06.12.24 OSBT PacketOpen Space Board of Trustees
June 12, 2024
City Council Chambers inside Penfield Tate II Municipal Building
MEETING AGENDA
(Please note that times are approximate.)
I. (6:00) Call to Order and Roll Call
II. (6:05) Approval of the Minutes
III. (6:10) Public Comment for Items not Identified for Public Hearing
IV. (6:20) Matters from the Board
A. Trustee questions on Written Information items
V. (6:30) * Public hearing and consideration of a staff recommendation to the Open Space
Board of Trustees on assigning management area designations to specific Open
Space and Mountain Parks properties that are without a designation
VI. (7:00) * Consideration of a request from Public Service Company of Colorado (dba
Xcel Energy) for a permanent utility easement of approximately 0.1 acres to
install and maintain a buried natural gas line within the City of Boulder’s
William Arnold Open Space property pursuant to the disposal procedures of
Article XII, Section 177 of the City of Boulder Charter
VII. (7:10) * Public Hearing and Board consideration of a motion to support continued
collaboration with Boulder County on design alternatives for the North Foothills
(US 36) Bikeway
VIII. (7:45) Matters from the Department
A. Bear Habitat Suitability and Seasonal On-Leash Trail Regulations
Evaluation (35 min)
B. Update on Draft 2025-2030 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) &
2025 Operating Budget (45 min)
C. Director Update: Reminder of OSBT Field Trip to a few OSMP
Agricultural properties on June 14, 9:00 – 11:30 a.m.
IX. (9:05) Adjourn
* Public Hearing
Written Information:
A. Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP); Open Space and Mountain Parks
Disaster Response Team
B. Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Site Management Plan Update
C. North Sky Trail Completion
Open Space Board of Trustees
Members:
Harmon Zuckerman
(2023-2025)
Michelle Estrella
(2021-2026)
Jon Carroll
(2022-2027)
Brady Robinson
(2023-2028)
Sarah Glynn
(2024-2029)
Open Space Board of Trustees
*TENTATIVE Board Items Calendar
(Updated May 29, 2024)
June 14, 2024
OSBT Field Trip
9:00 – 11:30 a.m.
July 10, 2024 August 14, 2024 September 11, 2024
Theme: OSMP
Agricultural Program:
Visit a few of OSMP’s
leased agricultural sites
and operations
Location: Meet at and
Return to the OSMP HUB
- 2520 55th Street
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10 min)
Action Items:
• Fort Chambers-Poor Farm
Site Management Plan (50
mins)
Matters from the Department:
• Overview and
Demonstration of OSMP’s
Interactive Map
highlighting current and
upcoming OSMP projects
(30 min)
• 2025 OSMP Budget
Update: 3rd touch with the
OSBT (60 minutes) – No
OSBT recommendation at
this meeting as OSBT
consideration is moved to
August meeting.
• Director verbal Updates (5
min)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items
or public comment (10
min)
• Appoint an OSBT
Retreat preparation
subcommittee (5 min)
Action Items:
• Recommendation on
OSMP’s 2025 budget (45
min)
Matters from the
Department:
• Junior and Youth
Ranger Program
update (35 min)
• Boulder to Erie
Regional Trail
(BERT) Update (40
min)
• Wildfire Resilient
Landscapes:
Community Wildfire
Protection Plan
Implementation
Update (30 min)
• Director verbal
Updates (5 min)
Matters from the Board:
• Trustee questions on
Written Memo items or
public comment (10
min)
• Update from the OSBT
Retreat Subcommittee
(20 min)
Action Items:
• Assigning Management
Area Designations
(MADs) to specific
OSMP properties that
are without a
designation: Group 4
(30 min)
Matters from the
Department:
• Public Opinion &
Visitor Experience
Survey (POVES)
Results; and updated
visitation data estimates
(Part 1 - 90 min)
*All items are subject to change. A final version of the agenda is posted on the webpage the week of the
OSBT meeting.
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Action Minutes
Meeting Date May 8, 2024
Record of this meeting can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/government/watch-board-
meetings (video start times are listed below next to each agenda item).
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Michelle Estrella, Chair
Harmon Zuckerman, Vice Chair
Jon Carroll
Brady Robinson
Sarah Glynn
OSMP STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
Dan Burke Jeff Haley Jennelle Freeston Heather Swanson Lauren Kilcoyne
Leah Russell Sam McQueen Cole Moffatt Paul Dennison Lisa Goncalo
Ilene Flax
GUESTS
Alyson Duffey, Executive Director, Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC)
AGENDA ITEM 1 – Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 2 – Approval of the Minutes (00:52)
Jon Carroll moved the Open Space Board of Trustees to adopt the minutes from April 10, 2024. Harmon
Zuckerman seconded. This motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM 3 – Public Participation for Items not Identified for Public Hearing (2:42)
Kate Beezley spoke about the Boulder Climbing Community and climbing access on open space.
AGENDA ITEM 4 – Matters from the Board (9:10)
The Board asked questions on the Written Information items.
On the “2024 Visitor Infrastructure Projects Update” the board asked about new bike racks being added at
trailheads, as well as the plan for all existing bike racks to be brought to the current standard.
The board asked about the “Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Site Conservation Team Update” and how
conservation and restoration will be handled.
AGENDA ITEM 5 – Matters from the Department (26:29)
Paul Dennison, OSMP Wildland Fire Sr Program Manager, presented the “Wildfire Resilient Landscapes:
Update on Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fuels Management efforts”.
The board asked clarifying questions and responded to staff proposed questions: “How can the program
empower and inform neighbors to conduct their own wildfire mitigation actions?”; “Are there any
potential challenges or obstacles to successful implementation that you foresee?”; and “Is there any more
information that you need to be able to answer questions about this program from the community?”
Cole Moffatt, Senior Accountant, and Sam McQueen, Business Services Senior Manager, presented the
Agenda Item 2 Page 1
“Draft 2025-2030 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) & Operating Budget”. They were joined by
Alyson Duffey, executive director from BOSC, and Lauren Kilcoyne, Central Services Deputy Director.
The board asked about donations to BOSC, and if donors can choose specific programs or projects for
their money to go to. They additionally asked if we are making multimodal access a priority – including
an emphasis on adding bike racks. They expressed their appreciation for the “take care of what you have”
focus within the budget.
Ilene Flax, Sr. Landscape Architect, and Bill Wildenberg, Sr. Landscape Architect, presented on the
“Sawhill Ponds Improvements”.
The board asked about bird blinds and the newly proposed design. Staff said the one that was shown in
the presentation is more of a practice one for kids and an area for programming. The board also asked if
there are any current plans for water quality improvement within this area.
Lisa Goncalo, Recreation Stewardship Sr. Program Manager, presented the “Climbing Access Trail
Management Update”.
The board asked if the inventory is truly complete, and how the trail designation works after it is
approved. Staff said climbers typically want a different experience than a general hiker; different trails
fall into classification type based on user, and then maintained accordingly.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.
These draft minutes were prepared by Leah Russell
Agenda Item 2 Page 2
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
AGENDA TITLE
Public hearing and consideration of a staff recommendation to the Open Space Board of
Trustees on assigning management area designations to specific Open Space and Mountain
Parks properties that are without a designation
PRESENTER/S
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Services
Kacey French, Planning and Design Senior Manager
Juliet Bonnell, Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2005, the Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Visitor Master Plan (VMP) established a
landscape context for planning and identified four Management Area Designations (MADs):
Habitat Conservation Areas (HCA), Natural Areas (NA), Agricultural Areas (AA), and Passive
Recreation Areas (PRA). The VMP designated MADs for the acquired OSMP land at the time
and the designations of MADS as of November 2023 are shown in Attachment A.
As described in a written update to the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) in October 2023,
mainly due to acquisitions after the 2005 VMP, there are currently approximately 40 OSMP
properties that do not have MADs. These properties total approximately 1,450 acres or 4% of the
total acreage of lands managed by OSMP. The purpose of this project is to fill in these
management gaps on the OSMP system by designating MADs for these properties in a way that is
consistent and compatible with the already designated MADs.
Staff divided the approximately 40 properties without MADs into four groups of properties based
on geographic location as shown in Attachment B.
In December 2023 staff brought recommendations for MADs for the first group of properties to
the board. Staff is now seeking OSBT feedback on the recommended MADs for the second and
third groups of properties as shown in Attachments C and D.
The main considerations for the recommended MADs are the landscape context (i.e., MADs of
adjacent properties) and the criteria as defined in the VMP as shown in Attachment E. In
addition to recommending MADs, staff also reviewed and made recommendations on the
open/closed status of each property.
Agenda Item 5 Page 1
In summary, for this grouping, four properties, or portions of, are being recommended as HCAs
which require board recommendations to City Council. Two properties, or portions of, are being
recommended as Agricultural Areas, four properties are being recommended as Natural Areas,
and five properties are being recommended as Passive Recreation Areas. The non-HCA
recommendations do not require a board recommendation to City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the Open Space Board of Trustees make a motion to:
1) recommend that the Boulder City Council approve inclusion of the 90 and 96
Arapahoe properties as part of the Western Mountain Parks Habitat Conservation Area
2) recommend that the Boulder City Council approve inclusion of the Weiser property
and the portion of the Boulder Valley Farm property along the Boulder Creek corridor
as shown in Attachment F as part of the Lower Boulder Creek Habitat Conservation
Area.
Staff is also seeking feedback and guidance on assigning the Agricultural, Natural, and Passive
Recreation (non-HCA) staff recommended MADs as listed below, as well as the open/closed
status of properties.
• Agricultural Area to the Martinson property and portion of the Boulder Valley Farm
property
• Natural Area to the Meyer-Boulder County, Boulder Falls, Woodley and Rosenblatt-
Ryan properties, and
• Passive Recreation Area to the Snyder, Chambers- Boulder County, Public Service
Company, Pospahala, and Buckingham Campground properties
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic – Designating MADs will support future management of these properties by
providing overall context and guidance which will improve the open space land system
which supports the city’s quality of life, attracts visitors, and helps businesses to recruit
and retain quality employees.
• Environmental – This project will help to ensure compatibility of visitor use with natural,
agricultural and cultural resources across the OSMP system and therefore help to ensure
natural and cultural resource protection.
• Social – Designating MADs to these properties will support future geographic specific
planning (i.e., Integrated Site Planning) where visitor access and recreation opportunities
are designated. By providing guidance on the overall management emphasis of
properties MADs ensure compatibility of visitor use with natural, agricultural and
cultural resources across the OSMP system.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – Implementation costs associated with any property improvements to support
MAD designation or open/closed status changes are anticipated to be minor and expenses
are anticipated in the operating budget.
• Staff time – Staff time spent on the development of recommendations and
implementation of the MAD and property access recommendations are part of normally
allocated staff time for OSMP staff.
Agenda Item 5 Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
This item is being heard as part of this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on
June 9, 2024.
ANALYSIS
The MAD recommendations proposed are shown on the maps in Attachments F and G. The
main considerations for recommending MADs are the landscape context (i.e., the MADs of
adjacent properties) and the criteria as defined in the VMP (Attachment E). While there is some
variation in values and resources among properties within an area, overall, the values and
resources are more similar than not. MADs are meant to provide broad brushstrokes for guidance
on the overall management emphasis for areas. All of OSMP’s charter purposes can occur across
the MADs- e.g. recreation and agriculture can occur in all MADs. There are other more site-
specific tools available to manage for the variation of values and resources within a landscape
context such as thoughtful design in site planning, the application of visitor regulations, and other
wildlife or natural resource closures. When considering the landscape context and the VMP
criteria for the Group 2 and 3 properties staff found most properties were similar to the adjacent
properties in terms of values and resources, although there were some exceptions in Group 3.
This is due to the influence of historical agriculture on the landscape which has created more
variability of resources from property to property or within properties. Due to interspersed
agriculture, MADs in the eastern part of the OSMP land system in general have slightly more of a
patchwork nature than the rest of the system.
Four properties: 90 and 96 Arapahoe, Weiser and a portion of the Boulder Valley Farm property
along the Boulder Creek corridor, are being recommended to be designated as HCAs. Two
properties: Martinson and the other portion of Boulder Valley Farm are being recommended to be
designated as Agricultural Areas. Four properties: Meyer-Boulder County, Boulder Falls,
Woodley and Rosenblatt-Ryan are being recommended to be designated as Natural Areas. Five
properties: Snyder, Chambers- Boulder County, Public Service Company, Pospahala, and
Buckingham Campground are being recommended to be designated as Passive Recreation Areas.
Details about the properties and considerations for the recommendations are provided below.
Staff’s recommendations on whether the properties should be open or closed are also listed
below. All Group 2 properties are recommended to be open while two properties in Group 3 are
recommended to remain closed as shown on the map in Attachment H. Upon acquisition, new
properties are generally closed to public access and remain closed until the management area
designation process. In some cases, properties have had a follow up assessment that has resulted
in the property being opened to public access in cases where no resource sensitivities or safety
hazards have been identified.
Currently, four properties from Group 2, Public Service Company, Pospahala, Buckingham
Campground, and Boulder Falls are open to public access and all are recommended to remain
open. Five are closed, Snyder, Chambers- Boulder County, 90 and 96 Arapahoe, and Meyer-
Boulder County from Group 2 and all are recommended to be open. All five of the Group 3
properties are currently closed. Martinson, Woodley, and Rosenblatt-Ryan are recommended to
be open while Weiser and Boulder Valley Farm are recommended to remain closed. Seasonal or
area closures may be considered on some of the properties opened through this process to provide
natural resource or other sensitive resource protection consistent with OSMP’s systemwide
management policies. Details about the properties and considerations for the recommendations
are provided below.
Agenda Item 5 Page 3
Habitat Conservation Area Recommendations
90 and 96 Arapahoe
The approximately 2-acre 90 Arapahoe and approximately 1-acre 96 Arapahoe properties are
recommended to be designated as HCA and added to the Western Mountain Parks HCA because
they are adjacent to and share similar high natural resource values as this existing HCA. Being
nearby the Boulder Creek riparian corridor and high functioning wetlands these properties are in
alignment with VMP criteria for HCA as high biodiversity areas and important wildlife corridors.
These properties are currently closed, but it is recommended they be opened because the
surrounding OSMP HCA properties with similar resources are open.
Weiser
This approximately 243-acre property is recommended to be designated as an HCA and added to
the Lower Boulder Creek HCA because it is adjacent to other OSMP properties designated as
HCA and has similar high resource values. During acquisition, staff recommended the property to
be designated as HCA, but the motion was unintentionally not completed. This property’s
combination of different habitats supports an exceptionally diverse suite of wildlife and plant
communities including rare and protected species and is in alignment with VMP criteria for HCA.
Bald eagles have nested on Weiser since 2002 and this property includes an unusual mix of
tallgrass prairie and sand prairie plant species as well as floodplain wet meadows with wetland
communities. The southern half of the property’s extensive riparian/wetland/grassland complexes
provide ideal habitat for northern leopard frogs, while songbirds use the base of the cliffs, riparian
forests and wetland and grassland habitats for nesting. Approximately 100 acres of this property
are part of the White Rocks State Natural Area. It includes geologically unique topography and
the northern portion of the property has a high density of indigenous and early historical-age sites.
This property, along with other adjacent and nearby properties that are part of the Lower Boulder
Creek HCA, is currently closed. To allow for the continued protection of its riparian, wetland,
grassland habitats and associated species as well as its cultural resources the Weiser property is
recommended to remain closed. Public access via staff-led hikes outside of bald eagle nesting
season is recommended to continue. The East Boulder-White Rocks Trail provides on-trail only
access to a nearby portion of the Lower Boulder Creek HCA, though not directly to the Weiser
property.
Boulder Valley Farm
Of the approximately 617-acres of the Boulder Valley Farm (BVF) property, approximately 285-
acres along the Boulder Creek corridor and the ponds are recommended to be designated as HCA
and added to the Lower Boulder Creek HCA because they are adjacent to and share similar high
natural resource values as this existing HCA. The portion of BVF being recommended as HCA
includes a 1½ mile stretch of the Boulder Creek riparian corridor which is in alignment with
VMP criteria for HCA as a large habitat block, high biodiversity area, and important wildlife
corridor used by many species of birds, such as bald eagles, ospreys, and great blue herons, as
habitat for nesting and foraging. This portion of the property also includes eight ponds from
historic gravel mining as well as a small segment of the Lower Boulder Ditch.
This property is currently closed to public access as are other adjacent and surrounding OSMP
properties and staff is proposing the entirety of the property remain closed and that further
evaluation of potential access take place during a future site planning process.
Access is also being considered and evaluated as part of the Boulder to Erie Regional Trail
(BERT). A portion of the RTD ROW is between the northern portion of the property being
recommended as HCA and the southern portion of the property being recommended as AA.
Agenda Item 5 Page 4
Agricultural Area Recommendations
Boulder Valley Farm
The other portion of BVF, approximately 332-acres, is recommended to be designated as
Agricultural Area because it is adjacent to and shares similar high agricultural resource values as
surrounding properties. These acres of BVF include agricultural fields that are designated as
farmland of national importance and include currently leased irrigated hay and grass pasture,
irrigated alfalfa and dryland pasture, values that are in alignment with VMP criteria for
Agricultural Area. BVF includes a 16-acre ranch headquarters compound and infrastructure
including equipment barns, horse stalls and cattle chutes, corrals and sheds. Historic and cultural
surveys performed by Boulder County found the property eligible for local landmark and
National Register of Historic Places designation with numerous historically and architecturally
significant buildings and structures. As stated above, the entire property is recommended to
remain closed and access is being considered and evaluated as part of BERT and a future site
planning process.
Martinson
This approximately 84-acre property has similar agricultural resources and is adjacent to other
OSMP properties that are designated as Agricultural Areas. Martinson currently has an
agricultural lease and is irrigated and used for grazing and hay which is consistent with VMP’s
criteria for Agricultural Area. It was purchased with the intent to manage it for agricultural
purposes due to its water rights and high-quality soils. This property is currently closed, but many
of the surrounding OSMP properties are open, therefore, it is recommended that this property be
opened.
Natural Area Recommendations
Meyer-Boulder County
This less than 1-acre property has similar natural resource values and includes similar slope
challenges as the adjacent OSMP properties that are Natural Areas. This property was acquired
via a transfer from Boulder County because the county felt that OSMP would be more suitable to
manage this flashflood-prone property which is adjacent to OSMP land. The habitat continuity
that this property provides to the surrounding open space properties is consistent with the VMP
criteria for Natural Area, so staff is recommending a Natural Area designation. This property is
currently closed, but it is recommended to be opened to public access because surrounding OSMP
properties with similar resources are open and do not have evidence of disturbance.
Boulder Falls
The approximately 6-acre Boulder Falls property is not adjacent to other OSMP properties. It is in
a remote location up Boulder Canyon. This property’s interspersed relatively high natural and
recreational values are in alignment with the VMP’s criteria for Natural Area. It is part of a large
habitat block and is a high biodiversity area with North Boulder Creek draining into Boulder
Falls. There is currently one designated trail for hiking to view the falls and one climbing access
trail, while the remainder of the property remains closed due to safety concerns and for resource
protection. Given this property’s mix of natural and recreational values, staff is recommending it
be designated as a Natural Area. This property is currently open to the public with on-trail access
only. Staff is recommending this existing access status continue.
Woodley
This approximately 6-acre property is adjacent to other OSMP properties that are Agricultural
Areas, but it is also nearby a patchwork of OSMP properties that are Natural Areas. The intent
when purchasing this property was to help preserve the portion of the Dry Creek riparian corridor
and its associated wetlands on Woodley. The Dry Creek Davidson Ditch also runs across this
Agenda Item 5 Page 5
property and is used by wildlife and two ponds exist west of the ditch. This property includes
pastures in good condition and native vegetation such as needle and thread grass, blue grama,
buffalo grass, side oats grama, golden aster, yucca and more. Given its relatively high natural
resource values, staff is recommending Woodley be designated as a Natural Area. This property
is currently closed, but adjacent OSMP properties are open, therefore, it is recommended that this
property be opened.
Rosenblatt-Ryan
The approximately 49-acre Rosenblatt-Ryan property is adjacent to other OSMP properties that
are Agricultural Areas, but it is also nearby OSMP properties that are Natural Areas. Its
interspersed relatively high natural and agricultural resource values as well as potential
recreational value are in alignment with the VMP’s criteria for Natural Area. Its natural resource
values include two spring fed ponds and riparian areas along and including Dry Creek and the
Dry Creek Davidson Ditch that support a diverse suite of habitats and species. This property has
habitat suitable for the federally threatened Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, the state-threatened
northern leopard frog, and state-threatened and native fishes such as the plains topminnow.
Agricultural values identified on this property are its suitability for irrigated and dryland crops as
well as pasture and it currently has an agricultural lease for grazing and hay production. The
property’s irrigated hayfields may also support nesting populations of bobolinks. Rosenblatt-
Ryan, along with nearby OSMP properties, also has the potential to provide a critical link for a
conceptual east-west trail alignment connecting the city’s Bobolink Trailhead with the city’s
Teller Farm South Open Space property as included on the BVCP Trails Map. This property is
currently closed, but it is recommended to be opened because surrounding OSMP properties with
similar values are open.
Passive Recreation Area Recommendations
Snyder
The approximately 5-acre Snyder property’s interspersed high recreational values and high
quality habitat are in alignment with the VMP’s criteria for Passive Recreation Area and are also
similar to the recreational and natural resource values on adjacent OSMP properties that are
Passive Recreation Areas, therefore, staff is recommending a Passive Recreation Area
designation. The property abuts OSMP’s Eagle Trail and is nearby the Boulder Valley Ranch
Trailhead and trail system. It includes patches of high quality habitat including rare plant habitat
and shale barrens. This property is currently closed, but it is recommended it be opened to public
access to support implementation of North Trail Study Area (TSA) Plan guidance. North TSA
guidance called for provision of a sustainable connection with the Boulder Valley Ranch
Trailhead by replacing undesignated trails through shale barrens and rare plant habitat with one
new designated trail north of Mesa Reservoir. This property has been identified as the best
location to provide this sustainable trail connection in a way that minimizes impacts to resources.
Chambers – Boulder County
This approximately 1-acre property was acquired via a transfer from Boulder County because the
county felt that OSMP would be more suitable to manage this property which is adjacent to
OSMP land. It is bisected by Fourmile Canyon Creek and a majority of it is within the floodway
and 100-year floodplain. Topography and steep slopes in this area somewhat separate this
property from adjacent OSMP properties designated as Passive Recreation Areas. While this
property does not include recreational values that are in alignment with the VMP criteria for
Passive Recreation Area, it is still recommended to be designated as Passive Recreation Area due
to its landscape context. Since this property is within the floodplain, this is not an area where any
additional recreational infrastructure would be considered. The Chambers – Boulder County
property is currently closed to public access, but it is recommended to be opened.
Agenda Item 5 Page 6
Public Service Company
This less than 1-acre property has similar high recreation values as adjacent OSMP properties that
are Passive Recreation Areas. A portion of the Sanitas Spur Trail goes through the west side of
this property connecting with the Mount Sanitas Trail and Sanitas Valley Trails. Given these high
recreational values that are in alignment with the VMP criteria for Passive Recreation Area and
the surrounding landscape context, this property is recommended to be designated as a Passive
Recreation Area. Public Service Company is currently open and is recommended to remain open.
Pospahala
The less than 1-acre Pospahala property has similar high recreation values as adjacent properties
that are owned and managed by the Parks and Recreation Department and is consistent with VMP
criteria for Passive Recreation Area. The property contains part of the Boulder Creek stream bed,
the north bank of Boulder Creek which is a heavily wooded steep slope, and a small portion of
Eben G. Fine Park. The park includes infrastructure such as restrooms, picnic tables, playground
equipment, as well as a portion of the Boulder Creek path which is a paved trail and bikeway. It
has been noted that disposal of this property could be considered if the Parks and Recreation
department were interested in taking over its ownership and management since it is adjacent to
property managed by Parks and Recreation and is already being managed similarly. This property
is currently open and is recommended to remain open.
