07.27.16 OSBT PacketOPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
6:00 I. Special update: Junior Ranger Program
6:15 II. Approval of Minutes
6:20 III. *Public Participation for Items Not Identified for Public Hearing
6:30 IV. *Consideration of a motion to recommend that City Council authorizes the
transfer of certain paved parcels of Open Space land to the City of Boulder Public
Works Department - Transportation pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article
XII, Section 177, of the Boulder City Charter.
6:55 V. Matters from Staff
a. Briefing on Proposed Annexation of OSMP Lands
b. Prairie Dog Management Update
c. Mesa Trail crossing at Skunk Creek – trail reroute and ford-type crossing
d. Budget Update
8:10 VI. Matters from the Board
8:20 VII. Adjournment
* Public hearing
Open Space Board of Trustees
2016 Tentative Board Items Calendar
(prepared July 20, 2016)
July 27 August 10 September 14
Action Items:
Transfer of paved paths
to Transportation
(disposal)
Matters from Department:
Junior Rangers Program
City Area III Annexation
Mesa Trail Crossing at
Skunk Canyon Creek
Design
Prairie Dog
Management Update
Operating Budget
Action Items:
NCWCD Pipeline
Easement (disposal)
Operating Budget
Recommendation
Property acquisition
Eastpark Donation
(disposal)
Matters from Department:
Education programs
updates
-Inclusion efforts
update
-Accessibility brochure
release
BVCP briefing
Action Items:
Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan
Review
Property acquisition
Matters from Department:
Trail Projects Update
Raptor Monitoring
Update
Community Ranger
Program
IGA renewal briefing
October 12 November 9 December 14
Action Items:
IGA renewal
Matters from Department:
City Council
Subcommittee
Update on 2013 Flood
Recovery
Conservancy concept
update and con-
currence to move to
step 3 (create MOI)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
Voice and Sight
Program Update
Update on Inventory for
Master Plan
Action Items:
Ag Plan
Matters from the Department:
AGENDA ITEM 2 PAGE 1
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes
Meeting Date June 8, 2016
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Frances Hartogh Molly Davis Kevin Bracy Knight Tom Isaacson Curt Brown
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Tracy Winfree Jim Reeder John Potter Mark Davison Cecil Fenio
Alycia Alexander Leah Case Brian Anacker Lynn Riedel Will Keeley
Ericka Pilcher Kacey French Dan Burke Kelly Wasserbach
GUESTS
Kathy Haddock, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Brett Kencairn, Senior Environmental Planner
Chris Meschuk, Planner II
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes
Tom Isaacson asked to remove the word, “in” on page 2, third paragraph. He said on the same page in the
fourth paragraph, add the word” site” after “Superfund”. In the fifth paragraph, change the word “it” to
“is.” In the same paragraph, second to last line, remove the word “for” before “capital.” Frances Hartogh
said on page 2, in the second paragraph, it should read, “. . . icy or muddy conditions. . .”
Molly Davis moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve the minutes from May 9, 2016 as
amended. Curt Brown seconded. This motion passed four to zero; Kevin Bracy Knight abstained as he
was absent at the last meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not on the Agenda
Elizabeth Black, Boulder, spoke about climate change and possible carbon sequestration techniques for
Boulder County. She suggested several ways that Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) could
sequester carbon on Open Space.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from Staff
Brett Kencairn, Senior Environmental Planner, presented on the Boulder’s Climate Commitment
and OSMP.
Kevin asked if staff has looked at how many people drive to trailheads, and how to reduce that number.
Brett said staff is currently gathering data for this. Tracy said the Chautauqua Access Management Plan is
looking at this as well. Tom asked about use patterns based on trail location and accessibility. Brett said
travel surveys will be taking place as part of their data gathering. Brian Anacker said staff is doing
surveys on visitation as well which will address use patterns. He noted that use patterns will also be
looked at relative to climate change. Frances asked if agricultural use and/or leases could be modified to
incorporate some of these findings. Brett said staff is still working on gathering this data.
Kathy Haddock, Senior Assistant City Attorney, presented on the City Blue Line.
Tom asked if this will affect Open Space. Kathy said no; changing this line will not change ownership or
otherwise. Tom asked if the properties will permanently be without water service even if the ownership
changes hands. Kathy said that is correct; the one exception would be for fire service. Molly asked if there
AGENDA ITEM 2 PAGE 2
is an impact on Conservation Easements (CE). Chris Meschuk said there may be certain areas that the line
will be moved down to appropriately incorporate a CE. Dan said staff will be participating in a workshop
where they will do a parcel by parcel analysis to make sure nothing is overlooked. Kevin asked what
would need to happen if Open Space decided to put in flush toilets within this boundary. Chris said Blue
Line applies only to water and not to sewer; however, to do this in the future this would likely take
another vote. Tom asked if there is any way to get water to land that is within the Blue Line. Kathy said
not with a city water tap or permanent irrigation, but there would be other options such as driving a truck
in and spraying from the truck. Frances asked when this would be put on the ballot. Kathy said in
November.
Brian Anacker, Science Officer, presented on the 2016 Funded Research Program.
Kevin asked if there is a public data sharing policy. Brian said the city has an open data policy; however,
they still need to work out how long after research takes place before it will be available to the public.
Kevin suggested funding longer term studies as it may draw more interest. Curt asked to see the 50
questions. Brian noted that these in addition to other information, are on the OSMP website. Curt
suggested tacking on additional money for writing and submitting.
Jim Reeder, Trails and Facilities Division Manager, gave an update on several trail projects.
Frances asked what passive removal of prairie dogs means. Jim said they would be encouraged to move
away from the trail and onto another area on the site, likely by closing their burrow holes. Molly asked if
Tenderfoot is closed because work on Chapman is taking place. Kelly said yes; it is a safety precaution.
Kacey French, Planner I, gave an update on the Agricultural Plan.
Curt asked if this plan should be put on hold until the Master Plan is complete. Tracy said it will be fine to
do them simultaneously since local foods is an initiative from City Council. Kevin suggested a separate
board/commission who could help advise staff on agriculture. Molly suggested expanding the section that
includes impacts from the public on the lessees. She added that having a mechanism for lessees to contact
staff with concerns would be good. Frances asked how goals and measures of success are determined for
each plan component. Kacey said staff will create goals and figure out how to get there with management
strategies and determines how to measure success. Some will come from existing plan documents.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Board
Frances thanked all who participated in the North Trail Study Area (TSA) Plan process.
Molly gave an update on the Fourmile Canyon Greenways Improvement Project. This is on the city
website.
AGENDA ITEM 5 – Review of and recommendation regarding the 2017 Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department Capital Improvement Program Budget and a portion of the Lottery Fund
Capital Improvement Program Budget.
Abbie Poniatowski, Central Services Division Manager, presented this item.
Public Comment
None.
Return to the Board
Tom asked about the amount allocated for the campus relocation. Abbie said the amount is an anticipated
cost; there is an internal staff team looking through details of what will be needed. Kevin asked what the
limitations of the current campus are. Abbie said the department is limited by land use agreements,
permits and utilities. Molly asked if the amount listed for the North Trail Study Area (TSA) is a place
holder. Abbie said yes; eventually there will be details of where and what will happen next year. Molly
AGENDA ITEM 2 PAGE 3
asked if the Fourmile Creek project has any overlap with Greenways. Jim said there is no overlap; best
way to restore functionality of trail is to put in the bridge which Open Space will fund. Molly asked about
the .27 Full Term Equivalent (FTE) amount. Abbie said a portion of property agents time is allocated for
services they provide to other departments.
Motion
Molly Davis moved the Open Space Board of Trustees approve, and recommend that Planning
Board approve, an appropriation of $9,530,000 in 2017 from the Open Space Fund CIP as outlined
in the June 8 memorandum and related attachments; and recommend that $766,450 be
appropriated from the city's Lottery Fund CIP in 2017 as outlined in that memorandum and
related attachments. Curt Brown seconded. This motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Case.
