5A - Public Hearing and consideration of two options for the Valmont City Park Concept PlanCITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 28, 2007
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of Two Options for the Valmont
City Park Concept Plan
PRESENTERS:
Jan Geden, CPRP, Director, Parks and Recreation
Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Peny Brooks, Pazks Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Boazd
(PRAB) with two options for the Concept Plan for Valmont Pazk (Attachinents A and B).
Also provided to the PRAB is a summazy of the goals for the concept plan update that
were established by the Valmont Pazk Advisory Group (VPAG) (Attachment C), a review
of the two options and the program elements included in each plan with a glossary
explaining and illustrating those program elements (Attachment D), a discussion of
phasing and the financial considerations for the plans with cost estimates for each opfion
(Attactunent E and F), and the main concems, priorities and the implementarion strategies
for the two options proposed. The PRAB is being asked to consider input from the public
hearing that will further inform the concept plans with the objective of narrowing down the
two opfions into one preferred plan that will be presented to PRAB and City Council in the
spring of this year.
COUNCIL FII.TER IMPACTS:
Economic: The development of Valmont City Pazk will provide enhanced and diverse
recteation opportunities for the cbmmunity and create wmpetitive venues for local,
regional and national athletes that will enhance the economic vitality of the city of
Boulder.
Environmental: The development of Valmont City Pazk will incoxporate a multitude of
low impact and sustainable design and construction practices. Some of the practices that
can be implemented in the design include water conservation, LEED~ Certified building
design, insrituting sustainable maintenance practices while encouraging and educating
participants to recycle during their visits to the pazk.
AGENDA ITEM #~A_PAGE_1_
Social: Valmont City Pazk will be a focal point for the entire community and will provide
opportunities for residents of Boulder to socialize with other residents. This pazk is
intended to attract diverse, multi-generational groups of users.
OTHER IMPACTS:
Fiscal: Ctiurently, no funding sources have been identified for park development and for
the on-going maintenance and operations for the Valmont City Pazk development. In
2007, PRAB expressed an interest in using Capital Improvements Program (CIP) funds in
the "Unanticipated Opportunities" category for development of Valmont City Park.
Currently, $500,000 is available in that category; however, estimated funding to complete
the development of VCP is estimated to be between $35-55 million dollars.
Staff time: The development of the final plan for Valmont City Park will require a
significant amount of staff time. Additionally, during the construction phase of the project,
it is anticipated that additional staff will be needed to assist with this process.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
On numerous occasions from May to December 2007 and in a variety of settings, staff met
with members of the community to gather input that informed the development of the two
options presented. Further details about the public input process can be found in the
"Analysis" section below.
BOARD and COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
The PRAB was updated on the process at regulaz business meetings throughout 2007.
ANALYSIS•
In order to thoroughly address the cpmmunity's needs and adequately gather input to
inform the revised plan, staff has completed amulti-tiered approach to gathering
community input.
One element of the information gathering process included the creation of the Valmont
Park Advisory Group (VPAG) comprised of community members that were appointed by
the City Manager to help inform the development of the revised plan. The VPAG
represents a broad range of interests in the community, including recreation, business and
neighborhood interests as well as representatives from the University of Colorado. The
VPAG met four times with the city's staff planning team in 2007 to provide input and
review plans and concepts as they were developed. The planning team also met with
various recreation user groups to gather additional input. From these meetings, three
options were produced in order to gather further community input. VPAG meeting
materials were posted on the city's website. The VPAG goals in updating the concept plan
are listed in Attachment C.
During the month of September 2007, three open houses at Eben Fine Park, East Boulder
Community Center, and Centennial Middle School were held to gather community input
on the three proposed options. Spanish-speaking interpreters were available at each open
house. One neighborhood meeting was held at the San Lazaro community room providing
AGENDA TTEM #~A PAGE 2
an opportunity for residents and other neighbors to comment on the options. Additionally,
the three options were posted on the department's website to inform the public and obtain
comments.
A survey (in both English and Spanish) was mailed to 3,000 randomly selected households
while 879 responses were received, providing a statistically desirable response rate of 31
percent. Typical response rates for mail in surveys range from 25-40 percent. Please refer
to Attachment G for Categorized Responses from the Web and Open House.
Conceut Plan Options
From the input received, the staff planning team refined the three options down to two.
These two options aze being presented to the PRAB and the community at this hearing for
consideration. Based on the feedback received at this hearing and the February 12, 2008
Council Study Session, the planning team will then develop a final Valmont City Park
concept plan.
While the significant amount of public feedback and input was received during the
Valmont City Park concept plan development process and helped in identifying the
proposed facility program for the-site, a few program elements remain unresolved. Below
is a description of the program elements for the two options. Illustrative concept plans for
these two options aze provided as Attachments A and B. Attachment D provides more
detailed descriptions of the facilities described below and photographs of other similaz
types of facilities. In both of the options, there is reference to the north and south. "North"
is the pazcel of land that is north of Valmont Road and is approximately 45 acres in size
while the "South" is the lazger pazcel to the south of Valmont Road and is approximately
90 acres in size.
Elements Common to Both Options A and B
Options A and B both feature amulti-purpose path network. The path system would
include hard and soft surface trails and connect with the existing greenway network. An
underpass and new sidewalks along Valmont Road would create a safer and more
convenient connection between the north and south sections of the pazk. The paths and
other landscape corridors throughout the park would accommodate Nordic skiing during
the winter.
Options A and B would also include an azea dedicated to lighted artificial turf fields that
could accommodate four championship-sized soccer fields A large, playground (1-acre),
accessible to children of all physical abilities, and picnic azea would also be featured in
both options. An additional area to the northwest would be dedicated to passive recreation
and an outdoor amphitheater would be located adjacent to the knoll north-west of the turf
fields.
Option A:
North
The majority of the north portion of the pazk would be dedicated to a bike pazk. The 20-
acre bike park would be designed to serve cyclists of all ages and abilities and would
AGENDA ITEM #~A PAGE 3
include bike trails, aten-ain park, a kid's track and a spectator plaza. The Platt Farmhouse
could be converted into a clubhouse or retail venture (e.g. coffee house, bike shop) to
accommodate the cyclists and other pazk users. Other features of the north portion of the
park would include an upgraded fenced five-acre dog pazk and passive recreation zones
that are adjacent to the irrigation ditches that would feature pedestrian-only trails, shelters,
picnic space and an open lawn area.
