07.12.23 OSBT PacketOpen Space Board of Trustees
July 12, 2023
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
I. (6:00) Approval of the Minutes from May 31, 2023 and June 14, 2023
II. (6:10) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing
III. (6:20) Matters from the Board
A. Comments/Questions from Trustees on Written Information memos or
public comment (10 min)
IV. (6:30) * Public hearing and consideration of a motion recommending approval of the
proposed Open Space related land use changes to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive land use map within the Boulder Junction Phase 2 area to the
Planning Board and City Council (35 min)
V. (7:05) * Review of and recommendation regarding the 2024 Open Space and
Mountain Parks Department Capital Improvement Program Budget, a portion
of the 2024 Lottery Fund Capital Improvement Program Budget, and 2024
Open Space and Mountain Parks Department Operating Budget (60 min)
VI. (8:05) * Request for a recommendation to staff to implement modifications to the
management program reducing prairie dog conflict on irrigated agricultural
lands and a recommendation to City Council to amend the geographical scope
of the program to include the northern project area with the addition of all
irrigated agricultural lands designated as transition or removal areas across
the entire OSMP land system (60 min)
VII. (9:05) Matters from the Department
A. Director Verbal Updates (10 min)
VIII. (9:15) Adjourn
* Public Hearing
Written Information
A. Boulder Star on Flagstaff Mountain
Open Space Board of
Trustees Members:
Dave Kuntz (2019-2024)
Michelle Estrella (2021-2026)
Jon Carroll (2022-2027)
Brady Robinson (2023-2028)
Open Space Board of Trustees
*TENTATIVE Board Items Calendar
(Updated June 28, 2023)
August 9, 2023 September 13, 2023 October 11, 2023
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (15 min)
• Appoint retreat
subcommittee (15 min)
Action Items:
• Approval and
recommendation to
council to amend a
previous disposal approval
to now permit trenching
installation technique of
Broadband at certain
specified OSMP locations
(35 min)
Matters from the Department:
• Jr. and Youth Ranger
Program Updates (40 min)
• Signs Program Update and
feedback to staff's
approach concerning
Flagstaff "Gateway Sign"
(45 min)
• Director Verbal Updates
(5 min)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on Written
Memo items or public
comment (10 min)
• OSBT Retreat Update from
Subcommittee (15 min)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Marshall Mesa Trailhead
improvement project update
and update on Colorado's
Division of Reclamation,
Mining, and Safety
monitoring efforts at this
area (60 min)
• Chautauqua Access
Management Plan (CAMP)
Update (40 min)
• Public Opinion and Visitor
Experience Survey (POVES)
Update (40 min)
• Director Verbal Updates (5
min)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (15 min)
• OSBT Retreat Follow up
(15 min)
Action Items:
Matters from the Department:
• Community Wildfire
Protection Plan (CWPP)
Update (45 min)
• South Boulder Creek
Flood Mitigation Project:
60% Design update with a
focus on OSMP-related
items (90 min)
• Director Verbal Updates
(5 min)
*All items are subject to change. A final version of the agenda is posted on the web during the week prior
to the OSBT meeting.
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Special Meeting Date May 31, 2023
2520 55th St, Boulder, CO 80301
Record of this meeting can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-
meetings.
Record of Resolution 2023-1 can be found here:
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=181834&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Dave Kuntz, Board Chair
Michelle Estrella, Board Vice-Chair
Caroline Miller
Jon Carroll
Brady Robinson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Megan Grunewald, Acting Board Secretary, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Janet Michels, Senior Counsel, City Attorney’s Office
Samantha McQueen, Business Services Senior Manager, Open Space and Mountain Parks
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m.
The Board discussed and deliberated on RESOLUTION 2023-1; A RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL REMOVE CAROLINE MILLER FROM THE OPEN
SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR CAUSE; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
Jon Carroll moved the Board recommend to the City Council that Caroline Miller be relieved of her
duties and removed as a member of the Open Space Board of Trustees and that the Council appoint a
replacement. Brady Robinson seconded. This motion passed four to one with Caroline Miller opposing.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Acting Board Secretary Megan Grunewald.
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Meeting Date June 14, 2023
2520 55th St, Boulder, CO 80301
Record of this meeting can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-
meetings (video start times are listed below next to each agenda item).
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Dave Kuntz, Board Chair
Michelle Estrella, Board Vice-Chair
Caroline Miller
Jon Carroll
Brady Robinson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Jeff Haley Jennelle Freeston Lauren Kilcoyne Heather Swanson
Brian Anacker Burton Stoner Dakota Anderson Chad Brotherton Don D’Amico
Debbie Cushman Frances Boulding Marni Ratzel Curry Rosato Samantha McQueen
Andy Pelster Tory Poulton Kacey French Sarah Hosey Megan Grunewald
Bethany Collins
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Approval of the Minutes (01:06)
Michelle Estrella moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to adopt the minutes from May 10, 2023 as
amended. Jon Carroll seconded. This motion passed four to zero with Caroline Miller abstaining.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Public Participation for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (3:30)
Stacy Stoutenberg spoke about concerns with Sombrero Marsh management and a lack of birds heard and
seen there compared to 23 years ago when they moved to the neighborhood near the marsh.
Robert Murphy spoke in favor of prairie dog management planned for south of Jay Road including the
Mckenzie Property and shared concerns with past management practices that allowed for topsoil to blow
away during windstorms and resulted in plastic trash left on the property by a previous tenant.
David MacKenzie spoke about prairie dog management concerns near their property at Nelson Road
between 55th and 63rd Streets including de-vegetation by prairie dogs, topsoil that was blown away
during the last windstorm and overgrowth of weeds.
Elizabeth Black spoke in favor of several recommended changes to prairie dog management practices but
opposed to categorization and redesignation of properties; provided suggestions for prairie dog
management on the Belgrove and Steele properties.
Cindy Warren spoke about concerns about Sombrero Marsh dry conditions, management of the marsh
water supply, and the lack of migratory birds and other wildlife seen there this year.
Linda Parks spoke in support of comments made by Elizabeth Black and about weed mitigation and
prairie dog management at Boulder Valley Ranch and Gunbarrel Hill.
Kevin Markey spoke about concerns of prairie dog management on their neighboring Open Space and
Mountain Parks (OSMP) properties Bennett and Steele, in opposition to categorization of properties used
in the prairie dog management plan and provided suggestions for other prairie dog management methods.
Paula Shuler spoke in favor of several of the recommended changes to prairie dog management practices
but opposed to categorization and redesignation of properties.
Suzanne Webel spoke about concerns of prairie dog management on their neighboring Bennett property
and the difficulties in weed and prairie dog management they experience on their own property because of
their shared property boundary.
Jonathan Moore spoke about concerns with the prairie dog management plan, specifically with plans for
the Steele, Bennett, and Abbott properties and for neighbors of those properties.
Alvin Schurman spoke about concerns with development planned adjacent to Sombrero Marsh that could
threaten the wildlife there.
Harald Cassidy spoke about concerns with development planned adjacent to Sombrero Marsh during an
active period for Preble's meadow jumping mouse and with OSMP management of the marsh.
Bill Platts spoke about concerns with Sombrero Marsh management, the lack of birds seen there
compared with the past, and the decision not to supply water to the marsh.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Matters from the Board (54:27)
Regarding the North Sky Trail Implementation Update, Michelle Estrella asked whether the seasonal trail
closure for dogs would follow response to monitoring of grassland nesting birds and suggested utilizing
passive recreational partner organizations to share information about closures. Dave Kuntz asked for an
update on the permits for the project, the construction schedule, what work will be completed by OSMP
staff and volunteers versus outside contractors and asked for clarification about previously undesignated
trails being designated or removed.
Regarding the Sombrero Marsh update, Michelle Estrella asked for clarification and historical data on dry
and drought years at the marsh. Dave Kuntz requested confirmation of additional context he provided on
Sombrero Marsh creation and management prior to acquisition by OSMP. Caroline Miller asked for
clarification of how water from East Boulder Ditch influences Sombrero Marsh and for OSMP access to
water rights from East Boulder Ditch. Dave Kuntz asked whether excess water used for agricultural
irrigation upland from Sombrero Marsh later in the year would make its way to the marsh eventually and
clarified that the current water level at Sombrero Marsh would preclude OSMP from requesting access to
the ditch for the marsh at this time.
Regarding the Chautauqua Access Management Plan Information Packet, Michelle Estrella asked about
low ridership numbers on the shuttles, whether parking citations have been separated by people exceeding
their paid time versus those who never paid, whether the city has tried providing free e-bikes from Regent
Hall with directions avoiding Baseline to reduce traffic and provide a safe alternative route, and whether
the city has considered incentives for Chautauqua employees using the shuttle.
Jon Carroll provided a verbal update on the Boulder Junction Area Plan for which OSMP staff will
provide an update and recommendation for Board consideration at the July business meeting. Brady
Robinson asked for clarification on the Open Space Other (OS-O) designation and Michelle Estrella
asked for clarification on whether a change to the OS-O designation requires a land disposal process.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Department (1:22:47)
Deputy Director of Central Services Lauren Kilcoyne and Business Services Senior Manager Samantha
McQueen presented the Update on Draft 2024 Open Space and Mountain Parks Operating Budget. The
Board asked for clarification on adjustments to base, the process for cost re-allocations within the budget
allocation and the role of the Board within those budget changes. The Board asked for clarification on
staffing and personnel budget changes in response to implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), on
the personnel table to include new versus converted Full Time Employee (FTE) positions, and on the
ACA influence on position conversion for the Human Dimensions Technician and similar position
conversions within other work groups and the increased costs associated with those conversions. The
Board shared concerns with general language used in Attachment A to the budget memo, City Council
Study Session Memorandum Financial Update & Budget Outlook and asked for clarification on funding
parameters related to city ballot measures that may include the Open Space Fund.