Buckingham Campground
This approximately 26-acre property is not adjacent to other OSMP properties. It is in a remote
location adjacent to the Arapaho Glacier USFS Trailhead. The Buckingham Campground
property includes OSMP’s Fourth of July Trailhead, picnic areas and campsites. Its recreational
values are consistent with the VMP criteria for Passive Recreation Area, so staff is
recommending a Passive Recreation Area designation. This property is currently open and is
recommended to remain open.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will return to the OSBT with recommendations for the fourth and final group of properties
later this year. Upon completion of bringing the recommendations to the OSBT staff will then bring
the board recommended HCA designations to City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
•Attachment A: Properties with MADs
•Attachment B: Properties without MADs
•Attachment C: Group 2 Properties without MADs
•Attachment D: Group 3 Properties without MADs
•Attachment E: VMP MAD characteristics, goals, and criteria
•Attachment F: Group 3 MAD recommendations
•Attachment G: Group 2 MAD recommendations
•Attachment H: Group 3 Open/Closed recommendations
Agenda Item 5 Page 7
!i !i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i!i
!i
!i !i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i !i
!i
!i
!i!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i!i
!i
!i
BaselineReservoir
Standley Lake
GrossRes
BoulderReservoir
HillcrestRes
MarshallLake
LeggettRes
ValmontLake Res
Gunbarrel /Heatherwood
WestSanitas
Gunbarrel /Heatherwood- PRA
Flatirons/ MountainBackdrop
ElephantButtress
LowerBoulderCreek
WesternMountainParks
Schneider-IRLLC
BoulderValleyRanch
WestMarshallMesa
Outlots
SouthernGrasslands
SouthBoulderCreek
EastBoulderValley
CottonwoodGrove
WesternMountainParks
NorthernTier
LefthandCanyon
Flagstaff /Chautauqua
Outlots
East Beech
Outlots
Wonderland
Outlots
Shanahan
Gunbarrel /Heatherwood- NA
EldoradoMountain
Outlots
Dry Creek
ValmontReservoir
South Mesa
EastMarshallMesa
Northern Tier
EastBoulder
Doudy Draw
Anemone Hill
EastBoulderValley
Diagonal
NorthBoulderValley
CreekConfluence
SanitasValley /Red Rocks
Hodges
NorthernTier
TallgrassPrairie East
JewelMountain
SombreroMarsh
NorthFoothills
User: PhilC2 Date: 9/22/2022 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Planning\Data\MADUpdates\OSMPMADBoardPresentation2022.mxd
0 1 20.5 Miles
OSMP Management Areas
Management Area Designations
Other Public Lands
Trails Managed by OSMP
Non-OSMP Trails
Hiking Trail
Multi-use Trail
All Trail Types µ
Habitat Conservation AreaActive
Inactive
No Public Access
Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Agricultural Area
!i Trailhead
Attachment A: Properties with Management Area Designations
Agenda Item 5 Page 8
Attachment B: Properties without MADs
Agenda Item 5 Page 9
90 Arapahoe
Meyer - Boulder
County
Snyder
Pospahala
96 Arapahoe
Chambers - Boulder County
Public Service
Company
User Name: PhilC2 Path: Y:\ArcPRO\MADUpdates\MADUpdates.aprx
0 2 41 Miles Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Agricultural Area
Management Area Designations
Highway
Arterial Road
OSMP Properties without
Management Area Designations
OSMP Properties without
Management Area Designations¬«119
¬«72
0 2 41 Miles
Buckingham Campground
Inset Map
¬«119
0 2 41 Miles
Boulder Falls Inset Map
Group 2
Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Agricultural Area
Management Area Designations
Highway
Arterial Road
OSMP Properties without
Management Area Designations
OSMP Properties without
Management Area Designations
Attachment C: Group 2 Properties without MADs
Agenda Item 5 Page 10
Boulder Valley
Farm
Woodley
Rosenblatt-Ryan
Weiser
Martinson
User Name: PhilC2 Path: Y:\ArcPRO\MADUpdates\MADUpdates.aprx
0 2 41 Miles Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Agricultural Area
Management Area Designations
Highway
Arterial Road
OSMP Properties without
Management Area Designations
OSMP Properties without
Management Area Designations
Group 3
Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Agricultural Area
Management Area Designations
Highway
Arterial Road
OSMP Properties without
Management Area Designations
OSMP Properties without
Management Area Designations
Attachment D: Group 3 Properties without MADs
Agenda Item 5 Page 11
Attachment E: Visitor Master Plan (VMP) MAD Characteristics, Goals, and Criteria
Passive Recreation Area Designation
Characteristics
•Generally in close proximity to city or county development.•Higher level of visitor use and density of existing trails.•More evidence of human use and impacts.•May include some interspersed patches of high-quality habitat.
Goals
•Provide a high level of public access to destinations and connection through designatedtrails.
•Maintain or improve passive recreational and educational opportunities, while
protecting and preserving natural lands and resources.
•Accommodate high levels of visitor use with appropriate management, trails and
trailheads, and services.•Reduce conflicts among visitor activities.
•Minimize the number of undesignated or "social trails;" eliminate undesignated trails
when they are duplicative or damaging to resources.
Criteria for Inclusion of Management Areas in the Passive Recreation Area
Designation
•Higher level of visitation.
•Trails and trailheads that accommodate high levels of visitor use.•High density of trails.•Offers destinations for a wide range of different passive recreational activities.•Compatibility with adjacent land use (i.e., opportunities to coordinate with neighboring ornearby landowners/managers in providing recreational services).
Natural Area Designation
Characteristics
•Locations can be both close to and remote from development.•Varying levels of visitor use, types of activities, and availability of facilities.•Conditions of natural ecosystems are variable- many areas with ecological systems ingood condition, some with evidence of human use and impacts.•May be in proximity to agricultural production and operations.
Goals
•Accommodate low-impact visitor activities where adequate trails exist or can be
built, and resource impacts can be minimized.
•Provide opportunities for passive recreational and educational activities that require
topographic relief or a natural setting (e.g., hang/paragliding, climbing/bouldering,
nature study, scenic viewing).
Agenda Item 5 Page 12
•Protect the quality of natural and agricultural resources (especially where high value
resources exist).•Eliminate undesignated trails when they are redundant or damaging to resources.
Criteria for Inclusion of Management Areas in the Natural Area Designation •Interspersed recreational and natural values require that management determine theappropriate mix of open space purposes and manage multiple uses accordingly.•Relatively high resource and recreation values.•Compatibility with adjacent land use (i.e., opportunities for coordinating habitatprotection and connections and passive recreational activities/trail linkages).
Agricultural Area Designation
Characteristics •Rural areas in the Boulder Valley.•May be in proximity to areas of either high or low visitor use.•Areas of intensive agricultural production or operation.
Goals
•Maintain the efficiency of agricultural production and operation.•Manage agricultural production and operation to ensure safety for operators and visitorsin the vicinity.•Provide, where appropriate, public access and passive recreational opportunities that haveminimal impacts on agricultural production and operation or other resources.•Manage visitor access in areas of intensive agricultural production or operation to ensurevisitor safety.•Eliminate undesignated trails when they are redundant or damaging to resources.
Criteria for Inclusion of Management Areas in the Agricultural Area Designation •Crop production and irrigated hay fields and grazing areas.•Areas where conflicts with visitors and their pet companions could or do adversely affectthe efficiency of agricultural production and operations or endanger visitor safety.•Compatibility with adjacent land use (i.e., opportunities for coordinating agriculturalprotection and recreational activities/trail linkages).
Note: Areas of concentrated livestock activity (corrals, horse boarding, etc.), privateresidences, machinery storage areas, etc. will be addressed in a separate policy.
Habitat Conservation Area Designation
Characteristics •Tend to be located in more remote areas.•Typically represent the largest blocks of an ecosystem type with few, if any, trails orroads.•Lower level of visitor use; no or few trails and trailheads.•Naturally functioning ecosystems (but may contain areas with evidence of human use andimpacts).
Agenda Item 5 Page 13
Goals •Maintain, enhance, and/or restore naturally functioning ecological systems.•Maintain, enhance, and restore habitat for species of concern identified in the BoulderCounty and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plans.•Provide public access and passive recreational opportunities that foster appreciation andunderstanding of ecological systems and have minimal impacts on native plantcommunities and wildlife habitats or other resources.•Eliminate all undesignated trails, unless they are made part of the designated trails systemor provide specialized access to appropriate low-use destinations.•Where sustainable infrastructure exists, continue to allow public access to appropriatedestinations.
Criteria for Inclusion of Management Areas in the Habitat Conservation Area Designation •Large habitat blocks with a low density of trails, roads, or development.•High potential for restoration of natural ecosystems (including areas with restorationunderway).•Plant communities that are rare or unique on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands.•Habitat for species of concern such as threatened, endangered, rare, and other species.•Areas with high biodiversity such as wetlands and riparian areas (especially un-trailedriparian reaches).•Comparatively lower visitation levels.•Compatibility with adjacent land use (i.e., opportunities for coordinating habitatprotection and connections and recreational activities/trail linkages).
Agenda Item 5 Page 14
&Boulder Valley Farm
&Woodley&Rosenblatt-Ryan
&Weiser
&Martinson&&Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation AreaHabitat Conservation Area
Agricultural Area
Management Area Designations
Highway
Arterial Road
Agricultural Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Proposed Management
Area Designations
Group 3
¯
0 1 20.5 Miles
Attachment F: Group 3 MAD Recommendations
Agenda Item 5 Page 15
&90 Arapahoe&Meyer -
Boulder
County &Snyder
&Pospahala
&96 Arapahoe&Chambers -
Boulder County
&Public Service
Company
User Name: PhilC2 Path: Y:\ArcPRO\MADUpdates\MADUpdates.aprx
Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Agricultural Area
Management Area Designations
Highway
Arterial Road
Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Proposed Management
Area Designations
Group 2
¯
0 1 20.5 Miles
¬«119
¬«72
Buckingham Campground
Inset Map
0 2 41 Miles
¬«119
0 2 41 Miles
Boulder Falls Inset Map
Attachment G: Group 2 MAD Recommendations
Agenda Item 5 Page 16
&Salaman &Boulder Valley Farm
&Woodley&Rosenblatt-Ryan
&Weiser
&Martinson&&User Name: PhilC2 Path: Y:\ArcPRO\MADUpdates\MADUpdates.aprx
Passive Recreation Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Agricultural Area
Management Area Designations
Highway
Arterial RoadProposed Property Closures
Agricultural Area
Natural Area
Habitat Conservation Area
Proposed Management
Area Designations
Group 3¯
0 1 20.5 Miles
Attachment H: Group 3 Open/Closed Recommendations
Agenda Item 5 Page 17
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
AGENDA TITLE
Consideration of a request from Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) for a
permanent utility easement of approximately 0.1 acres to install and maintain a buried natural
gas line within the City of Boulder’s William Arnold Open Space property pursuant to the
disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the City of Boulder Charter.
PRESENTERS
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director
Bethany Collins, Real Estate Sr. Manager
Marc Pedrucci, Sr. Property Agent
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This agenda item is the consideration of a request received by the Open Space and Mountain
Parks Department (OSMP) from HDR, Inc. (HDR) on behalf of Public Service Company of
Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) to approve an ~0.1-acre permanent utility easement for installation
of a segment of an 8” natural gas pipeline within a portion of the City-owned William Arnold
Open Space property shown on Attachment A (OSMP Property). The pipeline would replace a
segment of an existing gas line that has become exposed where it passes under Boulder Creek.
The existing gas line is within the right-of-way (ROW) for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) railroad and close to, and parallel with another 12” gas line. Due to Xcel’s Pipeline
Compliance & Standards spacing requirements for existing and new gas pipelines, there is not
adequate space in the BNSF ROW for the replacement section of the 8” gas line. Therefore, Xcel
Energy is proposing to construct the new gas pipeline segment directly south of the BNSF ROW
on the OSMP Property within a ~42’-wide permanent easement.
Construction of the new 8” gas pipeline will be done by means of horizontal directional boring at
a depth of 30’ to 50’ below grade within the easement alignment shown on Attachments A and
B, and there will be no surface impacts to the OSMP Property. The entry and exit boreholes and
connection points will be within the adjacent private property and BNSF ROW.
The replacement project will also cross the Boulder Community Hospital Conservation Easement
property as well as city’s 48th Street ROW. The easement requests for these properties do not
require OSBT review or approval.
The OSMP Property was acquired by the city as open space in 1977 via donation primarily to
preserve this portion of Boulder Creek and its floodplain and for development of the Boulder
Agenda Item 6 Page 1
Creek Trail which is managed by Parks and Recreation. Authorizing the conveyance of a utility
easement through the OSMP Property must be consistent with Article XII, sections 175(a) and
177 which require an OSBT approval and recommendation to City Council. If recommended and
approved by OSBT and approved by City Council, OSMP staff will work with the City
Attorney’s Office (CAO) and Xcel Energy to draft and execute the utility easement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Open Space Board of Trustees make a motion to approve and
recommend that City Council approve the conveyance of a permanent utility easement of
approximately 0.1 acres to Public Service Company of Colorado (dba Xcel Energy) to install
and maintain a buried natural gas line within the City of Boulder’s William Arnold Open
Space property pursuant to the disposal procedures of Article XII, Section 177 of the City of
Boulder Charter.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
• Economic – If approved, Xcel Energy will bear all costs related to the gas line
replacement and no economic impacts to the city or open space program are anticipated.
• Environmental – The gas line replacement will not have surface impacts to city-owned
land and will mitigate any hazard associated with the existing line currently exposed
within Boulder Creek.
• Social – Approval of this proposed easement ensures Xcel Energy will have the rights
necessary to continue to operate and maintain reliable gas services to City of Boulder
residences and businesses.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal – Xcel Energy has offered to provide compensation in the amount of $2,091 for the
permanent utility easement based on market valuation which will be deposited in the open
space fund for use towards open space acquisition and stewardship needs.
• Staff time – Staff time towards this project is part of the normal 2024 work plan for the
OSMP Real Estate Services workgroup.
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
This item is being heard as part of this public meeting advertised in the Daily Camera on
June 9, 2024. A Notice of Disposal of Open Space Lands was published in the Daily Camera on
May 31 and June 1, 2024 pursuant to Article XII, Section 177 of the Boulder City Charter.
ANALYSIS
OSMP staff has reviewed and supports Xcel Energy’s easement request. The gas line segment
will be installed via boring, with excavation on adjacent, impacted properties and will not impact
the OSMP Property or resources. The replacement section will also mitigate any environmental or
safety hazards that may exist with the aging, exposed existing line in Boulder Creek. City staff
will work to determine if wetland and floodplain permitting are required for the project as well as
whether the existing line will be required to be removed or abandoned in place.
OSMP staff recommends that OSBT approve the request and make a recommendation to City
Council. If approved by City Council, OSMP staff will work with the CAO and Xcel Energy to
draft and execute the utility easement. The easement will also include provisions for reversion
and termination if the infrastructure is abandoned or no longer used.
Agenda Item 6 Page 2
ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment A: Property Map with Gas Line Corridor
• Attachment B: Gas Line Easement Exhibit
Agenda Item 6 Page 3
Cottonwood Grove
BC Hospital CE
Arnold, William
48th StCommerce StPearl East Cir
Boulder CreekUser: cassidyj Date: 5/29/2024 Document Path: E:\MapFiles\Property\Arnold William\Location_NaturalGasPipeline.mxd
Attachment A-Property Map and Gas Line Corridor
I
0 90 180 270 360Feet
Legend
Easement Intersecting William Arnold Open SpaceGas Pipeline Replacement Corridor
Properties Managed by COB Parks and Recreation
OSMP OwnershipOSMP Easement
Trail, Hard SurfaceBoulder Creek PathAgenda Item 6 Page 4
B.N.S.F.RAILROAD
(
1
0
0
'
R
O
W
)
CITY
O
F
B
O
U
L
D
E
R
REC.
N
O.
2
3
9
0
7
2
EXHIBIT B
REC. NO. 2243777
SHEET 2 OF 2EXHIBIT A - CITY OF BOULDER
PARCEL A - PERMANENT EASEMENT
2000 S. Colorado Blvd
Suite 6000
Denver, Colorado 80222
www.sehinc.com
Phone: 303-586-5800
FAX: 303-586-5801
SOUTH 1/4,
SEC. 28
CENTER 1/4,
SEC. 28
SW1/4,
SEC. 28,
T1N, R70W
POINT OF
BEGINNING
PARCEL A
N23°52'32"
E 963.36S 00°09'27" E E. LINE, SW1/4, SEC. 28(BASIS OF BEARINGS)PARCEL A
4,181 S.F.
(0.096 AC) M/L
S 82°46'35" E
139.55
S 51°22'44" W
41.76
N 82°46'35" W
139.55
N 51°22'44" E
41.76
CITY OF BOULDER REC. NO. 813313X:\AE\E\ENENG\169899\9-survey\92-CAD\10-C3d\Valmont_Ground_240213.dwgAttachment B
Agenda Item 6 Page 5
CITY OF BOULDER
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 12, 2024
AGENDA TITLE
Public Hearing and Board consideration of a motion to support continued collaboration with
Boulder County on design alternatives for the North Foothills (US 36) Bikeway
PRESENTER/S
Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director, Central Services
Kacey French, Planning Senior Manager
Marni Ratzel, OSMP Principal Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memo provides an update on the feasibility study to assess the practicality, considerations and
impacts of a bikeway adjacent to North Foothills Highway (US 36) connecting Boulder to Lyons. Open
Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) is requesting board consideration of a motion to support the bikeway
and encourage OSMP’s continued participation for the bikeway project as it proceeds to the next phases
of evaluation and design.
The feasibility study is being led by Boulder County’s Transportation Planning Division in the
Community Planning & Permitting Department (CP&P) with input from OSMP as part of an interagency
Steering Committee that includes representatives from City of Boulder Transportation and Mobility,
Boulder County Parks & Open Space (BCPOS), Town of Lyons and Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT). A final report summarizing the overall findings of the study will be available
later this summer. It identifies a potential alignment along the east side of US 36. City of Boulder/OSMP
owns or has conservation easements on lands adjacent to the conceptual bikeway alignment. Four small
areas totaling about 2 miles need additional analysis and evaluation in a future project phase before a
more detailed preferred design alignment can be identified, two of which are on OSMP lands, which is
estimated to be less than 1 mile of the bikeway (See Attachment A). While an objective is to avoid use of
OSMP lands as much as possible, the study findings suggest that it will be necessary to locate the
bikeway on OSMP land at a few site-specific locations. Additionally, for the section where the bikeway is
located within CDOT right of way adjacent to OSMP land, grading impacts that encroach onto city open
space are anticipated intermittently. A future project phase is planned to look more in-depth and evaluate
detailed design alternatives at locations impacting OSMP land and to inform the selection of a preferred
design alternative (i.e. specific trail alignment).
A Boulder to Lyons regional trail has been identified in several OSMP plans and as such is an important
collaborative effort for the City of Boulder and OSMP. Regional trail initiatives continue to be of
community interest as they contribute to visitor experience, trail connectivity, wellness and improve the
Agenda Item 7 Page 1
quality of life in our community. They also help meet the city’s Climate Commitment goal by reducing
the number of vehicle miles traveled to reach local trails, in turn helping to preserve the ecosystems and
habitats that make up OSMP. The OSMP Master Plan guides staff participation in these collaborative
projects by envisioning a connected network of local and regional trails (outcome RRSE.E), defining a
strategy that encourages multimodal access to trailheads and leverages regional trail partnerships (strategy
RRSE.4 and RRSE.7), and addressing the global climate crisis here and now (EHR. 3).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Open Space Board of Trustees make the following motion:
1) OSBT supports a North Foothills (US 36) bikeway to connect Boulder to Lyons
including the use of city open space for the bikeway at the specific locations of Old
Broadway and Neva Road, and grading impacts onto city open space adjacent to the
bikeway, and
2) OSMP supports the department’s continued collaboration with Boulder County on the
next phase of the project which will include further analysis and design including
exploring ways to reduce OSMP impacts and the selection of a preferred design
alternative (i.e. specific trail alignment)
PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS
Letters to property owners
Boulder County reached out to the landowners directly adjacent to study area through two mailings before
reaching out to the general public. The first mailing was sent July 2023 to 107 property owners on the east
side of US 36. Soon after this mailing went out the project web page was launched. The second mailing
was sent February 2024 to 328 property owners on both sides of US 36. A few emails of support were
received in response and a few questions on how the bikeway would affect private property access to
mailboxes and intersecting roads were received.
Email comments
• A letter of support with 45 signatures from residents of Lake of the Pines, a subdivision located
along US 36
• A few comments expressing concern for how the bikeway will impact intersections and cross
driveways were received.
• Email of support from Second Wind Cycling Club
• 16 support emails in addition to support letters called out above
• One email was received in opposition to the bikeway, and in support of just adding wider
shoulders.
Public meetings
In April, Boulder County hosted two meetings to share information and gather input on the Bikeway
project. On April 16, a virtual public meeting was attended by 65 community members. An in-person
public meeting was held in Lyons on April 30, with 33 attendees including two Town of Lyons elected
officials. Many of the meeting attendees expressed support. A few had concerns about whether the
bikeway would impact motor vehicle drivers along US 36 and at interactions. Community attendees asked
questions about how the bikeway would connect to city and county open space trails such as the Joder,
Agenda Item 7 Page 2
North Sky and Heil trails west of US 36, funding, why the Feeder Canal project was stopped, and where
the ROW was in relation to a landowner’s property.
Online survey
The project web page requested community input through an online questionnaire. Key findings gathered
from responses to the questionnaire are highlighted below:
• 282 respondents (as of May 23, 2024)
• 17% were strong and fearless riders (self-categorized)
• 48% were enthusiastic and confident riders (self-categorized)
• 34% were interested but concerned (self-categorized)
• 2% not able or not interested in cycling (self-categorized)
• Of those that ride on US 36 now 75% would ride the bikeway if it were built
• Of those that do not ride US 36 now 95% would ride the bikeway if it were built
• 18% of respondents live within one mile of US 36/N. Foothills Hwy
• 23% live in Lyons and 32% live in Boulder
Board Updates
The Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) received a written information item in the February 14, 2024
OSBT meeting packet (page 93) on the North Foothills Bikeway Feasibility Study. The City of Boulder
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) also received project updates in February and June of 2024. The
TAB will consider a motion to support continued collaboration with Boulder County on the North
Foothills Bikeway project at their June 10 meeting. In April 2024, the Boulder County Parks & Open
Space Advisory Committee (POSAC) received an update about the bikeway and the planning for the
North Foothills Wildlife Crossing which would be on Boulder County Open Space (BCPOS) lands, and
which is being coordinated with the bikeway project.
ANALYSIS
Purpose and Need
US 36 between Boulder and Lyons is one of the most popular road segments in the county for cycling.
Some reasons for its popularity are the undeveloped scenery and dramatic vistas, most of which are
protected by the City of Boulder and Boulder County open space programs; connections to other good
roads for cycling such as Lefthand Canyon and Neva Road; and access to several city and county trails
through trailheads along or near the road. US 36 also is the location of the most cycling relating crashes in
unincorporated Boulder County with 30% of all severe bicycle and pedestrian crashes (20 of 67) from
2009 to 2018 occurring along this section of the US 36 corridor. Most of these crashes were caused by
motorists leaving the travel lane, driving into the shoulder and crashing into cyclists. Separation of
motorists and cyclists can greatly reduce bike/vehicle crashes. The bikeway would provide that
separation. US 36 between Boulder and Lyons also has the highest rate of significant vehicle crashes
involving wildlife. The project is coordinating with a Wildlife Crossing initiative being led by BCPOS.
The safety and protection of all— motorists, cyclists, and wildlife—is a shared aspiration of both the
bikeway study and the wildlife crossing initiative.
Conceptual Alignment and Feasibility Findings
The bikeway is slated to be 12 feet wide, hard surface and plowed in the winter. Major constraints of
designing the bikeway are the steeply undulating topography, limitations of the existing CDOT right-of-
way (ROW), and environmental resources. Due to these reasons, the alignment focused on the east side of
the highway, as shown in Attachment A. The goal is to design a bikeway that:
• Is within CDOT right-of-way to the greatest extent possible
Agenda Item 7 Page 3
•Consists of a hard surface that is plowed in winter and maintained year-round
•Maximizes separation from US 36 vehicle lanes
•Uses guardrails, barriers and retaining walls when needed for separation when right-of-way is
lacking.
Overall, OSMP staff support the conceptual alignment identified in the feasibility study. By keeping the
bikeway on the east side of the highway and within the ROW for most of the route, its construction and
use will have very minimal impacts to environmental resources and avoid the North Foothills Habitat
Conservation Area west of US 36. In addition to transportation and safety related benefits that align with
goals and missions of other project partners, the bikeway also could provide improved connectivity to city
open space trails as well as offer an alternative connection to complement the existing OSMP trail system
between Boulder and Lyons. A detailed summary of these potential benefits were summarized in the
written update included in the OSBT Feb. 2024 meeting packet (beginning on page 94).
While an objective is to avoid use of OSMP lands as much as possible, the study findings suggest that it
will be necessary to locate the bikeway on city open space at a few site-specific locations. Additionally,
for the section where the bikeway is located within ROW adjacent to OSMP land, grading impacts that
encroach onto city open space are also anticipated intermittently. These are described below.
Use of Open Space for the Bikeway
The study findings suggest that it will be necessary to locate the bikeway on OSMP land at a couple of
site-specific locations. The first is in the vicinity of Old Broadway at the south end of the bikeway
corridor. The conceptual alternatives encroach onto city open space at the intersections where Old
Broadway ties into the US 36. The second location is at the junction of Neva Road (south access road)
where a segment of the bikeway would be located on city open space at a pinch point along the road right
of way. Except for these locations, the feasibility study found that the bikeway can be contained within
ROW.
The specific trail alignments for locating the bikeway on city open space land requires more in-depth
study beyond the scope of the feasibility study. OSMP requires field level assessment to confirm and
refine existing conditions, impacts, mitigation, and cost estimates, and to ensure minimal impacts to
environmental and cultural resources on OSMP land. A future project phase would look more in-depth at
the conceptual alignment, evaluate detailed design alternatives at these locations, and guide the selection
of a preferred design alternative. Consideration of whether disposal of open space land would be required
or desirable will also be determined.
Use of open space adjacent to the bikeway
Grading impacts onto OSMP land are anticipated intermittently adjacent to where the bikeway alignment
would be contained within ROW. It is estimated that, North of Old Broadway, approximately 16% of the
bikeway adjacent to OSMP land would have intermittent grading impacts on open space land. Overall,
OSMP staff supports design options that would require grading onto city open space. An exception would
be for locations within wetland, stream, and drainage areas. The feasibility study findings indicate that the
bikeway and grading can be contained within the ROW in these areas by installing a retaining wall or
barrier as shown in Attachment B. Impacts to wetland buffers on OSMP land can be considered
permissible if mitigated for under the city wetland ordinance, but direct impacts to mapped and/or
delineated streams and wetlands should be minimized to the greatest extent possible by using fill walls or
alternative alignments. While a temporary easement may be needed during construction, it is anticipated
that grading impacts alone would not require disposal of open space land.
