Loading...
Signed Minutes - PRAB - Study Session on Valmont City Park - 07/23/2001. City of Boulder ``~' Parks and Recreation Advisory Board '"" Study Session on Valmont City Park Minutes July 23, 2001 City Council Chambers 1777 Broadway 6 p.m. The following are the mtnutes of the July 23, 2001 C:ty of Boulder Parks and Recreatton Advisory Board meeting. A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (ma:nta:ned for a period of 6 years) are retained m Central Records (telephone 441-3043) Board Present: Edwazd von Bleichert, Vice Chair; Dave Wining, Chazles Manlove, Thomas Sanford and Pazn Hoge Board Absent: Gwen Dooley, Chair; Susan Osborne Staff Present: Christine Andersen, Doug Hawthorne, Linda Kotowski, Georgia Jackson, Sazah DeSouza, Kate Bernhardt, Ann Wichmann ,~ „~„ Items from the DeQartment Andersen provided the PRAB with an update on the seazch for a new Director and asked Boazd members to check their schedules for availability to meet with the candidates. She would like to schedule lunch meetings in late July or eazly August where Boazd members could meet with the candidates. von Ble:chert was the only Board member available the week of July 30 through August 3 Andersen asked wtuch Board members would like to be the haison to the Greenways Advisory Boazd. von Bleichert, Hoge and Wuung expressed mterest and it was decided that von Bleichert would be the liaison. Andersen informed the Boazd that the Paddle Tennis application was reviewed by the Planmng Boazd and the site at NBRC was rejected on a vote of 4 to 2. There is a 30 day ca11 up period for City Council and the meeting on August 7 would be the date for the call up Manlove was at the Planning Boazd meeting and gave a brief report on the discussion and decision by the Planning Board. On a motion by Manlove, seconded by Wining, the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd voted (3 to 2 with Hoge and von Bleichert opposing) that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Boazd formally request that City Council call up the Planning Boazd decision of July 19, 2001 denymg ,.»~ the Pazks and Recreation Department application WR2001-00039 to relocate Platform Tennis r~ courts at the North Boulder Recreation Center, as part of the expansion and redevelopment of the ~~ center. Andersen handed out mformation about the NRPA Conference that will be in Denver in October. She invited Boazd members to look over the materials and if interested to contact the department prior to the early registration deadline of August 27. Andersen asked Board members theu availabihty for the next three meetings: August 27, September 24 and October 22. Wining - will attend August but not the September meeting Manlove - will attend August and September meetings Hoge - will attend August and September meetings, probably not October Sanford - will attend August, September and October meetings von Bleichert - will attend August, September and October meetings Valmont City Park Presentarion on Partnershins and their relationshin to Valmont Citv Pazk Develonment Teresa Grills, Valmont City Park Management and Planning Assistance Team (M-PAT), introduced John Barnholt from Metro State who has been workuig on his fmal project as an ,„,„~ intern with Greenplay, LLC. .~ Barnholt presented the PRAB with mformation about partnerships in Parks and Recreation across the United States. Andersen asked the PRAB for feedback and any concerns they might have about the philosophy of partnerships. Boazd auestions and comments: • Hoge said it is important to her to maintain a city identity She would like to see control over fees so that they aze not priced too high for the general public. Hoge expressed concem over due diljgence and would like to lmow what recourse the City would have for different scenarios. She also expressed concem about first come, first served, without a comprehensive view of the whole pazk. • Manlove expressed support for the partnership philosophy and suggested the process could be used to update the golf course facility He believes control over the quality of facilities and programming is most cntical for contmued success. Manlove said he doesn't see funding options other than the process of slow development through the use of department funds, as he dcesn't believe a bond issue would pass at this time. • Sanford feels the Ciry should have control over fees and programming quality standards and that there should be oversight to ensure the operat~on is at the standard that the citizens of Boulder expect. He beheves there should be a sohd maintenance plan as that helps keep the level of quality up He also said ~ PRAB Study Sess~on 7/23/Ol - Page 2 , w contractual agreements and exit strategies aze important. • Wining said it is important to fmd partners that not only fulfill community needs ~ but also maintain the facilities. He agreed with Sanford that there needs to be good exit strategies. In addition, Wining said he would like for partners to have a sense of stability despite an ever-changing Board and Council. • von Bleichert said the philosophy is fine, rather it is how the process works that could have a negative impact on either the partners or the depaztment. He feels that a needs assessment is most important and given the limited space on the site, von