Loading...
Signed Minutes - Retreat - 5/05/2001City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board ~ Retreat May 5, 2001 NCAR, Damon Room 1850 Table Mesa Drive 8:30 a.m. The followtng are the minutes of the May 5, 2001 Ciry of Boulder Parks and Recreation Adv~sory Board meeting A permanent set of these mtnutes and a tape recording (ma~ntatned for a penod of 6 years) are reta~ned in Central Records (telephone 441-3043) Board Present: Gwen Dooley, Chau; Edwazd von Bleichert, Vice-Chazr, Susan Osborne, Dave Wmmg, Chazles Manlove, Pam Hoge and Thomas Sanford Staff Present Doug Hawthome, Lmda Kotowski, Chnstme Andersen, Sazah DeSouza, Georgia Jackson, Ann Wichmann, Julya Bndgewater I. Ground Rules/Operating Agreements ~, CONCERNS POSITIVES • Late endmg (poor decis~ons after 10 p m.) • Good flow • Consent Agenda • People treated well • What are - Discussion Items - Action Items - Information Items - "Matters" - lot of conversahon - when on agenda~ • Pubhc Hearings - length - hmit time - 45 rrunutes at begmmng - 3 mmute rule per person - Lmited sign up penod - opportumty at end of ineetmg • Misconception of what is happenmg (rumors) at meetmg - confused pomt of view - Chair clanfies (ask staff if further clanficavon needed) - Staff clanfies with ciazens pnor to meedng (staff cleaz on mtentions) - Staff can't presuppose Boazd decision - clanfy whether item on agenda or not if cinzens inquire ^ • Opnons presented by staff m memos (while not always recommended by Staf~ cause `.~ concern by citizens - lead to rumors - poll c~UZens to see how many aze mterested m speakmg on a given topic - s~gn up to mdicate topic of mterest - Staff do an mrt~al "sort" of speakers/topics ~ = 1 hour = 20 people option (first come, first served) numbers on sign up cazds - reduce time of each speaker if lazge numbers (3 mmutes to 2 mmutes) • People waitmg to speak on public heanng topics bemg asked to wait considerable length of time - ask groups to have best spokesperson speak first - one hour - sign up deadlme of 6.15 - communicate as part of agenda - flexible deahng with large groups • Consent Calendaz - deternuned at agenda discussion with Chazr and V ice Chair - pro forma issues - opportunrty to call up pubhc comment causes boazd member mterest - handle as "blanket" approach - Pubhc Heanng for Consent Agenda - comment on Consent Agenda items? - voUng is Actton Item - requires Pubhc Heanng? ~ • Items from Deparunent Information for Boazd - unless new informaUOn - not brought up by Staff - Boazd can question • Matters from Board - notlengthy discussion - request for more mformahon from Staff • Packet Deadlmes - "Big" items - desirable to give Boazd as much lead time as possible - Lazge issues - 2 full weekends - Packet at later date - more current - Wednesday before Monday's meetmg (Pam, Susan) - 2 weekends before (Ed, Charlie) - PRAB rules reqmre 4 days pnor to Boazd meehng • D~scussion Items one month/Acnon Item next month - 2 weeks m advance would elimmate need for seemg rtems 2 months m a row - Helpful to have Board discussion pnor to action • Mid Month Packet - hisrory - not done currenfly ~ - Staff person (item author) to be identified m memo e.g if questions about ttus uem please contact X at # PRAB Retreat 5/5/Ol - Page 2 ~ • T~mes on agendas meetmg with Chair, V ice Chair to mclude sethng hmes on agenda • Discussion Items sometimes lead to `mushy" discussions - more focused discussion - clanry about purpose of discussion - rely on study session format (2 hour) to achieve goal of gettmg mformation/Board discussion - 2 meetmgs/month 1. Act~on Items 2. Discussion/Informahon Items - Sepazate study sessions for D~scussion Items * sort items - re: Diswssion/InformaUOn vs Action assign umes assign study session topics for Future Boazd Items * bnef Staff presentahons (15 rmnutes max) not re-hash of packet matenal * succmct Boazd comments * agreement by Boazd to end meetmg at 10 30 p.m. unless approved by ma~onty of Boazd (items would be moved to next meetmg) * agenda check-m at 930 p.m. ~ II Public/Private Partnerships • Comfort with commrtment level before movmg to next level • Possible study session topic Susan • How we work with non-profit groups (hke Nordic Club) - changmg plans late m process and orgamzmg their pro~ect • Signage - sponsorsh~ps = pazk sponsored by "x" • Will clanfy after site plan diswssion • Role of pubhc enuty m park development • How non-profits will pay for their pro~ects over the long term (pay for equipment, etc) • Managmg the process - impact on Boazd meehng Chazles • Inadequate commitment to collaboration • Need for partners to take nsks • Detemune roles of partners (related responsibihaes) • Exrt suategies - understand consequences of it not worlang before commitment is made Pam • "Corporatization" of pazk ~ • All items that aze not fundable, e.g. pottery lab, vs. others that appeaz to be fundable • Approval of one pro~ect may preclude others due to hming/group orgamzat~on/financmg, etc. PRAB Retreat 5/5/01- Page 3 • Role of Pazks and Recreation