Agenda Item 7 Page 4
NEXT STEPS
The feasibility study and accompanying final report are anticipated to be complete and available for
public comment in July and presented to the Boulder County Commissioners on August 13. The final
report will include a Right of Way map, an evaluation of conceptual alignments, summary of public
engagement, conceptual level cost estimates, identification of potential bikeway alignments and next steps
for further analysis and design. Completion of the Feasibility Study positions Boulder County to identify
funding for future design phases and construction, which has not yet been secured. Updates on the
bikeway project will be provided as a future update to the Board as information is available.
ATTACHMENTS:
•Attachment A: North Foothills Bikeway Conceptual Alignment Map
•Attachment B: Percent of bikeway needing walls or barriers
Agenda Item 7 Page 5
Attachment AAgenda Item 7 Page 6
BIKEWAY SECTIONS - SUMMARY
64% of the
Project Length
(7 Miles)
36% of the
Project Length
(4 Miles)
FURTHER FROM ROAD + NO SLOPE = NO STRUCTURES REQUIRED
CLOSE TO ROAD + SLOPE + LIMITED
ROW = RETAINING WALLS FURTHER FROM ROAD + SLOPE= RETAINING
WALLS
Attachment B
Agenda Item 7 Page 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Heather Swanson, Deputy Director of Resource and Stewardship
Adam Gaylord, Recreation Stewardship Supervisor
Lisa Goncalo, Recreation Stewardship Senior Program Manager
Ryan Prioreschi, Wildlife Ecologist
DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Bear Habitat Suitability and Seasonal On-Leash Trail Regulations Evaluation
________________________________________________________________________
The Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff have
been working over the last four years to examine the seasonal leash restrictions that are implemented on
foothills trails to protect bears, dogs and their guardians. During this time, staff have worked to assess
compliance; explore options for better communication with visitors to increase compliance; make minor
modifications to the locations of the regulations to make them easier for visitors to understand (e.g.
moving the start of regulation to a trail intersection); and most recently to evaluate whether the current
regulations still line up with the places that bears can be expected to be feeding during the fall season as
they prepare for hibernation (a critical point in their annual cycle when disturbance can have negative
impacts on health and survival through the winter).
In an effort to use adaptive management principles, staff have been collecting information and data, and
using that new understanding to inform changes in management to better meet the goals of the program
and to set visitors up for success in understanding and following the regulations.
The results of the 2014-2018 Voice and Sight Tag Monitoring Report, presented to OSBT on Oct. 14,
2020, found that while the overall leash and tag compliance rate for Voice and Sight Tag trails was 89%,
annual compliance levels for seasonal leash use ranged from 56% (n=171, 95% CI, 49 to 64) to 62%
(n=209, 95% CI, 56 to 69). Since that time, staff has communicated to the board on its efforts to increase
compliance through the following written updates:
•Sept. 9, 2021: Written information in the board packet detailing actions taken within
existing policy to increase compliance with the seasonal leash regulation.
•March 9, 2022: Written information in the board packet on staff efforts to increase compliance
for seasonal leash through signs, targeted outreach and patrol efforts by Rangers and
Volunteers and direct messaging to dog guardians.
•Aug. 10, 2022: Written information in the board packet on existing policy guidance, how the
landscape has changed over time, and a commitment to assess current bear habitat and
visitor use.
•Aug. 9, 2023: Written information in the board packet detailing initial bear habitat evaluation,
modifications to regulations on the Ski Jump, Meadow and Bluebell Baird trail to better align
with bear habitat and trail intersections and identifications of next steps to occur in 2023-
2024.
This memo will provide a summary of the detailed bear habitat evaluation that was conducted in the Fall
of 2023 from Baseline Road to South Mesa, some planned changes for 2024 implementation and
anticipated next steps.
Agenda Item 8A Page 1
Background:
To protect bears, dogs, and dog guardians in areas where there is believed to be a higher probability of
encountering bears, OSMP enacts seasonal leash requirements through City Manager Rule 8-3-3.C (22).
The on-leash requirement locations are shown on the map in Attachment A. This requirement goes into
effect every year from August 15 to November 1 at five locations:
1.Portions of the Gregory Canyon Trail and Ski Jump/Meadow/Bluebell Baird Trails
2.Saddle Rock Trail
3.Amphitheater Trails
4.Skunk Canyon up to the Mesa Trail
5.The Doudy Draw Trail above the Community Ditch intersection
The seasonal leash requirement is timed to coincide with the period of the year when bears are most
active. This is when bears are spending a large proportion of their time foraging to reach sufficient weight
to enter hibernation and successfully survive the winter. Repeated disturbance of feeding bears can lead
to decreased over-winter success or can push bears to seek other food sources (potentially within city
limits). Staff consider reductions in potential bear-dog interactions to be beneficial to bear populations. In
addition, interactions between visitors or dogs with bears can be stressful or dangerous for both bears
and the visitors and their dogs.
Operational Evaluation:
The trail locations and duration for the temporary leash restriction pre-dated the Visitor Master Plan
(VMP) that was adopted in 2005. The VMP and the West Trail Study Area Plan (WTSA) in 2011 both
formally adopted these restrictions. Since that time, the OSMP system has changed through natural
events like the 2013 flood event, several wildfires (Flagstaff Fire, NCAR fire), and through designed trail
improvements and re-alignments. It is important that a leash restriction for the protection of bears,
accurately reflects the existing conditions on the ground, 12 years since it was re-affirmed in the WTSA.
To help understand the current state of drainages that provide high quality habitat for bears, wildlife
ecology staff completed detailed field assessment of fall bear habitat in foothills drainages on OSMP
between Baseline Road and South Mesa Trailhead. This assessment provides data on low/medium/high
fall bear foraging habitat quality that informed staff plans for any modifications to the seasonal leash
program.
The overall framework for the program was created by Mountain Parks staff in the late 1990s, and re-
affirmed by both the Visitor Master Plan and West TSA Plan in processes that can be considered “big
wheel” adaptive management (details of OSMP approach to Adaptive management can be found in the
board packet dated March 8, 2023). These processes included extensive evaluation of the overall
program and regulatory framework and included robust public and decision-maker engagement. Current
evaluations are focused on specific elements within this overall framework, and modifications necessary
to ensure that the program remains responsive to changing conditions on the land. These ongoing “little
wheel” evaluations and modifications provide the opportunity to work within the larger regulatory
framework created to ensure the program continues to meet the goals of protecting foraging bears, dogs
and their guardians while being responsive to changing conditions through time. This example of “small
wheel” adaptive management includes a repeating cycle of data gathering and analysis, and
communications with OSBT/community around resulting implementation modifications and then additional
data gathering as conditions change, or new information becomes available. These “small wheel”
modifications do not include substantial changes to the overall regulatory framework or management
approach, which would fit within the category of “big wheel” adaptive management.
Bear Seasonality and Habitat Data Collection:
Following work related to compliance and public communication, staff began to examine the spatial and
temporal extent of the regulations to determine if these were appropriate for current conditions on OSMP
properties.
Agenda Item 8A Page 2
Timing of Regulations: To examine timing of the regulations, currently August 15- November 1, OSMP
looked at a variety of data sources including observations of fruiting shrub phenology, remote camera
photographs, information collected on bear encounters and conflicts within the urban areas of Boulder,
ranger reports of bear encounters and conflicts, and discussions with Colorado Parks and Wildlife officers
and biologists related to seasonality of bear activity in the Boulder area.
Habitat Assessment: In the fall of 2023 wildlife ecology staff from OSMP established a protocol to assess
bear fall forage habitat. The data was collected to assess bear fall forage habitat and did not assess if the
habitat would be used by or may be important for bears at other times of the year. Staff selected
drainages for data collection to include all areas with trails that have seasonal leash requirements or
voice-and-sight regulations that were adjacent to areas that contained vegetation that could support some
level of bear use during fall foraging. This included 12 drainages between Flagstaff Road and Eldorado
Springs Drive. Staff was able to complete data collection on all but one of the drainages (Bear Canyon)
before weather and leaf drop ended the data collection window for the year.
In teams of two, wildlife ecology staff assessed 8 overall drainage characteristics including 4
characteristics that were used to determine fall forage habitat quality. Characteristic measurements were
taken every 200 meters along a drainage, and they included: width of riparian corridor, total canopy
cover, total percent of woody mast-bearing fruiting shrub and tree species, and percentages of each
species- categorized as either high value mast-bearing species (e.g. American Plum, chokecherry), or
lower value mast-bearing species (e.g. Oregan Grape, Three-leaf Sumac).
Once field data was collected, wildlife staff assigned scores to each measurement from 0-3 based on
quartiles of the data distribution. Staff included weighting of data associated with shrub species, with
percentage of high-quality shrubs weighted 3x higher than lower quality shrubs. Once scores were
combined for each of the four characteristics measured, staff again divided the data distribution into
quartiles to assign an overall score to each point from 0-3. These scores correspond to non-bear
foraging habitat (0), low-quality bear foraging habitat (1), medium-quality bear foraging habitat (2) and
high-quality bear foraging habitat (3).
Between data collection points, qualitative data was collected to determine if the habitat up-stream and
downstream from each point was similar to the point location. This allowed staff to extrapolate from the
point data to provide linear sections of habitat with the same quality rating. The data was then displayed
spatially (Attachment B) and overlayed with current trail alignments and current extent of seasonal on-
leash restrictions. This allowed staff to evaluate how well current regulations align with current habitat
conditions in OSMP foothills drainages.
Bear Activity Results/Conclusions:
Based on information related to shrub fruiting season and bear life-cycle, staff concluded that August 15
accurately reflects the time that bears begin to intensify their foraging activity to begin developing fat
stores for survival during winter hibernation. However, information from remote cameras, ranger and staff
observations, encounter and conflict data and CPW staff knowledge and observations suggest that bear
activity and foraging regularly continues through November and in some years, into December. The time
at which a bear enters hibernation is impacted by a variety of factors including food availability, reaching
appropriate hibernation weight, and weather. As a result, there is variability between individuals and in
different years. While some bears remain active into December, most bear activity in and near Boulder
has declined or ceased by the end of November.
Bear Habitat Quality Results/Conclusions:
Based on the detailed assessment of habitat described above, OSMP staff identified 46 distinct segments
of habitat adjacent to trails in 11 drainages totaling 8.20 miles. The habitat scores for these segments
were as follows:
Agenda Item 8A Page 3
Habitat Ranking Number of Drainage
Segments with this
ranking
Number of Assessed
Drainages containing
habitat with this
ranking
Total length (miles) of
habitat within assessed
drainages with this
ranking
0 (Non-fall bear foraging
Habitat)
10 6 1.30
1 (Low quality fall bear
foraging Habitat)
14 8 2.12
2 (Medium quality fall
bear foraging habitat)
14 8 1.95
3 (High quality fall bear
foraging habitat)
8 5 2.83
Staff found that in many cases, the current seasonal on-leash restrictions lined up well with habitat
conditions, with seasonal on-leash requirements in place along stretches of high and medium quality fall
bear foraging habitat, and no regulations in areas of low quality or non-fall foraging habitat.
Trails where this consistency was found include:
-Gregory Canyon Trail above Crown Rock intersection
-Ski Jump/Meadow/Bluebell Baird Trails (modifications were made in 2023- see above)
-Skunk Canyon
-Doudy Draw Trail above Spring Brook Loop intersection
A few notable exceptions were found, however, these include:
-Gregory Canyon lower section- seasonal on leash requirements overlap with low quality/non-
foraging habitat that exists between patches of higher quality habitat
-Amphitheater/ Saddle Rock Trails- seasonal on-leash requirements overlap with high/medium
quality habitat along the lower portions of the trail, but overlap low/non-foraging habitat as the trail
climbs steeply away from the drainage
-Mesa Trail where it crosses the Bluebell drainage near the terminus of the Bluebell Road
-Bear Canyon Trail- the Bear Canyon Trail transitions from on-leash restrictions on the lower
sections on NCAR property (Federal regulations) to voice-and-sight once the trail lies on OSMP
property. The trail remains close to the drainage for quite a distance beyond this with habitat that
staff believe to be high quality bear fall foraging habitat. Quantitative data was not collected in
2023 due to seasonality and staff capacity and as a result, evaluation of the situation on this trail
was not possible at the level that was completed for the others.
-Upper Big Bluestem Trail- seasonal on-leash requirements were not in place despite consistently
high/medium quality habitat throughout the drainage adjacent to the trail
-Shadow Canyon South- seasonal on-leash requirements were not in place despite consistently
high/medium quality habitat throughout the drainage adjacent to the trail
-Doudy Draw Trail- seasonal on-leash requirements overlap low/non-foraging habitat on the lower
sections between Community Ditch trail intersection and the Spring Brook Loop Trail.
Planned Continuation and Changes in Seasonal On-Leash Requirements to Protect Bears:
Based on the data collected and analysis presented above, staff examined each area where regulations
were not consistent with bear activity and habitat conditions and have developed the following
modifications planned for implementation in 2024:
Regulation Timing:
Based on the information available related to timing of bear activity, staff plan to extend the end date for
seasonal on-leash restrictions to better capture the full fall activity time for most bears. December 1 will
be the new end date for seasonal on-leash restrictions beginning in 2024. This change is supported by
Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the City of Boulder’s Urban Wildlife Coordinator.
Agenda Item 8A Page 4
Location/Spatial Extent of Regulations:
For the trails where habitat and regulations are consistent throughout the extent of seasonal on-leash
restrictions, staff plan to continue with implementation of the seasonal on-leash restrictions as they have
been in the past, with the exception of the timing changes detailed above. These trails include:
-Ski Jump/Meadow/Bluebell Baird
-Skunk Canyon
Staff determined that despite mis-alignment between habitat conditions and habitat quality, no changes to
seasonal on-leash requirements were warranted in the following areas at this time:
-Gregory Canyon below Crown Rock intersection- extent of regulation mis-alignment with habitat
conditions is very short (<0.2 miles) and high/medium quality habitat exists above and below this
section of trail making bear movement through this short section likely.
-Amphitheater/ Saddle Rock trails- although the upper sections of these two trails that form a loop
gain elevation and climb out of the high/medium quality bear fall foraging habitat, no clear location
exists to implement a change in regulations that will be easily understood by visitors or enforced
by rangers. This provides the option of maintaining the regulations on the full loop, or removing
the regulations for the full loop. Due to the adjacent drainages being an area that rangers
observe more bear use than anywhere else on the system, staff determined that seasonal on-
leash restrictions will be retained on the full loop.
-Mesa Trail where it crosses the Bluebell Drainage near the terminus of the Bluebell Road- despite
the high- quality habitat and high use in this area, the trail remains in the drainage for only a short
distance as it descends from Bluebell Road, crosses the drainage, and then climbs steeply up to
Enchanted Mesa. A seasonal on-leash restriction that lines up with the habitat conditions would
need to begin and end mid-way through the segment of trail and result in a regulatory situation
that would be difficult for visitors to understand and for rangers to enforce. In addition, concerns
over social trailing within the drainage suggest that modifications designed to address not only
potential disturbance of bears from off-leash dogs, but also off-trail use by a variety of users is
warranted. As a result, staff are evaluating the potential for use of fencing and/or signage in this
area to encourage visitors and dogs to remain on trail and out of the bear habitat and riparian
drainage.
-Bear Canyon- due to lack of quantitative data collection in Bear Canyon in 2023, staff are not
planning any changes to this trail in 2024. Data will be collected on this drainage in 2024
followed by a similar evaluation of the habitat data and current regulations in 2025.
-Upper Big Bluestem- Year-round dog management and regulations on Upper Big Bluestem are
amongst the most complicated on the OSMP system. During the West TSA, the regulations were
changed from voice and sight with a seasonal leash requirement from August 15 to November 1,
to dogs on leash Saturdays and Sundays with voice and sight regulations the other days. The
West TSA also called for the Upper Big Bluestem Trail to be re-routed higher up the slope and
out of the riparian area, and elimination of the seasonal on-leash restrictions following the re-
route. The trail re-route was completed, moving the trail further from the drainage, though due to
terrain and requirements for sustainable trail design, it still lies in close proximity to the riparian
area in several sections. Due to the current complexity of regulations and plan guidance from the
West TSA on removing the seasonal leash restriction, staff are not planning to re-institute the
seasonal leash regulations on this trail at this time despite the existence of high quality bear
foraging habitat in this area. However, as discussed in next steps, due to the complexity of
regulations on this section of trail, staff intend to evaluate the regulations further to determine the
best approach to protect natural resources while providing clear, understandable, consistent
regulations for a high-quality visitor experience.
Planned Modifications of Seasonal On-Leash Requirements in 2024:
Based on the habitat data collected and current extent of seasonal on-leash regulations, staff determined
that modifications to the regulations on the following trails were warranted based on the assessment
described above:
Agenda Item 8A Page 5
-Shadow Canyon South- Due to extensive segments of high/medium quality bear foraging habitat
along this trail, staff determined that adding a seasonal on-leash requirement from August 15-
December 1 was warranted. The Shadow Canyon South Trail deviates from the Shadow Canyon
trail at its base, and then rejoins the trail at the top (near Stockton Cabin). The Shadow Canyon
Trail will continue to provide a voice-and-sight opportunity along it’s full length for those visitors
that desire an uninterrupted voice-and-sight opportunity in this same area. To ensure the most
easily understood, communicated and enforceable regulations, staff will implement a seasonal
on-leash regulation for the length of the Shadow Canyon South Trail (approximately 0.9 miles).
The location and extent of this is depicted in Attachment C.
-Doudy Draw- Based on the habitat evaluation, the section of Doudy Draw from Community Ditch
Trail to Springbrook Loop Trail that currently includes a seasonal on-leash regulation overlaps
with low quality and largely non-bear foraging habitat. As a result, staff plan to move the initiation
of the seasonal on-leash regulation up to the Spring Brook Loop Intersection, resulting in a
reduction in the length of seasonal on-leash regulations on this trail by approximately (0.7 miles,
or 41%) (Attachment C).
Based on the above planned modifications, the changes will result in very minor shifts in the on-leash vs.
voice-and-sight opportunities on OSMP. During the 3.5 months that the leash regulations are in place,
0.7 miles of on-leash regulations will be removed, and 0.9 miles of on-leash regulations will be added,
resulting in a net addition of 0.2 trail miles covered by seasonal on-leash regulations (less than 0.2% of
the total trail miles open to dog use on OSMP).
Anticipated Next Steps:
Implementation of changes to seasonal on-leash requirements in 2024:
Following the conversation with OSBT on June 12, staff will finalize plans for changes to implementation
of the seasonal on-leash regulations for 2024. These changes will be communicated to the public using
focused outreach to stakeholders, social media, press release, postings on the OSMP website, and
signage on the effected trails. Staff will also work to update the interactive online trail maps and signs to
include these changes.
Further Evaluation of Trails and regulations:
Staff will complete habitat evaluation on the Bear Canyon Trail in the fall of 2024 to collect information
similar to that collected on the other drainages in 2023 (Attachment D). This data will inform evaluation
of the current regulations on Bear Canyon Trail to determine if any changes are warranted in the future.
Staff will also work to assess the complicated regulations on the Upper Big Bluestem trail to identify
changes that will lead to consistency and clarity in regulations, support for visitors and dogs accessing the
area, and protection of sensitive natural resources (Attachment D). Rangers, recreation stewardship and
ecological stewardship staff will be involved in this evaluation process and any resulting
recommendations.
Attachments:
•Attachment A: Current Seasonal Leash Requirements for Dogs in Bear Fall Forage Habitat
•Attachment B: Map of Fall Bear Foraging Habitat Quality
•Attachment C: Map of Planned Seasonal On-Leash Modifications for 2024
•Attachment D: Map of Trails to be further evaluated in next steps
Agenda Item 8A Page 6
Attachment A: Current Seasonal Leash Requirements for Dogs in Bear Fall Forage Habitat
Agenda Item 8A Page 7
Attachment B: Map of Fall Bear Foraging Habitat Quality
Agenda Item 8A Page 8
Attachment C: Map of Planned Seasonal On-Leash Modifications for 2024
Agenda Item 8A Page 9
Attachment D: Map of Trails to be further evaluated in next steps
Agenda Item 8A Page 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Services
Jeff Haley, Deputy Director of Visitor Experience & Infrastructure
Samantha McQueen, Business Services Senior Manager
Cole Moffatt, Senior Accountant
DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Update on Draft 2025-2030 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) & 2025 Operating
Budget
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
The purpose of this item is to provide the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) with an overview of the
operating budget development process, and to share an update on OSMP’s 2025-2030 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), particularly future year projects.
OSMP staff are proposing a revised schedule to review and discuss 2025 CIP and operating budget
information with OSBT. Because OSMP staff continues to work with the Finance Department to refine
cost estimates and expected revenues for 2025, and more detailed budget information is still expected to
be forthcoming ahead of the July business meeting, staff is adding a budget touch point with OSBT in
August. This additional August touch will allow the OSBT more time to review detailed 2025 budget
impacts and to more effectively deliberate. The updated schedule proposes moving the public hearing and
OSBT’s recommendation on the budget from July to August. The proposed series of budget agenda items
for the OSBT is as follows:
•In January, OSMP staff presented and discussed with the OSBT strategic, high-level budget
guidance.
•In April, staff provided a written update to introduce OSMP’s draft 2025 work plan and budget.
•In May, staff presented the draft CIP budget and some related operating budget details for
discussion.
•This month, staff are presenting information on the operating budget and updates to the CIP
budget.
•In July, staff will share detailed 2025 operating budget information, including a fund financial to
itemize revenues, expenditures, and reserves for the Open Space Fund, and any updates to the
CIP budget. City Finance staff are also expected to attend.
•In August, the OSBT will hold a public hearing and make recommendations on the CIP and
operating budget for the Planning Board and City Council.
This memo will share a share a list of the department’s upcoming projects, an update on expected
financial conditions to inform 2025 budget planning, provide background information on the operating
budget development process, and explain how operating budget expenditures support core service
activities.
Update on 2025 Budget Planning
At the May OSBT meeting, board members requested staff to provide a variety of information
specifically related to bike racks and bike parking options at trailheads and access points across the
OSMP system with an overall intention to provide better access to OSMP for alternative means of
Agenda Item 8B Page 1
transportation. This intention ties directly with several OSMP Master Plan themes as well as the recent
citywide Strategic Plan goal for improving multi-modal access to OSMP trails and trailheads. Bike racks
are one of the various amenities that are provided to visitors at all the formal trailheads and access points
with the intention of providing a transportation option to access OSMP areas as well as simply locking up
your bike while spending time at the trailhead.
Inventory and Condition
Among the approximately 111 formal trailheads and access points across OSMP, there are approximately
50 locations that have bike racks. The bike racks are typically found on all formal trailheads and are now
called for as part of the current design standards. However, access points are different from trailheads in
many ways and are more informal. Therefore, until recently bike racks weren’t specifically included in
OSMP’s design standards, but increasingly they have been placed at access points throughout the system
due to demand. The graphic below shows the various bike rack locations across the system.
Data Collection Related to Bike Racks
To better inform the conversation and future planning, staff are collecting data on bike rack utilization at
most formal trailheads and select access points during 2024 to inform future direction. Staff will
systematically visit locations from June through October on weekdays and weekends and morning, mid-
day, and evening time periods to record several variables associated with bike parking including the
Agenda Item 8B Page 2
number attached to the rack, if the rack is at capacity, and whether bikes are parked in the vicinity but not
attached to a rack.
Staff also have data from onsite Public Opinion and Visitor Experience surveys (POVES 2021-2023) and
found that most (86%) people who bike to the access point continue to bike on the trail (likely are not
using the bike racks). 14% of the people who do another activity likely use a bike rack, and responses
were well spread out across OSMP locations, with some concentrations in the Chautauqua, Sanitas, and
Wonderland Lake areas. From previous onsite survey data (2016-2017), respondents were asked to rate
the importance and quality of bike racks if they used them. 84% rated them as “moderately” or “very”
important, and 71% rated at “good” or “very good” quality. (This question was asked again 2021-2023
but the response rate was too small.) From a resident survey conducted as part of the master plan,
respondents were asked to indicate things that kept them from visiting OSMP areas more often. 9%
marked “Not easy to get there by bus, bike or walking”.
Biking and Climate Goals
In a recent consultant study aimed at understanding GHG emissions and strategies to reduce the OSMP
footprint, a variety of options were explored including increased bike parking. The strategy to increase
bicycle parking at trailheads intends to encourage and accommodate visitors who bicycle to the trailhead
but wish to engage in a different activity at the trailhead. By the defined cost ranges, this strategy is low
cost at a few hundred dollars per rack. Increasing bike parking at trailheads should lead to trail users
taking their bikes to the trailhead instead of their single-occupant vehicle, which reduces greenhouse gas
emissions. Emissions reduction relies heavily on adoption of that behavior change. Broadly, local visitors
are about twice as likely as visitors from outside of Boulder County to bike to OSMP trailheads. 10% of
local visitors report biking to trailheads, suggesting Boulder County already has an existing culture of
biking to trailheads and that visitors may be likely to adopt the strategy. Trailheads already have,
according to the OSMP survey, a significant percentage of visitors that use active transportation to travel
to the trailhead, indicating that Boulder is building on an existing norm and the presence of more bicycle
racks may serve as a reminder to visitors that they can bike next time they wish to visit.
Bike Rack CIP Proposal for 2025
The current approach to bike racks is that staff use existing operating funds to update bike racks as staff
have capacity, and update through annual redesign and renovation projects such as the upcoming
Marhsall Mesa Trailhead, Chapman Trailhead and Sawhill Ponds Trailhead. However, staff are only able
to update a handful of locations each year outside of Trailhead redesigns due to the workplan being very
full, and the time-consuming nature of installation.
