Loading...
09.12.01 OSBT packet OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Wednesday, September 12, 2001 at 6:00 PM City Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway Please note: Times are approximate only. Actual hearing of an item may occur before or after the time listed. AGENDA 6:00 Approval of Minutes Co-Director's Updates Matters from the Board Public Participation/Items Not on the Agenda* Consideration of a joint purchase with Boulder County of approximately 185 acres located between Niwot and Monarch Roads and north west of the Longmont Diagonal from IBM Corporation for open space purposes* Consideration of an extension of the Open Space and Mountain Parks acquisition areas adopted in the Open Space and Management Plan for years 2000-2006* Adjournment For additional Information call Boulder FYI at 303-441-4060, extension 365; Open Space Administrative Office, 303-441-3440; or visit the Web site at: www.ci.boulder.co.us/opensp ace Board Book Approved OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Minutes September 12, 2001 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Chris Mueller Linda Jourgensen Larry MacDonnell Linda Andes-Georges STAFF PRESENT Jim Crain Wally Cameron Delani Wheeler Jim Reeder Cecil Fenio Kim Escalle Jim Tydings Ronda Romero Dave Kuntz CALL TO ORDER Chris Mueller called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 1 —Approval of Minutes Linda Jourgensen moved to approve the minutes from August 8, 2001 and Linda Andes- Georges seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Larry MacDonnell moved that the minutes from August 22nd be approved. Chris Mueller seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM 2—Co-Director's Update Mike Patton informed the Board of a volunteer project planned for Saturday, September 15th at Sombrero Marsh. The department believes that there will be an excess of 200 volunteers and expects most of the trail will be completed that day. Jim Crain added that there would be a noon lunch break and Don Mock has been invited to speak at that time. Dave Kuntz invited Board members to attend the dedication of Sombrero Marsh Environmental Education Center which the Boulder Valley School District is sponsoring Friday, September.2861 at 3:45 p.m. In response to Jim's request, Linda Andes-Georges volunteered to speak at this dedication ceremony. Delani Wheeler informed the Board that West Brownlow,who was a volunteer and author of the trail guide for the Open Space program, died Tuesday, September 11. Services are planned for Monday, September 17. He was a wonderful volunteer and contributor to the program and the community. She also mentioned that the CU south campus plan has been unveiled. CU had a staff meeting the afternoon of September 12 and were having a public open house that evening. The city will prepare a unified response to the university about the plan within 30 days. At that time public comment will be welcome. Delani told the Board that more information would be coming to them in their next Board packet. She concluded by informing the Board about a statewide Open Space alliance, which will have its second conference in October. This meeting will be held at the Jefferson County fairgrounds. Jim Crain informed the Board about a lawsuit that was filed by some of the citizens of Jefferson County against a proposed development in the area north of Highway 72. The Agenda Item 1A, Page 1 property owner, Mr. Ten Eyck, lost the case in district court because it was alleged that the land was illegally annexed to the city of Arvada. The court found that if Arvada wanted to annex this property it needed to be redone following its normal procedure. The city of Arvada and the property owner may appeal this ruling. However, as a result of this,there will not be the number of houses built on this location that the developer anticipated. The area is significant to Open Space and Mountain Parks because the department tried to buy land around it in the past. Larry MacDonnell asked if OSMP might want to reconsider purchasing this land again. Jim told him that the department would be glad to work with Jefferson County but there were no immediate plans at that time. Jim thanked the support staff particularly Ronda Romero, Kim Escalle and Cecil Fenio for all of the hard work that they do. Dave Kuntz advised Board members about the prescribed burn that was scheduled to take place Wednesday, September 19th, at the Lindsay North property on Eldorado Mountain. This is the largest burn planned consisting of over 60 acres. He also mentioned that the visitor plan workshop was cancelled due to the tragedy on the East Coast but has been rescheduled for Tuesday, October 2 at the East Boulder Community Center. Dave informed the Board that due to the number of memorial requests that have been coming into the department, staff has decided to develop a memorial bench policy. This policy will be presented to the Board sometime in the fall. These benches are installed at no expense to the department but through the policy,the department will have some control over the design and size of the bench. Mike Patton invited Board members to the service awards luncheon Tuesday, September 18th to be held at the Cherryvale office. The department will honor employees who have served the city for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. AGENDA ITEM 3—Matters from the Board Linda Andes-Georges commended the department for having so many staff members receiving BRAVO awards or other types of recognition. Linda voiced her concern about the recent bear activity. She asked if the department would consider putting more volunteers/staff at trail- heads to warn hikers. Mike Patton told her that the department has already begun implementing such a procedure and that rangers are patrolling these areas more frequently. Linda then told the Board and staff about her recent visit to White Ranch in Jefferson County. She encountered many memorial benches on her hike and recommended them for OSMP trails. Linda also reported that she had attended the horseman's picnic,where she met several members and was able to discuss various horse related issues. Linda then asked about the prairie dogs on the floodplain at Coal Creek. She noticed that there were freshly dug holes and wanted to know why the department doesn't use more fencing material instead of the barbed wire. Dave Kuntz responded that staff is just re-digging old holes. The policy is to put the prairie dogs in former prairie dog habitats. The survival rates after relocation are still being debated. Linda Jourgensen announced that she plans to attend the first Greenways Committee meeting which is scheduled for mid October. After the meeting she will report any information to the Board and staff. Agenda Item 1A, Page2 Chris Mueller announced that the budget committee meeting,which was cancelled, will be rescheduled. This committee will be addressing the ordinance that would give OSMP $1.5 million. Chris asked Larry MacDonnell if he could attend the meeting when it is rescheduled. Chris also thanked Ricky Weiser for hosting a tour of Windhover Farm two weeks ago. AGENDA ITEM 4—Public Participation/Items Not on the Agenda Ricky Weiser,4020 N.75" St.,told the Board thaf the origin of the name for the Windhover Farm comes from another name for kestrels. She was, however, primarily concerned about the railroad right-of-way and questioned the status of any plans for a trail there. She said that she would oppose a trail in that location because of the sensitive riparian habitat. She also hoped that the construction of the Lafayette pipeline would not jeopardize any of that habitat. Jim Crain explained that the city of Lafayette is considering a future trail but no final decision has been made. He agreed that there are threatened and endangered species in the area Ricky mentioned. AGENDA ITEM 5 — Consideration of a joint purchase with Boulder County of approximately 185.7 acres of land in fee, 185 shares of Left Hand Ditch Company, and 200 shares in the New Hinman Ditch Company, and all seller's interest in mineral rights, located north of the existing IBM Corporation campus between Monarch Road and Niwot Road and northwest of the Longmont Diagonal from International Business Machines Corporation (hereafter referred to as "IBM"for Open Space and Mountain Parks purposes. Wally Cameron began his presentation by explaining to the Board briefly about the history of IBM and its past transactions with the city. He also projected what the development possibilities were for the parcel if it was not purchased for protection. Since the county had also been purchasing land in that area Ron Stewart came to the department suggesting a joint effort to preserve this land for open space purposes. Wally explained that the purchase price was below the appraised price and comparable to what the department paid recently for the Imel property. The parcel is traditional farmland composed mostly of irrigated crops with some dry land crops and lies adjacent to a section of land owned by the Audubon Society that protects some critical wildlife habitat. Linda Andes-Georges asked when the Dodd Lake property was purchased by the county. She was curious because several people had gotten parking tickets there while they were birdwatching. Chris Mueller asked how many acres were jointly owned with the county. Staff did not have the exact acreage but Wally told him that together they had spent $21 million since 1999. Chris questioned how the departments protect themselves against disagreements about how the property would be managed. Wally told Chris that the decision about who would take the management responsibilities was decided on a case by case basis. Because the county owned a parcel contiguous to this property, it was jointly decided that the county would take over the management responsibilities. He also stressed the power of the cross conservation easements and their ability to subvert potential problems. If there would be contention over some issue he said that it could be taken to the people for a decision. The department did not anticipate problems. Agenda Item 1A, Page 3 Public Participation Donna Tucker,PO Box 716,Niwot, owns a small parcel of land east of IBM. She has done considerable research on the area and explained to the Board and staff some of the history of the Dodd property. Ms. Tucker believes if this property is acquired, it would reunite the original boundaries of a dairy farm known as Lakeside farm. By purchasing this property OSMP would also protect the land on her property and the wildlife that lives there. Ms. Tucker was concerned about the general problems with many of Boulder's rural roads and particularly the increase in traffic on 75'h and Nelson Road. She suggested that OSMP consider acquiring this area also to protect this land and its species as well. She advised that the lake is not to be used by boats. Return to Board & Staff Chris Mueller inquired about the ditch shares and how the amount of water in a share is determined. Wally told him that one share from one ditch is rarely equal to one share from another ditch. He added that one share of Lefthand is a bit short of 1 acre foot and probably a little less than what the property needs. He told Chris that IBM was not able to sell the city any more than that. He also explained that the Hinman ditch was just a carrier ditch and did not have any water rights per se. Linda Andes-Georges agreed with Ms. Tucker about Dodd Lake- that it is a gem for wildlife and she would also love to keep it rural. MOTION Linda Andes-Georges moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve the joint purchase with Boulder County of approximately 185 acres in fee,including improvements and water rights, from IBM Corporation under the terms and conditions outlined herein for Open Space and Mountain Parks purposes and recommends that the Council approve the purchase and authorize the City Manager to execute the documents needed to complete the purchase. Linda Jourgensen seconded the motion. VOTE The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM 6—Consideration of the expansion of the acquisition areas approved in the adopted Open Space and Management Plan for 2000-2006. Wally Cameron began by reminding the Board about the original acquistion plan for 2000- 2006 that was approved during September 1999. Using a map,he showed Board members the areas in the original plan and the additional areas included in the expansion proposal. He then explained how the spreadsheet listed the original acquisition acreage, the balance of that yet to be purchased and the proposed expanded acreage in each of the main target areas. He also explained how the department's projected budget and bonding capacity would cover the anticipated expense of the additional acreage. Jim Crain explained that the department would not be able to buy, outright, the additional 2000 acres at this time. He described the ability of the department to "borrow" the needed money in the form of bonds or payment agreements with sellers. He reassured the Board that by the year 2019 the department will have enough funding to cover the 6000 acre balance from the earlier plan as well as the additional 2000 acres in the new expanded plan with money left Agenda Item 1A, Page over. He told them that this proposal expands what the property agents are able to consider. Jim reiterated the value of joint acquisitions with the county as a way of stretching our purchasing power and the possibility of contributors lending money to the department with no interest until the final payment. Linda Jourgensen inquired about the purchasing process of possible"unidentified"properties. Jim explained that if a property came up for sale, staff would approach the Board before any acquisition would take place. He assured her that the department would not expand beyond the dollars that are available. Mike Patton pointed out that the spreadsheet includes a budgeted 300 "unidentified acres" that would be available for situations such as the one Linda was describing. Jim said that the department has worked methodically to reserve $6.3 million dollars in excess of the budget in anticipation of future economic downturns or problems. Larry MacDonnell liked the plan and was delighted with the vision the staff has exhibited with this proposal. He also suggested that the department pursue land farther north and west of the mountain parks for critical purchases. He described this as the best long term plan he has seen since he has been on the Board. Chris Mueller questioned the status of the land close to the city of Lafayette. Jim explained that the department had formally made an informal agreement with Lafayette to stay west of 95"' Street. As part of a program designed to protect the riparian habitat along Boulder Creek and the heron rookery, Lafayette gave OSMP permission to extend its purchases beyond 951' Street. Jim thought that the working relationship between the department and the city was a positive one and anticipated that they would be open to future negotiations. Chris hoped that the expanded acquisition plan would not jeopardize the ability to purchase property on the eastern side of Boulder. Wally assured him that there was still money budgeted for acquisitions in that area known as "Area III". Chris hoped that the department would continue to pursue acquisitions in that locality. He also questioned the area close to Longmont. Wally told him that the county is focusing on that area, alone or in joint purchases with OSMP. Jim told the Board that he had plans to meet with a property owner south of town who was considering selling the majority of his property but wanted to retain 200 acres for a possible gravel quarry. Jim thought that the department might want to pursue this acquisition with the intention of going after the remaining 200 acres at a later time if the property owner was not able to get a permit for the project. Chris questioned the source for the funding of the expanded acquisitions, wondering why that potential was not realized before. Jim and Mike Patton told him that the anticipated help from the county and the decision to "borrow" the extra$20 million made the projection possible. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None BACK TO THE BOARD Linda Andes-Georges was concerned about the department's optimism for future revenues and asked for an explanation of projected sales tax. Jim Crain replied that a .6 percent growth was projected for 2001 although some individual months have shown greater rates of growth. He told her that historical trends justify the projections. Jim pointed out an error in the amount designated as "administrative transfer"that will be corrected before it is sent to council. He said we were concerned and would, as always, continue to be vigilant. Agenda Item IA, Page Chris asked if the general fund allocation calculated in this projection included the $1.2 million that the department is requesting from the city in the form of an ordinance. Jim said that it was and the proposed expanded acquisition plan was dependent on that revenue. If the department did not receive that money, it would have to be taken from either maintenance or the department's acquisition budget. Chris thought that it should be pointed out to the Board that if they pass this expanded acquisition plan the money will only be there if the$1.2 million general fund ordinance is also passed. Linda Jourgensen was concerned about the loss of sales tax and the possibility of being directed to purchase part of the CU south campus land. Jim told her that to come up with the unbudgeted money for that property the department could either give up the possibility of buying other properties or take it to the citizens and request a special sales tax specifically for the one acquisition. Linda Andes-Georges agreed with Jim that the citizens would probably be willing to do this. MOTION Larry MacDonnell moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend that the City Council authorize the expansion of the area previously approved in the Open Space Acquisition and Management Plan for Years 2000-2006, and authorize the purchase of an additional 2,000 acres. Linda Andes-Georges seconded the motion. VOTE It was passed unanimously. Delani Wheeler reminded Board members about the memo they received regarding the policy considerations for the disposal of open space. She told them that if they felt the need for a study session regarding this staff would be willing to accommodate them. ADJOURNMENT—The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. These draft minutes prepared by Kim Escalle and Cecil Fenio. Agenda Item 1 A, Page 6 CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 12, 2001 (Agenda Item Preperation Date: September 6, 2001) AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a joint purchase with Boulder County of approximately 185.7 acres of land in fee, 185 shares in Left Hand Ditch Company, and 200 shares in the New Hinman Ditch Company, and all seller's interest in mineral rights, located north of the existing IBM Corporation campus between Monarch Road and Niwot Road and northwest of the Longmont Diagonal from International Business Machines Corporation (here after referred to as "IBM") for Open Space and Mountain Parks purposes. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Jaynes C. Crain, Co-Director Open Space and Mountain Parks Wally Cameron, Manager, Real Estate Services Division, Presenter FISCAL IMPACT: The total purchase price will be$3,150,000, including the water rights and mineral rights,payable as follows: (a) $50,000 as an earnest money deposit; and(b) $3,100,000 in cash at closing. The City Open Space and Mountain Parks share of the purchase price will be $1,575,000, including the earnest money, and the balance payable in cash at the time of closing. The Boulder County (here after referred to as "the County") share of the purchase will be $1,575,000 payable in cash at closing. Sufficient funds are available in the Open Space and Mountain Parks Funds to cover this purchase (See Attachment A). PURPOSE To obtain Open Space Board of Trustees recommendation to the City Council to authorize the joint purchase with the County of this property. BACKGROUND IBM Corporation currently owns approximately 662 acres, generally located northwest of the Longmont Diagonal Highway, east of North 63rd Street, with the main entrance to the IBM facility being at the Mineral Road(State Highway 52) intersection with the Diagonal. Most of the land for the existing IBM facility was purchased in 1957, with additional purchases in 1966, 1969 and 1978. The entire property, with the exception of 185 acres north of Monarch Road and west of the Diagonal Highway,was annexed to the City of Boulder (here after referred to as"the City")in 1977. The current manufacturing, office and industrial facility with support uses consists of approximately 2,305,850 square feet, and is subject to a modified and amended City Planned Unit Development (here after referred to as PUD) which has approved an additional 1,189,945 square feet yet to be built. The PUD Site encompasses approximately 477 acres, including 89 acres that were donated to the City as a conservation easement limiting development rights for Open Space purposes. The PUD AGENDA ITEM 5, Page 1 Site also includes the approximately 34 acres that have been donated as a park easement to the City. The City in 1997,through the Boulder Municipal Property Authority, acquired the fee interest in 158 acres of IBM "surplus lands" with water and mineral rights, that are located south and east of the Diagonal, west of N. 71 st Street, and south of Mineral Road, for Open Space purposes. The entire property was annexed to the City, with I-D (Industrial-Developing) Zoning. The City also received as part of the purchase agreement conservation easements on an additional 123 acres of the Southwest portion of the PUD Site in exchange for a Vested Rights Agreement which would confirm, define and vest the rights and obligations of IBM and the City with respect to the PUD Site for a period of 35 years. The subject Monarch Road land is the 185 acre IBM ownership of unimproved farm land which is bordered by Monarch Road on the south (north of the Plant Site) and Niwot Road on the north. Current County zoning will allow,by right, one residence and accessory buildings per 35 acres. A Nonurban Planned Unit Development("NUPUD") could allow up to 2 units per 35 acres (10 units on 185 acres), with all development "clustered" on no more than 25% of the land. A Transfer of Development Rights (here after referred to as "TDR") agreement could send as many as 15 units from the site to a receiving site approved by the County, leaving the entire site under a conservation easement. It is possible that a combination of TDRs and limited building sites could occur on the parcel. IBM agreed at the time of the purchase of the 158 acres to donate a conservation easement on and over a minimum of 110 acres (as detennined by IBM) of the Monarch Road ovmership after any one of these development scenarios were approved by the County, and accepted by IBM: (1) The Monarch Road land owner(IBM or assigns) obtains building permits for construction of at least five (5) single family residences with legal restrictions applicable to such residences no more burdensome than those existing on the date of the Agreement, in which case the minimum conservation easement area would be 110 acres, or (2)The Monarch Road land owner(IBM or assigns)receives final approval from the County for ten (10) dwelling units under a Nonurban Planned Unit Development (here after referred to as "N-UPUD"),in which case the conservation easement would be the created Outlot or Outlots, which at 75% would be approximately 138 acres, or (3) The Monarch Road land owner(IBM or assigns) receives final approval from the County for a transfer of density for the construction of no less than fifteen(15) dwelling units (TDRs)under a Noncontiguous Nonurban Planned Unit Development("NCNUPUD"), in which case most or all of the 185 acres would become the conservation easement area. Other possible outcomes: (1) IBM has reserved the right NOT to develop the property, in which case the easement would NOT be granted. There is no time limitation by which IBM must apply for development of the Monarch Road property. It is possible that a "do nothing" approach by IBM could allow future development through a change in the County land use regulations, or in future annexation be Boulder or other municipal entity. AGENDA ITEM 5, Page 2 (2) The County changes current land use regulations, or an annexation occurs, so that zoning would allow densities greater than one residence per 35 acres without the NUPUD or TDR process, in which case IBM could potentially develop the property without granting the conservation easement. (3) IBM(or assigns) obtains building permits for construction of at least five(5) single family residences with legal restrictions applicable to such residences which are more burdensome than those existing on the date of the Agreement, in which case IBM is not obligated to grant the easement. In such event, it is possible that renegotiation could occur between the City and IBM which could revise the conditions for granting the easement. (4) The County changes current land use regulations so that zoning would restrict densities to less than one residence per 35 acres, in which case IBM could not develop five residential properties, and IBM would not be obligated to grant the easement. Boulder County Land Use has received several inquiries over the last two years regarding possible development of the subject IBM Monarch Road property. Developers have explored with IBM the various development avenues available to the property. IBM, anticipating the potential sale of the property, ordered and received a current market value appraisal from a professional third party on which to base a purchase price for the property. Earlier this year, the County, through Commissioner Ron Stewart, contacted City of Boulder Open Space & Mountain Parks Department staff to suggest a joint purchase of the property. It was mutually agreed between the County and City staff that a 50/50 joint purchase would be preferable to any of the possible development scenarios, given that both entities have made a significant and largely successful attempt to protect the scenic Longmont Diagonal entryway. IBM has been cooperative and understanding of this desire and agreed to sell the property at a discount from its appraisal. (Neither the City or County received a copy of the appraisal, but the representation by IBM was that it was in excess of$3.5 Million.) ANALYSIS The acquisition of this property meets Open Space Charter goals of preservation of land for shaping the development of the City, limiting urban sprawl, preserving agricultural use and production, preservation of wetlands and riparian zones, and preserving entry corridors. This acquisition will preclude any potential future development of the Monarch Road property. The price is calculated at$14,527 per acre, excluding the value of the water rights which are estimated at $462,500. The City share of the purchase cost is less than $7,500 per acre. The purchase was negotiated on the basis of market values for 35-acre building sites in this area of the County. The price per building site, excluding water, is $537,500 per site, which is considered to be on the low end of the range of current market sales in this area. This property is one of the more significant ownerships for which the City and County have agreed to share acquisition funding. The property lies between the City's and the County's open space systems, with the City owning and managing the former IBM property on the southeast side of the AGENDA ITEM 5, Page 3 Diagonal, and the County owning and managing contiguous lands on the east side of N. 715` Street. The County will have lead management responsibilities for the new parcel, subject to the conservation easements to and from the City. The City and County will jointly acquire and then split the ownership in 185 shares of Left Hand Ditch Company and 200 shares of the New Hinman Ditch, subject to the provisions of the conservation easements. The Monarch Road land consists primarily of level irrigated meadows and hayfields; and includes agricultural lands of state and national importance. The northeast corner of the property adjoins a National Audubon Society Sanctuary that protects critical wildlife habitat at the edge of ever encroaching urban development. The County will be responsible for administering any leases on the total property and for day to day management of the property, subject to the terms of such lease(s) and the reciprocal conservation easements. The acquisition of the Monarch Road property meets the following Open Space Charter purposes: 1) Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state, scenic areas or vistas,wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems; 2) Preservation of agricultural uses and lands suitable for agricultural production; 3) Utilization of land for shaping the development of the city, limiting urban sprawl, and disciplining growth; 4) Preservation of land for its aesthetic or passive recreational value and its contribution to the quality of life of the community. By sharing the purchase price,both the City and the County will be able to maximize their respective funds to acquire more critical Open Space lands. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS This item is being heard at this public meeting, advertised in the Daily Camera. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve the joint purchase with Boulder County of approximately 185 acres in fee, including improvements and water rights, from IBM Corporation under the terms and conditions outlined herein for Open Space and Mountain Parks purposes and recommends that the Council approve the purchase and authorize the City Manager to execute the documents needed to complete the purchase. Submitted b James CL,Crain, Co-Director Wally Camer n, Manager, Open Space and Mountain Parks Real Estate Services Division, Open Space and Mountain Parks ATTACHMENTS: A. Cash Flow Projection C. Area and Property Map B. Vicinity Map D. Photo Gallery AGENDA ITEM 5, Page 4 ATTACHMENT A 0 0 c o 00 M (7) r� Ci COOO C7 a n 0 0 Cl ID Co N I_ , C� NW Ln o O O N co M O O LL7 In O 4 N m Lo ti r C O .O O st f- (p M� v co N r O lC> t\ co CO Om M M hM f� N' O N - N M O O N r 0 0 C o CT r V t\ a r p a w O O p M t- fl- co I- 0 N CA M co O O N CO r lf) n lfJ In Ln O r M O (o d- M M N CO O O CA O M Cp LA v N M N M M VLO co C Co M M CO M co CV O r r N M CA O N r_:r r 0 0 0 o f� M N C N (O� Co N p CDI N Oo 00 M of r-- 0 0 Oo co O LLQ o N O O) d' O r oc l[� h CO cp o 04 CN CLOO r N c- r- N In N G CO O O 00 p CC�rVf7pl O Ln l p (7 �O N N Cl) N q 6i r M r �() M M CO LI N06 Cy O r LO (O f` h CSS C7 00 (CJ M r N a e M M LID V) p �' aO OO C7O OO m r eYr N n N r In O CO Co Ln cj In O r 4 M O N r CO N NN Ln O O LD r O p O r CN N M N 'T 0 f- N O M CO MM I- M M N' -r N M M CA M (6 r N o e tnI 0 o 0) M (0 p a CO ('7 a (- O O c m N 00 co N a co O M W N CO to O N Co 0 Lr � T M O M N N CO N 0 LO O O Co Cl tT M p M N N M N r 04 rl-N CO N CO M L() r M M co M m CV r N r 00 G N ti o to O v CD O CI CD O p a Co O O O O N O CO - 04 Cp 0) co Lo Co O O L4 (D o 0 Ln tet• U) O � � M O 4 co 4 � -4 V) W CA N M p O M M L p v N M N M ti Ln O r M O CA N N M oo N N (A CA `- N N c C M a N N e o CA V 00Q M OI ti.. O o M v o M -,t of Ln 0) d' N C- CA M Lc) U') U') Ln O CD r M CA LL7 M L- ti CD (O O C ti LQO ti N N M N O co Co O r CO Mf Ln J0) r r N r Cb dN 00 CoT N U. S e e < eo\- C M O � p Ln i 00 0 0 p O Ln co N I� O O (M Cl) C� (O� M O L p I- CO M L,() O Ln Cl) (0 Vy M V' O) CA Z O CO ^ (CO\JfT co O r p In l[) I- ti' N CO CO (o M N M N V) N S 0 N O p" O O C]1 v o0 (3 N r CO r CA r (A C`� LL ti'm CO Ln W Cl N aCD C/7 0 (0 Z N CL in a O W .P_ E ~ } m 0 LULL Cf) C ❑ co U o z ~ O cc Of O O W co > o mm �� lo� F w ow r a z C14CNg W F-Fa m v N N z 0 0 H LLJZ 0 E m 69 619� 0 N LL M0 a r P: od cn ^Z H Z LL 'C-�j U o (now O � z0 c U� Ln ADW � N0 wQ OHQ w of OO� � H (_n - O o -00 00 � ¢ ow � w � 0Q LU ❑ °' ooQ m LL LL W O H 0 M LJJ co Co O (U w W wU) N � ❑ mow 000 F- � W ENS ri U U) U_ _U F- 0 o� Q Z F- m U Q F- H Z W m °6 E CD O zW » W W MU Wen A � ¢ Q (nw W Q � No N 2N D � W ww0 000 ❑ Rz =g � _ � W F- 00 wN � .N O p m0C,, (n fn ❑ gNz zaLU > X 2 2 X Z) ❑ w w 3 -O C 0 o Oa) zaz wwU Qom Otic a � � � W w p � X z mom ? n Cal LLzU- w ❑ ❑ ' Qw0 (~-n00 _jwaU- (n v � W < LL C7 � X 'o.E C70LL -j IwC.. QQO tiUF- � � z Q ~ ZwW .6 F- � LIJZZ w Q o .� c QQ w m m o O - O Q p m m o - (oo ZLUO LLJ ¢ 000 � n UQ0 = cn � � � ¢ ~ V W � � � W Z @ ami o J � o ZjU > X � OQ o ❑zU0 co OOOQz XF- ma0 H < L=L co o Q .S („ W » ¢ w ❑ ❑ w vOQOa' QC'1 LL u > w W W Lu Lu» OZ o m o 3 `� E E (n LL c) MLL, O (n UQQQ am0 � w �nQ JJJaa ~ H1- 0a Z 0 W(0 CD y o ry > wow W W H Z � LuL❑UH Utopwcn � a0r QmmmULli p~p W � � � J a zU) •.0 co m �' N (u F- h - F- F- U � FJZOF- W Z � �, - W 5F- F- ZQ X ILwO_ o 'o E .(� w A � gw � � ww -j ww � � w � z » > w -j Cl 0 (n (naF- w 0 Fw Onoi � w H m00E- } OwQ � 02 QQQHH Fa- z � � LU Fa- ocwn � NL u, N a cocoD 0 waw0 xazm � (xw a_ (LCL O O Q ❑ ❑ zco O zwZ � � m a wwU F- ❑ a 0- F- cnan _ 0MW C) -i F- t- 2QQZ) (n t- W X F- MF- -o Q m U N Cl) d• L!7 < m Ln 0 (Qo M CUo ❑ w LL 0 ti C O O N M V In L2 (O h W O O v r r r (fl (o COO Y r r r r r r r r N Agenda Item 5, page 5 • Attachment City of Boulder Space • Mountain r Parks VICINITY MAP - IBM Purchase Mi Lj a ` © r ELF *rd Rd" (7 e 06 a % I r w # o iii Dille-;l L � . d L ®2001 City � Proposed Purchase -��r�' Ne}Boulder.Colorado 1All rights reserved.The map Indisrosdon contained hereon is intended lorihs ads use City of Boulder Open Space Q•n � of the purchaser sndmay no,becopied,duplicated orredisuibulednanyway.inwhole 00 90 or in part,without the expressed written consent of the City of Boulder. Other Public Lands The information depicted is provided as a graphical represonlabon only.While source e:\mapfiles\propertylibm-vic.apr dmu=%weredevelopedincompliance with National Map AccurayStandards,the ® 0 7 2 3 Miles 1999 aerial photography City of Boulder provides no guarantee,express or implied,as to the accuracy and/or completeness of the Inlormation contained heron. Approximate property boundaries from Boulder County Assessor. AGENDA ITEM #_5- PAGE (p ar „ , .� .,�� ';�, Attachment C City of Boulder Open Space & Mountain Parks PROPOSED IBM PURCHASE - ____«..-___ Lake acres] 1f��L�__ t .,�T �� {J�f/�� JL�r _.,.�..•�sy'va�J+'Y:..�+"' �`if -------•----- s------- �L � 1 r ► 1 r % Star Ditch _ • _ _-- .y r _ ----------------- • Coot `rte «1. .;r• I .F� -- #+ Lake ,- ----�-,-- --_ - _-_-- _ _ r s y L� . .ti 1 .. �. -.• .fes [ f J __ _. __--_-1•�•- l ttac ment cn xt co }+ U- 5 .Q C;) 1 0 �.. CIO cc W � a) Q o � � � o U- GOC) ca o UJ 1. li ttac men, o fi U � cn S cu 4--+ CIO -Z ❑ D J J Zi � Q] CL co 0 L o C] co 4-0 O � R � L) CL • 1 CITYOFBOULDER OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 12, 2001 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: September 7, 2001) AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of the expansion of the acquisition areas approved in the adopted Open Space Acquisition and Management Plan for 2000 —2006. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: James C. Crain, Co-Director Open Space and Mountain Parks & Michael D. Patton, Co-Director Open Space and Mountain Parks FISCAL IMPACT: The purchase and preservation of an additional 2,000 acres of land is estimated to cost an additional $20,000,000. Sufficient funds are projected to be available for these additional acquisitions. PURPOSE To obtain Open Space Board of Trustees recommendation to the City Council to expand the area of the previously approved Open Space Acquisition and Management Plan for 2000 — 2006, and authorize the purchase of approximately 2,000 additional acres. HISTORY AND REVIEW OF OPEN SPACE ACQUISITIONS Since the inception of the City of Boulder's Open Space program with permanent funding from a .40 cent sales tax in 1967, approximately 34,322 acres have been protected through purchase, donation, or dedication in over 332 separate transactions. In 1989,the citizens of Boulder approved an additional .33 cent temporary increase in the sales tax through the year 2004, to effect an "Accelerated Acquisition"Plan in hopes of preserving additional lands in the Boulder Valley before annexations and development forever precluded the possibility of meeting City Charter Open Space goals. At that time, about 17,000 acres had been purchased or preserved for Open Space, and approximately 14,000 additional acres were identified in the accelerated acquisition area and/or were designated as Open Space in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. It was contemplated that approximately 8,000 of those identified acres would be purchased by the end of the.33 tax increase in 2004. Boulder's citizens extended the .33 cent tax in 1997 through the year 2018. Since the tax increase in 1989, 14,564 acres in 151 transactions have been purchased with additional mineral and water rights also purchased in another 16 transactions. Of these, 1,725 acres have been purchased in Jefferson County, and 1,449 acres have been purchased (or are under contract and approved for purchase)in the area north of the accelerated acquisition area; a total of 3,174 acres that were not specifically identified for preservation in the 1989 Accelerated Acquisition Plan. AGENDA ITEM 6, Page 1 In 1996, a joint purchase by the City's Public Works (Utilities) and Boulder County (here after referred to as "the County")resulted in a Conservation Easement to the City and County Open Space systems on 2,640 acres of City watershed and mountain lands of the Caribou Ranch located northwest of Nederland. No City Open Space funds were expended, and no management responsibility was incurred by City Open Space. These important preservation acreages are included in the City Open Space overall inventory. They are protected by the Open Space Charter. Following the Open Space Board of Trustees (here after referred to as the"Board")recominendation in September of 1999, the City Council approved an Acquisitions and Management Plan for the years 2000 through 2006. The plan is intended to complete and/or expand the Open Space acquisition mission in four geographical areas: (1) around the City of Boulder and the Boulder Valley (the original Accelerated Acquisition Plan), (2) the Superior Area, (3) the Jefferson County buffer area, and (4) the "Northern Tier" extension of City Open Space between North Foothills Highway and N. 63`a Street, including cooperating with the Federal Government on the permanent preservation of Table Mountain and the lands surrounding the Federal Facility. As a result of the consolidation and"merger" of the Open Space/Real Estate Department with the Mountain Parks Division of the Parks and Recreation Department effective January 1, 2001, approximately 6,555 acres were added to the Open Space inventory of lands for a total of 40,877 + acres. These additional lands did not require up-front acquisition funds, and are not included in the discussion herein of current acquisition costs and funding. However, approximately 300 acres of additional lands on the mountain backside west of existing Mountain Parks have been identified for potential acquisition as further outlined on Page 4. CURRENT OPEN SPACE ACOtiISITION PLAN A1�zD THE EXTENDED AREAS The Acquisitions and Management Plan for 2000-2006 emphasizes City Charter Open Space goals, particularly urban shaping, entry corridors, buffers between communities, protection of environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands, and provision of recreational opportunities where appropriate. Areas and properties have been added to the 1989 plan where annexation and development potential would exacerbate urban sprawl and eliminate the potential for future permanent preservation. The approved Acquisitions and Management Plan includes lands in four geographical or "partnership" categories and one additional category of unspecified lands (See Attachment A). These five categories and their relationship to the extended plan are: 1. Boulder Valley Accelerated Acquisition Program: Approximately 43 separate ownership's were identified for current acquisition within the Boulder Valley, most of which were included in the original Accelerated Acquisition Plan. Of these identified 2,505 acres and other properties not added to the 1999 list but included in the original accelerated acquisition area, 1,136 acres have been acquired in 16 separate transactions since September 1999, and 5 additional properties which total approximately 343 acres are in current negotiation. Approximately 25 additional properties identified in this category will be aggressively pursued as sellers indicate their motivation to negotiate. The acquisition focus in this area continues to be completing and enhancing buffer zones between communities and linkages of protected properties,utilizing both fee purchases and conservation easements. No additional acreages are identified in the Extended Plan for this category. AGENDA ITEM 6, Page 2 2. Northern Tier Extension Along N. Foothills Highway to Nelson Road: Staff identified approximately 1,260 acres in the area which extends the northern accelerated acquisition area from Niwot/Neva Roads northward toward Nelson Road on the west side of Table Mountain, and up to Oxford Road west of N. 55th Street and south of Table Mountain. This is an area that the County has suggested would provide a rational interface between its existing and proposed county open space lands north of Nelson Road and east of North 55th Street. To date, 9 properties consisting of approximately 500 acres have been acquired, in cooperation with and, in the case of two properties, including financial participation by the County. Acquisition approaches have included fee purchases, conservation easements, and purchase of development rights. No additional acreages are identified in the Extended Plan for this category. 3. Jefferson County Lands: Replacing the core of the previously planned Jefferson Center in Jefferson County are Boulder's 1,471 acre Jewel Mountain and VanVleet open space purchases. Jefferson County, and the Denver Water Board and the City of Arvada jointly purchased an additional 2,800 acres south of State Highway 72. The Denver Water Board will use part of that land west of Highway 93 for future reservoir purposes. Department of Energy Secretary Richardson has set aside 800 acres for the Rock Creek preserve within the Rocky Flats Buffer Zone. Proposed legislation by U.S. Representative Mark Udall and Senator Wayne Allard to protect 6,000 acres of the Rocky Flats Buffer area would significantly expand protection of the ecosystem which surrounds the Rocky Flats industrial core and eliminate future development in the protected area. In addition to these currently protected lands in Jefferson County and the proposed Rocky Flats Buffer area, an additional 1,340 acres in Jefferson County are under current negotiation for acquisition. Three additional ownership's, including the State Land Board parcel (Section 16) have been added to this category as part of the extended acquisition area, a total of approximately 1,000 additional acres (See Attachment B). 