The URL can be used to link to this page

02.26.18 PRAB PacketPARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD City Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303 6:00 p.m., February 26, 2018 100 Years of Excellence Boulder Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Members 2018 Marty Gorce Tom Klenow Jennifer Kovarik Tyler Romero Raj Seymour Kelly Wyatt Valerie Yates Mission Statement BPRD will promote the health and well- being of the entire Boulder community by collaboratively providing high- quality parks, facilities and programs. Vision Statement We envision a community where every member’s health and well- being is founded on unparalleled parks, facilities and programs. Goals of the Master Plan 1. Community Health and Wellness 2. Taking Care of What We Have 3. Financial Sustainability 4. Building Community 5. Youth Engagement 6. Organizational Readiness For more information on BPRD Master Plan visit the City of Boulder web site at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/ parks-recreation-master-plan AGENDA All agenda times are approximate I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (6:00) II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (6:03) III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (6:05) This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or concerns to the Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled later in the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on the need for parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers are limited to 3 minutes. Depending on the nature of your matter, you may or may not receive a response from the Board after you deliver your comments. The Board is always listening to and appreciative of community feedback. IV. CONSENT AGENDA (6:10) A. Approval of minutes from January 22, 2018 B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update V. ITEMS FOR ACTION (6:15) A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve a License Agreement with Boulder County Farmers Market VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION (6:30) A. Boulder County Farmers Market (verbal update) B. A Discussion of the Need to Provide an Easement Through Part of Scott Carpenter Park to Facilitate the Relocation of the McCarty Ditch Due to Impacts Resulting from the Future Redevelopment of the Aquatics Facility at Scott Carpenter Park C. Updates to the Integrated Pest Management Policy and Related Programs D. 2017 Master Plan Progress Report/Overview of 2018 Priorities VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (7:50) A. None VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS (7:50) A. PRAB Community Engagement Updates (verbal update) IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: April 2, 2018 X. ADJOURN PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 100 Years of Excellence Future Board Items 2018 January 22 • Service Delivery Update (d/i) • Public Restrooms in Parks (d/i) • Boulder County Farmers Market (md) • PRAB Letter to Council Update (mb) • Board Recruitment (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) February 26 • Boulder County Farmers Market License (a) • Boulder County Farmers Market Update (d/i) • Scott Carpenter McCarty Ditch Easement (md) • Updates to the Integrated Pest Management Policy (md) • 2017 Master Plan Progress (md) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) April 2 • Boulder Reservoir Boat Rental Service Provider Contract Renewal (c) • Easement Through Scott Carpenter Park (a) • Agreement with BVSD Regarding Collaborative Efforts for Summer Learning and YSI (d/i) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (d/i) • New Member Orientation (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) April 23 • Board appointments (p) • Election of officers (p) • First meeting for new Board members (p) • Agreement with BVSD Regarding Collaborative Efforts for Summer Learning and YSI (a) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (a) • 2019-2024 CIP (1st touch) (md) • New Member Orientation (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) May 28 • 2019-24 CIP (2nd touch) (d/i) • Flatirons Golf Course Concessions Contract Renewal (d/i) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) June 25 • Creek Festival Update (c) • Civic Area Activation (c) • Access Update (c) • 2019-24 CIP (3rd touch) (a) • Operating Budget and Fees (d/i) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) July 23 • Commercial Use (c or d/i) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) August 27 • CIP 2019-2024 Update (c) • Recreation Activity Fund (RAF) Sustainability and Fees (d/i) • PRAB Retreat (mb) • PLAY Foundation Update (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) September 24 • PRAB Retreat Agenda Review (mb) • PRAB New Member Application Review (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 100 Years of Excellence LEGEND Procedural Item: (p): An item requiring procedural attention Consent Item (c): An item provided in written form for consent, not discussion by the Board; any consent item may be called up by any Board member for discussion during the matters from the department Action Item (a): A public hearing item to be voted on by the Board (public comment period provided) Disc/Info Item(d/i): An item likely to become a future action item (or council item) and/or that benefits from an in-depth presentation of background, financial/social/environmental impacts, public process, staff analysis and next steps (e.g., presentation of major project initiative) Matters from Dept (md): Items that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring the level of in-depth analysis of an action or discussion/information item Matters from the Bd (mb): Items initiated by the Board that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring the level of in-depth analysis of an action or discussion/information item October 22 • 2018 Operating Budget and Recreation Fee Update (md) • PRAB Retreat Follow Up (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) November 26 • Capital Project Update (md) • PRAB Retreat Follow Up (mb) • PRAB Goals for City Council Work Session (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) December 17 • Asset Management Plan (md) • Finalize 2019 PRAB Work Plan (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) Future Board Items 2018 - continued PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 100 Years of Excellence COMMUNITY TOUCHES - The City has recently been working on an update to the calendar of all city events for community use. Please view the calendar online for all of the latest updates for upcoming events. We are encouraging staff and the community to be aware of and use the new tool. https://bouldercolorado.gov/calendar The event list can be filtered to see only Parks and Recreation events by choosing ‘Recreation’ from the dropdown menu at the top of the page, and then clicking on the submit button. If you would like more information about any of the events, just use the link above and select the event you are interested in. Additional information will appear at the botton of the page with a link directly to the event web page. Below is a sample of what you will see, once filtered. For live links or the most up to date information, please use the link above. PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 100 Years of Excellence CITY OF BOULDER BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link: www.boulderparks-rec.org Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Date of Meeting: January 22, 2018 Contact Information Preparing Summary: Sarah DeSouza, 303-413-7223 Board Members Present: Tom Klenow, Kelly Wyatt, Jennifer Kovarik, Marty Gorce, Valerie Yates Board Members Absent: Raj Seymour Staff Present: Yvette Bowden, Ali Rhodes, Jeff Haley, Sarah DeSouza, Bryan Beary, Keith Williams, Stacey Cole, Dean Rummel, Brenda Richey, Maxen Jones, Courtney Cerny, Matt Kamhi Guests Present: None Type of Meeting: Advisory/Regular Agenda Item 1: Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Agenda Item 2: Future Board Items and Tours Bowden reviewed upcoming community touch opportunities. These events can be found at www.BoulderParks-Rec.org Agenda Item 3: Public Participation Jim Warner, Tim Conarro, Steve Filmer and Jill Isenhart, city residents representing the Platform Tennis Group, spoke to the Board about the group’s desire to partner with the department to improve and update lighting at the platform tennis courts. They also outlined other areas of the facility that will require renovation and/or refurbishment to address saftety and use concerns. Christina Jurgens, city resident representing Community Montesorri School, spoke to the Board about the school PTA’s desire to partner with the department to install a backstop on the school’s playing field. Agenda Item 4: Consent Agenda A.Approval of Minutes from November 27, 2017 Minutes from November 27, 2017 were approved as written. B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update PRAB members asked: •Question about the city’s lighting ordinance and time line for the implementation of lighting changes at the North Boulder Tennis Courts. Agenda Item 5: Action Item No Items This Month Agenda Item 6: Discussion/Information Item A.Boulder Parks and Recreation Service Delivery Update Jones, Kamhi, Cerny presented this item to the Board. PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item: •What does the department do with the master plan survey results that indicate a very small percentage of respondents who do not approve of the department’s programmatic efforts? •Who performs the scoring for each program? •What is done with the information after programs are scored and prioritized? Do the scoring decisions result in programs being eliminated or enhanced? •As programs start meeting all the requirements, there will be a need to update the scoring criteria to address next level steps (serving underserved). •Is there a perceived need or opportunity to change a program’s characteristics in order to receive more points and therefore more funding? •When all programs maximize their point totals across all categories, will there be a departmental effort to assess and elevate the criteria to continue to define programmatic benefits? •Impressed with the work the department is doing to provide excellent and equitable ervices to the public. •Nice to see that the Board and department has instituted a paradigm where the department continues to self improve and address master plan goals. B.Provision of Public Restrooms in City of Boulder Urban Parks PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item: •Really important to ensure that bathroom facilities are available to the community members as it as public good. •Excellent and valuable information that can be used to educate the public regarding resources required to maintain a public restroom to possibly promote future public/private partnerships for maintenance and upkeep of the city’s outdoor restroom facilities. •Benchmarking and cost analysis is very interesting and informative. •Document clearly outlined the omplexitiy of providing public restrooms in city parks. •Comprehensiive document that is very interactive. •Encourage addition of other useful information such as inclusive playground equipment and other features to this interactive format. •Question about restrooms at North Boulder Park and how are they portrayed on the map. •Sign at facility could be revised to indicate that when permanent restroom is closed for the season, a portable restroom is available at North Boulder Park. •Is the water supply to the Foothills restrooms separate from the water supply to the dog park and irrigation? •Is this type of document valued by the City Manager and City Council? •This type of document will prove to be useful in the future by helping to frame park design standards and how they are communicated to the public. •PRAB supports the next steps outlined in the memo. Agenda Item 7: Matters from the Department A.Boulder County Farmers Market Update PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item: •Is there any concern from the Farmers Market Board regarding providing information such as safety and waste plans to align with the city’s permitting process? •Does the Farmers Market provide its own security personnel? •This will be the first time that the Farmers Market Board is provided a codification of the city’s efforts to ensure the success of the Farmers Market. •Farmers Market has played a major role in activating the Civic Area over the last decade. Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Board Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Letter to Counci Update PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item: • Did Council comment on PRAB’s letter at the recent retreat? Boards and Commissions Recruitment PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item: • Board members have had conversations with interested community members regarding Board roles and responsibilities. PRAB Community Engagement Updates • Board members attended the following activities/meetings/tours: Switch on the Lights event, excellence in the work of the PLAY Foundation (Wyatt and Romero); Howard Heuston Park construction site; Council election work; Christianson Park; Library Master Plan process; met with members of the Rugby community, cleanliness of bathrooms at Foothills Community Park, Flatirons Golf Course, Open Studios. Next Board Meeting: February 26, 2018 Adjourn: There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Approved by: Attested: _________________________ ________________________ Tom Klenow Sarah DeSouza Board Chair Board Secretary Date _____________________ Date ____________________ 3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200 TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Ali Rhodes, Deputy Director Jeff Haley, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager SUBJECT: Consent Agenda DATE: February 26, 2018 A. Approval of Minutes from January 22, 2017 B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update The following information is intended to provide the PRAB with relevant updates on specific projects as they reach major milestones. This section is not all inclusive of all current projects and only illustrates major project updates. For a complete list of all current projects and details, please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org. Planning and Design The following projects are currently in the planning and design process that involves research, alternatives analysis, public involvement and development of planning documents and design plans to guide decision making and future capital improvements. • Asset Management Plan: Work is concluding on the first several chapters of the Asset Management Plan (AMP) with a focus on outlining policies and procedures for management of the department’s asset inventory. Work to date includes guidelines for development of an asset inventory, performing condition assessments and determining asset criticality, as well as development of asset cost structures. A high-level overview of work to date will be presented to the PRAB in May 2018. • Boulder Reservoir South Shore Site Management Plan: After a brief pause in fall 2018, staff will continue work in first quarter 2018 with Farnsworth Group to develop the South Shore Site Management Plan. The team will hold a series of open houses in early summer to solicit feedback on concept plan options, will seek additional public input in late summer regarding a preferred plan option and will complete the plan in late summer/early fall 2018. Staff will seek PRAB input at several upcoming project milestones. 3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200 • Engagement Coordination Committee: The city has signed a contract for a digital engagement platform with Bang the Table. Staff began training sessions in February and anticipates launching five pilot projects by March. For a sneak peek at how the platform will function, please visit the Resilient Together site (also using Bang the Table). • Urban Forest Strategic Plan: A second public open house is scheduled for March 10 at Upslope Brewing – Flatirons. The open house will highlight the draft plan goals developed with the community and subject experts throughout the process. PLAY Boulder Foundation will co-host the open house as an invested partner that is willing to support the ongoing efforts needed to achieve the plan goals. • Planning Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved: o Beehive Asset Management Software Implementation; o Boulder Junction Park; o Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center; o Carter Lake Pipeline; o Parks Planning, Construction, Operations and Maintenance Manual; and o Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool Redevelopment (see items for discussion/information). Construction The following projects are scheduled for construction, under construction or have been recently completed. For additional details please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org. • Construction Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved: o 2017 Neighborhood Park Renovations (Arapahoe Ridge ‘Rock’ Park, Howard Heuston Park, and Tantra Park); o Civic Area Park Development; o Elks Park Arbor; o Foothills Community Park (OSMP led project); and o Lighting Ordinance Compliance. Natural Lands The following projects, focused on habitat and wildlife management in an urban environment, are currently being managed by the Urban Resources staff: • Prairie Dogs: Staff continues to participate on the city-wide Prairie Dog Working Group (PDWG). The Phase 1 Final Report and a Phase 2 update were finalized and presented in an Information Packet to City Council on February (https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/prairie-dog-working-group). 3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200 The following hotline information was sent to City Council on February 12: In 2017, 260 prairie dogs were relocated to City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) property. The majority of the prairie dogs (218) came from three private property sites with pending development plans, with some (42) coming from city owned property in the area of Foothills Community Park where the colony had been previously relocated in 2013 & 2014. The relocation season ended in November, and in two of the four sites where prairie dogs were being removed, not all of the prairie dogs could be captured. These “untrappable” prairie dogs are lethally controlled in the ground with Carbon Monoxide (CO) in the form of exhaust, because it is the most effective and humane method of lethal control. In November, there were an estimated three prairie dogs fumigated with CO on private property, and the city is expecting to use CO fumigation for one remaining prairie dog in the area west of Foothills Park in late February. The city uses many measures to avoid lethal control when possible. A prairie dog relocation in the City of Boulder requires an effort to capture the remaining animals for five days beyond when the last prairie dog was successfully trapped. On some properties, such as Foothills Park, the five days of unsuccessful trapping was followed by additional days of attempting to flush the prairie dogs out of the ground using water. This effort was not successful in capturing the last prairie dog. For a relocation to be successful, the entire colony must be removed. Therefore, at the end of these extensive efforts to capture prairie dogs, lethal means will be used for the one remaining prairie dog to prevent re-colonization of the prairie dog removal area. The pending lethal control for the one remaining prairie dog at the Foothills Park Area has been scheduled for the last week of February. • Birds of Special Concern – The marshes and grasslands surrounding Boulder Reservoir support more nests of Boulder County birds of special concern than any other comparably sized area in the county (Hallock and Jones 2010). During 2017, 33 volunteers devoted 562 hours to this monitoring effort. Between March and August, a total of 91 bird species were observed within the study area, including 71 potential breeding species. This represents a considerable increase in potential nesting species over what volunteers have observed during the previous two years. This increase is likely due to increased training of volunteers in ways to determine potential nesting along with an increased volunteer effort. Nesting was confirmed for thirteen species however, birds observed during 2017 included only ten, instead of last year’s thirteen Boulder County or Colorado Natural Heritage Program listed species (Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2016, Hallock and Jones 2010). The full report includes known disturbances or closure violations (such as this captured by a wildlife camera) and detailed recommendations for management actions, including limiting human use, in each closure area. The annual Boulder Reservoir Birds of Special Concern Monitoring Summary is as follows: 3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200  Northern Harrier – Boulder County Rare & Declining • Another failed nesting attempt at Dry Creek (model airport area); • Successful fledging of three young at Little Dry Creek (once again the only known successful Northern Harrier nest in Boulder County this year). • Based on recent observations, Northern Harrier appears to be among the most endangered nesting bird species in Boulder County (see Hallock and Jones 2010). Staff will continue to protect and expand potential nesting areas.  