Staff are recommending a more phased and strategic approach that would continue the current approach
but to also enhance our work through the request of $50K in the 2025 CIP to target high priority locations
that need additional racks as well as replace outdated, substandard racks with the new standards. This
would allow for approximately 25 high-priority locations throughout the system such as the Sanitas area,
Shannahan, Chautauqua, Wonderland, Bear Canyon and neighborhood access points around south
Boulder. The standard to be installed is the inverted U style rack mounted into a concrete pad. With this
proposal, the overall 2025 Trailhead Enhancement and Renovation project will be reduced by $50K to
allow for the separate and distinct bike rack improvement project to be tracked and completed with
transparency to the community. This will result in the overall Trailhead Enhancement and Renovation
project to be $1.35M. Finally, another alternative option is to reallocate existing 2023 CIP funds that have
been carried into 2024 and expedite the bike rack work. This would result in no changes to the current
2025 proposed CIP and allow for the work to begin as soon as possible this year in 2024. At the regular
business meeting, staff will be prepared to discuss with the trustees about questions and options that exist.
Agenda Item 8B Page 3
Draft 2025-2030 CIP Projects
Draft 2025 CIP projects and the department’s work planning process were shared during the May OSBT
meeting and are included in Attachment A for reference. As part of OSMP’s work planning process and
aligned with the city’s six-year fund financial horizon, project managers and department leaders assign
budget and staffing resources to projects over a six-year timeline. The OSBT recommends and City
Council approves OSMP’s budget on a one-year basis, and out-year capital project projections are refined
annually based on revenue projections, project readiness, and other factors. To plan for future annual
budget cycles, the department identifies multiyear and upcoming projects to align priorities with staffing
and funding in the near and out years. This process also provides a clear roadmap for the department,
which can be adjusted as economic conditions change.
At the fall 2023 OSBT retreat, the OSBT expressed interest in seeing projected out-year capital projects
to inform feedback on the budget process and to provide information that may support priority-setting
during the next board retreat in 2024. Table 1 lists the 2025 projects that were included in the May OSBT
memo, whether they are expected to continue in future years, and identifies new projects that may be put
forward for funding in future years based on current review and prioritization of projects that OSMP
project managers have requested. Some projects are listed for potential funding each year as they include
annual CIP activities, like the Facility Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and Enhancements project. Other
projects are phased over a shorter period with expectations for planning, design, and construction
activities. North Trail Study Area Implementation: Wonderland Lake is an example of a project that is
phased from 2025 through 2027 to include planning, design, and construction actions. This project would
then be considered completed.
Last month, OSMP informed the OSBT that revenue and expenditure projections for 2025-2030 were
shifting, including a flattening of sales tax revenues and an increase in the cost of doing business (e.g.
inflationary pressures, implementation of Living Wage, cost allocation, and the cost of other services
provided by city service departments like technology and fleet repair and replacement). More information
on operating budget development is included below and we have added an August business meeting to
allow more time for operating budget discussion as we continue to refine budget targets, but it is worth
noting that OSMP has preemptively adjusted CIP projections as one part of our overall financial
management approach. The draft 2025 CIP as reflected in this packet and the May memo is $330,000 less
than originally planned, and several projects were deferred to ensure adequate funding in the Open Space
Fund to support the highest priority 2025 projects. Similarly, OSMP has reviewed out-year capital
budgets and has reduced the 2026 CIP estimate by $1,000,000 as compared with what is shown in the
approved 2024 fund financial. CIP budget projections for 2027 through 2030 have not changed from what
was presented last year as the department wants to ensure adequate CIP funding to address capital
maintenance needs on the land system. OSMP continues to prioritize projects based on citywide and
department goals and alignment with the Master Plan and other approved department plans. Adjustments
to the CIP are part of a balanced, phased overall approach, and OSMP continues to work to minimize
impacts to service delivery in a fiscally constrained environment. In any budget development process,
updated revenue projections that either increase or decrease available funds may cause the department to
add or defer projects. OSMP is confident that the CIP projects for 2025 as reflected in this memo and
attachments address priorities on the land system.
In previous fiscally constrained budget cycles, OSMP has provided the OSBT with an unfunded projects
list for awareness and to illustrate the department’s approach to prioritization. Related, during the fall
2023 retreat the OSBT asked for more detailed information around what we are “saying no to” to support
board feedback around budget priorities. Attachment B provides examples of unfunded and reduced
capital projects in this budget development cycle, and while this list is not exhaustive it conveys which
projects may be funded next as additional revenues become available and/or may show up in capital
planning beyond the current six-year horizon.
Agenda Item 8B Page 4
A current six-year capital look is provided below. This list in Table 1 is subject to change as OSMP
works with the Finance Department to understand revenue forecasts and increasing costs. Estimated costs
for each project will be refined for projects proposed to take place in 2026 through 2030. Anticipated
projects are listed in alphabetical order. As the list continues to be refined over time, OSMP will ensure
alignment with the CIP investment guidance by focus area as outlined in the Master Plan and highlighted
during the annual budget memos for OSBT.
Table 1: List of Anticipated 2025-2030 CIP Projects
Anticipated Funding Year(s)
Anticipated Project Title
2025
$6.8M
2026
$6.0M
2027
$5.5M
2028
$5.0M
2029
$5.0M
2030
$5.0M
Bluebell Road Repairs x
Boulder Valley Ranch Trailhead Redesign x
Chautauqua Site Plan Implementation: Ranger
Cottage, Restroom, Trailhead Parking x x x
Coyote Trailhead Schematic Design, Road, and
Highway Improvements x
Design Fish Passage at New Dry Creek Carrier on
South Boulder Creek x
Development of a Food Forest on an Open Space
Location x x x x x x
Facility Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and
Enhancements x x x x x x
Fencing Infrastructure Installation, Maintenance, and
Removal x
Flagstaff Site Plan Implementation x x x
Foothills South Trail Re-route x
Fort Chambers/Poor Farm Site Management Plan
Implementation x x x x
High Quality Trail Network and Reducing Trail
Maintenance Backlog x x x x x x
Irrigation Infrastructure Improvements and
Maintenance x x x x x x
Livestock Corrals Installation on Leased Properties x x x
Local Food Farm Sites Improvements x x x x x x
Mount Sanitas Trail Improvement Project x
North Trail Study Area Implementation: Wonderland
Lake x x x
OSMP Climate Plan Implementation x x x x x x
OSMP Staff Work and Operations Space Strategic
Plan Implementation x
Repair or Reroute Lower Bluestem Trail x
Restoration of Irrigated Agricultural Fields with
Prairie Dog Conflict x x x x x x
Restoration of Vegetation, Riparian Habitats, and
Wetlands x x x x x x
Soil Health Improvement Projects x x x x x x
South Boulder Creek Instream Flow Initiative x
Stockwater Planning for Drought Resilience and
Support of Diversified Agriculture x x x x x x
Trailhead Improvement Projects to Support
Accessibility, Visitor Experience and Responsible
Recreation x x x x x x
Agenda Item 8B Page 5
Anticipated Funding Year(s)
Anticipated Project Title
2025
$6.8M
2026
$6.0M
2027
$5.5M
2028
$5.0M
2029
$5.0M
2030
$5.0M
Visitor Communication and Education
Enhancements x
Wildfire Resilient Landscapes: Fuels Mitigation x x x x x x
OSMP staff will continue to update the OSBT on proposed CIP projects during the 2026 through 2030
budget planning processes.
2025 Operating Budget Development Process
The draft 2025 OSMP operating budget allocates core service activities supporting the important ongoing
work required to protect, maintain, and support the open space system. Projects and programs supported
through OSMP’s operating budget and are a part of the department’s core mission include, but are not
limited to: ecosystem monitoring, maintenance, and restoration; climate resilience, including wildfire
resilience; agricultural lands and water resources management; cultural resources management; safety and
enforcement; ongoing strategic property acquisitions; conservation easement compliance and other real
estate-related activities; day-to-day maintenance of trails, trailheads and signage; routine facilities and
fleet management and maintenance; strategic and resource planning; community engagement, volunteer
coordination, and visitor outreach, education, and events; human dimensions research and monitoring;
media services, web-based information, and social media management; permitting and fees management;
administrative, financial, and technical support for the department; personnel management; support for
the OSBT; etc. Some core services of any municipal department often can be invisible to its customers yet
are important to manage and maintain the valuable assets supported by the local community.
While the department is making efforts to strategically align the CIP and operating budget processes and
timing, the citywide process to develop the annual operating budget differs from the process to develop
the CIP in a few key ways. The CIP supports discrete projects that cost a minimum of $50,000 and meet
city definitions of capital maintenance, enhancement, planning, and acquisition. The operating budget
supports recurring or ongoing core service projects and programs, as well as the staffing and other
resources needed to carry out the day-to-day work of the department. Unlike the CIP, the next year
operating budget is developed from a current year “base budget.” During the operating budget
development process, it is generally assumed that base budget will continue to be funded, except during
budget reduction cycles.
Any “increase to base” necessitates submission of a budget request to the city’s internal Executive Budget
Team (EBT). EBT is comprised of representatives from the City Manager’s Office, the Finance
Department, and a rotating subset of department directors who ensure a consistent city budget approach
and responsible fund stewardship. The group is tasked with reviewing operating and CIP budgets for
potential budget issues, citywide policy issues, opportunities to address city priorities and for coordination
across the city, or major conflicts that City Council should be aware of during the budget development
process. If a department’s budget requests (“increases to base”) are approved by EBT, they become part
of the City Manager’s Recommended Budget, which is reviewed by City Council in the fall. The OSBT
review of the CIP and operating budget is concurrent with EBT review.
OSMP considers economic conditions when planning for any increases to base. The Open Space Fund
builds in a six-year forecast of revenue and expenditures, which informs short-term budget requests. The
following section details current economic conditions and base cost changes to inform 2025 budget
planning.
Agenda Item 8B Page 6
Update on Financial Forecast
2024-2030 Revenue Update
At the May 9 City Council Study Session, the Finance Department presented an overview of local and
national economic conditions, the city’s financial outlook, and implications for 2025 budget development
tax categories. The May 9 financial update study session materials are included in Attachment C. The
city’s December 2023 year-end revenue report provides information and analysis of 2023 revenue. Sales
and use tax categories represented 93% of the Open Space Fund’s overall revenue in 2023 and is the
focus of most of the department’s attention when reviewing revenue reports. Across all funds, sales tax
revenue in 2023 increased by 3.8% when compared year-to-date from December 2022. This is a notable
change from the 11.6% percent increase seen in the same tax categories from December 2021 to
December 2022. It indicates slower revenue growth compared to sales and use tax revenues collected in
the previous year. Some use taxes, including business use, saw a decrease from 2022 to 2023, moderating
some of the gains from other categories. Other use taxes, including construction use, increased over the
previous year. Revenues from use taxes are highly variable and see large increases or decreases year-
over-year.
In the update to council, the Finance Department also presented an update on economic conditions and
revenue forecasts. The city contracts with the University of Colorado Business Research Division to
develop six-year sales and use tax projections. These projections inform the budgeting approach for the
Open Space Fund. In reviewing these projections, the Finance Department recommends scenarios that
take a cautious budgeting approach balanced with realistic projections.
OSMP has received updated 2024-2030 sales and use tax revenue projections from the Finance
Department. Beginning in 2023, the city’s sales and use tax projections forecasted an economic
slowdown, and year-end numbers demonstrated the expected slower growth in revenues. The sales and
use tax projections provided to the OSBT in June 2023 accounted for an economic slowdown, and
updated projections now factor in even fewer increase year-over-year. The new 2024-2030 sales and use
tax projections presented in Table 2 anticipate an economic slowdown continuing into 2024 while still
representing modest year-over-year increases. The 2024-2030 sales and use tax revenue projections are in
draft form and subject to change.
Table 2: Sales and Use Tax Projections
Year
Revenue Projections
for 2024 Budget
Process
(as of 5/30/2023)
Updated Revenue
Projections for 2025
Budget Process
(as of 5/24/2024)
Change to Open
Space Fund
2024 $35,589,280 $34,782,011 ($807,269)
2025 $36,665,716 $35,711,710 ($954,006)
2026 $37,627,376 $36,440,980 ($1,186,396)
2027 $38,508,526 $37,317,557 ($1,190,969)
2028 $39,389,407 $38,224,908 ($1,164,499)
2029 $40,275,037 $39,164,612 ($1,110,425)
2030 - $40,138,429 -
Total projected sales and use tax revenue change to
the Open Space Fund over 6-year planning horizon ($6,413,564)
2025 Expenditure Update
At the same time the Open Space Fund is experiencing slowed revenue growth, the cost of doing business
is increasing. In addition to increased costs for existing services, materials, and staffing in the operating
budget, OSMP is expecting increases to cost allocation, the citywide Enterprise Technology Fund, and the
citywide Equipment Replacement and Fleet Operations & Replacement Funds.
Agenda Item 8B Page 7
A cost allocation plan is an accounting document that identifies agency-wide indirect cost and allocates
those costs to benefiting departments and funds. Indirect costs are found in departments that provide
services to other city departments, whereas direct costs are found in departments that provide services to
the public. Examples of areas of indirect costs at the department level include City Attorney’s Office, City
Manager’s Office, Human Resources, Information Technology, and Accounting. The cost allocation
model is intended to reflect the department’s utilization of services that other city departments provide
and that are not paid for directly. Additional background information on cost allocation was sent in an
email to OSBT members ahead of the May business meeting. This email is included as Attachment D.
The Enterprise Technology Fund (ETF) is an updated internal service fund that evaluates and prioritizes
the city’s enterprise-wide technology investments. This includes devices like laptops and computers, as
well as citywide software costs and other technology support performed by staff in the Innovation &
Technology (IT) Department. Some of the costs included in the ETF were previously funded directly by
OSMP, including software charges, or were included in the cost allocation plan. The budget for charges
now included in the ETF will be removed from Open Space Fund and cost allocation plan in 2025.
The Equipment Replacement Fund (ERF) and Fleet Operations & Replacement Fund are internal service
funds managed by the city’s Facilities & Fleet Department that centralize the cost for certain types of
citywide equipment, including vehicles and radios used by Rangers and other staff in the field.
Departments make annual replacement contributions based on the equipment’s original cost, life cycle,
and a standard inflation factor. The Facilities & Fleet Department updated cost projections for vehicle
replacement, fuel, and radios based on general cost escalation for existing equipment and replacement
costs. For this reason, OSMP is anticipating increased contributions to the ERF and Fleet Operations &
Replacement Fund in 2025.
Although we are still awaiting final numbers, OSMP expects significant increased charges to the Open
Space Fund to pay for cost allocation in 2025 and beyond. The cost of doing business has increased since
the cost allocation plan was last updated in 2022. The new plan incorporates increased costs to perform
internal services. Since the plan was last updated, the city’s budget has grown by about 30%. Property and
casualty insurance costs are also reflected in the cost allocation plan, and these costs have also increased
significantly for the city in the wake of the Marshall Fire. The city has launched major enterprise system
upgrades including new human resource and financial systems and new systems to comply with
legislation around body worn cameras and evidence management for law enforcement, including OSMP
Rangers. The Library Department, which previously paid into cost allocation, exited the city organization
and this changed the way that internal services were allocated to departments. Technology funding, which
was previously included in the cost allocation plan but which is now accounted for separately as the
Enterprise Technology Fund, is also expected to increase significantly. OSMP and the Finance
Department are currently partnering and discussing how these increased costs can best be phased in over
time and/or addressed in a manner that will minimize impacts to OSMP’s ability to deliver services,
program and projects. An update on these discussions and what a phased (or other approach) may look
like will be included in the July packet.
Beyond the payments to the General Fund listed above, OSMP is expecting increases to expenditures
related to the city’s compensation philosophy. Every two years, the Human Resources Department
completes benchmark data analysis around the market rate for positions in the city and performs pay
range movement to align with market data. The “market” is generally defined as other local government
agencies along the front range and/or government agencies with comparable jobs (e.g. land management
agencies for OSMP jobs). Additionally, the City Council passed an update to the city living wage, which
applies to all standard and temporary positions and some contracted work. The living wage increased
from $17.42 to $22.44 with this Council action, and OSMP has been implementing living wage
concurrent with our temporary hiring for the 2024 field season. Finally, this fall the City Council will
Agenda Item 8B Page 8
review a proposal to adopt a regional minimum wage which is above the state minimum wage
recognizing the high cost of living in the Boulder area. OSMP will budget for this increase to ensure
adequate budget dollars are available if this proposal is approved, and if it is not approved OSMP will de-
obligate or reallocate those funds.
As the City prepares to finalize the cost allocation and other payments to the General Fund, OSMP has
started the internal work to gradually reduce department expenditures over the six-year horizon to ensure
strong financial stewardship of the Open Space Fund within the shifting budget climate. Just as we
reduced CIP projections, we have taken a balanced look at other expenditure types, and it is likely that we
will program reductions in future years to offset flattening revenues and rising cost of doing business. We
are still finalizing our targets and approach and will provide more detail in upcoming budget packets
including connections to service delivery.
2025 Operating Budget Structure
The department organizes most of its operating budget by Service Area/Office of the Director (OD), with
each of OSMP’s four Service Areas containing several workgroups and programs consistent with the
organizational chart. The four Service Areas are Central Services, Community Connections, Resource
Stewardship, and Visitor Experience & Infrastructure. These Service Areas will be presented as
“Programs” in the published 2025 budget, with the Office of the Director and business services functions
included in the Administration title.
Under each program, workgroups will be reflected as “Sub-programs.” Budgeted dollars will be shown at
the Program level when the final citywide budget is published, and Sub-programs will serve to describe a
Program’s functions. OSMP’s Programs and Sub-programs for the 2025 budgeting process are as follows:
•Administration: The Administration program ensures strategic alignment of OSMP’s projects
with the department’s mission and priorities, including implementation of the Master Plan and
focus on strategic enhancements like equity, climate resilience, and presence on the land.
Administration also supports the customer service and finance tasks in the department, including
preparation, analysis, and management of the OSMP budget and related financial systems. This
program includes the director, deputy directors, and business services staff.
•Central Services: The Central Services program supports the daily internal operations of the
department. This division offers real estate, information resources, and planning services,
including acquisition of land interests, addressing real estate related matters, and management of
easement requests; management of data, geographic information systems, and web content; and
department-wide planning and design efforts. Central Services includes the following sub-
programs:
o Planning & Design Services
o Real Estate Services
o Resource Information Services
•Community Connections: The Community Connections program engages community members
around the mission and vision of OSMP. This program coordinates public-facing community
efforts in education, outreach, and Ranger services, including volunteer projects and services, as
well as the Junior Ranger Program; and visitor engagement, emergency response, and law
enforcement. Community Connections includes the following sub-programs:
o Education & Outreach
o Ranger Services
o Volunteerism, Service Learning & Partnerships
•Resource Stewardship: The Resource Stewardship program enhances Boulder’s natural
environment by protecting its ecological, agricultural, cultural, and water assets. This program
contains expertise in wildfire resilience, natural resource management, ecological systems, and
recreation and cultural stewardship, including preservation and restoration of ecological,
Agenda Item 8B Page 9
agricultural, water, historical, and cultural resources; and tracking and monitoring of the variety
of systems across OSMP. Resource Stewardship includes the following sub-programs:
o Agricultural & Water Stewardship
o Ecological Stewardship
o Science & Climate Resilience
o Vegetation Stewardship
•Visitor Experience & Infrastructure: The Visitor Experience & Infrastructure program supports
the design, construction, and maintenance of OSMP’s physical assets, as well as management of
recreation activities, cultural resources, and human dimensions data. This program is responsible
for maintaining OSMP’s trails network, signs, trailheads, and other access points; office buildings
and other structures across the open space system; the department’s equipment and vehicle assets;
cultural resources on the system; and research around visitor use and impacts. Visitor Experience
& Infrastructure includes the following sub-programs:
o Facilities
o Fleet
o Recreation & Cultural Stewardship
o Visitor Infrastructure
Master Plan Alignment with Budget
Detailed input of 2025 ongoing service programs into OSMP’s work planning software will not be
finalized until the end of the third quarter in 2024. Provided here is information from the 2024 operating
work plan. The department anticipates that the 2025 work plan will be like 2024 in terms of investment in
and alignment to Master Plan strategies. The Master Plan calls for and provides integrated budget
guidance specific to the CIP. The percentages provided in the plan outline where the department should
direct CIP funding over ten years.
Internally, OSMP has taken steps to track investment beyond the CIP. All projects in the work plan
software that utilize CIP, non-personnel dollars (NPE), and non-standard personnel dollars (seasonal and
temporary positions, NSPE) now link to Master Plan strategies. While not reflected in this analysis,
OSMP also supports standard full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. A standard FTE is assumed to be an
ongoing part of the department’s staff capacity and base budget, and a 1.0 FTE is modeled at 2080 hours
per year in the department’s work plan. Although this work is planned for, the department has not yet
linked standard FTE positions to Master Plan strategies. This is a limitation of the information presented,
as staff salaries represent most of the operating budget. Staff salaries are also the most challenging to link
to the Master Plan because any one standard ongoing position may work on a variety of strategies each
year. That said, it is a goal of the department to improve FTE tracking against the Master Plan as part of
the upcoming intake in future budget process. The department will look to make iterative improvements
to this process each year.
As a reminder, the Master Plan identifies five focus areas, or central management themes. The focus areas
are:
• Agriculture Today and Tomorrow (ATT)
• Community Connection, Education, and Inclusion (CCEI)
•Ecosystem Health and Resilience (EHR)
•Financial Sustainability (FS)
• Responsible Recreation, Stewardship, and Enjoyment (RRSE)
In 2024, the combined operating investment in NPE and NSPE by focus area is as follows.
Agenda Item 8B Page 10
Table 3: 2024 Operating NPE and NSPE by Master Plan Focus Area
The Financial Sustainability focus area is typically a large share of the operating budget compared to the
CIP. Highlighted within Financial Sustainability are those dollars that support FS.4) Take care of what we
have and FS.9) Invest in workforce development and operational needs. Together these strategies support
ongoing maintenance and operations work in the department, including reduction of the trail maintenance
backlog, fencing replacement and repair, software application administration, and records management.
In 2024, OSMP shifted funding for ongoing maintenance projects from the CIP to the operating budget in
the Ecosystem Health and Resilience and Responsible Recreation, Stewardship, and Enjoyment focus
areas. Responsible Recreation, Stewardship, and Enjoyment in particular has increased as a share of the
operating budget to account for ongoing work like signs maintenance, road repairs, and undesignated
trails maintenance.
Shifting to a review of operating budget investment by Master Plan strategy, the current makeup of NPE
and NSPE by strategy is as follows.
Table 4: 2024 Operating NPE and NSPE by Master Plan Strategy
Tier Master Plan Strategy 2024 NPE
and NPSE
1 ATT.1) Reduce maintenance backlog for agricultural and water infrastructure $527,294
1 ATT.2) Increase soil health and resilience $127,530
1 ATT.3) Address conflicts between agriculture and prairie dogs $150,540
1 CCEI.1) Welcome diverse backgrounds and abilities $313,402
1 CCEI.2) Enhance communication with visitors $269,064
1 EHR.1) Preserve and restore important habitat blocks and corridors $716,008
1 EHR.2) Update system plans guiding ecosystem management $128,500
1 EHR.3) Address the global climate crisis here and now $88,367
1 RRSE.1) Assess and manage increasing visitation $76,811
$1,486,165
$2,504,012
$1,460,788 $1,335,877
$1,893,286
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
EHR RRSE ATT CCEI FS
2024 Operating NPE + NSPE
Agenda Item 8B Page 11
Tier Master Plan Strategy 2024 NPE
and NPSE
1 RRSE.2) Reduce trail maintenance backlog $1,654,751
2 ATT.4) Protect water resources in a warmer future $108,931
2 ATT.5) Encourage diverse and innovative agricultural operations $193,850
2 CCEI.3) Connect youth to the outdoors $390,480
2 EHR.4) Reduce undesignated trails $2,157
2 EHR.6) Control invasive species $280,860
2 EHR.7) Develop a learning laboratory approach to conservation $76,944
3 ATT.6) Support the success of ranchers and farmers $336,176
3 ATT.7) Integrate native ecosystems and agriculture $3,600
3 ATT.9) Enhance enjoyment and protection of working landscapes $12,867
3 CCEI.5) Foster wellness through immersion in the outdoors $11,256
3 CCEI.6) Inspire environmental literacy and new involvement in OSMP $64,978
3 CCEI.7) Cultivate leaders in stewardship $250,005
3 CCEI.8) Heighten community understanding of land management efforts $36,692
3 EHR.9) Reduce and offset OSMP's greenhouse gas emissions $193,329
3 RRSE.6) Support a range of passive recreation experiences $4,598
3 RRSE.8) Provide welcoming and inspiring visitor facilities and services $740,154
3 RRSE.9) Develop a learning laboratory approach to recreation $27,698
N/A FS.4) Take care of what we have $624,957
N/A FS.9) Invest in workforce development and operational needs $1,268,329
Total $8,680,128
During the May business meeting, OSMP staff shared alignment of proposed 2025 CIP projects to the
Master Plan. If we combine 2024 NPE and NSPE operating allocations with the 2025 draft CIP,
investment by focus area and strategy is as follows.
