Loading...
Approved Minutes - 3/20/2006City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board West Senior Center, 909 Arapahoe Monday, March 20, 2006 Meeting Minutes Staff present: Jan Geden, Jamie Sabbach, Jim Reasor, Sarah DeSouza, Alice Guthrie, Mary Austin Board present: Suzanne O'Neill, Ed von Bleichert, Stu Stuller, Tom Sanford NOTE: Due to equipment failure, there is not a cassette recording of this meeting. The followirtg information is derived from staff notes. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mark Bloomfield, 3333 O'Nea1 Pkwy, Boulder, 80301 spoke on behalf of the Grass Roots Ultimate Frisbee organiza[ion about the need for flat fields for play in Boulder. Frances Hartogh, 3186 Galena Way, Boulder, 80305, spoke about the high cost of user fees at the Recreation Center pools. Sazah Baldridge, 860 17`h St., Boulder, spoke in favor of keeping the pottery lab open. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR ACTION Public Heazine on Master Plan items Geden and Reasor presented the most recent Master Plan information, which included draft Park Service Area Guidelines, draft Prioritizing Pazk Development, draft Core Services Business Model, and draft Investment Priorities. The Public Hearing was opened. No one spoke. The Public Hearing was closed. The boazd discussed the additions to the Master Plan and offered the following suggestions and comments: • What makes it easier for other surrounding communities to allow lower field rental costs? Brand new facilities, more demand? Can staff reseazch further? • Practice and competition fields - not enough in Boulder. Could soccer clubs possibly poll other soccer clubs to get more information? • Fiscal impacts - sense of timing. Need to start tying them together, i.e. total costs of developing neighborhood and pocket pazks. • Neighborhood pazks aze smaller - what do we lose? Grassy azeas? Can we miugate elsewhere or replace? Look at criteria up front, can we address in concept now? • Do we need more pocket or smaller pazks in redevelopment azeas - tie to diversity. • Need comprehensive list of wildlife conflicts and how to relate to existing developed parks (i.e. Tom Watson)? • What are wildlife miUga[ion costs in regazds to a long-term soluUOn? • Can the number of undeveloped pazks in well-served azeas be quantified? • Where does the 2001/2003 needs assessment fit in with the Parks Development "Demonstrated Need" aspect? How can this information be balanced with current criteria (populu, partnership)? Relates back to Valmont City Pazk (VCP) - does building ball fields fulfill a basic need? • Are there components of Action/Vision for VCP that could come first? Provide encouragement for VCP; look at how issues can be resolved. • Use prioritization chart as a baseline and deternune what needs to be changed or is changing. The chart is not just a funding plan, but demonstrates what issues need to be addressed. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION A verbal update was given on the Pazks and Recreation departmenYs reorganization. A verbal update was given on the Budget 101's that were presented to City Council. A verbal update was given on the prairie dog issue at Tom Watson Park ball fields. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT A verbal update was given on the flower program. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. BY PARKS AND ~T ADVISOIdY BOARD: Chair Attest: Mary M. Austin Recording Secretary