Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5B - Consideration of a recommendation to the Open Space Board of Trustees on the IBM Trail Connector Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP)CITYOFBOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 19, 2008 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) on the IBM Trail Connector Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) PRESENTERS: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent Perry Brooks, Pazks Planner Matt Clausen, Acting Urban Resource Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for the Pazks and Recreation Board (PRAB) to conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) on the IBM Trail Connector Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP). PRAB members received an information packet the week of May Sa' that included background information as well as the final draft CEAP and figures. Attached is the memorandum to the OSBT (Attachment A). The OSBT will make a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the CEAP and a preferred trail alignment because the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department is the lead city department for the project. The OSBT will consider recommendations from the PRAB and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) in its deliberations. The IBM Trail Connector is a proposed multi-use trail within the city of Boulder that will connect the existing Cottontail Trail on the east side of Highway 119 (Diagonal Highway) to the existing Boulder Reservoir trail system on the west side of 63rd Street. The proposed trail would be about one mile in length, and would provide a regional trail connection between the Gunbarrel area and Boulder Reservoir (Attachment B). A Community Environmental Assessment Process Report (CEAP) has been conducted to determine the most viable and environmentally sound alternatives for completing the trail and to document issues for each alternative. A public open house was held on May 5, 2008 to solicit feedback on the proposed project and the feedback from the public was generally favorable (Attachment C). AGENDA ITEM #_V B_PAGE_1_ The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) held a public hearing on May 12, 2008 to solicit input from the community to make a recommendation on the CEAP. While there was no public comment, TAB members did express concerns about the cost of the possible wetland mitigation, the ability to close the trail if the burrowing owl's nests in the area aze being inhabited and the extent of educational opportunities for alternative transportation. Because of the potential impacts to multiple departments within the city, each impacted department has been asked to solicit feedback from its boazd. Department staff briefed the PRAB on the project at the March 31, 2008 meeting. As requested by PRAB, the CEAP report documents the following items: • Tom Watson Pazk being used as a regional trailhead • Long term ownership and management of Tom Watson Pazk and management of the Boulder Reservoir azea • North 63rd Street crossing options and costs • Potential disturbance from construction of the trail to neazby bald eagle perch sites • Affects of the proposed trail alignment on prairie dog and burrowing owl habitat Key Issue Identification The key elements identified for the IBM trail connector, as it relates to azeas under management by the Pazks and Recreation Department, aze the short-term and the long-term trail management, as well as the management and/or ownership of Tom Watson Park. COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS • Economic: This trail connection could have an economic impact to the Pazks and Recreation Department due to the potential increase in attendance at Tom Watson Pazk, Coot Lake and the Boulder Reservoir azea. The costs for additional management and maintenance as a result would impact the departmental budget and staffing resources. • Environmental: This trail connection has both positive and negative environmental impacts. This connection will allow trail users the opportunity to connect to other trail networks that were previously non-existent, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from reduced traffic volume. Conversely, with this potential enhancement, recreation opportunities could increase traffic volumes due to the fact that Tom Watson Pazk may become a destination azea or regional trailhead. Other environmental trail impacts include wetlands and buffer impacts, prairie dogs, and burrowing owls habitat disruptions. • Social: This trail connection will be a benefit to the community in that it will provide greater social opportunities for people that reside in the city and just outside the city and elsewhere to interact with one another in ways that otherwise might not be possible. AGENDA ITEM #_V BPAGE_2_ OTHER IMPACTS • Fiscal: Funding for long term operating or management costs associated with possible trailhead development at Tom Watson Pazk may require budget trade-offs or development ofinter-departmental cost sharing options. • Staff time: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan did not identify this specific project as a priority