Agenda Item 8B Page 12
Table 5: 2024 Operating NPE and NSPE, and 2025 Draft CIP by Master Plan Focus Area
Table 6: 2024 Operating NPE and NSPE, and 2025 Draft CIP by Master Plan Strategy
Tier Master Plan Strategy
2024 NPE
and NPSE +
2025 Draft
CIP
1 ATT.1) Reduce maintenance backlog for agricultural and water infrastructure $889,594
1 ATT.2) Increase soil health and resilience $335,430
1 ATT.3) Address conflicts between agriculture and prairie dogs $490,540
1 CCEI.1) Welcome diverse backgrounds and abilities $1,097,650
1 CCEI.2) Enhance communication with visitors $619,064
1 EHR.1) Preserve and restore important habitat blocks and corridors $1,234,258
1 EHR.2) Update system plans guiding ecosystem management $128,500
1 EHR.3) Address the global climate crisis here and now $254,867
1 RRSE.1) Assess and manage increasing visitation $781,161
1 RRSE.2) Reduce trail maintenance backlog $2,142,548
2 ATT.4) Protect water resources in a warmer future $169,031
2 ATT.5) Encourage diverse and innovative agricultural operations $453,850
2 CCEI.3) Connect youth to the outdoors $781,980
2 CCEI.4) Support citywide engagement with federally recognized American
Indian Tribes and Indigenous Peoples $170,000
2 EHR.4) Reduce undesignated trails $10,857
2 EHR.6) Control invasive species $335,860
2 EHR.7) Develop a learning laboratory approach to conservation $76,944
3 ATT.6) Support the success of ranchers and farmers $637,076
3 ATT.7) Integrate native ecosystems and agriculture $174,600
$2,234,515
$4,056,605
$3,177,988 $3,092,625 $2,907,786
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
EHR RRSE ATT CCEI FS
2024 Operating NPE + NSPE 2025 Draft CIP
Agenda Item 8B Page 13
Tier Master Plan Strategy
2024 NPE
and NPSE +
2025 Draft
CIP
3 ATT.9) Enhance enjoyment and protection of working landscapes $27,867
3 CCEI.5) Foster wellness through immersion in the outdoors $11,256
3 CCEI.6) Inspire environmental literacy and new involvement in OSMP $85,978
3 CCEI.7) Cultivate leaders in stewardship $250,005
3 CCEI.8) Heighten community understanding of land management efforts $36,692
3 CCEI.9) Preserve and protect Boulder’s cultural heritage $40,000
3 EHR.9) Reduce and offset OSMP's greenhouse gas emissions $193,329
3 RRSE.6) Support a range of passive recreation experiences $317,045
3 RRSE.8) Provide welcoming and inspiring visitor facilities and services $767,154
3 RRSE.9) Develop a learning laboratory approach to recreation $48,698
N/A FS.4) Take care of what we have $1,277,207
N/A FS.9) Invest in workforce development and operational needs $1,630,579
$15,469,620
Operating and CIP Budget Development Processes
Key dates for the budget development processes are included below. This table includes an additional
budget touch point in August.
Table 7: 2025 Budget Development Milestones
Milestone Date
OSBT Strategic Budget Guidance Update January 17
OSBT Draft 2025 Work Plan & Budget Written Update April 10
OSBT Draft 2025 CIP & Operating Budget Introduction May 8
Financial Forecast & Budget Update to City Council May 9
OSBT Draft 2025 CIP & Operating Budget Update June 12
OSBT Draft 2025 CIP & Operating Budget Update July 10
OSBT 2025 CIP & Operating Budget Public Hearing and
Recommendation August 14
Planning Board City CIP Hearing Mid-August TBD
City Council Budget Study Session September 12
City Council Budget Consideration (1st Reading) October 3
City Council Budget Consideration (2nd Reading) October 17
Attachments
•Attachment A: OSMP Draft 2025 CIP List from May 8, 2024 OSBT Packet
•Attachment B: OSMP’s Unfunded and Reduced Funding Project List
•Attachment C: May 9 Financial Update to City Council
•Attachment D: May 8 Email to OSBT on Cost Allocation
Agenda Item 8B Page 14
OSMP’s Draft 2025 CIP List
No changes have been made to this draft 2025 CIP list since the May business meeting.
Project Proposed 2025
Funding
Initiate/
Continue/
Complete
Associated
Department
Assessment/Plan
Development of a Food Forest on an Open
Space Location
$50,000 Initiate Agricultural
Resources
Management Plan
Facility Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and
Enhancements
$620,000 Continue OSMP Facilities
Assessment and
Citywide Strategic
Plan
Fencing Infrastructure Installation,
Maintenance, and Removal
$50,000 Continue Visitor Master Plan
Fort Chambers/Poor Farm Site Management
Plan Implementation
$500,000 Continue Visitor Master Plan,
Master Plan, and
Citywide Strategic
Plan
High Quality Trail Network and Reducing
Trail Maintenance Backlog
$963,749 Continue Visitor Master Plan,
Master Plan and Trail
Study Area Plans
Irrigation Infrastructure Improvements and
Maintenance
$133,000 Continue Agricultural
Resources
Management Plan
Livestock Corrals Installation on Leased
Properties
$50,000 Initiate Agricultural
Resources
Management Plan
Local Food Farm Sites Improvements $200,000 Continue Agricultural
Resources
Management Plan
Mount Sanitas Trail Improvement Project $342,743 Initiate Visitor Master Plan
and Trail Study Area
Plans
North Trail Study Area Implementation:
Wonderland Lake
$1,025,000 Continue North Trail Study
Area Plan
OSMP Climate Plan Implementation $150,000 Continue Master Plan and
Citywide Strategic
Plan
Restoration of Irrigated Agricultural Fields
with Prairie Dog Conflict
$500,000 Continue Master Plan and
Preferred Alternative
Approach for
Managing Irrigated
Agricultural Fields
with Prairie Dog
Conflict
Restoration of Vegetation, Riparian Habitats,
and Wetlands
$250,000 Continue Grassland
Management Plan
Soil Health Improvement Projects $210,000 Continue Agricultural
Resource
Attachment A
Agenda Item 8B Page 15
Project Proposed 2025
Funding
Initiate/
Continue/
Complete
Associated
Department
Assessment/Plan
Management Plan
and Master Plan
South Boulder Creek Instream Flow Initiative $60,000 Initiate Grassland
Management Plan
and Agricultural
Resource
Management Plan
Stockwater Planning for Drought Resilience
and Support of Diversified Agriculture
$60,000 Continue Agricultural
Resource
Management Plan
Trailhead Improvement Projects to Support
Accessibility, Visitor Experience and
Responsible Recreation
$1,400,000 Continue Visitor Master Plan
and Trail Study Area
Plans
Visitor Communication and Education
Enhancements
$100,000 Continue Visitor Master Plan
and Citywide
Strategic Plan
Wildfire Resilient Landscapes: Fuels
Mitigation
$125,000 Continue Master Plan and
Citywide Strategic
Plan
Total $6,789,492
Attachment A
Agenda Item 8B Page 16
OSMP’s Unfunded and Reduced Funding Project List
OSMP has a robust work planning system through which program and project managers request funding
for projects each year. The OSMP Director’s Team prioritizes requests based on project readiness, funding
availability, staff capacity, connection to city and department priorities, acceleration of Tier One Master
Plan strategies, and other factors. In the fiscally constrained 2025 environment, the draft OSMP CIP
proposes to fund the highest priority projects from the work planning process. To ensure adequate
funding, many projects were phased over several years to align with project deliverables (e.g., design,
permitting, then construction). Other projects were scaled to decrease the 2025 awarded amount, meaning
that less on-the-groundwork would be achieved but we would still make progress around core
maintenance activities. Many projects were deferred to a future year. The list of unfunded projects and/or
projects with reduced funding, below, is not exhaustive, but gives examples of which current projects
would have budget increases if more funding becomes available, and which projects would be funded
next based on review of department priorities.
Project Title
Administer Topical and Exploratory Human Dimensions Research
Boulder Valley Ranch Trailhead Redesign
Centennial Trailhead Redesign
Chautauqua Meadow Fencing
Cottonwood/Shrub Grow-Outs & Wetland Seed Collections
Create Fish Passage at Goodhue Ditch
Deconstruct Joder Facilities
Dry Creek Trailhead Redesign
Education and Outreach Framework (EOF) Site Interpretive and Concept Design Planning
Flagstaff Site Plan
Gebhard Integrated Site Plan Construction
Install Center Pivot on Bixler / Eddy / Martinson Property Complex to Improve Irrigation Efficiency
Install Center Pivot on Johnson Property
Marshall Mesa Trailhead Renovation
NCAR Weather Trail Reconstruction
North Foothills Fencing Removal
OSMP Economic Impact Assessment
Peoples Crossing Site Infrastructure Improvements
Refurbish Martinson Property Residence
Remodel Cherryvale South and Foothills Nature Center
Repair or Reroute Lower Bluestem Trail
Replace Boundary and Interior Fencing on the Van Vleet Property
Replace Existing Barn on Manchester Property
Restore Joder Area Riparian System
Restore Joder Pastures
Restore Wetlands on Fancher Property
Saddle Rock Trail Construction
Tallgrass Prairie East Site Planning & HCA Activation
Varra Mine Reclamation
Vehicle and Equipment Purchase Program Beyond Replacement Funds
Visitor Communication and Education Enhancements
Attachment B
Agenda Item 8B Page 17
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde, City Manager
Chris Meschuk, Deputy City Manager
Kara Skinner, Chief Financial Officer
Charlotte Huskey, Budget Officer
DATE: May 9, 2024
SUBJECT: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for council to receive an update on the city’s financial forecast and an
update on the preparations for the 2025 budget. Each year, staff delivers a financial forecast and
budget update to provide an overview of economic conditions and budget assumptions for the
upcoming fiscal year.
Beginning in 2023, the city’s sales and use tax projections forecasted an economic slowdown, and
year-end numbers demonstrated a flattening of revenues in 2023. Current economic conditions point
to this trend continuing through 2024. With sales and use tax comprising approximately 40% of total
city revenues, this remains of significant consideration for the 2025 budget process. The city
recognizes the need to budget within a constrained environment by focusing on realigning existing
dollars to support key community priorities and citywide goals.
To support this effort, the city is in the third and final year of implementing Budgeting for Resilience
and Equity, an outcome-based budgeting approach to budget development and decision-making.
Budgeting for Resilience and Equity aligns the city budget to community and citywide goals within
the Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework. With significant new investments made
toward community and council priorities in recent years, coupled with the limitation of ongoing
funding, the implementation of Budgeting for Resilience and Equity becomes that much more
important to focus on the outcomes of our investments to support key priorities and goals.
Questions for Council
x Does council have any questions regarding the 2023 preliminary, unaudited year-end
financial results and economic outlook?
x Does council have any questions regarding the 2025 Budget outlook and feedback related to
the major budget assumptions?
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
1
Packet Page 4 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 18
BACKGROUND
The City of Boulder has partnered with the University of Colorado-Boulder, Leeds School of
Business since 2020 to forecast revenues based upon an econometric model. These forecasted
revenues are utilized to guide budget projections, annual budget development and monitoring.
This financial forecast provided annually by staff shares an update on the City’s major revenue
sources, current and forecasted economic conditions, and major budget assumptions utilized within
the annual budget process. This section provides an overview of the prior and current fiscal year and
the framework guiding the 2025 budget process.
2023 Budget
The city’s 2023 Approved Budget was $515.4 million, comprising an operating budget of $354.6
million and capital budget of $160.8 million. This represented an 11% increase compared to the 2022
Approved Budget and included a total of $33.9 million in one-time and ongoing enhancements to
address community needs. The General Fund budget was $188.4 million, representing a 15%
increase compared to 2022.
In the 2023 budget, the city made significant ongoing investments in wildfire resilience, public space
management, behavioral and mental health programming and services, and homelessness solutions.
At the time, these investments were made at the maximum level of ongoing costs that the General
Fund could support based on projections. The city also committed one-time dollars to pilot programs,
including the Safe and Managed Spaces program and the Community Assistance Response and
Engagement (CARE) behavioral health response program. This programming, among others, will
require a funding strategy if permanent ongoing funding is considered in the future.
The 2023 budget also made further investments using the recently renewed Community, Culture,
Resilience, and Safety Tax funding to support $27.0 million in capital infrastructure and maintenance
projects such as the Xcel streetlight acquisition project, fire station #3 final funding, and continued
core arterial network investments. In addition, the budget included significant funding toward
enterprise technology solutions and competitive compensation for city employees.
2024 Budget
The 2024 Approved Budget is $515.4 million across all funds, comprising an operating budget of
$374.2 million and capital budget of $141.2 million, representing a less than 1% increase over the
2023 Approved Budget. This budget included a change in budgeting practice for capital bond
proceeds, which impacts Utilities-related capital projects in 2024. The 2024 General Fund approved
budget is $196.1 million, a 4.1% increase over 2023.
Key year-over-year changes in the operating budget reflect the voter creation of a Boulder Library
District that eliminates library operating costs, the subsequent programming of available resources to
meet our commitments in service expansions, and perhaps most importantly, our continued
investment in city employees to ensure a competitive and effective workforce who are fundamental
to carrying out city services and programs across the community.
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
2
Packet Page 5 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 19
The 2024 Approved Budget includes $21.1 million in total enhancements. Overall, the budget makes
permanent investments in critical areas, such as community wildfire resilience, behavioral health
response programs, day services center operations, and housing support. In addition, the 2024-29
Capital Improvement Program included significant enhancements and planned spending toward key
community and citywide projects such as the Civic Area Phase 2 project, Pearl Street Mall
improvements, fire stations #2 and #4 replacements, and renovations at the East Boulder Community
Center.
2025 Budget – Year 3 Budgeting for Resilience and Equity
The city is in its third and final year of implementing a new budgeting approach, called Budgeting
for Resilience and Equity, which shifts from a traditional increment-based budgeting approach to
outcome-based budgeting. This shift in budgeting focuses on heightened and strategic decision-
making based on outcomes the city intends to achieve. This approach, through an understanding of
programmatic outcomes across the organization, intends to maximize the allocation of dollars toward
community and citywide priorities. Below is a summary of our three-year implementation of
Budgeting for Resilience and Equity:
Year 1, staff implemented a new budgeting software, OpenGov, and aligned city programs
and budgets to the city’s Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework. This effort
supported greater transparency of the city’s budget by demonstrating how our investments
aligned to community goal areas.
Year 2, the city added specificity by developing intended outcomes for each program area in
the city and added data measurements to be able to measure the impact of our investments.
This was also the first year the city worked directly with Community Connectors-in-
Residence (CC-in-Rs) and their communities to incorporate their input and priorities into the
budget development process. This engagement generated significant input that was then used
during key decision-making of the 2024 budget.
Year 3 focuses on the refinement of outcomes and performance measures and continued
engagement with CC-in-Rs and additional community members through CC-in-R
engagement sessions, a citywide 2025 budget questionnaire, and boards and commissions
engagement. The 2025 budget direction focuses on realignments of existing dollars and
utilizing refined performance measures to guide budget decisions and allocate dollars toward
prioritized outcomes.
ANALYSIS
City of Boulder Financial Conditions and Projections
Major Revenue Sources
Sales and Use Tax
The city’s primary revenue source is sales and use tax, which comprises over 40% of the city’s
revenues and over 50% of revenues when excluding utility revenues. In 2022, staff shifted the sales
and use tax modeling approach to utilize a less conservative forecast to maximize the potential of
ongoing revenues and to create ongoing spending opportunities to meet the significant needs across
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
3
Packet Page 6 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 20
the community. Also, in 2022, sales and use tax revenues increased significantly during a period of
high inflation. Inflationary pressures declined in 2023, which resulted in a downward revision of
projections of retail sales for the 2023 revised budget.
As shown in the table below, 2023 year-end unaudited revenues resulted in $175.9 million in total
sales and use tax revenues (101.5% of revised projections). While total sales and use tax revenues
came in slightly above anticipated amounts, retail sales tax and business use tax came in $2.5 million
below revised projections. Staff also observed a year-over-year decline in December revenues
between 2022 and 2023, which typically is the largest revenue generating month for the city. Year-
end retail sales tax and business use tax revenues showing a recent decline in revenues indicate a
flattening of sales and use tax revenues.
Construction Use Tax and audit revenues generated 124.1% and 177.0% of anticipated revenues,
offsetting the drop in retail sales tax and business use tax revenues. While total sales and use tax
revenues still came in just above budget, staff acknowledges that construction use taxes, dependent
on current year development activity, is highly volatile, and audit revenues above a baseline are
generally considered one-time.
The Recreational Marijuana Sales Tax, which is an additional 3.5% sales and use tax on recreational
marijuana dedicated to the General Fund, has also seen a decrease of 18.7% from prior year actuals.
This decline in revenues primarily stems from a decrease in demand since the pandemic period in
addition to an oversupply of product in the market driven by pandemic-level demand. Staff
anticipates this downward trend continuing in 2024 until reaching a revenue plateau.
Staff currently anticipates a 2.0% annual growth in total sales & use tax revenues between 2024-
2030. At the May 9 Financial Update presentation, staff and CU Boulder will provide further detail
on current and forecasted economic conditions and forecasted sales & use revenues.
Sales & Use Tax
2023 Year-End
Unaudited Revenues
2023
Approved
Budget
2023
Revised
Projections
2023 Year-
End
Actuals
Actuals as
% of
Approved
Actuals as
% of
Revised
Retail Sales $141.3M $138.1M $137.7M 97.40% 99.70%
Business/Consumer Use $12.8M $12.4M $10.3M 80.40% 82.90%
Motor Vehicle $6.2M $6.4M $6.4M 103.30% 100.60%
Construction Use $9.3M $13.3M $16.5M 178.10% 124.10%
Audits $1.8M $1.8M $3.1M 177.00% 177.00%
Recreation MJ $1.9M $1.4M $1.4M 72.60% 102.70%
Non-Audit
Penalties/Interest
Not
budgeted
Not
budgeted
$412K N/A N/A
Total $173.3M $173.4M $175.9M 101.50% 101.50%
Property Tax
Property values are reassessed by the county assessor’s office every two years, on every odd-
numbered year. For the 2024 and 2025 revenue years (which are 2023 and 2024 tax years), property
taxes are based on the 2023 reassessment performed by the county, and is based upon home sales
from July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022, with sales during that period age-adjusted to the June 30, 2022
appraisal date.
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
4
Packet Page 7 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 21
The city received 2024 Preliminary Assessed Values (AVs) from Boulder County in late April. As
shown in the table below, due to reassessment years occurring every odd-numbered year, staff does
not anticipate a significant increase in Avs for the 2025 revenue year (2024 tax year) and 2025
budget.
Property Taxes – City of Boulder (in millions)
2022 Actual 2023 Actual
2024
Projection
(Prelim. AV)
2024
Approved
Budget
(Revised
AV1)
2025
Preliminary
Projection
Tax Revenue $50.81 $48.74 $63.62 $58.74 $60.78
Changes in
Revenue -4.07%30.53% 20.52% 3.47%
Assessment
Values (AV) $4,281.86 $4,227.30 $5,573.55 $5,146.22 $5,324.72
Change in AV -1.27%31.85% 21.74% 3.47%
1 Preliminary AV was reduced for the 2024 Budget due legislative impact and uncertainty.
Staff continues to monitor potential legislation that may impact property tax revenues. As is
described in the Ballot Measures Study Session memo, currently there are two initiatives, Initiative
#50 and #108, that relate to property taxes or property tax revenue that have had titles set for the
2024 statewide ballot. Initiative #50 will be on the November 2024 ballot, which would change the
Colorado Constitution to require a taxing jurisdiction that is projected to receive more than 4% of
property tax revenues, to place a question on the ballot asking for voter approval to retain the revenue
above 4%. Initiative #108 is circulating for signatures and would reduce the assessment rate to 24%
for all real property except residential, producing mines, and lands or leaseholds producing oil or gas,
and setting the residential assessment rate at 5.7% beginning in 2025.
The Colorado General Assembly is currently considering property tax legislation, and staff will share
more detail on the fate of potential legislation at the May 9 study session.
Fund Updates
General Fund
x The General Fund ended 2023 drawing approximately $8.0 million from fund balance,
leaving an estimated $20.1M in fund balance after reserves. The draw from fund balance
was planned, in particular, the city planned a draw from fund balance to transfer to the
Governmental Capital fund for the Alpine-Balsam Western City Campus project ($5.6
million) and the Day Services Center ($5.0 million). In addition, the General Fund transferred
fund balance reserves to the Climate Tax Fund (CTF) to consolidate climate funding within
the CTF. In addition, year-end numbers also represent an increased level of spending in 2023
compared to recent years, which is likely due to increased staffing levels, increased pace of
operational expenses across departments, and the spending of new investments made in 2023.
Staff continue to regularly monitor General Fund revenues and expenditures to ensure the
accuracy of appropriation levels and to capture potential one-time savings within the annual
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
5
Packet Page 8 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 22
budget cycle to fund community and citywide needs. With upcoming significant investments
such as the Alpine Balsam-Western City Campus project, staff anticipates bringing forward
an adjustment-to-base in 2024 to again utilize a portion of the year-end balances to support
this key project. Staff will continue to monitor the fund for potential flexibility for other one-
time investments in the upcoming 2025 budget. The below chart represents the five-year
trend of sources and uses within the General Fund between 2019-2023.
Affordable Housing Fund
x The Affordable Housing Fund ended 2023 drawing $4.6 million from fund balance after
reserves due to total uses exceeding total sources within the fund. Affordable Housing Fund
revenues, supported primarily by cash-in-lieu contributions, development impact fees, and
real estate sales, saw an approximate 75% decline in cash-in-lieu revenues in 2023 compared
to 2019-2022 collections. The Affordable Housing Fund, in addition to the city’s three other
housing funds, continues to be the primary city funding mechanism to support the
development, purchase, and maintenance of affordable housing units in Boulder.
Transportation Fund
x In 2023, the Transportation Fund utilized appropriately 74% of the revised budget, realizing
approximately $15.4 million in savings. Most of this underspending is attributed to delays of
original construction and permitting schedules of capital projects within the Transportation
Department’s Capital Improvement Program; this capital funding will roll forward into the
2024 Revised Budget to support current year spending of the adjusted timeline of those
capital projects. While current projections reflect a stable fund balance in the 2025-29 fiscal
years, considerations of potential impacts include the rapid cost escalation impacting the
capital construction environment will likely result in mid-year budget adjustments
appropriating additional funding for capital projects.
Open Space Fund
x In 2023 the Open Space Fund, which funds the acquisition and maintenance of open space
land, ended the year with roughly $3.6 million in savings, obligating approximately 72% of
the total revised budget. Year-end fund balance after reserves are currently projected to
average $2.0-3.0 million between 2025-2029.
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
2019 Actuals 2020 Actuals 2021 Actuals 2022 Actuals 2023 ActualsMillionsGeneral Fund 2019-2023 Actuals
Total Revenues Total Expenditures
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
6
Packet Page 9 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 23
Recreation Activity Fund
x In 2023 the Recreation Activity Fund, which funds recreation, reservoir, and golf course
programs and services, obligated 95% of the revised budget, yielding $738,000 in savings
compared to the revised budget. The fund is projected to have a negative fund balance after
reserves beginning in 2025. Implementation of a new fee policy will help to support fund
revenues, as it is currently dependent on transfers from the General Fund, and the Parks &
Recreation Department and Central Budget continue to work toward a greater funding
strategy in support of these programs.
2025 Budget – Key Assumptions
The year’s key budget assumptions, as described below, are major factors that will inform the 2025
Budget. While staff carefully considers and reviews a comprehensive set of assumptions during the
annual budget development cycle, the following major assumptions and policy issues will be of
significant consideration during this year’s budget development.
1.Slowing Economic Growth and Known Funding Constraints
As mentioned above, a slowing in economic growth and a flattening of the city’s major revenue
source, sales & use tax, further constrains the funding flexibility to support new enhancements to the
budget and one-time funded pilot programs currently without identified ongoing funding.
In recent years, as demonstrated below in the Adopted Budget 2019-2024 chart, the city has invested
significantly with one-time and ongoing funding across the organization in support of community,
citywide, and council initiatives. Since 2021, the budget across all funds has increased by 51%.
While we recognize the significance of these investments, this same growth rate in recent spending is
unsustainable for the 2025 budget and beyond.
Additional uncertainties and risks suggest caution, including high commercial vacancy rates, remote
work practices with fewer workers in Boulder, and the upcoming fiscal cliff of expiring pandemic
$353.70 $369.70
$341.70
$462.50
$515.40 $515.40
$158.20 $161.50 $146.90 $164.70 $188.40 $196.10
$135.00 $144.70 $138.40 $155.60 $167.40 $172.10
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
2019 Adopted 2020 Adopted 2021 Adopted 2022 Adopted 2023 Adopted 2024 Adopted
Adopted Budget 2019-2024 (In Millions)
Citywide Budget General Fund Budget General Fund Ongoing
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
7
Packet Page 10 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 24
stimulus dollars. While the city remains in a constrained environment, staff will continue to uplift the
recent work of Budgeting for Resilience & Equity implementation to utilize outcomes to realign
existing funding toward community and citywide goals.
2.Potential Property Tax Legislation and Related Revenue Impacts
Potential legislative impacts generate uncertainty on the future of property tax revenues and revenue
growth. Property tax comprises 13% of total city revenues, and 17% of revenues when excluding
utility revenues. Property tax represents a major revenue source for the General Fund, comprising
25% of fund revenues, and is a stable source of revenue that supports key general government
purposes such as public safety operations and human services programming.
As described above, as well as in the Ballot Measures Study Session May 9 memo, two property tax
initiatives, Initiative #50 and Initiative #108, have titles set for the 2024 statewide ballot. Recent
legislation (SB22-238) for revenue years 2024 and 2025 impacted property tax revenues by
approximately $2.2 million by reducing assessment rates. Staff anticipates receiving this state
backfill from Boulder County in Q2 2024, which will help to offset potential sales & use tax
shortfalls this fiscal year. Staff will continue to monitor property tax bills throughout this year’s
legislative session to consider budgeting assumptions of the potential fiscal impact into the 2025
budget. Staff will share further updates at the May 9 study session.