Bleichert feels there ought to be a needs assessment done by the department beforehand. He envisioned the department actively pursuing partners to fiilfill those needs. von Bleichert expressed concerns for the possibility of one use precludmg another and not knowing how the pazk will be fully developed. • Manlove and Sanford said they aze comfortable with not knowing how the pazk will look at complete buildout. • Hoge said she would like to see a more comprehensive view and overall feel of the pazk. She would hke to know how the pazk will look and what the tr~c flow will be like and suggested having someone like Tun Duffy [landscape azchitect] review the plans. Hoge expressed concern that opportunities could be missed because some people may be reluctant to come forwazd with proposals which lack funding. Overview of Current Status and Process ~ Gnlls provided the Boazd with an explanation of the Flow Chart of Approval Process Andersen said the period of time after Step 2 and before Step 3 when a letter of mterest is sent out, is a critical azea where PRAB members haue expressed concern. Boazd members would hke to have the opportunity to review proposals prior to sending the letter of interest so as not to become "spoilers" at a late date. Andersen suggested the Boazd review proposals prior to formal PRAB meetings, perhaps the hour before PRAB meetings. During that time the Boazd could gain a clear understanding of the proposal without taking any formal action. However, if the Boazd had a problem with the proposal, it could take the proposal into formal Boazd process. Boazd comments and questions: • Sanford said he would like PRAB involvement prior to the letter of mterest going out. He suggested mformation be given to the Boazd informally to allow time for the Boazd to raise objections. • Hoge said she is uncomfortable with only two boazd hazsons attending Technical Team meetings to learn about proposals. • Wining expressed support for hearing about the proposals prior to the letter of interest going out. Andersen said another check point for the PRAB could be between Steps 4 and 5 PRAB Study Sess~on 7/23/Ol - Page 3 von Bleichert said proposals should come before the entire Boazd for informal review at ^ this point in the process. He said he likes the idea of getting the information and having ~ the opportunity to call it up. von Bleichert also feels it is important that the PRAB be notified when proposals would go before other boazds. von Bleichert asked PRAB members to look at Attachments B and C and encouraged them to provide feedback. • Sanford said that on Attachment B he would like to see criteria that asks how the partner proposes to manage the facihty and who will manage it. He also would like to know the partner's planning, design and construction schedule. • Manlove said he would like to know about staffmg - who will manage daily operations? Will there be a full hme paid staff and if so, how will the staff be funded? • Hoge wanted to know if partners aze awaze of the potentiality that environmental building standards could become part of the building code. Smith responded that parmers were recently tnformed of that possibrlity • Boazd members expressed concern for partners who move outside the pazameters of the proposal process. Andersen said there could be a process to re:nforce `playmg by the rules" to ensure the process is fatr for everyone. A graduated penalty was suggested for those who move outside the process or a"three strikes, you're ouY' penalty. • Hoge suggested using termmology other than "Letter of InteresY' as partners could ~ take that to mean the proposal is approved. Gr:lls responded that the "Letter" "'" cont:nues to evolve and changing the name might be poss:ble Approximate Infrastruchue Costs for Valmont Citv Pazk Development Grills gave an overview of the estimated infrastructure costs and possible types of funding sources. (Andersen thanked Kotowski for her yeazs of service in the Department and explained that it was Kotowsla's last PRAB meetuig. Boazd members also expressed their appreciation after which Kotowski left the meeting ) Board Comments and Ouestions. • Manlove said it can be a twenty year project and that all money is not needed at this tune. • Wining said a lazger portion of funding is needed eazly on for roads, sewer and electric but he would not like to see a bond for infrastructure cost • von Bleichert sazd there aze two azeas needing funding: facilities and infrastructure costs He agreed with Wining that the bulk of infrastructuce costs will be required eazly on and then will taper off. • von Bleichert asked how the infrastructure will be funded. Gr:lls responded that :ntegration fees wtll pay part of the cost and that sponsorships, grants and donor ,•~-- PRAB SNdy Sessron 7/23/Ol - Page 4 programs can also be used to fund infrastructure. `"~' • Manlove stated that phased mfrastructure is done frequendy and might be possible ~ for Valmont. • Andersen said that for it to be financially viable for partners, they may need to come together in a time frame where they aze able to marshal resources in order for in&astructure investment to make sense. The "go slow" approach makes that more difficult. • Manlove expressed approval for the selection of possible funding sources. • Manlove said