Education and Outreach Senior Program Manager Dakota Anderson presented the Presence on the Land
Director Enhancement. The Board asked whether outfitting volunteers similarly to rangers would increase
public trust and dependence on volunteers in the field, about the success of the RAnger PaTrOl captuRe
(RAPTOR) contact database for data collection, for interpretation of that data and the difference between
data on visitor contacts and law enforcement contacts, and the differences between the RAPTOR database
and systems used by outreach staff and volunteers to collect data on contacts with visitors. The Board
asked whether front end safety education is shared with visitors such as bringing enough water on a
particular hike, what the reasons could be for mountain bike ambassadors having fewer contacts with
visitors than with other outreach staff and volunteers and whether staff could train those ambassadors to
increase their mentorship opportunities with visitors on mountain bikes. The Board asked for more
information on the Dog Ambassadors Pilot Program and whether other local dog organizations would be
used as a resource.
Interim Deputy Director of Resource and Stewardship and Ecological Stewardship Senior Manager
Heather Swanson, Agriculture and Water Stewardship Senior Manager Andy Pelster, and Prairie Dog
Conservation and Management Ecologist Victoria Poulton presented the Review and Recommended
Modifications to Management of Prairie Dog Conflict on Irrigated Agricultural Lands. The Board asked
the procedures for addressing neighbor conflicts, what happens to water rights when OSMP cannot
irrigate on a property that was initially in line for the water, what the thresholds are for Grassland Plan
indicators of prairie dog conservation designations, and whether staff could consider historical conditions
on certain properties when making categorization and designation of those properties as suggested by
public comments submitted. The Board asked where in the process of mitigation the tenants accept
responsibility for maintaining systems created by OSMP, how landowners could observe a sudden
occupation by prairie dogs that did not appear to be present when the landowners first moved to their
property, for clarification on water delivery procedures considering staff schedules, how categorization of
properties dictates prioritization of management designations, how relocation as a management tool will
be impacted by the option to use lethal control, and whether the Prairie Dog Working Group is still active.
Director Dan Burke provided verbal updates on the Investigative Summary of the Marshall Fire, planned
Marshall Fire area monitoring projects, and updates to the Marshall Mesa Trailhead planned for August.
Dave Kuntz reminded the Board of their upcoming training, Advancing Racial Equity: The Role of
Government on June 21, 6 PM to 8:30 PM.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Acting Board Secretary Megan Grunewald.
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 12, 2023
AGENDA TITLE
Public hearing and consideration of a motion recommending approval of the proposed Open
Space related land use changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive land use map within the
Boulder Junction Phase 2 area to the Planning Board and City Council
MASTER PLAN STRATEGIES
FS. 8) EVALUATE EXISTING REAL ESTATE ASSETS ON OSMP LANDS
PRESENTERS:
Open Space and Mountain Parks Department
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Bethany Collins, Real Estate Senior Manager
Kacey French, Planning and Design Senior Manager
Juliet Bonnell, Planner
Boulder Junction Phase 2 Project Lead – Comprehensive Planning
Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Boulder Junction Phase 2 (BJP2) project, led by City of Boulder’s Comprehensive Planning
department, is located around 30th St, Pearl St, Valmont Rd and Foothills Parkway and is focused
on the area located east of the railroad tracks to Foothills Parkway as shown in Attachment A. A
Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) was completed in 2007 to guide future development for
Boulder Junction. This second phase, known as BJP2, takes a strategic approach to updating the
most critical elements of TVAP that no longer reflect the community’s current and future needs
since the plan’s adoption 15 years ago. These elements include evaluation of and potential
amendments to land uses, transportation connections and urban design and character. This area
includes approximately 7.71 acres of land designated as Open Space – Other (OS-O) on the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use map as shown in Attachment B.
The role of the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) for BJP2 is to provide a recommendation
to Planning Board and City Council on the BVCP proposed land use updates related to Open
Space designated properties within this planning area. The City Charter (Article XII, section 175)
states that OSBT “shall review the open space elements of the BVCP and make recommendations
concerning any open-space related changes to the plan.” The recommended open space changes
being proposed within the BJP2 project area fall into two categories, Redesignation/Removal of
Agenda Item 4 - Page 1
OS-O and a correction to accurately show Open Space and Mountain Parks’ (OSMP) property
interests. Plan amendments related to other land uses, transportation connections, urban design
and character being proposed as part of BJP2 do not require a recommendation from the OSBT.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Open Space Board of Trustees make a motion to recommend to Planning
Board and City Council approval of the proposed Open Space land use designation changes
within the Boulder Junction Phase 2 area to the BVCP Land Use Map, including:
•Removal of the OS-O land use designation over and adjacent to the Boulder Left Hand
and North Boulder Farmer’s Ditches between the railroad tracks and Foothills
Parkway north of Pearl Parkway, and
•Correcting the land use designation of the New Pearl Street Industrial Park Scenic
Easement from Light Industrial (LI) to Open Space, Development Rights (or
Restrictions) (OS-DR).
IMPACTS
The proposed Open Space land use designation changes to the BVCP land use map will result in
positive impacts to the city in support of BJP2. Other impacts are noted below.
•Fiscal – The proposed Open Space land use designation changes to the BVCP Land Use
Map within the BJP2 area are not anticipated to create significant additional fiscal
demands upon the Open Space Fund normally allocated.
•Staff time – Staff time spent on the development of the proposed update items are part of
normally allocated staff time for OSMP staff.
BACKGROUND
BVCP Open Space land use designations
The BVCP Land Use map includes three Open Space land use categories (which can also be found
starting on page 109 of the comprehensive plan).
1. Open Space, Acquired (OS-A) applies to land already acquired by the City or Boulder County
for Open Space purposes.
2.Open Space, Development Rights (or Restrictions) (OS-DR) applies to privately owned land
with existing conservation easements or other development restrictions1
3. Open Space, Other (OS-O) applies to other public and private land designated prior to 1981
that the city and county would like to preserve through various preservation methods,
including but not limited to intergovernmental agreements, dedications or acquisitions. By
itself, this designation does not ensure open space protection. When the mapping designation
applies to some Area 1 linear features such as water features or ditches, the intent is to
interpret the map in such a way that the designation follows the linear feature, OS-O may be
applied to ditches; however, the category should not be used to interfere with the operation of
private irrigation ditches without voluntary agreement by the ditch company.
History of OS-O and Mapping Open Space
OS-O and mapping Open Space has a long and complex history. A summary is provided below.
•Pre 1981 – There is a pre-1981 Open Space Map. This open space map did not
differentiate between OS-A, OS-DR, and OS-O (those land use designations did not exist
pre-1981). This map was hand drawn and had one category of “open space” intended to
identify lands with environmental values. The reason for how the boundaries were
1 These are monitored and enforced by the city for open space purposes.
Agenda Item 4 - Page 2
defined or the type of natural resource values associated with the designations were not
recorded.
•1990 – the open space map was combined with the BVCP land use map by hand or by
“zipatone” which is an obsolete graphic design technique for applying shades to maps.
•Around 1995 – The BVCP land use map was digitized. In this process staff entered what
was hand drawn into mapping software that was parcel based and very accurate. This
process resulted in some misalignments and other types of errors in the BVCP map.
•2000 – as part of the BVCP major update, OSMP worked with the Planning Department
to split out the existing open space land use designation to reflect acquired open space
and open space development rights holdings. Three new land use designations were
created: Open Space –Acquired (OS-A), Open Space –Development Rights (OS-DR) and
Open Space –Other (OS-O) was created for the other “open space” that was identified
pre-1981 but is not under the jurisdiction of OSMP. Along with creating OS-O, two new
land use categories were created to be applied moving forward to identify and preserve
lands with environmental values – Environmental Preservation (EP) and Natural Systems
Overlay – these are applied to lands today.
Current Conditions
In addition to the mapping errors described above some of the historically assigned OS-O lands
do not serve open space purposes and/or the area has been developed, thus not representing lands
with environmental values. The OS-O land use designation has created confusion among the
community with regard to the natural resource values present and OSMP’s interest in acquiring
and managing the land in perpetuity for open space purposes as well as challenges during the
city’s development review process.
PROCESS
Development Review Committee
When development is proposed on a private parcel with an OS-O land use designation, planning
staff is responsible for reaching out to OSMP staff to evaluate the natural resource values and
City Charter purposes for Open Space on the property. Planning then considers OSMP interests
and issues development permits on the property accordingly. This Development Review
Committee (DRC) process has been ongoing for over 20 years and includes OSMP
representation.
Subcommunity and Site-Specific Planning
In addition to reviewing OS-O on a case-by-case basis through the development review process
City Comprehensive Planning and OSMP staff have begun reviewing Open Space land use
designations through subcommunity or other site-specific planning efforts. This was first done in
2021 during the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and is being done for a second time for the
BJP2 project. The approach is to review, recommend, and implement any changes for all Open
Space designated lands, including OS-O, within the planning area and prior to the anticipated
increase in development applications stemming from the completion of the planning effort. The
recommended changes being proposed through the BJP2 effort are explained in more detail in the
following Analysis section of this memo.
Multi-board Working Group
To support BJP2 a multi-board working group comprised of liaisons from ten boards with an
interest in the project has been convened. Trustee Carroll has been appointed as OSBT’s liaison.
The use of a multi-board working group is being piloted to increase efficiency of gathering
feedback from multiple boards and to address and resolve potential conflicting board feedback in
Agenda Item 4 - Page 3
a streamlined manner. The multi-board working group meets on a recurring basis to receive
project updates from city staff, provide feedback relevant to each member’s board mission (e.g.
transportation, housing, open space, etc.), and communicate project updates back to their
associated board. The focus is on the overall project where interests / recommendations are
multidisciplinary and require agreement or understanding from multiple departments/boards, and
therefore not really focused on open space land use designations. The working group is a
supplement to, not a replacement for required board processes, such as the Open Space land use
designation changes.