3.Sustainable Capital Maintenance Funding
The 2025-30 Capital Improvement Program will continue to focus on supporting the goals and
objectives within the city’s Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework, the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, and subcommunity and area plans. Capital maintenance and enhancement
projects typically comprise the majority of investments across the six-year capital improvement
program (CIP). In the 2024-29 CIP, capital maintenance projects comprised 57% of the CIP,
including investments in projects such as the Potable Water Transmission System Maintenance
($14.0 million in 2024, $45.5 million in the 2024-29 CIP), the Barker Dam Outlet Rehabilitation &
Replacement ($13.2 million total in 2024), Transportation Pavement Management Program ($5.4
million in 2024, $32.3 million in the 2024-29 CIP), and East Boulder Community Park ($2.2 million
total in 2024).
Key to this continued investment in ongoing capital maintenance is funding our city facilities at the
“Maintain Well” level as outlined in the Facilities Master Plan accepted by City Council in 2021. The
Maintain Well initiative supports appropriate service and funding standards for city facilities by
investing in enhanced, ongoing annual funding to maintain new buildings well into the future, and to
plan for future capital renewal needs and building adaption that will ultimately result in savings in
operations and maintenance budgets. Current building infrastructure within the city’s portfolio is old
and does not align with the city’s climate, social, or financial goals. Significant investments in
equipment and systems replacement are required to prevent failures and meet ongoing service
delivery needs for the organization as well as the community. Historically, while the city has invested
in capital maintenance across other areas, the city has underfunded operations and maintenance in
city buildings, which now results in a large, deferred maintenance backlog.
Due to this underfunding, in recent years the city has seen failures in systems and costly investments
for emergency repairs. Therefore, as part of the 2025 budget, staff will continue to align funding
resources and ensure sustainable funding strategies to support this standard across city facilities.
4.Continue to Address Community Needs Strategically across all Funding Sources
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
8
Packet Page 11 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 25
Staff will continue to evaluate the flexibility across all city funds, including dedicated and
nondedicated funds and existing budget allocations to continue to support key community
investments and needs. Budgeting for Resilience and Equity will continue to serve as a foundational
tool to support this effort by utilizing data that measures the impact of our investments and prioritize
funding toward those measurable impacts.
Last year, staff conducted a Dedicated Funding Analysis to understand legal and management
restrictions of funding across the city. Approximately 60-70% of all city funding is dedicated, which
limits the flexibility of uses across funds to support key initiatives and community needs. While
dedicated funding may be a successful method of generating funding for specific programs, it
restricts future funding opportunities and the utilization of balances to react quickly to changing
community needs and interests. As we learned during the pandemic period, dedicated funding
reduces organizational capacity and financial resiliency and creates challenges to respond to service
needs during economic downturns.
As part of the Long-Term Financial Strategy, the city will establish a plan to perform a
comprehensive fee study and a multi-year strategy for approaching tax renewals. The development of
this long-term strategy, including an evaluation of current revenue structures and future revenue
opportunities, will help to provide financial sustainability and resilience to the city and, ultimately, in
service delivery across the community.
5.Arts, Culture and Heritage Fund
In 2023, voters approved dedicating a portion of an expiring general-purpose tax for Arts, Culture
and Heritage, beginning in 2025. The city will create and budget a new special revenue fund named
the Arts, Culture and Heritage Fund to account for the dedicated 0.075% sales and use tax and the
spending per the 2A ballot measure. Funding for arts, culture and heritage uses will be considered
along with other budget requests.
As was shared during the 2023 ballot measures discussions and the 2024 budget approval process,
passage of this previously undedicated tax to a dedicated tax would significantly impact existing
general government operating dollars, and therefore the 2024 budget assumed that the portion of the
renewed tax now dedicated to arts, culture, and heritage would fund current art operating programs.
This assumption is in alignment with budgeting practices of similar dedicated tax funds across the
city, including the recent approval of the Climate Tax and realignment of climate-related funding to
the Climate Tax Fund. This assumption also does not impact other departments’ current ongoing or
one-time arts funding across the organization, such as city facility subsidy leases to arts
organizations, additional Community, Culture, Resilience, and Safety Tax non-profit grants funding
to the arts community, and the 1% for public art policy applied to capital projects.
6.Living Wage Increases and Minimum Wage Assumptions
In 2024, to support competitive compensation for city employees, the city increased living wage for
standard positions to $22.44. This amounted to $441,000 across the organization and applied to
approximately 105 employees across twelve funds.
In addition to the recent living wage updates that impact standard positions, the City of Boulder, in
coordination with Louisville, Longmont, Lafayette, and Erie, is currently exploring a regional
approach to increasing the local minimum wage which would impact some of the city’s non-standard
(seasonal/temporary) positions. Current minimum wage within the city of Boulder is $14.42 or
$11.40 including tips. While the work with our partners is in process, current assumptions for the
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
9
Packet Page 12 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 26
2025 budget process is that the city may align to Boulder County’s current minimum wage rate of
$16.57 in 2025 to $25.00 in 2030. As demonstrated in the table below, early estimates indicate
minimum wage would require between $43,000 to $253,000 of ongoing funding in 2025. This will
largely impact Parks & Recreation, Open Space, and Utilities employees across the Recreation
Activity Fund, 0.25 Sales Tax Fund, General Fund, Open Space Fund, and Water Utility Fund.
We recognize the significance of this change within a constrained budgeting environment. At the
June 7 council meeting, staff will share an update on a regional economic analysis for increasing the
minimum wage. If municipalities decide to implement a minimum wage increase, it would become
effective January 1, 2025.
Minimum Wage Estimated Expense – All Funds 2025-2030
Minimum Wage
Assumptions 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Minimum Wage
Increase $43,000 $170,000 $38,600 $662,000 $983,000 $1,353,000
Minimum Wage
Increase and Wage
Compression
$253,000 $571,000 $932,000 $1,334,000 $1,770,000 $2,242,000
7. Long-Term Financial Strategy
During its 2024 retreat, council agreed to include the creation and implementation of a Long-Term
Financial Strategy (LTFS) as a council workplan priority. In the fall of 2023, staff shared with the
Financial Strategy Committee and City Council the overarching framework of a LTFS, including
four key elements guiding the strategy:
1. Overall Performance Budgeting Philosophy
2. Long-Term Financial Plan Governance and Supporting Structures
3. Revenue and Fee Policies and Practices
4. Fund Management Structures and Strategies
The LTFS will support the achievement of the city’s long-term goals as aligned to the Sustainability,
Equity, and Resilience Framework and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan by clearly
articulating current and anticipated risks and funding challenges, and identifying financial strategies
to address those risks and challenges. The LTFS will set a holistic view and strategically planned
approach to the city’s financial structures and policies. As part of the strategy, staff will develop
guiding financial principles and policies, perform a current state assessment to understand core
service delivery needs and funding gaps, evaluate and establish a plan for comprehensive fee study,
develop a communications and engagement plan, and identify future steps to support the continued
development and evaluation of Budgeting for Resilience and Equity. As part of this year’s efforts,
staff plans to identify and propose a timeline and focus areas that will support the initial development
of a comprehensive fee study to study current and potential new fees to address policy goals, explore
other funding mechanisms to support core city services, and develop a three-to-five year ballot
measure strategy.
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
10
Packet Page 13 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 27
Council’s action step of naming the LTFS as a council priority lays the foundation for staff to focus
our efforts on the development of this financial strategy this year. The Financial Strategy Committee
will provide the main project oversight on behalf of council with several touchpoints with the full
council before approval of the LTFS. The expected timeline includes a Q4 2024 council review and a
Q2 2025 approval of a strategy.
Summary of Key Budget Assumptions
A major purpose of the annual financial forecast and budget update is to provide insight into the
conditions and policies that will impact the development of the upcoming budget. The 2025 key
budget assumptions, listed below, summarizes the key factors influencing this year’s budget
development:
1. Slowing economic growth and known funding constraints significantly limit budget flexibility
for ongoing costs.
2. Potential legislative impacts generate uncertainty on the future of property tax revenues and
revenue growth.
3. The Capital Improvement Program will continue to focus on investing in sustainable funding
strategies for the ongoing capital maintenance of city facilities and infrastructure.
4. Flexibility across all funds, including dedicated funds and existing budget allocations, will
continue to be explored and emphasized to support key community investments and needs.
5. The city will create and budget a new special revenue fund named the Arts, Culture and
Heritage Fund with a dedicated revenue source being the dedicated 0.075% sales and use tax per
the 2A ballot measure approved by voters in November 2023. Funding for arts, culture and
heritage uses will be considered along with other budget requests.
6. Recent living wage increases and potential changes to the minimum wage ordinance impacting
city employees will be a factor when considering flexibility across funds.
7. Other ongoing funding needs are significant and beyond funding availability, requiring a long-
term financial strategy across all funds and city functions.
The above key budget assumptions demonstrate the limited flexibility of ongoing funding
opportunities in the upcoming 2025 budget. The city’s goal is to effectively and strategically utilize
existing resources and dollars to invest in community and citywide goals. Our efforts toward
implementing Budgeting for Resilience and Equity, coupled with the development of a Long-Term
Financial Strategy, demonstrates a commitment to sustainable and strategic planning for future
funding to address critical needs across the community.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
x Does council have any questions regarding the 2023 preliminary, unaudited year-end
financial results and economic outlook?
x Does council have any questions regarding the 2025 Budget development and feedback
related to the key budget assumptions?
Study Session: Financial Forecast & Budget Update
11
Packet Page 14 of 28
6.12.24 OSBT Attachment C
Agenda Item 8B Page 28
From:Kilcoyne, Lauren
To:Burke, Dan; Brady Robinson; Harmon Zuckerman; Jon Carroll; Michelle Estrella; Sarah Glynn OSBT
Cc:Mcqueen, Samantha; Moffatt, Cole
Subject:RE: Cost Allocation Questions
Date:Wednesday, May 8, 2024 2:36:12 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Good afternoon OSBT,
Thank you for sending over your questions in advance of tonight’s budget presentation. Questions to
date have focused on cost allocation and Lottery funding. As Dan mentioned, the final cost
allocation modelling results are not in yet and staff will be providing more information on cost
allocation at the June meeting, including having Finance Department staff representation at the
meeting. That said, we wanted to share some high-level information around cost allocation for your
review as we prepare for the June discussion, and below have also provided the Q&A related to the
individual questions we’ve received from board members. We’ve onboarded a few new OSBT
members since the last cost allocation plan update, and while you may already be familiar with cost
allocation, we want to share the city’s thinking and approach.
What is a cost allocation plan?
A cost allocation plan is an accounting document that identifies agency-wide indirect cost and
allocates those costs to benefiting departments and funds.
This definition can be broken into three components. The first component is that the cost allocation
plan is an accounting document. The cost plan is based on financial records, either actual
expenditures or budgeted expenditures for a given fiscal year.
The second component is that the cost allocation plan identifies agency wide indirect costs. Indirect
costs, in general terms, are costs found in departments that provide services to other departments.
Those departments are mostly inward facing, with services benefiting other departments. Examples
of areas of indirect costs at the department level include Human Resources and Accounting.
The third component is that the cost allocation plan distributes indirect costs to benefiting
departments and funds.
The overall objectives of a cost allocation plan are to:
1.Identity the internal administrative and support departments
2.Document the costs of the internal administrative and support departments
3.Document the services provided by the internal administrative and support departments (e.g.
payroll within Accounting or talent acquisition within HR)
4.Distribute the internal administrative and support cost based on meaningful, measurable and
auditable allocation bases or metrics to all departments and funds
5.Sum or total the administrative and support costs allocated to every department and fund.
Attachment D
Agenda Item 8B Page 29
What is the basis for a cost allocation plan?
The Federal Government provides principles and requirements to local governments for cost
allocation plans. These requirements are found in The Code of Federal Regulations Part 200. (2 CFR
Part 200). These requirements used to be found in OMB Circular A-87.
Additionally, cost allocation plans follow GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles)
requirements and GFOA (Government Finance Officers Association) recommendations and best
practices.
Why do cities and counties prepare a cost allocation plan?
There are numerous reasons that local governments prepare cost allocation plans. The first is to
recover indirect costs on federal and state grants and awards. The cost allocation plan is the set of
calculations to identify and document the cost of general fund administrative and support services
provided to all operating departments. For certain grants and awards, this support, and the
associated cost, can be reimbursed or recovered.
The second primary reason local governments prepare a cost allocation plan is to identify and
document the general fund administrative and support services provided to non-general fund funds.
In specific instances, this support, and the associated cost, can be reimbursed or recovered from
enterprise and special revenue funds. In over simplified terms, the cost allocation plan is a single
invoice for total services.
It is important to differentiate the terms “allocate” and “charge”. Every general fund operating
department and non-general fund fund are “allocated” costs in the cost allocation plan. Not every
operating general fund department and non-general fund fund is however, “charged”.
General fund operating departments are typically not “charged” their allocated costs. The costs
allocated in the cost allocation plan are incurred by general fund departments. If for example, the
jurisdiction “charged” the Police or Fire department, the city would have to appropriate additional
general fund money to pay the allocated costs. This situation is essentially swirling the same general
fund dollars.
However, it is common for Enterprise Funds and some special revenue funds to be “charged” for
allocated costs. These funds either operate as a business with a unique customer base and revenue
source or have characteristics that make it appropriate for these funds to actually pay for the
administrative and support services they receive.
Should a local government choose not to charge an enterprise fund or certain special revenue fund
for the administrative and supports services provided, then the jurisdiction is subsidizing those funds.
The general fund is covering the administrative and support costs incurred by those enterprise and /or
special revenue funds.
While these are the two most common reasons, local governments prepare cost allocation plans for
Attachment D
Agenda Item 8B Page 30
other reasons as well.
How do you test for reasonableness on charges?
A common reasonableness check is to compare the total allocated costs to a department’s share of
total Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) employees. FTE is a basis for this test because many administrative
and support services are labor driven. Meaning the more personnel a department has, will often
result in the more services, and therefore costs, that the department receives. Open Space is one of
the larger departments from an FTE perspective, and in general the percentage of allocated cost is
consistent with department size. Other large departments like Parks and Recreation and
Transportation are treated similarly in the plan. Departments like Police and Fire are funded by the
general fund, so they are not generally charged cost allocation. Another reasonableness test for
allocated costs is the ratio of allocated costs to total expenditures for a department.
Next, we want to provide answers to individual OSBT questions. OSBT members have sent us over
some great questions about cost allocation and Lottery funding. It may be of benefit for the whole
OSBT to be aware of these questions and staff response. Questions received to date include:
General Budget Structure Questions
Q. How much of the overall funding of the department comes from the general fund vs.
dedicated taxes?
A.OSMP receives a majority of funding from dedicated taxes, typically 92-96% of the Open Space
Fund’s overall revenues. The department previously received a transfer from the General Fund to pay
for a Property Agent position that supported citywide efforts. The work of this position was changed
to support OSMP exclusively in 2020 and the Open Space Fund absorbed the budget for the Property
Agent on an ongoing basis in the 2020 budget. OSMP also previously paid into the general fund to
account for Fire Department support around Wildland Fire. This payment to the general fund was
eliminated and OSMP ensures role clarity around joint wildland fire initiatives through work planning
and internal collaboration. OSMP also receives some allocation each year from the Climate Tax,
depending on priority projects across the city. In 2024, for instance, the Wildland Urban Interface
(WUI) pilot project receives some funding from the Climate Tax to support programmatic work.
Q. Over the last few years, what is the percentage share of OSMPs budget relative to the
total city budget? Is it growing? Is it shrinking?
A.OSMP’s operating and CIP budget in 2024 is ~8% of the city’s $515.4M overall 2024 budget. If we
go back the last several years, OSMP’s budget has stayed about the same at 6-8% of the city’s
overall budget.
Cost Allocation Questions
Q.What would you say to people who think increasing the cost allocation is a way to
divert dedicated OS funds to pay for overhead?
A.OSMP and the city organization have experienced incredible change since the last cost allocation
Attachment D
Agenda Item 8B Page 31
plan update – changes in the local economy, cost inflation impacting contracts and services,
legislative changes like the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act which changed salary bands for employees,
long-term financial impacts from the Marshall Fire like 100% increases to city property and casualty
insurance, etc. As a city, we have also increased staffing and dollars across departments and across
funding sources to support Council priorities, for example housing and homelessness, climate and
wildland fire resilience, and asset management. The city has invested in major business
infrastructure improvements like new financial and HR information systems. Across the city, the way
that costs are allocated significantly changed with the exit of the Library Department from the
organization, with other departments needing to absorb the cost allocation share that the Library
previously paid. OSMP has actively participated in all these changes and initiatives and OSMP both
receives and provides services across cost allocation categories.
The general fund and the cost allocation plan update are attempting to reckon with what it now takes
to deliver internal or indirect services to the organization. Every time the cost allocation plan is
updated, OSMP is interviewed around what services we receive, and we provide feedback around
allocation methodology, shifts we’d like to see in the plan, etc. Every model is imperfect, but
updating every few years allows us to capture changes over time. The previous model of cost
allocation was updated in 2022 and was updated with a mix of 2021 and 2022 data. Increasing costs
in the General Fund have mirrored increased costs in other funds across the city and this plan
attempts to incorporate changes for the 2025 budget cycle.
There is no question that the cost allocation amount needs to be considered during OSMP’s budget
and workplan decision making. In 2025 we are anticipating a fiscally constrained environment, and
with cost allocation increasing significantly while revenue growth slows, we will need to make
strategic and balanced decisions across our OS Fund expenditure types to ensure a fiscally
responsible budget. This does mean that within our current revenue structure we will accomplish
fewer on the ground projects to afford the cost allocation increase. OSMP is fortunate to have a
robust work planning and project management system, and even without cost allocation increases
we are always in the position of needing to prioritize and fund only the highest priority items within
annual revenues. The anticipated increase in cost allocation does impact our workplan for 2025,
however it would be inaccurate to say that OSMP does not utilize the services that are listed in the
cost allocation plan. We always provide feedback to Finance during plan development around the
level, quality, and type of service we receive, but we also actively use and benefit from the services
outlined in the cost allocation plan.
Q. Cost Allocation - The memo states that you expect cost allocation to increase in 2025 and that
we will discuss it more in June. I would be curious to know if cost allocation is increasing for all City
departments or if the OSMP share is increasing disproportionately.
A.Yes, cost allocation increases will be experienced by all departments receiving internal services
support. Because OSMP is one of the largest departments, the amount of cost allocation dollars
OSMP contributes is larger than smaller departments. In terms of proportionality, while the plan
update has not been finalize yet, typically in years past the percentage of our budget that is directed
Attachment D
Agenda Item 8B Page 32
towards cost allocation is in line with other departments receiving these services. Right now, the city
is still finalizing the cost allocation plan and determining when and how different components of the
plan will be implemented. We will be prepared in June to provide some more details around cost
allocation and address the question of proportionality.
Lottery Fund Questions
Q.Has the percentage or amount we received from the Lottery Fund changed over the
years? Other than internal agreement on allocation, was there anything formal that said
OSMP should get a set amount or percentage?
A.The Parks and Recreation Department, the Utilities Department, and OSMP have been
appropriated Lottery Funds since 2011 in alignment with an understanding developed with the
Central Budget Office. The understanding allocated ~42% of Lottery Fund dollars to OSMP, which
has come out to about $428,000 each year since the start of the agreement. Parks and Recreation
historically received the same percentage of Lottery funds as OSMP, with the balance being
dedicated to the Greenways program within Utilities. A key component of that understanding was
that if the revenues shifted significantly or departmental needs changed, the structure of funding
distribution could be changed. In 2023, the City Manager’s Office and the Finance Department
partnered to review all funding sources across the city and which revenues had fixed allocation (voter
approved ballot measure, Boulder Revised Code language, City Manager rules, etc.) and which
funding items had flexibility around how they could be allocated to accomplish city priorities. The
decision was made during the 2024 budget development cycle in mid-2023 to change the way that
Lottery funds were distributed. Beginning in the 2024 budget, Lottery Fund dollars were no longer
appropriated based on the legacy understanding from 2011. Instead, they are appropriated at the
direction of the Executive Budget Team and City Manager’s Office on an annual basis.
The city’s Executive Budget Team (EBT) reviews all budget requests across the city to determine if
the request will be included in the City Manager’s recommended budget which goes to City Council.
The city has seen an increase in capital needs for parks, recreation spaces, and playgrounds over the
years, so the EBT determined for 2024 that all Lottery funds would go to Parks and Recreation.
OSMP updated the OSBT around this change, which occurred after the OSBT had already reviewed
the capital plans for both the OS Fund and Lottery Fund. OSMP shared with OSBT that for 2024 we
were not going to reduce capital projects because we could afford to absorb the projects that we
thought would be Lottery funded into the OS Fund. At the time EBT decided to allocate Lottery Fund
dollars to Parks and Recreation for 2024, the EBT indicated to OSMP that this would likely be true for
2025 as well. Trends for OSMP and Utilities also show more flexibility than Parks and Recreation
funds due to the nature of the fund structure. During our “after action review” of the 2024 budget
process with our partners in the Finance Department, OSMP requested that the EBT create a process
through which departments could request access to Lottery Fund dollars so that there was clear
understanding of Lottery Fund criteria and city priorities each year. The Finance Department indicated
that this is something that they would be interested in developing, so it’s possible in future years that
OSMP could submit proposals for Lottery funding for consideration by the EBT. At this time, we don’t
Attachment D
Agenda Item 8B Page 33
have a timeline for when this process may be created or implemented.
Q. What was the rationale for not getting lottery funding? Is this a one off or the new
normal?
A. Appropriating the Lottery Fund at the direction of the Executive Budget Team and City Manager’s
Office on an annual basis will allow for more flexibility in the fund’s uses on capital projects that meet
the Lottery Fund’s restrictions of use and assist with overall fund sustainability for all funds in the
organization. We expect this type of annual review of Lottery Fund appropriations going forward.
Q. CIP and Lottery Funds - The memo states that OSMP's CIP has been funded by the Lottery
Fund in past years and will not be funded by Lottery Funds in 2025. Why is this? What is the history of
Lottery Fund allocation? Who makes this decision?
A. Up until the 2024 budget (in which OSMP did not receive any lottery proceeds), Lottery proceeds
were typically divvied up between Parks and Recreation, Utilities, and OSMP with OSMP receiving
around $428,000 per year which we typically allocated towards a CIP project. Last year, the city’s
Executive Budget Team and City Manager’s Office made the decision that 100% of Lottery proceeds
should be allocated to Parks and Recreation and this same allocation method will be in play again for
the 2025 budget. Therefore, OSMP is not building in any Lottery proceeds into our budget. The city
has been identifying a more sustainable funding strategy for the Parks and Recreation Department
given some shortfalls/challenges that they have experienced with their specific revenue source
streams.
Q. Is OSMP unable to do what it needs to do without this Lottery funding? If so, what are
those things?
A. The Lottery Fund has historically provided around $428,000 to OSMP which has been used to fund
capital construction projects that meet the criteria for Lottery Fund projects. The OSMP projects that
have been best suited to Lottery Fund criteria have been our cultural resource historic agricultural
tenant housing rehabilitation projects and our capital trail construction projects, because they are
discrete with clear project start/end dates, require one-time major investment and not ongoing
dollars, and are “plaque-able”, in other words can be attributed to being accomplished because of
the investment of the Lottery Fund, compared with needing a variety of funding sources to
accomplish which makes Lottery Fund financial tracking/reporting difficult. In 2024 when we learned
we would not receive Lottery Fund dollars, we were able to absorb the projects we thought would be
funded by the Lottery Fund into the OS Fund as a one-time decision based on 2024 funding
availability. In general, yes, it does impact OSMP that this funding is no longer available, and based
on annual OS Fund revenues OSMP will need to make strategic decisions around what level of
funding is appropriate for capital projects compared with other department business needs. It is
likely that fewer capital projects will be accomplished without these dollars or that a particular
project may need to be scaled back or phased. That said, OSMP still funds capital construction out
of the OS Fund and will continue to fund the highest priority capital projects that are requested
through our annual work planning process.
We are not in a position of OSMP not being able to do what we need to do. In every budget cycle, we
receive more project requests from staff than we can fund, and we know that we have deferred
Attachment D
Agenda Item 8B Page 34
maintenance needs across the OSMP system from both an ecological and infrastructure
perspective. We will continue to make budget decisions that are aligned with city and department
priorities and Master Plan Tier One strategies in a fiscally constrained environment.
We look forward to presenting the draft CIP tonight and will make sure to incorporate answers to any
additional questions into the June budget materials.
Thank you,
Lauren
Lauren Kilcoyne
Deputy Director – Central Services
(pronouns: she/her/hers) What’s this?
OSMP_lockup_COBLogo
kilcoynel@bouldercolorado.gov
2520 55th Street | Boulder, CO 80301
Bouldercolorado.gov
The City of Boulder acknowledges the city is on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of
Indigenous Peoples who have traversed, lived in and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley since time
immemorial. Those Indigenous Nations include the: Di De’i (Apache), Hinono’eiteen
(Arapaho), Tsétsėhéstȧhese (Cheyenne), Nʉmʉnʉʉ (Comanche), Caiugu (Kiowa), Čariks i Čariks
(Pawnee), Sosonih (Shoshone), Oc'eti S'akowin (Sioux) and Núuchiu (Ute). The City of Boulder
recognizes that those now living and working on these ancestral lands have a responsibility to
acknowledge and address the past and must work to build a more just future. Read our full staff land
acknowledgement.