4. Boulder County Partnerships: Approximately 3,120 acres of additional properties were identified in the 1999 Plan for possible acquisition in partnership with the County, as additional buffers between Boulder and Longmont,Boulder and Niwot,Boulder and Superior, and Boulder and additional development in Arvada and Jefferson County. This acreage includes the approximately 1,800-acre Table Mountain Federal facility. Discussions are being held with Federal authorities regarding possible approaches to preserving this uniquely undisturbed properly. The city will work cooperatively with various Federal agencies in the permanent preservation of vacant land at Table Mountain without effecting its current research capabilities. Of these potential joint acquisition priorities, the City and the County have been successful in acquiring, on a 50150 basis, a strategically important 170 acres contiguous to Old Town Superior (Arsenault/Singletree). This property joins the City and County Open Space systems and protects a mile of the Coal Creek riparian corridor where it was most threatened by future development. An additional 180 acres within the City limits of Superior are currently under negotiation by the County. The City will participate with the County on the cost of this parcel. To date, joint purchases of 949 acres of agricultural lands and riparian zone at the western edge of the Longmont Planning Area have been consummated or are currently in the public approval process in both the City and County. AGENDA ITEM 6, Page 3 The City and County have identified an additional 800 acres to the north and east of the original Northern Tier/County Partnership circle as part of the extended partnership area (See Attachment B). In addition,the City and County have identified approximately 200 acres east of 95" Street along Boulder Creek which are situated between City and County open space properties and that are natural candidates for joint purchase. This will be an additional area to be added to the Partnership Program (See Attachment B). 5. Unidentified Needs and Opportunities: It is recognized that not all possible properties or opportunities which may be determined by future Open Space Boards or City Councils to be critical to City Open Space goals and purposes as outlined by the City Charter have been accounted for with this plan. To cover this contingency, staff added another 600 unidentified acres that the Open Space Program may be asked to acquire over the term of this plan period, with the estimated cost of approximately$7,000,000. The backside of Flagstaff Mountain is now included in this category, as additional lands will be added to the Open Space& Mountain Parks system which were previously identified for funding and acquired with$2,000,000 Parks and Recreation Funds eannarked from the 1995 Parks and Recreation Land Acquisition Ballot Issue. It is anticipated that approximately 300 acres of the Train Hill area acquired by Public Works (—tilities) in the Barker Reservoir and Hydro Facility purchase will be added to this OSMP area through an internal cooperative management agreement. OSMP will not be financially responsible for the maintenance of these 300 acres of land. An additional 300 acres in this area are considered critical additions as they become available, and will require additional OSMP funds not specifically anticipated in the 2000-2006 Acquisition and Management Plan. MANAGEMENT NEEDS It is understood that as acreage is added to the OSMP system,management needs and costs will also increase. Additional visitation will also contribute to the need for increased management. These needs will be addressed annually within the budget cycle and also at other appropriate times as needs and opportunities arise. ACQUISITION GOALS AND FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR THE EXTENDED ACQUISITION AREAS The original Open Space Acquisition Plan & Funding Sources, Years 2000-2006: Year 2001 - 2012 Update With Extended Acquisition Acreage and Estimated Costs (See Attachment A) is updated with the acres purchased and funds expended to date and with the extended acquisition acreage and projected costs added. It is provided to illustrate that current and extended acquisition goals may be met with current and projected funding sources. The total estimated acreage originally identified in 1999 for acquisition or preservation during the years 2000 through 2006 was approximately 8,825 acres, with an estimated cost of approximately $71,000,000. Since September of 1999, 2,755 acres have been acquired in 29 separate transactions. Eight of these purchases have been joint acquisitions with the County on a 50% cost share basis, saving the City Open Space Fund approximately $10.7 Million. AGENDA ITEM 6, Page 4 The average cost paid by the City to protect the 2,755 acres purchased since September, 1999, including conservation easements, development rights, and joint purchases participation, has been about $9,450 per acre, not counting the cost of the water rights or interest expenses on term payments. The remaining identified properties ultimately acquired and the actual expenditures necessary will depend on future market conditions, the use of conservation easements and installment sales, the degree of partnership purchases, and most importantly on seller motivation. It is considered a given that as the universe of available and vacant properties continues to shrink, sellers will be less motivated to sell, market prices will rise, and the average size of properties purchased will continue to get smaller. It is also expected that some identified properties will not be purchased, and that others not identified will become acquisition priorities. It is the intent of the current and extended plan to bring forth properties for OSMP acquisition consideration within these general categories over the next five to ten years, with all meeting City Charter open space purposes. Keeping the above modifying factors in mind, the Open Space Acquisition Plan Update With Extended Acquisition Acreage and Estimated Costs (See Attachment A) illustrates that out of the original estimate of$81,500,000 available during this period to purchase approximately 8,825 acres, $26,033,800 have been committed to date for 2,755 acres. From this estimated original source of funds is subtracted the sale of Open Space Acquisition Bonds in March, 2000, in the amount of$20,095,000, and the issuance of$4,125,000 in Boulder Municipal Property Authority Notes. Added to this original estimate is additional cash on hand of about$3,100,000. This results in an estimated available funding capability of approximately $60,419,000 to purchase the remaining 6,070 acres of the original 8,825 acres to be acquired during the period 2000—2006. In order to better assure the purchase of the additional 2000 acres contemplated in the extended acquisition area, a total of$20,000,000 in additional bonds would be issued in equal installments in 2009 and 2012. The current estimate of purchase costs for the 6,070 acres plus the 2, 000 acres in the extended areas is $64,966,200.This implies an average future purchase cost of about$8,050 per acre, and does not include acquisition costs for needed water rights and mineral interests, and does not include interest costs on note and bond payments. With the contemplated additional bond proceeds in 2009 and 2012, these acquisition costs could increase to as much as the estimated $80,419,000 total acquisition funds available through year 2012, and better conform to a $10,000 per acre average cost. FINANCIAL GOALS AND FUNDING AVAILABILITY FOR THE EXTENDED ACQUISITION AREAS Historically OSBT has directed the staff to manage the Open Space Fund and OSMP budget recommendations to achieve the following four goals: a.) Maintain the ability of the OS Fund to make all scheduled debt service payments. b.) Maintain a contingency reserve equivalent to a percentage based on outstanding current general obligation and BMPA debt service payments supported by sales tax revenues. The reserve was also established to cover revenue fluctuations, which might impact the Fund's ability to cover emergencies related to acquisitions. AGENDA ITEM 6, Page 5 c.) Maintain a positive unrestricted fund balance after reserves. d.) Maintain adequate funding to accomplish adopted acquisitions and management plans. e.) Within the above goals, increase the maintenance and operating budgets as appropriate (and within the City Manager and City Council allowable annual budgetary targets) and in response to needs and opportunities over time. Each year at the board retreat, staff has the bond attorneys re-calculate the allowable bonding capacity under the charter. The proposed acquisition plan can be accoarnmodated within the charter bonding capacity requirements (See Attaclunent Q. The Open Space Fund is subject to potential future negative economic impacts and staff has evaluated the proposed extended acquisition program to see what impacts two of these specific potential future financial events might have on the program's ability to issue additional bonds: a.) Proposed$100,000 Reduction of the General Fund Mountain Parks Transfer in 2004 &2005. b.) Potential Loss of 1% of Projected Sales Tax Revenues. This would be approximately$190,000 in the 2002 budget year. In both cases as evaluated at this time, and as illustrated ( See Attachment D), neither event would reduce the projected bonding capacity necessary to complete the proposed extended acquisition program. As always, the Board and staff acknowledge the risk factors inherent in making multi year projections involving long term future revenues and expenditures. All reductions or increases of projected revenues or projected expenses have a direct impact of reducing or increasing the bonding capacity. Such increases or decreases in funding will effect the actual number of acres acquired. Based on current projections, it appears there is both sufficient bonding authority and bonding capacity to complete the proposed extended acquisition program over the next eighteen years. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS This item is being heard at this public meeting, advertised in the Daily Camera. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Open Space Board of Trustees pass a motion recommending that the City Council authorize the expansion of the area previously approved in the Open Space Acquisition and Management Plan for Years 2000—2006, and authorize the purchase of an additional 2,000 acres. Submitted by:� � ,r� ���`t - 4mes C. Crain Michael D. Patton Co-Director Co-Director Open Space and Mountain Parks Open Space and Mountain Parks AGENDA ITEM 6, Page 6 ATTACHMENTS: A. Open Space Acquisition Plan&Funding Sources,Years 2000-2006: Year 2001 Update with Extended Acquisition Acreage and Estimated Costs B. Expanded Acquisition Area Map C. Sunnnary of unissued Open Space bond issues at 04/13/01 D. Revenue impacts to Open Space and Mountain Parks bonding capacity at 09/12/01 Open Space Board of Trustees meeting AGENDA ITEM 6, Page 7 ATTACHMENT A OOC) 0 O O O ry O O O O a1 O0 O O O CD CD C N O 0 C O O _ = O O O �p N O LO c" In 6i N Q O O O O O O O C) O O O OD O O Q) r cc O C = w U Q O N O O N N N co O EA �{} 64 N Ell). 601- A N O O � _ N r O O !6 d O O ti w N O O Q ca °7 0 0 0 00000 0 0 ❑ � 0 0 W �m a O Q o - co N N oo' Z o 0 0 =) O N N F- -a d LL N Vo 69- LL 4LL CD x 6„ CD C) OCD O O O O C ° 0 0 0 -p w = O O CD O O O O O N y 0 O (::i O a L 'C co M O (6-7 i CN O O O to H L c('J Q1 0) 0 0 u oo :. aEco v N E '� ~ Cqrl Q7 cc Ci d co d"'_ r0 Ln M v co V O N 0.d N N cpo Q � ,� W �' 64 } 6g 64 64 64 fA fA M 0 613, EiT 64 N O a) () -a E r OCD 0O a) y 0.m E aNj a) O O N W m CD_c m M � 0 00 o w mrn ¢ � �- n co M @ — O w V r r tD R ,� -O O � w � c Z N c W cq x O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) O z " d ) o o CL 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 N c w o O 0 0 0 0 o c u o v o u Q E cn a o 0 0 00 0.0 o a o o O W Y N d co rn o M m � c6 co V) o r C! ca w W NEiT ER E» v3 6s 6s Efl � 0 �r co d 3 a) N = E N N 2^ Z N N co O 'a O O O O C LL V O O O O O = O Q Q CD o 0 0 0 0o O E ti co M a �- Z M v> E O ti O N 0 O O C N 7 Z O LL j O O " 64 64 N N N Q cV 69 tR a O coo !n c) U J (/� N d ;; " D - m In o a cu Z = j 6 a O M C) O � O O O D N LL N U U V O E r N LL O) zLL o - V " gQ � y O o Co N@ c co H Q n n o o o r o 0 N � On0 a N Q W N a) N N p 0 _ Q Z rno cn o 0 00 00 in U 0 N oQ �=yy 04 W N O E U a N cl (�? N M co M c p O O O N _ U V = N N N N ix L) L a3 (� Z � W O n � fnN W c U Q W ❑ In m o M [L � � } ¢ o � w O_ N ~ U W W c .3 W X Q Ix U "O U O N c >- >- J N O a) V W Ur U1 w c Q) 12 O O m 5 U LU Q O 0 co = y CO N J J a N O (=_a CL r O m Z a 'q U w o c iao = m00a o o Z O N c p 0 a L m L, 0 Q J J a ots o a) c� d � H d p Y w W c c o W rnrn W ZQf L U o ¢ uiU U c Uo QQ aUi o c W a) O z Y � O a) y N 'O z Q Q o o w � � = H C3 W UC9 m � � rn � °� p p ❑ _ o U) � > V) c Z U z M 0 - Ujd ¢ o � M � a Z Z LL - o 0) � a 0 m LU ¢ ~ c (1)-0 O o c V c m u❑ LL O N m m w D a = J a o o Z c o g c z z F- Y c m � ¢ LL � � m0 o0N 16 00 N °� a� a7 C jL y Q) CD ~ co mEw- - Z 0 E w � ¢ 6a m � c�� Y o as U m U - aa a) LL O � I- 6 Qm � � a = m U) U) w ¢ W U O W U) N U U J Q' O O aci ac) w 3 WZ 0 w Qat E U ❑ Z i C7 O - a) OL s 00 U D rn o ¢ O CD < rn Cl m N Agenda Item 6, page 8 ATTACHMENT B l e Long ont r i _ Bou I r Lafayette 1 f. City of Boulder Open Space Open Space 8 Mountaln Parks OSMP Conservelion Easements Other Public Lands Boulder County Open Space Boulder City rks CITY OF BOULDER 1--- Jefferson County Open Space State of Cd Lands U.S.Government Open Space& r� B.L.M. /� Mounfaln Parks Other Public Lands /1 New Expanded r Incorporated Cities /N Acquisition Area .e. ......,...�'. . ...�.a.... .. �EXPANDEDACQUISITIONAREA �: 'r .M�•_ .:w. µ._k:"',v *BOULDER COUNTY PARTNERSHIP ..,k...'.. �.-a&Item (o PageI ATTACHMENT C Summary of Open Space Bond Issues and Charter Bonding Capacity Requirements 09/12/01 Oriainal Balance of Amount of Amount of Uniussued Bonds Bonds Issued to Bonds Bond Authorizations Authorized Date Available 1994 Revenue Bond A. Authorization $50,000,000 $16,550,000 $33,450,000 1997 General Obligation B. Bond Authorization $45-000,000 $20.095.000 $24.905.000 C. Total Bonds $95,000,000 $36,645,000 $58,355,000 Amount of bonds projected to be needed to finance remaining 6,070 additional open space acres per plan adopted by OSBT& D. City Council September, 1999: $24,905,000 Amount of bonds available for issuance beyond projected E. acquisition goal. $33,450,000 Total Amount of Authorized But Unissued Bonds from Line C F. above: $58,355,000 BONDS AUTHORIZED VS BONDS ALLOWABLE UNDER CHARTER CALCULATION Maximum amount of bonds that Maximum amount of could be issued bonds that are Variance from under charter authorized to be Maximum Amount of calculations. issued.