item, although staff time has been significant due to the timeline of the CEAP and funding sources for the trail. Development of recreation and land management plans will likely be required, resulting in additional staff involvement. ACTION FOR PRAB The PRAB is asked to conduct a public hearing and solicit public comment make a final recommendation to the OSBT on the IBM Trail Connector Community and Environmental Assessment Process. Attachments: Attachment A: Open Space Boazd of Trustees (OSBT) Memo Attachment B: Map of Proposed Trail Plan Attachment C: May 5, 2008 Open House Comments AGENDA ITEM #_V BPAGE_3_ Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 9, 2008 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on the IBM Trail Connector Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) PRESENTERS: Michael D. Patton, Director Joe Mantione, Acting Division Manager Planning and Technical Services Matt Jones, Environmental Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is for the Open Space Boazd of Trustees to make a final recommendation to City Council on the IBM Trail Connector Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP). The IBM Tmil Connector is a multi-use trail within the city of Boulder that will connect the Boulder Reservoir trail system to the Cottontail Trail. This proposed regional trail is about one mile in length and will improve connectivity and safety between the Gunbarrel area and Boulder Reservoir. An interdepartmental team completed the attached draft IBM Trail Connector CEAP report. The team is comprised of representatives from Open Space and Mountain Pazks (OSMP), Pazks and Recreation (Parks), Water Utilities (Utilities), Transportation, Planning, and Boulder County Transportation. The CEAP is used to determine the most viable and environmentally sound alternatives for completing the trail. The proposed trail altematives identified have been separated into three sections for evaluation purposes. The planning team developed and considered a total of nine trail alignments dispersed across zones A, B, and C. The preferred alignment is on Figure 5 of the draft CEAP report and is summarized below. Issues being addressed in the CEAP include: bald eagles, prauie dogs, burrowing owls, water quality, Diagonal Highway (SH 119), railroad and 63rd Street crossings, Tom Watson Park ownership and management, Boulder Reservoir area recreation management and improved recreation and non-vehicle access. This CEAP follows amulti-step process. The Pazks and Recreation Board (PRAB) and Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) will each hold a public hearing to review and make a recommendation on the CEAP report to the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT). OSBT approves a preferred trail alternative because OSMP is the lead department for the project. The OSBT recommendation is informed by boazd, staff and the general public input. City council has the option to "call up" the CEAP, hold a public hearing and confirm or change OSBT's recommendation. All three boazds have been briefed on the process and offered preliminary feedback, and there have been two open house public meetings to gather input. AGENDA ITEM #~ ~ , i'AGE Attachment A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the OSBT approve the CEAP report including the preferred alignment. ANALYSIS: The draft IBM Trail Connector CEAP Report provides an analysis of altematives considered and the rationale for the preferred altemative. A brief analysis of the staff recommendation for each zone of the connector trail is detailed below. Zone A -Trail alignment Al is along the property line of OSMP land. This alignment, compared to A2, will minimize disruption to wildlife habitat and prairie dog colonies. It also provides a better opportunity for a neighborhood connection [o the adjacent office pazk. Both alternatives use the current underpasses under SH 119 and the railroad tracks. Zone B -Trail alignment B3 is beyond the 200 meter bald eagle perch buffer. It would mazginally increase wetland impacts, but would avoid having to acquire an additional access agreement from IBM. Zone C -Trail alignment C4 would provide direct access to the Tom Watson Park trails and utilize an existing pedestrian crossing of 63`a Street to connect with the Boulder Reservoir trail system. Trail alignment C3 is a workable alternative that maybe completed using an existing trail easement and does not involve Tom Watson Pazk. Transportation staff supports the crossing of 63rd Street along the C3 alignment as an interim crossing in case Tom Watson Park issues aze not resolved prior to construction. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS: • Economic: The proposed trail would enhance the city and county's transportation and recreation infrastructure, which is consistent with several elements of economic sustainability, including the provision of high levels of services and amenities and a highly desirable quality of life which contribute to the development of diverse and sustainable economic base. • Environmental: The proposed trail would provide an opportunity for improved non- motorized access to outdoor recreation facilities and a decreased need for automobiles to access those facilities. Reducing vehicle miles traveled helps meet the goals of the Transportation Master Plan and Climate Action Plan. • Social: The proposed trail project would improve individual mobility and health by providing transportation and recreation infrastmcture that is free and equally accessible to all members of the community. OTHER IMPACTS: • Fiscal: Design and construction costs for the trail aze paid for by a combination of federal and Boulder County funding. The County's $920,000 federal Transportation Improvement Program grant requires July 2011 completion. Funding for long-term operating or management costs associated with the trail and possible trailhead at Tom Watson Park is not yet identified. • Staff time: Staff time from several departments is required for the CEAP. Once constmcted, agencies will be required to manage the trail facilities. AGENDA ITEM #TL~ B ,PAGE S Attachment A PUBLIC FEEDBACK: Open houses - An open house was held on November 8, 2007. Attendees generally expressed support for the trail connection. Issues included: other trail connections in the Gunbanel azea, Boulder Reservoir trail connections, equestrian access, potential conflicts within Tom Watson Pazk, insufficient parking at Coot Lake, and potential impacts to Boulder Feeder Canal water quality. Additional information will be provided following the May 5 open house. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board -Issues brought up at the March 31, 2008 briefmg meeting: Tom Watson Pazk being used as a regional trailhead, Long term ownership and management of Tom Watson Park and management of the Boulder Reservoir area, North 63rd Street crossing options and costs, constmction while bald eagles aze perching, prairie dogs, and the importance of the trail connection. In general, the PRAB was supportive of [he trail connection. Additional information will be provided following the May 19 PRAB meeting. Transportation Advisory Board -Issues raised at April 14, 2008 TAB briefmg meeting: prairie dog colony recovery, burrowing owl nest impacts, timely resolution of issues required to construct the preferred project alternative, N. 63rd Street crossing options and costs, plans to address concerns about potential impacts to water quality, clarification about if Tom Watson and trail management plans must be in place prior to trail construction, and addressing the potential for FasTracks dual track railroad crossing. Additional information will be provided following the May 12 TAB meeting. • Open Space Board of Trustees -Issues raised at Apri18, 2008 OSBT briefing meeting: ownership of Tom Watson Pazk, use of park drawing more people to the trail, N. 63`s Street crossing options and issues, prairie dog management, use of OSMP staff time on the project, and the relatively tight trail project timeframe. Submitted by: Michael D. Patton, Director Joe Mantione, Acting Division Manager Planning and Technical Services Matt Jones, Environmental Planner ATTACHMENTS: A: IBM Trail Connector Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) and attachments at htto~//www bouldercolorado oov/index oho~ootion=corn content task=view&id=27808dtemid=l 087 f1GENDA ITEM #~~ pAGE 6 Attachment B < .~ ~ ~ 4~ , ~. Coot Lake •-',~ Tom IBM c r ~. „_ • t ~ T s. ~ Watson ~ =~ ~~~~` 9yy +,,: ~.,.. ., .~°-~ .: R ~ i' WrLoop•Rd • ~.A i. tom; o~~ _~ ,. oc ~oA ~. ~~; ,~, o ~` ,' ,., iiv .' ovl~ier eservoir- ~ ~ ,~~ _ } ~; i ~F i OSMP Manc~~e~ ni ,~ s s .. J~~.. .;ec. ~~.. . 'M ' ~• f i• ... ~ ~~1 ~•y~ _~,~~ • I'f`~.y ~Y ~~ A ~". y ~ :r:' '"'~ 'dot. ;f. •~ r y. ~ ,, + r .~ . f _ r ~ `' • ~ '~ yQ n 1 ~ Figure 5 Proposed Trail Plan ~' Legen d Parks and Recreation ~ Boulder Public Works Open Space & Mountain Parks ~~ Conservation Easement ~ Other Government Lands o Open Space Property Boundaries W Existing Trails Preferred Alignment ~~ Preferred Interim Alternative Long-term Option DQ Bridge ;;;;;;; Underpass At-grade Crossing ~- 0 500 1000 Feet 4/1 7/2008 +Of BALI ~~~:, « 1~~RC~ ®~c ERO Resou ces (arp ~ o. Attachment C IBM TRAIL CONNECTOR LEAP Summary -Public Open House #2 May 5, 2008 The second public open house for the IBM Trail Connector CEAP was held at the United Methodist Church on Lookout Road, from 4:00 to 7:00 pm. The open house was available for community members to drop in and learn about the proposed trail project, and express their ideas/issues/concerns. A total of 15 people attended. No formal presentations were given. Instead, several display boards illustrated planning maps and figures. Agency and consultant staff were available to answer questions and discuss the proposed project with attendees. Written Comments Received • This trail connection will greatly expand our non-road options and we all need less people in cars and more people on bikes. • We will be very happy when the trail connection is completed. • We bike a lot in the area and love the opportunity to access more trails without having to get on 63`d. Thank you! • P.S. - We also love the opportunity to walk our dogs to Coot Lake. ---------------------- • Cottontail extension trail plan looks great! • We also really like the proposed Boulder Feeder Canal trail. ---------------------- • I'm