South
The 15-acre outdoor water park would include slides, a lazy river, spray grounds, pools
and a variety of other features designed to attract youth and their families. A covered
outdoor ice rink would be incorporated into water pazk design and would provide for
winter and summer park use. The filly developed version of the water pazk would also
include an indoor aquatic facility with a SOm x 25yd pool, lockers and spectator seating
while ascaled-back version of the water park would not include the indoor aquatic facility.
This option would feature two large indoor facilities - a gymnasium sized to accommodate
basketball and volleyball tournaments (60,000 s.f.) and a performing arts center. The
performing arts center would be designed to complement existing arts facilities in Boulder
and would include a lazge theater with seating for 750 to 1000 as well as classrooms and
studio space.
Option B:
North
In Option B, the maj ority of the north portion of the park would be dedicated to an 18-hole
disc golf course. The 20-acre course would be lazge enough to acwmmodate tournament
play. The Platt Farmhouse could be converted into a clubhouse or retail venture (e.g.
coffee house or a bike shop) to accommodate the disc golfers and other park users. This
option would include aneight-acre fenced dog pazk as well as the passive recreation zones
previously mentioned and would feature pedestrian-only trails, shelters, picnic space"and
an open lawn azea. The lazger dog pazk would feature agility training equipment and other
dog-related facilities.
South
The lighted artificial turf fields in Option B would be designed for field play only. In this
option, the existing city operations building is retained and adaptively re-used as a
community building (e.g. classrooms, studios, meeting rooms). Similar to Option A, this
concept would include a lazge, accessible playground (one-acre) and a picnic area.
In Option B, the bike pazk would move to the southern portion of the park. The bike pazk
in this amcept is 16 acres (four acres smaller than Option A}, but would still include bike
trails, a terrain park, a kid's track and spectator seating. A passive recreation zone would
separate the bike park from the fields and would include an amphitheater as well as more
traditional park-like amenities such as lawn, picnic areas, seating and shade structures.
Lazge indoor facilities in Option B would include a tennis complex and an ice azena
(30,000 s.f.). The tennis complex would feature indoor and lighted outdoor courts (12
courts total) in order to accommodate tournament play.
AGENDA ITEM #~A PAGE 4
Fynancial and Phasing Considerations
At the current time, no funding sources have been identified for pazk development and on-
going maintenance and operations for the Valmont City Pazk development. In 2007,
PRAB expressed an interest in using Capital Improvements Program (CIP) funds in the
"Unanticipated Opportunities" category for the development of Valmont City Pazk.
Currently, $500,000 is available in that category; however, estimated funding to complete
the development of the pazk is estimated to be aver $35 million dollazs.
The 2006 Pazks and Recreation Master Plan identify the department's priorities for pazk
development. Funding for the CIP was identified based on these priorities and it is
anticipated that additional funds will be allocated for these projects to fully fund park
development. The 2008-2013 CIP programs for the Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund
(230), the Pazks and Recreation 1995 Ballot (118) and The Lottery Fund aze included in
this memo as Attachments H, I and J.
One of the biggest development obstacles to the development of Valmont City Pazk is the
colony of prairie dogs on the southem portion of the site. The prairie dogs would have to
be removed from the area and development of that-azea in its entirety would need to
proceed. Otherwise, future encroachment from the prairie dogs from an undeveloped azea
to a newly developed area would likely occur; causing damage to city assets that would
require either mitigation or repair (the costs for this are unknown at this time).
The north side could be completed sepazately from the development of the southern
portion. The park could effectively be completed in two phases.
Cost Estimates
Cost estimates for the two options have been completed and aze included in this memo as
Attachment E and F. Because of the conceptual nature of the plans at this time, the cost
estimates have a broad range in dollar amounts in the capital and operational costs as well
as revenue expectations and subsidy required. After a final plan has been identified, the
cost estimates will be refined. A thorough business plan would be completed for any of
the indoor facilities. At this point in time, the cost estimate for Option A is $55.5 million
and for Option B is $35.5 million.
PRAB Input from Studv Sessions
The PRAB has held two study sessions on December 17, 2007 and on January 10, 2008
specifically for the development of the concept plans for Valmont City Park. Please refer
to Attachment K and L for the notes from those study sessions.
NEXT STEPS:
As previously mentioned, the PRAB is being asked to consider input from the public
hearing that will further inform the concept plans with the objective of narrowing down the
two options into one preferred plan. On Februazy 12, the PRAB will hold a joint study
session with City Council to discuss the amenities that will be in the final plan for Valmont
AGENDA ITEM #~A PAGE 5
City Pazk and the path toward future implementation. After one final plan has been
formulated, there will be a PRAB public heating for review and consideration before
adoption. City Council will also review and hold a public hearing before the adoption of
the final plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Concept Plan -Option A
B. Concept Plan -Option B
C. VPAG goals
D. Program element glossary
E. Cost Estimate -Option A
F. Cost Estimate -Option B
G. Categorized Responses from the Web and Open House
H. CIP -Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund
1. CIP -Parks and Recreation 1995 Ballot
J. CIP- Lottery Fund
K. PRAB study sessions notes December 17a' 2007
L. PRAB study sessions notes January 10`~ 2008
AGENDA ITEM #yA PAGE 6
OPTION A
Passive Recreation Zone Parking /Proposed Park Roads
Bike Park ~ Proposed Structures _ . _ -
I®Dog Park Existing Structures . _ ~ _ ~ .r ~
® Outdoor Water Park ~ Vegetation Buffers /Natural Corridors _
~°°4Oa~t _ I
Bike Park "
Artificial Turf Fields Multi Purpose Path (hard and sort surfaces( ( I Io-a,IS.,erd4,Ran.rarwcaltrdwrz
( ~Accesible Playground & ~ Pedestrian Underpass ` ryc,ocou cadsel ~ 1att Farmhaure _ _ i i7
a
Picnic Area - a
• Park Boundary I s v
oDitch Creek - ,
I ~ 1 ~r
~ ~
VALMONT RO/in
~.~L?~
I ~ the KrwQ' . I i~• I ~ I ! Rutriy!?4Si~ L~ ~ I
occ.~ ____-_1-
_ \ A_m~hltheatc! ~
try i; Artificial Turf Fields IAgh,col
I ~
\
Ire ~ i ~ - ~ .3
l .ir,.t, r q
I f~ ~
sn:RUNOnelvr I t _ ~ ~ Youth BaSeb_all/Softball Fields
Covered ice ~~+.,~T I I L_
Rln4 S c t
~ OIJtdOOr
~ Water Park r
'n tlei !ary~ rncr, Pouts. ,r+aYTm+nArl - Pknk ~ ~ ~ r., - ~t
_y- ~ : -,v, -i ~ Ned ' Ir t
I I d ~ AC[CSUWc r ` I Gynlrldshlm I~
~ North: Bike Parkl2oacres( `s L~...,,,~,~__i~
Dog Park IS uresl \
1y~~~V•'11 Passive Recreation Zone (7 acresi '\A:iiceiiie~ ~ \ `
~ -Trails, Picnic, Shelters, Lawn, etc ' 0•
Indoor Aquatic Facility (~5.00o sgrq
~ Covered Ice Rink I t acre( ~y
Artificial Turf Fields PP~~-~
- 9 BascDdll /Softball Flclds (240' dnd 300' rcncesi ` rte-.
