Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4A - Public hearing on findings of Conservation Impacts Management Audit of Mountain Parks Division~ CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA TTEM MEETING DATE: Februarv 28. 2000 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: February 17, 2000) ~ ~.. ~ ~ AGIIVDA TITLE: Public Hearing Regarding Findings of Conservation Impact, Inc.'s Management Audit of Mountain Parks Division of the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Open Space/Reai Estate Department (The Management Audit can be located on the City of Boulder's Website and in the City's Public Library) REQUESTED BY: Ron, Secrist, City Manager Chris Dropinsid, Director of Parks and Recreation Ann Wichmann, Manager, Mountain Pazks Division, Department of Parks and Recreation FISCAL IMPACT: None from this Public Hearing PURPOSE: It is the Boazd's intent to hear from the public on tkris issue and to forwazd kiris informarion to the Ciry Manager for his review and consideration. AGENDA IT'EM 1/ Paee 1 grom; Dennis Berry <dennis berry@cusys.edu> ~„~.~., To: <DropinskiC@ci boulder.co us>, <SecristR@ci.boulde... ~ Date: 2/23/00 2:SOpm Subject: Comments for PRAB meeting on Monday (Please read into therecord) TO Ron Secrist, City Manager Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM Dennis Berry 3675 Catalpa Way Boulder, CO 80304-1515 SUBJECT. Management Audit of Mountain Parks and Open Space DATE February 23, 2000 As I will be out of town on Monday and not able to attend the public hearing on the Conservation Impact audit of Mountain Parks and Open Space, I wanted to provide my comments on the study for the record As you know, I have been involved in this issue, either integrally or from the fringes, for several years, and agreed with the Mountain Parks/Open Space Forum conclusions a couple of years ago to accept the status quo and table additional discussion for five years However, this is an issue that will not go away, and I believe that the audit is the most appropriate way to address it I thought that Conservation Impact did an excellent 7ob of getting to the heart of the matter, namely, the most efficient MANAGEMENT of the City's ~ natural lands. Whether it is possible to save $900,000, $500,000, or some ~, other number remains to be seen, although I do believe there are cost savings to be achieved But regardless of that, it HAS to be more effective to have a single direction for all staff involved in a given type of work (conservation, visitor management, education, volunteer activities, etc ) rather than having directions from two separate departments that may or may not be in synch The resulting effort will be more focused, providing better results in a shorter period of time. Moreover, there will be one department with which the public can deal if they have a problem or issue, rather than two. Conflicts will be reduced, and the City can be more responsive to its citizens. mhe audit recommends that the acquisitions function be separated from the Natural Lands department and placed under the City Manager I support that recommendation, primarily because the Real Estate Department serves the entire city, not just the Open Space Department There has been much discussion about how this separation will be detrimental to the Open Space program, but I fail to see the connection Real Estate has claimed for years that it serves all departmen[s equally well, even though it's attached to Open Space if that is true, it should be equally effective in serving the Open Space function from its place in the City Manager's Office Parcels for purchase are identified by the Open Space Department and OSBT anyway (by the Natural Lands department in the future), and Real Estate negotiates and carries out the transaction This should be possible regardless of where Real Estate exists organizationally There is concern that, in some undetermined way, the City Manager will rob Open Space funds for other uses if a new department is formed, and that ,~, charter protections for Open Space will go out the window I find NOTHING in the audit that suggests a change in charter protections is in order In ~.., fact, the audit points to Protection of the natural resource as the first ~ criteria for a new department To change these protections, a charter change would have to be approved by the electorate, and the citizens of Boulder would NEVER give up the preservation of our valuable Open Space and Mountain Parks lands They are a significant part of what makes Boulder the unique community it is And the Open Space funds have clear restrictions on how the money can be spent An administrative action like creating a new department will not change the restrictions on the funds Only a vote of the people would do that Finally, the audit recommends a change in the size of the board from five to seven members for the new Natural Lands function I agree that a seven-member board provides more viewpoints, and can be effective even when a member or two is absent However, Given the fears of many people regarding a charter change, I would recommend that some way be found to accomplish this combination of functions administratively withou[ a charter change, and live with a five-member board for now until people see that the new department can work effectively Thanks for the opportunity to provide my input. Please call me if I can be of any assistance CG <dennis g berry@prodigy net> f ~'~rr ,~.~-- r, - - _ ' '=-=---- " ~ `i ~~: ~ ~. U,. , '~ ~~'~ ~- ~,•. ~~ ~-4 ~ ~~,1 ~o~~ ~~al ~~-l~ February 10, 2000 Mr Ron Secrist Boulder City Manager 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 FyS - ~ ~~r-~ ~~.:l~- Dear Ron I would like to express my support for the recommendauons contamed m the recently released management audit of the Mountain Pazks and Open Space departments The study displays an unpressive understandmg of the tssues sunoundmg the long- standmg questions regazding the comburing of the Mountazn Puks and Open Space Departments Conservahon Impact LLC conducted a far rangmg study of the key aspects of these programs and performed a truly non-biased analys~s to arrive at their conclusions I have served a total of 11 yeazs on the Open Space Board of Trustees and feel r~ that I have a good understandui~ of the strengths and wealrnesses of our Open Space 'W.. program Over the past 10 years, the Open Space Program has had a continuing array of personnel problems, public unage problems, and has not kept abreast of the recreationat needs of the citizens of the Crty of Boulder In addmon to agreemg with the overall findings of the study, I specifically support their recommendation to place the new Department of Natural Lands under new leaderslup It is not surpnsing that ttus recommendation is being challenged by several special interest groups and mdividuals However, I hope that you can see through this and move forward m a"decisive, quick and strategic" manner, so that both programs can get back to the busmess of managing our valuable publ~c lands, rather than wazting for the other shoe to drop ~... Boulder, CO 80303