OSMP staff has also coordinated with Trustee Carroll, focusing specifically on OSMP interests,
open space land use designations and recommendations.
BVCP Updates
Staff has also reviewed and made open space land use designation changes as part of BVCP
updates. The last minor update occurred in 2020, and a major update is scheduled for 2025.
As part of the BVCP major update in 2025, OSMP staff anticipates coordinating with
Comprehensive Planning staff to explore options for taking a more comprehensive look at Open
Space land use designations and potentially recommend appropriate changes to reflect current
open space interests and environmental values and support the citywide vision within the broader
BVCP area.
ANALYSIS
The recommended changes being proposed within the BJP2 project area fall into two categories,
Redesignation/Removal of OS-O and a Correction. These proposed BVCP land use changes are
also shown in Attachment C.
Redesignation/Removal of OS-O
The OS-O designation shown below at the area near Boulder Left Hand Ditch/North Boulder
Farmer’s Ditch between the railroad tracks and Foothills Parkway north of Pearl Parkway is
believed to originally have been intended to help protect the Boulder Left Hand and North
Boulder Farmer’s ditches. These ditches and ditch companies’ interests are already protected via
existing easements. These ditches are concrete lined (a decision controlled by the ditch
companies) as shown in the photos below. The areas adjacent to these ditches were permitted to
be developed and have been impacted by the allowed development as shown in the aerial and
photos below to where they are no longer of interest to Open Space preservation. Therefore, staff
is proposing removing the existing 7.71-acre OS-O designation. In place of this OS-O, staff is
recommending redesignation to a land use that better reflects the existing/developed conditions
and future vision for the area as determined by the land use designation recommended by BJP2.
Currently, the alternative land use being proposed is Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development
(MUTOD).
Agenda Item 4 - Page 4
Existing Aerial Current BVCP OS-O BJP2 Recommendation
Looking NE Looking E toward Foothills Pkwy Looking W toward Frontier Ave
Correction
Analysis revealed that one of OSMP’s property interests had not been included in the BVCP land
use maps: specifically, the New Pearl Street Industrial Park Scenic Easement property, shown in
the maps below, appears as Light Industrial, but should appear as OS-DR. In 1987, this
approximately 0.13-acre property was acquired through a scenic and flood control easement as
approved by the OSBT and City Council. Therefore, staff is requesting that OSBT recommend
that the BVCP land use map be updated to reflect OSMP ownership of the easement.
Existing Aerial Current BVCP BJP2 Recommendation
Other Proposed Land Use Changes
The 2007 TVAP, land use prototypes (shown in Attachment D) included an “OS” designation,
indicating “open space/greenway” over the Goose Creek Greenway. OSMP staff reviewed and
evaluated the Goose Creek greenway as part of the BJP2 process and found that it does not reflect
an open space interest and given the existing level of development support the currently proposed
alternative of designating this area as park lands (PK-U/O). This designation can help
accommodate the recreation desires of a future residential population and help mitigate any
potential negative effects of unmanaged recreational use along Goose Creek. Because the “OS”
TVAP designation is not one of the three BVCP open space designations, nor has it been adopted
Light Industrial OS-DR
OS-O MUTOD
PK/U-O
Agenda Item 4 - Page 5
into the BVCP land use map, OSBT does not need to make a recommendation regarding this
change.
Next Steps
The Board recommendation on the proposed BVCP Open Space land use designation changes
will be carried forward to the Planning Board and City Council that will subsequently be asked to
approve all of the BJP2 related BVCP land use changes and other plan amendments. The
approval process is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2023.
ATTACHMENTS
•Attachment A: Boulder Junction Phase 2 area
•Attachment B: Boulder Junction Phase 2 area – Existing BVCP OS-O Land Use
Designations
•Attachment C: Boulder Junction Phase 2 area – Proposed BVCP Land Use Changes
•Attachment D: TVAP Land Use Prototype Map
Agenda Item 4 - Page 6
Attachment A: Boulder Junction Phase 2 area
Attachment A
Agenda Item 4 - Page 7
Attachment B: Boulder Junction Phase 2 area – Existing BVCP OS-O Land Use Designations
Attachment B
Agenda Item 4 - Page 8
Attachment C: Boulder Junction Phase 2 area – Proposed BVCP Land Use Changes
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
OS-DR
PK-U/O
MUTOD
MUTOD
Attachment C
Agenda Item 4 - Page 9
Attachment D: TVAP Land Use Prototype Map
Attachment D
Agenda Item 4 - Page 10
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 12, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Review of and recommendation regarding the 2024 Open Space and Mountain Parks
Department Capital Improvement Program Budget, a portion of the 2024 Lottery Fund Capital
Improvement Program Budget, and 2024 Open Space and Mountain Parks Department Operating Budget
PRESENTERS:
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Services
Samantha McQueen, Business Services Senior Manager
Cole Moffatt, Senior Accountant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is twofold. The first is a request to review, approve, and recommend that the
Planning Board and City Council approve the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department’s 2024
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget of $6,653,209, which is the combined total of both the Open
Space Fund and Lottery Fund, and make a recommendation concerning the allocation of a portion of the city’s
Lottery Fund CIP Budget in the amount of $428,000 in 2024.
The second purpose is a request for the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) to meet its Charter requirement
to, “Review the City Manager's proposed budget as it relates to Open Space matters and submit its
recommendations concerning said budget to the City Council.” Staff requests that the OSBT review and
recommend that City Council approve OSMP’s 2024 Operating Budget of $32,924,715 to be allocated from
the Open Space Fund to cover the 2024 operating expenditures and transfers as outlined in this memorandum
and related attachments.
At the May and June business meetings, staff provided an update on the Draft 2024-2029 CIP and Draft 2024
Operating Budget. At the July 12 meeting, there will be a brief staff presentation on operating budget details,
as well as changes to the draft CIP and operating budget requests presented during the May and June business
meetings. Public hearing will then take place for the CIP and operating budget followed by OSBT
recommendation. In addition to the July 12 public hearing, the public will have an opportunity to comment
during City Council’s discussions and review of the 2024 recommended budget during future public hearings
later this fall.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests Open Space Board of Trustees’ consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motions:
Motion to approve, and recommend that Planning Board and City Council approve, an appropriation of
$6,225,209 in 2024 from the Open Space Fund CIP as outlined in this memorandum; and recommend that
$428,000 be appropriated from the city’s Lottery Fund CIP in 2024.
Agenda Item 5 - Page 1
Motion to recommend that City Council approve an appropriation of $32,924,715 in 2024 for the Open Space
and Mountain Parks Operating Budget from the Open Space Fund as outlined in this memorandum and related
attachments.
BACKGROUND
Information included in this agenda item will focus primarily on OSMP’s operating budget. This memo and
related attachments will provide background information on the operating budget, explain how operating
budget expenditures support core service activities, and share an update on the department budget requests for
2024. It will also include updates to the draft 2024 CIP shared during the May business meeting.
As shared during the June business meeting, the draft 2024 OSMP operating budget allocates core service
activities supporting the important ongoing work required to protect, maintain, and support the open space
system. The department’s operating budget is supported entirely by the Open Space Fund, unlike the CIP,
which receives support from both the Open Space Fund and the Lottery Fund. OSMP staff serve as the fund
managers of the Open Space Fund. In previous discussions with the OSBT, staff shared that the department
may receive funding from the Climate Tax Fund in 2024 to support the operating budget. OSMP will not
receive direct money from the Climate Tax Fund in 2024, but staff will continue to partner with other
departments to implement wildfire resilience work supported by the tax.
Projects and programs supported through OSMP’s operating budget and are a part of the department’s core
mission include, but are not limited to, ecosystem monitoring, maintenance, and restoration; agricultural lands
and water resources management; cultural resources management; safety and enforcement; ongoing strategic
property acquisitions; conservation easement compliance and other real estate-related activities; day-to-day
maintenance of trails, trailheads and signage; routine facilities and fleet management and maintenance;
strategic and resource planning; community engagement, volunteer coordination, and visitor outreach,
education, and events; human dimensions research and monitoring; media services, web-based information,
and social media management; permitting and fees management; administrative, financial, and technical
support for the department; personnel management; support for the OSBT; etc.
OSMP’s operating budget consists of personnel expenditures, non-personnel expenditures, cost allocation, and
debt service.
Personnel Expenditures
Salary and benefit costs make up 65.10% of the draft 2024 operating budget, which is in line with personnel
expenditures in the 2023 operating budget (65.16%). Within the category of personnel expenditures, OSMP
supports standard full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, temporary employees, and seasonal employees. A
standard FTE is assumed to be an ongoing part of the department’s staff capacity and base budget, and a 1.0
FTE is modeled at 2080 hours per year in the department’s work plan. Not all standard positions are modeled
at 1.0 FTE, and position modeling depends on business need (e.g., 0.50 FTE for 1040 hours per year, 0.75 FTE
for 1560 hours per year). Temporary and seasonal positions are hired each year, and term length and hours per
week vary by position. The dollars in the budget supporting temporary and seasonal hiring are considered an
ongoing part of base budget, but there is no assumption by the Finance Department that a specific list of
positions will be hired each year. It is relatively uncommon in the city for departments to utilize a large
temporary and seasonal workforce, but these positions in OSMP are important to the stewardship and
maintenance of the land system. Positions are designed to meet functional needs and vary widely across the
department. For example, a Junior Ranger may work 30 hours per week for one month, an Education &
Outreach Representative for 150 hours per week for nine months, and a Trail Maintenance Crew Member 40
hours per week for six months. Benefit types and budgeted benefit rates vary across employment categories.
OSMP relies on each employment category to ensure appropriate staffing resources are available to execute
the department work plan. As discussed during the June business meeting, the department has made efforts to
convert some temporary positions to standard FTE in the 2024 budget to meet ongoing business needs and
comply with city guidance.