Department - workmg with groups like pottery lab for fundrazsmg ~ • City puttmg hmitations on fundraismg due to concems relatmg to sponsorships - requires mcreased pubhc role m acquinng funds • Sponsorsh~p policy is currently approved - sets guidelmes Gwen • Competmg at "trough" - groups competmg with each other • Groups helpmg each other rather than compehng • - Poohng resources • Non-performers vs. performers - lookmg to city/pubhc entrty to muntazn equ~ty m process • Nordic Club as precedent • Ciry can choose which pro~ects will contmue based on consistent cntena (although not an exact science) • Pro~ects we want to see at pazk based on commumty value - not necessanly ones bemg proposed • City asked to "fill gaps" • Informahon about needs - required to make decisions Ed • City's assessment of need vs. partners' assessment ~ • Re-look at sponsorship policy • Boulder not a commumty in dechne - what is role of Pubhc/Pnva[e/Partnership at Valmont~ • What is an"approved recreahon facility"? • Who is an approved partner? • What does concept plan mean - type of facihues approved vs. specific faciliUes Dave • Can pazk be developed wrthout pubhc money~ • Would facihties be desirable? • Voter expectauons as to what is m pazk • Concem regazding changmg public expectauon • Need to mclude public comment • Concem regazding in puttmg facilities that preclude developmg other facil~t~es m future Tom • Confusion (m pubhc) as to how tlus pazk is commg together • Needs very clear approach • Need for non-profits to step up to build facihues • Corporate role for event (short term) sponsorship • Be cazeful not to be someone's "donkey" • Each facility should have long term plan (re• Extt Strategy) ~ • Favor facilities that enable mult~ple uses/age groups • Problem with first come, first served • Bond issue - what city's contnbution will be PRAB Retreat 5/5/Ol- Page 4 III. Valmont City Park ~ • Definrtion of wildhfe • Allow movement of wildlife through pazk wrthout need to access native components • Comdors connechng wildlife areas - safe passage between azeas • Make open azeas of urban pazks more successful • Interrelate urban wildhfe with open space - flow • Reduces tugh speed access through north wildhfe comdor • Natural plantmgs for cover • Allow for benches - picmc tables • North - Dave not m agreement - mcrease use between corridors - not what voters wanted when land purchased - more of pazk set aside for non-recreationa] use • Role of concept plan - 12% designated for nauve m approved plan • Demonstrated need to deal with current wildhfe issues • Everythmg from ongmal plan remams on north side - changes aze how landscaped - mce compromise • Staff needs to conduct a needs assessment to assess needs • South side opuons - don't concem selves with specific programatic facilities at ttus pomt - look at balance of wildlife vs developable areas of pazk • Simple is diffiwlt - complex is easy ~ (bluegrass/imgahon) - (natural is easier to mazntazn) • Discussion of context - where aze needs that aze not gomg to be addressed at Valmon[ City Pazk going to go (~mpacts on wildlife to those azeas) trade-offs • Need to look at trade-offs at Valmont City Pazk only for purpose of ttus discussion • Ph~losophy of how we vege[ate - treat landscape • Need to capture idea that boundary lmes aze not hazd and fast - hnes can be more fluid and this needs to be conveyed to Crty Council at study session • Impact on Purport Road m Options B-1 & B-2 • Board gomg to study sess~on with some agreement • Agree on philosophy (as Boazd) • Connectivity is ma~or issue for Ed - look for compromises in order not to do a poor ~ob everywhere • Pazkmg - look at configuration and amount • Desire not to have fences azound all programmable space, allow other opportumties for wildhfe OP'fIONS A= Dave (not north side), Tom, Chazles; Susan B-1 = Gwen, Ed B-2 = Pam ~ • What can be done m wildlife enhanced azeas~ • Management prerogative - more passive use PRAB Retreat 5/5/Ol - Page 5 • B options impact mfrastructure of s~te ~ • Anythmg other than Option A requires public comment • What pazameters need to be m place before gomg back to pubhc IV. North Boulder Recreation Center/Iris Center • Opportumty to look at Ins Center as potenual future multi-use s~te • Pazks and Recreation Boazd posrtion on this • Long's Gazdens if ever avazlable • Ins Center is a Pazks and Recrearion site usmg its own property • Look at all crty -owned fac~lity for potential multi-use sites m future • Concern that parkmg needs at NBRC are nummum • Need to momtor ~mpacts off-site; modify TDM strategies if impacts aze great • Support Pazks and Recreahon Staff - worlang condihons need to be compazable to other city-owned facilities VI. Lottery • Informauon regazdmg how lottery funds have been spent over the years by Pazks and Recreation (Gwen) - what pro~ects, etc. MeeUng ad~ourned at 1.20 p.m. ~/ APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD: Gwen Dooley Boazd Chazr Attest: h VL Georgia cks Recordmg Secretary ~ PRAB Retreat 5/5/01- Page 6