4 Championship Soccer Fields i7;x 120 yards) C~ W
Accessible Playground r t acrel ~
~ Performing Arts Center Ivo.ooa sgnl `
ttt"'LLLTIII~~~,,TTTjjjlll South: Outdoor Water Park (ISacres( tr ~ ~ -
Gymnasium (vo,aoo sgtt] ~ ~
` ' -easkethall/Volleyball Center ~
y Pirnic Area (l s acres(
Amphitheater
Passive Recreation Zone Itl acres ter.:
Note nclds nrM Courts dre llghfCtl:.~c«,igr is.,~lsrr,xlnr.irr~
OPTION B
Passive RccreaUOn Zone Parking /Proposed Park Roads
Bike Park Proposed Structures
® Dog Park Existing Structures ' y~~ '
Disc Galf Course . Vegetation Buffers /Natural Corridors I _ ~ I
~1 ~
-Artificial Turf Fields Multi Purpose Pa[h p,arcl and son surfacesl I Disc Golf Course - -~.J[r-:
( Accesible Playground & s Pedestrian Underpass nehaesl ~
Picnic Area ~ . Park Boundary I y, . ~ a
I - ~ _ =p-'_l
I / Dog Park ' I
~ . I
. ~ _
VAI MDNT ROAD
I 'The Knell" Alarntwn RrNItY 114use
~ o~t>~f
.4 ~Am tL'-ilthcate.
1 `"`~J
, ' ArtiFcial Turf Fields pignccdi
1
r tr ~
~I,~~~~~:~~~;,~~I j ,tr.~
Ipwri ° .
i Bike Park ~ ~+c' I'
Itratls, tcr,xn t>•+rk lKMfwl iraturr-r flrnK ~ i
Area r
1 cyciarots snuuy
R~ygwM ~
North: Disc Golf Course (le Holes, zoacresi
Dog Palk IB acresl ~ Co"tmp~ea
Passive Recreation Zone 13 acresl
-Trails, Picnic, Shelters. Lawn, etc. \
South: Olke Park i I S acresl ~y
Ar[i/icial Turf Fields a~.tit ~
4 Champlonshlp Soccer Fields (15M 12.0 yards) ~~P ~
Accessible Playground (1 acre) s~~
Ice Arena (3p0,0oo sqR) ~
~ Tennls Com lex
- 12 Indoor and Outdoor Courts '''7
~ Picnic Area (l s aaesl ,
Amphitheater ~
f`L~ Passive Recreation Zone 15 acresl
I Note fKltls anrlCaxtt afe lkJMtO;dtte.,gc kapp•nki~~.nr Ys~
Attachment C
Goals for Valmont City Plan Concept Plan Update
1) Gather broad community input into updating the concept plan for
Valmont City Park and utilize community momentum to assist in
the process and "get the word out."
2) Determine components of the plan that are still valid and
components that need revision.
3) Utilize current recreation needs assessment/community survey
information in the update.
4) Prepare an updated plan that has widespread community
support.
5) Identify early phase projects that can be built soon.
6) Identify partnership opportunities with recreation and community
groups to leverage resources and allow earlier implementation.
AGENpA ITEM # , pgGE 9
Attachment D
accessible playground -
. ti, ; . s. f a 1-acre area devoted to outdoor play
,Axr ~ ` ~ containing recreational equipment. Play
~ 4 ~ ~ structures are accessible to children of all
- ~ ~ ~ abilities. Adventure play elements (rope
~ ~ a~~ ~ ~ -sr swings, climbing walls, etc.) as well as
_ T _ ~ natural features (boulders, water, etc.) will
1 ' ~ II ~Jl;~i~~E
~ ,1~~ ~ be incorporated into this large and unique
I _ _ . playground.
~
mr ~ amphitheater -
`?N,;;'r. , ~ r,,,,,,,' _ a flexible outdoor space designed to
~ accomodate a variety of activities including
~ musical and theatrical performances as well
~ f
~,r V ' - ~ fir' as lectures. The amphitheater could also
function as an outdoor classroom and park
_ ~ I, . . seating.
A~~1' ~ ~
°'`~z artificial turf fields -
i f;: An expanse of lighted artificial turf fields that
~tr_< a - . ~ accommodate 4 championship-sized soccer
fields. These fields can be "striped" like a
- - ' ~ ~ gym floor so that they can accommodate
~ a, '`y _ ~ ~ ~ many different field sports as well as youth
_ ~ i A ~ Y ` _ ~ " baseballlsoftball fields.
JJ ICJ Y ~ C~
~ / I, I~~1 f~. 'ail' y~~ n 4 h- :Y"~,.,..e.n„r ,,,,4,. ~ r1!!sE'ia,
~ ~ bike park -
L~~~~~~ ~ ; The bike park features a variety of trails with
__'~t, ,fff
///Irrr ~ , ~=~'t.``~ s° nearl 2 miles of eas to moderate trails that
~~tt y Y Y
111 , _ ' ~ ~ could accommodate a sanctioned cyclo-
: ~ ,
. ~ i ~ ~ cross race and over'/z mile of challen in
' ' ~;r ~ C' , ~ single track trails as well as a 700' start/
•
W ~ finish track. The bike park would include a
7}c 'tti'
s „ a terrain park with jumps, berms and various
` r : ~ technical features as well as a kid's track
i+ ~ r - and spectator facilities.