Agenda Item 5 - Page 2
Once OSMP understands its staffing approach for the coming year, staff work with the Finance Department to
model personnel expenditures for budget development. The Finance Department provides budget guidelines
for staff salary and health benefit costs. Salaries are based on citywide pay bands as well as requirements in the
Boulder Municipal Employee Association (BMEA) union contract. Increases to benefit costs are based on city
negotiations and contracts with the health insurance providers. The Finance Department has provided salary
and benefits projections for all standard positions in 2024 at the time of this memo. OSMP calculates
projections for seasonal and temporary positions and has included those estimates in the 2024 draft operating
budget.
Non-Personnel Expenditures
Non-personnel expenditures (NPE) make up 18.19% of the draft 2024 operating budget. Non-personnel dollars
support recurring or ongoing projects and programs and ensure that staff have the resources to effectively do
their jobs. Expenditure types vary widely within the category of NPE, from purchase of equipment, materials,
and supplies, to procurement of architectural, engineering, and consultant services. This part of the budget
supports funded research and any other operational contracting with outside vendors. As discussed during the
June business meeting, the department has made efforts to operationalize some ongoing maintenance costs that
were budgeted in the CIP in previous years. These proposals to operationalize certain costs were detailed as
2024 budget requests.
Within NPE, there is a subset of expenditures referred to as interdepartmental charges. Interdepartmental
charges refer to a savings mechanism to support major purchases. Examples include the computer replacement
fund and the vehicle repair and replacement fund. As part of the annual work planning process, staff works
collaboratively to set priorities and allocate NPE dollars.
Cost Allocation
Cost allocation is a municipal finance best practice and a methodology to identify and distribute indirect costs.
Indirect costs are found in departments that provide services to other city departments, whereas direct costs are
found in departments that provide services to the public. Examples of areas of indirect costs at the department
level include City Attorney’s Office, City Manager’s Office, Human Resources, Information Technology,
Communication and Engagement, and Finance/Accounting. The cost allocation model is intended to reflect the
department’s utilization of services from other city departments that are not paid for directly.
Cost allocation in 2024 is budgeted at $2,763,352 and makes up 8.39% of the operating budget. Typically, the
cost allocation plan for the City of Boulder is updated every two to three years. The city updated its cost
allocation plan during the 2023 budget planning process. The 2024 cost allocation amount reflects a 3%
increase to the Open Space Fund over the amount included in the 2023 budget, which represents an increase in
the cost of inputs like supplies and materials, as well as increasing cost of staff salaries.
Debt Service
The budget for debt service captures repayment of the 2014 general obligation bond, as well as annual Boulder
Municipal Property Authority (BMPA) payments supporting the Lippincott (2018) property acquisition. Like
the previous year budgets, the 2024 budget for Lippincott captures both the debt expenditure and the revenue
from Jefferson County accounting for 50% of this expense. Debt service has decreased by $594,230 for 2024
and represents 3.46% of the operating budget. This decrease is a result of the final BMPA payment for Ertl
(2013) acquisition in the 2023 fiscal year. In 2023, debt service represented 6.01% of the operating budget, as
the final payment for Ertl acquisition was included in the department’s annual payments.
2023 and 2024 Operating Expenditure Comparison
OSMP has submitted budget requests to increase allocation to personnel and non-personnel budgets in 2024.
While the department’s requests to add items to the budget and base operating costs have increased for 2024,
the 2023 and 2024 budgets have a similar breakdown by percentage across the operating budget expenditure
categories. OSMP maintains about 65% of the operating budget annually for personnel expenditures, and
Agenda Item 5 - Page 3
many of the 2024 personnel budget requests involve shifting existing base budget from temporary position
personnel budgets to standard personnel budgets. Non-personnel budgets capture shifts from CIP to operating
budgets as well as increases to maintain and enhance service delivery. The proposed adjustments and increases
to budget do not significantly change the approach to completing the annual work plan, which involves a mix
of staff-led and contracted work and projects.
Table 1: 2023 and 2024 Operating Expenditure Comparison
Operating Budget Category Percent of 2023 Approved
Operating Budget
Percent of 2024 Draft
Operating Budget
Personnel Expenditures 65.16% 65.10%
Non-Personnel Expenditures 19.50% 23.05%
Cost Allocation 9.33% 8.39%
Debt Service 6.01% 3.46%
RECOMMENDED 2024 OPERATING BUDGET
As discussed in the June business meeting, revenue projections for 2024 are improved over those provided
during the 2023 budget process last year. The department plans to program additional revenues in the 2024
operating budget to pay for cost increases to maintain current levels of service delivery, accelerate priority
investments, and fund several previous CIP projects with an ongoing maintenance focus in the operating
budget instead. Revenue and expense changes are captured in the 2022-2029 Open Space Fund Financial
(Attachment A) and the 2024 Department Detail Page (Attachment B).
2024 Budget Structure
The 2024 budget is like the 2023 operating budget in its structure. The department organizes most of its
operating budget by Service Area/Office of the Director, with each of OSMP’s four Service Areas containing
several workgroups consistent with the organizational chart. These Service Areas will be presented as
“Programs” in the City Manager’s Recommended Budget, with the Office of the Director and Central Services
combined under the “Administration (Environmentally Sustainable)” title. Listing work by Program in certain
financial documents is a useful way to begin making comparisons across departments. For instance, other
departments may have “Administration” Programs, which allows the Finance Department to track funding
across all administrative functions in the city. OSMP’s Programs for the City Manager’s Recommended
Budget in 2024 are as follows:
Table 2: OSMP Service Area and Program Titles
OSMP Service Area Title Program Title for City Manager’s
Recommended Budget
Office of the Director Administration (Environmentally Sustainable)
Central Services Administration (Environmentally Sustainable)
Community Connections & Partnerships OSMP Community & Partnerships
Resources & Stewardship Resources & Stewardship
Trails & Facilities Trails & Facilities
The goal of the operating budget is to ensure that dollars support core service projects and programs that
provide high value to the community and deliver on commitments. The draft operating budget is divided
across operating budget categories as follows:
Table 3: Total 2024 OSMP Operating Uses of Funds, $32,924,715
Agenda Item 5 - Page 4
At the highest level, the chart above communicates to the public how the department plans to allocate
operating dollars. Funding for the Office of the Director and Central Services supports much of the work of the
other three Service Areas, representing a lower percentage of the overall operating budget. In previous years,
amounts for Resources & Stewardship, Trails & Facilities, and Community Connections & Partnerships had
made up a comparable percentage of the operating budget. Increases to the 2024 operating budget for
Resources & Stewardship and Trails & Facilities over Community Connections & Partnerships amounts can
be attributed to operationalizing many ongoing projects and programs in those Service Areas that had
historically been funded in the CIP.
Within these percentages and funded amounts, each Service Area has a different allocation of standard FTE,
temporary and seasonal employees, and non-personnel budget. A useful next step in moving from this high-
level chart to more detail is to explore the Fund Financial. The Fund Financial provides us with a “next level
down” and focuses on numbers instead of percentages. Here, the draft 2024 operating expenditures are
presented with added context, providing 2022 “actual expenditures” and 2023 “revised budget.” This gives a
sense of whether the department is reducing or adding budget in 2024, and whether there are any significant or
structural shifts in allocation of dollars to note during the budget review process. A review of the Fund
Financial indicates that OSMP will be making additions to the operating budget in 2024 over 2023 levels, but
that budget structure and allocation is generally consistent with previous years. The draft 2024 CIP will be
slightly lower than 2023 levels as the department seeks to operationalize many ongoing maintenance projects.
The Open Space Fund’s reserves are also included in the Fund Financial. The department maintains a 20%
contingency reserve for unanticipated and urgent needs. The amounts included for OSMP Contingency
Reserve represent 20% of the operating budget each year.
There are hundreds of accounting entries making up each line in the Fund Financial, and it is the goal of staff
during OSBT review of the operating budget to highlight those items that are significant at a more policy level.
6%, $2,078,514
13%, $4,155,866
20%, $6,510,691
25%, $8,365,774
24%, $7,911,318
8%, $2,763,352
3%, $1,139,200
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
CENTRAL SERVICES
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS &
PARTNERSHIPS
RESOURCES & STEWARDSHIP
TRAILS & FACILITIES
COST ALLOCATION TRANSFER TO GENERAL
FUND
DEBT SERVICE
$0 $4,000,000 $8,000,000
Agenda Item 5 - Page 5
Table 4: Total Open Space Fund Expenses on Open Space Fund Financial (Excerpt from Attachment B)
The Fund Financial serves as a financial statement supporting the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report. This document is not meant to represent the workgroups, programs, and staffing allocations that make
up the draft operating budget for each Service Area. To provide that next level of detail, the Department Detail
Page is presented here. This document was previously presented as part of the City Manager’s Recommended
Budget each fall. With the transition to an online platform for budget presentation to the public, the separate
Department Detail Page is no longer included in the City Manager’s Recommended Budget, but it is a useful
way to reflect the same level of detail published on the online platform.
The Department Detail Page lists the budget with Service Area titles, unlike the Fund Financial, which
includes the Program titles. For instance, the Community Connections & Partnerships Service Area is listed
with this title in the Department Detail Page but is reflected as “OSMP Community & Partnerships” in the
Fund Financial. Like the Fund Financial, the Department Detail Page provides information from 2023 as
context for 2024 budget development. The form then further breaks down the lines on the Fund Financial to
show budget allocation by workgroup and FTE. For example, below, the Department Detail Page shows that
there are six workgroups in Community Connections & Partnerships and lists the FTE and budget allocation
for each workgroup. There are additional FTE included in the 2024 budget. In the Ranger Services workgroup,
for instance, the addition of 3.0 FTE reflects the conversion of two Outreach Rangers and one Ranger Crew
Lead from temporary to standard positions. The total 2024 Recommended Budget on the Department Detail
Page ties to the OSMP Community & Partnerships line on the Fund Financial, above.