American Bittern – Boulder County Isolated and Restricted • During 2017 American Bitterns were seen or heard at eight locations around the Reservoir. Confirming nests or fledged young is difficult for these elusive birds however, it is believed that at least some were successful this year. • In Boulder County the species is still limited to only about a dozen documented nesting sites, and eight of these are in wetlands adjacent to Boulder Reservoir, privately-owned Six-Mile Reservoir and Coot Lake. • Given their vulnerability to urban-adapted predators and proximity to recreation, strategies that increase the size of marshes and protect them from disturbance by humans and pets should benefit nesting bitterns.  Osprey – Boulder County Isolated and Restricted • Little Dry Creek failed for the first time and Dry Creek area nest failed again for unknown causes.  Burrowing Owl – Boulder County Isolated and Restricted • Burrowing Owls had not been documented nesting successfully within the study area since 2004 nor even observed since 2011. This year two out of four young successfully fledged from the Dry Creek area. • According to Jones, 2017 appears to have been the most productive year for nesting Burrowing Owls in Boulder County during this century. Protection and conservation of prairie dog colonies around the Reservoir may contribute to future burrowing owl nesting success, especially if prairie dog colonies are relatively large and buffered from disturbance. • Regulations and Seasonal Wildlife Closures Closures to protect these sensitive nesting species will go back into effect March 15th for the western side of Boulder Reservoir and for Coot Lake Wetland. 3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200 In addition to these species of concern, there was the rare occurrence of a migrating Snowy Owl at the Reservoir last month. The owl was perched on a boat being stored on the south shore. Reservoir staff started tracking people coming through the gate to see the owl and counted over 400 people during business hours that week. Natural Lands staff was not aware of the large number of people viewing the owl until after the bird left thereby missing an opportunity to recruit volunteers and educate the community (especially about the effects of such a large presence of people observing the bird). Staff has reached out to other land managers asking about their protocols for crowd control for these types of wildlife viewing events. A recent Denver Post article provides interesting information regarding the presence of owls in Colorado this season and associated viewing responsibly. • Natural Lands Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved: • Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Restoration (see Matters from the Department); and • Natural Lands Volunteer Recruitment and Training. Operations Update Volunteer Program Update • The community continues to show its support for the Parks and Recreation department through its ongoing investment in volunteerism. In 2017, staff worked with over 2,445 individuals for a total of over 30,550 hours collectively. A full review of the volunteer impacts can be found in the 2017 Volunteer Impact Report. This year, the Volunteer Service team will continue to serve as a leading member of the City of Boulder’s Volunteer Cooperative. This initiative is comprised of volunteer coordinators and staff from all city departments who work with community volunteers. Together we work to enhance community engagement, increase collaboration and ensure the highest quality volunteer experience possible. Staff is planning for the upcoming milestones and events: • Service Enterprise Certification – A national change management program, led by Points of Light, that helps organizations better meet their missions through the power of volunteers. City of Boulder will be second government in the country to complete certification. • Volunteer Appreciation Week – April 16-20 • Prep the Rez Annual Volunteer Day – April 21 • Community Cleanup Day – May 19 For full list of volunteer events and activities, visit BPRVolunteer.org. 3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200 Sweetheart Dance • On the evening of Saturday, February 10th, the North Boulder Recreation Center hosted the 12th annual Sweetheart Dance on the evening of Saturday, February 10th. Children under 10 years of age joined a special adult in their life for a fun-filled night of dancing, face painting, snacks, and professional portrait photographs to commemorate the event. Despite a snowy evening, 144 ‘couples’ participated in this community building event where volunteers staffed through BPR Volunteer Services supported activities and painted over 100 faces throughout the evening. Previously held as a Father-Daughter Dance, the event was rebranded as a Sweetheart Dance in 2015 to be more inclusive and align with the department’s desire to serve the entire community. AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_____PAGE___1____ C I T Y O F B O U L D E R PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 26, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve a License Agreement with Boulder County Farmers Market PRESENTERS: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director, Parks & Recreation Margo Josephs, Manager of Community Outreach and Partnerships Justin Greenstein, Events Manager, Parks and Recreation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This item seeks the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board’s (PRAB’s) review and considered approval of a multi-year License Agreement with Boulder County Farmers Market (BCFM) from April 1, 2018 through November 21, 2021 facilitating continued offering of farmers market programming in the community. The term of this License, if approved, would be cover 34 Saturdays and 23 Wednesday each year taking place at that portion of the public right-of-way along 13th Street between Canyon and Arapahoe, north side of the Atrium parking lot,and the Civic Plaza. This agreement: • Highlights and reinforces the city’s significant contribution to the Market’s success and promotes BCFM’s continued interests as the Civic Area continues to evolve through community planning processes; • Extends the term from one year to four years; • Transfers responsibility for restroom provision to the City; and • Clarifies the required permits and approvals necessary for BCFM programs. BACKGROUND: Established in 1987, the mission of the BCFM is to support, promote and expand local agriculture, making fresh products accessible to our community and strengthen relationships between local food producers and food consumers. For close to thirty years, BCFM has produced a local farmers market on City of Boulder property, significantly contributing to Boulder’s local foods and agriculture industries AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_____PAGE___2____ and to community health and vibrancy. To date, the city’s facilitation of this programming has been documented through annual license agreements as managed by the city’s Community Vitality Department. The city’s evolving special events processes and Civic Area-related initiatives call for greater focus on this important relationship and, preferably, greater stability and role clarity benefiting BCFM and the city. To that end, it was determined that management responsibility for the contract be transferred from Community Vitality to Parks and Recreation as operator and permit coordinator for many of the events occurring on or nearby facilities utilized during BCFM programming. The parties began negotiations in November 2017 which have concluded in the presentation of the attached License Agreement (Attachment A). COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS Environmental: Under the proposed Agreement, BCFM programming would align with the city’s Zero Waste and alt-transportation promotion as required for other programs in public spaces under the city’s Special Events procedures and policies. OTHER IMPACTS: Fiscal: The agreement proposes annual payments made by BCFM for use of the permitted space which, though substantially discounted, increases by a rate of 2.7% per annum each year during the four year-term. The proposed agreement also calls for the city (through the department) to manage provision of public restrooms on the Civic Area East Bookend site, an expense BCFM formerly absorbed. In anticipation of this shift, BCFM would make a flat annual payment to the city to offset some of the city’s expenses associated with restroom provision and servicing. Staff time: Existing staff will manage all aspects of this License Agreement’s city responsibilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Suggested Motion Language: Staff requests PRAB’s consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to approve the Agreement between the City of Boulder’s Parks and Recreation and Boulder County Farmers Market and authorize the City Manager to make minor amendments prior to or during the term of this agreement in order to ensure that the market is managed in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws and the policies and regulations of the City of Boulder. NEXT STEPS: Staff will consider the PRAB and public’s feedback and make any necessary revisions to the proposed agreement. If approved, staff will present BCFM with a final version of the Service Agreement the agreement. That agreement, based on the proposed length of term AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_____PAGE___3____ would then be presented on consent for City Council’s approval in anticipation of an anticipated April 1, 2018 start date for 2018 market programming. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Licensing Agreement with Boulder County Farmers Market and the City of Boulder AGENDA ITEM VI-C_ PAGE 1__ C I T Y O F B O U L D E R PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 26, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: A discussion of the need to provide an easement through part of Scott Carpenter Park to facilitate the relocation of a portion of the McCarty Ditch due to impacts resulting from the future redevelopment of the aquatics facility at Scott Carpenter Park. PRESENTERS: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director Doug Godfrey, Parks Planner, Parks and Recreation Department Joanna Bloom, Source Water Project Manager, Public Works EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide the background information and analysis concerning the disposal of parkland, as a permanent easement, in order to relocate a buried portion of the combined Smith & Goss and McCarty Ditch (“Ditch”) that runs through Scott Carpenter Park (SCP). The realignment of the ditch is required to facilitate future improvements associated with the upcoming Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool Redevelopment project. The realignment will require vacating the existing easement and providing an easement in the new location. An easement is required to meet maintenance and operation needs of the Smith and Goss Ditch Company and McCarty Ditch water users (collectively “Ditch Water Users”). The outdoor pool redevelopment project includes the expansion of the current 6-lane pool to a 10-lane pool, new leisure pool elements, and the renovation of and expansion of the existing bathhouse. The Ditch in its current location will be impacted by this project. The concept plan for the redevelopment project was approved by the PRAB in January of 2017. The conveyance of an easement is considered a disposal. Per City Charter Sec. 162, disposal of Parks property requires review and approval from PRAB, a non-binding recommendation from Planning Board and, per Section 2-2-8 of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C. 1981), “Conveyance of City Real Property Interests”, City Council approval is required for conveyance of any interest in any city real property. Section 162 states that park lands may be disposed of by the City Council, but only with the affirmative vote of at least four members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB). AGENDA ITEM VI-C_ PAGE 2__ While the city does not need to secure an easement on Parks property to complete the project, an easement will ultimately need to be conveyed to finalize the agreement between the city and the Ditch Water Users. Having an agreement in place prior to bidding the Scott Carpenter Pool Redevelopment project is preferred. The proposed easement within SCP is approximately 20 feet wide and is approximately 630’ long. An affirmative vote by at least four members of this Board is required for this disposal. An advisory recommendation, not binding on the City Council, must also be obtained from the Planning Board. BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS: The PRAB approved the concept plan for the redevelopment of Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool (Attachment A) in January of 2017. In November of 2017, the Boulder community passed an extension of the Community, Culture, and Safety (CCS) tax that provided additional funds – above the approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – for the redevelopment project. The project includes renovations to the existing bathhouse to meet current building codes and standards for accessibility. An addition to the existing bathhouse to accommodate additional area for locker rooms, family changing rooms, exterior bathrooms, and a dual-facing concession space is also proposed. The existing 50m lap pool will be enlarged from six lanes to 10 lanes to accommodate 75ft x 50m swimming. Leisure elements including slides, a diving board, a lazy river and a splash pad will accommodate a wide range of age groups and interests. Completion of the project requires the relocation of approximately 530 linear feet of existing piped ditch to avoid conflicts with proposed aquatic improvements and minimize impacts to a site that has many constraints. Attachment B illustrates that the existing ditch runs from the western SCP property line south of Marine St., then runs east and south through the park site and eventually flows back to Boulder Creek. The relocated ditch line shown in Attachment B will install approximately 630 linear feet of pipe. The relocated ditch will begin at the west property line and run east through the southern portion of the existing ball field and then reconnect into the existing ditch line in the 30th St. parking lot, just east of the bathhouse. A 20-foot easement for operation and maintenance purposes will be associated with the relocated portion of the ditch and its infrastructure (i.e. pipe, manholes, etc.). The relocated portion of the ditch and the prescriptive easement will be abandoned, and the existing portion of the ditch will be removed or filled in as part of the pool redevelopment project. Disturbance to the ball field will be addressed and brought back up to conditions prior to any construction. The city will assume routine and capital maintenance responsibility for the 630 feet of relocated ditch. The Parks and Recreation and the Utilities Maintenance Departments will coordinate on maintenance duties. Attachment C shows a draft plan of the engineered alignment and easement, as well as, installation details. Attachment D is a DRAFT of the proposed agreement between the city and Ditch Water Users regarding the easement. AGENDA ITEM VI-C_ PAGE 3__ NEXT STEPS: •February – March 2018: Review of draft agreement by Ditch Water Users •March 2018: Final draft agreement completed •March 2018: Completion of ditch alignment and easement survey to be included with final agreement •March 2018: PRAB Public Hearing / Action Item on the disposal of property as a permanent easement •April 2018: Planning Board Public Hearing on a recommendation for the disposal of property as a permanent easement •May 2018: City Council consent item on the disposal of property as a permanent easement ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: January 2017 Approved Concept Plan for Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool Attachment B: ‘Exhibit A’ Illustrative Plan of Existing and Proposed Ditch Alignment and Easement Attachment C: Draft Engineering Ditch Alignment Plan and Installation Details Attachment D: Draft Grant of Easement Between City and Ditch Water Users OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN * Plans and drawings are conceptual only and represents general sizes and amenity options for prioritization. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” LEGEND POOL DECK POOLS GRASS AREA ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATION SKETCH SCALE: NTS Amenity A - Building B - Lap Pool C - Family Elements D - Site Elements A B C D D D C EXISTING TREE NEW TREE PROJECT GOALS MET Balance Lap Swimming Needs with Open Swim Availability - 10 lane 50m converts to 21 lane, 25yd lap swim with bulk head allowing for flexible use Provide Multi-Generational Amenities that are Multi-Use - Deep water exercise areas - Tower slide, climbing walls, log rolls - Lap swimming and open swimming alternatives Upgrade Existing Facilities - Renovations and additions to the existing bathhouse to accommodate locker rooms, pool equipment, and administrative functions Illustrate Partnership Opportunities - Possible addition of 2 diving boards - Possible addition of retractable roof Incorporate Sustainable and Environmentally Friendly Design - Plan allows for inclusion of a variety of sustainable and environmental design opportunities 50 METER LAP POOL WITH BULK HEAD LAZY RIVER WITH NATURAL ROCK FEATURES SLIDE FROM BUILDING OPEN BREEZEWAY SHADE STRUCTURE PHASED ENLARGED CONCEPT PLAN * Plans and drawings are conceptual only and represents general sizes and amenity options for prioritization. SCALE: 1” = 30’-0” ENLARGED SITE PLAN LEGEND POOL DECK POOLS BATH HOUSE EXISTING TREE NEW TREE GRASS AREA FUTURE PHASES PROPOSED FEATURES Amenity Description of Initial Phase Elements Description of Future Phase Elements A - Building  6,000 SF Remodel of existing bathhouse and  1,500 SF Addition building addition  New ADA locker rooms/changing areas  Dual facing concession (open to paying customers and general park users)  pool and administration spaces  21,000 SF Retractable Roof B - Lap Pool  10 lane, 75ft x 50m lap swim (East-West Orientation)  21 lane, 25yd lap swim (North-South Orientation)  6ft to 7ft water depth  Diving boards in main pool (main pool depth increase to 12’) C - Leisure Elements  Deep water area for exercising, diving boards, climbing wall, log rolls  1 large tower slide  Multi-generational lazy river  Shallow water, zero-depth with play structures  Splash pad with interactive water jets  Second tower slide D - Site Elements  Improvements to existing park  Shade structures  Fencing and landscape  Renovations to existing parking lot  Updates to existing playground structures (rocket ship to remain) and safety surfacing  Additional shade structures VISIONING ZERO DEPTH ENTRY INTERACTIVE FEATURES DIVING EDUCATIONAL GROUND FEATURE SPACE SHIP CLIMBING WALL WATER FEATURE BUILT INTO NATURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS 50 METER LAP POOL WITH BULK HEAD LAZY RIVER WITH NATURAL ROCK FEATURES LOG ROLL RETRACTABLE ROOF FOR FULL YEAR OPERATIONS WOOD WALL WITH METAL AND GREEN DETAILS GREEN SPACES SOFT EDGES WITH USABLE GREEN SPACE SHADE STRUCTURE CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING MASSAGE FOUNTAIN & FOCAL POINT SHADE STRUCTURE COVERED BIKE PARKING FAMILY BIKE PARKING SLIDE FROM BUILDING EXISTING PLAY GROUND AQUATICS INSPIRATIONAL IMAGES SCREENING AND SHADE STRUCTURES OPEN BREEZEWAY FOCAL POINT ENTRY ELEMENT MASSAGE FOUNTAIN & FOCAL POINT ROCKET WILL REMAIN SITE AND BUILDING INSPIRATIONAL IMAGES NATURAL DAYLIGHTING IN BLOCK WALL PATTERNED DAYLIGHTING NATURAL MATERIALS WITH TEXTURE WOOD AND CONCRETE 1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BOULDER AND MCCARTY DITCH WATER USERS AND SMITH AND GOSS WATER USERS (Scott Carpenter Park Reconstruction Project) 1. PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement are the following former shareholders of the Smith and Goss Ditch Company and the only active current users of the Smith and Goss Ditch: The University of Colorado and Miles S. King; the following former shareholders of the McCarty Ditch Company and the only active current users of the McCarty Ditch: [McCarty Ditch water users] (collectively “Ditch Water Users”); and the City of Boulder, a Colorado municipal corporation (“City”). Unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention, the use of the term “Ditch Water Users” in this Agreement will extend to and include each Ditch Water User individually. 