From: Burke, Dan <BurkeD@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 9:58 AM
To: Brady Robinson <Brady.Robinson.OSBT@gmail.com>; Harmon Zuckerman
<harmon.OSBT@gmail.com>; Jon Carroll <jon.carroll.osbt@gmail.com>; Michelle Estrella
<estrellaosbt@gmail.com>; Sarah Glynn OSBT <Sarah.Glynn.OSBT@gmail.com>
Cc: Kilcoyne, Lauren <KilcoyneL@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mcqueen, Samantha
<McqueenS@bouldercolorado.gov>; Moffatt, Cole <MoffattC@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Cost Allocation Questions
Good morning, Trustees. A few of you have written to me/staff on questions regarding cost
allocation. What is it? How much does OSMP contribute compared to other departments? . etc..
Instead of responding individually to the trustee who asked the question, we think it would benefit the
whole board if staff would send out responses and prepare some more context on cost allocation to
all of you prior to tonight’s meeting. As you know, the final cost allocation modelling results are not in
Attachment D
Agenda Item 8B Page 35
yet and that staff will be providing more information on cost allocation at the June meeting, including
having finance staff representation there. But for context setting, we will put something together
today and email that to you all be end of day. Thank you,
Dan
Dan Burke
Director, City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks
303-817-3143
Attachment D
Agenda Item 8B Page 36
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Brian Anacker, Science and Climate Resilience Sr. Manager
Paul Dennison, Wildland Fire Sr. Program Manager
Andy Pelster, Agriculture and Water Stewardship Sr. Manager
Burton Stoner, Ranger Sr. Manager
Heather Swanson, Resource Stewardship Deputy Director
Chris Wanner, Vegetation Stewardship Sr. Manager
DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Written Information: Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP); Open Space
and Mountain Parks Disaster Response Team
__________________________________________________________________
This memo provides information on two projects:
1.The City of Boulder Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), and
2. Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) new disaster response effort called the
Departmental Operations Center (DOC).
CWPP
This memo provides information regarding the 2024 update to the city of Boulder’s Community
CWPP (Attachment A). This is a city staff-initiated, consultant-supported, community-centered,
cross-departmental planning effort to enhance the city’s holistic and strategic approach to
wildfire risk mitigation. The need for an update was galvanized by the Marshall Fire of 2021.
The CWPP update and its implementation is funded in part by Boulder’s Climate Tax, passed by
voters in November 2022.
The overarching goal of the CWPP is to heighten the safety & resilience of the Boulder
community to wildfire. The CWPP is not a regulatory document but a risk assessment with
accompanying recommendations to mitigate those risks. The process to develop the 2024 CWPP
update included forming a cross departmental city team, hiring a consultant, engaging external
agency stakeholders, and performing technical analyses.
Public engagement also played a crucial role in the 2024 CWPP update, with community
members actively providing input through various outreach opportunities. This included four
webinars, a project webpage, public feedback on a first draft, and a public survey with 271
respondents. A key theme from the community engagement of relevance to OSMP was the need
for coordinated fuels management, including continuous management of surface fuels,
reforestation where appropriate, and designing treatments with habitat protection in mind.
Written Information - Item A - Page 1
The Boulder City Council was given an update on the CWPP at their May 23, 2024 study session
(Attachment B), where staff received supportive feedback.
The CWPP contains nearly 40 operational recommendations structured around the three main
goals of a larger national cohesive strategy: restoring and maintaining landscapes, fire-adapted
communities, and wildfire response. City staff estimates that about 60% of the recommendations
are already in motion and will be enhanced based on this plan update. For example, OSMP has a
long history of vegetation management for the co-benefits of ecological health and wildfire risk
reduction. These efforts align with many of the Resilient Landscapes (RL) recommendations,
such as:
1.RL-01: Implement the ecological and wildfire mitigation strategies of past planning
efforts (Current CWPP, Open Space and Mountain Parks Master Plan, Fire Master Plan,
etc.)
2.RL-05: Develop prescriptions and implement hazardous fuels reduction in strategic
locations targeting timber and shrub fuel models at the landscape level.
Recent and future enhancements that are connected to these Resilient Landscape
recommendations have included increasing the size of the OSMP forestry crew, accelerating
work on OSMP ditch fuel management, creating the OSMP WUI Perimeter Mowing Program,
continuing ongoing weed management on OSMP property, and increased coordination and
planning for prescribed fire and grassland research. These enhancements also support and align
with recommendations in the CWPP to protect residential areas and promote fire adapted
communities.
CWPP NEXT STEPS
1.Staff will implement the CWPP’s stated recommendations using a cross departmental
wildfire resiliency team that will help determine how best to prioritize, sequence,
schedule, and assess the cost and capacity needed to address the plan’s recommendations.
2. Regular monitoring and reporting of CWPP implementation will occur.
3.Several of the recommendations may be brought back to the Open Space Board of
Trustees (OSBT) in the form of budget requests or policy decisions over the next five
years.
OSMP Disaster Response Team
OSMP staff have created a model to improve their disaster response capabilities. This OSMP-
specific disaster response team is referred to as the "Departmental Operations Center" or DOC.
This effort is directly related to the CWPP Recommendation Safe and Effective Fire Response
FR-04: “Encourage relevant City of Boulder Departments to develop plans and procedures for
activating Departmental Operations Centers.”
The name DOC was chosen based on consultation with staff from the Office of Disaster
Management (ODM). ODM runs Boulder County’s Emergency Operation Center (EOC), which
Written Information - Item A - Page 2
serves as the primary hub for disaster coordination. ODM staff welcomes and encourages City
Departments to form their own disaster response team and suggests the brand of "DOC" to show
alignment and avoid confusion between departmental efforts and the services provided by the
ODM via their EOC.
The most critical period for the new OSMP DOC is during the initial hours of an escalating
incident that is or is threatening to impact OSMP when other regional efforts like the EOC and
Incident Command (IC) have yet to be fully established. The OSMP DOC provides clarity on
how OSMP staff's roles shift during an event, provides key information about OSMP resources
to staff and the EOC, IC, and other partners, determines how OSMP red carded staff might be
deployed, and ensures that there is continuity of key OSMP services.
The new OSMP DOC will support the OSMP Ranger work group, which will continue their
primary roles during disasters, such as incident/threat detection and communication of relevant
information to OSMP leadership and other parties. The goal of the OSMP DOC is to augment
the services that OSMP rangers already provide by increasing the pace and quality of
coordination and communications.
The OSMP DOC will train staff to have dedicated roles during an emergency. When fully
activated, the OSMP DOC calls for staff to be trained in five key roles:
1.OSMP DOC Director
2.OSMP DOC Coordinator
3.OSMP DOC Agency Representative (senior-most ranger)
4.OSMP DOC Planning and Operations Group Supervisor, and
5.OSMP DOC Logistics and Administration Group Supervisor
Currently, the OSMP DOC plan is still in draft. The plan contains several organizational charts,
job aides to clarify expectations for staff filling different roles in emergency response, and flow
charts to guide decision making.
OSMP DOC Next Steps
1.Staff will continue to develop and test the OSMP DOC model by conducting additional
trainings and table-top exercises.
2.Staff will adapt and evolve the OSMP DOC with lessons learned during training and real
events.
ATTACHMENTS:
•Attachment A – City of Boulder Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Interactive Story
Map)
•Attachment B – May 23, 2024 City Council Study Session Memo
Written Information - Item A - Page 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Lauren Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of Central Services
Kacey French, Planning and Design Senior Manager
Katie Knapp, Principal Planner
DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Written Information: Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Site Management Plan Update
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a written update for the Fort Chambers / Poor Farm
planning process (Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Management Plan | City of Boulder
(bouldercolorado.gov)), sharing results from the recent community engagement window and
anticipated next steps.
Context
The Fort Chambers / Poor Farm property is located east of North 63rd Street and south of Jay Road (an
area map is included as Attachment A). The property is important to Open Space and Mountain Parks
(OSMP) and the community due to its history and association with the Sand Creek Massacre and the
land’s significant ecological and agricultural resources.
City staff are working on a government-to-government basis with the three Sovereign Tribal
Nations affected by the Sand Creek Massacre (the Cheyenne and Arapaho, the Northern Arapaho and
the Northern Cheyenne) to receive and incorporate their meaningful input into the development of a
management plan for the property. The Site Management Plan will identify future property
improvements and guide ongoing land uses associated with the property.
Background
The 113-acre property was purchased in 2018 due to its ability to fulfill many OSMP charter purposes.
Information about the property is shared online through an interactive site information report that
informs the site planning process. The most recent Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) update was on
March 13, 2024, where:
•information was provided about the site and ongoing planning process,
•Tribal Representatives joined OSMP staff to present a draft, collaborative Concept Plan based on
the shared vision for the site: “Heal the Land; Heal the People,” and
•the upcoming steps for community engagement were presented.
Previous updates to the board and council are available on the project webpage.
Written Information - Item B - Page 1
Community Engagement Window
Community Engagement Goals and Outreach
There were multiple goals for the engagement window:
•inform the community about the site, its resources, history, and connection to the Sand Creek
Massacre;
•share the collaborative efforts of staff and the Tribes to co-develop the plan; and
•understand the level of community support (or not) for the draft Concept Plan.
To gauge the level of understanding around the site’s history and get feedback on the draft Concept
Plan community members were invited to participate in an online questionnaire from March 25,
through April 14, 2024. In addition, OSMP staff held two “office hours” or in-person listening sessions to
hear directly from community members and answer questions.
The engagement window was broadly communicated through press releases, radio, email and
newsletter announcements and social media, as well as being featured on the Denver 7 evening news.
Additional outreach was done to reach and invite local indigenous community members.
Community Engagement Results
473 Community Members participated in the questionnaire (results are included as Attachment B).
When asked about their familiarity with the Fort Chambers / Poor Farm site and the Sand Creek
Massacre, respondents reported a higher level of familiarity with the Sand Creek Massacre (26%
extremely familiar and 41% moderately familiar) and less familiarity with the Fort Chambers / Poor Farm
site (10% extremely familiar and 25% moderately familiar). Respondents also showed a higher level of
knowledge about specific information related to the Sand Creek Massacre and were not as aware that:
•After gold was discovered in 1859, the Boulder City Town Company was founded and settlers
moved into the area, violating the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie which recognized Colorado and
the Boulder Valley as Cheyenne and Arapaho lands (51% aware).
•In 1864, more than 100 Boulder area residents formed Company D, a U.S. cavalry unit that
actively participated in the Sand Creek Massacre (53% aware).
As part of the questionnaire, information was provided about the city’s collaborative efforts with
Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribal Representatives to co-create a Concept Plan that reflects our shared
values. Respondents expressed a high level of support for this collaboration (86% strongly support, 6%
somewhat support).
Respondents also showed a high level of support for the recommendations included in the draft concept
plan:
•“Healing the land” through a large-scale ecological restoration effort along the Boulder Creek
corridor (84% strongly support, 9% somewhat support)
•“Healing the people” through an interpretive, healing trail that provides space for people to
learn, reflect and heal (83% strongly support, 8% somewhat support)
Written Information - Item B - Page 2
•Continued agricultural operations utilizing the high-quality agricultural land for vegetable
production, continuing hay field operations and improving existing structures to support
agricultural uses (54% strongly support, 23% somewhat support).
•Overall recommendations in the Concept Plan (66% strongly support, 18% somewhat support)
To better understand why people might support or oppose the plan recommendations, respondents
were asked about specific items:
•The shared vision of “Heal the Land; Heal the People” (80% strongly support, 9% somewhat
support).
•The integration of ecological restoration, agriculture, and interpretation / contemplative,
recreational experiences on the site (73% strongly support, 16% somewhat support).
•Providing educational information about the Sand Creek Massacre that includes Indigenous
perspectives (86% strongly support, 6% somewhat support).
•The repair and restoration of the Queen Anne style historic house (42% strongly support, 23%
somewhat support).
•The planting and harvesting of indigenous plants (80% strongly support, 10% somewhat
support).
•Limiting recreational activities to walking/hiking only to support contemplative experiences (68%
strongly support, 15% somewhat support).
The questionnaire provided a small space for written comments with an option to provide longer length
comments through a comment form. Over 300 written comments were received. The comments were
sorted into unique ideas/themes and grouped by subject area to provide an overview of community
sentiment (see Attachments C and D). There were also several questions included in the comments. A
list of questions and clarifications are provided as Attachment E. A full compendium of comments is also
available.
The comments spanned a wide range of ideas with a few prominent themes:
1.Tribal Collaboration and Indigenous Representation: Many comments stress the importance of
meaningful collaboration, consultation, and prioritization of the desires and needs of Indigenous
Tribes.
2.Overall Support and Appreciation: The project is seen as a valuable step towards acknowledging
and addressing historical injustices. Many expressed gratitude and hope that it will set a positive
precedent.
3.Historical Acknowledgment and Healing: There was a strong emphasis on recognizing historical
injustices, such as the Sand Creek Massacre, and supporting efforts for healing, education, and
commemoration of Indigenous history and heritage.
During the engagement period, a few community members expressed concerns that the Concept Plan
lacked a visual representation of Fort Chambers (a marker, memorial or reconstruction) and that the
Tribal Representatives concerns were not being addressed. Information was distributed that
encouraged people to comment about this. We received a batch of similar comments requesting that
we listen to the Tribes and include a visual representation of the fort. Other community members
expressed interest in telling the story of early settlers. Comments concerning the design of interpretive
elements will be further considered after the Concept Plan is finalized in a subsequent, more detailed
design phase. More details are provided below under “next steps”.
Written Information - Item B - Page 3
Standard demographic questions were included to better understand who participated (and did not
participate) in the questionnaire. Results indicate that the most respondents were from the City of
Boulder (48%) or the surrounding area (44%). There was a good mix of respondents with different
income and education levels. The majority of people who provided information on their background
indicated their race was white (90%); 7.4% indicated they were American Indian/Native Hawaiian. This
number is significant because only 0.9% of people in the City of Boulder were American Indian/Native
Hawaiian according to the 2020 census.
Tribal Collaboration
The community input was reviewed and discussed with Tribal Representatives on May 29, 2024. There
was encouragement by the high level of community support and general consensus that the Concept
Plan would not need revisions to support the shared vision and the educational and interpretive
elements desired. Tribal Representatives reaffirmed that the site should be a healing place for all and
they would like Boulder County residents to be included in sharing information and healing from past
atrocities. They also confirmed that they have felt listened to throughout the process and our
collaboration has been a positive experience.
Next Steps
Based on the strong level of community support for the draft Concept Plan and follow-up conversations
with Tribal Representatives, no major revisions to the Concept Plan are anticipated. Minor revisions are
expected as the design advances. It is anticipated that staff will return to the board later this summer
(likely at the July OSBT meeting) with a final Concept Plan for board consideration.
Once the OSBT provides its feedback and guidance on the Concept Plan, we will continue our
collaboration with the Tribes, designing interpretive elements along the healing trail - exploring what
information to share, and how it is presented. We will also start the design and implementation of other
plan elements including the ecological restoration and farmstead improvements. This next phase of the
project will include finer scale design, cost estimating, and implementation sequencing.
Attachments
•Attachment A: Area Map
•Attachment B: Questionnaire Results
•Attachment C: Short Comment Summary
•Attachment D: Long Comment Summary
•Attachment E: Questions and Clarifications
Written Information - Item B - Page 4
!i
!i
!i
!i
!i
!(A
!(A !(A
!(A
!i
James
DR
Cottonwood
at Jay Rd
Sawhill
Access
North
Sawhill
Access
Northeast
Sawhill
Access East
Sawhill PondsFORT CHAMBERS / POOR FARM - AREA MAP
!i OSMP Trailhead with Parking
!(A OSMP Access Point - parking on public roads
!i Other Boulder Area Trailheads
OSMP Hiking Trail
OSMP Multi-Use Trail
Other Boulder Area Trails
OSMP Easement
OSMP Ownership
Boulder County Open Space 0 1,000500FtN
Walden PondsFort Chambers
Poor Farm
Twin Lakes
Valmont Butte
Boulder Creek
Boulder Airport
Boulder CreekJay Rd.
Andrus Rd.
Valmont Rd.75th St.63rd St.61st St.Heatherwood Trail
LOBO Trail
LOBO Trail
Diagonal HwyAttachment A
Written Information - Item B - Page 5
1
Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Concept Plan Feedback
Questionnaire Response Summary
Q1: Are you currently familiar with the Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Property?
Q2: How familiar are you with the Sand Creek Massacre?
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 6
2
Q3: Did you know…
The Sand Creek Massacre was the
deadliest day in Colorado history;
230 people were killed, mostly
women, children, and elders.
Boulder Valley residents benefitted
directly from Indian removal
policies and the spread of
misinformation about Indigenous
Peoples and historic events.
The intergenerational trauma from
the massacre continues to impact
Tribal members today.
After gold was discovered in 1859,
the Boulder City Town Company
was founded and settlers moved
into the area, violating the 1851
Treaty of Fort Laramie which
recognized Colorado and the
Boulder Valley as Cheyenne and
Arapaho lands.
In 1864, more than 100 Boulder
area residents formed Company D,
a U.S. cavalry unit that actively
participated in the Sand Creek
Massacre.
On November 29, 1864, the
Cheyenne and Arapaho people
were surprise-attacked by U.S.
troops after being promised
protection.
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 7
3
Q4: To what extent do you
support or oppose the city’s
collaboration efforts with Tribal
Representatives to co-create a
Concept Plan that reflects our
shared values?
Q5: To what extent do you
support or oppose the
recommendations for “healing
the land” through a large-scale
ecological restoration effort
along the Boulder Creek
corridor?
Q6: To what extent do you
support or oppose the
recommendations for “healing the
people” through an interpretive,
healing trail that provides space for
people to learn, reflect, and heal?
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 8
4
Q8: Overall to what extent do
you support or oppose the
recommendations in the
Concept Plan?
Q7: To what extent do you
support or oppose the
recommendations for continued
agricultural operations on the
site, utilizing the high-quality
agricultural land for vegetable
production, continuing hay field
operations, and improving
existing structures to support
agricultural uses?
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 9
5
Q9: Please indicate to what extent you support or oppose the following plan
recommendations.
The shared vision of “Heal
the Land; Heal the People”
The integration of
ecological restoration,
agriculture, and
interpretation /
contemplative, recreational
experiences on the site
Providing educational
information about the Sand
Creek Massacre that
includes Indigenous
perspectives
The repair and restoration
of the Queen Anne style
historic house
The planting and harvesting
of indigenous plants
Limiting recreational
activities to walking/hiking
only to support
contemplative experiences
Strongly
Support Somewhat Support
Neutral
Somewhat Oppose
Strongly Oppose
Strongly
Support Somewhat Support
Neutral
Somewhat Oppose
Strongly Oppose
Strongly
Support Somewhat Support
Neutral
Somewhat Oppose
Strongly Oppose
Somewhat Support
Neutral
Somewhat Oppose
Strongly Oppose
Strongly Support
Strongly Support
Strongly Support
Somewhat Support
Neutral
Somewhat Oppose
Strongly Oppose
Somewhat Support
Neutral
Somewhat Oppose
Strongly Oppose
Q10: Please indicate any additional reasons you might support or oppose the draft
Concept Plan:
Please see the comment summaries and compendium for written comments.
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 10
6
Demographic Questions:
Q11: Where is your PRIMARY residence?
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 11
7
Q12: What is your zip code?
Rest of Colorado: Outside Colorado:
San Anselmo, CA 94960 – 1 response
Colfax, NM 87740 – 1 response
Placitas, NM 87043 – 1 response
Gallup, NM 87301 – 1 response
Norman, OK 73071 – 1 response
Concho, OK 73022 – 1 response
Fort Worth, TX 76179 – 1 response
West Salem, WI 54669 – 1 response
Monument, CO 80132 – 1 response
Parker, CO 80134 – 1 response
Grand Junction, CO 81507 – 1 response
Woodland Park, CO 80863 – 1 response
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 12
8
Q13: What range most closely represents your total household income?
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 13
9
Q14: Are you or Hispanic, Latina or Spanish origin?
Q15: What is your race? (select one or more boxes)
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 14
10
Q16: What language do you primarily speak at home?
Q17: How old are you (in years)?
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 15
11
Q18: What level of education have you completed?
Q19: Do you rent or own your home?
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 16
12
Q20: What sex were you assigned at birth?
Q21: What is your current gender identity?
Attachment B
Written Information - Item B - Page 17
Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Concept Plan Feedback
Questionnaire Comment Summary: Unique Ideas and Themes
An online questionnaire was developed to receive community feedback on the city’s collaboration with Tribal
Representatives and the recommendations presented in the draft Concept Plan. Respondents provided
comments through an open comment box in the questionnaire. These comments have been grouped into
categories with unique ideas presented below. Similar ideas were tallied together with individual comments shown
in italics.
Tribal Collaboration/Indigenous Rights Count
% of
Respondents
Support for honoring Tribes / Indigenous People in stewardship/decision-making process
•I encourage you to incorporate and involve Tribal perspectives and leadership to
your fullest extent.
•As descendant of a Colorado homesteader, I am grateful to honor the true
ancestors of this land.
•I support the plan to the extent that it truly represents the wishes of the original
stewards
•Going forward, I hope that the tribes are consulted at every stage in the process.
46 9.7%
Suggestions to return/share land to the Arapaho and/or Cheyenne Nations
•Give the land back to the Arapahoe and Cheyenne
•The stolen land and home should be given back to Indigenous people with no
strings attached.
13 2.3%
Support for Tribal rights, justice/reparations
•Justice for Indian removal and massacre is long over-due.
•Reparation needs to happen and this is a good start.
7 1.5%
Concerns that Tribal perspectives not fully represented
•Although it looks good in print, I'm not sure OSMP is being responsive to the
requests of the tribes
•Consultation with the Tribes has lacked FPIC and overlooks their concerns about
the fort itself
6 1.3%
I am Native American and/or have a connection to the Sand Creek Massacre
•I am an enrolled member of the Cheyenne & recognized survivor of the Sand Creek
Massacre.
•I am the first generation of my lineage to reclaim our native roots here in Colorado.
5 1.1%
Support for indigenous beliefs/knowledge/practices
•Resilience through indigenous practice
•Indigenous communities can flourish
4 0.8%
Allow Tribes to use site (gathering, teepees, camps, etc.)
•include the opportunity for tribal people to convene meetings, camps, education,
erect teepees etc
3 0.6%
Support for Native people sharing perspectives / teachings
•Input from native people - impt to share their perspectives / they should write
interp panels.
3 0.6%
Broken/violated treaties
•we broke EVERY Treaty, and the earth itself.
2 0.4%
Interested in who the Tribal representatives are and their qualifications for selection. 1 0.2%
I believe OSMP should contact Indigenous people who live in Boulder Valley for their
feedback.
1 0.2%
I also support options that financially benefit Arapaho nation members & other tribal
people.
1 0.2%
Attachment C
Written Information - Item B - Page 18
Tribal Collaboration/Indigenous Rights Count
% of
Respondents
I would like to know how this will be connected to furthering Tribal presence and livelihood
in BoCo
1 0.2%
I believe it should be the cheyenne and Arapaho member that should be the ones to
distrust any soil.
1 0.2%
City can be the part of hosting group but not main leader of this. It is too traumatic for
native.
1 0.2%
Should recognize the Arapahoe teepee circles on the land north of CO72 at Coal Creek
Canyon. Rename
1 0.2%
I empathize with those whose elders were slaughtered because my family members were
also slaughtered
1 0.2%
Total Comments: 97 20.5%
Ecological Restoration Count
% of
Respondents
Preference for native habitat over agricultural land/ hayfields
•I would prefer a native prairie grassland instead of the hay fields.
•I think we need to reduce the agricultural footprint and restore more land to
natives.
3 0.6%
Support for environmental restoration
•Return this land to its natural state for ecological balance for native animals/plants
organically.
2 0.4%
Will the restoration and maintenance be done in the most respectful + environmentally
friendly ways?
1 0.2%
call the governor, get yourselves some wolves! 1 0.2%
Ecological restoration should be the primary focus followed by education. Recreation
should not focu
1 0.2%
I would more native plants/native animal habitat than what is shown by planting native
hedgerows.
1 0.2%
Total Comments: 9 1.9%
Healing Trail / Education & Interpretation / Recreation Count
% of
Respondents
Support for education/learning
•This is an incredibly valuable educational opportunity.
•I feel it’s important to create opportunities for local residents and visitors to learn
the TRUTH!
19 4.0%
Support for healing concept / healing programs
•Any way we can move toward healing trauma is necessary and commendable.
•I support giving more land to the Healing Trail for healing purposes.
10 2.1%
Comments recognizing site history/information
•This is not a place of honor but rather a camp where a shameful plan started.
•the story of this land is a beautiful complex painful one that very much points to
who we are
•I’d like to see the agricultural history and the Poor House buildings included in the
plan.
9 1.9%
Attachment C
Written Information - Item B - Page 19
Healing Trail / Education & Interpretation / Recreation Count
% of
Respondents
Do not support limiting the use. (Biking/horseback or additional paths desired.)
• I am not sure about limiting the use. What about biking and horseback riding?
• Let the people bike. Cars are bad.
• connect to sawhill for better access please
5 1.1%
Mark/rebuild the fort/provide visual representation
• Please provide a visual representation of Fort Chambers so we don’t forget what
happened there
• make the Fort physically visible as indiginous recomme
• Mark and memorialize the location of the fort.
5 1.1%
Comments questioning site history/information
• Some of the facts in City literature don't appear to be accurate and I suggest review
for accuracy
• No evidence Ft Chambers here; encourages victim mindset
4 0.8%
Reinstall stone marker
• I think it extremely important to resurrect 1959 marker as an educational tool!
• Agree with Mosqueda the original marker should return, but only along with
education and new one.
2 0.4%
Questions/concerns about healing concept
• this "healing" thing is OLD !!!
• It seems there is support for "heal the land" is there more being planned for the
"heal the people"
2 0.4%
Additional parking
• Add more parking.
