Boulder Valley School District
8. Was the site relocated? Yes No If no, why? (100% collected in previous recording, ground disturbance,
etc.)
9. Previous recordings: Peter Gleichman - recorder, Native American Services, January, 2001.
10. Most recent National Register Eligibility Assessment: Eligible Not Eligible Need Data
Explain: The resource has not been significantly altered since its previous recordation and it continues to maintain
National Register significance and integrity.
11. Listed on Register: National State None
Date Listed:
12. Condition (describe): The overall condition of the existing resource is good. There is some detrioration of the
individual stones that comprise the retaining walls, but they are few in number. Some mortar has crumbled in various
places, but, as with the stones, it is largely intact.
13. Threats to Resource: Water Erosion Wind Erosion Grazing Neglect Vandalism
Recreation Construction Other (specify):
14. Existing Protection: None Marked Fenced Patrolled Access controlled
Other (specify):
Comments: The stonework is not protected by any man-made barriers. In some places, the retaining walls may
be accessed by the public, which puts the resource at risk; however, because vegetation is thick
and overgrown throughout the Boulder Creek corridor where the walls are located, much of it is
naturally protected.
Cultural Resource Re-Visitation Form
Resource Number: 5BL.8821 Temporary Resource Number: N/A
Page 2 of 6
15. Recorder’s Management Recommendations:
Avoidance of the resource is recommended.
16. Known Collections, Reports, or Interviews:
Peter Gleichman with Native American Services conducted a cultural resources inventory of the City of Boulder's
Greenway system in 2000-2001. There were several reaches that were surveyed, including the Boulder Creek corridor
containing 5BL.8821. The report that was completed, BL.LG.R123, on file with the OAHP, History Colorado, lists
several individuals who furnished information helpful in preparing the study.
17. Site Description/Update:
The following is a description of the CCC Stonework (5BL.8821) from Mr. Gleichman in his report (BL.LG.R123).
"Below Folsom Field: South of the creek is a terraced hillside below the stadium. The eight terraces are created by
rubble walls, mostly dry-laid, but with some cement mortar in places. The walls are up to 5 ft high. The lowest wall, at
the floodplain, curves around the base of the hill for ca 330 ft. Higher walls are progressively shorter. According to Bill
Deno, University Architect, the stadium at that time was a simple bowl, and there was an oval track for the 100 yd dash,
with one end of the oval extending out to the hill, so that the terraces were needed to support the track at the top of the
hill. The stone abutments and piers for the pedestrian bridge here are CCC work, and the concrete auto bridge is also
reportedly CCC work."
Since 2001 when this report was completed, the University of Colorado - Boulder constructed an athletic complex
adjacent to, and to the east of, Folsom Field football stadium. To accommodate parking, the wooded slope leading to
the south creek embankment was excavated. In the process, some of the terraces that were mentioned in Mr.
Gleichman's report were removed. However, much of the original stonework terracing remains. The retaining walls
(stonework) that were not impacted maintain their physical and aesthetic integrity and continue to hold historic
significance. There is also the potential for archaeological deposits at the site that could provide important data on the
CCC-era construction.
The site is significant under National Register of Historic Places Criterion A for its association with the CCC and
contains historical archaeological components that are likely significant for their data potential under National Register
of Historic Places Criterion D.
The site was revisited in June and July of 2016 by Historian Mark Serour and Archaeologist Thomas Carr, who
inspected and photographed the various stonework features at the site (see attached photographs).
18. Photograph Numbers: 5BL8821_1 to 5BL8821_4
Digital files at: Pinyon Environmental, Inc., 9100 W. Jewell Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80232
19. Artifact and Field Documentation Storage Location: N/A
20. Report Title: CU - Campus Bridges Project
21. Recorder(s): Mark Serour, Staff Historian
Date: 6/24/2016
22. Recorder Affiliation: Pinyon Environmental, Inc., 9100 W. Jewell Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80232
Phone Number/Email: (303) 980-5200
Note: Please attach a sketch map, a photocopy of the USGS quad. map indicating resource location, and
photographs.
History Colorado – Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation
1200 Broadway, Denver, CO 80203
303-866-3395
Cultural Resource Re-Visitation Form
Resource Number: 5BL.8821 Temporary Resource Number: N/A
Page 3 of 6
Cultural Resource Re-Visitation Form
Resource Number: 5BL.8821 Temporary Resource Number: N/A
Page 4 of 6
Cultural Resource Re-Visitation Form
Resource Number: 5BL.8821 Temporary Resource Number: N/A
Page 5 of 6
5BL8821_1: Bridge abutments at
the 21st Street Bridge
View: South
5BL8821_2: Stone wall on the
south bank of Boulder Creek.
View: Southwest
Cultural Resource Re-Visitation Form
Resource Number: 5BL.8821 Temporary Resource Number: N/A
Page 6 of 6
5BL8821_3: Terraced retaining
walls.
View: West
5BL8821_4: Terraced retaining
walls.
View: East