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 27, 2016
AGENDA TITLE Consideration of a motion to recommend that City Council authorizes
the transfer of certain paved parcels of Open Space land to the City of Boulder Public Works
Department - Transportation pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177,
of the Boulder City Charter.
PRESENTER/S
Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Abbie Poniatowski, Central Services Manager
Dan Burke, Real Estate Supervisor
Bethany Collins, Property Agent
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On Dec. 2, 2014, City Council authorized the disposal of 11 noncontiguous parcels of
Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) land that were improved with
paved multi-use paths to the City of Boulder Public Works Department - Transportation
in order to expand the city’s electric bicycle (E-bike) program. Since that time, it has
been determined that there were errors made in the parcels identified for disposal. In
addition to these 11 noncontiguous parcels, there are additional paved paths located on
OSMP properties that have historically been developed, managed and maintained by the
Public Works Department - Transportation and therefore should also be transferred.
There is also a need for the transfer of any ownership interests in the paths to include
shoulder buffers for proper management and maintenance of the paths. Staff from both
departments agree it is sensible to acknowledge Transportation’s responsibilities, as well
as the corrected and expanded list of properties including their buffers, via a transfer of
the ownership interest in the paved paths located on OSMP land depicted on Attachment
A and more specifically described in Attachment B. Detailed maps specific to each parcel
can also be found at https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/31048.
OSMP and Transportation staffs believe that there are significant mutual advantages to
the transfer of the identified parcels. For Transportation, there will be clarity in the
development, management and maintenance rights and responsibilities of the paved paths
and formalized expansion of the E-bike program with improved connectivity. For
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 1
OSMP, transfer of these properties will support an important shared community value,
active multi-modal transportation - and relieve OSMP of any confusion related to the
responsibility for maintenance and management of the paved path infrastructure.
Advantages to both OSMP and Public Works departments support a proposed disposal at
no cost to Public Works.
As noted in previous actions and guidance from the Board and City Council, staff
recommends that the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) treat these transfers as
disposals. This will insulate the city from any claim that the disposal procedures had not
been followed to effectuate the change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend City Council to
authorize the transfer of the parcels described in Attachment B to the City of Boulder
Public Works Department - Transportation pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article
XII, Section 177, of the Boulder City Charter.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Environmental: OSMP is a significant community-supported program that is
recognized worldwide as a leader in preservation of Open Space lands contributing
to the environmental sustainability goal of the City Council. These small, paved
parcels have little to no environmental value and this interdepartmental transfer
would have no impact on the environmental value, overall, of the OSMP system.
• Economic: OSMP contributes to the economic vitality goal of the city as it
provides the context for the diverse and vibrant economic system that sustains
services for residents. The land system and the quality of life it represents attract
visitors and help businesses to recruit and retain quality employees. The transfer
of these parcels would clarify departmental responsibilities, making maintenance
and management more efficient and less costly.
• Social: Because the Open Space land system is equally accessible to all members
of the community, it helps support council’s community sustainability goal
because all residents “who live in Boulder can feel a part of and thrive in” this
aspect of their community. The addition of these parcels to the City of Boulder
transportation system would also make them available for the E-bikes program and
other approved alternative modes of transportation.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – This transfer will have only a modest economic benefit to the Open Space
Department in that Open Space staff will no longer be required to troubleshoot
maintenance requests related to these parcels. Transportation has been managing
and maintaining the paved infrastructure since they were constructed.
• Staff time – Sufficient funding for staff time is available to process this transfer.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 2
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
This item is being heard at this public meeting, as noticed in the Daily Camera on July
24, 2016. A Notice of Disposal of Open Space Lands was published in the Daily Camera
on July 15 and 16, 2016 pursuant to Section 177 of the City Charter.
ANALYSIS
On Nov. 18, 2014, City Council authorized the use of E-bikes on all Transportation and
Greenways paved paths. On Dec. 2, 2014, City Council authorized the disposal of 11
noncontiguous parcels of OSMP land that were improved with paved multi-use paths that
were for the most part connected to existing portions of those transportation and
greenways paths.
As the memorandum of understanding was being drafted to formalize that transfer, it was
determined that there were errors made in the parcels included for disposal and that
development, management and maintenance responsibilities over all segments of paved
paths located on OSMP properties have also been that of the Public Works Department -
Transportation. There is also a need for the transfer of any ownership interests in the
paved paths to include shoulder buffers for proper management and maintenance of the
paths. Staff from both departments agree it is sensible to acknowledge Transportation’s
responsibilities, as well as the corrected and expanded list of parcels, including their
buffers, via a transfer of the ownership interest in the paved paths located on OSMP land
depicted on Attachments A and more specifically described on Attachment B. Detailed
maps specific to each parcel can also be found at
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/31048.
These paved parcels have limited environmental value, were constructed on OSMP lands
by other departments, and have always been managed and maintained by Transportation.
Paved paths are inconsistent with virtually all other features of OSMP properties and not
typically included in environmental or visitor use planning.
The development of active modes of transportation is an important and shared
community value. The potential for increased use of nonpolluting modes of transportation
could reduce carbon impacts on critical OSMP lands and habitats. The transfer of these
parcels will provide better contiguity and a wider range of opportunity for the use of
these paved corridors for E-bikes and other approved alternative modes of transportation.
No formal council action has been taken to address the disposal of Open Space land as
defined by the City Charter to another city department. Staff is in support of transferring
the Open Space parcels as identified on Attachment A and described in Attachment B
according to Section 177 of the City Charter. Because the City Council is expected to
approve a charter amendment requiring compliance with Section 177 of the City Charter
for transfers between departments, also recommended by the Board, staff recommends
that OSBT treat these transfers as disposals. This will insulate the city from any claim
that the disposal procedures had not been followed to effectuate the change.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 3
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 4
Pit D
Viele
Lake
Wonderland
Lake
Sombrer
Hayden
Lake Diagonal Hwy.BroadwayBalsam Ave.20th St.Pearl St.
Arapahoe Rd.28thSt.30thSt.Cany o n B l v d .
University Ave.28th St.30th St.Pine St.
Walnut S
t
.
Canyon Blvd.
Ara p a h o e A v e .
Colorado Ave.9th St.N. Mapleton A v e .17th St.57th St.C h e r r y v a le R d .TableM e s a Dr.
E d g e w o o d D r.Linden Dr.
Table Mesa Dr.61stSt.Lehigh St.M
o
o
r
h
e
a
d
A
v
e
.
Baseline Rd.Baseline Rd.
Independence Rd.
Br
o
a
d
w
a
y
Greenb r i a r Blv d .Pearl St.Folsom St.Folsom St.Cherryvale Rd.Jay Rd.19th St.Iris Ave.
Violet Ave.S.
B
r
oadwa
y
see map inset below
1
3 4
6
7
10
8
17
17
19
11
5
20
2
9
20
21
18
18
22
15
16
1612
12
12
12
14
13 1313
Paved Paths
on OSMP Land
OSMP Paved Surfaces
for Disposal
OSMP Land
Fee Ownership
Conservation Easement
00.510.25
Miles
User: philc2 Date: 7/18/2016 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\dispositions\PavedPaths\pavedPathsDisposals_legalDescDoc_portrait.mxd
0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
Valmont Rd.55th St.Pearl
Pk
wy.
12
KOA
Pond
7
36
7
93
36
36
93
157
119
119
157
7
Attachment A
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 5
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 6
Attachment B
Description of Land to be Transferred
1. Anna Dunn. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side, within the
Anna Dunn property of the Wonderland Lake Open Space. Also known as Boulder County Parcel
Nos. 146113400018 and 146113400001. See attached map.
2. Palo Park West. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side, within the
Palo Park Trail West property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No. 146317302044. See
attached map.
3. Palo Park East. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side, within the
Palo Park Trail East property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No. 146317402030. See
attached map.
4. Belgrove. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side, within the
Belgrove property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No. 146316000043. See attached map.
5. N.B.I. All rights to the 30-foot pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle easement granted in the
Easement Agreement recorded February 26, 1982 at Reception No. 484873 over the N.B.I.