(Line C.) Bonds Unissued G. Amount of Bonds which could be issued at a 5% interest rate: $56,123,000 $58,355,000 -$2,232,000 H. Amount of Bonds which could be issued at a 6% interest rate: $51,593,000 $58,355,000 -$6,762,000 Bonding Capacity Calculation The city's bond attorney annually reviews the calculation of the Open Space projected bonding capacity available under current cashflow projections within the formula limitations of Section 97 of the City's Charter and other various bond covenants and coverage tests. In general, new bonds may be issued when the projected future average annual net income I. is equal to at least 135% of the projected average additional annual debt service required to pay for the new bonds issued. For example, if we wished to issue$20,000,000 of new bonds payable over the next 17 years(i.e. paid off by 2018 when the .33 sunsets,)the average new debt service at 6% would be approximately$2,060,000/year. In order to comply with the charter provisions, we would need to show that the average net annual revenues after all other expenses would be J. $2,781,000: 135% more than the$2,060,000 payments. Agenda Item 6, Page 1 ( ATTACHMENT D SUMMARY OF REVENUE IMPACTS TO OS BONDING CAPACITY A 09/12/01 OSB MEETING $ R \ \ ( z E �0 LO ° / & U) E/ / RE E > c A e U) cu � . R / / � ® @ f j \§ _ # & m o \ \ Y) \ \/ / j \ \ CL c CD Lu Lu� z k k % < R 2 G o < � \ a , 0 0 0 \ 7 7 zF- cn E E S Q� � � R R a 0 / / \ / � ■ a ? E ? Lu 02 7 \ 7 UR — u \ / S K � za L0 in ƒ W § kms ® ® ^ � — U) ƒ CD \ 5= co & o / / \ A \ / g SE o77 = c_ 3 '� r \ \ / § E j 2 0 § £ a t9 ) \ a � 2 \S EEI \ & E & / o m n Agenda Item 6, Page ] ] r. ATE_MORA1DU-M TO: Chris -Mueller, Lam XIacDonnell, Linda Joumensen, Linda Andes-Georges, and Sean Kendall FROM: Jim Crain, it,like Patton and Delani IVlieeler , 3 SUBJECT: OSBT Policy Considerations for Proposed Disposal of Open Space Land DATE: September 5, 2001 The Board began a conversation about how to conduct its considerations of requests for disposal of Open Space land as defined in the Charter, on Wednesday night, August 22"', following public testimony about the potential for offsite impacts to neighborhood traffic that might arise a an unintended result from a planned Boulder County road project. Board members questioned how broad or how narrow their consideration should appropriately be when looking at these types of issues. Should the Board keep its focus on Open Space issues as defined in the Charter or should it examine other types of issues as well? If the Board were to broaden its focus, what additional level of detail and expert testimony would it require on which to make a decision? What type of background materials exist that could provide a context for this discussion? Should the board schedule a study session for discussion of these and related questions? Staff has assembled the attached materials for the Board's immediate reference and is ready to schedule a study session time at the Board's request. This is the beginning of an important conversation for the Board. Please review the attached materials as noted: Attached are five adopted documents that give direction on these issues. Please review especially: A. City of Boulder OS Charter Section, (adopted November 4, 1986), see especially 175, Functions of the Board (p. 49-50); and 177, Disposal of OS Land (p. 51). B. City of Boulder Revised Code (as adopted in 1981), Section 2-3-9 regarding the OSBT, see especially 2-3-9 ( c) (1) through (15). Regarding"In making recommendations to the city council regarding acquisition or disposition of OS land, the board shall consider the following..." C. OSBT Policy for Easement Requests, (adopted in 1985 and revised in 1995), see especially Section IV. A. through D. regarding "Consideration by the Board" (p. 2-3) and V. F. rea-ardin( "Conditions that may be imposed by the OSBT" (p. 3) D. Open Space Long Range Mana`tzement Policies, (adopted in March 1993), Chapter II., Section II.F., regarding Disposal of Land (pages 2-1 and 2-1), discourages disposals of Open ' Space land and points to Charter Section 1 77 and the OSBT's Easement Request Guidelines as procedures for such disposals. Mon agenda I tLem, page 1 E. Boulder Mountain Parks Resource and Protection and Visitor Use Plan. (adopted October 15, 1999). Guiding Principles. page I Paragraph 3. States that "Where there are real or potential conflicts between nature and human use in the Boulder Mountain Parks, preference will be (Tiven to sustaining nature - both for its intrinsic values and its -clue as a component of human experience." F. South Boulder Creel: Area Management Plan, (adopted October 2S, 1990, Section 10.4.1, Objective ±`l, regarding Passive Recreation, page '17 "Pro�,ride a variety of appropriate quality passive recreational activities, outdoor education opportunities, and visitor services where consistent with overarching enviro=ental values." The staff is ready, upon Board direction; to schedule and prepare for and one to two hour study session to discuss these issues. bion Agenda Items Page 2 Attachment A City Of Boulder ARTICLL XI1. 0PLN SP1kCE Charter Sec. 1-00. Creation of a department of open space. TheTe shall be a department oI open space, which shall be responsible for all open space land and other property associated thereR:th. As used In thiis char--r, "ooea z--Dace land" shall mean aav interest in real property purc-asen or leased -,A.th the sales and use tax pledged to the open space fiend pursuant to the vote of the electorate on November 7, 1967, or proceeds thereof, ani- interest in real_ proper�y dedicated to the cit ti for open space purposes, and any interest in real property that is ever placed under the direction, supervision, or control of the open space department, unless disposed of as expressly provided in section 177 below. (Added by Ord. No. 4996 (1986), § 1, adopted by electorate on November 4, 1986_) Sec. 171. Functions of the department. Under the direction, supervision, and control of the city manager, there shall be a director of the department of open space, who may also serve as the city's director of real estate. Subject to the limitations set forth in section 175 below, the department of open space: (a) Shall surer Tse, administer, preserve, and maintain all open space land and other grope rty associated therewith and may errant nonexclusive licenses and permits and agricultural leases for crop or grabing purposes for a term of five years or less; (b) Shall supervise, administer, and execute all open space programs, plans, fiinctions, and activities of the city; (c) Shall prepare and submit to the open space board of trustees written recommendations on those matters on which this article requires a recommendation from said board prior to council or department action; (d) May, at the request of the open space board of trustees, prepare and submit to the board information and recommendations on such open space matters as are not provided for by (c) above; and (e) May request advice on any open space matter from the open space board of trustees. (Added by Ord. No. 4996 (1986), § 1, adopted by electorate on November 4, 1986.) Sec. 173. Creation of the open space board of trustees. There shall be an open space board of trustees consisting of five members appointed by the city council. The members of the board shall be residents of the city, shall not hold any other office in the city, and shall serve R-ithout pay. (:added by Ord. No. 4996 (1956), § 1, adopted by electorate on November 4, 1986.) Sec. 173. Term of office of board members-removal-vacancies. The term of each member shall be five years; prop*ded, however, that :a aDDointinz =he orifi mal meW'ers c the board, the c4-v council .hall continue t_e terms of the current members and shall stagger the im'tial terms so twat one. board member's term expires in each year. Non Agenda Item, page 3 Five =e=hers of the cou=cil may remc'v`e any board member for cause. The cot'ach -Hall Wil! aH vaca icies- (Added by Ord. -'No. (1986), § i adopted by Rec:oraze on 1,o`:eraher 4, 1986.) See. 174. Organization and procedure of the board. The board shall choose a chair and a sec:etar- . The director of the department of open- space may be designated as secretary by the board. The board Shall ha-e regular meetings once a month. Special meetings may be called at any time by three members of the board upon the giving of at least 2= hours' notice of said special meeting to the board members. Three members of the board shall constitute a quorum. Aa af:Hrmative vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary to authorize any action by the board, except as otherwise expressly provided herein. The board shall beep minutes and records of its meetings and transactions. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the board shall have power to make rules for the conduct of its business. (Added by Ord. No. 4996 (1986), § 1, adopted by electorate on November 4, 1986.) Sec. 175. Functions of the board. The open space board shall not perform any administrative functions unless expressly provided in this charter. The board: (a; Shall make recommendations to the council concerning any proposed disposal of open space lands pursuant to section 177 below; (b) Shall make recommendations to the council concerning any expenditure or appropriation from the open space fund pledged pursuant to the vote of the electorate on November r, 1967, or proceeds of property acquired with the assets of the fund; (c) Shall make recommendations to the council 'concerning any land that is to be placed under the direction, supervision, or control of the department of open space, including, without limitation, recommendations concerning use policies on, planned uses of, and restrictions on uses of, open space land; (d) Shall make recommendations to the council concerning the open space program; (e) Shall review the open space elements of the Boulder Valley Comprehen- sive Pian and make recommendations concerning any open space-related changes to the plan-; (f) Shall pursue vigorously the implementation of the open space ele=ments of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Pian and the acquisition of additional prop- erry required to fulfil the geais of the open space program; (g) Shall review the city manager's proposed budget as it relates to open space matters and submit its recommendations concerni_g said budget to the council; Ncn Agenda item, pace 4 (7) Cu 11 ?aye reCOmW nQa lOn concern7ng the grant or denial Of any nonexcniz1ve liceme or De=_; L or on open space land; _ (i) Sha;l make recommendations concerning the incurrin- of any indebt- edness pa_-able _'_CT?' the open space :.:.fid,. Pursuant to section 9+ above; ana fM '.Kav Dret;are an,4 submit to t;e council, the City manaae" or the otaen Space debar tient recommenuationS on any other matter relating to the open space proz'a,_.m, and i^ay request and obta'n f`Om tL'C' open space denar meat and the city manager information relatinZ thereto. The city council, the city manager, and the open space department shall not act on anv of the matters set forth in paragraphs (a) through (i) above without securing a recommendation from the board as above provided; however, the council, the manager, and the department may act on the matters set forth in paragraphs ('b) through (i) above without a board recommendation if the board fails to submit its recommendation within thirty days after request therefor is made by the council. The board's recommendation shall not be binding upon the city council, except as expressly provided in section 1777 below. (Added by Ord. No. 4996 (1986), § 1, adopted by electorate on November 4, 1986.) Sec. 176. Open space purposes-Open space land. Open space land shall be acquired, maintained, preserved, retained, and used only for the following purposes: (a) Preservation or restoration of natural areas characterized by or including terrain, geologic formations, flora, or fauna that are unusual, spectacular, historcally important, scientifically valuable, or unique, or that represent outstanding or rare examples of native species; (b) Preservation of water resources in their natural or traditional state, scenic areas or vistas, wildlife habitats, or fragile ecosystems; (c) Preservation of land for passive recreational use, such as hiking, photography or nature studies, and, if specifically designated, bicycling, horsebaci riding, or fishing; (d) Preservation of agricultural uses and land suitable for as cultural production; (e) Utilization of land for shaping the development of the city, limiting urban sprawl, and disciplining growth; M U­H'ization of non-urban land for spatial de:'Inition of urban areas; (g) Utilization of land to prevent encroachment on floodplains; and (h) Preservation Of land or its aesthetic or passive recreational value and its contrbution to e quality of life of the com=unizv. Open _ ace land mav not be improved a�:,er ac^uis.- cn unlesssu.cn -- improvements are necessar-: to protect or =ai tai- the land or to DrO;.de for paSsiye regret i0nalopen __. fzural. or w -I dl:=e nab?tat use of the land. (Adaec by Ord_ `o. '996 (i986}, § I, adopted by elec:crate on N :e_cer -. 1986.j Non Agenda item, page Sec. l r7. Disposal of open space land. " o Ope^ saace l::7d owned by the ci,y may be sold, leased, -.rad--d. Or oat herk,se conveyed, nor =ay any exclusive license Or permit on such open space land le cve__. Until approval of such disposal by the C:tV counC:l. llC apprOva De eve:: only a- ._ approval OI such d_sposal by the rr L �.