~ a
Attachment D
f indoor aquatic facility-
~"",,~-~.ti„ .~i~~
fi ~ ~.,~,;,,;`~~•~0 y~' a 45,000 sq foot facility with a 50 meter x
~~r ~ law - ~ ~ ° 25 yard indoor pool as well as lockers and
si ; I~ , ..~~.r's''' ~ ~ ~ f i seating for spectators.
i
~ e~~{~~v
r~ ~ ~:.tr'--,ice ~lil _ :may i ~9i~1~.;1~ •a~
r i ~ ` ~ X11 ' ; : ~
'1~'R• ~ multi-use path -
r ' ~~r--~~ ~ ~Jjtj~O~- the park's path network would include hard
'N" ~ , ~ J~ , and soft surface trails. The paths would
~ ~ connect with the existing greenway network
I' ~ ~ ! and other landscaped corridors. During
4;, ,r.%~~' ~ the winter they would accommodate nordic
i ~ r~ ~ 'a _ +;;~7 ! skiing.
-
outdoor water park -
, ~ ti~w~ the 15-acre water park features slides,
a lary river, spray grounds, pools and
' .,,mss-- ~ ~ a variety of other features designed to
' .r
_~`~'a~ ,R- ~,4,• ~ ;<a attract youth and their families. In the most
,~•..r` _ ,;~"v~'.« ~ • • . developed water park, an indoor aquatic
' ~ ~ ,
'i{~''~ ~ ~ • ' ~ facility, with a 50 meter pool would be
~
• ~ ~ ~ "`c ~ •M incorporated into the design.
- - - y~y~o-_ assive recreation
_ ~ w,.. _ kg- ~ p
~~~.,~:.,;~,L ~ :l ~ ~ - zone -
y„~, ~ less active areas that feature more
traditional park spaces. These spaces
Y,; ,
contain pockets of lawn, pedestrian only
trails, shade structures, seating and/or
r: _ _ picnic facilities. The passive recreation zone
~ , in the north helps buffer the natural corridor
%-~,~'~u - ~ along the ditches.
. ~ ~ -y?H {
~i,L ~ qu
performing arts center-
a 60,000 square foot performing arts center
_ ~ ,r- - would be designed to complement existing
arts facilities in Boulder and would include a
large theater with seating for 750 to 1000 as
' I r I x ~ C m~ well as classrooms and studio space.
r ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , -~~9tlk_bf'~1. b 7 ,,~`_.RYE Y ~ r I~^'LL~~ ~
~ _ ~k
` ~J
~ ~ ~
11
Attachment E
Option A
~ ~ ~
Multi-use Path (cycling,
runnin ,cross-country skiin) $ NIA A
Artificial Turf/Youth
baseball/softball Fields :;w NlA C
li hted)
Accessible Play round N/A A
Am hitheatre NIA A
Covered Outdoor Ice Rink N/A C
Performin Arts Center N/A E
Outdoor Water Park N/A
Indoor Aquatic Facility c;~;c; ~ N!A D
(SOmx25 rd ool)
Gymnasium ~`~``.S N/A
~ ' ~ ~
Fenced Do Park ~ NIA B
Bike/Terrain Park N/A A
NiA-none anticipated A-none ~intic~p;ti~'d N/A-none anticipated NIA-non ant.
$-<250,000 ~ _'~?.0~~~? $-<5,000 A-< 5,000
$$-250-500,000 $~-Zi1-yU.i)U~i $$-5-19,000 B-5-19,000
$$$-500-1 million 5$~- i 00-~~)~~ $$$-20-99,000 C-20-99,000
$$$$-1-5 million '~S$$-=5011.0t~~~ ! m $$$$-100-399,000 D-100-399,000
$$$$$->5million ! $$$$$-400+ E- 400+
South side additional costs
Roads/utilities $1.5-3 million
Relocation of Parks Operations $1-2 million
A/E, permit fees $1.5-3 million
North side additional costs
Roads/utilities $SOOk-1.5 million
A/E, permit fees $SOOk-750k
Total development costs: 55.5 million
Attachment F
Option B
>Vlulti-use Path (cycling,
runnin ,cross-country skiin) ~ N/A A
Artificial Turf Fields NIA C
(li hted)
Accessible Pla round ~ N/A A ~
Am hitheatre ~ NIA A
Ice Arena ~~5~ N/A C
Indoor /Outdoor Tennis
Com lex - N/A
Bike/Terrain Park N/A B
Community Building N/A C
(re ur osin arks o s)
~ ~ ~ ~
18-hole Disc Golf Course ~ N%a
Fenced Do Park S N/A B
N A-none anticipated ti' n~~n~ aiuu ipatr~.i N/A-none anticipated ?~'A- none ant.
-<250.000 * ~ ~ ~ $-<5,000 x,000
$$-250-500,000 ~;:6-'U-9y.i1t~~> $$-5-19,000 B-5-19,000
$$$-_50U-1 million ~`5'S t i10--i~~<> $$$-20-99,000 C-20-99;000
$$$$-i-5 million ~~~O.O~ti I tai $$$$-100-399,000 D-100-399,000
$$$$$->Smillion ~~~;.hk I ~n ~ $$$$$-400+ E-400-+~
South side additional costs
Roads/utilities $1.5-3 million
Relocation of Parks Operations $1-2 million
A/E, permit fees $1.5-3 million
North side additional costs
Roads/utilities $500k-1.5 million
AJE, permit fees $SOOk-750k
Total development costs:
Attachment G
Categorized Responses from the Web and the Open-House
A brief survey about Valmont City Park was distributed to participants in the Open
Houses. A similar survey was posted on the Parks and Recreation Department's
website to which anybody could respond. Two of the questions included on these
feedback forms solicited written comments from respondents. These responses were
examined and classified into categories. Many comments contained multiple
suggestions or statements, and thus could be classified into more than one category.
The feedback form questions were similar to questions that had been included on the
Valmont City Park Resident Survey, thus comparisons are made to survey responses.
A total of i73 responses were received from the Open Houses, and 536 web (or e-
mailed) responses. Not every respondent answered every question; the bottom row
of each table displays the number of respondents who answered that particular
question.
Two of the questions included on the feedback form were "closed-ended" type
questions, in which respondents given a list of amenities and asked to choose the two
they would prefer. One of these questions was similar to a question asked on the
resident survey, so a comparison could be made to resident survey results.
When asked which large outdoor facilities they would prefer, those responding to the
feedback form at the Open House or via the web rated a cycling complex as their top
preference (42% and 50%, respectively, see Figure a.). The second most popular
option for Open House respondents was an outdoor water park, while the second
most popular option for web respondents was a flat grass area.