Table 5: Example of Workgroup Expenses on 2024 Department Detail Page (Excerpt from Attachment
C)
To first address the allocation of temporary and seasonal positions, it is important to note that the Department
Detail Page provides only the standard FTE allocation for each department. This is a useful indication of how
Agenda Item 5 - Page 6
staffing resources support department outcomes. However, the Department Detail Page does represent
temporary or seasonal employees. The table below provides additional insight into draft staffing allocations in
the 2024 operating budget, which are subject to change as the department finalizes the 2024 work plan. Please
note that while 1.0 FTE correlates to 2080 hours, this is not true for temporary and seasonal employee
numbers. Temporary and seasonal employee numbers as presented are strictly an accounting of how many
employees are expected to be hired by the department, as term length and hours per week vary widely by
position. Table 6 includes the budget requests for additional positions and position conversions outlined
during the June business meeting. Standard position changes are included as footnotes at the end of the table.
Table 6: 2024 Projected OSMP Staffing Allocation by Service Area and Workgroup/Program
Service Area Workgroup/Program
2024 Standard
Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE)
Employees
Projected 2024
Seasonal and
Temporary
Employees
Office of the
Director (OD)
Director’s Team 6.00 0.00
Community Relations Office 2.00 0.00
Science Office 2.00 1.00
OD Total Projected 2024 Employees 10.00 1.00
Central
Services (CS)
Business Services1 9.00 1.00
Real Estate Services 4.00 0.00
Resource Information Services 8.75 1.00
CS Total Projected 2024 Employees 21.75 2.00
Community
Connections &
Partnerships
(CC&P)
Education 5.00 3.00
Volunteer Service Learning &
Partnerships
3.00 3.00
Junior Rangers2 2.00 130.00
Outreach3 3.00 9.00
Planning Services4 6.50 0.00
Ranger Services5 22.00 3.00
CCP Total Projected 2024 Employees 41.50 148.00
Resource &
Stewardship
(R&S)
Agricultural Management6 7.00 6.00
Cultural Resources Program7 3.00 0.00
Ecological Stewardship8 5.10 0.00
Forest Ecology9 6.25 9.00
Human Dimensions10 5.00 2.00
Recreation & Cultural Stewardship/Rec
Ecology
4.00 0.00
Restoration Plant Ecology 2.00 4.00
Vegetation Management 4.00 12.00
Water Resource Administration 3.00 2.00
Wildlife Ecology 4.00 3.00
R&S Total Projected 2024 Employees 43.35 38.00
Trails &
Facilities
(T&F)
Equipment and Vehicles 1.00 0.00
Facility Management 6.00 0.00
Signs Graphics Display11 3.00 2.00
Trails Stewardship12 16.00 27.00
Trailhead Maintenance 4.00 7.00
T&F Total Projected 2024 Employees 30.00 36.00
OSMP Total Projected 20243 Employees 146.60 225.00
1Business Services- Includes addition of OSMP Grants Coordinator (1.00 FTE).
2Junior Rangers- Includes conversion of Junior Ranger Program Sr Coordinator (1.00 FTE) from temporary to standard.
Agenda Item 5 - Page 7
3Outreach- Includes conversion of Bilingual Education & Outreach Representative (1.00 FTE) from temporary to
standard.
4Planning Services- Includes conversion of City Planning Coordinator (1.00 FTE) from temporary to standard.
5Ranger Services- Includes conversion of two Outreach Rangers (2.00 FTE) and one Ranger Crew Lead (1.00 FTE) from
temporary to standard.
6Agricultural Management- Includes addition of Agricultural Land Restoration Crew Lead (1.00 FTE).
7Cultural Resources Program- Includes addition of Cultural Stewardship Program Manager (1.00 FTE).
8Ecological Stewardship- Includes addition of Wetlands Ecologist (1.00 FTE).
9Forest Ecology- Includes addition of two Forestry Assistant Crew Leads (2.00 FTE) and conversion of one Forestry
Assistant Crew Lead (1.00 FTE) from temporary to standard.
10Human Dimensions- Includes conversion of Human Dimensions Technician (1.00 FTE) from temporary to standard.
11Signs Graphics Display- Includes conversion of Signs Maintenance Technician (1.00 FTE) from temporary to standard.
12Trails Stewardship- Includes addition of Undesignated Trail Crew Lead (1.00 FTE) and conversion of four Trail Crew
Leads (1.00 FTE) from 0.75 FTE to 1.00 FTE.
The table below shows how personnel and non-personnel dollars are allocated across Service Areas. Standard
personnel, temporary and seasonal personnel, and non-personnel budgets are summed into total budget,
reflected in terms of dollars and as percent of operating budget.
Table 7: 2024 OSMP Operating Budget Breakdown
Operating Budget
Category
Standard
Personnel
Budget
Temporary
and Seasonal
Personnel
Budget
Non-
Personnel
Budget
Total
Operating
Budget ($)
Total
Operating
Budget (%)
Office of the Director $1,679,519 $41,234 $357,761 $2,078,514 6%
Central Services $2,470,383 $101,704 $1,583,778 $4,155,866 13%
Community
Connections &
Partnerships
$4,760,240 $1,148,706 $601,745 $6,510,691
20%
Resources &
Stewardship $4,996,496 $1,681,143 $1,688,136 $8,365,774 25%
Trails & Facilities $3,117,781 $1,435,696 $3,357,841 $7,911,318 24%
Cost Allocation N/A N/A N/A 2,763,352 8%
Debt Service N/A N/A N/A 1,139,200 3%
Totals $17,024,419 $4,408,483 $7,589,261 $32,924,715 100%
This information allows staff and the OSBT to gain additional insight into the department operating budget.
For example, Resources & Stewardship has the largest personnel budget, as it is more common to hire staff to
do this work in-house and less common to contract the work. Trails & Facilities has the largest non-personnel
budget, as this Service Area supports ongoing services like contracted crews for trail maintenance, vehicle
repair and replacement, and purchases of equipment that support the whole department. These expenditures
come together to support the operations of the department.
In total, the 2024 OSMP operating budget represents approximately 83% of the overall OSMP budget for
2024, with the 2024 Open Space Fund and Lottery Fund CIP accounting for the remainder. The operating
budget represented 80% of the overall 2023 budget. The increase in 2024 can be attributed to reviewing the
definition for capital projects and recommending many ongoing projects under the operating budget instead of
the CIP. The recommended 2024 operating budget for the Open Space Fund, including personnel and non-
personnel expenditures, interdepartmental charges, cost allocation, and debt service is $32,924,715. Total uses
of funds in 2024, including both CIP and operating, are allocated in Table 8. As a reminder, the CIP is
supported by both the Open Space Fund and the Lottery Fund. The operating budget is supported entirely by
the Open Space Fund.
Table 8: Total 2024 OSMP Operating and CIP Uses of Funds, $39,577,924
Agenda Item 5 - Page 8
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO 2024 CIP AND OPERATING BUDGET REQUESTS
Since the May and June business meetings, OSMP staff have reviewed priority projects and refined CIP and
operating budget requests. Revisions considered capacity to complete projects, timelines to implement or
complete projects, and appropriate categorization of projects as CIP or ongoing operating needs. The
department’s draft CIP and operating budget requests were submitted with these revisions to the Finance
Department for Executive Budget Team review later this month. If a department’s CIP and budget requests are
approved by the Executive Budget Team, they become part of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget,
which is reviewed by City Council in the fall. Table 9 describes recommended changes to the draft 2024 CIP,
as presented during the May business meeting.
Table 9: 2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Recommended Adjustments
Project
Initial
Proposed
2024
Funding
Revised
Proposed
2024
Funding
Proposed Changes
Habitat Enhancement: Fish Passage
Design at New Dry Creek Carrier on
South Boulder Creek
$250,000 $- Due to permitting timelines, it is
more feasible to fund this project
in 2025.
Irrigation Ditch Maintenance: Mitigate
Fuels and Remove Invasive Tree
Species
$150,000 $100,000 An extensive review of costs
associated with this project have
reduced the cost to implement
irrigation ditch maintenance from
$150,000 to $100,00.
Restoration of Vegetation, Riparian
Habitats, and Wetlands
$300,000 $150,000 Restoration of Boulder Creek
Floodplain and Riparian Habitat
was initially proposed under this
73%, $29,022,162
7%, $2,763,352
3%, $1,139,200
16%, $6,225,209
1%, $428,000
SERVICE AREA OPERATING BUDGETS
COST ALLOCATION TRANSFER TO GENERAL
FUND
DEBT PAYMENT EXPENDITURES
OPEN SPACE FUND CIP
LOTTERY FUND CIP
$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000
Agenda Item 5 - Page 9
Project
Initial
Proposed
2024
Funding
Revised
Proposed
2024
Funding
Proposed Changes
project. With staff capacity and
project implementation timelines
in mind, it is more realistic to
implement this work in 2025. The
remaining $150,000 will support
restoration projects on the Coal
Creek, Axelson West, and Suitts
properties.
Visitor Communication and Education
Enhancements
$100,000 $25,000 System-wide sign enhancements
and maintenance were initially
proposed under this project for
$75,000. Upon further review, this
is an ongoing operational need for
the department. The $75,000 is
now proposed as an operating
budget request. The remaining
$25,000 for Visitor
Communication and Education
Enhancements will support a
Flagstaff Site Plan for visitor
management. While OSMP
typically does not propose
projects for less than $50,000, the
Flagstaff Site Plan will pass that
threshold over the multi-year
budget for the project.
Table 10 describes recommended changes to the draft 2024 operating budget requests, as presented during the
June business meeting.