Property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No. 146321000048. See attached map
6. Reynolds North (Fee and Donation). All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on
each side, within the Reynolds Fee and Donation properties. Also known as Boulder County
Parcel No. 146321000047. See attached map
7. Reynolds South (Donation) aka Kings Crossing. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch
(18”) buffer on each side, within the Reynolds Donation property. Also known as Boulder County
Parcel No. 146321000049. See attached map.
8. Sandy Arnold. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side, within the
Sandy Arnold property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No. 146328000024. See attached
map.
9. East Park #2. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side, within the
East Park #2 property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel Nos. 146329404004 and
146328008003. See attached map.
10. William Arnold. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side, within the
William Arnold property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No. 146328000050. See attached
map.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 7
11. Pearl St. Industrial Park. All rights to the 15-foot bicycle and pedestrian easement granted in
the Grant of Easement for Public Use recorded February 3, 1981 at Reception No. 432914 over
the Pearl St. Industrial Park property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel Nos. 146328031002
and 146328031003. See attached map.
12. Colorado Open Lands II. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side,
within the Colorado Open Lands II property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel Nos.
146327000063and 146328000038. See attached map.
13. Colorado Open Lands III. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side,
within the Colorado Open Lands III property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No.
146322300006. See attached map.
14. Union Pacific Railroad. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side,
within the Union Pacific Railroad property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel Nos.
146322300015 and 146327000079. See attached map.
15. Valmont Industrial Park. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side,
within the Valmont Industrial Park property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No.
146322300003. See attached map.
16. Colorado Open Lands III - K.O.A Lake. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer
on each side, within the Colorado Open Lands III – K.O.A. Lake property. Also known as Boulder
County Parcel Nos. 146327000078, 146327000073, and 143627000077. See attached map.
17. Flatirons Industrial Park. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side,
within the Flatirons Industrial Park property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel Nos.
146327000067 and 146327000072. See attached map.
18. Copper Door. All rights to the public bicycle and pedestrian easement granted in the Correction
Grant of Easement recorded June 30, 1993 at Reception No.01309207 over the Copper Door
property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No. 146327017003. See attached map
19. Burke II. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side, within the Burke
II property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel Nos. 146334300031, 146334300032, and
14634300035. See attached map.
20. NIST. Rights and obligations to the two parallel paved bicycle paths, including an eighteen inch
(18”) buffer on each side and the area in between, along Broadway and that portion of the
paved access path from Hollyberry Lane, granted in the First Amended Irrevocable Easement
recorded January 21, 2000 at Reception No. 2045155 and the First Amended Memorandum of
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 8
Agreement recorded March 11, 2003 at Reception No. 2410897 over the NIST property. Also
known as Boulder County Parcel No. 157706000001. See attached map.
21. NCAR Mesa Lab. Rights and obligations to the paved pedestrian path also known as the Deer
Valley Path granted in the Cooperation Agreement between the City of Boulder and the
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research dated May 21, 2013 over the NCAR Mesa Lab
property. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No. 157707100002. See attached map.
22. Burke I and Gebhard. All paved paths, including an eighteen inch (18”) buffer on each side,
within the Burke I and Gebhard properties. Also known as Boulder County Parcel No.
157703000024. See attached map.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Kathy Haddock, Senior Assistant City Attorney
DATE: July 27, 2016
SUBJECT: Annexation of city-owned property
________________________________________________________________________
There are several city-owned parcels surrounding and within the city that have never been
annexed. The properties were not annexed for a variety of reasons, primarily because they
were pieces that were omitted from street construction or were public developments within or
between other developments that were being annexed. The city’s policy has been to annex
enclaves and city facilities. In preparing for potential municipalization, the maps of the city
boundaries have been scrutinized very thoroughly, and the separation plan requires that the
properties be annexed for the city to provide electrical service. Therefore, these annexations
have elevated in priority. Ordinances will be presented to council to annex city-owned
properties and enclaves with a zoning designate as P-Public on Aug. 2, 2016.
The City Council is considering annexation of city-owned properties and enclaves to (a)
comply with the comprehensive plan policy to “actively pursue annexation of county
enclaves, Area II properties along the western boundary, and other fully developed Area II
properties,” (b) to bring into the city properties that have city facilities and for which city laws
should apply, and (c) to reduce costs and construction necessary for the separation plan in the
event of municipalization. The annexations proposed for August 2016, include open space
parcels on the southwest boundary and on the west boundary where the Sunshine Hydro
facility is located, and are Area III-RP.1 A map depicting the properties to be annexed is
attached. The parcels are colored by the department currently responsible for maintenance.
The parcels managed by Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) are in red, those managed
by Transportation are in orange, and the blue parcels are managed by Parks and Public Works.
The annexation ordinances provide that all properties will be zoned P-Public as their initial
zoning. The annexation does not involve any changed open space use to the property, or any
open space-related changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Under state law, no
hearing is required to annex city-owned property or enclaves, but staff anticipates that council
will have a public hearing on second reading on Aug. 16, 2016.
While there is no required Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) action, staff is bringing this
information to the OSBT so that the board is not surprised by City Council’s annexation
1 “RP” refers to “Rural Preservation” or that part of Area III where the provision of urban services is not
anticipated by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. This is in contrast to the Urban Reserve, a portion of
Area III that could be included in the urban service area and eventually annexed into the city in accordance with
the appropriate processes.
AGENDA ITEM 5a PAGE 1
considerations. Also, while there is no intent to change the way OSMP land is managed, staff
is working through the annexation to assure there are no unintended consequences.
Staff identified three ways in which OSMP lands and services could/would be affected by the
proposed annexations that need to be addressed. They are emergency response, land use
jurisdiction, and dog regulations:
Emergency Response (Fire, Rescue and Policing).
In OSMP lands annexed by the city, the Boulder Police Department and Boulder Fire and
Rescue, and occasionally other state and federal agencies respond to emergency calls as
appropriate, in addition to the services provided by OSMP Rangers. Outside the city, local
professional and volunteer fire protection districts and the Boulder County Sheriff
typically provide these services. OSMP staff has prepared a map showing the agencies
that currently provide fire protection for the properties to be annexed. In addition to the
Boulder Fire Department, three other fire protection districts serve the subject properties.
The Boulder Police and Fire Departments are aware of the proposed annexations.
Because these parcels have city facilities on them, currently the city’s police and fire
respond to emergency calls on these parcels. OSMP ranger staff will be coordinating the
appropriate changes in jurisdiction with the affected agencies when the annexations are
approved by City Council.
Land Use Jurisdiction
Outside the city limits, Boulder County land use regulations apply to a variety of activities
affecting OSMP management and service delivery. These include permitting of work in
the floodplain, grading, and the facilities and structures OSMP constructs. The county’s
regulations also describe the types of land use that are allowable in the applicable county
zoning designations. Once annexed, the city’s land use code would be in effect and
activities allowed on the annexed OSMP parcels would be subject to the “Public” (P)
zoning designation. City staff is working to compare the activities that currently take
place or have been approved for the parcels proposed for annexation with what is
allowable under the city’s land use regulations and P zoning. Upon annexation, existing
uses are grandfathered, but any new uses would have to comply with the city codes, unless
council approved an exception.
Default Dog Regulations
In the city, the default regulation is a leash requirement. Outside city limits the regulation
is typically leash or voice and sight control. Section 6-1-16 of the Boulder Revised Code
lists the properties where it is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge if a dog is off-
leash. Additions to this section can be made through an annexation ordinance or by a
separate ordinance at any time.
For municipalization, by annexing these properties, staff estimates the costs of the separation
plan to be proposed in the city’s supplemental application to the Public Utilities Commission
will be reduced by over $2 million. Also, annexation of these properties will eliminate some
of construction through Open Space and through developed areas of the city that would
otherwise be required to separate the two utilities. Even if municipalization does not occur,
AGENDA ITEM 5a PAGE 2
all of the properties are parcels the city would eventually want to annex to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Unrelated to municipalization and in addition to implementing policy, annexing of city-owned
properties clarifies boundaries and responsibilities for maintenance and land use policies.