Figure 1: Preference for Large Outdoor Facility
Given a choice, which large outdoor facility would you prefer? Percent of Respondents*
(choose 2) Open House Web
a cycling complex, including single track mountain bike trails, BMX
and cyclo-cross courses 42.4% 50.0%
an outdoor water park, including water play areas, lazy river, and
slides 30.9% 24.1%
flat grass suitable for field sports like soccer, lacrosse, rugby,
ultimate Frisbee 26.6% 32.2%
a small lake suitable for swimming_ and boating 21.6% 21.9%
an 18 hole disc golf course 20.1 % 21.5%
youth baseball and softball fields 11.5% 7.3%
none of the above 12.9% 8.5%
Number of respondents N=139 N=506
* Percents add to more than 100% as respondents' could glue more than one answer. ci
L
U
N
W
N
N
N
C
O
Z
r
0
0
N
Valmont C' Park Comment Re ort 2007-11-28 0
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
Attachment G
Those completing the feedback form were asked which type of indoor facility they \
would prefer. The top 3 choices of those responding at the Open House were a tennis
complex (4>,%), an indoor aquatic facility (32%) and an indoor ice arena (24%). The
top 3 choices of those responding via the web were an indoor aquatic facility (46%),
an indoor ice arena (28%) and a tennis complex (2~%). A similar question was asked
on the resident survey. Among survey respondents, the top 3 choices were an indoor
performing arts center (3g%), an indoor ice arena (38%) and an indoor events center
(35%)•
Figure 2: Preference for Large Indoor Facility
Given a choice, which large indoor facility would Percent of Respondents*
you prefer? (choose 2)**
Which TWO of the following options would you
most prefer to see developed in Valmont City
Park?
(Please check up to 2 options only.)*** Open House Web Survey
an indoorloutdoor tennis complex suitable for
tournament plan (5 indoor, 7 outdoor) 41.4% 26.8% 26%
an indoor aquatic facility with a 50 meter by 25 yard
pool, separate dive pool/warm-up pool and
spectator seating 31.7% 46.3% 29%
an indoor ice arena (suitable for adult/youth hockey
and general skating) 24.1% 27.8% 38%
an indoor pertorming arts center with seating
capacity of 800-1,000 (with dance rooms, a gallery
for visual arts, and a stage 18.6% 13.8% 39%
an indoor basketball/volleyball center suitable for
tournament play and community events (configured
for 6 full-sized basketball or 12 volleyball courts and
suitable for concerts, communitylsporting events) 13.1% 16.1% 35%
none of the above 20.0% 16.3% 10%
Number of respondents N=145 N=514 N=853
* Percents add to more than:oo% as respondents' could give more than one answer.
Open House and Web survey wording. ***Survey wording.
U
C
d
C
d
U
L
U
N
d
N
N
N
C
O
Z
r
O
O
N
Valmont Ci Park Comment Re rt 2007-11-28 ~
~~ENO~ I~E~ P~,~~ i ~
Attachment G
When asked what they would most like to see at Valmont City Park, the top 3
suggestions from Open House respondents were tennis facilities, fields and a dog
park. For web respondents, the top 3 choices were bicycling trails, a swimming pool
or aquatics facility and aBMX/cyclocross track. Comparisons are included to
resident survey results in the figure below, although the resident survey question
was a slightly different one. While the feedback forms asked respondents to write in
their top three preferences, those completing the resident survey were asked if there
were other facilities they thought were important after being asked to rate the
importance of each of a list of >.9 items. The top 3 facilities mentioned by survey
respondents included multi-use/running trails, agarden/arboretum and rock
climbing/bouldering facilities.
Figure 3: Preferences for Things to Include at Valmont City Park
Percent of Respondents Who Made a
What do you think are the three most important Comment*
things to include at Valmont City Park?** Open House Web Survey
Support for tennis facilities 31.9% 20.0% 2.8%
Support for multi-use or specific sports fields 22.7% 19.7% 2.2%
Support for dog park 17.8% 5.5% 1.5%
Support for BMXlcyclocross track 16.0% 21.4% 4.9%
Support for skate park 11.7% 0.4% 7.0%
Support for bicycling trails/other options 11.7% 27.1 % 1.7%
Support for disc golf 11.7% 14.1 % 1.7%
Support for ice rink 9.2% 6.9% 1.9%
Support for swimming pool or facility 8.6% 26.7% 3.0%
Support for water park 8.0% 4.0% 2.0%
Support for multi-use/running trails 5.5% 11.3% 10.2%
Support for natural lands 4.9% 2.1 % 2.3%
Support for handball 4.9% 0.0% 1.7%
Support for amenities that serve youth/children 4.9% 3.4% 0.5%
Support for pertorming arts center 4.3% 1.9% 6.2%
Support for Nordic/cross-country skiing trails 3.1% 13.9% 4.1%
Support for picnic/meeting areas 2.5% 4.0% 6.1
Support for playground or children's area 2.5% 5.3% 4.6%
Support for small lake 1.8% 3.8% 0.6%
Support for indoor recreation center 1.2% 0.0% 3.4%
Support for neighborhood commercial center 1.2% 0.0% 1.7%
Support for multi-purposes over single-use
purposes 1.2% 2.5% 0.0%
Support for velodrome 0.6% 1.1% 5.1%
Opposition to dog park 0.6% 0.0% 1.7%
Opposition to golf course 0.6% 0.0% 1.1
m
Support for pottery lab 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% a
Support for amenities that are needed or not ~
R
duplicative 0.6% 1.5% 0.0% o
Opposition to tennis facilities 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% z"
0
0
N
Valmont Ci Park Comment Re rt 2007-11-28
~tGEN15A ITEM PAGE
Attachment G
Percent of Respondents Who Made a
What do you think are the three most important Comment*
things to include at Valmont City Park?** Open House Web Survey
Opposition to multi-use or specific sports fields 0.6% 0.4% 0.0%
Support for garden/arboretum 0.0% 0 8% 8 8%
Support rock climbing/bouldering facilities 0.0% 0.0% 7.5%
Support for golf course 0.0% 0.4% 2.8%
Opposition to disc golf 0.0% 0.0% 1.7°10
Opposition to ice rink 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%
Negative comments about the Valmont Park plans 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%
Positive comments about the Valmont Park plans 0.0% 0.6% 0.7°!0
Negative comments about survey 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Opposition to water park 0.0% 0.6% 0.4%
Concerns about cost I taxes D.0% 0.0% 0 2%
Opposition to multi-use/running trails 0.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Opposition to swimming pool or facility 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Opposition to velodrome 0.0°!0 0.2% 0.0%
Opposition to bicycling trails/other options 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Other 18.4% 16.4% 24.8%
Number of respondents N=163 N=476 N=169
* Percents add to more than loo% as respondents'comments could cover more than one category.