Table 10: 2024 Operating Budget Request Recommended Adjustments
Budget Request
Initial
Proposed
2024
Funding
Revised
Proposed
2024
Funding
Proposed Changes
New Vehicles to Support Additional
2024 Positions
$- $393,000 Additional vehicles are needed to
support the positions requested
during the 2024 budget planning
process. This is a one-time cost
for the department in 2024. After
the vehicles are purchased, regular
maintenance, repair, and
replacement costs will become
part of the ongoing operating
budget.
System-wide Sign Enhancements and
Maintenance
$- $75,000 System-wide sign enhancements
and maintenance have previously
been funded in the CIP. As stated
in Table 9, it has been determined
Agenda Item 5 - Page 10
Budget Request
Initial
Proposed
2024
Funding
Revised
Proposed
2024
Funding
Proposed Changes
that this is an ongoing need for the
department. OSMP requests to
fund $75,000 for system-wide
sign enhancements and
maintenance in the operating
budget going forward.
Outreach Ranger (2 positions, 2.0 FTE
total)
$13,866 $13,866 This request to convert two
temporary Outreach Ranger
positions from temporary to
standard was initially proposed for
a two-year fixed-term period. The
department requests to extend the
fixed-term period to three years to
better understand the ongoing
need of this work. There is no
change in funding amount.
Ranger Crew Lead (1.0 FTE) $13,558 $13,558 This request to convert a
temporary Ranger Crew Lead
position from temporary to
standard was initially proposed for
a two-year fixed-term period. The
department requests to extend the
fixed-term period to three years to
better understand the ongoing
need of this work. There is no
change in funding amount.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
This item is being heard at this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on July 9, 2023. On August 18,
2023, the City Planning Board will review the 2024-2029 CIP recommended by staff. City Council will hold
its study session on the CIP and operating budget on September 14, 2023. First and second readings of the
2024 budget and ordinances will be held on October 5 and 19, 2023, respectively.
ATTACHMENTS
•Attachment A: 2022-2029 Open Space Fund Financial
•Attachment B: 2024 Department Detail Page
Agenda Item 5 - Page 11
OPEN SPACE AND MOUNTAIN PARKS (2500) FUND FINANCIALS2022202320242025 2026 2027 20282029Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected ProjectedBeginning Fund Balance22,142,817$ 27,527,473$ 15,362,590$ 13,764,119$ 11,875,828$ 10,072,388$ 9,918,973$ 9,698,270$ Sources of FundsSales and Use Taxes33,467,554$ 34,150,642$ 35,589,280$ 36,665,716$ 37,627,376$ 38,508,526$ 39,389,407$ 40,275,037$ Contributions & Donations72,655 48,000 - -----Grant Revenues677,072 449,000 - -----Interest & Investment Earnings382,370 390,171 400,315 412,685 425,437 438,583 452,135 466,106 Intergovernmental Revenues245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384 245,384 Leases, Rents and Royalties395,481 594,717 610,179 629,034 648,471 668,509 689,166 710,461 Licenses, Permits & Fines249,554 257,040 263,723 271,872 280,273 288,934 297,862 307,066 Other Revenues118,925 122,492 125,677 129,561 133,564 137,691 141,946 146,332 Parking Revenue299,866 308,862 316,893 326,685 336,779 347,186 357,914 368,973 Total Sources of Funds35,908,860$ 36,566,309$ 37,551,452$ 38,680,937$ 39,697,285$ 40,634,812$ 41,573,813$ 42,519,359$ Operating Uses of FundsAdministration (Environmentally Sustainable) 5,532,521$ 6,274,396$ 6,234,380$ 6,421,411$ 6,614,054$ 6,694,140$ 6,894,964$ 7,101,813$ OSMP Community & Partnerships 5,837,407 5,806,533 6,510,691 6,706,012 6,907,192 6,788,496 6,992,151 7,201,915 Resources & Stewardship 6,128,546 6,477,429 8,365,773 8,616,746 8,875,249 8,912,756 9,180,139 9,455,543 Trails & Facilities 5,795,009 6,056,660 7,911,318 7,755,658 7,988,327 8,227,977 8,474,816 8,729,061 Capital Improvement Program 3,445,495 6,719,972 6,225,209 7,079,749 7,042,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Carryover/ATB Operating - 12,979,906 - -----Cost Allocation & Transfers2,051,446 2,682,866 2,763,352 2,846,253 2,931,640 3,019,589 3,110,177 3,203,482 Debt Service1,733,780 1,733,430 1,139,200 1,143,400 1,142,263 1,145,269 1,142,269 1,141,369 Total Uses of Funds 30,524,205$ 48,731,191$ 39,149,923$ 40,569,228$ 41,500,725$ 40,788,228$ 41,794,516$ 42,833,184$ Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 27,527,473$ 15,362,590$ 13,764,119$ 11,875,828$ 10,072,388$ 9,918,973$ 9,698,270$ 9,384,445$ ReservesOSMP Contingency Reserve5,415,742$ 5,806,263$ 6,584,943$ 6,697,896$ 6,891,745$ 6,957,646$ 7,158,903$ 7,366,637$ Pay Period 27 Reserve377,063 613,422 750,305 107,186 214,373 321,559 428,746 535,932 Sick/Vacation/Bonus Reserve44,891 64,077 65,999 67,979 70,019 72,119 74,283 76,511 FEMA De-obligation Reserve383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 383,488 Total Reserves 6,221,184$ 6,867,250$ 7,784,735$ 7,256,549$ 7,559,625$ 7,734,812$ 8,045,420$ 8,362,568$ Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 21,306,289$ 8,495,341$ 5,979,385$ 4,619,279$ 2,512,763$ 2,184,161$ 1,652,850$ 1,021,877$ Attachment AAgenda Item 5 - Page 12
Open Space & Mountain Parks Department Detail Page
FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount
Director's Team 1,208,926 6.00 $ 6.00 1,350,344$ 0.00 141,418$
2.00 273,921 2.00 280,771 0.00 6,850
2.00 409,885 2.00 447,399 0.00 37,514
Subtotal 1,892,732 10.00 $ 10.00 2,078,514$ 0.00 185,782$
,703,512 1 9.25 $ 9.00 ,681,996 1$ (0.25) (21,516)$
Real Estate Services 4.00 533,970 4.00 530,992 0.00 (2,978)
Resource Information Services 8.75 1,980,360 8.75 1,942,878 0.00 (37,482)
Subtotal 4,217,842 22.00 $ 21.75 4,155,866$ (0.25) (61,976)$
Education 5.00 822,046$ 5.00 779,633$0.00 (42,413)$
Volunteer Service Learning & Partnerships 3.00 636,794 3.00 675,429 0.00 38,635
Junior Rangers 1.00 547,439 2.00 805,374 1.00 257,935
Outreach 2.00 467,012 3.00 541,033 1.00 74,021
Planning Services 5.50 716,368 6.50 885,808 1.00 169,440
Ranger Services 19.00 2,609,761 22.00 2,823,413 3.00 213,652
Subtotal 5,799,420 35.50 $ - 6,510,691$ 6.00 711,271$
Agricultural Management 6.00 856,988$ 7.00 1,276,899$ 1.00 419,911$
Cultural Resources Program 2.00 291,359 3.00 337,122 1.00 45,763
Ecological Stewardship 4.10 837,841 5.10 1,104,807 1.00 266,966
4.00 787,651 6.25 1,133,045 2.25 345,394
Recreation and Cultural Stewardship/Rec Ecology 4.00 561,129 4.00 598,581 0.00 37,452
4.00 586,293 5.00 745,163 1.00 158,870
2.00 435,978 2.00 585,544 0.00 149,566
4.00 750,471 4.00 1,075,135 0.00 324,664
2.00 663,983 3.00 849,730 1.00 185,747
4.00 697,807 4.00 659,748 0.00 (38,059)
Subtotal 6,469,500 36.10 $ 43.35 8,365,774$ 1,896,2737.25 $
Equipment and Vehicles 1,195,668 1.00 $ 1.00 1,693,543$ 0.00 497,875$
Facility Management 6.00 1,302,473 6.00 1,496,786 0.00 194,313
Signs Graphics Display 2.00 377,911 3.00 480,285 1.00 102,374
Trails Stewardship 13.75 2,325,123 16.00 3,270,930 2.25 945,807
3.00 851,157 4.00 969,774 1.00 118,617
Subtotal 6,052,332 25.75 $ 30.00 7,911,318$ 1,858,9864.25 $
Capital Improvement Program 7,147,972$ 6,653,209$ (494,763)$
Cost Allocation 2,692,866 2,763,352 70,486
Debt Service 1,733,430 1,139,200 (594,230)
Subtotal -$ 11,574,268 - 10,555,761$ (1,018,507)$
Total 129.35 36,006,094 105.10 39,577,924 3,571,82917.25 $
Personnel $ 18,805,315 21,432,901$ 2,627,586$
Operating 4,122,424
Interdepartmental Charges 1,504,088
Capital 7,147,972
Cost Allocation 2,692,866
Debt Service 1,733,430
5,987,959
1,601,303
6,653,209
2,763,352
1,139,200
1,865,535
97,215
(494,763)
70,486
(594,230)
Total $ 36,006,095 39,577,924$ 3,571,829$
Lottery -$ 428,000 428,000-$0.00 -$
Open Space 129.35 35,578,095 146.60 39,149,924 17.25 3,571,829
Total 129.35 36,006,095$ 146.60 39,577,924$ 3,571,82917.25 $
Community Connections and Partnerships
2023 Approved
Budget
Variance
2023 to 2024
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURE BY PROGRAM
Office of the Director
Community Relations Office
Science Office
Central Services
Business Services
2024 Recommended
Budget
Resources and Stewardship
Forest Ecology
Human Dimensions
Restoration Plant Ecology
Vegetation Management
Water Resource Administration
Wildlife Ecology
Trails and Facilities
Trailhead Maintenance
Capital Improvement Program, Cost Allocations, and
Debt Service
EXPENDITURE BY CATEGORY
STAFFING AND EXPENDITURE BY FUND
Attachment B
Agenda Item 5 - Page 13
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 12, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Request for a recommendation to staff to implement modifications to the
management program reducing prairie dog conflict on irrigated agricultural lands and a recommendation
to City Council to amend the geographical scope of the program to include the northern project area
with the addition of all irrigated agricultural lands designated as transition or removal areas across the
entire OSMP land system
PRESENTERS:
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Heather Swanson, Interim Deputy Director of Resource and Stewardship, Ecological Stewardship
Senior Manager
Andy Pelster, Agriculture and Water Stewardship Senior Manager
Victoria Poulton, Prairie Dog Conservation and Management Ecologist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2020, the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and City Council (CC) provided Open Space and
Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff with direction to undertake a management program to reduce conflict
between irrigated agriculture and prairie dogs within a project area encompassing the northern portion of
the OSMP system. Since 2020, staff has been accomplishing this through relocation and lethal control of
prairie dogs on high priority irrigated agricultural lands, by installing barriers to prevent recolonization
following removal and implementing restoration activities to return properties to agricultural production.