he is comfortable with the approach for facilities but was skeptical that it will work for infrastructure. Wildlife Enhancement Projects and Lottery Funding - 2001-2003 Bemhazdt gave an overview of possible projects at the Valmont City Pazk Site for 2001 and the next two years. Boazd Comments and Questions: • Wining expressed disappointment that the Boazd was told at recent PRAB meetings that there was no funding for overruns for the NBRC renovation and as a result, money was taken from other pazk projects and the golf course. Andersen replied that lottery funds have not previously been used to fill gaps :n other areas • Andersen said that the availability of funds is the result of the joint meeting with Open Space when the decision on lottery funds was made. She added that it is not ,,,, "found money", it is the alloca6on that came out of the agreement Win:ng asked u~,,, :f there were other pockets of money that were not prevtously allocated for 2001 and 2002 Andersen replied that she was not awaze of any. • Wining asked if there were any projects at Foottulls Commumty Pazk and the golf course that lottery funds could be used for. Andersen replied that tt is certamly the Board's prerogat:ve • Wining said he thought lottery funds could be used legrtimately for projects at Foothills Community Park as well as the NBRC renova6on. He expressed frustration that staff had not come up with creative ways to keep the fund at the golf course intact over the next couple yeazs, especially when there is money that is undesignated. • Sanford agreed with Wining that the golf course is the only money maker m town and said if rt conhnues to be shortchanged, the number of rounds of golf will drop accordingly He also spoke about all the new golf courses in the azea. Andersen replied that a Partnersh:p might be the way to :mprove the golf course Hawthorne added that:t u a workplan tssue to pursue alternattve fundingfor the golfcourse renovat:on • Hoge expressed support for the $25K for Valmont City Pazk. She also likes the idea of a Public Private Partnership for the golf course renovation. • Sanford said the list of ideas for Valmont is long and asked to have it in recommended priority order, along with associated costs. • Wining said the change to the concept plan to increase the percentage of land for ,.~° ~,,,,, PRAB Study Sess~on 7/23/Ol - Page 5 ~ the wildlife corridor had not been voted on nor gone through public process von Bleechert responded that a design coming back to the Board has yet to happen but that the Board dtd meet w:th Councrl and it was agreed that the Board could move forward with a plan that would not preclude tt. The idea be:ng that the Board is coming back with a design of a w:ldlife corridor to determine whether or not it impacts the site plan, and Council has given the go ahead to do that. • Manlove said there was a disconnect m that the Boazd was discussing implementation of something that was not yet approved. He shared Wining's concern that there has been a substantive change in the pazk's focus and that it was done without community input. • Grills read the criteria included in the memo sent as a WIP rtem to City Council on May 30, oud'uung the parameters from the May 8 Study Session. She said the PRAB received ttus information when it was included in the June 6 packet • Hoge and von Bleichert said they do not believe that what is being proposed changes the intent or focus of the park. • The Boazd expressed consensus for spendmg $25K in 2001 to begin the process of design and planning. Sta~e of Partners m Approval Process Smith gaue an overview of the stage of approval process for the partners that are involved Board Comments and Ouestions. ~r^ • Hoge said that she would hke a study session or at least part of a mee6ng devoted ~.- to looking at sponsorships. While there is support for the idea, she feels it would be helpful to know in more detail about the process Gr:lls satd :t m:ght be posstble to have that informat:on for the September meet:ng Cttills gave a recap of issues of consensus and included some ideas taken from comments that will be incorporated. • There was consensus on the plulosophy for going ahead with partnerships. • Changes to the Flow Chart for Approval: Add a session of informahon to the Boazd prior to issuing a letter of mterest, perhaps the hour pnor to regulaz Boazd meetings. Notification of any other Boazd involvement when it happens and this could come as an uiformahon item any time. • Next steps for M-PAT: Look at infrastructure costs and design. Put together a presentation on the Technical Team as it stands to date • Pazameters concenung the art programs and making sure they aze on the list for in&astructure items. • Not necessarily consensus on the wildlife comdors and may need to look at again • Will continue to notify status of partners as they move forward. Andersen encouraged Boazd members to come forwazd with any concerns or ideas they might ~ `... PRAB Study Sess~on 7/23/Ol - Page 6 ~ have in the eazly stages of the implementation of the process. Meeting adjourned at 10:37 p m. APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD: .~.~.~a~.. <.~.i.a Gwen Dooley Boazd Chair Attest: ~ ~ ~ 2.~ C~ Georgia Jaa sonr Recording Secre P'~' ~r.- ~ '~" PRAB Study Sessmn 7/23/01 - Page 7