**Suruey comments were in response [o the question Any other facilities you would suggest? (in response to:
Please rate how important it is that each of the following be developed at Valmont City Park or elsewhere in
Boulder.)"; Web and Open House comments were in response to the question "What do you think are the three most
important things to include at Valmont City Park?"
`v
d
U
t
u
`m
v
N
d
N
C
O
m
Z
n
0
0
N
Valmont Ci Park Comment Re ort 2007-11-28 ~
~seEE~DR ITEM , PAGE
Attachment G
The feedback forms and the resident survey included a final question that allowed
respondents to make any comment or suggestion they desired. The three most
commonly given comments by Open House participants were expressed support for
tennis facilities (20%), support for disc golf (i3%) and support for fields (ii%). Those
responding via the web most commonly expressed support for bicycling facilities
(28%), support for BMX/cyclocross track (i8%) and support for tennis facilities
(18%). Survey respondents who made comments most often stated they would like to
see multi-use or specific sports fields at the Park (i> expressed support for disc
golf (9%), expressed support for bicycling facilities (8%) or expressed support for an
ice rink (8%).
Figure 4: Other Comments
Percent of Respondents Who Made a
Comment`
Any other comments?`" Open House Web Survey
Support for tennis facilities 19.6% 17.5% 4.3%
Support for disc golf 13.4% 13.5% 9.3%
Support for multi-use or specific sports fields 10.7% 4.0% 11.4%
Support for BMX/cyclocross track 9.8% 17.5% 6.8%
Support for bicycling trails/other options 8.9% 27.9% 8.2%
Support for dog park 8.9% 0.8% 7.6%
Support for lighting at the park 8.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Opposition to water park 6.3% 1.6% 4.2%
Support for skate park 6.3% 0.0% 0.7%
Support for performing arts center 5.4% 0.0% 6.3%
Opposition to multi-use or specific sports fields 5.4% 3.2% 5.2%
Support for natural lands 4.5% 1.6% 5.9%
Support for amenities that serve youth/children 4.5% 4.0% 4.0%
Opposition to disc golf 4.5% 0.0% 3.4%
Support for multi-purposes over single-use
purposes 4.5% 1.2% 2.1%
Support for multi-use/running trails 3.6% 3.6% 6.4%
Opposition to swimming pool or facility 3.6% 1.2% 1.0%
Support for ice rink 2.7% 3.2% 8.2%
Support for indoor recreation center 2.7% 0.8% 2.6%
Opposition to small lake 2.7% 1.6% 0.1%
Opposition to indoor recreation center 2.7% 0.8% 0.0%
Positive comments about the Valmont Park plans 1.8% 7.6% 5.2%
Support for swimming pool or facility 1.8% 14.3% 3.3%
Support for garden/arboretum 1.8% 0.0% 3.1 % d
Opposition to dog park 1.8% 0.0% 2.6% ~
Opposition to BMX/cyclocross track 1.8% 0.0% 0.9%
Opposition to multi-use/running trails 1.8% 0.4% 0.0%
Support for amenities that are needed or not
duplicative 0.9% 4.8% 6.2% `o
Support for water park 0.9% 0.8% 5.2% z"
r
0
0
N
Valmont City Park Comment Re ort 2007-11-28
:~f?CP16-9N 0`5°GAH ff C~Pad;~ C~
Percent of Respondents Who Made a
Comment*
Any other comments?** Open House Web Survey
Support for NordiGcross-country skiing trails 0.9% 10.8% 4.9%
Opposition to golf course 0.9% 0.4% 2.8%
Concerns about cost /taxes 0.9% 0.0% 2.7%
Support for picniGmeeting areas 0.9% 0.4% 2.6%
Negative comments about the Valmont Park plans 0.9% 0.0% 1.7%
Support for velodrome 0.9% 2.0% 1.0%
Opposition to neighborhood commercial center 0.9% 0.0% 0.5%
Support for pottery lab 0.9% 2.0% 0.0%
Opposition to bicycling trails/other options 0.0% 0.8% 3.6%
Positive comments about survey 0.0% 5.6% 3.3%
Support for playground or children's area 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%
Support for small lake 0.0% 1.2% 2.0%
Support rock climbing/bouldering facilities 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%
Opposition to tennis facilities 0.0% 0.8% 1.6%
Negative comments about survey 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%
Negative comments about Parks and
Recreation/City 0.0% 0.4% 1.2%
Positive comments about Parks and
RecreationlCity 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%
Support for golf course 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
Support for neighborhood commercial center 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
Opposition to ice rink 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
Opposition to performing arts center 0.0% 0.8% 0.1
Other 24.1 % 9.2°!0 28.6%
Number of respondents N=112 N=251 N=382
* Percents add to more than ioo% as respondents' comments coutd cover more than one category.
Suruey comments were in response to the question `Do you have any other comments or suggestions about the
future of Valmont City Park?'; Web and Open House comments were in response to the question "Any other
comments?"