Eliminating enclaves also prevents confusion in emergency response and enforcement of
laws.
The annexation ordinances are set for first reading on Aug. 2 and second reading and public
hearing on Aug. 16.
ATTACHMENT:
A. Map of City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks properties proposed for
annexation
AGENDA ITEM 5a PAGE 3
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 5a PAGE 4
«7
«93
£ 36
£ 36
«93
«170
«157
«119
«157
«7
Boulder
Red Rocks
Area
Shanahan
Area
Tippitt
Property
Oliver
Property
Confluence
Area
Baseline
Reservoir
Valmont
Lake Res
Marshall Lake
Date: 7/18/2016User Name: valem1Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Planning\Municipilization\OSBTmap2.mxd
OSMP Lands
proposed for annexation
Current City Limits
00.51
Miles E
Attachment A.
Map of City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
properties proposed for annexation
AGENDA ITEM 5a PAGE 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
John Potter, Resource and Stewardship Manager
Don D’Amico, Ecological Systems Supervisor
Heather Swanson, Senior Wildlife Ecologist
DATE: July 27, 2016
SUBJECT: Prairie Dog Management Update
________________________________________________________________________
Background
Prairie dog management on Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) lands is addressed in
the framework of the Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan which was accepted by the
Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and City Council in 2010. Prairie dogs and their
associated species are one of eight grassland plan targets addressed within the plan. Prairie
dogs are included as an important, native, keystone species that is a prominent component of a
healthy and desirable mixedgrass prairie ecosystem. However, the need for prairie dog
management also addresses the reality that prairie dogs are not consistent with some
management priorities on OSMP properties including irrigated agricultural production and
some rare plant and animal communities that do not thrive with prairie dog grazing. As a
result, prairie dog management on OSMP includes both strategies for conservation and
strategies to control where prairie dogs occur on OSMP to manage for conflicts with other
Grassland Plan and City Charter priorities.
The Grassland Plan sets out criteria for management designation of prairie dog colonies into
five categories: Grassland Preserve, Prairie Dog Conservation Area (PCA), Multiple
Objective Area, Transition Area and Removal Area. Grassland Preserves, Prairie Dog
Conservation Areas and Multiple Objective Areas serve as areas on OSMP where prairie dogs
will be preserved. Transition and Removal areas are lands where prairie dogs conflict with
other land management goals such as irrigated agriculture or rare plant communities.
Because the City of Boulder and the Boulder community value minimizing use of lethal
control on native wildlife, the primary tool for removing prairie dogs from transition and
removal areas is relocation. The Grassland Plan establishes criteria for evaluating potential
receiving sites on OSMP for use in relocation. These criteria address a number of factors
including quality of the site to support prairie dogs, human health concerns, permitting
requirements, and safeguarding overall grassland health. In addition to the Grassland Plan
criteria, relocation requires a permit from the State of Colorado. Issuance of the permit also
takes into account quality of the habitat for prairie dogs, disease control (plague), and
surrounding landowner concerns.
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 1
Detailed information on the Grassland Management Plan and prairie dog management is
found in Attachment A.
2015 Occupancy Update
Prairie dog mapping is completed in the fall each year, when movement of animals is limited,
and populations are most stable. As a result, the most up-to-date mapping of prairie dog
colonies on OSMP is from fall, 2015 (Sept.-Nov.). Mapping in 2016 will commence in
September. In fall 2015, 3,046 acres of prairie dog colonies were active on 108 colonies on
OSMP properties. Within these acres, 1,746 occurred in grassland preserves, 273 within
prairie dog conservation areas, 341 within multiple objective areas, 451 in transition areas,
and 235 within removal areas.
2016 Relocation Plans
There are currently approximately 697 acres of OSMP land occupied within transition and
removal areas. In 2016, OSMP is applying for a permit to use 16.5 acres in the Southern
Grassland Preserve for receiving prairie dogs. In addition, a number of larger colonies will be
evaluated for potential permitting as receiving sites in 2017. Within these 16.5 acres, OSMP
and the city plan on moving prairie dogs from the following locations:
1.Foothills Community Park- approximately seven prairie dogs have recolonized the
site which was relocated in 2014. To minimize the need for lethal control on the site,
we intend to relocate all animals that can be captured. Animals that are not relocated
from this site and remain after relocation efforts will be lethally controlled in keeping
with the site plan for the colony and the urban wildlife protection ordinance.
2.Rolling Rock- approximately two acres. This site experienced plague a few years
ago and is at very low occupancy levels. However, the colony is expanding and is
expected to soon reach its previous extent of approximately 5 acres with much higher
densities of prairie dogs. This colony is in a removal area due to irrigated agricultural
conflicts, inconsistency with preservation of tallgrass prairie in the area (within
Tallgrass Prairie State Natural Area), and maintenance of regulatory mitigation
wetlands that occur on the site.
3.Straty Cline- approximately two acres. This site is a removal area that is currently
relatively small, making relocation more easily feasible. This colony is a transition
area due to conflicts with irrigated agricultural production.
4.Axelson- 3.5+ acres (has grown since last mapping). This site is growing quickly and
may soon reach its previous size of 36 acres. This colony is in a transition area due to
current conflicts with irrigated agriculture. In addition, this colony is likely to be
identified as a best opportunity area for diversified organic vegetable farming, an
activity inconsistent with prairie dog occupation.
5.Abbott- approximately five acres. This colony is growing and is in a transition area
due to conflicts with irrigated agriculture.
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 2
The priority for relocating these colonies is based largely on their small size, ongoing
conflicts, and the opportunity to relocate them when relatively few animals need to be moved.
Foothills Park is a priority to minimize the use of lethal control on city properties. It is
unlikely that all of these priorities will be accommodated on the small receiving site expected
to be available in 2016. However, the city will work to maximize the benefit of relocation
within the framework of state permitting capacity for the receiving site.
Private Property (Armory) request
The Armory site in North Boulder is expected to be developed starting this fall (based on
information provided by the developer). The property owner has submitted a lethal control
permit to the city for an area of occupied prairie dog colony on the site. In addition, the city
has been approached with a request to receive the prairie dogs from the Armory site on OSMP
land. Staff has determined that receiving these prairie dogs would further limit our ability to
address OSMP needs for prairie dog relocation. Information from the Armory landowner has
indicated 50-60 prairie dogs exist on the site, and 5-10 acres would be needed for the
relocation (exact acreage required would depend on relocation permit parameters). If 5-10
acres of the receiving site were to be dedicated to receiving the Armory prairie dogs, those
acres would not be available to receive prairie dogs from Open Space and Mountain Parks
lands, thus limiting implementation of our prairie dog management plans further. Currently,
limited receiving sites allow us only to address approximately 8-9 acres (only 1.3 percent of
existing need) of prairie dog removal areas from Open Space and Mountain Parks in 2016
(there are 697 occupied acres on OSMP that are designated for removal). If the Armory
prairie dogs were accommodated at the receiving site, likely only 1 or fewer of the above
priority sites could be moved. The remaining sites would likely grow and be less feasible,
more expensive and require a larger receiving site in future years, and continue to conflict
with other land management goals on the sites including agriculture, vegetable farming, rare
plant communities and regulatory mitigation wetlands. In addition, if prairie dogs from
Foothills Community Park are not accommodated, the entire population in that area would be
lethally removed this fall. This lethal control would be consistent with the post relocation site
plan for the area and in concordance with the urban wildlife protection ordinance.
City Council will hold a public hearing on this matter at its August 16 meeting under Matters
from the City Manager. Staff from OSMP and Planning are working on the memo and will be
present to answer questions from the council.
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 3
Ute Prairie Dog Conservation Area (PCA) modifications
The Grassland Management Plan identified 9 colonies on Open Space as Prairie Dog
Conservation areas. These colonies comprise 583 acres.