• Need 20 spaces.
2 0.4%
Support for youth participation & programs
• Bring youth of the Arapahoe and Cheyenne Nations to participate in open
events.(some in DVR)
• Integrate school programs for life skills and state history. Bring kids out to learn and
plant trees
2 0.4%
This area should not be a place for joyful rec. 1 0.2%
limit to walk/hike IF good bike parking 1 0.2%
Plan for large commemorative events. 1 0.2%
Put the markers by parking, not by road 1 0.2%
Entry and interpretive sign site #2 1 0.2%
Please make sure it’s handicapped accessible and also interesting for kids 1 0.2%
Please add bathrooms 1 0.2%
Locking restrooms. Ranger & museum house. Water station.er 1 0.2%
no need for a bathroom 1 0.2%
I would like dogs to be allowed 1 0.2%
Keep it dog free 1 0.2%
Please model the walking path after that of Pipestone Natl Monument. Contemplative. 1 0.2%
I’ve spent time at the Sand Creek Massacre site. It’s well done and important educationally. 1 0.2%
Total Comments: 73 15.4%
Attachment C
Written Information - Item B - Page 20
Agriculture / Farmstead Structures Count
% of
Respondents
Support agriculture for good cause / food for Tribes / food banks
•Distribute fresh produce to food banks and tribes.
•Native people should benefit from the harvest on the Poor Farm property.
•Would support use of agricultural land more if it went to a good cause, like food
bank
7 1.5%
Support for continued agriculture
•We need local agriculture, please support the farmers who steward this land.
•needs ag worker housing + better ag access
•PRESERVE THE OPEN SPACE, AG, HOUSE
5 1.1%
Suggestions for sustainable, or specific agricultural practices
•I support ag only if TEK and sustainable methods are used. Consider agrivoltaics as
well!
•Working agriculture should either be regenerative or historical in nature.
•European honeybees should be excluded.
5 1.1%
Opposition to growing hay/food for animals
•Should we use water to grow hay for wealthy people's horses? I question propped
up agriculture here.
•I do not support agricutlture for non-human uses (like hay). I only support for direct
human consump
5 1.1%
Comments/questions about historic house restoration
•I don't know much about the historic house & am not sure it is important to restore
for this
•Don’t understand connection with the restoration of the Queen Anne style home?
5 1.1%
Support for restoration of the historic Queen Anne home and/or agricultural buildings
•Immediate, better care and use for the Queen Anne home & Ag buildings is high
concern.
4 0.8%
Comments/questions about agriculture/OSMP leasing
•It is unclear who would operate the farm and how the Nations would benefit.
•I would like to know more about who would be farming the land and exactly how
the house would be use
3 0.6%
Suggestions for a museum
•Hopefully, the structures can be developed into a Boulder County Agriculture
Museum
3 0.6%
Opposition to funding house/structure restoration
•Restoring farm buildings is a waste of resources.
•concern: OSMP should not pay for house restoration
3 0.6%
In my opinion, resources should be mostly applied to the historical aspects of the site 1 0.2%
Restore house for Native use lodging 1 0.2%
An archaeological survey/excavation should happen before continued agricultural
cultivation.
1 0.2%
Food systems heal us. 1 0.2%
Total Comments: 44 9.3%
Attachment C
Written Information - Item B - Page 21
General Comments Count
% of
Respondents
Support for plan / good idea / right step / overdue
•Full support. Thank you!!! I'm so happy to hear about this.
•We will never take away the intergenerational indigenous suffering, but these are
necessary steps.
•I've biked and run by the site knowing the history for thirty+ yrs, and this plan is
well-reasoned.
•I think this is a long overdue plan.
31 6.6%
Opposition / general criticism
•Sounds a little too woke to me...
•The past is right where it belongs...in the past. Instead of reflecting on the
negative. Look beyond
•All of the proposals are Boulder White Liberal Hippie fantasies without regard to
tribal values.
•Very disappointed that this is so far along WITHOUT the involvement of the
Valmont community!!!!!!!!
9 1.9%
Concerns about traffic
•As a person who uses jay rd often my only concern is increased traffic
•61st/Andrus/63rd can’t take more traffic without the county making significant
improvements
3 0.6%
Concerns about cost
•I’m concerned about the costs associated with plan
3 0.6%
Concerns about project being performative
•My one apprehension is that it will become performative.
•I want it to be a plan that will actually address pain, not just performative activism.
2 0.4%
Would like to volunteer / help with project 2 0.4%
Consistent with local rural lands 1 0.2%
use of more mass transportation to limit impact to the ecology of the site 1 0.2%
What tax is Boulder county going to impose to make this happen? 1 0.2%
I have gone to that site many times to paint (I am an artist) and love the site and the area... 1 0.2%
PLEASE DO NOT BUILD MORE LUXURY APARTMENTS THERE! NO BUILDING! 1 0.2%
My greatest concern is for expansive education and ceremony over the 10 year
implementation.
1 0.2%
the city could also ask for volunteers to help when able. 1 0.2%
Total Comments: 57 11.8%
Questionnaire Count
% of
Respondents
More information needed/requested
•Give me more info if you want my opinion
•I really do not know what an indigenous plant is.
•SorryThe context is not clear.
4 0.8%
Comment box too small 2 0.4%
u should provide more feedback time 1 0.2%
EXcellent survey. 1 0.2%
This ridiculous push survey is a perfect example of why I don't trust Bldr govt idealogues. 1 0.2%
Total Comments: 9 1.9%
Attachment C
Written Information - Item B - Page 22
Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Concept Plan Feedback
Long Comment Summary: Unique Ideas and Themes
An online questionnaire was developed to receive community feedback on the city’s collaboration with Tribal
representatives and the recommendations presented in the draft Concept Plan. To supplement the questionnaire,
longer comments were accepted via an online comment portal. Comments received during the March 25 – April
14, 2024 engagement period were grouped into categories with unique ideas presented below. Similar ideas were
tallied together with individual comments shown in italics.
Tribal Collaboration/Indigenous Rights Count
% of
Respondents
Support for honoring Tribes / Indigenous People in stewardship/decision-making process
•The Sand Creek Massacre Foundation is deeply appreciative of the City of Boulder's
collaboration with the Arapaho and Cheyenne tribes on this historically and
culturally significant project.
•It is crucial that the plan implement any recommendations from the tribal
representatives, and we must fully understand what they would like this site to
include.
•Involving the tribes in the plan can't fix what happened historically, but it is the
right thing to do.
•I love this coming together for everyone. Peace will follow collaboration.
20 36.4%
Treaty violations/Land belongs to tribes
•It's also important to acknowledge that all this land is stolen and by treaty belongs
to the Arapaho and Cheyenne but even more, there needs to be acknowledgment
of the problematic nature of these sorts of treaties themselves and how they were
often signed in coercion
•We need to convey how Boulder's prosperity partly rests on treaty violations and
on the murder of Indigenous people.
10 18.2%
Concerns that Tribal perspectives not fully represented
•First, I believe that OSMP is making a good faith effort to include Tribal
perspectives in the site management plan. Still, I have heard from connections in
the Native community that "collaboration" thus far has been insufficient in their
view, and that statements on the planning site indicating full support of the Tribes
thus far may be somewhat inflated.
•The Fort Chambers Management Plan indicates that Boulder OSMP has
collaborated with Cheyenne and Arapaho tribal leaders. This is somewhat
misleading because, while consultation has happened, OSMP has often been
unresponsive to the wishes of the tribes.
6 10.9%
Allow Tribe-specific use of site (gathering, ceremonies, etc.)
•Are the tribal reps interested in allowing for some form of sacred site use e.g. a
sweat lodge on the property or some other facility that would be primarily for
tribal use? A mourning area just for tribal use? I don't know what the tribes would
consider appropriate, but please have this discussion and listen to them and be
willing to think outside the box to accommodate them.
•I hope this history and healing project will have space so that the tribal people can
use it for ceremonies, meet ups, and cultural rebuilding
•include the opportunity for tribal people to convene meetings, camps, education,
erect teepees etc
5 9.1%
Attachment D
Written Information - Item B - Page 23
Tribal Collaboration/Indigenous Rights Count
% of
Respondents
Support for land back/monetary reparations
•Please give the Arapaho and Cheyenne people of Boulder Valley the right to decide
what will be done with their land...what should be taught to visitors and whether
this portion of their land should be restored to them or whether they prefer
monetary reparations made to them for this grave injustice.
•Whatever it is that [the tribes] want, fund and support that while simultaneously
returning them their rights to self-governance and autonomy over their own
homelands.
5 9.1%
Support for Tribal rights, justice
•I will be disappointed if there is anything less than a full tribute to Ute, Arapaho,
and Cheyenne people...It is time to take responsibility.
•Please help correct the terrible treatment of the Native Americas.
4 7.3%
Inclusion of indigenous Boulder residents in planning/reparations
•It is especially important for the Indigenous people living in the Boulder Valley to
have an opportunity to comment on the concept plan. How has the city reached
out to them?
•What I miss most are the Native people themselves in Boulder – high rents,
historical and other realities have pushed them out! Getting the Fort Chambers
site “right” by the Arapaho and Cheyenne is therefore a high priority; along with
bringing Native people into visible participation, voice, with paid positions in
Boulder.
3 5.5%
Total Comments: 53 96.4%
Ecological Restoration Count
% of
Respondents
Support for environmental restoration
•I fully support the following: "Prioritizing future stewardship on ecological
restoration and exploring opportunities for indigenous plantings and harvesting by
Tribal members." … Also support removal of invasive species.
4 7.3%
Specific restoration suggestions
•Options for Northern leopard frog habitat? Consider some native plant pollinator
landscaping on the site where visitors will see it.
•Take land back to a natural grassland with the possibility of adding a few buffalo.
3 5.5%
Total Comments: 7 12.7%
Healing Trail / Education & Interpretation / Recreation Count
% of
Respondents
Mark/rebuild the fort/provide visual representation
•We support the tribes' desire to have the location of Fort Chambers identified in the
plan and we believe a visual marker must be provided so that all will remember the
significance of this property.
•The tribal representatives want the fort’s location to be a visual reminder of the
1864 Sand Creek Massacre. To ignore their request is shameful. Admit our crimes
by honoring their perspective.
•We need a replica, sculpture or a memorial structure (ideally a replica) to remind us
of the part the Boulder played in this shameful historic event.
21 38.2%
Attachment D
Written Information - Item B - Page 24
Healing Trail / Education & Interpretation / Recreation Count
% of
Respondents
Support for education/learning
•We are unfortunate inheritors of that history and need to stand in healing
responsiveness to it. There is much specific healing that needs to take place. It
begins with education and awareness!
•I hope that the spirit of this project is to really educate the public about the true
depth of the crime committed against innocent people who had lived and hunted,
prayed and played in this very environs.
11 20.0%
Support for healing concept / healing programs
•The concept centered on healing the people, healing the land is inspiring and
comforting.
•The name of the plan “Healing the People, Healing the Land” is a good one. Don’t
overlook this opportunity to start the healing in the exact place that the pain and
injury to the Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and people of Boulder began.
6 10.9%
Reinstall stone marker
•Why remove the inaccurate stone marker? Alongside the wrong “Chambers Indian
war” marker there should have been an accurate marker depicting the truth.
•Fred Mosqueda (S. Arapaho) has also asked that the marker that was placed in
1959, citing the “Indian uprising”, be replaced...People need to know that the
citizens of Boulder still believed there was an “uprising” in 1959 and many years
after that.
6 10.9%
Support for Native people sharing perspectives/teachings
•Let [the indigenous people] design or write the interpretive materials if they want.
Perhaps let them re-name the property?
•I would welcome some interp info about the tribes as they are today – where they
live, what they are doing, present tense stuf, etc.
•Truth and reconciliation meetings with Indigenous People, as they desire,
could/should be held on this property.
•Make sure Native American people can be on site to educate so we can all work
toward connecting, learning from each other and becoming a we instead of us and
them.
6 10.9%
Comments questioning focus on/depiction of the fort
•Granted that the Sand creek massacre was horrific, but the purpose that Fort
Chambers was build is the protection of local families and they are the ones that
built the fort. There was no organized militia at that time...Fort Chambers is not a
tie in to the Sand Creek massacre any more that was Julesburg, Denver, Boulder or
any other place that assisted or provided men for the the purpose of ‘destroying’
the Indian.
•Relatively speaking, [Fort Chambers] played al very small role in the Sand Creek
Massacre...All who live in Boulder are a part of a tragic history, so why do we
absolve ourselves of that history and just focus on a relative few who volunteered
and went to a inconsequential sod fort that didn’t last long?
2 3.6%
I believe the Fort Chambers plan is inadequate to accomplish the healing that is listed as a
goal of the plan...How miserly and greedy are we that there cannot be a portion of this
open space dedicated to [the Cheyenne and Arapaho’s] use.
1 1.8%
Total Comments: 59 107.3%
Attachment D
Written Information - Item B - Page 25
Agriculture / Farmstead Structures Count
% of
Respondents
Opposition to any non-Tribal focus (agriculture, building restoration, ecological restoration)
•With an additional agricultural focus, I am concerned that the current plan doesn’t
put reparations work and the needs/desires of the tribes as primary.
•...the most important part of the project should be to designate space for
indigenous people to gather and heal, and to clearly convey the history of what
happened at Fort Chambers and the impact on Indigenous people. I think land
restoration and agriculture should be secondary to these goals.
It is unclear what a farm and restored victorian home have to do with Tribal perspectives.
5 9.1%
Support for sustainable, or specific agricultural practices
•Do restorative agriculture to set example for global climate change problem.4 7.3%
Please restore that gorgeous old house. 1 1.8%
My only other comment is to express disappointment that the house or dormitories won’t
be restored to provide housing for Cheyenne and Arapaho and or Native students attending
CU...or to create a Native American Knowledge Center.
1 1.8%
Total Comments: 11 20.0%
General Comments Count
% of
Respondents
Support for plan / good idea / right step / overdue
•As the current residents of Boulder, this is a critical opportunity to honestly and
appropriately reckon with our nation’s crimes of racism, genocide, and colonization
is happening in many places around the country. We should set a good example
for others to follow.
14 25.5%
Would like to volunteer / help with project
•I’d like to volunteer, if you can use “a little old lady in tennis shoes.”
•Wildlands Restoration Volunteers is a nonprofit focusing on ecological restoration
and trail construction...If WRV can help expand the capacity/ funding needed to
complete these plans, we would love to do so.
10 18.2%
Would like to be kept up to date on project 6 10.9%
Opposition / general criticism
•Develop it. It is not historically significant.
•The 'poor farm' was so long ago AND No one is 100% sure that location was ever
the fort. Plus, this is ignored but It was the Wells farm property for 100 years!
2 3.6%
There are financial considerations which must be openly addressed by taxpayers before
any final plans are developed.
1 1.8%
Total Comments: 33 60.0%
Attachment D
Written Information - Item B - Page 26
Questionnaire Count
% of
Respondents
Comment window too small
•The 100 character limit on comments within the questionnaire is unreasonable and
clearly inadequate to facilitate meaningful comments.
4 7.3%
Feedback timeframe too short
•The 2 week comment period is too short, especially because one of those weeks
was spring break.
4 7.3%
I’m curious around why the survey was designed in a way that seeks feedback from all
people? ...it isn’t truly equitable to ask all of Boulder to decide on an issue that
disproportionately impacts Native people.
1 1.8%
Total Comments: 9 16.4%
Attachment D
Written Information - Item B - Page 27
Fort Chambers / Poor Farm Concept Plan Feedback
Questionnaire Comment Summary: Questions and Clarifications
1.Is it possible for the Arapaho &Cheyenne Nations to eventually have the land returned to
them.
An important part of the city’s collaboration with Arapaho and Cheyenne Tribal
Representatives for the Fort Chambers – Poor Farm project was to understand their
desired long-term relationship with this land. Tribal Representatives said they were not
interested in owning the Fort Chambers / Poor Farm property but would like to remain
involved long-term by providing meaningful input and advice on future land stewardship
and education/interpretive materials. Our ongoing conversation with Arapaho and
Cheyenne Tribal Nations is part of a broader city-wide government-to-government
consultation process with 16 different Tribal Nations that is also focused around
understanding their desired, long-term relationships with the land.
2.Are the perspectives of Indigenous people actually integrated into the final product? Or
talk only.
Given the land's connection to the Sand Creek Massacre, the city prioritized receiving
guidance from Tribal Representatives representing the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes,
the Northern Arapaho Tribe and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. With their guidance the
Concept Plan was developed. Through follow-up conversations, meetings and site visits
it was confirmed that the Concept Plan reflects the guidance they provided. We will
continue to work with Tribal Representatives to ensure that their perspectives are
accurately integrated into the final product.
3.Is this what Tribal Nations want? Or is it a compromise? SandCreek should be FROM
their perpective!
Please see response above. Once this phase of the project is complete and a Concept
Plan is finalized, we will move into the next phase of design. In this subsequent phase
we will be working with Tribal Representatives to develop educational and interpretive
elements for the site. The city recognizes that it is critical to reflect Indigenous
perspectives in how the events and stories are told.
4.Will the restoration and maintenance be done in the most respectful + environmentally
friendly ways?
OSMP does restoration and management in a very ecologically respectful way. We
follow strict practices so that resources are protected during construction, time
construction with consideration of native wildlife breeding and hibernation schedules,
only use native vegetation that is often sourced locally.
5.Why is farming still being done? Where do the ag products go?
Attachment E
Written Information - Item B - Page 28
Preserving agricultural uses and land suitable for agricultural production is an OSMP
Charter purpose. One of the primary reasons OSMP purchased the property was to
preserve agriculture values. The FCPF property has also been identified as one of a
small number of properties, with adequate water, soils, and infrastructure (housing and
outbuildings) suitable to support a diversified vegetable and livestock operation and
represents a best opportunity to support local diversified agriculture. Agriculture has
continued on the site since acquisition because ending such day-to-day stewardship
would negatively impact the property’s agricultural and natural resource values. Any
future agricultural leases will be guided by the concept plan.
The most recent agricultural tenant operated a Community Supported Agricultural (CSA)
operation and sold their agricultural products to their members and at local farmer's
markets.
6.Could the agricultural land be used for Indigenous people to support local Indigenous
community?
The City will use its Agricultural Land Use Assignment Guidelines (Guidelines) to select
an agricultural tenant for the property. An agricultural operation that grows Indigenous
crops and/or is associated with the indigenous community could be awarded the
property lease if their management proposal ranks the highest using the criteria outlined
in our Guidelines.
7.Problem: Do the tribes benefit from the farming.- is money generated for beneficial
programs?
Please see response above. The city leases its agricultural lands to local farmers and
ranchers. The money generated from the agricultural operation are the lessee’s profits
and ultimately supports the preservation of local agriculture. Agricultural lease payments
collected by OSMP are used to support OSMP programming.
8.Should we use water to grow hay for wealthy people's horses? I question propped up
agriculture here.
The Fort Chambers Poor Farm has supported various types of agricultural production
over time. Hay and livestock grazing was the predominant use of the property for many
years prior to OSMP's purchase of the property. The property was converted to a more
diversified vegetable and livestock operation after the City purchased the property as the
FCPF property was identified as one of a small number of properties suitable to support
a diversified vegetable and livestock operation. Hay production may be part of future
operations, but it is anticipated that the forage resources on the property will be used to
support grazing animals for food production rather than hay production for sale to the
local equestrian community.
9.Don’t understand connection with the restoration of the Queen Anne style home?
Preserving agricultural values and land suitable for agricultural production is an OSMP
Charter purpose. In addition to preserving agricultural land, OSMP also preserves the
necessary and associated agricultural homesteads or structures (housing and
outbuildings) which are a critical component to an operation. Many of these agriculturally
related structures or homes are also cultural resources. The restoration of the Queen
Attachment E
Written Information - Item B - Page 29
Anne style home is to support the future agricultural operation, it is also a significant
historic structure and listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
10. Could the Queen Anne house be a museum?
Using the house as a museum was considered, but it was not recommended. The
primary reason this was not recommended was because the Tribes provided guidance
that the house would not be the best place to interpret their stories and fulfill the concept
plan vision of heal the land; heal the people. The historic house was built after they had
been removed from the area; it is not a part of their story or history. It was determined
that the better place to provide education and interpretation of Tribal history, the
connection to Sand Creek, and Native American perspectives would be closer to where
the fort may have once stood. In addition, a museum use does not align with OSMP
Charter purposes, so OSMP would not have the ability to operate a museum; this option
would have required a disposal (selling of the property) to another party to convert the
house into a museum and oversee the operation. One of the primary reasons OSMP
purchased the property was to preserve the historic high-quality agricultural operations.
Disposal of the house structure would negatively impact the integrity of the farmstead
and potentially be in conflict with farm operations. In historic preservation theory, the
highest and best use, as well as the best form of preservation, is for a historic structure
to be used for its intended purpose. For the historic farmhouse, this is the historic
residential use. However, the concept plan does recommend further exploration of a
potential compatible secondary interpretive or educational use in the future phases of
design such as interpretive guided tours.
11. I am not sure about limiting the use. What about biking and horseback riding?
The vision for the site is to provide visitors with an opportunity to learn, reflect,
contemplate, pray, and heal. Limiting uses on the property reduces distractions.
Recreational uses such as biking and horseback riding would conflict with the
contemplative experiences envisioned.
12. I really do not know what an indigenous plant is.
The term “indigenous plant” was used to indicate the traditional plants and medicines
used by Native Tribes and Indigenous Peoples. Many of the plants that are native to
Colorado and have been used by the Tribes for generations, cannot grown on the lands
designated as Tribal Reservations because of the different growing conditions (i.e.
Oklahoma).
13. What tax is Boulder county going to impose to make this happen?
No new taxes are being proposed. Funding would be allocated through the OSMP
budget process with the potential for additional funding through grants and partnerships.
Attachment E
Written Information - Item B - Page 30
Additional Clarification:
During the engagement period, a few community members expressed concerns that the
Concept Plan lacked a visual representation of Fort Chambers (a marker, memorial or
reconstruction) and that the Tribal Representatives concerns were not being addressed:
The Concept Plan is intended to provide general guidance for the future of the site. The
design of interpretive elements will come after the Concept Plan is finalized. This next
design phase will include discussions about what information is presented and how Fort
Chambers will be represented. Tribal Representatives have confirmed that the current
Concept Plan provides a good foundation for providing interpretive elements and sharing
information. Once the OSBT provides guidance to proceed with the Concept Plan, we
will continue our collaboration with the Tribes, designing interpretive elements along the
healing trail - exploring what information to share, and how it is presented.
Attachment E
Written Information - Item B - Page 31
MEMORANDUM
TO: Open Space Board of Trustees
FROM: Dan Burke, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Jeff Haley, Deputy Director Visitor Experience and Infrastructure
DATE: June 12, 2024
SUBJECT: Written Information: North Sky Trail Completion
________________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this memo is to provide brief information to the Open Space Board of Trustees
(OSBT) regarding the status and expected completion of the North Sky Trail as part of the North Trail
Study Area (NTSA) Plan implementation. This widely anticipated section of trail will add
approximately 3.5 miles of multi-use trail experience to the OSMP trail network and provide a variety
of recreation opportunities within the area north of Boulder as well as connecting residents and visitors
to many other recreation opportunities throughout the region. More information can be found here.
As outlined in the NTSA Plan, the trail will follow sections of the existing 1880’s-constructed railroad
grade, parts of which currently serve as an undesignated trail. The North Sky Trail also requires the
construction of two trail bridges – the South Bridge spanning a through-cut in the 1880s railroad grade
embankment, and the other spanning the Schneider Draw drainage. OSMP’s contractor has completed
construction of both bridges for the North Sky Trail. Both bridges have been fully installed, with
remaining work including removal of construction materials from the sites, final sign-off by the
project engineer, and close-out of Boulder County permits. Both bridges are designed to
accommodate mountain bikers, hikers, and equestrians, and will facilitate trail maintenance access for
small equipment to sections of North Sky Trail. Both bridges are constructed of steel for longevity
(with wood decking) and sit on concrete bridge foundations. The Schneider Bridge was designed to fit
aesthetically with the landscape, while the South Bridge was designed with a rustic industrial aesthetic
as a nod to the history of the 1880’s railroad grade that the North Sky Trail follows.
The trail has been constructed and aligned with sustainable grades and drainage to minimize erosion
while also providing an enjoyable experience for all uses. Much of the trail will be natural-surface
(comprised of native soils) – some locations will be surfaced with aggregate base course (gravel)
where terrain and soil types may result in poor drainage and prolonged muddy trail conditions. Most
of the trail is complete and only finishing work remains at this point. On June 1, the annual National
Trails Day was held at North Sky and approximately 60 volunteers participated in helping to put the
finishing touches on a variety of areas of the trail. The trail construction is anticipated to be complete
by mid-July and once the trail is constructed and opened for public use, on-trail use will be required to
protect rare plants and habitat in this area and a Habitat Conservation Area (HCA) will be enacted in
the immediate vicinity. Staff finalized the recommended ordinance for the Habitat Conservation Area
that will be implemented and the ordinance is now being considered by City Council. A second
reading of the ordinance will be before the City Council on June 20 and considered final on July 20
after a 30-day public comment period. Additionally, dogs must be on-leash and are allowed for most
of the year; they are prohibited from May 1 – July 31 to protect bird nesting habitat.
A small celebration is planned for Monday, July 22 at the south terminus of the trail near the south
bridge and will likely be around noon to allow City Council and OSBT an opportunity to share in this
milestone of opening a new trail in Boulder. More details will be provided as the date draws closer.
Written Information - Item C - Page 1
Written Information - Item C - Page 2
Written Information - Item C - Page 3