�'v _ � ^^ arri_ ati V e vote Q. at least three members of the Ope_7 space board o2 tr astees after a public hearinz held with notice published at least ten days in advance in a newspaper of bene== circulat;on in the c: v, zjv:ns the location Of the land in Question and the intended disposal thereof. No open space land owned by the city shall be disposed Of, until silty days followin; the date of City council approval of such disposal_ If within such sixty day period, a petition meetin- the requirements of section 4.5 above and signed by registered electors of the city to the number of at least fire percent of the registered electors of the city as of the day the petition is fled with the city clerk, requesting that such disposal be submitted to a vote of the electors, such disposal shall not become effective until the steps indicated in section 46 and section 47 above have been followed. This section shall not apply to agricultural leases for crop or grazing purposes for a term of five years or less. This section is to be construed liberally in favor of providir_g opportunities for the citizens of the city to refer measures proposing the disposal of al y open space land. (Added by Ord. No. 4996 (19861, § 1, adopted by electorate on November 4, 1986.) Non Agenda 1 tem, page c Attachment B City of Boulder Revised Code TITLE 2 GOVE- RNIIE--',,T ORGANIZATION- Chapter RGANIZ .TIOChapter ; Boards and Commissions Oren Space Board of Trustees (a) The City of Boulder Open Space Board of Trustees consists of five members; appointed by the city council for five year terms. (b) The board's functions are: (1) To mare advisory recommendations tc the city council on the open space program; (2) From time to time to revie,,v the open space plan of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and recommend changes in it to the city council; (3) Vigorously to pursue the implementation of the open space plan and to recommend to the city council land for acquisition, determined after consideration of, without limitation, the following factors: (A) Availability of the property- (B) (B) Properties threatened by development; (C) Availability of funds; (D) Public controls sought by acquisition; (E) Legal tools available to accomplish the desired coals; (F) The uses; if any, to 'which the land will be put after acquisition; and (G) The burden of patrolling. preserving, maintainini7, and reclaiming the property so acquired or controlled; ( ) Annually to advise the count':l during the course of its buds-et process regarding the revenues of the open mace fund and their appropriation as as appropriations trom the ?-neral i`una for Ilse open space cro'Tram and to a'-.-Ise il'he council of an,: sunplei.nental appropriation_e'.,-!?cd to uhe open space program: 'E_.. eiYted from Boulder Revised Code Non Agenda tern, pace t i TO pros 1dc dem-'ed advlc` to the cit`:` Council cn-, l 'n`e �� .I '"eln nr.oL05 1 acgLllreQ Or u1s����sea OI: 17 n,, �IC�e1 Or 1,_t iC_t�]e. i 1 cd t!_ �B) Tile LY iaiitin= Or dental t a i Ilcens0 or perlr it o Open space ` " 1 �,i1 un Dr0-0Citt : (C Leases_ uses. or changing uses of open space property: (D) Corst:'uction. reclai-nation. or demolition on open space property; and (E) Nlaintenance or other measures for the protection or preservation that mav be required; and (6) To perform any other functions that the council may from time to time delegate to it that are not inconsistent with the charter, this code; or other ordinances of the city. (c) In making recommendations to the city council regarding acquisition or disposition of open space land, the board shall consider the following: The land use goals of the city; (2) The quality of'life of the residents of the city; (�) Land as a finite resource with limited carrying capacity; (4) The interests and aims of other t7ove omental agencies; (5) The potential cost to the city of the land after its acquisition; (6) Preservation of natural areas characterized bv: (A) Unusual terrain; (P) Unusual Bora or faul.a, native cr unique to the area, (C) Unique geologic formations; (D) Water resources; (E) Scenic areas or vistas; and (F) Nabi: or fragile ecosv stems: Non Agenda. Item, page S %) Presert-ation of open space for passive recreational use. such as hiking_. bicyclinJ. horseback riding,, nature studies; and fishing, "specifically designated.. (S) Preservation of agricultural uses and areas: (9) Presen-ation of land for future land use needs: (10) Utilization of land for shaping and development of the city, limiting urban sprawl, and disciplining 17ro-wth: (11) Utilization of land for spacial definition of urban areas: (12) Utilization of land to prevent encroachment on flood plains; (1 3) Utilization of land to encourage more intensive use of urban areas: (14) Utilization of land for retention of aesthetic and recreational value of open land in proximity to and within the city; and (1-5) Utilization of land to obtain a balance and hannony of open space and physical development for the human benefit. DTcn Ac--,,d a I tem, page 9 Attachment C CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES POLICK FOR EASEMENT REQUESTS ON OPEN SPACE_ Adopted November 13, 1985 Revised February 8, 1995 I. Introduction. The primary purpose of the Open Space Program is to preserve and protect Open Space land for the benefit of the public. This Easement Request Policy is intended to reflect that purpose and, therefore, does not favor allowing use of Open Space land for the financial benefit or the private convenience of individual residents or land owners. II. Application Process. An applicant for an easement on Open Space must submit the followirng documents to the Department of Real Estate and Open Space at least 14 days prior to the Open Space Board meeting at which consideration of the request is sought: A. A statement outlining the use of the proposed easement, including type and dimensions of any proposed improvements to be built within that easement; B. A map showing the location and dimensions of the proposed easement and the location and dimensions of any temporary easement required during construction; C. A map showing the location of wetlands within the proposed easement, or any temporary easement required for construction. In addition, wetlands within 50 feet of the proposed easement and temporary construction easement must be shown on the map. The wetland boundaries must be delineated by a qualified wetlands biologist using the methodology detailed in the City of Boulder Land Use Code (9-12, B.R.C., 1981). If wetlands are located in the proposed easement, temporary construction easement, or within 50 feet of either easement, the applicant will consult with the City of Boulder Planning Department to determine if a wetlands permit will be required for requested activities in the proposed easement. D. Plans for restoration of the easement area after construction, including a tilme frame therefore, and any additional maintenance, such as watering and weed control during reestablislunent of vegetation, that will be provided by the easement holder; E. A statement explaining the need for the easement, which includes the following informa- tion: 1. Alternative methods to achieve the purpose for which the easement is sought; 2. Alternative locations to an Open Space easement; �. The cost to the applicant if the Open Space easement is granted; 4. The cost of alternative methods and locations; and �. Any beriefits perceived by the applicant to accrue to a broader group or to the public as a whole by virtue of the granting of the requested easement; and Non Agenda Item, page '10 F. Any other items reasonably requested by the Director of Real Estate and Open Space, which items maN,, without limitation. include: 1. Subdivision maps; ?. Surveys; Topographic maps; 4. Illustrative slides: and 5. Engineering plans. Any items submitted in an application may be retained by the City of Boulder_ III. Referral to the Open Space Beard of Trustee. The application for an easement on Open Space land will be referred to and considered by the Open Space Board of Trustees if the following criteria have been met: A. All required documents have been timely received; and B. Based upon the uses for which the easement is requested, and the availability and cost of any alternatives, the Open Space Board Chair and the Director of Real Estate and Open Space agree that a sufficient need appears to exist for an easement across Open Space land. If the Board chair and director do not agree that a sufficient need exists, the applicant may appeal that decision to the Open Space Board of Trustees within thirty (30) days of the denial, and the Open Space Board of Trustees must hear the matter at its first meeting thereafter. The Open Space Board of Trustees shall also have the authority to call up an item for review. r IV. Consideration by the Open Space Board. The Open Space Board of Trustees will consider, at a public meeting, all applications that meet the criteria in Section III. The Open Space Board will consider the following factors in determining whether or not to recommend to City Council that an easement should be granted: A. Whether a sufficient need for the easement exists. In determining that such need exists, the Board will consider, without limitation, anv alternatives available to the applicant, the cost of such alternatives, and the purposes for which the easement is requested; B. The degree to which the proposed easement will change the appearance and condition of the Open Space land; C. Whether the proposed use of the easement interferes with use of the land for Open Space purposes; and D. Whether the proposed use of the easement is consistent with the goals of the Open Space Program as set forth in section 3-9(c), B.R.C. 1981. page 1 An applicant or applicant's representative for an easement must be present at the nieetina of the Board at which the easement is considered and should be prepared to answer any questions that Board members may have pertaining to the application. V. Conditions that Mav be Imrosed by the Oi~en Space Board. A recommendation for approval of the easement to the City Council by the Open Space Board may include: A. Payment of money to the Open Space Fund. In determinii g how much mone_, should be paid to the fund, the Board may consider, without limitation, the followir-_g: 1. The fair market value of the easement; i. Anv costs to the City occasioned by aranting the easement, such as n;airterance costs, staff time, recording fees, and appraisal costs; and �. The money saved by the applicant in obtaining an easement from the City as opposed to using an alternative method for achieving the desired result. B. An agreement by the applicant to petition for or not to oppose annexation to the City if the property benefited by the easement lies outside the City limits and is or becomes eligible for annexation; C. Other form of payment to the City for the easement, for example, labor, materials, improvements to or exchange of property; D. An agreement by the applicant permanently to maintain the easement or affected Open Space ad;acent to the easement in a manner consistent with Open Space maintenance coals; E. Plannina Board or Parks Board review if deemed appropriate; and F. Any other requirements intended to assure minimum disturbance and maximum preserva- tion of the Open Space land resource, and performance by the applicant of any obligation imposed as a condition of the easement grant. VI. Conditions which will Always be Imposed by the Open Space Board. All recommendations to the City Council for approval of an easement request wig be conditioned by the Open Space Board on: A. The applicant paying the cost of constructing all improvements proposed to be made in the easement area; B. The applicant furnishing a survey description of the easement area by a registered land surveyor at the applicant's sole expense; Non Agenda Item, page 12 C. The applicant's compliance «-ith any posting requirements of the Colorado State mechanics lien statute; D. An agreement by the applicant that the easement will revert to the City if it is not used for the purpose for which it vas requested within a reasonable period of time, or if the use of the easement is abandoned; E. Restoration of the Open Space property to a condition at least as good as prior to any disturbance by the grantee of the easement. The restoration must include, without limitation, reseeding. revegetation, and restoration of anv existinc, improvements, such as fences. All restoration work must be to a standard and within a time frame acceptable to the City Open Space staff. The requirement of restoration will apply to any reentry by the applicant into the easement area for maintenance, reconstruction, or other activities.) F. Requirement that the applicant shall indemnify and hold the City harmless for any losses, claims, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by the City as a result of a use of the easement or the failure of the applicant to perform required maintenance obliga- tions; and G. Approval of a wetland permit if needed in accordance with the City of Boulder wetlands protection ordinance (9-12, B.R.C., 1981), and Section III.C. of this policy. VII. City Council Approval Required. No easement on Open Space may be granted without the approval of the Boulder City Council. Therefore, a recommendation for approval by the Open Space Board will always be referred to the City Council for further action VIII. Developer Requests/Development Review Committee. When an easement request originates in a proposal submitted to the City's Development Review Committee, or when a develop- ment request requires Development Review Committee consideration, all City departmental requirements relating to the easement request must be met as part of, or in addition to, the requirements contained in this Policy. Ik. Staff requests that the Open Space Board of Trustees may require reimbursement for staff time that occurs on all projects and that reimbursement shall be a minimum of$20.00 or the actual costs incurred by the Open Space staff or any other City employees who are involved in such project. Ncn N_,enda 7tem, page 13 Attachment D Excerpts from Open Space Long Range Management Po-1icies , Chapter II, Open Space Acquisition and Land Protection, Pages 2- 1 and 2-3 II. OPEN, SPACE ACQUISITION HYD LAND PROTECTION The Open Space Deparment,will cooperatewith other agencies and r.