Loading...
Minutes - Joint with Open Space - 5/16/2001~ C~rve<~e~4 ~'1~ni.~~s ~uc'C~ ~eb , I J.Oc~~t ~Yy. Approved os amendeG Joint Session OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES and ly,a,.~~e~J ~F~~.~, l 1~ fa p.~ ~~~~,x,~l~~~ "{ So, n Cr~~ ~ Y\Cr~~ ~~e~~~ PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Mmutes May 16, 2001 ~... ~ ~...~ OSBT MEMBERS PRESENT Sean Kendall Chns Mueller Linda Andes-Georges Larry MacDonnell Linda Jourgensen PRAB MEMBERS PRESENT Gwen Dooley Dave Wmmg Ed von Bleichert Charles Manlove Pam Hoge Thomas Sanford STAFF PRESENT Mike Patton Delazu Wheeler Ronda Romero Jim Tydmgs Doug Hawthorne Chrishne Andersen Jim Reeder Susan Osborne Michael Sulhvan Joe Manhone Cecil Femo Lmda Kotowski Juha Bndgewater Annie Noble Kate Bernhardt CALL TO ORDER The meehng was called to order at 6:10 pm by Gwen Dooley. AGENDA ITEM 1- Consideration of Allocation of Lottery Funds for Open Space and Mountain Parks and Parks and Recreation Mike Patton began discussion by descnbmg vanous pro~ects recommended by former Mountain Parks staff who aze now part of the Open Space and Mountaan Parks (OSMP) Department. These mcluded restoratrons, construchon and ADA modificatrons, fire mingation and the development of a greenhouse/nursery for native plants and seed These projects are directed towazd the new responsibihhes for the recenUy acquired Mountam Pazks lands Michael Sullivan then described the Pro~ected Lottery Fund Cashflow chart that showed the breakdown of committed expenditures for the next 6 years. Boazd members from both departments quest~oned some of the expenditures listed on the chart. Michael and Chnstine Andersen clarified the status of the "Cost Allocation" (required fee formulated by the central budget office and not available for negotiation), "Debt Service" (extends to PAGE ,,., 2008 and is committed), "Greenways" (mvolves other departments and decisions ~,,,~, regardmg its funding need to mvolve them) and "Art in the Pazk" (a histoncal commihnent that can accumulate and may or may not be a part of the 1% requirement for governuient buildmgs). Lmda Kotowski presented the breakdown of how past lottery funds have been spent by the Deparhnent of Parks and Recrearion (P&R). This list included Greenways, various acquisihons, habitat enhancements, h~ails refurbishment, IPM, pazk development, Art in the Pazk and hghts for Scott Carpenter Park. Susan Osborne asked how much of that budget had been allocated to Mountain Pazks projects but records do not specify what part of project money went to Mountam Pazks land as opposed to the Reservoir, for example. Christine Andersen directed Boazd members to the memo that descnbed the State Lottery Program and mformed them that because other commwuties were growmg at a faster rate than Boulder the percentage of lottery money coming mto the commumty is shrinking. But because of the overall growth in the state and the consequent mcrease m lottery pur- chases, she thought that a flat projection of conrinued resources would be reasonable. Charles Manlove queshoned if lottery money must be designated m any particulaz way and Chrishne told lum that although there aze specified categories there aze no prescnbed percentages wrthin them. She also clanfied that having the Boazds create a~oint recom- mendation to the City Council (as to how the lottery money should be divided) fits into the CIP process. Ed von Bleichert wondered why programs such as Greenways and Art m the Pazk aze considered untouchable. Chnsrine stated that taking funds from .,__ Greenways would adversely afFect the program and several Boazd members supported the financial commitment to it. After aclrnowledgmg the needs of both departments, Pam Hoge asked for suggeshons on how the group should proceed. Some Board members felt that the decision about how lottery money is divided should be the responsibhlty of the Council and many felt uncomfortable with being left to work it out without more guidance Christ~ne Andersen suggested lookmg at what money was tradidonally tazgeted for Mountazn Pazks and the types of projects that have immediate financial needs She hoped that the Boazds could establish a comfort zone for discussion of what needs would be appropnate for the lottery funds. Lmda Andes-Georges wondered if the Boazds should expect havmg tlus kind of meering on a yeazly basis and Chnsrine imagined that it would not occur every yeaz but thought that it would be beneficial far the Boazds to meet more frequently than once every eight yeazs and possibly use the CIP as a scheduhng framework. Linda also quesrioned the immutability of the debt service and thought it might be possible to make more money available by refinacmg. Because of the nature of the debt mstrument ttus would not be a reasonable possiblilty at this time. Dave Wimng thought since lottery money is used for acquisrtions that require a mulh-year commihnent it would be beneficial for the Boazds to meet at the 4-5 yeaz point to make sure there was still agreement on the commitment. Sean Kendall asked Christine Andersen to give some mformahon about the jomt meeting PAGE 2 ,,.,,, that occurred in 1993 when the decision that P&R would get the enrire lottery fund was ~„ made. She told the Boazds that there was pressure from the community at that hme for more