The Ute PCA is located on 75th Street surrounding the OSMP Annex and Ute buildings. The
colony experienced a significant reduction in population, likely due to sylvatic plague,
starting in 2014. Over the last several years, a number of issues have come to our attention
related to maintenance and management of facilities in this area:
1.When boundaries were drawn for the PCA in the Grassland Ecosystem Management
Plan, the existing development footprint of the buildings, roadway, parking lot, etc.
were not clipped out of the prairie dog colony, inaccurately including these areas as
prairie dog habitat.
2.Best practices for management of septic system leach fields include keeping prairie
dogs out of leach fields
3.There is an identified need to expand parking at the Annex and Ute facility in an area
of poor habitat suitability for prairie dogs to better accommodate parking needs for
these facilities.
Staff is working on updating the boundaries of the Ute PCA to reflect these changes. No
modifications will be made to currently occupied prairie dog areas. As the colony expands in
the future, or if prairie dogs were to be relocated to this PCA, prairie dogs would be excluded
from these areas using physical barriers where necessary (leach fields).
Overall, the acreage of designated prairie dog habitat within the PCA would be reduced by 5.1
acres, an approximately 7 percent reduction in the 69.9 acres currently included in the Ute
PCA, and a reduction of 0.9 percent in overall PCA acreage across the OSMP system. At
this time, necessary modifications to other PCAs have not been identified. A systemwide
analysis of septic system leach fields is being completed and may elicit future changes to
other prairie dog colonies on the OSMP system.
Attached is map of the updated boundary for the Ute PCA (Attachment B) and overall prairie
dog colony map, including PCAs across the OSMP system (Attachment C).
ATTACHMENTS:
A. How prairie dogs are addressed in the Grassland Plan
B. Updated Ute PCA Boundary
C. OSMP Prairie Dog Colony Management Designations
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 4
1
Open Space and Mountain Parks
Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan
Attachment A: How prairie dogs are addressed in the Grassland Plan
City of Boulder
Open Space and Mountain Parks
Grassland Plan
Conservation of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs
The Grassland Plan focuses action on eight (8) components of OSMP grasslands including one referred to
as “Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and Associates”. The identification of this prairie dog-based target reflects
the ecological importance of prairie dogs in creating and sustaining distinctive ecological conditions on
OSMP grasslands. In order to be successfully implemented, OSMP must take action to conserve prairie
dogs, their associates, and the seven other conservation targets. These targets include agricultural
operations and native grasslands uninhabited by prairie dogs.
The Grassland Plan provides a framework to conserve prairie dogs and their associates with the other
conservation targets by:
1.Establishing viability standards and conservation objectives for all eight targets
2.Defining land management designations and applying them to every prairie dog colony mapped
on OSMP lands
3.Developing criteria to guide relocation of prairie dogs to, from, and within the OSMP land system
Viability Standards and Conservation Objectives
The Grassland Plan describes acceptable ranges for “key attributes” of all eight conservation targets.
Key attributes are important characteristics of the targets like:
Presence and abundance of rare, sensitive or particularly important plants or animals
Amount of exposed bare ground
Ground cover by noxious weeds
Diversity of grassland birds
Size of habitat blocks
Successful conservation in the Grassland Planning Area occurs when OSMP simultaneously achieves
the desired conditions for all attributes of all the targets. This means that conservation and
management actions need to consider the effects on all targets. Conserving prairie dogs in the
context of degraded grasslands would not be considered success. Nor would maintaining the key
attributes of the mixed grass prairie without ensuring that prairie dogs and their associates are also
being conserved. The viability standards for the grassland plan, including the black-tailed prairie
dog and associates target, are described in Chapter II of the Grassland Plan and described in detail
in Appendix D.
Management Designation
Open Space and Mountain Parks staff defined the following management designations for
any prairie dog colonies that have been mapped since 1996- whether or not they are
currently occupied. These management designations provide a spectrum of protection for
prairie dogs and the other Grassland Plan conservation targets. The five management
designations are attached.
Prairie dog Conservation Areas serve primarily to conserve prairie dogs and provide
receiving sites for colonies in removal and transition areas. Based on updates following
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 5
2
the 2015 mapping season, 583 acres are designated as Prairie Dog Conservation Areas.
Grassland Preserves comprise approximately 8,000 acres of the Grassland Planning Area.
OSMP has established a range of acceptable prairie dog occupancy between 10 and 26
percent. This means that the Grassland Preserves will provide conservation of between
800 and 2,100 acres of active prairie dog colonies. These areas provide the best
opportunities for natural movement of prairie dogs and support sensitive associated
species such as Ferruginous Hawk, Golden Eagle and Burrowing Owl. Grassland
Preserves also offer the opportunity for accepting relocated prairie dogs if conditions
meet the viability standards and relocation criteria.
Multiple Objective Areas provide locations where prairie dogs will be allowed to persist.
No relocation is allowed in MOAs. Following the 2015 mapping effort, 755 acres of
mapped colonies are included in the Multiple Objective Area designation.
Transition and Removal Areas represent properties where conservation or restoration of
other grassland targets is the primary focus. Relocation away from these areas will be
undertaken when receiving sites (PCA or GP) are available and it is feasible. In removal
areas, lethal control could be used if other methods of removal are not possible 1,463
acres included in mapping through 2015 have been designated as Transition (1053) or
Removal (410) areas.
The following table summarizes some of the key management actions associated with each of the
designations.
Management
Designation
Accept
Relocated
Prairie Dogs
Removal
Removal
to Protect
Irrigation
Actively
Restore
Vegetation
Prairie Dog
Conservation
Area
x - x
Grassland
Preserve x† x * x x
Multiple
Objective Areas - - x x
Transition Areas - X x x
Removal Areas - X x x
†If vegetation meets standards set in relocation criteria (see section below)
*If occupation and vegetative conditions exceed the levels defined in the viability standards
Staff developed criteria to place each prairie dog colony mapped on OSMP into one of the
designations. The designation criteria consider the recorded presence of sensitive plant or animal
species, habitat suitability, conflicts with agriculture, or other city services, and restoration efforts. The
designation criteria are below.
Management designations were developed for the approximately 6237 acres occupied by prairie dog
colonies since1996. Lands not occupied by prairie dogs during 1996-2015 or included in the Grassland
Preserves did not receive prairie dog management designations. A criteria-based approach provides
OSMP with the ability to repeat the same method when determining appropriate management for “new”
colonies that result from dispersal, or new acquisitions. Total acres of designated prairie dog colonies are
given in the table below
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 6
3
Prairie Dog Conservation Area ....................................... 583*
Grassland Preserve ........................................................... 8,000 (3436* of prairie dog colonies have
been mapped within Grassland Preserves)
Multiple Objective Area.................................................... 755*
Transition Area .................................................................. 1053*
Removal Area ..................................................................... 410*
* These numbers reflect the Maximum Extent of occupied Black-tailed Prairie Dogs as of the end of the 2015 mapping effort. This is a
conglomeration of all occupation over the past 19 years (1996-2015). This is not a representation of what is actively occupied.
Recent die-offs due to sylvatic plague have substantially reduced the acres occupied by prairie dogs in
some parts of the OSMP system. As a result, the number of occupied acres in these management
designations may now be lower than the numbers given in the table above. Experience from managing
through previous plague cycles suggests that higher levels of occupation will be reestablished in the
future.
Relocation Criteria
OSMP developed relocation criteria to ensure that conditions in areas accepting relocated prairie dogs
will be able to sustain prairie dog populations, and associated species. Separate relocation criteria were
developed for Prairie Dog Conservation Areas and Grassland Preserves.
