Loading...
Minutes - Open Space - 05/16/2001w Approved as aoieuded. Joint Session OPEN SPACE BOARD Or TRUST~~S and PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Minutes May 16, 2001 OSBT MEMB~RS PRES~NT Sean Kendall Chris Mueller Linda Andes-Georges Larry MacDonnell Linda Jouigensen PRAB M~MBERS PR~S~NT Gwen Dooley Dave Wining Ed von Bleichert Charles Manlove Pam Hoge Susan Osborne Thomas Sanford STAFF PRESLNT Mike PaCton Delani Wheeler Ronda Romero Jim Tydings Doug HawCltorne Christine Andersen Jim Reeder Michael Sullivan Joe Mandone Cccil Fenio Linda Kotowski Julia Bridgewacet Annie Noble Kate Bernhardt CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:10 pm by Gwen Dooley. AGENDA ITEM 1- Consideration of Allocatiion of Lottery Funds for Open Space and Mountain Parksand Parks and Recreation Mike Patton began discussion by describing various projects recommended by former Mountain Parks staff who are now part of the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) DeparUnent. These included restorations, consfruction and ADA modificaUons, fire mitigation and the developmenC of a greenhouse/nurseiy for native plants and seed. These projeets are directed toward the new responsibilities for Yhe recenYly acquired Mountain Parks lands. Michael Sullivan tlien desaribed the Projected Lottery Fund Cashflow chart YhaC showed the brcakdown of committed expenditurea for the next 6 years. Board men~bers from both departmenYs q~~esrioued some of the expenditures listed on tl~e chart. Michael and Christine Andersen clarified the status oP the "Cost Allocation" (required fee forniulated ^PAGE ^1^ w , .., by che central budget office and not available Por negotiaCion), "Debt Service" (extends to 2008 and is committed), "Greenways" (involves oCher departments and decisions regarding its funding need to involve them) and "Art in the Park" (a histarical commitment thaY can accumulate and may or may nof be a part of the 1% requirement for government buildings). Linda Kotowski presented the breakdown of how past lottery funds have been spenC by the DepartmenC of Parks and Recreation (P&R). Tbis list included Greenways, various acquisitions, habitat enhancements, trails refurbisllment, IPM, park development, Art in the Park and lighCs for Scotl Carpenter Park. Susan Osborne asked how much of Chat budget had been allocated to Mountain Parks projects but records do not specify what part of project money went Co Mountain Parks land as opposed to the Reservoir, for exampie. Christine Andersen direcYed Board members to the memo that described thz State Lottery Program and informed them that because other communities were growing at a Paster rate than Bouider the percentage of lottery money coming into Che community is shrinking. BuC because of the overall growth in the staCe and the consequent inerease in lottery pur- chases, she thought that a flat projection of continued resources would be reasonable. Charles Manlove questioned if lottery money must be designated in any particular way and ChrisCine told him that althoagh there are specified categories there are no prescribed percentages within them. She also clarified that having the Boards create a joint recom- mendation to the City Council (as to how the lotteiy money should be divided) fits into the CIP process. Ed von Bleichert wondered why programs such as Greenways and Art in the Park are considered untouchable. Christine stated that taking funds from Greenways would adveisely affect the program and several Board members supported fhe financial commiCment to iC. After acknowledging the needs of both departmenCs, Pam Hoge asked for suggestions on how the group should proceed. Some Board members Pelt that the decision about how lottery money is divided should be the responsiblilty of the Council and many felt uncomfortable with being left to work it out without more guidance. Christine Andeisen suggeated looking at what money was Lxaditionally targeCed for Mountain Packs and the types of pirojects that have immediate financial needs. She hoped that the Boards could establish a comfort zone for discussion of what needs would be appropriaYe for the lottery funds. Linda Andes-Georges wondered if the Boards should expect having this kind of meeting on a yearly basis and Christine imagined that iti would not occur every year but Yhought that it would be beneficial for the Boards Co meet more frequently than once every eight years and possibly use the C1P as a scheduling framework. Linda also questioned the immutabiliry of the debt seivice and thought it might be possible Co make more money available by refinacing. Because of the nature of the debC instrument this would not be a reasonable possiblilty aC this time. Dave Wining thought since lottery money is used for acquisitions that require a multi-year commiYment iC would be beneficial for the Boards to meet at the 4-5 year point to make sure there was still agreement on the commitment. ^PAGE ^2^ . w Sean Kendall asked Chriatine Andersen to give some information about the joint mecting that occurred in 1993 when the decision that P&R would get Yhe enrire lottery fund was made. She told the Boards that there was pressure from the communily at that time for more land eo be available for active use. It was agreed thaY because much of Open Space land was considered to be passive use, acquisitions by P&R would provide for more active use. Sean