2. RECITALS. The Ditch Water Users jointly own and operate certain portions of two irrigation ditches which begin their points of diversion on the north bank of Boulder Creek near the Broadway Street bridge in the City of Boulder, Colorado. The two ditches combine into one channel approximately 260 feet east of the intersection of Arapahoe and 21st Streets (“Ditch)” and a portion of the Ditch runs through Scott Carpenter Park in the City of Boulder, Colorado. The Ditch Water Users have an interest in the prescriptive easement through which the Ditch is located (“Easement”). The City desires to obtain permission of the Ditch Water Users to relocate a segment of the Ditch as part of the City's Scott Carpenter Park Reconstruction Project ("Project"). The Project will realign approximately 530 linear feet of the Ditch to the north of its current location, as generally depicted on the attached Exhibit A. The Project components related to the Ditch include the following: • The Ditch will be relocated approximately 70 feet north of the current Easement alignment. • Approximately 630 feet of new 18-inch pipe will be installed. • Access manholes to the Ditch will be located every 300-400 feet and located near roads/parking lots for easy maintenance access. • The Ditch will be designed to pass 5 cubic feet per second at slopes meeting or exceeding industry standards for the size/type of pipe, and also to meet the minimum flow velocities of the City standard of two feet per second. • The Ditch will maintain historical stormwater inputs from parking lots and developed areas. Together these components are the “Ditch Relocation.” The Ditch Relocation will be in the NW 1/4 of S32 T1N R70W, just west of 30th Street and south of Arapahoe, as generally depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Ditch Water Users agree to the terms, conditions, covenants and agreements as set forth in this Agreement. 3. GRANT OF RELOCATION RIGHT AND RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT DITCH RELOCATION. For consideration and subject to title covenant conditions and limitations of this 2 Agreement, the Ditch Water Users grant to the City the right to relocate the Ditch and to construct the Ditch Relocation as part of the Project situated in the City of Boulder, County of Boulder, State of Colorado. The details of this construction are described in the Project plans incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B, as the same may be modified by the material submittal and the shop drawings subject to 4.a. herein. 4. CONSTRUCTION. The Ditch Relocation on the above lands under the terms of this Agreement will be constructed, installed, maintained, repaired, rebuilt and replaced in accordance with the designs, specifications, provisions and requirements approved by the Ditch Water Users as set forth in Exhibit B, and the following: a. The Ditch Relocation will be constructed at no cost to the Ditch Water Users and in accordance with Exhibit B. The City agrees to provide the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s with copies of design plans, specifications, materials submittals, and shop drawings associated with the planning, fabrication and installation of the Ditch Relocation. Such Representative/s will further be afforded the opportunity to review and approve the as-built drawings following construction of the Ditch Relocation, as agreed to by the Representative/s and the City. By entering into this Agreement, the Ditch Water Users hereby authorize their Representative/s to approve the design of the Ditch Relocation set forth in Exhibit B. The Ditch Water Users or their Representative/s will not be liable or responsible in any manner for the structural design or details of construction of the Ditch Relocation. b. The City agrees to reimburse the Ditch Water Users, or pay directly, for reasonable legal and engineering costs incurred by the Ditch Water Users in reviewing and approving the plans for the Ditch Relocation, in an amount not to exceed $4,500 for all Ditch Water Users combined. Payment will be made as set forth in paragraph number 4.d of this Agreement. c. The City will notify the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s at least five days preceding the date of commencing work involved in the construction, or replacement of construction, permitted by this Agreement. Upon completion of the Project, the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s will inspect the Project and verify substantial compliance with Exhibit B. The City agrees to reimburse the Ditch Water Users for all reasonable administrative and inspection costs incurred by engineer(s) and other personnel for the Ditch Water Users, in an amount not to exceed $2,500 for all Ditch Water Users combined. Payment will be made as set forth in paragraph number 4.d. of this Agreement. d. The Ditch Water Users will appoint up to three Representatives to be their points of contact, and such Representative/s will submit to the City an itemized statement with individual receipts or invoices for the total reasonable costs chargeable to the City, if any and pursuant to this paragraph 4, and the same will be paid to the Ditch Water Users Representative/s within thirty days after the billing date. Such payment will pay invoices and/or be distributed as determined by the Representative/s as may be appropriate. In no event will the City be responsible 3 for the distribution. The City agrees to pay invoices at the actual hourly rate for labor, equipment, and approved expenses as anticipated in this Agreement. e. The City agrees that the construction permitted by this Agreement will proceed with reasonable diligence from the initiation of such construction to its completion. The City agrees to coordinate the construction with the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s to the extent possible to minimize any interruption of the Ditch water, operations or maintenance. The City anticipates that construction will begin in Fall 2018 and will be complete by February 2019, barring any force majeure events At all times during construction, whether or not completed by February 2019, the City is solely responsible for ensuring that the conveyance of the entire priorities decreed to the Ditch Water Users, with adequate freeboard and capacity for storm waters entering the Ditch in the Project area, flow through the construction without restriction, subject to the provisions of paragraph 6 below. For the purposes of this Agreement, “completion” of construction of the Ditch Relocation will mean the date on which the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s provide the City with verification of substantial compliance with Exhibit B pursuant to paragraph 4.c., above. f. The City has sole responsibility for obtaining all applicable local, state and federal permits or approvals prior to construction and for compliance with said permits. 5. MAINTENANCE. The Ditch Relocation as approved by the Ditch Water Users, and constructed and installed by the City as set forth in Exhibit B, will be the property of the City and will at all times be reasonably maintained by the City in a manner that will not create a hazard to the public or to the officials, employees and contractors of the Ditch Water Users; will not damage or constitute a threat of damage to the facilities or operations of the Ditch; or interfere with the operation or maintenance of the Ditch. Except in the case of an emergency, in the event that the Ditch Relocation is not so reasonably maintained by the City, the Ditch Water Users will give notice to the City in writing of such defective or hazardous maintenance; the City will correct such defect or hazard within forty- five days. If correction is not made within the forty-five -day period provided, then the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s and the City will mutually agree on a schedule of compliance to remedy the defect. Extension of the forty-five period may be granted by the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s. In the case of an emergency, which is defined as a situation which impacts the ability of the Ditch to deliver water when delivery of such water is being called for by the Ditch Water Users pursuant to decrees of the Ditch, or required by the laws of the State of Colorado; or a situation which becomes known to the Ditch Water Users presenting an immediate threat to the public health or safety, the City will respond immediately to any reasonable maintenance requests made by the Ditch Water Users concerning the relocated portion of the Ditch. Such requests may be made by telephone, but will be followed by a written request. If the City fails to respond to an emergency request within twenty-four hours, or if that response fails to allow for the delivery of water as 4 described in this paragraph or to adequately address the threat to the public health or safety, the Ditch Water Users may make the necessary repairs. The City will reimburse the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s as described in paragraph 4.d. for the reasonable and necessary costs for such repairs. • The City Utilities Maintenance Department, Attention: Utilities Maintenance Manager, 5050 Pearl St., P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306, telephone number (303) 413-7162, will be the City's designated contact for maintenance related issues and problems. • The Ditch Water Users’ primary designated contact/s for Ditch Relocation-related issues and problems will be [Ditch Representative], whose cell phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX and secondary designated contact for maintenance related issues and problems will be . 6. WATER LOSS. The City agrees that the construction of the Ditch Relocation will allow the Ditch to transport water without additional carriage or transit loss of such water than has historically occurred. In the event the Ditch Water Users can demonstrate that the Ditch Relocation or the construction described in Exhibit B increases the historical carriage or transit loss in the Ditch, the City agrees to repair the Ditch Relocation to prevent the additional loss of water. 7. TERM. This Agreement and the covenants herein contained will be perpetual unless modified by Court order, or a signed written agreement of the parties or their successors in title. 8. GRANT OF NEW EASEMENTS. Upon completion of construction of the Ditch Relocation, the City agrees to grant a new easement to the Ditch Water Users for operation and maintenance of the Ditch Relocation by executing an easement deed substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C ("New Easement"). The New Easement will include an easement across the City's Scott Carpenter Park, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 9. The City's grant of an easement across the Scott Carpenter Park to the Ditch Water Users, is subject to satisfaction of Section 162 of the City of Boulder Home Rule Charter and related terms of the Boulder Revised Code, which will require approximately 90 days. 10. ABANDONMENT AND VACATION OF CURRENT EASEMENT. The Ditch Water Users will execute a vacation and abandonment of the current Easement following inspection and approval of the Ditch Relocation. The Ditch Water Users’ Representative will record the New Easement and abandonment of the Easement in the real property records of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder. 5 11. RESPONSIBILITY. By virtue of entering into this Agreement, the Ditch Water Users: (1) assume no additional responsibilities or obligations related to the Ditch Relocation described in Exhibit B, except as may be set forth in this Agreement; and (2) disclaim all liability or responsibility with regard to subsequent easement grants by the City, or with regard to the City's acts or activities within the Easement area; except for damages or injury caused by the negligence or intentional acts of the Ditch Water Users, their agents, assigns or employees. As between the City and the Ditch Water Users, the City will bear full responsibility for the use and enjoyment of its property, including public access thereto, except for damages or injury caused by the negligent or intentional acts of the Ditch Water Users, their agents, assigns or employees. 12. NOTICES AND ADDRESSES. Any notice or other document required by this Agreement will be sent to the following addresses, email, or such other addresses as the parties may indicate in writing: City of Boulder c/o Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Planning Iris Center, 3198 N. Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80304 With copies emailed to: godfreyd@bouldercolorado.gov McCarty Ditch Water Users contact information Smith & Goss Ditch Water Users contact information 13. WAIVER OF BREACH. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of a breach of any term or provision of this Agreement, will not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by any party. 14. BINDING EFFECT AND ASSIGNMENT. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement be and remain binding on their respective agents, heirs and successors. The City will not assign its obligations under this Agreement, provided however, that the City may contract with third parties for the completion of the work under this Agreement. 15. REMEDIES. This Agreement may be enforced by specific performance, including mandatory injunctive relief and damages, together with reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party, except that any action which requires the expenditure of City funds will be subject to City Council appropriation. 16. WARRANTY OF AUTHORITY. Each party to the Agreement warrants that they have the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement and that the parties signing on their behalf have been duly authorized. 17. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES; NO WAIVER OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. This Agreement will not create any duty of care or liability with respect to any person or entity not a party to this Agreement, or waive any of the privileges or immunities the 6 City, its officers, employees, successors and assigns may present pursuant to law, including, but not limited to, the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S. et seq., as amended. 18. SEVERABILITY. The invalidity or unenforceability of any of the provisions of the Agreement will not affect any other provision of this Agreement which will thereafter be constructed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted. 19. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS; Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and valid and enforceable against each party. 20. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement will be effective on the last date it is signed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands on the date and year written below. 7 SMITH AND GOSS DITCH COMPANY THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO By: Title: Date: Attest: _____________________________ Secretary STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF BOULDER ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary public, this ______ day of ______________, 2018, by as of the University of Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. _________________________________ Notary Public (SEAL) 8 SMITH AND GOSS DITCH COMPANY MILES S. KING Date: Attest: _____________________________ Secretary STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF BOULDER ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary public, this ______ day of ______________, 2018, by Miles S. King. Witness my hand and official seal. _________________________________ Notary Public (SEAL) 9 MCCARTY DITCH COMPANY CURRENT USER(S) OF MCCARTY DITCH Date: Attest: _____________________________ Secretary STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF BOULDER ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary public, this ______ day of ______________, 2018, by . Witness my hand and official seal. _________________________________ Notary Public (SEAL) 10 CITY OF BOULDER ___________________________________ City Manager Date: ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________ MEMORANDUM TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department: Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager Valerie Matheson, Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator Rella Abernathy, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator DATE: February 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Update on the City’s Ecologically-Based Integrated Pest Management Program ________________________________________________________________________ Background: Environmental stewardship is a core value of the City of Boulder. The city’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program was developed as an environmentally-sound system for maintaining city-owned properties and facilities to high standards, while protecting public health and the environment. The foundation of the IPM program is an ecologically-based approach for the management of public lands and facilities that focuses on preventive strategies and emphasizes ecosystem protection by maintaining and restoring ecosystem health. The city’s Parks and Recreation Department is a national leader for sustainability and IPM through its award-winning turf management program, urban forestry division, horticultural program and natural lands management. IPM Policy: The city’s first IPM policy was adopted in 1993 and last updated in 2002. The IPM policy is currently being revised to incorporate program improvements, council direction and to place a stronger emphasis on ecosystem protection. The proposed revisions are included in the attached city council Information Packet memo (Attachment A of the attached memo). Pollinator Programs: The city is promoting pollinator protection and conservation through two citywide programs. One is Pollinator Appreciation Month, declared each September, that hosts a variety of events including pollinator habitat plantings, films, lectures, guided hikes, native seed collections, workshops and a large children’s festival led by Parks and Recreation staff, the Bee Boulder Family Festival. City staff across departments, including the Boulder Public Library, local NGOs, local companies, the University of Colorado and many volunteers work together to educate the public about the importance of pollinators for native plants and local food production. The city recently launched a new program, the Boulder Pollinator Garden Project, which will be promoted during Earth Week in April. These programs emphasize the importance of both urban and natural lands for pollinator conservation. Mosquito Management Program: The city is currently updating the mosquito management program, which was developed in 2003 in response to West Nile virus arriving in Colorado. The program was initially focused only on the mosquito species that can potentially transmit West Nile virus to people and was designed to decrease the risk to the public, while protecting the city’s wetlands as much as possible from the impacts of mosquito control. In 2007, the city expanded the program to treat limited areas for nuisance mosquitoes—or mosquitoes that present no health risk to people. This was in response to complaints from patrons at city recreational facilities and concerns about the potential loss of revenue. Some neighborhoods were added to the program in 2009. Elements that are relevant to Parks and Recreation for the program update include 1) larval monitoring, treatment, and potential disturbance of wetland ecosystems and sensitive wildlife on Parks and Recreation natural lands; 2) the efficacy of the program for decreasing mosquito numbers, particularly those that can transmit disease to patrons of recreational facilities; and 3) outreach for staff and the public to encourage personal protection measures to prevent mosquito bites. The mosquito program is currently being reviewed by ecologists and scientists from Parks and Recreation, Open Space and Mountain Parks, the Comprehensive Planning Division, and an environmental consultant. The assessment will include an analysis of the mosquito program data, and a scientific literature review of the efficacy and environmental impacts of mosquito control programs. This project is occurring in two phases and the full review of the program is expected to be completed in April 2019. More information is included in the attached February 1, 2018 Information Packet memo. Next Steps: • Staff will present the results of the first phase of the mosquito management program review to city council on April 3, 2018. • The final IPM policy revisions will be included in the April council memo and then provided to the city manager for approval in May. Questions for PRAB: 1. Does PRAB have any feedback about the revisions to the IPM policy? 