To ensure that implementation is being accomplished in the most efficient and effective way possible,
staff has reviewed the accomplishments and lessons learned over the past 3 years of implementation and
are recommending some changes.
Staff presented background information on the program to OSBT in an informational written memo on
May 10, 2023, as well as during an OSBT field trip held on May 18, 2023. At the June 14, 2023 OSBT
meeting, staff presented an update from the department detailing the information from the evaluation and
recommended changes to the management program. Staff is returning to OSBT at this time with a formal
agenda item and public hearing. Staff is asking the board to recommend the included modifications to the
management program and recommend City Council approve modifications to the geographical scope of
the program to expand beyond the northern project area to include all irrigated properties designated as
transition or removal areas (Attachment A).
Staff feels that the modifications we are recommending will ensure that implementation is done using the
lessons learned over the first 3 years of the program and in response to changing conditions in prairie dog
occupation and property characteristics. These modifications will ensure that implementation is done in
the most effective, efficient way possible so that the largest reduction in prairie dog conflict on irrigated
agricultural lands can be accomplished within the scope of the program in upcoming years.
Agenda Item 6 - Page 1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests Open Space Board of Trustees make a motion to:
1)Recommend that staff implement modifications to the management approach of reducing prairie dog
conflict on irrigated agricultural properties beginning in 2024 including:
a. Evaluate properties based on individual characteristics including challenges and opportunities
for use in support of the prioritization criteria applied in selecting management sites each year.
b. Expand implementation of the project beyond the previously determined northern project area
to encompass irrigable agricultural properties system-wide that are designated as transition and
removal areas and replace the existing burrow disturbance rule to allow burrow disturbance to a
depth of six inches system-wide, or 12 inches with prior notification on OSMP irrigated
agricultural land.
c. Implement lethal control, barrier maintenance, and other related tasks in-house by purchasing
equipment and adding staffing to complete this work rather than by hiring contractors.
d. Cease relocation to the Southern Grasslands as directed by the Grassland Plan unless
occupation drops below 10% in the future. Evaluate alternate receiving sites including Prairie
Dog Conservation Areas and receiving sites off OSMP and pursue if found to be feasible. If
receiving sites are not available and thus relocation is not feasible, explore alternative removal
options such as trapping and donating to programs for raptor rehabilitation or black-footed ferret
recovery.
e. Identify funding and capacity to address irrigation infrastructure needs ahead of prairie dog
removal on properties where irrigated agriculture is limited by irrigation infrastructure.
f. Continue to apply Grassland Plan management designation criteria to properties where
conditions have changed to ensure management designations are up-to-date and appropriate.
2)Recommend that City Council approve modifications to the geographic scope of the program, to
expand implementation of the project, including the use of lethal control, beyond the previously defined
northern project area to encompass irrigable agricultural properties system-wide that are designated as
transition and removal areas. This approval should include replacement of the existing burrow disturbance
rule to allow burrow disturbance to a depth of 6 inches or 12 inches with prior notification, system-wide
on irrigated agricultural properties.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
•Economic - OSMP’s agricultural program represents one of the few remaining ways that the
agricultural sector of the economy can prosper in the Boulder Valley. In particular, the city’s
irrigated agricultural lands have been identified as the best opportunity areas to support
agricultural operations across the Open Space system. To the degree this project will improve
these areas, it will support greater economic vitality for tenant farmers and ranchers leasing lands
from the city and avoid the need for additional city staff to maintain these lands. The
recommendation would better support the investments made in the acquisition of city lands and
water rights to support the agricultural-related Charter purposes of Open Space.
•Environmental – This expansion of the geographical scope of the program and other
recommended modifications would improve the sustainability and health of soil resources, which
are the basis of ecological and agricultural systems. In addition, it balances the multi-Charter use
of some city lands for agricultural uses and some lands for conservation of prairie dogs and
associated native grassland species. The recommendation improves the ability of OSMP to care
for broad ecosystems over the long term while making short-term localized improvements to
agricultural properties. The removal of prairie dogs would in turn support restoration and
modification of agricultural uses to maintain and enhance soil health. Maintaining healthy soils
Agenda Item 6 - Page 2
and ecosystems is a critical practice that helps the city address the climate crisis through carbon
drawdown and natural climate solutions.
•Social - The recommendation would improve the sustainability of OSMP’s agricultural
infrastructure and provide enhanced support for the continued participation of farmers and
ranchers in the Boulder Valley community and economy. Local farmers and ranchers are
typically not in the position to purchase property and are increasingly dependent upon the
availability of agricultural lands in good condition from community Open Space programs as
places to pursue careers in farming and ranching. This project provides stewardship for
agricultural lands supporting a local food supply on the city land that is best suited for agricultural
production. The recent pandemic and economic disruptions have highlighted food supply chain
vulnerabilities at multiple scales (global to local), underscoring the need for local food system
resilience and the associated need to carefully manage local food system productivity in
accordance with council-accepted plans including the Grassland Plan and Agricultural Resources
Management Plan. This project enhances opportunities for the public to better experience cultural
landscapes such as irrigated fields and croplands in their traditional condition.
OTHER IMPACTS
•Fiscal – The recommendation can be accomplished within the currently budgeted program
expenditures of $500,000-$700,000 per year.
•Staff time - The shift to in-house removal of prairie dogs would be accomplished by using
approximately $130,000 of the estimated expenditure described above to hire a fixed-term
standard employee and a temporary crew member (~1.7 FTE). Other staff time associated with
the recommendation can be incorporated into the OSMP work plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
This item is being heard as part of this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on July 9, 2023.
Information on this re-evaluation process was included in staff presentations at the annual public meeting
on Dec 13, 2022. Notification of the previous and upcoming board meetings and links to information and
OSBT memos were emailed to interested constituents on June 9, 2023, and posted on the OSMP prairie
dog conservation and management webpage. Comments were heard during open comment at the June 14,
2023, OSBT meeting.
ANALYSIS
Background
Staff provided background for the current prairie dog management on irrigated agricultural lands in a
written memo to OSBT for the May 10, 2023, meeting. That document can be found here. Information
regarding the analysis of the current program and thinking behind current recommended modifications
was presented at the June 14, 2023, OSBT meeting. That information can be found here. At the June
meeting, staff discussed recommended modifications with the Trustees, answered questions related to the
recommendations, and received general support from the trustees for the recommendations as presented.
Public Comment and Response
Discussion from members of the public who spoke in open comment and emailed staff and the Board
directly focused on a few items. Speakers generally voiced support for expanding the geographical area of
the program, while emphasizing the desire to see continued progress in the northern project area. A few
issues identified included concern over the categorization of properties and how that related to the future
removal of prairie dogs/restoration of those properties, concern over the scope of the recommendation to
re-evaluate management designations for properties where conditions have changed, and the ongoing
impacts to some neighbors due to prairie dog occupation on their private properties.
Agenda Item 6 - Page 3
After hearing comments from the public and the board, staff is reframing the recommendation related to
categorization of properties based on their individual conditions. Public comment highlighted that staff
had not been clear in the intention of this recommendation and it was misunderstood to mean that staff
were re-prioritizing properties for removal. This categorization was based on organizing information
collected in our property-by-property analysis to help inform future management planning, prioritize
resources for restoration, etc. Selection of properties for removal each year will continue to be based on
the set of priorities included in the program approved by City Council in 2020. Staff is not recommending
a change to these prioritization criteria. The categorization of properties was not intended to be a static
framework, rather it is based on current conditions on properties and thus as conditions change, either
through ecological changes, investments in infrastructure, etc. properties would be recategorized to
capture their current conditions. To make it clearer that this is simply an organization of information
related to properties, staff is renaming this to better reflect the intent of continuing to use the previously
approved prioritization criteria while considering property specific information. This will help ensure that
annual management planning is done in a way to ensure that resources are being used as effectively as
possible to reduce prairie dog conflict on irrigated agricultural lands to the greatest extent consistent with
the OSMP charter. Being specific about conditions on properties and how those conditions influence
decision-making on properties management will continue to be part of annual conversations with the
community around management planning each year.
Another issue that was raised in comments from the public focused on use of the Grassland Ecosystem
Management Plan prairie dog management designation criteria to evaluate if properties are still
appropriately designated. Staff want to clarify that use of management designations from the Grassland
Plan is not intended to be frequently changing. Re-assignment of management designations would be
done only in the case that permanent changes have occurred on a property that change how it will be
managed. For instance, in the case of a property with no water rights and no options for water rights to be
used on the property in the future, a designation based on it supporting irrigated agriculture is inaccurate
and would be re-evaluated. However, in the case that a property does not currently support irrigated
agriculture because investment in infrastructure is needed, or due to current ecological conditions, re-
designation would not be pursued as future work on infrastructure or future changes in ecological
conditions could again allow irrigated agricultural use of the property.