questioned if there was any discussion at thaC time about how Che funds would bc committed beyond ] 998. Cliristine lold him Chat tlie inlent at the time of the discussion may not havc been compleCely actualized. Christine fe1C limited in her response to this because she was not presenC aY these meetings. Michael Sullivan recalled that the Bradfield acquisition precipitated the decision, that P&R did not have tl~e money needed for the purchase. Tlie lottery funds were allocated to assist with thie purchase as well as for some future land acquisiUons. Two years IaCer the ".25" sales tax was passed which provided $25 million for P&R acquisitions. Also the concept of Area III changed but the initial motivaTion was to assist P&R in acquiring land. Susan Osborne Pelt comfortable in passing on the funds tliat had been used for Mountain Parks purposes and felt that the remaining funds should be split. She Chought that some of the historic strucCures mighC be eligible for grant money from Yhe State Historical Fund and proposed the possibility of a partnership between the two departments for Che developmenC of the greenhouse project. Charles Manlove suggested that Greenways mighY also be interested in joining the greenhouse project. He hoped Che two Boards could come up with a forinula for splitting the lottery money for the life of this CIP and maybe beyond. He thought thaC each departmenC should be able to decide how their money should be apent. He suggeseed starting the discussion with a 50/50 split. Chris Mueller questioned why the only negotiable money was that which was not already earmarked and reminded the Boards that OSMP has gone without any lottery funds for 8 years. Debt Service does not have to come fronl lottery funds, but can be covered with tax money. He Chought thaC the discuesion should center around a 50/50 sp1iC of the projected lottery revenues ($750,000) and noted that most of ihe Parks and Recreation expenditures listed were committed beyond the original five year time span. One of the concerns of Parks and Recreation during tlie merger was how well OSMP would be able to care for the `brown jewel° oP the community's public land. Tom Sanford could not refute Chris' argument but since Mountain Parks was part of P&R at the time of the commitments, he presumed the decisions made to commit the money were made in a logical way. Ed von Bleichert questioned why the $100,000 thaf is being transfen•ed to OSMP Por the junior ranger program for the 2001 budget will not be continually allocated to supporC the program. He Yhougl~t thaC if the Parks and Recreadon Dep~rCment fe1Y the need to budget that amount Por the progcam from lottery money, that the need conrinues to exist even Chough it is under the responsibility of a new department. Dave Wining agrees lhat the money should follow the program and thati this amount should be set aside before the rest of the money is divided. Ed also recognized lhat the ADA requiremen[s for Sunrise ^PAGE ^3^ Amphitheater should have been addressed while still a part of P&R and thinks these and oYher needs of the Mountain Parks lands should be taken care of before future needs are considered. Christine said that because fhe Mountain Parks acea is eligible to become a historic designated site it should be eligible for special funding. Public Participation Allison Richards, a70 University, described the Greenways program as ajoint coordinated ePfort depending on fimds from Transportariou, Utilities and the lottery. Punds from Transportation and UtiliPies are restricted leaving mostly lottery money to cover envn~onmental projects. She told the Board that with recenC cutbacks tbe program is receiving less support with each department now conCributing equal amounCs and, in fact, would benefiC frQm an increase in lottecy fund allQCation. Ricky Weiser, 4020 North 75"' St., was concerned that because Valmont Park (south side of Vaimont) is located in the middle of an industrial area a natural area there should not be considered a good investment far public funds. She tho~ight the area north of Valmont had better natural qualifications and should be considered instead. Return to Board & Staff Gwen Dooley thought that the direction of the meeting seemed to be moving away from funding projecYs and towards finding an equifable way to approach the whole package. She agreed with Chris and Ed Chat everything should be on the table before the funds are considered to be split. She suggested putting Greenways off to the side and talking with t~~anaportation and uCilities people before making a decision about dealing with it. She said that Parks and Recreation has had the funds for 8 years and that OSMP was not asking to take it all back but rather to divide it 50/50 so that each department can pursue its own projects seperaCely and that to revisit this issue every couple of years would be diPficult. She thought Yhe simplest formula would be to divide the $750,000 in half (possibly reserving money for Greenways). Dave Wining thought that the Greenways issue should be resolved before any further decisions about the split. Susan Osborne felt that since there was no direction from City Council as to how P&R committed the lottery fund money they broke no rule when they purchased land in Area IIL She believes that their commitment to Greenways and their debt seiwice should be honored prior to splitting what lottery