land to be avazlable for active use It was ageed that because much of Open Space land was considered to be passive use, acqiusrtions by P&R would provide for more achve use. Sean quesrioned if there was any discussion at that hme about how the funds would be committed beyond 1998. Chnstme told him that the mtent at the hme of the discussion may not have been completely actualized. Chnshne felt hmrted m her response to this because she was not present at these meehngs. Michael Sulhvan recalled that the Bradfield acquisihon precipitated the decision, that P&R did not have the money needed for the purchase. The lottery funds were allocated to assist with this purchase as well as for some future land acquisrtions. Two yeazs later the " 25" sales ta~c was passed which provided $25 million for P&R acquisitions Also the concept of Area III changed but the mitral motivation was to assist P&R m acquinng land. Susan Osbome felt comfortable m passing on the funds that had been used for Mountain Parks purposes and felt that the remaimng funds should be spht. She thought that some of the lustoric structures might be ehgible for grant money from the State Historical Fund and proposed the possibility of a partnership between the two departments for the development of the greenhouse pro~ect. Charles Manlove suggested that Greenways might also be mterested in joining the greenhouse pro~ect. He hoped the two Boazds could come up with a formula for splittmg the lottery money for the life of this CIP and maybe beyond. He thought that each deparnnent should be able to decide how their money should be spent. He suggested startmg the discussion w~th a 50/50 spht V~ Chris Mueller questioned why the only negohable money was that which was not already eannazked and remmded the Boards that OSMP has gone without any lottery funds for 8 years. Debt Service does not haue to come from lottery funds, but can be covered wrth taac money He thought that the discussion should center azound a 50/50 spht of the pro~ected lottery revenues ($750,000) and noted that most of the Pazks and Recreation expendittues listed were committed beyond the origmal five yeaz time span. One of the concerns of Parks and Recreation dunng the merger was how well OSMP would be able to caze for the "crown ~ewel" of the commumty's public land. Tom Sanford could not refute Chns' argument but smce Mountazn Pazks was part of P&R at the trme of the commitments, he presumed the decisions made to commit the money were made m a logical way Ed von Bleichert queshoned why the $100,000 that is bemg transferred to OSMP for the ~umor ranger program for the 2001 budget will not be conhnually allocated to support the program. He thought that if the Pazks and Recreatron Department felt the need to budget that amount for the program from lottery money, that the need wnhnues to exist even though it is under the responsibihty of a new department. Dave Wining agrees that the money should follow the program and that this amount should be set as~de before the rest of the money is divided Ed also recognized that the ADA reqwrements for Sunnse Amplutheater should have been addressed wlule shll a part of P&R and thinks these and other needs of the Mountam Pazks lands should be taken care of befare future needs are considered Chrisdne said that because the Mountain Pazks area is eligible to become a PAGE 3 ,,„„ lustonc designated srte rt should be eligible for special fundmg. `r.~. Public Participation Allison Richards, 470 University, descnbed the Greenways program as a jomt coordmated effort dependmg on funds from Transportahon, Utrhries and the lottery. Funds from Transportation and Urihties are restricted leaving mostly lottery money to cover environmental pro~ects. She told the Boazd that with recent cutbacks the program is receiving less support with each department now conmbuhng equal amounts and, m fact, would benefit &om an increase m lottery fund allocahon. Ricky Weiser, 4020 North 75`" St., was concemed that because Valmont Pazk (south side of Valmont) is located m the middle of an industnal area a natural area there should not be considered a good mvestment for public funds. She thought the area north of Valmont had better natural qualificahons and should be considered instead. Return to Board & Staff Gwen Dooley thought that the direchon of the meehng seemed to be movmg away from funding pro~ects and towazds finding an equitable way to approach the whole package. She agreed with Chns and Ed that everything should be on the table before the funds are considered to be spht. She suggested putting Greenways off to the side and tallung with transportahon and utihhes people before makmg a decision about dealing with it. She saad that Parks and Recrearion has had the funds for 8 yeazs and that OSMP was not askmg to take rt all back but rather to divide it 50/50 so that each department can pursue its own pro~ects seperately and that to revisrt tlus issue every couple of yeazs would be "~ difficult. She thought the simplest formula would be to divide the $750,000 in half (possibly reserving money for Greenways) Dave Wimng thought that the Greenways issue should be resolved before any fudher decis~ons about the spht. 