Members of the public also raised concerns around the conditions on individual properties and the
impacts to neighbors of prairie dog occupation on their private lands. Staff continue to be in touch with
neighbors, provide site visits to look at conditions on properties, provide technical assistance where
helpful, and continue to work on the framework for a barrier cost-share program. Direct assistance to
neighbors was discussed in 2019 and 2020, and the determination was made that focusing limited
resources on best supporting restoration of irrigated lands on OSMP was to be the focus of the current
program. To the degree that removal of prairie dogs has a positive impact on adjacent neighbors, the
criteria for selection of properties for removal includes an item to best maximize the benefit to neighbors.
Staff work with those neighbors to coordinate removal efforts and install barriers as necessary to protect
the restoration.
The current effort to evaluate the overall program of prairie dog management on irrigated agricultural
properties is not intended to focus at the scale of individual properties or recommendations for
management of individual properties. The direction around the program to prioritize resources and work
to reduce conflict between prairie dogs and irrigated agriculture on OSMP continues to be the focus of
staff time and resources and remains unchanged in the current process. Conditions on some properties are
challenging and complicated and continue to be a focus of OSMP efforts and planning. Management of
properties with substantial barriers to near-term irrigated agricultural use provide good options to focus on
actions related to the Prairie Dog Working Group Recommendations and efforts at co-existence, which
Agenda Item 6 - Page 4
are not part of the current evaluation. Communication with neighbors and lessees about best options and
opportunities to reduce conflict in the presence of prairie dogs are ongoing outside of the current process.
Current modification Recommendations:
The current modification recommendations (based on board discussion and public comments as discussed
above) are:
a. Evaluate properties based on individual characteristics including challenges and opportunities for
use in support of the prioritization criteria applied in selecting management sites each year.
b. Expand implementation of the project beyond the previously determined northern project area to
encompass irrigable agricultural properties system-wide that are designated as transition and
removal areas and replace the existing burrow disturbance rule to allow burrow disturbance to a
depth of six inches system-wide, or 12 inches with prior notification on OSMP irrigated
agricultural land.
c.Implement lethal control, barrier maintenance, and other related tasks in-house by purchasing
equipment and adding staffing to complete this work rather than by hiring contractors.
d.Cease relocation to the Southern Grasslands as directed by the Grassland Plan unless occupation
drops below 10% in the future. Evaluate alternate receiving sites including Prairie Dog
Conservation Areass and receiving sites off OSMP and pursue if found to be feasible. If receiving
sites are not available and thus relocation is not feasible, explore alternative removal options such
as trapping and donating to programs for raptor rehabilitation or black-footed ferret recovery.
e.Identify funding and capacity to address irrigation infrastructure needs ahead of prairie dog
removal on properties where irrigated agriculture is limited by irrigation infrastructure.
f.Continue to apply Grassland Plan management designation criteria to properties where conditions
have changed to ensure management designations are up-to-date and appropriate.
Staff is requesting that the board consider these recommendations. Staff will consider the board’s
recommendations and begin preparations and next steps as detailed below to incorporate modifications to
the management approach for 2024.
NEXT STEPS
Following this meeting, staff will provide City Council with an Information Packet (IP) to describe the
recommended changes. With the OSBT’s recommendation at-hand, the IP will be followed by an item on
a future City Council agenda specifically authorizing the modifications to the project area spatial scale
from the northern project area to include all other irrigated agricultural lands designated as transition or
removal areas system wide. This expansion will apply to the use of lethal control for removal and the
allowability of burrow disturbance from customary agricultural activities to a depth of 6”; or 12” with
prior notice. If accepted by City Council, the rule authorizing the disturbance to burrows within the
project area will be repealed and replaced by a rule including the project area as well as all other irrigated
agricultural properties designated as transition and removal areas system wide. An amendment will also
be made to the special permit allowing removal through lethal control on these properties to reflect the
modified spatial scale. Staff will work to implement the recommended modifications beginning in 2024
and will begin hiring for the in-house crew to perform the work. An update on implementation plans will
be provided to the community at the annual prairie dog management meeting in December.
ATTACHMENTS
•Attachment A: Map showing northern project area, irrigated agricultural lands and current prairie
dog occupation
Agenda Item 6 - Page 5
Attachment A: Map showing northern project area, irrigated agricultural lands and current prairie
dog occupation
Attachment A
Agenda Item 6 - Page 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Jeff Haley, Deputy Director, Trails and Facilities
DATE: July 12, 2023
SUBJECT: Written Update: Boulder Star on Flagstaff Mountain
________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
The City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department is coordinating with the
Boulder Chamber of Commerce (Boulder Chamber) to update an existing Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for the ongoing stewardship and operation of the Boulder Star (star) on
Flagstaff Mountain. OSMP and the Boulder Chamber have an ongoing relationship lasting for many
years through an MOU to ensure the annual lighting and enjoyment of the star, while also
contemplating the ongoing stewardship and maintenance needs of this unique asset for the community.
The Boulder Star is a legacy structure and icon for Boulder that is lit each year on top of Flagstaff
Mountain on OSMP-managed land for the holiday season from after sunset on Veteran’s Day to
before sunset on January second. This tradition is over 70 years old and is part of the Boulder County
culture with many residents and tourists anticipating viewing the star each year as part of their holiday
traditions. The star is currently maintained by the Boulder Chamber who relies on public donations
and corporate sponsors such as the annual greeting card that is sold to fund repairs and operations.
While the star is on OSMP property, the department staff have typically managed the land around the
star while the Boulder Chamber manages the star and its various infrastructure.
A few key changes have occurred with the star in recent years including a closure of the area due to
the high increase in visitation to the star and associated natural resource impacts and staff performing
more detailed inspection and condition analysis of the infrastructure of the star to determine key
upgrades. With all the recent focus and attention on the star, OSMP and the Boulder Chamber are at a
crossroads to make some strategic and timely decisions in this current update to the MOU regarding
the ongoing stewardship and longer-term infrastructure maintenance. The purpose of this update is to
give a brief background of the recent status of the star and outline a timeline of next steps.
Background
The Boulder Star has a long and interesting history like many aspects of Boulder. According to Sutak
(2014)1, “In 1947, the Flagstaff Star was born, innocently enough, as a Christmas decoration for the
people of the city of Boulder to enjoy during the holiday season. 1947 was a good year, but the
following season, the Boulder Chamber of Commerce—the star’s keeper—chose to convert the star
into an Easter Cross. For the next two decades, the formation of the lights on the side of Flagstaff
Mountain alternated between the Christmas Star and the Easter Cross; always making an annual
appearance in either form in time for the holidays”. Since the 1950’s the star has remained lit only in
1 History of the Flagstaff Star: The Light That Guides Boulder Through The Holiday Season, Your Boulder,
Tyra Sutak, 2014
Written Information – Item A – Page 1
its star configuration for the holidays and in recent years lit in special cases to show solidarity with the
community for tragic events such as the King Soopers tragedy in south Boulder and the pandemic.
The primary plan guidance that OSMP has for the star is the West Trail Study Area Plan (WTSA) that
identified the Star as a “key destination and recommended retaining access and encouraging dispersed
use”. The land immediately below and adjacent to the star does not have any designated or maintained
trails for a viewing area and is located on a steep slope. Visitor access to the area occurs off-trail or
upon a network of undesignated trails that over the years has led to resource damage including the
development of gullies and de-vegetation across a large area. Loose soil combined with the steep
slope, has increased the danger of slipping and falling for visitors who try to view the star up close.
Illegal activity such as alcohol consumption, smoking and vandalism has left broken glass and litter on
the ground adjacent to the star. Though the star has a long history as a destination and as a gathering
spot, particularly at night, during the COVID-19 pandemic an emergency order was enacted to close
the area immediately surrounding the star in 2020 due to large crowds of visitors not adhering to social
distancing and noticeable increase in litter and impact to the land. This rule, which applies to the area
immediately below the star located to the west of the 1.2-mile mark of Flagstaff Road, allowed the site
time to be restored and mitigate public safety concerns. To discourage trespassing into the closed area,
staff installed a fence and ensure information and regulatory signs were added where needed.
The implementation of the on-going area closure in 2020 was to be followed by department actions in
2021 and beyond to assess and determine other management actions and infrastructure considerations
through a future planning and design effort in partnership with the Boulder Chamber and the broader
community to update long-term management guidance for how members of the public can experience
and enjoy the Boulder Star for years to come.
Current Status
OSMP staff in conjunction with the Boulder Chamber worked through the feasibility analysis in
2021that identified a preferred option to leave the Boulder Star in its current location but close the
access indefinitely until more information can be collected and a longer-term solution for access can
be determined that protects the resource and mitigates the challenges. This option is essentially how
the site was managed during the pandemic in 2020. During this time, almost all the management
issues that OSMP faced were mitigated by these actions. OSMP staff concluded that continued
management of this area in this way could mitigate the remaining larger ecological issues as well.
OSMP staff will continue to monitor the success of these management actions. Another major task
was completed in 2021 that involved a team of engineering consultants performing a thorough
assessment of the star and delivering a report that outlines recommended infrastructure upgrades and
improvements to ensure the long-term viability and safe operation of the star. These recommendations
are now being vetted with contractors to determine costs and implementation priorities. All this
information is being reviewed and considered within the context of updating the MOU with the
Boulder Chamber and understanding the best working relationship for the star and the OSMP land
moving forward.
Next Steps
OSMP staff and the Boulder Chamber are drafting the new updated MOU and working towards a final
draft to be ready by late summer with completion prior to the annual lighting in early November of
2023. Staff with each agency will be working with their respective attorneys in the coming month and
then taking the final draft through the necessary approval processes. Staff will continue to update the
OSBT as the final conditions of the MOU are determined and any resulting changes in workplan
priorities or budgets are identified.
Written Information – Item A – Page 2