2. Does PRAB have any particular issues, concerns or suggestions that you would like to be addressed during the mosquito program review? Attachment: Information Item: Ecologically-Based Integrated Pest Management: Policy Revision, Mosquito Program and Pollinator Initiatives INFORMATION PACKET MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Jim Robertson, Executive Director of Planning, Housing and Sustainability Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works Tracy Winfree, Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks Yvette Bowden, Direct or Parks and Recreation John Potter, Open Space and Mountain Parks Resources and Stewardship Manager Jeff Haley, Parks and Recreation Planning Manger Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager Don D’Amico, Open Space and Mountain Parks Ecological Systems Supervisor Valerie Matheson, Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator Will Keeley, Open Space and Mountain Parks Wildlife Ecologist Joy Master, Parks and Recreation Conservation Ecologist Rella Abernathy, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator Date: February 1, 2018 Subject: Information Item: Ecologically-Based Integrated Pest Management: Policy Revision, Mosquito Program and Pollinator Initiatives EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this memo is to provide city council with an update for the city’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program within the context of a citywide ecosystems protection strategy, including 1) a draft of the proposed IPM policy revisions and a timeline for program components that are underway; 2) information about pollinator protection programs; and 3) a preview of a major update to the city’s mosquito management program. Most of these items are informational, except for the updates to the IPM policy and the mosquito management plan. Staff will be seeking advisory board input during February and March for the IPM policy changes and the mosquito management program review. Staff will provide this feedback to council on April 3, 2018, and will include a final revision of the IPM policy, the analysis for the first phase of the mosquito program review and seek direction for the second phase, which will take place over the next year and include a communications and public engagement strategy. Staff will then return in April 2019 with the results of the mosquito management program analysis with options and a staff recommendation for council consideration and direction. FISCAL IMPACT The 2017 contract for mosquito control services was $252,516. Due to increasing costs, mosquito contracting services are projected to be $259,586 for 2018, with annual increases expected in future years if the program is continued as it’s currently structured. The mosquito management program review and analysis is requiring significant staff time and re-prioritization of work plan items. The ecological consultant fees are estimated to be approximately $50,000. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS • Economic: IPM-related programs create beautiful, safe and award-winning athletic facilities, parks, streetscapes, urban forest, natural lands, local food production, and recreational and outdoor activities, that provide revenue for the city and businesses, and generates tourism. Ecosystem services are more difficult to monetize, but protection and enhancement of healthy ecosystems supports a sustainable economy and saves money and resources by mitigating the impacts of climate change and reducing the costs from extreme weather events. • Environmental: Protection of plants, wildlife and biodiversity reduces reliance on chemical pesticides and enhances overall environmental quality. Pesticides are implicated in widespread species decline and are associated with health issues in people, particularly children. The city’s IPM program improves the health of the community and the surrounding lands and waterways by reducing chemical inputs, utilizing ecologically-focused management, and restoring and protecting healthy ecosystems. • Social: A healthy and safe environment encourages the public to go outdoors and participate in recreational and athletic activities, interact with nature and improves overall well-being. BACKGROUND Boulder has a long history of environmental stewardship and a legacy of protecting its land and resources for future generations by forward-thinking, scientifically-based and cutting-edge approaches. The city’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program has exemplified these principles since its inception in the late 1980’s, when open space employees began exploring methods for non-chemical management of weeds due to concerns about the overuse of herbicides. This led to a citywide IPM program with an ecologically-based approach as its foundation. History of IPM IPM was first developed in response to the problems that arose from the post-World War II use of pesticides. The insecticide, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), was a game-changer during the war and prevented the deaths of soldiers from insect-borne diseases like typhus and malaria. DDT was extremely toxic to insects and seemingly safe for people. This led to widespread use after the war in every sector of society, including agricultural and urban areas, in home gardens, inside houses and on people. However, the downsides became apparent when DDT lost its effectiveness as mosquitoes became resistant to it and agricultural pest populations exploded from resistance or from the removal of pest predators that were susceptible to DDT. From Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” the public and the government became aware of how DDT was contaminating the entire food chain, resulting in catastrophic environmental problems and threatening birds and other animals with extinction. The IPM methods developed in the late 1950’s sought to reverse the damage caused by the widespread use of DDT and other pesticides, and focused on restoring the natural function of the food web by rebalancing biodiversity, and applying pesticides only after pests reached a “threshold,” where natural factors weren’t sufficient to keep pests in check and pest damage caused economic loss. When preventive principles are used, such as crop rotation, building healthy soils, and providing floral resources for pollinators and natural predators, pesticide intervention is often unnecessary. IPM in Boulder Boulder’s IPM program is based on the principles that were developed by the scientists who pioneered IPM in the 1950’s. IPM is a dynamic, decision-making process that is based on the best available science, and relies on observation and knowledge of the target organism and the ecosystem where it lives. This fact sheet summarizes the city’s approach to IPM. The city defines IPM as: A decision-making process that selects, integrates, and implements a combination of suitable and compatible strategies to prevent, deter, or manage pest populations within established thresholds. IPM uses a "whole systems approach,” viewing the target species as it relates to the entire ecosystem. Management strategies are chosen that minimize impacts to human health, the environment, and non-target organisms, and protect overall biodiversity and ecosystem health. Relevance of IPM Today When the unintended consequences of DDT became evident, it was banned in 1972. DDT is highly persistent and it and its breakdown products are still found today in the environment and in our bodies. New pesticides were developed to replace DDT, and as problems arose with those products, new families of pesticides were developed. At the time, each of these types of pesticides were considered a big improvement over the previous generation of products. But each new group of insecticides—the organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and more recently, the neonicotinoids—have created their own ecosystem-wide issues that are contributing to global declines in pollinators and all other animals. Pesticide contamination is found throughout the earth from the artic to the oceans. These chemical stressors in combination with habitat loss from expanding agriculture, urbanization, mineral and fossil fuel extraction, other human-based activities, and climate change have led to extensive losses of biodiversity. The 2016 Living Plant Report from the World Wildlife Federation shows that between 1970 and 2012, 58 percent of mammals, birds and fish populations were lost, with the biggest decline in freshwater species, which dropped by 81 percent. In addition to the precipitous decline of pollinators, all other insects around the world are in steep decline. The current rate that species are undergoing extinction is altering the planet, the consequences of which are not yet understood. A diversity of organisms is crucial for functioning ecosystems. All life on the planet is sustained by the “ecosystem services” that healthy ecosystems provide, such as food and fiber, clean air and water, and climate regulation. (©Peter Burgess, True Value Metrics) Ecosystem Services and Climate Change With changing climate, there are winners and losers among the different species that make up our ecosystems. Some will adapt and remain, some will migrate to new locations and some will go locally extinct. The invasion of exotic and invasive species compromises these already stressed systems, altering or degrading ecosystem services, and requires a thoughtful and cautious approach for managing invasive species without inadvertently causing more harm to desirable organisms and their interactions with other species of the ecosystem community. City Programs Staff across city departments are working together to develop programs and practices that protect and maintain ecosystem function in open space, agricultural and urban areas. The role of urban ecosystems is often overlooked. Urban ecosystem habitats within cities are now recognized to be increasingly important in supporting populations of plants and wildlife, as well as providing corridors for migrating species. Ecosystems also sequester carbon and are a critical element in efforts to mitigate and lower greenhouse gases. A recent study suggests that the world’s wetlands, forests and grasslands could provide up to a third of the carbon sequestration required to keep global temperature rise within 2°C by 2030. But equally important is the role that diverse, highly-functioning ecosystems serve in providing resilience from the unpredictable conditions of extreme weather and natural disasters that are expected to increase as a result of global warming. Therefore, protection of ecosystems and the creation of high-quality habitat is crucial for a comprehensive and successful climate action plan. In 2018, a cross-departmental team of environmental planners are working on the development of an integrated ecosystems management strategy that can address increasing environmental threats and build on opportunities to enhance ecosystems and ecosystem services in and around the city. IPM is a crucial part of this strategy, since all city properties from streets, parks and bikeway landscaping to restoration and protection of natural properties and agriculture are managed using IPM. The following section will provide information about IPM programs and current work within this context. A major update is underway for the city’s mosquito management program, and detailed information is included as preparation for this project. ANALYSIS I. IPM 1. IPM Policy This year marks the 25th anniversary of the city’s IPM policy. The city first adopted a formal IPM policy in 1993 and updated the policy in 2002. The IPM policy is currently being revised to incorporate program improvements and council direction since the 2002 update. The impetus for the developing the original IPM policy in 1993 was reducing, and where possible, eliminating pesticides, and requiring an ecologically-based approach for managing target species. That language was retained in the 2002 policy, and is also kept in the 2018 revision. The IPM policy provides guidance for the management of all city properties, including landscape, natural area, agricultural and facilities. It also directs staff to provide education and outreach to the public regarding best practices that protect ecosystems, such as IPM, pesticide reduction strategies, and pollinator protection. A proposed revision of the IPM policy is attached, including strike-out and clean versions, along with the rationale for changes (Attachment A). The major changes that occurred in 2002 and are proposed for 2018 are listed below. Past and Current Changes to IPM Policy: 2002 IPM Policy Revisions: • IPM coordinator role added; • Reporting responsibilities specified; • Contractor requirements strengthened; • Department head approvals required for most toxic EPA pesticide categories; and • Departmental IPM plan deadlines incorporated. 2018 IPM Policy Proposed Revisions: • A comprehensive, citywide IPM operations manual replaces individual department or work group IPM plans; • Incorporate pesticide assessment and approval process; and • Language is strengthened to emphasize ecosystems/biodiversity protections. 2. IPM Program Improvements IPM Operations Manual The 1993 and 2002 IPM policies required each department or division to develop an IPM plan. This requirement was never fully achieved and also has the potential to lead to silos among workgroups that manage properties/facilities with similar practices. A comprehensive IPM operations manual incorporates the information contained in individual IPM plans and will encourage collaboration, problem-solving and innovation. This document will provide the background, information and direction for all city IPM strategies and procedures. It will serve as a guide for IPM staff, contractors and lessees. It will also provide information and links for other environmental programs and master plans. The IPM operations manual is currently being developed by staff. The first phase will be posted on the city’s website by the end of 2018. It will be a living and dynamic document that will be updated regularly with new information and procedures. Pesticide Assessment Process The pesticide assessment process will be included in the IPM operations manual. Staff only considers the use of a pesticide as a last resort after following the IPM process. If a pesticide is used, it must be on the approved pesticide list or undergo a screening process that complies with the IPM policy. Pesticides are assessed using regulatory data from the U.S. and other countries, as well as relevant studies in the academic literature. Pesticides are evaluated for potential impacts to human health, non-target organisms and environmental fate (e.g. persistence in soil and water, ability to leach, breakdown products of concern, etc.). Products are then ranked with criteria that places them in a “hazard tier” from least toxic to most toxic. In addition, usage guidelines are developed to minimize the impact of any chemical application. II. Pollinator Programs Approximately 80-95 percent of the plants in natural areas require pollination. These plants are the foundation of food webs and pollination is an essential ecosystem service. Colorado is home to over 950 species of wild bees and more than 550 species live in Boulder County. Native bees come in all shapes and sizes and live in a range of environments from grassland to alpine forests. Most are solitary ground-nesting species and others live in hollow twigs, logs and snags. Little is known about the fate of the majority of these species, but experts who study population trends are seeing steep declines in the majority of bee species. Bees need safe, pesticide-free flowers of different types that bloom all season long. The city officially banned the use of neonicotinoids on public properties in 2015 due to the comprehensive body of scientific literature that conclusively shows harm to pollinators, aquatic insects and other animals from their use. Staff across departments are creating pollinator gardens, collecting native plant seed, restoring habitat, offering workshops and providing education to the public about pollinator protection. 1. Pollinator Appreciation Month The city has declared September as Pollinator Appreciation Month annually since 2015 to celebrate the importance of pollinators and provide information to the public. The city partners with the University of Colorado, local NGOs and volunteers to offer a variety of events, culminating in the Bee Boulder Family Festival, which is attended by hundreds of children, who learn about the importance of pollinators with fun and creative activities. 2. Boulder Pollinator Garden Project The Boulder Pollinator Garden Project is a new program to encourage the creation of high quality pollinator habitat throughout Boulder, both on public and private properties. The city will be mapping pollinator habitat in parks, open space and other city-owned properties and reaching out to other public entities to share and map their habitat. Home and business owners and other residents are encouraged to map their yards and gardens. The long-term goal for this program is to coordinate the efforts of local organizations and individuals to create pollinator pathways and connections to open space that will establish Boulder as a pollinator haven that supports bees, butterflies, beetles, hummingbirds and other pollinators and native wildlife. III. Mosquito Management Program This section contains more information than the other sections in this memo to prepare staff, advisory boards, council and the public for the update to the city’s mosquito management program. The city’s mosquito management program was progressive, innovative and cutting edge at the time it was developed. It changed mosquito industry practices and risk estimates for West Nile virus (WNv). Therefore, when evaluating the program and determining the next steps, a review of the history of the program is important for understanding the initial objectives and how the program can be improved in alignment with current city goals and policies. A. Current Program West Nile Virus Prior to 2002 when West Nile virus (WNv) first arrived in Colorado, the city didn’t have a mosquito control program. WNv was first reported in New York in 1999 and then quickly spread across the country, arriving in Colorado in 2002. By 2003, Colorado had the highest number of human WNv cases and deaths in the county. Since that time, WNv human cases have decreased significantly, but the disease is now endemic across the country and present at some level every year. When the city created its first mosquito management plan to address WNv, the mosquito industry standards were not compatible with the city’s IPM policy and ecologically-based principles for management of natural lands, where the majority of mosquito larval sites on city- owned land occur. Instead of a mosquito control contractor, the city hired an ecological consultant with expertise in aquatic entomology and wetlands ecology to develop a plan that would protect public health and address the risk from WNv, while protecting the city’s ecosystems and wetlands as much as possible. Industry vs. City’s Approach The mosquito control industry uses a wide range of pesticides to attack every stage of the mosquito lifecycle – the larva, pupa and adult. Adulticides target the adult mosquito and are broad-spectrum insecticides that are applied to vegetation where adult mosquitoes rest, by truck through city and neighborhood streets or by airplane or helicopter. Studies show that very little of the product actually reaches the target mosquito, and only reduces a portion of the mosquito population, which can quickly rebound. These products, however, harm non-target insects such as pollinators and other animals, and are associated with human health problems. City’s Program Changed Industry Standards In 2002, CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the mosquito control industry standards recommended spraying adulticides if mosquito traps caught a certain number of mosquitoes regardless of whether the species of mosquito could transit disease or if they were infected with WNv. While the city was under pressure from the CDC, state and county authorities to spray city streets during the peak of the WNv epidemic, the grid of adult mosquito traps located throughout the city indicated that there were not enough mosquitoes infected with WNv to warrant fogging city streets. The city chose not to spray, based on data and risk analysis. The industry and the CDC eventually adopted the city’s approach