Prairie Dog Conservation Areas
Relocation criteria for Prairie Dog Conservation Areas are simple and address the most basic level of
suitability as a receiving site. These criteria are:
1. Existing burrow structure or evidence of previous occupation
2. Relocation will follow regulations set out in City of Boulder’s Wildlife Protection Ordinance and
associated city policies
3. All appropriate state, federal permits obtained and conditions of permits followed
Grassland Preserves
Criteria developed for Grassland Preserves are more extensive and detailed. These criteria are
intended to ensure that relocation into grassland preserves is done in a way that is likely to allow
vegetation and habitats to recover when necessary from the effects of long-term prairie dog
occupation. This will increase the quality of habitat where prairie dogs will be released and increase
conservation of other grassland plan targets being conserved in the Grassland Preserves. These
criteria are:
1. Existing burrow structure or evidence of previous occupation
2. Relocation will follow regulations set out in City of Boulder’s Wildlife Protection Ordinance and
associated city policies
3. All appropriate state, federal permits obtained and conditions of permits followed
4. Grassland preserve is below 10% threshold occupancy- as identified in Grassland Ecosystem
Management Plan Black-tailed Prairie Dog and Associates viability standards
5. Vegetation and habitat within receiving site meets the following minimum standards based upon
data from at least three transects within each habitat type on the receiving site:
a. Average bare ground no more than 22% cover
b. Average native species richness at least 18 species (with exception of non-native
grassland patches)
c. Average relative cover of native perennial graminoid species at least 60%
d. Average sensitive/conservative species richness at least 4 species (with exception of non-
native grassland patches)
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 7
4
6.Majority of receiving site has been identified as exhibiting Good or Very Good Habitat
Suitability in OSMP’s prairie dog Habitat Suitability Model. Relocation should begin in areas with
highest suitability.
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 8
5
Description of Prairie Dog Management Designations
Grassland Preserves (GP)
Grassland Preserves are areas where prairie dogs and their associated species are part of large and
ecologically diverse grassland habitat blocks. These areas are considered the best opportunity to
conserve prairie dogs and their associated species. In most cases, prairie dogs will be allowed to persist
without removal in Grassland Preserves. However, removal will be allowed for the purposes of
maintaining existing irrigation facilities such as headgates, ditches, lateral ditches, reservoirs and
irrigated fields. In addition, to ensure protection of habitat within Grassland Preserves, the need for
limited removal from a Grassland Preserve will be assessed if prairie dogs occupy more than 26% of the
Grassland Preserve (i.e. viability drops below “Good”) and indicators of vegetation composition fall
below thresholds identified in relocation criteria. Inactive, previously occupied colonies in Grassland
Preserves could serve as relocation receiving sites (where there is an existing burrow infrastructure) and if
the area meets relocation criteria. However, prairie dogs will not be relocated into irrigated fields
nested within Grassland Preserves. Following a die-off or other disappearance of prairie dogs from an
area, prairie dogs could be excluded to allow for habitat restoration or to protect existing habitat
restoration projects.
While Grassland Preserves contain significant extents of habitat suitable for prairie dogs, they also
contain less suitable habitat.
Prairie Dog Conservation Areas (PCAs)
PCAs are areas where the conservation of the prairie dog is the primary management objective and are
managed opportunistically for associated species. These areas would serve as receiving sites for
relocation with the minimum requirements described in the relocation criteria. No removal of prairie dogs
would occur in PCAs except for the purpose of maintaining an existing irrigation facility such as a
headgate, ditch, lateral ditch, reservoir, or irrigated field. Prairie dogs will not be relocated into
irrigated fields within PCAs.
Multiple Objective Areas (MOA)
In Multiple Objective Areas, preservation of prairie dogs and their associated community is one of
several management objectives. Prairie dogs will be allowed to persist without removal except for the
purpose of maintaining existing irrigation facilities such as headgates, ditches, lateral ditches, reservoirs,
or irrigated fields. MOAs will not be used as receiving sites for relocated prairie dogs. Exclusion of
prairie dogs attempting to re-colonize could occur to allow habitat recovery.
Transition Areas
Transition areas are grassland areas where the preservation of conservation targets other than the
prairie dog and associated community takes precedence. Prairie dogs may inhabit transition areas, but
will be relocated away from the property when feasible (i.e. relocation receiving site available).
Following relocation, die-off, or other natural events such as dispersal, that lead to a reduction of the
population and result in uninhabited areas, re-colonization could be prevented or discouraged using
barriers, re-seeding, grading, burrow destruction, passive relocation, or other methods available to the
department. After efforts are made to trap and relocate all remaining prairie dogs, removal through
lethal control will be allowed in accordance with applicable regulations, and policies, and if numbers do
not exceed 20 individuals. Removal would be allowed at any time for maintenance of existing irrigation
facilities such as a headgate, ditch, lateral ditch, reservoir or irrigated field. Continued irrigation will
also be allowed in irrigated fields regardless of prairie dog occupancy.
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 9
6
Removal Areas
In removal areas, prairie dogs are incompatible with OSMP management objectives. The designation of
a property as a Removal Area provides the option to remove prairie dogs from the property in
accordance with applicable regulations and policies. Following removal, efforts would occur to prevent
re-colonization including restoration or irrigation of the property, destruction of burrow system, exclusion
structures, etc. Continued irrigation will be allowed in irrigated fields regardless of prairie dog
occupancy.
Prairie Dog Colony Designation Criteria
Criteria for Designation as a Grassland Preserve:
1.Current or recent history of multiple prairie dog colonies (complex of colonies) within
grassland block
2.Extensive areas of habitat ranked “Good Habitat Suitability” or “Very Good Habitat
Suitability”
3.Large block of grassland habitat
4.Minimal irrigated agricultural use on property that conflicts with prairie dog occupancy
5.Minimal surrounding land use conflicts
6.Minimal conflict with other Grassland Plan targets
7.Distant from urban area (relatively speaking)
8.Not bisected by roads
9.Proximity to other lands managed for grassland conservation, or for prairie dogs and
associated species
Criteria for Designation in Other Management Categories:
1.Sensitive associated species known to occur or suspected to occur in the colony
(Sensitive associated species are ferruginous hawk, rough-legged hawk, northern harrier,
golden eagle, American badger and burrowing owl.)
2.Good or Very Good Habitat Suitability based on Ecological Habitat Suitability Model
3.No conflict with OSMP irrigated agricultural uses or other city department land uses
4.No significant recent restoration history or investment (completed within past 10 years or
“in-progress” as defined by restoration criteria)
5.Directly adjacent to Grassland Preserve Area
6.No significant or rare plant communities intolerant of prairie dogs
Multiple Objective Area (MOA)
5 or more criteria met, or criteria #3, #4, and #6 met,
or presence of badger or nesting burrowing owls (regardless of number of criteria met)
Transition Area
3-4 criteria met and criteria #3 or #4 or #6 not met
Removal Area
0-2 criteria met
Prairie Dog Conservation Area:
Meets criteria #3, #4, #6, and landscape context, plant communities and other site
characteristics make it appropriate.
The following exceptions apply to the designation criteria:
If criterion #1 applies, colony cannot be designated a Removal Area.
If presence of burrowing owl or badger is confirmed, colony must be designated as a
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 10
7
Grassland Preserve or Multiple Objective Area*.
If colony is irrigated agricultural land and is not embedded in a grassland preserve, it must
be designated as either a transition area or removal area.
*Burrowing owls tend to return each spring to the same areas to nest. However, there can be as
much as a five year gap between nesting attempts. OSMP will annually evaluate prairie dog
colonies designated under this condition to determine if they should be maintained as a MOA or
Grassland Preserve. The determination will be based upon a variety of criteria including but
not limited to the number of years since last use, reproductive success of last nesting attempt,
level of human and dog activity.
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 11
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 12
Attachment B. Updated Ute PCA Boundary
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 13
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 14
Attachment C. OSMP Prairie Dog Colony Management Designations
AGENDA ITEM 5b PAGE 15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Tracy Winfree, Director
Abbie Poniatowski, Central Services Manager
Lauren Kilcoyne, Financial Services Supervisor
DATE: July 27, 2016
SUBJECT: Review the 2017 proposed budget for the Open Space and Mountain Parks
Department
________________________________________________________________________
The recommended 2017 operating budget reflects the Open Space and Mountain Parks’
(OSMP) “refine and realign” theme to meet department priorities including the shift to
increased system stewardship and the continued implementation of the 2015 organizational
assessment. Another item likely to be addressed across the city’s budget, including OSMP,
is compliance with requirements from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Both OSMP and
Human Resource assessments reflect that OSMP needs to better define and classify
positions in order to follow the letter and spirit of the ACA. Other budget adjustments
include a shift in how departments reflect Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) reimbursement and FEMA de-obligation reserves in fund financials, and updated
cost allocation projections.