$e public to ensure lands of concern to Open Space are protected. F. Disposal of Land Because the purpose of the Open Space program is to preset ve open lands in perpetuity,removing or modifying Open Space land from Open Space purposes conflicts with the mission of the proga€n. Therefore,no interest in Open Space land may be disposed of without an afF=ative recotrmendation of a majority of the Open Space Board of Trustees and approvalbythe City Council. The procedure for disposal of Open Space lands is found in Section 177 of the City Charter. The OSBT's'Easement Request Guidelines must be followed before easements are granted. Non Agenda Item, page 14 Attachment E Boulder Mountain Parks Resource Protection and Visitor Use Plan 01,9f4i.Hg -fl+e VisFafa Mission Statement The mission of the Mountain Parks Division is to ensure the long- term protection of the parks'natural resources and functions while providing appropriate visitor access for education,enjoyment,and low-impact recreational opportunities consistent with resource protection goals. The Mountain Parks'mission statement,guides both day-to-day and long- term decisions.The mission has a dual focus:first and foremost,to protect the parks' natural and cultural resources,while also accommodating recreational use that is compatible with long-term resource protection. Guiding Principles The guiding principles expand upon the mission by establishing key management directions. These principles help guide both short-and long-term management decisions.,balancing competing y7oals and defining strategics. 1. Ina world that is increasingly hum an-dominated,at Boulder Mountain Parks we attempt to balance and integrate the activities of nature and people. ?. We seek to maintain Boulder Mountain Parks as aplace of inspiration,natural wonders,spiritual renewal,and educational benefit for the community. 3. Where there arc real orpotential conflicts between nature and human use in the B oulder'—Yloun twin Parks.preference will be given to sustaining nature-both for its intrinsic values and its value as a component oflluman experience. 4. Managing the Mountain Parks is a shared responsibility.We seek to inform and engage the community in the challenges ofsetting policy and managing the park. Pilon Agenda item, page 1 5 Attachment F Excerpt from South Boulder Creek area Management Plan, Chapter 10, Passive Recreation, pa - 79 10.4 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 10.4.1 Objective 41: Provide a variety of appropriate quality passive recreational activities, outdoor education opportunities, and visitor services where consistent with overarchino, environmental values. In the City of Boulder Charter, passive recreation is listed as one of the purposes of Open Space, and certain activities are listed: hiking, photography or nature studies, and, if specifically designated bicycling, ho-seback riding, or fishing. "Recreation" is often defined as activities that offer a contrast to work-related activities and that offer the possibility of constructive, restorative, and pleasurable benefits (Hammitt ar_d Cole 1987). "Passive recreation" is generally considered to be those activities that occur in a natural setting which require minimal development or facilities, and the importance of the environment or setting for the activities is greater than in developed or active recreation situations. Non Agenda Item, page 1 . MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Mueller, Chairperson, Open Space Board of Trustees Larry MacDonnell, Open Space Board of Trustees Linda JourQensen, Open Space Board of Trustees Linda Andes-Georges, Open Space Board of Trustees Sean Kendall, Open Space Board of Trustees FROM: Jim Crain, Co-Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks Mike Patton, Co-Director, Open Space and Mountain Pare Delani Wheeler, Central Services Division Manager~i � SUBJECT: Projected Open Space Fund Cash Flow for 2001 through 2019 DATE: September 7, 2001 Staff will discuss the attached spreadsheet with the Board on September 12th. Following are some notes to consider as you review this information: The provision of an 18-year spreadsheet is extremely unusual. Standard practice, as the OSBT and city council review and approve each new acquisition, is that staff provides a seven year cash flow projection similar to the one reviewed tonight as part of the IBM acquisition. * The attached 18-year spreadsheet reflects the OSBT's and staffs long term financial commitment to manage the Open Space fund prudently, so that when the .33 cents sales tax sunsets at the end of 2018, the fund will be able to sustain a level of management and stewardship of Open Space and Mountain Parks lands within the projected .40 cent sales tax revenue. With the addition of the Mountain Parks lands in January 2001, the Mountain Parks general fund transfer has been incorporated into the departmental budget. (See line 4) * This would mean, for example, that in 2019, OS revenues, including the Mountain Parks transfer, are projected to be $19,536,000 (line 4) compared to projected management and CIP expenditures (line 17) of$19,476,000. Close to a"break-even" situation. * One of the related goals in support of this long term financial commitment is that all of the debt will be paid off and retired by the end of 2018. Therefore in 2019 on line 5C, all debt payments have ceased. * It's important to remember that all of the cash flow projections are simply a snap shot in time of the OS Fund's financial condition and: a) They are based on current revenue and expenditure growth projections and include accumulated debt service commitments for prior acquisitions. b) They are subject to revisions each time the program acquires new parcels, has the sales tax revenue projections revised by the budget office, issues new bonds or BMPA notes, or approves new management and CIP expenditure budgets which contain persormel and material costs increased to reflect current inflationary factors. * In 1959, with passage of the original .33 cent sales tax, it was anticipated that the .33 cent sales tax would sunset in 2004. As a result, before 1997 and the extension of the tax through 201S, the cash flow was leveraged to acquire as much land as possible before it expired in 2004. Now that it has been extended to 2018, the program is able to use the bonding capacity created by the new revenue from the .33 cent sales tax extension to finance the extended acquisition program. * Future additional bonding capacity will be driven by increasing cash flows beyond 2004 to 201 S. Thus future debt service payments related to new bond or BMPA note issuance would absorb portions of the acquisition CIP indicated on line 6A. Staff will discuss the attached spread sheet with the Board on September 12th. If there are questions before then please call us or send us an e-mail. Attachment A: Projected Open Space Fund Cash Flow 2001-2019 ...osbtspreadsheet090701 i a o 00 L) Cl) O OI COp Com] OI h 0 0 CO N h V OI N W LO Ln O O O N LP, O m io 6) O LO � lO O r. co d' N m In h r LD CO O Col O O O V r- Cp Cl) N h Cl) N O Ln h d- h co co m�Cl) Ne)Ch h N [r"J^ h O N ,-- N O N h CD r 0 o O CD h � h OI p -t OI O O O O co Cl) h h CO h OI N O N LO m N m LO In h LO V LO O r, rl m O O V m co N CO O h f O O O O)� 00 m Cp Q] N N Cl) N LI) CO O mJ CO O O 00I CD m O C c O r M m O M h COI N N M r r N 0 o N p CC co N p OI N p CD 07 OI h 0 0 00 co O O LO OI N O O LO V CO O O � 'L63 LO O Lm Cfl O LO O LO �t Ln O �I CO N r It (D N LO N LOI CO C\jp Ln - - v N m N '-' m .- h Cl) N r O c'JI Ln Oo c'i M co m LO a0 N o r [O h m o co CD c0 N N M r N 0 o m O M LO p OI Ln 00 OI CD O O 0 m r O It CO OI O r N LCl h N r LO O V O CD CO lO LO It LO O r.. rl m O N 00 N N N O lO LnI O O LO LC)� - O O O - N N m N N cf� CD h N 0 Cl co mi V 00 M M h N MC\j O N r '- r r CO O N O CO 0 o O V co CD p 01(o 00 of 01 11- O O m N co m N of O O m Lf) 'C 'co)CLO LO d- O N Co 00 Ln d• LO O r rl m N N 00 N m LO CD CO �I O m O O� O m p CO N N m N (V n h O N CD M to m�f 00 co M 00 N LO O N r .-- r r 05 O LL M h 0 0 W O CO et CD O OI CD O p0 V of CO O O 00 '0Ice)'D N O m of t w O LO d• co LO O O m O CO CO O tO d' LO O O V CD V v � m CD O m0 q Lq O p r O CY) m In p N N_ m N r T m P LO CO r m O O ml LO N CO OD p O 61 O r O N r m O r 00 CD N O N N LC) N N N M N a o O LO V m C) 0J OI h O O a � m et 00 O d- OI r LO O Ln V N h O Cl) Cl) LO �j LO 't LO O r r m C) Ln m h h Cfl CO CO O N O h LO V O h N N m N N O Cl) CD O r CO m)LO O r O N d' N CA N Ce) O r m O N O CD N J LL m o a NI C'n O C) LC) Ln f;) O O 00 OOI O Ln cD N hl o O O COI m U m r 0 CO M O 0 p h CA O m Ln O N r 0 w m O et O -'t O 0 0 LO O LO h V c0 co Cfl m h m N Ln m N Z 2 00 N O p" O O O T r 06 O N r CO +- OJ r O CD m ::) a_ N 07 N LO ri LL rn c W C) o 0 Q c v U) C N Z 0 O R CL N N CO O o o __ w :. E F w} a o UU� cn Cf) ca U ❑ Z) O co CD O o z z > } O O °- oj5 m m M Fes- Lw O T a- CD Q 2 N L F- W cu N � r.25 N N BOO � Z 0 EN m N O N 64 64 Z � LL g � LY c0 0 0- E C) m OO O rn � � F Z �- U O U M CD O - F•-• F-' F- O W 02 z O 00 0 C L U� N otsW � � U j � p W � 01= 0 > N Qo � � Cl) � � � 5 CC s ❑ LLo ~ - F cnIM O o � �° z -O @) N (:3 O O W W C) F- z Z O WCl) W c6 O 07 D- m L U U) w W Cn W N CC ❑ � J UO UQ 0 � F- Lr z cc � E c s m 0 o Z W � > > m � mU LLI ¢ cnU) W QD aim E o = N Jw C W W ❑ Z XWJ F- _ � W Cn ❑ N N O .0 QUG co cn0 ZNZ LU < = _ CL a Cn ❑ z j C rn m0 � F- F- w 0 D ZXQ � lr � X 7) Z W w o o O cn ❑ � ❑ mmF— F= ew Ow < mem LL w pia z � a cc 0 ❑ � DDw fnWZ h- zU W < 0 M CrW ¢ LLw Q O 0 m m LLZLL w m � � w0 cn0 Iwo LL U) 0 zw � 0 � w x '5'.S (D O !L m LLL Q Q 0 - H 0 ¢ Q z J z 0 I_ U w Z z W m N .O'C F-- zm0 ¢ z00 � ¢ � cn CU1cn � � � � ¢ � U zQm ¢ 2i w z ❑ a� o w o Z U Q m z O ❑ 0 O 0 0 0 ¢ z❑ > 0- Fm- m w ( Q D m o o Q .� N Lu Q wOm _ WOQDp� Qc3 LL LLLL > w w w > > 0z O m o 3 .n E cnU- c MU- m ¢ QQ -1 = c Li nU J JJaX ~ F- F- ❑ Q Z Q W y � a) Ca ❑ oo Om ❑ U ❑ ❑ Z) M0LLI mQ mmm � w F- zQQw2 LU z F- o � a F- m LU N 0 QP ~ D cr- ¢ Fz 7) LU Q QQ } a LLL 2 �LLJ I- ❑Z ¢ XLLI t= co i W C2 p o E -� W a -� Q Q W J W W J > W D.. L z > » W J J❑ U Z Z CLO J UCC Cl) Ni Dom � � < m00 < < --) X < � ¢ ¢ ¢ F- ¢ a ¢ - - xF- Q Zww o = ca C-- cocnz O wLCLrO a_ cn mzmD Ll- a- O < 00zz 0 zwZ Z; -C d W W U F- ❑ Ll F- U 7 - U IL m U U U F- F- 22 ¢ ¢ Z Un F- W M Z F- La F- a ¢ mU Nmv LO ¢ mU ❑ ¢ mU ❑ WLL (D hoorno N mit n ncD h o� rno Ln LO LO LO co O CO Cfl co LD (D CD CT) � r N p O OI O 0 0 n N O r OI M O CO tO r O O CO Ln N Ln - (p O Lf) O r r r co h r CO N O CO CO O O r O a) CO p CO - O co N W ('") O Ln OC) (T7 m r0 co Cl) T Cl) r- LV ��f\ O O f� r T O T M Lf) O �t t\ (V p O OI O O O CD 00 N Md' OI c7 Ln ;t Lnl 0 C\, p O O L.0co) O r W r c O Nm w 0 0 0 COI O) III Cp p�Cp O M N M O O LO CO cn Cl) M N r C7J r L11 O CA LT h T r C\ T C\ O Ln 0 0 -N CD V N p 001 O 0 0N O CD OI O N r tP, N O O 00 r CD Lo C>7 (�') O LO O r O W O V N LO O m CO 0 �I O O C`7 Ln Cfl O(D O V O CO N O 00 Cn IT CO -zr O CJ� r- r0 m cl O .c''i N M Oi O cc CO CD O C\ W C\ CD LCj 0 o N O t` t\ p 0010 O O rLo [n co N O OI TM co Tr CLO O O W co � LO O LO O CLO co O O r O Co N O a) V O O cC) M M N" O LO (V M� LO LO O N - -!r Cn IrOn 0 o O p M LO n N C)) p p OI O 0 0 (n N M N OI co N N LO � 0 CD O O m p N Ln V V' O O O LO O O O co N co CA Cn co (DI N O O N p ti d' N p� O co N '- ti co Cn 7 f` In ml O c7 M r Lj 07 LO C\j pj LO r � O (O C\!O U-) LV r V N . M a o N -e N t" N p p OI O O w 't O �t OI co d' O j LO O O d' n O U) " 2 O N n Ln O ,.._ CO r CO m n N 4 Cn N r O O r cc O p pl co m M N o r N Q. Ln Ln N M M O (.D t� (V +- tNNO U r V N M r r N r 0 o Lf) d-1 O M I�, v N N p0 C�OI I� O O 0 P Lo cc) r- OI c) I` N Ln I� 0 o r t(C'(V)JII c� c Ln ;r Ln(*s o O cl v Ln o r oo �r Ln m n Ln (fl O O O r LL) pl p N I� 07 N w CA o0 V N O r C� I- M Cl) m Ln I-- N 'll N r N M O) r -�F O (O CJ O N M r N J LL 2 Q E o o Ln p c'ri co 1" OI O p p OI CD coo O, O I` OI O co Ln Lf) O U m O O CO O 'V' d' L() O O O LO d• LO O r LD Lo C7 N (D (D � (D� c rn O O O (D p m Cl) p O N I- co N (D L- Lo �t O_ w r C� cp z c M M I` p' N L" O N O - r N m M m CO N D W L\I � r N co LLrn c LL O U N � IL IL r N z pCL J (a CL N ami CC O Q ami O W O E x N W 06 UCn Cn Q 00 CU ❑ ❑ J � N c O O w } o m IM _-CC FU) W O ¢ N � I-- O_r; n C 47 N N N ~ W O N 0 C, ❑ ca mWE Zca O O o oILLIOOCO F- Z rrC?Lo U Uz LILI ULn > 0� jp W O - O o zM - � � in O � I- N Wp apQaOOW � Ir OCC WUN UN O wW m m C .6W7a0ZF-U � 0 ) Q _ z � � Ec v p 5; CO Lli , N V Q wLLI U T w O (n a- Z J c7 Z 2 U L p 4 N O o aU c W W ❑ Zco Nz W a � 2070 ILLIL c~n0Z w. N j C Cl) U7 ❑ U) L m0 uJ F- F- W O ❑ ZXQ � Fc2 x Cn =j Zw w O � 0 O O (D Z a Z mLLI W C~) 1- IL O W I � J c W W ❑ ❑ X z y a) 0 W a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ w � wZ � ZU U) wa0 a CCIr ¢ wW a o v C3 a"i LL LL W W - wp � v 0 (nOz - www v F' u' w ZZ ¢ a _a) � a � Ll Zm0 Q cnzz � QZIn OL� � F- � � C° � W ❑zQ ❑ Qg W z ❑ Q o Cl) U Oo z � W Q aOOZ W � � < ri W C-- m p om WCLU w'3 m J ❑ � �O O N U > � ❑ ❑ ¢ U- z rnU � 000 ¢ z [t XLuLLa- ¢ F- a LL D Ln Q) cnLLo w � O U) II' aaa -jM0pLU 0 W7nQ J J JCLX (A F- F- 1- ❑ a Z ❑ , c .0 M ❑ O N Ln ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ m ❑ w Ln ir c co c W H Z Q a W W Z F- c p A d F- LU � IW- HU aFW- Z � F- w¢I _Z ¢ ¢ ate W � � � o ¢ X �Lw � `oma °' W o > Q ¢ w J � W W J > W O LLl W Z > > > W J O Z Z w 0 J (3 CC U) 3 N O m o al � � W a � -) M a ¢ --) X ¢ CC a aa ¢ F- ¢ Q Q XF- Q Z W W o - 0 ON W � � � O wwaCO a wz2 ❑ Fw w0- w � 0 O a ❑ ❑ zD O Qzwz t Z) -C m a_ W W U F- ❑ CL0- F- Ua_ C) W � UUU � F- F- � ¢ ¢ ❑ cn F- w � ❑ F- (a F- 3 ¢ c U N Cl) d• LO am U ❑ a c U ❑ W LL 0 h M tT O r N C7 L7 LO cD h M tT O N r r r LO LO LO LO (D (O (o CO. (D CD CO r r r f r r r r r r r N s• ml 0 a h O O OI O O O OI O O O p LO O 1,- Ln dt OI CO CD Or O O r O O O O LA O O N -e co L(OnI OCO N N O O (O r O coCn '- O Ln CO r t.C) a0 -e OIJ CO M M r Lf) m Ln N C\ r r a [D Lo M r m o o N I\ CA op 001 O O o 0 a) co N f- of LL) r *- Lo O o O O COO C CLr) SD p�l j O Cl) N r N Cl) r LO Ln h coCOrj) N N l M C7 r N r N Cv) � m CA r C7 N T (D L O d r r M J LL S Q E a o CD N m t\ Op 0010 000p L0 M N O m OI O M tf) O U m O O N M co lI) Cpl-Cl)� O O Ln O .M-- N 00 .- M O o� C7 rn r O O P7 r O) (p O_lI CD O Cl) N r M LO .- �) CV LD CD Cr1 N Ll rod Cl) Cl) N Vim' r N M t\ tT r r CO Cl)NT [D LLQ LL m c wo O co - v tL - Co L a` C, is LU a v CV CC o 0 O N } E ❑ 0 w U CD CO CO fr ❑ o ca O ❑ ❑ 1 H O o — Z Z > O o .6 � m m � S Cl) W O � O 0- Z fr C oQ 22 N WF CL 6 m C O CM N Cld �� Z � LLLL � � S cddS ❑ A O _ o 00 0oW O ~ Z cmU cd m o f- H o -0 CL o NH OL a- W QO > U OOZ w _cN (D a) N csn• ❑ ❑ U > NO WO p - O > xs oz �o � LLLL OOo>C W � ❑w 0v m ❑ Q w ❑ a�) aQQ m � W N LL LL LLJ m W W U) W NM ~ Z) W C3U00 M � wLU ENL UCn Q) UUH dxf Q ❑ZI- J UQf- H zcc U) Jm 00 _o zC) > > m ,2S COU w ❑ Q QCnw 0 W QS a) C,) C) -o N V Qw U S � W 0U) O' z J CnF." Z � U1- CDC:) c O .O QUA CLLJ n LU Z oN• Z w � < SUL 0 d UQz "" N a) m0 � f- F- w O ❑ ZXQ (5f2m X = ZW W ca ❑ CC ❑ mCO LL OW mJm W W ❑ ❑ CL U _ mow n Cu m LLZLL w ❑ ❑ -) �LU LUO m0U wwCELLC U Z W � O � g C, X o C70 W J twi QQ0 OV I= ❑ � z a !