u
c
w`
c
U
L
U
N
d
N
d
C
O
Z
r
0
0
N
Valmont City Park Comment Re rt 2007-11-28 p ~7 ~ ~
zGeP6Yd2 i~ u`i ICWN Yf ~f1' ®®~F /'~M
2008-2013 Capital Improvements Program AttBC}liilent H
Parks & Recreation 1995 Balot (Fund 118)
2006 Carry-over 2007 Carry- 2008 2009 ProjeRed 2010 Projected 2011 Projected 2012 Projected 2013 Projected Total
over Recommendetl
Existing FaNIRy-Enhancements/Upgrades
Recreation Center/Pool Improvements .25 sales [ax 69,603.00 143,000.00 250,000.00 SSO,000.OOJ 150,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 650,000.00 1,512,603.00
Total: 69,603.00 143,000.00 _ _ 250,000.00 150,000.00 _ 150,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 650,000.00 1,512,603.00
_
g dy- nq Correction - - -
Ezlstin Fadl' Rehab/Repair/Defrcie - -
Iris Parking 0.00 0.00 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 75 000.00
Total 0.00 0.00 75,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75 000.00
New Construction-Growth Related Facility/Additions
Dakota Ridge Pocket Park 602,311.00 0.00 400,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 1,002,311.00
Total: 602,311.00 0.00 400,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 1,002,311.00
New Construction- Not Growth Related
Mesa Memorial Pocket Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 350,000.00 _ 200,000.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 550,000.00
Elks Neighborhood Park 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00E 800,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 200,000.00 3,200,000.00
Hickory Pocket Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
Lighting Ordinance Compliance 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 330,000.00 _ 380,000.00
_ - _ _ _
Total. 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 350,000.00 1,200,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,200,000.00 530,000.00 4,330,000.00
On-Going Projects
- - - _ -
Unantiopa[edOpportunides 0.00 150,00000 15000000 250,000.00 100,000.00 10000000 0.00 100000.00 850,000.00
Total _ 0.00 150,000.00 150 000.00 250,000.00 100,000.00 100 000.00 0.00 100 000.00 850,000.00
Total P&R 1995 Ballot 871,914.00 343,000.00 875,000.00 750,000.00 1,450,000.00 1,100,000.00 1,300,000.00 1,280,000.00 7,769,914.00
- _ - - _ - _ - - _ L_. - -
- - - - - _ - _ _ - - - - _ - - _ - - _ - - C
- - _ _ - - - _ - - - _ - - _ _ p
_ r
_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ r
- _ - - - - _I. _
2008-201 CIP excel
N1 #TA- .PAGE
Attachment I
Fund 230
2008-2013 Capital Improvements Pro ram
Permanent Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot (Fund 230)
2006 Carry- 2007 Carry- 2008 Recom- 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
over over mended Pro'ected Pro'eded Pro"ected Pro'ected Pro'eCted
-
ExistingFacility-Enhancements/Upgrades - - ~ - _ ~ ~
Flatirons Golf Course Improvements PP&R 125,096.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 775,096.00
Recreation Facility Improvements PP&R 159,340.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 700,000.00 0.00 0.00 859,340.00
Total: 284,436.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 750,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 1,634,436.00
---1-- - - -
Existing Facility-Rehab/Repair/Deficiency Correction r
Boulder Reservoir Improvements 120,0.00 00 220 000 00 250,000.00 150,000.00 50,000 00 50,000.00 50 000.00 890,000.00
Harlow Platts Park _ 0.00 0 00 135 000 00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 135,000.00
Urban Parks R&R 481 000.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ _ 0.00 _ 0.00 _ 0.00 481,0_00.00
Wonderland Wke Park _ ~ 100,000.OD 228,000.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 328,000.00
- - -
Total 481,000.00 120,000 00 455,000.00 478,000.00 150,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 1 634,000.00
New Construction-Growth Related Facility/Additions _ _ _
East Boulder Community Park PP&R 1 289 283.00 700,000 00 470,000.00 650,000.00 500,000.00 300,000 00 0 00 _ 0.00 3,909,283.00
Foothills Community Park PP&R 141 686.00 0 00 125,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 0 00 0.00 500,000.00 1,766,666.00
Total 1 430 969.00 700,000 00 595,000.00 1,150,000.00 1,000,000.00 300,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 5,675,969.00
New Construction- Not Growth Related
Violet Neighborhood Park 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 1,700,D00.00
Total: 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 1,700,000.00
On-Going Projects
Unanticipated Opportunities- PP&R 0.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 700,000.00
Total: _ o.o0 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 loo,ooo.ooT 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 700,000.00
_ _ _ i___ _
Total Permanent Parks & Recreation 2,796,405.00 1,070,000.00 1,400,000.00 1,828,000.00 1,350,000.00 1,200,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 11,544,405.00
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
Z
Attachment J
Fund 111
2008-2013 Capital Improvements Program _ _ _ _
Lottery Fund
2006 Carty 2007 Carty 2008 Remm- 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
over over mended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
New Construction-Growth Related Facility/Additions
Dakota Ridge Pocket Park-Lottery 0.00 0.00 200,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
Total: 0.00 0.00 200,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200,000.00
On-Going Projects - - - _ - -
Tributary Greenways Program 0.00 0.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 900,000.00
Historical Structures & Trails Stabilization & Restoration 0.00 0.00 0.00 475,000.00 475,000.00 475,000.00 475,000.00 475,000.00 2,375,000.00
Total: 0.00 0.00 150,000.00 625,000.00 625,000.00 625,000.00 625,000.00 625,000.00 3,275,000.00
Total for Lottery Funds 0.00 0.00 350,000.00 625,000.00 625,000.00 625,000.00 625,000.00 625,000.00 3,475,000.00
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
Attachment K
PRAB Study Session
Valmont City Park Concept Plan Update
December 17, 2007
Meeting Notes
COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPTS AND PROPOSED FACILITIES
Following the Valmont planning team's brief
presentation on the survey results, public input,
and the two concept plans, members of the PRAB offered the following comments on the
proposed
facilities.
Fields
1. What is the demand for multi-purpose, artificial turf fields and does the department
predict that they could fill a schedule for this many fields? (Response: Scheduling the
artifaciad turffrelds would not be a problem. There is a demand and a114 felds could
easily be programmed.)
2. What are the needs of the baseball and softball community? (Response: Currently, within
Boulder a quality facility for tournaments for baseball and softball is not available. The
little league fields are in terrible shape. There is a demand
for more bald fields for middle
schoolers.)
3. Is there a possibility of including amiddle-school sized baseball field within the multi-
purpose fields? Perhaps in Option B there could be 2 little league and 2 middle school
sized fields.
4. What percentage of the park users utilizing the artificial turf fields would be under the
age of 18? We need to keep the aging of Boulder's population in mind and ensure that
we are meeting the needs of our City's shifting population.
Bike Park
1. Expand the "bike pazk" label on the map to include a description of what is included in
the azea. (2 PRAB members)
2. The cycling community prefers the bike pazk in the north because it is a larger area and
can accommodate the requisite miles of trails better than the South.
3. Concem was expressed about making Council decide between cycling or disc golf.
Disc Golf Course
1. Disc golf should not take up as much space as shown even if it is an inexpensive facility
and may only cost $18k to construct. Over 18 acres is a lot of value (in terms of land
value) to dedicate to this single use.