The Open Space Fund Financial for 2016-2022 (Attachment A) reflects OSMP’s focus to
be fiscally responsible, sustainable, and transparent. The attached fund financial includes
recommended expenditures for 2017 and thereafter that are aligned with the City’s Central
Budget Office guidelines and has been presented, along with departmental budget requests,
to the City’s Executive Budget Team (EBT).
The recommended 2017 operating budget, including personnel and non-personnel
expenditures, interdepartmental charges, cost allocation, and debt service is $21,832,349.
The operating budget is allocated to the department’s core services (Attachment B). As a
reminder, the 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for the Open Space Fund
and Lottery Fund allocation was unanimously recommended at the Open Space Board of
Trustees (OSBT) meeting on June 8, 2016.
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 1
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
The 2017 Operating Budget is scheduled for public hearing at the Aug. 10, 2016 OSBT
meeting. City Council operating budget study sessions are scheduled on Sept. 13 and 27.
First and second readings of the 2017 City operating budget and ordinances will be held on
Oct. 4 and 18 respectively.
BACKGROUND
Funding Overview and Financial Planning Considerations
As part of the annual budget process, the City’s Budget Office provided preliminary tax
projections for next year’s (2017) budget development. The City of Boulder’s 2016 sales
and use revenue collections were lower than projected and have been adjusted for financial
planning purposes in the out years accordingly. Staff anticipated the trends and prepared a
draft operating budget that is relatively conservative. A summary of the department’s
revenues and expenses is included below:
2017 BUDGET OVERVIEW
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Proposed 2017
Budget %
Net Sales Tax Revenue: $31,100,648 83.71%
Anticipated FEMA Flood Reimbursement: $2,250,000 6.06%
Investment Income: $202,747 0.55%
Lease & Misc. Income: $1,395,885 3.75%
Voice & Sight Tag Program Revenue: $227,000 0.61%
Subtotal OS Fund Sources of Funds: $35,176,280 94.68%
General Fund Appropriation for OSMP: $1,209,590 3.26%
Lottery Fund CIP Appropriation for OSMP: $766,450 2.06%
Subtotal Non-OS Fund Sources of Funds: $1,976,040 5.32%
Total Sources of OSMP Funds: $37,152,320 100.00%
USES OF FUNDS
General Operating Expenditures
Office of the Director: $1,719,799 5.35%
Central Services: $2,831,804 8.81%
Community Connections and Partnerships: $3,745,718 11.66%
Resources and Stewardship: $3,388,654 10.55%
Trails and Facilities: $2,779,203 8.65%
Subtotal Service Area Budgets: $14,465,178 45.02%
Cost Allocation Transfer to General Fund: $1,903,344 5.92%
Debt Payment Expenditures: $5,463,827 17.01%
Subtotal Cost Allocation and Debt
Expenditures: $7,367,171 22.93%
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 2
Subtotal Operating Expenditures: $21,832,349 67.95%
Open Space Fund CIP: $9,530,000 29.66%
Lottery Fund CIP: $766,450 2.39%
Subtotal CIP Expenditures: $10,296,450 32.05%
Total OSMP Uses of Funds (1) $32,128,799 100.00%
The department continues to be in a state of transition and has been undertaking
assessment and analysis to forecast future funding needs. Focus areas being studied
include: space and facilities for operations and management; system assets (ecological
resources, habitat, trails, buildings, water infrastructure); and resources for visitor services.
As the organization transitions and results and recommendations of the assessments are
discovered, there continues to be opportunity to make adjustments to budgets in the out
years while the OSMP fund remains fiscally sound.
As noted earlier, the ACA (and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to a lesser extent) is
influencing citywide budgeting for 2017 and beyond. While the intricacies and
requirements of the law are complicated to describe in the context of this memo, OSMP
and other departments have been working closely with Human Resources (HR) to assure
ACA compliance. Furthermore, the city would like to follow not just the letter of the law,
but its intentions as well. HR and departments have been evaluating and identifying
employees meeting certain thresholds to trigger offering health insurance coverage. Also,
HR has been updating employee definitions and classifications to better capture benefit
eligibility. The results will change how employees and costs of employment are reflected
in the fund financial. While the actual “head count” for employees in the department does
not change, the way they are reflected in the budget will change. The net budget increase
to the OSMP fund related to the ACA is the incremental difference of more accurately and
appropriately defining employee categories and covering the cost of benefits. Furthermore,
HR is working across departments to assure, at Council’s direction, that a “living wage” is
being included in personnel expense projections.
As a reminder, the department is funded from three sources, the Open Space Fund which
includes the issuance of long-term bonds and notes payable for acquisition, the General
Fund and the Lottery Fund:
Open Space Fund - The Open Space Fund accounts for the acquisition and maintenance of
land, with financing provided by sales taxes and the issuance of long-term bonds and notes
payable. Approximately 92 percent of Open Space Fund revenue derives from dedicated
sales and use tax collections. There are three sales tax increments that support the Open
Space Fund:
0.40 percent sales tax which has no sunset;
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 3
0.33 percent sales tax which will be reduced to 0.22 percent on January 1, 2019 and
exist in perpetuity;
and 0.15 percent sales tax which will be repurposed for Transportation uses as of
January 1, 2020, and repurposed again for general city purposes as of January 1,
2030, and which expires December 31, 2039.
In 2014, OSMP issued a $10 million General Obligation Bond to support real estate
acquisition through the Open Space Fund, with 85 percent of funds to be expended
by December 2017.
General Fund – The General Fund is established to account for the revenues and
expenditures necessary to carry out basic governmental activities of the city such as public
safety, human services, legal services, administrative services, and others which are not
required to be accounted for in another fund. General Funds allocated to departments are
spent in accordance with the departments’ charters and missions. Open Space and
Mountain Parks General Fund transfer also includes funding to support the work of 0.27
full time equivalent (FTE) on citywide real estate projects and initiatives.
Lottery Fund - Open Space and Mountain Parks also expends Lottery Funds on CIP
projects. The Lottery Fund derives its revenue from the Colorado Conservation Trust
Fund. Lottery Funds can be used for acquisition, development and maintenance of new
conservation sites and capital improvements and maintenance of public sites.
Contingency Reserve
Approximately 92 percent of the Open Space Fund revenue is generated by sales tax and
the program is limited in its ability to raise additional revenue from other tax levies or fees.
Given the funding sources, a substantial contingency reserve is maintained. This
contingency totals approximately $5.5 million in 2017. Additional reserves include:
Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) requirements for accrued benefits, potential property
and casualty liability, and FEMA de-obligation.
Cost Allocation
The cost allocation model is intended to reflect the department’s utilization of services
from other city departments that are not paid for directly, including but not limited to City
Attorney’s Office, Human Resources, Information Technology, and Finance. A new model
for calculating citywide cost allocation was implemented in 2014 and updated for 2017.
Cost allocation increased approximately 20 percent from 2016.
2016 Requests
OSMP continues to use its Budget Guiding Principles (Attachment C) to inform budget
decisions and requests. As part of the annual budget process, staff projects work programs
and requests additional funding for personnel and non-personnel expenses that is an
increase above the current year (2016) base budget. OSMP requested the following
increases from the city’s EBT and received confirmation this week that all requests were
approved and will be part of the City Manager’s recommended operating budget. These
recommended budget increases will be included as part of the 2017 base budget for City
Council approval in October.