- W W W ,� f— Cn W ZZ Q � .0 c c Q � � zm0 Q cnZZ � Q � cn c7Cn - r � - m ❑ w Z❑ QOQw Cl) U ❑ a, o Cr v Zww J ¢ 0O ❑ mam ¢ _ � mmrrQ � V w [[ ❑ [[ w Q z o Z � Q f- F ❑ O (3 ❑ 7 a 1- mw ❑ � ❑ m � � c ¢ .Scy (D ¢ ❑ ❑ J OOQZOCQC3 LL LL LL 000 > w W w » Oz ❑ m ❑ 3 " E E U) LL oo mU � Cl) UQQQ � m ❑ ° wcn ¢ W Jia X zHH ❑ Q z ❑ w � -0 a) ro ooa ppCn Z > wLu < wC - < 0 ¢ QQU � W LuI � o -j X LLI wCnC) � � a a� f- N aJ w-- Fw- Z L❑L � I- f- U •-i � Z � � w _Z -1 -1 � � ZQ LL CC —o -oE .0 W p > Q Q W J W W J > w a- � W z > > > W J 0 O _Z _Z a- 0 J U U N 47 a> � o � � m Q F- � --3 Q � XQ W Q Q Q Q Q Q Q X � Q zW W a) ONCE l- I- m mOOI a 0w � m � 2 ❑ d � � � F- Z � � wm F- ❑ Ln m � L � � Cc W W U 0ILCL Ua.. � mUacr UUU � O O � < < =) U) wmD H ca Q m U N C0 V Ln Q m U ❑ Q m U ❑ w LL o r 00 mO r N C7 v7 Ln Ln O N m N r r r Lo LO LO LC) CD CO (D CD Co CO CD r s-- r r r r r r r MEMORANDUM To: Open Space Board of Trustees From: Matt Jones Date: August 23, 2001 Re: Citizen Survey—Requested Information Attached is a copy of the citizens stuvey information presented at the August 22, 2001 meeting. Also attached is the information that Sean requested about the appropriateness of management actions. This information corresponds to three bar graphs at the end of the presentation entitled: Dealing with Conflict and Crowding, Mitigating Habitat Impact and Boulder County's Importance of Management Options. co m as co U) o 0 0) r- e OD ti Ca o ti U •� e (l� 1 Y U 8 U a o CL -� a u d W o v, m C: 0 CD C) -- cv U = Q C1 Er 3 S O D O N w W N O e { c x I o I W C7 CD I CLn 111 ��, ,•.� � /Y.V/� V� CD CD 0 i o 0 O_I I S V o � 3 3 c O>v � � a x x � m x 3 v > j m I f0 f� m N IG Tf O A `- c I `u p , m. 0 0 e � o - ccn e O --1 i N }' J CM e. 04 n r 0 - > M y I d OD OZ •`/ V/ N t0 /11 N Cq e M N O S� d N r L O i r 0 N a e y o � v o e O � N ^ o 1.L E O N e O C ' e e N /�1 N N N N �L W c 'O W C C C O = > fitE Y � ' L Y Y C Or1 N v' D i � CD rn O CD w 5 Er 0 m o � w 0 � o N N � w � p CD cn i CD VJ � � < U 0 I N Q L 0 w � 7 m M 0 w d C C L M Yi v N .'C.. N � a w C6 0 a M E Co C/) ■ Bulysld aluOld esn Luoa uol;eaim �aN�0 Bulilem N Boa NBulmle _ agay;say BunllH L a e o e e e o e e 1 00 0ti W 4 0 9 V 10000 N O O ^W A i I T T V W 1 CD N 6 Z CCD e D O :� 0 ti l v < A y 0 Q O 7 i 1 x CD � oCD D 3 � s0 N n D O .. 7 Z NCD 13 D) Q p O CD• Q 3 CD O z 0 o _ m O � o : c CCDCD n �. CD � w 'DD �+ O i ON n U) U N Co CD t6 a Q o CDO U a. o � Q CD CD N e o • d cu d � /�� Q a �i c ` E n L E y o c W 0U n_ o g E ° w a T J J E m J H D7 Y O QN m N O O U 9 ti= go co CLo 0 04 dr Y E e p c c (n z aa, C u u W m Y N e B e N W 00 d O t[! N <O O i U Q X C r 3 3 m D O m _ m N ca to CL nCD 0 o o rt CD O w w < < 3 o CD 7 N N N fes/! w CD CD U0 cc r-r o — I I c N � 0 ° O c q < CD t di W f/ % O 6 O d i IOA udi N N fdq O CD N O e o CQ co e o � o o. i �® cn i -n < d CD x ON m I o o L b b O 0 0 0 O LL ■ ■ d � = e U N a � CD Q. Xa W LL O oe 0 M CV Methods of DealingWith Conflict I ct or Crowding ' Several methods have been suggested to deal with conflict or crowding. 1 will describe them. Please tell me if you feel that each is extremely appropriate, somewhat appropriate, not very appropriate, or not appropriate at all. What about: (Rotate q. 21 through 29. Re-read introductions or response choices as necessary.) Not Extrm. 5mwht. Not Very Approp. No . Approp. A ro . Approp. at All Response 21. Constructing more 28% 41% 17% 10% 4% trails and entrances? A 22. Controlling the f, 16 34 28 19 2 number of people who enter crowded areas? 23. Charging fees to 19 30 22 27 3 people who live outside the county? 24. More public education 57 32 4 4 2 on trail etiquette? , 25. Limiting groups of 25 29 36 17 16 2 or more? 26. Limiting commercial users such as horse liveries and r 23 45 17 11 5 companies which teach outdoor activities like climbing or hang gliding? 27. Buying additional l 67 20 3 7 2 Open Space for passive recreational use? 28. Limiting types of 35 42 11 6 5 recreational activities that are likely to cause conflicts? 29. Enforcing existing 3 41 39 10 5 5 regulations more vigorously? 1 Page 29 of 37 Discussion Buying more land, at 67 percent "extremely appropriate," and public education on trail etiquette, with 57 percent "extremely appropriate," are rated the most acceptable of the nine methods to deal with conflict or crowding in open space areas that were described to respondents. In analyzing responses to the other seven "methods" questions we noticed that the five that posited specific limitations or mitigations received strong "appropriate" marks, whereas the two that would impose general limitations did not. The latter were question 22, which suggested controlling the number of people who enter crowded areas, and question 23, which mentioned charging fees to people who live outside the county. In both cases "appropriate" responses were almost exactly tied with the "not appropriate" ones., Demographic Anomalies q21 More trails and entrances. Extremely appropriate (28%): Resident less than a year, 48%; visit 6 to 10 times per month, 37%. Not appropriate at all (10%): Visit less than once per month, 19%. Q22. Numbers control. Extremely appropriate (16%): Resident less than a year, 28%; 55 to 64 years of age, 29%; visit less than once per month, 31%. Q23. Non-resident fees. Extremely appropriate (16%): 55 to 64 years of age, 32%; visit every day, 36%. Not appropriate at all (27%): visit 11 to 20 times per month, 37%. g24 Trail etiquette. Extremely appropriate (57%): 35 to 44 years of age, 68%. Page 30 of 37 x Q25. Limit 25+ -groups. J Extremely appropriate (29%): 55 to 64 years of age, 39%. Not very appropriate (17%): Resident less than a year, 28%; visit 21 or more times per month, 32%. Q26. Limit commercial users. Extremely appropriate (23%): 55 to 64 years of age, 32%; visit less than once per month, 38%. Not very appropriate (17%): 18 to 24 years of age, 33%. , Q27. Buy more open space. Extremely appropriate (67%): Women, 75%; resident 1 to 5 years, i 76%; 18 to 24 years of age, 77%. a Not appropriate at all (7%): 65 or older, 23%; visit less than once per month, 28%. Q28. Limit activities causing conflicts. Extremely appropriate (35%): Resident less than a year, 48%; 55 to 64 years of age, 51%; visit 21 days or more per month, 49%. -Q29. Enforce existing regulations. Extremely appropriate (41%): 55 to 64 years of age, 56%; visit 6 to 10 times per month, 54%. 1 I 1 Page 31 of 37 1 Appropriateness of Possible Management Actions If plants and wildlife habitat definitely are being impacted from recreational use, how appropriate do you believe the following management actions would be in areas where impacts are unacceptable? Would you say extremely appropriate, somewhat appropriate, not v Mappro.priate or not appropriate at all? What about: (Rotate q. 32 through 37. Re-read response choices as necessary) Not Extrm. Smwht. Not Very Approp. No Approp. Approp. Approp. at All Response 32. Public education about t 70% 25% 3% 1% 1% how to cause less environmental impact? 33. Limiting use to only 61 30 5 2 2 designated trails? 34. Requiring permits to 15 36 24 24 2 control the number of people who enter? 35. Relocating activities or 55 35 5 3 1 trails to less sensitive areas? t 36. Limiting recreational 57 34 4 2 3 activities that cause the greatest impact? 37. Closing areas to n, 65 28 4 3 1 recreational use during time periods when impacts are greatest? „ Discussion All but one of the six possible management actions described in this series of questions were viewed as appropriate by 90 percent or more of all respondents. One of them -- "public education about how to cause less environmental impact," was particularly well-supported, receiving "extremely appropriate" ratings from 70 percent. This mirrors a result in an earlier and somewhat similar series of questions -- 21 through 29 -- that Page 34 of 37 asked about appropriateness of nine possible ways to deal with conflict or crowding in open space areas. In that case more public education on trail etiquette" came out on top with 89 k 1 t percent indicating that it's appropriate. i Returning to this series, it was question 34 that lagged the rest, with 51 percent ' indicating that requiring permits to control the number of people who enter open space areas and nearly as many-- 48 percent-- saying that it is either not very appropriate or not appropriate at all. That, too, repeated a pattern that was observed with questions 21 through 29. In that case 50 percent said it would be appropriate to control the number of people who enter crowded areas but 47 percent responded either "not very appropriate" or "not !i appropriate at all." ;r l In neither case did mandated limits to entry receive clearcut support. h ' ,Demographic Anomalies Q32. Public education. Extremely appropriate (70%): Women, 79%; 18 to 24 years of age, 82%. i Q33. Designated trails only. Extremely appropriate (61%): Women, 72%; visit every day, 73%. Q34. Permits to control numbers. Extremely appropriate (15%): Resident less than a year, 24%; 55 to 64 years of age, 24%; visit less than one time per month, 28%. Not very appropriate (24%): Visit 21 days or more per month, 40%. Q35. Relocating activities. No important anomalies were observed. Q36. High impact activities. Extremely appropriate (57%): 55 to 64 years of age, 69%. Q37 Close when impacts are greatest. No important anomalies were observed. Page 35 of 37 relative Importance of Open Space ActivitiesNalues , The survey respondents were asked how important each of 4 f 14 activities and values attendant to Boulder County open F .Fc` c° 32pat eas were to them personally. The activities and 18. Requiring users to stay on trails sm P value listed, and how they were rated in the collective in sensitive areas such as wildlife habitat to minimize damage such opinion of county voting-age residents, are shown on the 2� as erosion......................................76% 18% 4% 2% 1% following table: 19. Closing selected trails to some users,for example horseback hiders or mountain bikers,to minimize conflicts with hikers._...-. 54 30 8 7 1 (84) (15) Q o� 20. Requiring users to stay an trails in eqa all open space areas to minimize � �a� 20 2� 2� environmental impacts.................. 55 27 12 5 1 ,6 (82) (17) '7. Protecting habitat for wildlife........... 75% 21% 3% 1% - 21. Seasonal trail closures for ail (9611.) (4%) recreational activities to protect 8- Fishing........................................_....33 41 18 6 - wildlife habitat,such as nesting (74) (24) birds or calving elk........................ 69 23 6 2 9. Picnicking......................................... 43 46 8 3 - (92) (8) (gg) (111 22. Closing selected trails to dogs 10. Mountain biking.................._._......... 21 40 25 13 1 in sensitive areas to minimize (61) f3a) impacts to wildlife and the 111. Hiking..........................................._.. 64 29 4 3 - ecosystem...................................... 60 24 12 4 1 (93) (7) (84) (16) 112. Assisting with growth management.63 23 7 3 5 f86) (10) 13. Providing buffers between communities................................._ 60 26 10 3 1 All of the open space area management options that were 14. Preserving agricultural lands......_....655 f x)25 6(13) 2 2 described received high levels of approval. While 1 (90) (a) requiring users to stay on trails in sensitive areas received 115. Nature study..................................... 46 41 8 4 1 (87) (12) the strongest assessment of importance, at 94 percent— 16. Walking dogs................................... 29 32 22 17 - with a particularly impressive"very important" response by 17. Horseback riding....................._....... 15 (61)42 29(39)14 1 76 percent of those—the other four concepts all exceeded (57) (43) 82 percent on the "important"scale. Acceptability of Herbicide Use Protecting habitat for wildlife emerged as the most important open space value or activity in the collective Respondents were informed that state law requires private judgment of respondents. Not only was there-.a 96 percent and public landowners to control noxious weed species. "Important" response, but of those 75 percent said it is Several control methods were described, followed by the "very important." statement that"some people believe that the County should not use chemical herbicides at all, while others Hiking was close behind at 93 percent. However, it was believe that careful use of herbicides with monitoring is the back a bit among those who said "very important"—64 only effective way to fight these weeds." Respondents percent. Preserving agricultural lands from development then were asked about the acceptability of use of herb- ,vas the third category to reach the 90 percent"important" icides. The following table presents the results: I eve!. The least-supported activity or value was horseback riding, GEOGRAPHICAL _at 57 percent, and only 15 percent felt that it was"very Broom- Lafay-Long- Louis- Boulder other mportant." TOTAL attW ette man L yft LGibc— Houldit Very acceptable.........30% 36% 34% 33% 34% 20% 40% :)Iptions for Op2n Space Management Change Somewhat acceptable............... 47 49 45 50 47 46 45 Boulder County citizens who took pan`in interviews were -)resented with five policy decisions.that Boulder County Not acceptable at all.........................20 12 20 15 17 30 13 -nay consider for its open space program. They were _lsked how important they feel the changes would be in,the No response.............. z 4 1 z z 3 2 :ace of rapid population growth and open space usage. The options, and how respondents collectively felt about hem, - , presented in the following table: MEMORANDUM To: Open Space Board of Trustees From: Ronda Romero, Management Assistant Date: September 12, 2001 Re: Annual Service Awards Below you will find a list of Open Space and Mountain Parks employees who will be recognized next week for their years of service at the City of Boulder. As you can see we have a total of 17 employees and a total of 175 years! The department will be hosting a luncheon on Wednesday to celebrate this occasion and on Thursday, there will be a city wide luncheon. Please join the management team in saying"thank you" to each of these individuals. 5-year Recipients 10-year Recipients 15-year Recipients 20-year Recipients Bob Crifasi Steve Armstead Gene Clyncke Bill Dimond John D'Amico John Leither Jeff Holland Ann Goodhart Duane Myers Doug Newcomb Joe Hall Andy Pelster Jim Schmidt Joe Mantione Lynne Sullivan Dave Sutherland Noralee Taylor