funds are left. Charles Manlove agreed with Susan and added that he hoped Area III would eventuaily become open space. He also hoped the Boards could decide how to proceed from this point on. Linda Jourgensen was conceined about the debt seivice coming Prom loftery funds and questioned the Area III situation. There was discussion that the land was purchased as part of a 20 year development plan and may or may not be made into a park in that time frame. It was purchased because it was available and needed to be kept in safe hands. Gwen Dooley recalled Che intention at the time of purehase was to "landbank" the parcel, possibly with no specific plan for up to 50 years, and that it would be paid for with b~nds rather than lottery money. Linda thought thaC just because the land was described as "de facto open space" did noY change the fact thaC it was pm•chased by P&R and should remain Cheir ^PAGE ^4^ financial responsibi]iCy Sean Kendall noted thaf since the debf seivice for 2003 and beyond was reduced to about $300,000. splitCing the $600,000 (after providing $ I50,000 for Greenways) would allow P&R to nearly fulfill their debC seivice fi•om that point on with lotCery money. There was also the quesCion about the Damon properry and if OSMP would be using lottery money to pick up Chat debt. Funding for Chat parce] coLild be determined by staff and Board. Tom Sanford reitei•ated thc fact that no one really knows what thc Area III is - a park or open space. But he did believe that whether or noC it was appropriate to use lottery fi~nds to Uuy the land initially, it should be continued to be funded that way. He thought only the $274,000. should be considered for splitting. In response to the discomforC with having to makc Yhis decision voiced by Board members, ChrisCine Andersen told the Boards thaC Yhis decision process is based on an extension of the CIP process. Slie told the Boards YhaC the City Council adopted thc CIP wiCh the debt service allocated. Althoagh she realizes the stcuggle that the Boards have endured, she thought that iC is appropriate for the decision to come from this group effort. Larry agreed thaC it is good for the Boards to confer but thought tl~at they were noC being given guidelines to follow, for example knowing thaC Ciry Council had already allocated lotCery Punds for the debt service. Chris Mueller felt discouraged because lotfery money Yhat wae made available for a 5 year time span ended up being committed by P&R beyond the agreement. Linda Andes- Georges was uncomforlable with Che situation but thoughC, under Yhe circumstances, Chere diddt appear to be much of a choice. She thought there should be some comfort in the knowledge that any land pw~chased by either of Che deparCments will serve the city and so must be paid Por. (In dePense of Yhe Valmont area she commenCed that wild areas near industrial sites prove to be valuable habitat and so should not be automatically written off.) Linda Jourgensen wondered if there was really anything to discuss if the debt service had already been dedicated by Che City Council. She, too, supported Greenways and hoped the $100,000 Por the junior ranger program would also be continued. Christine Andersen told the Boards Chat the CIP is updated and adopted annually wiChin a 2 year budget cycle baC if they came tiip with a joinC recommendation to make changes in the allocation she believed the Council would have to look at their suggestions. Ed von Bleichert questioned if the City Council was aware of the dedication of funds beyond fhe agreement between Open Space and Parks and Reereation. He doubted Chat they would have approved the funding through 2008 so his quesCion was whether or not the Boards wanted to make an issue oP iC. Julia Bridgewater, a P&R staff inember told the Boards that the informafion was presented to Che Ciry Council prior to their approval - thaC they were aware of this situation. Michael Sullivan suggested subU•acting the $150,000 (Greenways) from the $750,000 (projectcd lotCeiy revenues) and then splitting thc balance 50/50 beCween the Cwo deparfinents as a possible solution. Susan Osborne Yold the Boards thaC she could not support that solution. Chris Mueller q~iestioned why, on the olher hand, it was fair to ^PAGE IJS~ only consider splitting Yhe part of the lottery money that P&R hadn't already spent (or committed). He lhought the most logical appcoach was to sp1iC 100% of the IotCeiy funds and agreed with ~d in thaC he couldn'C belicve that the Ciry Council would approve an allocation beyond Che agreed lime frame. Dave Wining, in an efforC to reach some sorC of compromise between lhe two Boards, suggested subtracting Greenways ($150,000), the debt service (@ $300,000), the debf service for che Damon property for 2002 (@$100,000) and funding foc Che junior ranger program ($100,OQ0) from the projected $750,000 leaving a balance of about $200,000 to be split 50/50 and used as discretionary funds by the departments. The cost allocation money would also come ouC oP the $750,000 before the 50/50 split but the Art in the Park contribuYion would come from PBrR share. Chris wanted to clarify what this split would be for the year 2003 - it would give about $90,000 discrelionaiy for each of the departments. Sean Kendall was concerned that such a small sum would be easily used for maintenance issues which is contrary to how lottery funds should be spent. Gwen