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 4
Organizational Assessment and Reorganization
Convert Visitor Use Technician to standard ongoing (stewardship) ($63,000
ongoing, though already included in past fund financial assumptions)
Federal Law/Affordable Care Act and Living Wage Compliance – Provide
benefits to qualifying staff ($269,000 ongoing, $76,000 one-time)
Departmental Priorities
Extend fixed-term flood recovery Trails Contract Manager by one year to
complete flood recovery projects ($91,000 one-time)
System Stewardship
Increase annual ditch assessments ($81,000 ongoing)
NEXT STEPS
Additional adjustments to the recommended budget are anticipated prior to the August
OSBT meeting and City Council budget review this fall, as the Central Budget Office
continues to finalize payroll projections, contingency estimates, and other cross-
departmental expenses. Staff will make guided refinements, incorporate feedback from the
July 27 OSBT meeting and results of the EBT budget decision-making and return on Aug.
10 with an updated 2017 recommended operating budget. The item is scheduled for public
hearing and OSBT approval to recommend the proposed operating budget for City Council
approval.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Open Space Fund Financial 2016-2022
B. OSMP Core Services
C. OSMP Budget Guiding Principles
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 5
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 6
CITY OF BOULDER
2014-2021 PROPOSED BUDGET
OPEN SPACE FUND
6/2/2015
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance 30,210,879$ 36,200,183$ 13,016,900$ 18,040,421$ 22,740,395$ 23,296,853$ 18,325,762$ 13,562,467$
Sources of Funds
Net Sales Tax Revenue 29,512,343$ 30,203,888$ 31,100,648$ 31,900,914$ 28,631,678$ 23,647,504$ 24,256,313$ 24,880,906$
Anticipated FEMA Flood Reimbursement 117,898 881,329 2,250,000 2,150,000 - - - -
Investment Income 191,109 196,842 202,747 208,830 215,095 221,547 228,194 235,040
Lease and Miscellaneous Revenue 1,471,978 1,516,137 1,395,885 1,437,761 1,480,894 1,525,321 1,571,080 1,618,213
Voice & Sight Tag Program Revenue 164,602 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000 227,000
Bond Proceeds - 2014 - - - - - - - -
General Fund Transfer 1,120,721 1,166,175 1,209,590 1,245,832 1,284,720 - - -
Grants 111,587 166,350 - - - - - -
Total Sources of Funds 32,690,237$ 34,357,721$ 36,385,870$ 37,170,337$ 31,839,387$ 25,621,372$ 26,282,587$ 26,961,159$
Uses of Funds
General Operating Expenditures
Office of the Director -1,668,205 1,719,799 1,771,393 1,824,535 1,879,271 1,935,649 1,993,718
Central Services 2,623,172 3,005,311 2,831,804 2,916,758 2,838,024 2,923,165 3,010,860 3,101,186
Community Connections & Partnerships 3,094,326 3,409,562 3,745,718 3,858,090 3,973,832 4,093,047 4,215,839 4,342,314
Resources & Stewardship 4,224,702 3,442,941 3,388,654 3,490,314 3,523,300 3,628,999 3,737,869 3,850,005
Trails & Facilities 3,173,028 3,631,861 2,779,203 2,862,579 2,948,456 3,036,910 3,128,017 3,221,858
Pay Period 27 ---717,000 45,625 46,994 48,403 49,855
Carryover/ATB Operating -22,137,742 - - - - - -
Increase to 2016 base - operating increases - 1,067,500 - - - - - -
Cost Allocation 1,446,908 1,577,657 1,903,344 1,998,511 2,098,437 2,203,359 2,313,527 2,429,203
CIP- Capital Enhancement 1,708,750 4,074,600 2,190,000 1,635,000 1,010,000 910,000 910,000 760,000
CIP- Capital Maintenance 1,309,247 1,271,000 640,000 750,000 900,000 1,000,000 1,025,000 1,125,000
CIP- Capital Planning Studies -- 300,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
CIP- Land Acquisition 3,039,307 5,700,000 6,400,000 6,400,000 6,000,000 4,700,000 4,450,000 4,200,000
CIP- New Facility/Infrastructure -500,000 ------
Debt Service - BMPA 1,701,487 1,587,507 1,002,209 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Debt Service - Bonds & Notes 4,380,006 4,467,118 4,461,618 4,470,719 4,470,719 4,470,719 4,470,719 3,492,507
Total Uses of Funds 26,700,933$ 57,541,004$ 31,362,349$ 32,470,364$ 31,282,928$ 30,592,463$ 31,045,883$ 30,465,646$
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 36,200,183$ 13,016,900$ 18,040,421$ 22,740,395$ 23,296,853$ 18,325,762$ 13,562,467$ 10,057,979$
OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS
ATTACHMENT A
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 7
CITY OF BOULDER
2014-2021 PROPOSED BUDGET
OPEN SPACE FUND
6/2/2015
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Reserves
OSBT Contingency Reserve 2,500,000$ 4,467,118$ 5,458,087$ 5,896,341$ 5,805,732$ 5,945,616$ 6,090,221$ 5,995,162$
Pay Period 27 Reserve 146,000 231,000 316,000 - - - - -
Sick/Vacation/Bonus Reserve 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000 490,000
Property and Casualty Reserve 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000
FEMA De-obligation Reserve 8,252 69,945 227,445 377,945 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488
South Boulder Creek Flow Reserve 2,000,000 - - - - - - -
IBM Connector Trail 200,000 - - - - - - -
Vehicle Acquisition Reserve 300,000 - - - - - - -
Facility Maintenance Reserve 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000
Total Reserves 6,244,252$ 5,958,063$ 7,291,532$ 7,664,286$ 7,679,220$ 7,919,104$ 8,163,709$ 8,168,650$
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 29,955,931$ 7,058,837$ 10,748,889$ 15,076,109$ 15,617,633$ 10,406,658$ 5,398,758$ 1,889,330$
Revenue projections 103.25%103.25%103.18%103.11%103.11%103.11%103.11%103.11%
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 8
Administrative
Support
Administrative
Support
Finance
& Budget
Real Estate
Services
Engineering
& Project
Management
Fleet
Facility
Management
Environmental
Planning
Volunteer
Services
Education &
Outreach
Ranger
Services
Agriculture
StewardshipEcological
Stewardship
Recreation,Scenic & Cultural Stewardship
Research &
Monitoring
Visitor Access
Management
Central
Services
Central
Services
Resource Info.
Management
Trails &
Facilities
Trails &
Facilities
Community
Connections
Community
Connections
Resource &
Stewardship
Resource &
Stewardship
Core
Services
ATTACHMENT B
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 9
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 10
Open Space and Mountain Parks Budget Commitment and Guiding Principles
Open Space and Mountain Parks is committed to fiscal responsibility and sustainability.
Judiciously spending and generating funds
Creating, optimizing and maintaining a budget which manages debt and plans for near and long term futures.
Maintaining financial transparency
These principles will guide the development and prioritization of the OSMP budget & work plan:
SAFETY FIRST
OSMP will first address essential safety issues for visitors and staff
PLAY BY THE RULES
Comply with all (internal, local, state and federal) laws, regulations, policies, etc.
TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE
As top priority, restore and maintain valuable ecological systems, agricultural operations, trails and trailheads
As additions are made to the system, address ongoing operation and maintenance needs
Continue to innovate and advance efficiency in the restoration, protection, operation, investments in and maintenance
of the OSMP system. Specifically efficiencies will be sought through:
Investments in regular maintenance (taking care of what we have to extend life cycle), and
Reductions in resource waste and use.
STICK TO THE PLAN
Actions committed to in plans or agreements should be included in either short, mid or long term budgets and work
plans so staff can answer the question: “When do you plan to take this action on this project?”
Strategically enhance the visitor amenities, ecological systems, and agricultural operations, prioritizing projects that
will best achieve resource and master plan objectives.
LEVERAGE OTHER FUNDING
Leverage external funds, especially long-term funding, and capacity extending the ability of local dollars to
implement our plans.
Continue to involve community members as volunteers to advance the departmental mission, and management
objectives.
Work with partner agencies to accomplish shared goals
Take no actions which would compromise the city’s bond rating or ability to leverage debt
ADAPT AND LEARN
Advance research and monitoring to increase the likelihood of success and better integrate principles of sustainability
and resilience.
ATTACHMENT C
AGENDA ITEM 5d PAGE 11