so excited to see this finally happen -can't wait to use it. • I also look forward to the completion of the Longmont - Boulder trail. I commute by bike between Niwot and Boulder and started using parts of it two years ago. But please connect Willow Trail and Cottontail. Crossing Jay Road during rush hour is dangerous. ---------------------- • Design culverts and underpasses across highway to accommodate better passage for wildlife such as coyotes. • Take the opportunity to improve wetland quality downstream of reservoir. • Include connections to future FasTracks station west of 63rd • The plan for the IBM Connector Trail looks good -we'll be looking forward to using it! • Currently the Gunbarrel trail system is in a bit of an island. I look forward to the IBM connector development. • I would also like to see a plan for a trail connection on the south end of 63`d. AGENDA ITEM # ~ ,PAGE S TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Abbie Novak, Business and Finance Manager SUBJECT: Update on the Parks & Recreation Department 2009 Operating Budget DATE: May 14, 2008 Overview The Parks and Recreation Department budget is accounted for in six funds: General Fund, .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund, Recreation Activity Fund, Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund, Lottery Fund, and .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund (Attachment A). The department is designated as the fund manager for the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund, Recreation Activity Fund and Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund. The operating budget is allocated for the department's divisions and administrative work units: Pazks and Planning division, Recreation division, Business and Financial Management work unit and Policy and Information Services work unit. The department is in the process of establishing the 2009 operating budget based on guidelines and projections provided by the city's Finance Department. Additional information regarding the 2009 budget submission will be presented during the June business meeting. Budeetarv Challenees The major challenges that the department must consider while establishing its 2009 operating budget include the Blue Ribbon Commission Findings and fuel costs. Blue Ribbon Commission Findings In January 2008, the City Council adopted the Blue Ribbon Commission's (BRC) Report on Revenue Stabilization (www.bouldercolorado.¢ov > City Manager's Office>Revenue StabilizationBlue Ribbon Commission). City staff is currently working on recommendations that should be considered for placement on the November 2008 ballot including: Remove the remaining restriction on the property tax that is limited by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) Renew the expiring sales taxes o General Fund (.38 portion) will expire 12/31/2011 o .15 Cent Sales Tax (designated) will expire 12/31/2012 Increase Development Excise Taxes The renewal of the General Fund and .15 Cent Sales Taxes aze critical to the department's operating budget. Although the .25 Cent Sales Tex will not expire until 12/31/2015 and is not scheduled to be included on this year's ballot, its renewal is also critical to the department's ~~~~ AGENDA ITEM # V I-A PAGE 1 operating budget. Again for 2009, it is anticipated that budget decisions in the neaz-term will take into consideration factors facing all Colorado communities including the shift from goods- based economies to service-based economies. The city is faced with "must do" budget strategies or priorities that must be funded per the city business plan to maintain adequate reserves and fund liabilities. Furthermore, Boulder's economic volatility is compounded by structural factors that undermine the productivity of sales tax including an aging population and the failure of the sales tax base to inflate with costs of doing business. As a result, retail sales tax as a major revenue source will fund proportionally less of the base budget. Fuel Expenditures With soazing gas prices, staff will request that funding for fuel budgets be prioritized to receive any available city funding. Fuel cost projections will remain volatile and it is anticipated that they will continue to rise at a rate higher than the Consumer Price Index (CPI), resulting in a substantial unfunded liability citywide. Budget Policv and Revenue Issues The budget process provides an opportunity for the department to submit policy and revenue issues to the City Manager. The City Manager evaluates the requests and may recommend that City Council review and approve departmental requests. The department submitted the following policy and revenue issues: 1. Does City Council support the exploration of changes to the City Charter for the purposes of extending the current 20 year land lease provision and broadening the parameters of usage for the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund? Land Lease Provision The city charter limits the term of franchise agreements to 20 years in Article VIII, Section 111. Article XI, Section 1641imits terms of leases, permits or licenses granted on park lands to five years, ("The term of any license or permit granted hereunder shall