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 III. She beheves that their commitment to Greenways and their debt service should be honored pnor to sphttmg what lottery funds aze left. Chazles Manlove agreed with Susan and added that he hoped Area III would eventually become open space. He also hoped the Boards could decide how to proceed from this pomt on. Lmda Jourgensen was concerned about the debt service comuig from lottery funds and queshoned the Area III situarion 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 hme frame. It was purchased because it was available and needed to be kept in safe hands. Gwen Dooley recalled the intention at the hme of purchase was to "landbank" the parcel, possibly with no specific plan for up to 50 yeazs, and that it would be paid for wrth bonds rather than lottery money. Linda thought that just because the land was described as "de facto open space" did not change the fact that it was purchased by P&R and should remain their financial responsib~hty. Sean Kendall noted that smce the debt service for 2003 and beyond was reduced to about $300,000. sphttmg the $600,000 (after providmg $150,000 for Greenways) would allow PAGE 4 ~,., P&R to neazly fulfill their debt sernce from that point on with lottery money. There was ~, also the queshon about the Damon property and if OSMP would be using lottery money to pick up that debt. Funding for that parcel could be determined by staff and Boazd Tom Sanford reiterated the fact that no one really knows what the Area III is - a park or open space. But he did believe that whether or not rt was appropriate to use lottery funds to buy the land imhally, it should be contmued to be funded that way. He thought only the $274,000. should be considered for splitting In response to the discomfort wrth having to make ttus decision voiced by Board members, Chnstine Andersen told the Boazds that tlus decision process is based on an extension of the CIP process. She told the Boazds that the City Council adopted the CIP with the debt service allocated Although she realizes the struggle that the Boards have endured, she thought that it is appropnate for the decision to come from ttus group effort. Larry agreed that it is good for the Boazds to confer but thought tttat they were not bemg grven gwdelines to follow, for example knowmg that City Council had already allocated lottery funds for the debt service Chris Mueller felt discouraged because lottery money that was made available for a 5 yeaz hme span ended up being committed by P&R beyond the agreement. Lmda Andes- Georges was uncomfortable with the situahon but thought, under the circumstances, there didn't appear to be much of a choice. She thought there should be some comfort m the knowledge that any land purchased by either of the departments will serve the city and so must be paid for. (In defense of the Valmont azea she commented that wild azeas neaz indusmal sites prove to be valuable habitat and so should not be automahcally wntten ~~ off.) Linda Jourgensen wondered if there was really anything to discuss if the debt service had already been dedicated by the City Council She, too, supported Greenways and hoped the $100,000 for the ~umor ranger program would also be conhnued. Chnshne Andersen told the Boards that the CIP is updated and adopted annually wittun a 2 year budget cycle but if they came up with a ~oint recommendahon to make changes in the allocahon she beheved the Council would have to look at their suggeshons. Ed von Bleichert queshoned if the City Council was aware of the dedication of funds beyond the agreement between Open Space and Parks and Recreation. He doubted that they would have approved the fundmg through 2008 so his queshon was whether or not the Boazds wanted to make an issue of it. Julia Bndgewater, a P&R staff inember told the Boazds that the mformahon was presented to the City Council pnor to their approval - that they were awaze of this sihaahon. Michael Sullivan suggested subtrachng the $150,000 (Greenways) from the $750,000 (pro~ected lottery revenues) and then sphttmg the balance 50/50 between the two departments as a possible solutron. Susan Osborne told ttte Boazds that she could not support that solution. Chns Mueller questioned why, on the other hand, it was fazr to only consider sphtting the part of the lottery money that P&R hadn't already spent (or committed) He thought the most logical approach was to split 100% of the lottery funds and agreed wrth Ed m that he couldn't beheve that the City Council would approve an allocahon beyond the agreed hme frame Dave Wimng, in an effort to reach some sort of '"" compromise between the two Boards, suggested subh~actang Greenways ($150,000), the ~... PAGE ,,,,., debt service (@ $300,000), the debt sernce for the Damon property for 2002 yr, (@$100,000) and fundmg for the~umor ranger program ($100,000) from the projected $750,000 leavmg a balance of about $200,000 to be spht 50/50 and used as discrehonary funds by the departments The cost allocahon money would also come out of the $750,000 before the 50/50 spht but the Art m the Park contnbuhon would come from P&R shaze. Chris wanted to clanfy what this spht would be for the yeaz 2003 - rt would give about $90,000 discrehonary for each of the deparnnents. Sean Kendall was concerned that such a small sum would be easily used for maantenance issues which is contrary to how lottery funds