Water Park
1. The water park may be excessive, but if it generates revenue to support other recreation
facilities in the system than it should be considered.
2. What aze the revenue generation capabilities of the water park?
3. Investigate how much would be chazged for the water park? We should consider who is
going to pay this amount and who is not and predict how many times people will return
to the water park.
11GEiVDA ITEM PAGE
4. The water park concept should be more cleazly explained. Perhaps expand the label to
include more of a description and if a pool is to be included within the water pazk zone,
then trace the outline of the pool.
Indoor Facilities
1. Is there a demand for indoor and/or outdoor ice facilities? (Response: within the region
there are several indoor rinks. The outdoor rink proposed could be scheduled
for
hockey, but it would likely be smaller than a standard rink)
2. Are ice rinks self-sustaining ventures or do they require a subsidy. (Response: typically,
they are subsidized.)
3. Have we considered CU's tennis facilities, is there a need for more courts at Valmont?
(Response: Yes, CU's facilities were considered, but they are all outdoor courts and are
not lighted. A bubble could potentially be built around some of them.)
COMMENTS ON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Phasing
1. Phasing will be important as we discuss implementation of the plan. Provide ideas for
phasing and for how the plan for Valmont can be realized incrementally. (2 PRAB
members)
NEXT STEPS
1. PRAB members agreed to convene for another Valmont City Pazk study session prior to
the January 28a' public heazing.
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
Attachment L
PRAB Study Session
Valmont City Park Concept Plan Update
January 10, 2008
Meeting Notes
CONCERNS
Funding
1. Funding -both capital dollars to build and ongoing operations and maintenance dollars.
2. Effect on the department -will additional staff be required? Other demands?
3. Find the balance between a long range plan and getting something accomplished.
4. How to expand maintenance capacity?
5. Can facilities be self-supporting?
Water Park
1. Understanding the level of risk with a water pazk. What will be the return on inveshnent?
2. What to do with a water pazk from September to May.
3. Expectation that a water pazk would need to be "water world". A lazge water pazk maybe
necessary to attract and generate revenue.
4. How can we communicate what is meant by a water pazk? Note how populaz similar
indoor facilities aze in Boulder like the leisure pools at the NBRC.
6. We've heard demands for nearly all the facilities on the concepts, but the water pazk. Is
there a proven demand for this use? Are there other locations in the system that could
accommodate a water park (e.g. reservoir)? (Staff notes that there are not vocal
constituency groups for amenities like leisure pools and playgrounds yet they aze heavily
used and highly desired
Disc Golf Course and Bike Park
1. Building a facility just because it is affordable shouldn't be the driving justification.
2. Accommodating both disc golf and a bike pazk in one plan will require a substantial
compromise for one of the groups. The North is more appealing for both groups because
of the terrain features -mature trees, topography, ditches and because it's isolated from
other uses.
3. Is there another place for disc golf in the pazk system? It is a growing sport.
4. While there is a political demand for disc golf, is there a popular demand? There is a
clearer demand for biking.
5. Should we be considering existing facilities? We have a 9-hole disc golf course in the
system, but no bike pazk.
6. What type of facility is better suited for the terrain on the north side of the site, especially
since disc golf and biking are not compatible uses.
Multi-Purpose Fields
1. In light of future demographics, particularly the aging population, what is the long range
need for multi-purpose fields? Can they be constructed in a manner that allows for
redevelopment in the future if needs change? Make them sustainable -artificial turf.
~1CENDA iTEV~ PAG~~
Community Expectations
1. Hope that something could be accomplished in the short term without a bond. Identify
what we can afford
- especially meeting the needs of teenagers.
2. What does the Spanish-speaking community want? Challenging to get input from the
Spanish-speaking community.
3. Providing flexibility in the plan to allow for future growth and future changes.
4. Great momentum creating during the planning process - if no implementation, this will
result in a loss of confidence in the city and lead to dissatisfaction. How can we continue
the momentum? Phased implementation seems to be key to preserving the momentum
and support for Valmont.
5. Avoid plan getting shelved. If it does, the community will be less likely to participate in
the process in the future.
PRIORITIES
1. Build bike park first. Unique to Boulder and highly needed (4 PRAB members). Would
accommodate the teenage crowd and wouldn't require a huge investment.
2. Build artificial turf fields first (1 PRAB member)
3. Proceed on two tracks - build an indoor and an outdoor facility first.
4. These facilities could be built immediately and should be prioritized: Multi-use path, dog
pazk, picnic azea, and playground should come second
(after bike pazk).
5. If/when substantial funding is secured prioritize as follows: multi-use fields, water park,
indoor facilities (ice and tennis), and amphitheater (1 PRAB member)
6. Make facilities asmulti-purpose as possible.
7. In terms of indoor facilities tennis and ice should be priorities. (1 PRAB member)
8. Important that some facilities generate revenue.
9. By observing the level of use at the NBRC leisure pool, the water pazk should be a
priority.
IMPLEMENTATION
The boazd generally agreed with the staff recommendation for implementation (build north side
first with CIP dollazs and funds accruing in the "unanticipated opportunities" fund and proceeds
from the sale of the Kentucky and Papini properties), bond for the southern part and build all at
once (which will simplify the prairie dog issue), leaving a couple of sites for indoor facilities to
be implemented through public/private partnerships.
- partners have already expressed interest in helping with the operation and maintenance of
the cycling and nordic facilities.
- Important to also consider long-term maintenance of the pazk in the implementation
discussion. The bond will have to include a corollary for O&M costs.
The boazd expressed concern with re-allocating CIP funds -what will the trade-offs be? What
will we be delaying? Want a cleazer understanding of the outstanding "wmmitments" and how
development of Valmont facilities may affect other parks.
~GEND~4ITEAA . PA~a~ v ~
Tasks for staff or things to include in the Memo
1. More cleazly define the water park. Provide high, medium and low options.
2. cleazly describe the pros and cons of cycling and disc golf on the north versus the south
(trees, terrain, ditches, isolation, access, aesthetics, user experience)
3. cleazly describe what is assumed in each facility (for example, how many tennis courts?
how many indoor?)
4. Identify key observations regazding the surveys. Clarify that the survey is one of several
pieces of feedback that the planning team has collected.
5. Stress data from existing uses (like Tern's input on field usage).
6. Explore outdoor aquatic facility more. Can it be covered?
7. Is there a place for disc golf in Boulder if it doesn't fit here?
aG~rloa iren~ l~ ,