of using the appropriate mosquito species and disease infection rate before making recommendations to spray for WNv. During the design of the city’s WNv management plan, the consultant created the Vector Index, which was developed from 2003 City of Boulder data. The Vector Index provides an early warning tool for estimating elevated risk of WNv transmission to people. The Vector Index has since been adopted around the country as the standard method for assessing WNv risk to the public. The city manager and staff used fact-based information to inform decisions that protected the public from needless pesticide exposure. Focus on Larval Control The city also developed a more environmentally-sound approach for controlling mosquito larvae. Accurate mapping of mosquito breeding sites—where the female mosquitoes lay their eggs and the larvae develop—is an important component of large-scale mosquito management programs. There are a number of larvacides—products that are targeted towards the larval stage of the mosquito life cycle. They range from nonselective oils that affect all aquatic organisms, to growth regulators that affect all insects, to products that are specific to mosquito larvae and closely-related species. Even the most targeted product, which the city uses, Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis or Bti, is not benign. It will kill all species of mosquitoes, whether or not they are disease carriers or human pests. Bti also kills non-target midges and blackflies, all of which are important members of wetland ecosystems. During the larval stage, mosquitos are filter feeders with an important ecological niche in wetlands. They eat decaying organic matter, bacteria, fungi, and other microorganisms. They are also important food sources for predatory insects, fish, amphibians and other animals. Greatly reducing a major wetland food source, can have cascading impacts to other organisms in the wetland community. Adult mosquitoes are food sources for bats, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Mosquitoes feed on flower nectar and some act as pollinators. Disturbances, alterations to naturally-occurring biodiversity from insecticides and other inputs into wetlands harm ecosystem health. Fully- functioning wetland ecosystems naturally lower mosquito populations, and can lower the risk for disease. Highly-functioning wetlands provide important ecosystem services that sequester carbon and help to buffer the impacts from flooding and extreme weather events. To limit the impacts of Bti to city wetlands, the city developed a monitoring protocol for the 2006 WNv mosquito management plan where mosquito larvae are examined in the field, and the site is only treated with Bti if vector species are present— species that can potentially transmit disease. By targeting only vector species, it decreases the amount of Bti applied to city wetlands. The Role of the Public in Reducing West Nile Virus Risk The species of mosquitoes that can potentially transmit WNv commonly breed in urban areas and peoples’ yards—often in non-natural areas, like clogged gutters, containers, bird baths, over- watered areas in yards, old tires and poorly-drained depressions. The city, county and state authorities provide education about the crucial role that the public plays in reducing WNv risk by removing breeding sites from their own properties. Education also emphasizes the importance and personal responsibility for avoiding mosquito bites by using mosquito repellents. B. Reviewing and Updating the City’s Mosquito Program 1. Mosquitoes that Potentially Transmit Disease The city’s West Nile virus (WNv) management plan was created in 2006 when WNv was new to the area. The objectives for the 2006 plan were to reduce the risk for WNv to the public, while protecting wetlands and ecosystem health as much as possible. Since 2006, the public health risk from WNv is better understood and multiple studies have been published by independent scientists that examine a range of issues that pertain to mosquito management, human health and the impacts of mosquito treatments on ecosystem health. This literature will be reviewed to determine the pros and cons of different approaches to mosquito control. 2. Nuisance or Non-Disease Carrying Mosquitoes In 2007, a pilot nuisance control mosquito program was launched due to complaints of patrons at city recreational facilities. Neighborhoods with high mosquito activity requested to be included and some areas were added to the program. Due to concerns from additional Bti application to wetlands, a threshold was established for non-disease carrying/nuisance mosquito species to reduce the number of treatments and impacts to wetlands. Council directed staff to continue the nuisance program in 2011, using an adaptive management strategy. Nuisance mosquitoes were not initially included in the city’s program, because they pose no public health threat, are integral components of the food chain, and it allowed some portion of the city’s wetlands to be left undisturbed from larvicide impacts. Many nuisance mosquito larvae were already controlled through the WNv program when they live in the same larval breeding sites as vector larvae. The objectives for initiating a program for the treatment of nuisance mosquitoes were: 1. Reduce complaints from patrons at recreational facilities, including the ball fields, golf course and the reservoir; 2. Address concerns of specific neighborhoods that experience high mosquito activity; and 3. Reduce insecticide fogging by Boulder County in neighborhoods adjacent to city-owned natural properties with mosquito breeding sits When the nuisance program began, there were concerns at the time about potential revenue loss from fewer patrons using city facilities due to high mosquito activity. Another concern was the health and environmental impacts from Boulder County’s mosquito control program that applies adulticides for nuisance mosquitoes in unincorporated neighborhoods that are adjacent to city open space properties. The county agreed to raise the threshold for spraying from 100 mosquitoes in a trap to 250 in certain areas if the city would agree to treat nearby larval sites for nuisance mosquito larvae. Besides the exposure of the public to adulticides, the city had concerns about insecticide drift onto open space properties that could contaminate water and harm non- target species. C. Mosquito Program Evaluation, Analysis and Timeline The city has a rich dataset stretching back to 2003, which includes larval density at all mapped larval breeding sites for two categories of mosquito larva - vector (species that can potentially carry and transmit WNv) or non-vector or nuisance/floodwater species. The city also has adult mosquito trap data, WNv mosquito infection data and a large number of ecological studies conducted on Open Space and Mountain Parks and Parks and Recreation natural areas. A staff team of ecologists, wetland biologists, entomologists and wildlife experts from Open Space and Mountain Parks, Parks and Recreation, and Planning, Housing and Sustainability, and an ecological consultant, OtterTail Environmental, will work together to over the next year to evaluate the current mosquito management program. The team will: • Review and analyze the city’s larval and adult mosquito data; • Collect data from the county and state for mosquito population and WNv patterns; • Conduct literature reviews; • Consult with expert scientists; • Assess the efficiency and efficacy of both the WNv and nuisance mosquito control programs; • Assess the environmental impacts of the programs, particularly in light of the city’s climate action and resilience goals; • Determine if original program objectives have been met; and • Provide recommendations for updates to field protocols and program objectives. The work will be conducted in two phases. Phase I will address items that need to be in place before the 2018 field season begins. Phase II will complete the analyses and recommendations for updating the program. PROJECT TIMELINES I. IPM Policy and Program Feedback from advisory boards, relevant city working groups and public input will be gathered through the end of March. The final IPM policy revisions will be included in the April 3 council memo and then provided to the city manager for approval by April 15. Staff will post the first phase of IPM Operations Manual, including the pesticide approval process, by the end of 2018. Work will continue on individual program areas during 2019. II. Pollinator Programs The Boulder Pollinator Garden Project is being promoted through Earth Week events in April. Staff are coordinating with the University of Colorado and NGOs to develop outreach and neighborhood organizing efforts to create and map pollinator gardens on private property, and map city and other public land pollinator habitat. City inter-departmental staff, partners and volunteers are planning Pollinator Appreciation Month events, including the Bee Boulder Family Festival, which will take place on September 29, 2018 in Central Park. III.Mosquito Program Update The mosquito management program will be reviewed in two phases with the following items: Phase I (January – April 2018): •Describe the process for monitoring and treatment of mosquito larval breeding sites in wildlife closures; •Evaluation of the threshold and treatment protocols for non-vector (nuisance) mosquitoes for the 2018 season; and •Develop a WNv outbreak emergency response plan Phase II (April 2018 – April 2019): •Data analysis for WNv and non-vector mosquito management programs for efficacy and ecological impacts; •Review and options for larval site management procedures and review of current site categories for monitoring and treatment; •Adaptive management approach to address challenges from climate change; •Implementation of communications and public engagement plan; •Options and staff recommendation for changes to mosquito management plan; and •Report and presentation to city council in April 2019 to provide results of program assessment and determine direction for the city’s mosquito management program. NEXT STEPS •The team reviewing the city’s mosquito management plan will complete Phase I components and provide this information to council on April 3, 2018. •The Open Space Board of Trustees (Feb. 14, 2018), Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (Feb. 26, 2018), and Environmental Advisory Board (March 7, 2018) will be provided with the information included in this memo and board feedback will be included in the April 3 memo to council. •Staff will solicit feedback on the proposed IPM policy revisions and the final revisions will be included in the April 3 memo. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Attachment A: 2018 Integrated Pest Management Policy Revision A draft of the proposed revisions to the IPM policy with the changes incorporated is included. A version with track changes is also attached, which includes comments with an explanation for substantive changes. Major revisions include: 1. Since 2002, the city has implemented a pesticide approval process (IPM Task Force and more recent council direction to implement hazard tier list). This direction is incorporated into relevant sections and obsolete language is removed. 2. The word, “control” is replaced with “management” in most instances throughout the document to better represent the city’s holistic ecosystem management approach and IPM practices vs a pest-centric approach. 3. Departmental IPM plans are replaced with a citywide IPM Operations Manual. The Operations Manual provides a framework for entire IPM Program. Specific IPM practices of city departments will be incorporated. 4. Some sections are clarified by simplifying or re-organizing wording. 5. “Short and long-term” is added to emphasize importance of considering full impacts of decisions. 6. The “interdepartmental IPM Review Group” is changed to “Interdepartmental IPM Team” since this describes more accurately how the city IPM team functions. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 1 CITY OF BOULDER *** POLICIES AND PROCEDURES INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 2018 _________________________ Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager I. SCOPE AND APPLICATION This Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy applies to all pest management activities conducted by all city staff, contractors and lessees, which includes all monitoring, non-chemical pest management practices and any pesticide use in buildings and related facilities; grounds and open space; and other property owned or managed by the City of Boulder. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for implementation of the most environmentally- sound approaches for landscape, natural area, agricultural and facilities management and to reduce and eliminate, where possible, the volume and toxicity of chemical pest control treatments. The overarching goal is for all city IPM practices to be carefully assessed for the potential impacts to human health, water quality, non-target organisms, and the preservation and/or enhancement of biodiversity, particularly federal endangered and threatened species, and state, county and local species of concern. As a result, ecologically-based IPM approaches will be developed that promote the stability of desirable species and discourage pest populations, while sustaining the natural balances within the ecosystem. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 2 III. DEFINITIONS A. Integrated Pest Management (IPM): a decision-making process that selects, integrates, and implements a combination of suitable and compatible strategies to prevent, deter, or manage pest populations within established thresholds. IPM uses a "whole systems approach," viewing the target species as it relates to the entire ecosystem. Management strategies are chosen that minimize impacts to human health, the environment, and non-target organisms, and protect overall biodiversity and ecosystem health. B. Pest: broadly, a pest is an organism that interferes with or reduces the availability or quality of desirable plants and other resources; impacts human or animal health; damages structures; or harms some component of the ecosystem. Whether or not an organism is considered a pest can depend on the setting, rather than the particular species. A pest may be an insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or any other form of terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal life or virus, bacteria, or other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria, or other micro-organisms on or in living man or other living animals). C. Pesticide: any substance or mixture of substances intended for killing or repelling any pest. This includes without limitation fungicides, insecticides, nematicides, herbicides, and rodenticides and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant. In addition to applications of pesticides, products that have been pre-treated with pesticides are subject to this policy. Plants that have been genetically modified to incorporate pesticides or are resistant to pesticides are prohibited unless an exception has been granted by the city manager. The following products are not pesticides: 1. Deodorizers, bleaching agents, disinfectants and substances for which no pesticidal claim is made in the sale or distribution thereof, and 2. Fertilizers and plant nutrients. D. Reasonable Alternative: a feasible option for pest management, which takes into account the short and long-term economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the proposed choices. IV. CITY IPM COORDINATOR The city manager has determined that a central staff person will coordinate the IPM efforts of city departments. The IPM coordinator’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to the following: • Coordination with city departments on weed and pest management issues and integrating IPM principles with other environmental policies and plans; • Publication of IPM reports; • Coordination of an interdepartmental IPM team; • Development of a city weed management plan, in accordance with state law; Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 3 • Development and maintenance of pesticide approval process(es) and pesticide reduction guidelines; • Coordination of the development and update of an IPM operations manual; • Research and recommendations for IPM strategies; • Development and administration of the city’s mosquito management policy and program; • Assistance to city departments with staff training needs; and • Outreach to residents regarding IPM, pollution prevention and pesticide reduction strategies, pollinator protection and natural lawn and gardening practices. A. IPM Reports. The city IPM coordinator will compile the data from all participating city departments from the information listed in Section V, Departmental/Divisional Obligations. This information will be provided in reports and/or posted on the city’s website. Comprehensive reports will be submitted to the city manager and city council and will include IPM-related data, a review of new IPM strategies, arising challenges, IPM program or departmental accomplishments, and IPM program coordination with other city programs and initiatives. B. Interdepartmental IPM Team. This team will be coordinated by the city IPM coordinator and will include department IPM coordinators, managers and other key city staff. The team will meet at least quarterly and meetings will include development of city IPM goals and strategies, review and evaluation of the IPM operations manual, as well as opportunities for information exchange, education and collaboration. This team will also review interdepartmental issues, and make policy recommendations that advance the objectives of the IPM policy and reduce reliance on chemical pest control. V. DEPARTMENTAL/DIVISIONAL OBLIGATIONS All departments/divisions that conduct pest management operations and/or use or potentially use pesticides are required to fulfill the obligations of this section. A. IPM Operations Manual. The IPM operations manual (manual) will serve as a guide for all pest management operations and will provide rationale and procedural guidelines for the implementation of the IPM policy. All persons conducting pest management within the scope of this policy are required to follow the manual. Departments or divisions will provide information to the city IPM coordinator and the IPM interdepartmental team to contribute towards the creation, review and update of the manual. The manual will be reviewed annually and a record kept of any revisions. Departments will designate at least one staff member as the departmental/divisional representative who will be responsible for providing information and input concerning the manual. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 4 B.Record-keeping and Evaluation. Each department, division or work group must keep accurate records and results of all IPM treatments. Information on all treatments (including non-chemical) will include how, when, where and why the treatment was applied and the name of the applicator. This information will be compiled for IPM reports. The city IPM coordinator will review pest management strategies with city departments and the IPM interdepartmental team to evaluate results, share information with other staff and improve the IPM program. Application records will be made available to the public upon request in accordance with all applicable state laws governing public access to information. C.Contractor Notification. Every department bidding out contractual work for pest management must inform all bidders about the requirements of the IPM policy and incorporate its guidelines in bid specifics. If pesticides are applied, only those products may be used that are part of the approved pesticide list and adhere to its use guidelines OR are in accordance with a pesticide assessment and selection process approved by the city manager in compliance with the protocols and guidance of the IPM operations manual and/or are reviewed and have prior approval by the department and its division representative and the city’s IPM coordinator. The city will inform pest management contractors of the city’s IPM Policy and operations manual and provide a written copy of this policy and other relevant documents as appropriate. Project managers, departmental IPM representatives, or the city IPM coordinator must approve all pest management treatments. VI. IPM PROCEDURE The city assumes that all pesticides are potentially hazardous to human and environmental health and will take measures to avoid any non-essential use. Therefore, reasonable non-pesticide alternatives will be given preference over chemical application by following the IPM procedure. City staff will evaluate alternatives to chemical treatments, including the cost-effectiveness of the treatments. For all pest control activities, the IPM procedure outlined below must be followed. A.Initial Data Collection, Mapping and Monitoring. Each department or division considering management of a target species should first collect baseline data on the pest ecosystem(s) to determine if the organism is truly a pest that warrants treatment. This data includes the pest population(s) occurrence, size, density and presence of any natural enemy population(s); gather information on pest biology and site ecology, and different control techniques available; and document sensitive areas and conditions that may limit control options. Data should be collected in a standardized manner that is repeatable. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 5 For structural pests, inspection and monitoring should be conducted to determine and eliminate route of entry, potential food and water sources, and nesting sites. This information should be logged. Ranking, inventory, mapping, monitoring and evaluation are methods used for determining pest management priorities. Maps and inventories depict infestations in terms of pest species, size, location and threats to resources. Departments/divisions must monitor infestations or pest populations and evaluate treatments over time to assess the effectiveness of various treatment strategies and their effects on target and non-target organisms, the overall biodiversity of each site and the desired management objectives. These objectives should be reevaluated over time as the range and distribution of different species is altered from climate change and other anthropogenic factors All monitoring methods and data must be specified in departmental or divisional IPM procedures and included in the IPM operations manual, systematically recorded, and available for review. Departments should coordinate and utilize standardized mapping and data recording protocols, if possible. B. Establishing Threshold Levels. To determine if treatment is warranted, an acceptable threshold level of treatment for each target species and site should be established based on the ecology of the pest and either its density that creates environmental, aesthetic or economic damage or based on a measurement of the damage resulting from the pest. Departmental IPM procedures will include the threshold levels for common pests, determined by individual work groups, and may be developed in consultation with the city IPM coordinator and interdepartmental team. In some cases, a threshold, such as eradication, suppression, or containment may be required by federal or state law. C. Management Selection Criteria. Upon determining that management for an undesirable species is necessary, the following criteria should be used to help select the appropriate IPM treatment strategy: 1. Least-disruptive of naturally occurring controls; 2. Least-hazardous to human health; 3. Least-toxic to non-target organisms; 4. Least-damaging to the general environment, surface and ground water, and overall ecosystem function and stability; 5. Most likely to produce a permanent reduction in the environment's ability to support target pests; and 6. Economic and environmental cost-effectiveness in the short- and long-term. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 6 D.Management Strategies and the IPM Hierarchy. Each department or division, in consultation with the city IPM coordinator, IPM team and/or guidelines of the operations manual, will make its own determination about appropriate and effective management approaches, based on site-specific requirements and condition. Commitment to the most environmentally-sound approach is expected, relying primarily on non-chemical methods. Prevention, cultural control, mechanical control, biological control and chemical control are the techniques used in the hierarchy of integrated pest management. In general, a combination of compatible treatments is more effective than a single approach. Department and division staff are encouraged to seek out and experiment with innovative IPM treatments (and combinations of treatments) and share this information at the interdepartmental IPM team meetings. The following treatments are listed in the order in which they should be executed: 1. Prevention. This is the most effective and important pest management strategy and is the foundation of IPM. By reducing the capacity of the ecosystem to support target pest populations through design and appropriate management, the opportunities for pest establishment can be reduced to tolerable thresholds or eliminated. Some examples are: a)Strategies that reduce the preferred harborage, food, water or other essential requirements of pests; b) Promoting healthy soils and ecosystems to withstand pest infestations; c)Weed-free materials and equipment for road and trail construction and maintenance. d) Landscape and structural design that is appropriate to the specific habitat, climate and maintenance the area will receive; and e)Project design that considers the potential impacts of pests and mitigates through the use of appropriate landscape design (plant choice, soil preparation, water requirements, weed barriers, etc.). 2. Cultural. Cultural control is the use of management activities that can prevent pests from developing or keep them below tolerable levels by enhancement of desired conditions. Examples include: a)Selection and placement of materials that provide life support mechanisms for pest enemies and competitors; b) Modification of pest habitat by reducing pest harborage, food supply and other life support requirements; c)Vegetation management including irrigation, mulching, fertilization, aeration, mowing height, seeding, pruning and thinning; d) Waste management and proper food storage; e)Barriers and traps; f)Heat, cold, humidity, desiccation or light applied to affected regions; and g)Prescribed burning or grazing. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 7 3. Mechanical. Mechanical control is accomplished by using physical methods or mechanical equipment to control pest infestations, such as: a) Mowing or weed-whipping; b) Prescribed burning; c) Hand-pulling of weeds; d) Hand-removal of pests (e.g. insect or invasive amphibian egg masses). 4. Biological. Biological controls include the introduction or enhancement of natural enemy populations to target pests. Introduction of non-indigenous organisms has an associated risk factor and should be thoroughly evaluated prior to implementation in consultation with the city IPM coordinator and the interdepartmental IPM team. Biological methods include a) Conservation and augmentation of the pest's natural enemies; and b) Introduction of host-specific enemy organisms 5. Chemical. Chemical control of pests is accomplished by using chemical compounds registered as pesticides. All pesticides shall be assumed to be potentially hazardous to human and/or environmental health. The type, methods and timing of any chemical treatment will be determined after consideration has been given to protection of non-target organisms (including threatened or endangered species), the impact on biodiversity, protection of water quality, pest biology, soil types, anticipated adverse weather (winds, precipitation, etc.) and temperature. Only those pesticides that have been evaluated and approved for use on city properties by a process approved by the city manager may be applied. Application of any pesticide must follow the guidelines for that particular product, which will be provided to staff, contractors or lessees and include information pertaining to target pests, application methods and any other restrictions. All pesticides must be applied in conformance with label specifications and all applicable federal, state and municipal laws, regulations and ordinances, as well as any additional restrictions provided in city guidance documents. All pesticide applications must comply with the appropriate pre and post-notification requirements, according to the City of Boulder’s Pesticide Ordinance (Section 6-10-1 B.R.C. 1981). For all city pesticide applications, notification will be posted at the site at least 24 hours in advance, remain on site for at least 24 hours, and posted on the city’s hotline. This includes soil and trunk injections, spot spraying, hand-wicking and broadcast spraying on all city lands or property. E. Education. Education is a critical component of an IPM program. The city IPM coordinator will include IPM information on the city’s website. Information will include IPM reports, the IPM operations manual and pesticide assessment processes, recommendations for the most ecologically-sound pest management for residents, and IPM-related events and educational opportunities across the city. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 8 VII.CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS The City periodically enters into contracts that authorize pest management, such as for building maintenance, project construction and maintenance, and weed and insect control. When the city signs a new contract or extends the term of an existing contract with a contractor that conducts IPM-related work, including the application of pesticides, the department must ensure that the work is in compliance with existing IPM guidelines or consult with the city IPM coordinator to develop procedures that comply with the IPM policy. The contractors must comply with appropriate pre and post-notification requirements, according to the City of Boulder’s Pesticide Ordinance (Section 6-10-1 B.R.C. 1981) and relevant internal city protocols, such as providing timely information to post the application on the city’s pesticide hotline. VIII.CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION Employees who have questions concerning possible conflict between their interests and those of the city, or the interpretation and application of any of these rules, should direct their inquiries to their department director. The department director may refer the matter to the city manager for final resolution. IX.EXCEPTIONS/CHANGE This policy supersedes all previous policies covering the same or similar topics. Any exception to this policy may be granted only by the city manager. This policy may be reviewed and changed at any time. Adopted 1993, updated April 2018. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 1 CITY OF BOULDER *** POLICIES AND PROCEDURES INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 2018 April 24, 2002 _________________________ Ronald A. SecristJane S. Brautigam, City Manager I. SCOPE AND APPLICATION This Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy shall applyapplies to all pest management control activities conducted by all city staff, contractors and lessees, which includes all monitoring, non- chemical pest management practices and any pesticide use in buildings and related facilities; grounds and open space; and other property owned or managed by the City of Boulder. and conducted by city staff or contractors. City officers, employees, and contractors are required to follow this policy. Departments that have employees monitoring or treating pest problems or managing any contractors who monitor and/or treat pest problems will receive a copy of the Integrated Pest Management policy. All pest control contractors will receive a copy of this policy. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for implementation of the most environmentally- sound approaches for landscape, natural area, agricultural and facilities management and to reduce and eliminate, where possible, the volume and toxicity of chemical pest control treatments. The overarching goal is for all city IPM practices to be carefully assessed for the potential impacts to human health, water quality, non-target organisms, and the preservation and/or enhancement of biodiversity, particularly federal endangered and threatened species, and state, county and local species of concern. As a result, ecologically-based IPM approaches will be developed that promote the stability of desirable species and discourage pest populations, while sustaining the natural balances within the ecosystem. Commented [AR1]: Simplify and make more succinct. Commented [AR2]: Remove the word “control” in most instances to emphasize ecological approach of managing ecosystems. Commented [AR3]: Re-ordered to simplify and emphasize ecosystem protections. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 2 The policy is intended to provide a basis for pest and vegetation management that will protect public health, as well as water quality, federal endangered and threatened species, and state, county and local species of concern. The goal of the city’s IPM policy is to utilize the most environmentally sound approaches to pest management, and to reduce and eliminate, where possible, the volume and toxicity of chemical pest control treatments. The objectives of this policy are to • require planning and development of an IPM program for all departments and • provide procedural guidelines for implementation. • Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 3 III. DEFINITIONS A. Integrated Pest Management (IPM): a decision decision-making process which that selects, integrates, and implements a combination of suitable and compatible strategies pest control strategies to prevent, deter, or manage control pest populations within established thresholds. Integrated Pest ManagementIPM uses a "whole systems approach", viewing looking at the target species as it relates to the entire ecosystem. In choosing control Management strategies are chosen that minimize , minimal impacts to human health, the environment, and non-target organisms, and protect overall biodiversity and ecosystem health are considered. B. Pest: broadly, a pest is an organism that interferes with or reduces the availability or quality of desirable plants and other resources; impacts human or animal health; damages structures; or harms some component of the ecosystem. Whether or not an organism is considered a pest can depend on the setting, rather than the particular species. .A pest may be an any insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or any other form of terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal life or virus, bacteria, or other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria, or other micro-organisms on or in living man or other living animals) which the Administrator of the EPA declares to be pest under section 25(c)(1) [7 USCA 136w(c)(1)]. C. Pesticide: any substance or mixture of substances intended for destroying or repelling any pest. This includes without limitation fungicides, insecticides, nematicides, herbicides, and rodenticides and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant. In addition to applications of pesticides, products that have been pre-treated with pesticides are subject to this policy. Plants that have been genetically modified to incorporate pesticides or are resistant to pesticides are prohibited unless an exception has been granted by the city manager. The following products are not pesticides: 1. Deodorizers, bleaching agents, disinfectants and substances for which no pesticidal claim is made in the sale or distribution thereof, and 2. Fertilizers and plant nutrients. D. Reasonable Alternative: a feasible option for pest control management, which takes into account the short and long-term economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the proposed choices. IV. CITY IPM COORDINATOR The city manager City Manager has determined that there should be a central staff person will to coordinate the Integrated Pest ManagementIPM efforts of city departments. The IPM cCoordinator’s shall be in the Office of Environmental Affairs in the City Manager’s Office and responsibilities shall include, but are not limited to, the following items: • Coordination with city departments on weed and pest control management issues and Commented [AR4]: Key aspects of IPM included in definition – combination of strategies, establishing thresholds and additional language for ecosystem and biodiversity protections. Commented [AR5]: The purpose of this sentence is to convey that all organisms fit into the natural world and whether or not it’s considered a pest depends on context – e.g. native range, whether it’s interfering and competing with a human need or desire (perfect yard, nuisance mosquitoes, unblemished produce), etc. The “pest” needs to be considered within the ecological/broader context. Commented [AR6]: This would include insecticide-coated seeds and pre-treated plants, as well as organisms that have been genetically modified to incorporate pesticides into the plant or plants engineered with traits to resist pesticides. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 4 integrating IPM principles with other environmental policies and plans; • Publication of the annual IPM reports; • Coordination of the an iInterdepartmental IPM team; Review Group • Development of a city weed management plan, in accordance with state law; • Development and maintenance of pesticide approval process(es) and pesticide reduction guidelines; • Coordination of the development and update of an IPM operations manual; departmental IPM plans • Research and recommendations foron IPM strategies; • Development and administration of the city’s mosquito management policy and program; • Assistance to city departments with staff training needs; and • Outreach to citizens residents regarding IPM, pollution prevention and pesticide reduction strategies, pollinator protection and natural lawn and gardening practices. A. IPM Reports. The city IPM coordinator will compile the data from all participating city departments from the information listed in Section V, Departmental/Divisional Obligations. This information will be provided in reports and/or posted on the city’s website. Comprehensive reports will be submitted to the city manager and city council and will include IPM-related data, a review of new IPM strategies, arising challenges, IPM program or departmental accomplishments, and IPM program coordination with other city programs and initiatives. A. Annual IPM Report. The City IPM Coordinator will compile data from all participating city departments and submit an annual report to City Council and the City Manager. The report will detail the previous year’s IPM efforts and shall contain information listed in Section V, Departmental/Divisional Obligations. Each department using pest control methods shall submit their information through their department IPM coordinator to the City IPM Coordinator. The report will include a review of new IPM strategies as well as trends in IPM techniques over time. B. Interdepartmental IPM Team Review Group. This group team will be coordinated by the cCity IPM cCoordinator and will include department IPM coordinators, managers and other key interested city staff. The teamGroup shall will meet at least quarterly and meetings will include development of annual Ccity IPM goals and strategies, review and evaluation of the IPM operations manualof each department or division plan, as well as opportunities for information exchange, education and cooperationcollaboration. The This Interdepartmental IPM Review Group shallteam will also review interdepartmental issues and make policy recommendations that advance the objectives of the IPM policy and reduce reliance on chemical pest control. V. DEPARTMENTAL/DIVISIONAL OBLIGATIONS The followingAll departments/divisions that conduct pest control management operations and/or that use or potentially use pesticides are required to fulfill the obligations of this section.: • Downtown and University Hill Management Division (including Parking Services) • Fire • Housing and Human Services Commented [AR7]: Staff is working on a process to gather IPM data consistently across departments for annual reporting. Staff is also assessing new formats to provide a digital living document that can replace a formal paper report and be more accessible to the public. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 5 •Open Space/Mountain Parks •Parks and Recreation (including Athletics, Boulder Reservoir, Environmental Resources, Flatirons Golf Course, Forestry, Recreation Centers and Urban Parks) •Public Works (including Airport, Facilities and Asset Management (FAM), Greenways, Transportation & Utilities Maintenance and Water & Waste Water Treatment Plants) A.IPM Operations Manual. The IPM operations manual (manual) will serve as a guide for all pest management operations and will provide rationale and procedural guidelines for the implementation of the IPM policy. All persons conducting pest management within the scope of this policy are required to follow the manual, Departments or divisions will provide information to the city IPM coordinator and the IPM interdepartmental team to contribute towards the creation, review and update of the manual. The manual will be reviewed annually and a record kept of any revisions. Departments will designate at least one staff member as the departmental/divisional representative who will be responsible for providing information and input concerning the manual. A.Integrated Pest Management Plan. Each of these departments or divisions, and any others using pest control methods in the future, shall use the procedures outlined in this policy to develop a departmental or divisional Integrated Pest Management Plan. This plan shall be submitted to the City IPM Coordinator by January 15, 2003. Plans will be reviewed annually and updated at least every five years. Departments shall designate at least one staff member as the departmental/divisional IPM coordinator or representative to the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group. Commented [AR8]: Department names and divisions change and a list could imply that those not listed don’t have to comply with the policy when the policy applies to the entire city. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 6 B. Record-keeping and Evaluation. Each department, division or work group shall must keep accurate records and results of all Integrated Pest ManagementIPM treatments used and the results. Information on all treatments (including non-chemical ones) shall will include how, when, where and why the treatment was applied and the name of the applicator. This information will be compiled submitted to the City IPM Coordinator yearly, as the basis for the Annual IPM ReportIPM reports. It should also be available for review at the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group meetings. The cCity IPM cCoordinator will review pest management treatments strategies with city departments and the IPM interdepartmental team to evaluate results, share information with other staff and improve the IPM program. the successes and failures of the IPM program, and to plan more efficient and effective pest management strategies. The following information shall be maintained: 1. Target pest 2. Pest population levels or injury thresholds for treatment 3. Treatment selection criteria with final treatment decision (IPM hierarchy checklist) 4. Area treated (including type of location and size of area) 5. Pesticide (including product trade name, active ingredient and EPA toxicity category) 6. Quantity of product used 7. Treatment method used (i.e. bait, injection) 8. Location of application 9. Time and date of pesticide application 10. Name(s) and license number(s) of Pesticide Applicator(s) 11. Name of the department contact authorizing work 12. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and labels for all pesticides used Application records shall will be made available to the public upon request in accordance with all applicable state laws governing public access to information. C. Contractor Notification. Every department bidding out contractual work for pest management must inform all bidders that the City has an Integrated Pest Management Policyabout the requirements of the IPM policy and include incorporate its guidelines in bid specifics. Contractors are encouraged to submit bids that include non-chemical pest control methods. Bids with non-chemical approaches may be given preference. If pesticides are applied, only those products may be used that are part of the approved pesticide list and adhere to its use guidelines OR are in accordance with a pesticide assessment and selection process approved by the city manager in compliance with the protocols and guidance of the IPM operations manual and/or are reviewed and have prior approval by the department and its division representative and the city’s IPM coordinator. The cCity will inform pest management contractors of the cCity’s IPM Policy and operations manual plans and provide a written copy of this policy and other relevant documents as appropriate. (i.e. Commented [AR9]: The paragraph/narrative provides policy direction. The details in the bullet list will be included in the IPM Operations Manual. Commented [AR10]: It’s the responsibility of staff to ensure that RFPs are clear about IPM guidelines and procedures so that that contractors know what’s expected. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 7 departmental plans or Best Management Practices). Project managers, departmental IPM coordinators or contactsrepresentatives, or the cCity IPM cCoordinator shall must approve all pest management treatments. VI. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM)IPM PROCEDURE The cCity assumes that all pesticides are potentially hazardous to human and environmental health and will take measures to avoid any non-essential use. Therefore, reasonable non-pesticide alternatives willshall be given preference over chemical application controls by following the IPM procedure. City staff will evaluate alternatives to chemical treatments, including the cost- effectiveness of the treatments. For all pest control activities, the IPM procedure outlined below mustshall be followed. A. Initial Data Collection, Mapping and Monitoring. Each department or division considering pest control measures management of a target species shall should first collect baseline data on the pest ecosystem(s) to determine if the organism is truly a pest that warrants treatmentThis data includes the pest population(s) occurrence, size, density and presence of any natural enemy population(s); gather information on pest biology and site ecology, and different control techniques available; and document sensitive areas and conditions that may limit control options. Data shall should be collected in a standardized manner that is repeatable. This information may be included in departmental or divisional IPM plans. For structural pests, inspection and monitoring should be conducted to determine and eliminate route of entry, potential food and water sources, and nesting sites. This information should be logged. Ranking, inventory, mapping, monitoring and evaluation are methods used for determining pest management priorities. Maps and inventories depict infestations in terms of pest species, size, location and threats to resources. Departments/divisions shall must monitor infestations or pest populations and evaluate treatments over time to assess the effectiveness of various treatment strategies and their effects on target and non-target organisms the overall biodiversity of each site and the desired management objectives. These objectives should be reevaluated over time as the range and distribution of different species is altered from climate change and other anthropogenic factors. All monitoring methods and data must shall be specified in the departmental or divisional IPM planprocedures and included in the IPM operations manual, systematically recorded, and available for review. at the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group meetings. Departments should shall coordinate and utilize standardized pest mapping and data recording protocols, if possible. B. Establishing Threshold Levels. To determine if treatment is warranted, an acceptable threshold level of treatment for each target pest and site should be established based on the ecology of the pest and either its density that creates environmental, aesthetic or economic damage or based on a measurement of the damage resulting from the pest.. Departmental IPM procedures plans will Commented [AR11]: Redundant. Stated at end of section. Commented [AR12]: Important to acknowledge that climate change will impact ecosystems and that monitoring is crucial for adaptive management and protection of ecosystem services. Commented [AR13]: This is a simplification of the original language. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 8 contain include the threshold levels for common pests, determined by individual work groups, and may be developed in conjunction consultation with the cCity IPM cCoordinator and interdepartmental team. In some instancescases, treatment a threshold, such as eradication, suppression, or containment may be required by federal or state law. The assessment will be based on the following: The tolerable level of environmental, aesthetic and economic damage as a result of the pest population(s) and the tolerable level of risk to human health as a result of the pest population(s); OR The size or density of the pest population that must be present to cause unacceptable environmental, aesthetic and/or economic damage; and the size, density and type of pest population that must be present to create a human health risk. C.ManagementTreatment Selection Criteria. Upon determining that management for an undesirable species treatment is necessary, the following criteria should be used to help select the appropriate IPM treatment strategy: 1.Least-disruptive of naturally occurring controls; 2.Least-hazardous to human health; 3.Least-toxic to non-target organisms; 4.Least-damaging to the general environment, surface and ground water, and overall ecosystem function and stability; 5. Most likely to produce a permanent reduction in the environment's ability to support target pests; 6.Economic and environmental Ccost-effectiveness in the short- and long-term. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 9 D. Treatment Management Strategies and the IPM Hierarchy. Each department or division, in consultation with the cCity IPM cCoordinator, IPM team and/or guidelines of the operations manual, shall will make its own determination about appropriate and effective treatmentsmanagement approaches, based on site-specific requirements and condition. Commitment to the most environmentally- sound approach is expected, with relying primarily on non-chemical methods considered first. Prevention, cultural control, mechanical control, biological control and chemical control are the techniques used in the hierarchy of integrated pest management. In general, a combination of compatible treatments is more effective than a single approach. Departments and divisions staff are encouraged to seek out and experiment with innovative IPM treatments (and combinations of treatments) and share this information at the iInterdepartmental IPM Review Groupteam meetings. The following treatments are listed in the order in which they should be executed: 1. Prevention. This is the most effective and important pest management strategy and is the foundation of IPM. By reducing the capacity of the ecosystem to support target pest populations through design and appropriate management, the opportunities for pest establishment can be reduced to tolerable thresholds or eliminated. Some examples are: a) Use sStrategies that reduce the preferred harborage, food, water or other essential requirements of pests;. a)b) Promoting healthy soils and ecosystems to withstand pest infestations; b)c) Use wWeed-free materials for road and trail construction and maintenance. c)d) Use lLandscape and structural design that is appropriate to the specific habitat, climate and maintenance the area will receive;. and d)e) When designing projects, Project design that considers the potential impacts of pests and mitigates through the use of appropriate landscape design (plant choice, soil preparation, water requirements, weed barriers, etc). 2. Cultural. Cultural control is the use of management activities that can prevent pests from developing or keep them below tolerable levels due toby enhancement of desired conditions. Examples include:Specific examples are the following: a) Selection and placement of materials that provide life support mechanisms for pest enemies and competitors;. b) Modification of pest habitat by reducing pest harborage, food supply and other life support requirements;. c) Vegetation management including irrigation, mulching, fertilization, aeration, mowing height, seeding, pruning and thinning;. d) Waste management and proper food storage;. e) Barriers and traps.; f) Heat, cold, humidity, desiccation or light applied to affected regions; and. g) Prescribed burning or grazing. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 10 3. Mechanical. Mechanical control is accomplished by using physical methods or mechanical equipment to control pest infestations, such as:. a) Mowing or weed-whipping; b) Prescribed Bburning; c) Hand-pulling of weeds; d) Hand-removal of insect egg massespests (e.g. insect or invasive amphibian egg masses). 4. Biological. Biological controls include the introduction or enhancement of natural enemy populations to target pests. Introduction of non-indigenous organisms has an associated risk factor and should be thoroughly evaluated prior to implementation in consultation with the city IPM coordinator and the interdepartmental IPM team. Biological methods include a) Conservation and augmentation of the pest's natural enemies; and b) Introduction of host-specific enemy organisms 5. Chemical. Chemical control of pests is accomplished by using chemical compounds registered as pesticides. All pesticides shall be assumed to be potentially hazardous to human and/or environmental health. The type, methods and timing of any chemical treatment shall will be determined after consideration has been given to protection of non-target organisms (including threatened or endangered species), the impact on biodiversity, protection of water quality, pest biology, soil types, anticipated adverse weather (winds, precipitation, etc) and temperature. Only those pesticides that have been evaluated and approved for use on city properties by a process approved by the city manager may be applied. Application of any pesticide must follow the guidelines for that particular product, which will be provided to staff, contractors or lessees and include information pertaining to target pests, application methods and any other restrictions. a) b) Initial review of potential chemicals shall begin with the least toxic compounds, i.e. chemicals in EPA Toxicity Categories III and IV. The use of compounds in EPA Toxicity Categories I and II shall be avoided if possible or used in situations where exposure to the active ingredient is limited (i.e. baits or soil/trunk injections). c) If, after a thorough evaluation of alternatives, the only effective or practical chemical control is an EPA Toxicity Category I or II compound, the department or division IPM coordinator shall confer with the City IPM Coordinator, and, if practical, the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group, to review the decision- making process and make a recommendation to the department head for approval. This may be done on a yearly basis for specific pest treatments. The decision-making process and lack of alternatives shall be documented. d) Staff will review the information available on potential chemicals for Commented [AR14]: Most of this section is removed, since it predates the approved pesticide list process. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 11 persistence in the soil and the potential impacts from persistence. These factors will be considered along with the potential for more frequent application of chemicals that do not persist in the environment. e) If chemical treatment is warranted in a riparian area, applications will generally be plant specific and limited to wick applications. If broader applications are needed, the department or division IPM coordinator shall confer with the City IPM Coordinator, and, if practical, the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group, to review the decision-making process and make a recommendation to the department head for approval. This may be done on a yearly basis. f) Potential chemical approaches (1) pheromones and other attractants to confuse pests and/or act as bait (2) insecticidal soaps (3) juvenile hormones that arrest pest development (4) repellants (5) allelopathins (6) sterilants or contraceptives to reduce breeding (7) contact, stomach or other poisons (8) fumigants (9) combinations of above (baits with poisons) (10) herbicides, insecticides All pesticides shall must be applied in conformance with label specifications and all applicable federal, state and municipal laws, regulations and ordinances, as well as any additional restrictions provided in city guidance documents. All pesticide applications shall must comply with the appropriate pre and post- notification requirements, according to the City of Boulder’s Pesticide Ordinance (Section 6-10-1 B.R.C. 1981). For all city pesticide applications, notification will be posted at the site at least 24 hours in advance, remain on site for at least 24 hours, and posted on the city’s hotline. This includes soil and trunk injections, spot spraying, hand-wicking and broadcast spraying on all city lands or property. open to the public E. Education. Education is a critical component of an IPM program. The cCity IPM cCoordinator will include IPM information on the city’s Office of Environmental Affairs’ website. Information will include the Annual IPM rReports, departmental IPM plans and other pertinent material. the IPM operations manual and pesticide assessment processes, recommendations for the most ecologically-sound pest management for residents, and IPM- related events and educational opportunities across the city.Individual departments, divisions and work groups may conduct additional specific educational activities. VII. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES & REQUIREMENTS All contractors working for the City are required to abide by the City’s IPM Policy. The contractor will return a signed statement to the IPM Coordinator or departmental contact certifying they have read and understand the policy prior to any work being done for the City. The contractor shall Commented [AR15]: Employees have a right to know when pesticides have been applied, so all pesticide applications should be posted. Commented [AR16]: Section simplified, since it’s up to the hiring department to oversee that contractors comply with the IPM requirements. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 12 maintain records as listed in Section V, B. The City periodically enters into contracts that authorize pest management, such as for building maintenance, project construction and maintenance, and weed and insect control. When the city signs a new contract or extends the term of an existing contract with a contractor that conducts IPM-related work, including may include or authorize the application of pesticides, the department must ensure that the work is in compliance with existing IPM guidelines or consult with the city IPM coordinator to develop procedures that comply with the IPM policy. the department shall review its IPM plan with the City IPM Coordinator and update the plan to include the pesticide usage of the contractor. Contractors who apply pesticides on City owned or managed property shall submit a plan to the contracting city department and the City IPM Coordinator if the department has not provided a plan. Their plan shall include the following: • Information addressing all the elements listed in Section VI, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Procedure • Types and estimated rates, to the extent possible, of the pesticides that the contractor may need to apply to City property during its contract • An outline of the actions the contractor will take to meet the City IPM policy • The primary IPM contact for the contractor Contractors will provide background information on the decision-making process for treatment methods to the city upon request. The City department and City IPM Coordinator shall approve the plan before any chemical applications are made. Contractors shall notify their departmental contact when any biological or chemical treatments are conducted. The contractors mustshall comply with appropriate pre and post- notification requirements, according to the City of Boulder’s Pesticide Ordinance (Section 6-10-1 B.R.C. 1981) and relevant internal city protocols, such as providing timely information to post the application on the city’s pesticide hotline. VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION Employees who have questions concerning possible conflict between their interests and those of the cCity, or the interpretation and application of any of these rules, should direct their inquiries to their dDepartment dDirector. The dDepartment dDirector may refer the matter to the cCity mManager for final resolution. IX. EXCEPTIONS/CHANGE This policy supersedes all previous policies covering the same or similar topics. Any exception to this policy may be granted only by the cCity mManager. This policy may be reviewed and changed at any time. Adopted 1993, updated April 2018April 2002. Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 13 Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions AGENDA ITEM # __VII-B___ PAGE 1 C I T Y O F B O U L D E R PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: February 26, 2018 AGENDA TITLE: 2017 Master Plan Progress Report/Overview of 2018 Priorities PRESENTERS: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Ali Rhodes, Deputy Director Jeff Haley, Manager, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager Brenda Richey, Manager, Business Services Callie Hayden, Manager, Urban Park Operations Dean Rummel, Manager, Recreation Programs & Partnerships Bryan Beary, Manager, District Services Kevin Williams, Manager, Regional Facilities Margo Josephs, Manager, Philanthropy and Community Partnerships EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In February 2014, City Council accepted the Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan (master plan). With acceptance of the plan, the Parks and Recreation Department (department) committed to a new mission and vision, as well as initiatives outlined in the fiscally constrained plan. The purpose of this item is to update the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) on master plan progress in 2017 and share 2018-2019 plans to continue implementation. In celebrating four years since the master plan’s acceptance, the department is pleased to share progress in implementing community priorities as expressed in the master plan. The PRAB’s understanding of work completed to date and support of future work efforts is critical to ensuring that the community’s needs for its parks and recreation system are being met. BACKGROUND: The Planning Approach Boulder has a strong history of implementing a planning approach to ensure services are allocated equitably and in a manner that aligns with community values and goals. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) provides overall policy direction to all city AGENDA ITEM # __VII-B___ PAGE __2_ planning. The city of Boulder and Boulder County are currently in the process of updating the BVCP. The department’s master plan is a key implementation strategy under the BVCP, reflecting that Boulder’s parks and recreating services are tangible ways to shape neighborhoods and to move the community towards the vision of becoming one of the most sustainable and livable communities in the world. The master plan includes policies, long-range goals, initiatives and a plan to ensure that the department is delivering services in line with the community’s expectations and values for its parks and recreation system. Various other plans then inform the implementation of the BVCP and master plans, through providing more specific actions and outcomes related to capital investment and operations. Attachment A, the Boulder Parks and Recreation Planning Approach, illustrates the various level of detail provided by sub-plans and also demonstrates the breadth of planning efforts completed in an effort to accomplish master plan goals Impacts of Completed Planning and Studies The department’s investment in planning is fulfilled through its ability to develop a Capital Investment Strategy that is data-driven and also guided by community input. For example, because of the Aquatics Feasibility Plan the department has completed refurbishments to the pools at the North Boulder Recreation Center and is planning for replacement of the past its life-cycle Scott Carpenter Pool. The department’s planning efforts have also impacted operations in tangible and valuable ways. Because of completed studies, the department can make more data-driven decisions about day to day operations. For the recreation division, the completion and recent update of the Recreation Priority Index illustrate the distribution of subsidy use among recreation programs and has informed cost-based pricing as well as program life- cycle management. This work all coordinates to ensure the department is fulfilling the following key policies outlined in the master plan: •The department shall provide for the health and wellness of the Boulder community through deliberate and thoughtful design of programs, facilities, parks and services. •The department shall use a life-cycle management approach in recreation programming and facility asset management to ensure service provision remains aligned with community interests. Finally, the department continues to develop a highly effective workforce that can positively impact the community’s health and quality of life. By including staff in the development and implementation of planning efforts, employees learn to be results- oriented, collaborative and innovative. This is achieved through enabling Matrix Teams (teams involving staff from various levels and divisions of the department) to lead key AGENDA ITEM # __VII-B___ PAGE __3_ initiatives each year. Through investments in learning and growth, the department ensures the organization is results-oriented, collaborative, creative, innovative, and capable of measured risk-taking, all of which contributes to Boulder’s ability to be a modern parks and recreation agency. Master Plan implementation progress to date is summarized in Attachment A. Key accomplishments in 2017 include the continuing implementation of the department's programs to use a life-cycle management approach for both recreation services and asset management. Efforts in 2017 set the stage for implementation of asset management software in 2018 as well as continued efforts to align subsidy use with community values. For example, and as highlighted at the January PRAB meeting, the Service Delivery model is ensuring that programs are thoughtfully designed and delivered to achieve health outcomes. 2017 highlights also include the completion of construction of Boulder's new Civic Area, to be formally celebrated in the spring. The replacements of the past their life-cycle Scott Carpenter Pool and Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center are being designed with construction to begin in the third quarter of 2018. Community building and partnerships experienced tremendous growth in the past year, with staff efforts stewarding a strategic framework for developing and managing community partnerships. 2018 BPR Priorities In November, staff delegates from across the department gathered for the third annual Action Planning Summit. Attendees reviewed master plan progress, 2017 action plan accomplishments and learned about community priorities through a panel discussion including City Manager, Jane Brautigam, CU Senior Associate Athletic Director, Ceal Barry, and Galvanize Education Program Director Tara McLauchlan. These priorities are founded in the master plan and framed by current community context. •We will continue our efforts to know our customer and increase access and service reach to underserved members of our community. We will do this through continued enhancements to our Financial Aid program, intentional outreach with users of the recreation centers, and evaluation of the department's Sugary Sweetened Beverage Tax funded programs. •To ensure Financial Sustainability, we will continue to grow the business acumen of our team so that we can be effective stewards of public assets and funds. We will focus on the long-term viability of our funds, ensuring that revenues and expenses are aligned. •To improve Internal Process, we will begin use of a new Asset Management Software, Beehive, and continue enhancements to the recreation software, Active. Both will enable improved service analysis data-driven decision making. •Finally, and most importantly, we will continue investments in Learning and Growth so that we can ensure we are promoting an engaged and motivated workforce and also developing highly skilled professionals. AGENDA ITEM # __VII-B___ PAGE __4_ The above priorities will be implemented through the department’s annual Action Plan and team work plans. The PRAB was instrumental in shaping the policy and direction of the master plan. The board’s ongoing support of efforts to achieve the community’s vision is critical to ensuring the department is able to provide for the health and well- being of the community while also providing oversight of public assets Questions for PRAB: Does the Board have questions regarding the department’s completed planning efforts? Does the Board have questions regarding the 2018 priorities? ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Overview of the Planning Approach (Graphic) Attachment B 2018 Master Plan Progress Report Attachment A The Boulder Parks and Recreation Planning Approach Master Plans Strategic Action Plans Site Master Plans Site Development Plans Sets broad vision and goals for the long-term direction of the department Strategic Plans establish achievable and measurable outcomes to implement the broad goals of the department’s master plan Examples: Department Annual Action Plan, Asset Management Plan, Capital Investment Strategy Major Site Master Plans provide specific direction for development of specific major recreation sites including design guidelines, development phasing and preliminary cost for construction and operations (life cycle analysis) required to carry out the department’s programs and services Examples: Reservoir, Valmont City Park, Civic Area Site Plans provide specific design guidelines and standards including site plans, cost estimates and final life-cycle analysis to support the development of projects to meet overall department master plan goals Examples: Civic Area, Valmont South, Boulder Reservoir South Shore, Tom Watson, Scott Carpenter and Mapleton parks, Scott Carpenter Aquatics Center Development Plan Management Plans provide direction with specific actions and outcomes for individual business unites of the department linked to the overarching master plan vision and goals. Examples: GMMP, AMS, Urban Forest Plan, Business Plans, Recreation Service Delivery model Major Facility Studies provide specific direction for development of specific major recreation sites including design guidelines, development phasing and preliminary cost for construction and operations (life cycle analysis) required to carry out the department’s programs and services Examples: Athletic Fields Study, Aquatics Feasibility Plan, Recreation Center Strategic Plan Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan: 2017 Implementation Update Theme 1 Community Health and Wellness A.1.Conduct user satisfaction and use survey. 2.Conduct annual review and evaluation of existing programs to ensure alignment with mission. 3.Review new programs for fit with department mission. B.1.Partner with the city Transportation Division and Greenways Program to enhance connectivity and safe routes to parks and schools. 2.Review population data to determine distribution by age, gender, income and ethnicity. 3.Partner with other agencies (e.g. BVSD) to ensure parks and playground facilities are within ½ mile of residents. C.1.Review Health Impact Assessment (HIA) best practices with service provider roundtable members and together develop health measurements for Boulder. Link to program objectives. 2.Communicate annual data findings to community members and partners. D.1.Annually review research on best practices, local and national trends. 2.Develop and implement standardized measurement and evaluation processes based on identified and measurable program objectives. 3.Enact a best practice that requires partners to record and report information and data that is compatible with BPRD evaluation frameworks. E.Leverage partnerships with health providers and allied agencies that contribute essential components to the overall health of Boulder. 1.Organize regular roundtable discussions with key stakeholder agencies and organizations to coordinate provision of services and activities. Item Complete (and sometimes ongoing) Item In Progress Initiative Not Yet Started Use data to evaluate services through a life cycle approach. Long-Range Goals Initiatives Park and recreation services remain aligned with the public interest in health and wellness. Parks and facilities will be provided to meet and/or exceed proximity standards. Analyze health impacts of department services. B Attachment B Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan: 2017 Implementation Update Theme 2 Taking Care of What We Have A.1.Develop an Asset Management Program (AMP) and implement a relational database for built assets as well as for urban forestry and natural resources. 2.Complete Facility Condition Index (FCI) assessment for all assets. 3.Adopt recommended park classifications and settings to aid in resource allocation, with guidelines and Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) for each classification setting. 4.Develop maintenance and safety standards. 5.Develop a forest management plan and update the urban tree inventory. B.1.Conduct asset priority index assessment using best practices with external stakeholders and the public through an annual “Park Report Card” process. 2.Establish a depreciation (sinking fund) account for operations and maintenance of assets. C.1.Conduct a follow up assessment on sub-area plans to determine if additional facilities are needed. 2.Renovate appropriate current facilities for multi-purpose use. 3.Create additional artificial turf rectangular fields designed for multi-purpose use. 4.Conduct a site planning study for undeveloped acreage at Valmont City Park to determine best multi-functional use of space. 5.Conduct a long-range area study for the development of Area III Park Reserve to meet future needs. 6.Conduct an Aquatics Feasibility Study. 7.Conduct an Athletics Fields Feasibility Study. 8.Conduct joint facility condition assessment of recreation centers with Facilities and Asset Management (FAM). Initiatives Reduce maintenance backlog and identify adequate funding to sustain a satisfactory Facility Condition Index (FCI). Develop an Asset Priority Index (API) that emphasizes adequate funding for operation and maintenance of existing facilities over development of new facilities. Provide multi-functional, flexible facilities that can accommodate a variety of unforeseen needs and recreation use trends. Long-Range Goals Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan: 2017 Implementation Update D.1.Develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to meet LOS recommendations in alignment with TCFO using best practices. 2.Develop annual CIP and Renovation and Replacement (R&R) evaluation process that includes regular updates to FCI and API. 3.Establish FCI target and provide depreciation fund to allocate 2.5% of Current Replacement Value (CRV) on an annual basis to maintain desired FCI. 4.Conduct an economic impact study for regional and national tournaments and events. Item Complete (and sometimes ongoing) Item In Progress Initiative Not Yet Started Collect, analyze and routinely use appropriate data to make decisions regarding asset management and budget priorities. Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan: 2017 Implementation Update Theme 3 Financial Sustainability A.1.Develop business plans for facilities and program areas. 2.Identify direct and indirect costs of providing services. 3.Standardize cost-recovery calculation to include indirect expenditures and consistent application in all areas. B.1.Establish program objectives to specify the outcome or impact desired by the program or service. 2.Categorize programs depending upon the degree of community or individual benefit provided. 3.Establish cost recovery rates. 4.Identify funding sources and implement service based pricing. C.1.Define and communicate funding sources of services. 2.Evaluate the existing commercial use program fees. 3.Develop a mechanism to spin-off appropriate programs to partners. 4.Establish a framework for consolidating or ending recreation programs. 5.Develop protocol for ongoing monitoring of the services of other providers to inform decisions about BPRD program and facility offerings. D.1.Determine areas of highest-leverage partnership needs. 2.Grow relationships and leverage fundraising with foundations and nonprofit partners. Item Complete (and sometimes ongoing) Item In Progress Initiative Not Yet Started Initiatives Calculate total cost of facility ownership and of providing services and utilize data in resource allocation. Determine the appropriate portfolio of services to ensure and promote financial sustainability goals. Leverage partnerships, including those foundations and nonprofits, to increase funding and optimize service provision. Develop a Recreation Priority Index (RPI). Long-Range Goals Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan: 2017 Implementation Update Theme 4 Building Community and Relationships A.1.Establish partnership standards and guidelines and assign a staff member to manage overall process. 2.Identify partnership needs and actively seek out partnerships to meet needs. B.1.Conduct a user satisfaction and use survey. 2.Develop a comprehensive list of community groups. 3.Develop and implement a communication outreach plan. 4.Evaluate outcomes of outreach efforts to ensure goals are met. C.1.Develop and implement an outreach program for key stakeholders and groups. 2.Establish regular outreach with similar agency leaders such as OSMP, YMCA, CU, BVSD, etc., as well as community leaders. D.1.Develop community work groups to identify efficiencies and partnership opportunities. 2.Determine programs for shifts in service delivery and implement shifts. E.1.Develop an enhanced financial aid program. 2.Explore opportunities to promote services to non-English speakers. Item Complete (and sometimes ongoing) Item In Progress Initiative Not Yet Started Ensure that services are promoted and accessible to all community members. Long-Range Goals Initiatives Create and implement a strategic framework for developing and managing community partnerships. Develop relationships with community leaders and organizations. Conduct regular community program analysis to identify gaps or redundancies in services in order to coordinate program offerings or service provision by the appropriate agency or organization. Ensure that public engagement efforts include outreach to the full community. Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan: 2017 Implementation Update Theme 5 Youth Engagement and Activity A.1.Create a joint working group consisting of department leadership, PRAB and YOAB members. 2.Identify new program opportunities and funding requirements. 3.Implement new programs, as recommended, and evaluate outcomes. B.1.Evaluate existing service and participation levels. 2.Create a youth programming work group with department staff. 3.Expand outreach to under-represented groups. 4.Develop an enhanced financial aid program. 5.Develop a social media plan to encourage youth engagement. C.1.Increase youth participation in a BPR volunteer program. 2.Partner with agencies to expand environmental awareness. 3.Review the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). 4.Implement programming partnerships with OSMP, the Forest Service and other land management or conservation agencies. D.Balance nature play and developed areas in parks to improve youth exposure to the outdoors. 1.Adopt nature play design guidelines and standards. E.1.Coordinate with other providers to develop a comprehensive plan that provides for the most efficient use of resources and optimizes service delivery. 2.Partner with youth recreation groups and create a Youth Sports Commission that reports to PRAB. Item Complete (and sometimes ongoing) Item In Progress Initiative Not Yet Started Initiatives Involve youth in civic process, including service learning and decision-making. Leverage partnerships with agencies that serve youth to increase participation in all forms of recreation, sport, outdoor activities and play. Increase youth participation in physical activity and nature programs. Increase environmental awareness and conservation ethics among Boulder youth. Long-Range Goals Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan: 2017 Implementation Update Theme 6 Organizational Readiness A.1.Adopt the revised mission, vision and guiding principles. 2.Develop and implement a department communication plan. B.1.Identify professional competencies required for each position and review bi- annually. 2.Identify and develop a plan to eliminate competency gaps in the workforce. 3.Norm positions to ensure standards and competencies are similar at like levels and to ensure that skills will transfer. 4.Incorporate technical parks and recreation professional competencies in employee evaluation system and development plans. C.1.Develop an organization that is highly-skilled in cross-teaming. 2.Develop organization performance measures by functional area (Balanced Scorecard Approach). D.1.Host a regular roundtable with community service providers. 2.Evaluate all partnerships for alignment with the BPRD mission. 3.Create a comprehensive, shared database with organizations that includes common goals and action items to develop collaboration opportunities. 4.Actively seek out partnerships to meet needs. Item Complete (and sometimes ongoing) Item In Progress Initiative Not Yet Started Strive for strategic alignment with partnerships and like-minded organizations. Long-Range Goals Initiatives BPRD’s mission, vision and guiding principles are clearly articulated and supported by the community. Focus on overall workforce learning and development. Develop a results-oriented, collaborative, innovative organization.