should be spent. Gwen Dooley agreed with Sean m that the lottery funds should be used for someUung special. Lmda Andes- Georges suggested that the funds could accumulate over several years for a lazger pro~ect if desired. Ed von Bleichert wondered what an appropriate split would be if the 20%-80% current suggeshon 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 Wining said he wouldn't support that spht and restated his previous suggestion. Charles Manlove thought Dave's proposal was good in that it sets a precedence for how the money can be spht once the debt service has been fulfilled beyond the 2007/2008 hmelme. Dave added that pnor to either Board makmg long term commrtments to go outside the hme span there should be someUung in the ageement that says that both Boards have to agree to it Chazles ,M suggested to the OSBT that they use lottery funds to leverage for state lustoric grant money. This would, m essence, increase the spending power of the lottery money. ~....- Several Boazd members reviewed the formula that seemed to be dominahng the conversation - from the projected revenues these items would be subtracted: Greenways, debt service, cost allocahon, and ~unior ranger program cost. The balance would then be spht 50/50 between the two departments. For the current budget that would give each department about $90,000 to use at their own discretion. Susan Osborne felt encouraged by ttus tentarive agreement m that it was establishing some rules, pnmanly that of the 50/50 spht and that there should be no financial commihnents made past the negohated rime without agreement from both Boazds. Chnstuie hoped that the Boards would get back together penodically because a 5 yeaz agreement is a long time and smce this is a 6 yeaz context for the current CIP it would probably be too long to wart unhl renegotiations were needed to get back together. Dave Wmmg suggested that the Boazds get together every 2 years and maybe try to pursue some common undertakings Chnstme told them that Greenways was hoping to get together with all the Boazds that aze mvolved with that pro~ect and this would provide another opportwuty for PRAB and OSBT to work together Ed von Bleichert felt somewhat comfortable with this formula for future years but believed that if Mountain Pazks was still a part of Pazks and Recreahon and they were still receivmg all the lottery money there would be more than $100,000 spent on Mountain Pazks needs (ie. ADA, etc.). He asked PRAB how they would feel about ~""` putting more money mto OSMP inihally to help cover some of these expenses and then '~r.. PAGE 6 ,,.,, revert to the formula afterwazd m the spint that these pro~ects aze pnoifies to both ,,r,, departments. Pam Hoge said she couldn't support that commg from lottery funds but there could be other ways that Pazks and Recreation could contnbute to some of these Mountain Pazks needs Chazles Manlove disagreed, thinking that much of the lottery money would probably be spent on urban pazks rather than the Mountain Pazks even if it was shll under their auspices Gwen Dooley was concerned about the histonc fundmg noting that with the size of the Open Space budget they may not be considered for some of these grants. Chnstine Andersen wanted to venfy where they stand with the lustoric designation because she believes it is a critena to apply for these grants. Gwen asked the Boazds if anyone wanted to make a mohon. Dave Wmmg made the morion with some suggeshons from Chnshne and Chris Mueller. MOTION Dave Wmuig moved that they, as a jomt Board, recommend to the City Council that for the next 6 yeazs lottery funds be allocated in the following manner: $150,000 to Greenways, subtract the cost allocahon, mazntain the debt service for Area III and the commitment to the Damon property (for 2002), allocate $100,000 to OSMP to spend on Mountain Pazks and after that, all other funds be split 50/50 between Open Space and Mountain Parks and Pazks and Recrearion and that neither department will commit funds drawn from the lottery, including all of the items that azen't covered in the morion, beyond the terms of the agreement ~vithout approval from both Boazds. ,,,,~ Gwen Dooley seconded the mohon. ~...- VOTE The morion passed with all members voting in favor except Tom Sanford, absent, and Sean Kendall, who dissented. MOTION Sean Kendall moved that instead of the allocahon formula just approved that the split of the lottery money ($750,000) should be 50/50 after $150,000 has been subtracted for Greenways givuig each deparnnent approximately $300,000 Chris Mueller sewnded the motion VOTE Gwen Dooley, Chns Mueller and Sean Kendall voted in favor of the mohon, the rest of the members, except Tom Sanford, absent, dissented. This mohon did not pass. Chazles Manlove thought that the formula they had ~ust adopted was good because it set the stage for an equitable split of the lottery funds after the debt sernce has been fulfilled. He noted that it takes time for a program to adapt to a reduchon m funds. Linda Andes- Georges commented that she could not support the most recent motion and thought the imhal mohon served the needs of the Boazds even if it was not exactly fair ADJOURNMENT - The meeting ad~ourned at 8:50 p.m. v... PAGE 7 ~ ~.. These draft m:nutes prepared by Cecel Fenio ~ +.,,, r'° ~.., PAGE 8