Dooley agreed with Sean in that the lotteiy funds should be used for something special. Linda Andes- Georges auggested thaC the funds could accumulate over several years Yor a larger project if desired. Ed von Bleichert wondered what an appropriate split would be if the 20%-80% current suggestion isn't acceptable. Chris Mueller proposed a 1/3 - 2/3 split which would be about the same as the numbers at the bottom of the box. Dave W ining said he wouldn't support that split and restated his previous suggesCion. Charles Manlove thought Dave's proposal was good in that it sets a precedence for how the money can be split once the debt service has been fulfilled beyond the 2007/2008 timeline. Dave added that prior to eitY~er Board making long term commitments to go outside the time span there shouid be something in the agreement that says thaC both Boards have to agree to it. Charles suggested to the OSBT Chat they use lottery funds to leverage for sfafe t~istoric grant money. This would, in essence, inerease the spending power of Yhe lottery money. Several Board members reviewed Che formula that seemed to be dominating the conversation - from Che projected revenues these items would be subtracted: Greenways, deUt service, cost allocation, and junior ranger program cost. The balance would then be spiit 50/50 beCween the two departments. For the current budget that would give each department about $90,000 to use at their own discreCion. Susan Osborne Pelt encouraged by this tentative agreement in that it was establishing some rules, primarily that of fhe SQ(50 split and that there should be no financial commitments made pasC Yhe negotiated time without ag~eement fi•om both Boards. Christine hoped that the Boards would get back togeCher periodically because a 5 year agreemenf is a long Cime and since this is a 6 year conCext for the current CIP it would probably be too long to wait until renegotiations were needed to get back together. Dave Wining suggested that tbe Boards get togeYher every 2 years and mayUe try to pursue some common underCakings. Christiine told them that Greenways was hoping to get together witb all the Boards Chat are involved with thaC project and this would provide another opporCunity for PRAB and OSBT to wark together. ^PAGE ^6^ Bd von Bleichert felt~ somewhaC comfartable with this formula for future years but believed that if Mowitain Packs was still a part of Parks and Recreation and they were still receiving all Che lottery money there would be more than $100,000 spent on Mountain Parks needs (ie. ADA, etc.). He asked PRAB how they would feel about putting more money into OSMP initially to help cover some of these expenses and Yhen reverl to ihe formula afterward in the spirit thaC these projects are prioities Co both depa~~t~nents. Pam Hoge said she couldn'C support Cl~at coming from lotteiy funds but there could be other ways that Parks and RecreaCion could contribute to some of ihese Mountain Parks needs. Charles Manlove disagreed, tliinking that much of the lottery money would probably be spenl on urban parks rather than the Mountain Parks even if it was sCill under their auspices. Gwen Dooley was concerned abouC the historic funding noting tihat with the size of Lhe Open Space budget thcy may not be considered for some of these grants. Christine Andersen wanted to verify where they stand with the historic designation because she believes it is a critcria Co apply for these grants. Gwen asked the Boards if ~nyone wanted to make a mofion. Dave Wining made the motion with some suggesfions from Christine and Chris Mueller. MOTION Dave Wining moved that they, as a joint Board, recommend to the Ciry Council that for the nexC 6 years IoCfery funds be allocated in Che following manner: $150,000 to Greenways, subtracC Yhe cost allocation, maintain the debt seiviee for Area III and the commitment to the Damon properry (for 2002), allocate $100,000 to OSMP to spend on Mountain Parks and afLer Chat, all other funds be split 50/50 between Open Space and Mountain Parks and Parks and Recreafion and that neither departmenY will commit funds drawn from the loCCery, ineluding all of the iYems that aren't covered in the motion, beyond Che terms of fhe agreement wifhout approval Prom both Boards. Gwen Dooley seconded the motion. VOTE The motion passed with all members voting in favor except Tom Sanford, absenY, and Sean Kendall, who dissented. MOTION Sean Kendall moved that insYead of the allocation formula just approved that the split of the lottery money ($75Q000) should be 50/50 after $1SQ000 has been subtracted for Greenways giving each deparfinent approximately $300,000. Chris Mueller seconded the motion. VOTE Gwen Dooley, Chris Mueller and Sean Kendall voted in favor of the motion, the resf of the members, except Tom Sanford, absent, dissented. This mofion did not pass. ^PAGE ^7^ Charles Manlove thought thaC the formula they had just adopted was good because it set the sfage for an equitable sp1iC of the lottery funds afCer the debt servicc has been fulfilled. He noted that it takes Cime for a program to adapt Co a reducCion in funds. Linda Andes- Georges commented that she could not support the most recent moCion and Chought fhe initial inotion secved Che needs of the Boacds even iP it was not cxactly fair. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. These draft minutes ~repared by Cecil Fenio. ~PAGE ^80