not exceed five years, and any such license or permit so granted shall be revocable by the council at its pleasure at any time, whether such right to revoke be expressly reserved in such permit or license."). Some business owners interested in partnering with the city for facility development have spoken to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Boazd and city staff, asking if the 20 yeaz lease provision could be modified or made more flexible. If lease or franchise agreement terms were extended, it is more likely that private investors would commit to providing capital funding for recreational or concession facility development. A change to this provision could also impact leases that the city has with other organizations such as Chautauqua. During the 2007 election, voters defeated Question 2A, which would have allowed the city to lease land and buildings for 40 years instead of 20. The additional yeazs would result in mutual benefit for the city and private entities, making partnerships and investment opportunities more viable; in turn, keeping business in Boulder. The Parks and Recreation Department recommends that the Charter Committee should revisit the possibilities of extending the lease provision, as it could result in private-public partnerships that benefit the AGENDA ITEM # V I-A PAGE 2 community through service offerings that the city does not have funding to provide. (e.g., Spice of Life Event Center, Valmont City Park development) Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund In the past, staff has recommended identifying and appropriating funding for ongoing park operations and maintenance prior to new pazk development or construction. Pazk maintenance is funded by both the General Fund and the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund. Park development is funded through the Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund and the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund. The .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund was designed to provide park maintenance funding for the parks specifically constructed with .25 Cent Sales Tax funds or from the proceeds of the .25 Cent Bond Fund. The General Fund is designated to provide park maintenance funding for the park system developed before the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund's existence and for any pazks constructed with Permanent Parks and Recreation Funds. The Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund is defined in city charter Article XI, Section 161, stating the "Said fund shall not be used for any purpose other than the acquisition of park land or the permanent improvement of park and recreation facilities." The fund lacks an identified funding source for ongoing operations and maintenance of pazk sites acquired or constructed with its funds. Staff believes that funding for ongoing pazk maintenance needs to be identified prior to park development. 2. Does City Council support dedicated funding for a Commercial Tree Program? Since 2005, the Parks Division has been receiving revenues generated from the off-mall patio leases managed by Planning and Development Services (P&DS) to maintain trees and tree grates in the downtown business district. To determine how the monies would be utilized, Forestry Operations conducted an assessment of trees and tree grates based on safety and liability concerns. Maintenance has been prioritized and provided on an as-needed basis and includes the installation and replacement of damaged trees and tree grates. Additionally, minimal effort to ensure day-to-day tree health has been provided. (e.g., watering, pruning) With the adoption of city's business plan, departments have become more aware of the total (fully burdened) cost to do business, including lease management. As the city moves towards operating more as an enterprise, it has been determined that excess revenues should be at the discretion of the City Manager. Therefore, the Parks and Planning Division will no longer be able to rely on the revenues from the off-mall patio leases to fund commercial tree maintenance downtown. In an effort to make City Council initiatives relative to greening downtown a reality, the Parks and Recreation Department recommends that a Commercial Tree Program be established with dedicated funding. Based on its 2002 tree inventory, Forestry Operations has determined that the total cost would be approximately $61,000. Program categories include hazdscape (tree grates, guards, pavers) and tree health and daily maintenance (ongoing and deferred tree replacements, watering, pruning, fertilization, mulching) expenses. The estimate does not include the thirty yeaz lifecycle replacement costs for the AGENDA ITEM # V I-A PAGE 3 hazdscapes (approximately $27,000) or the installation of irrigation systems not currently in place and irrigation maintenance (approximately $97,000). 3. Does City Council support the preliminary recommendations of the City Manager's Workgroup on Recreation Financing? In July 2007, the City Council endorsed the City Manager's planned course of action to establish a work group to conduct an analysis of the Recreation Division's financing structure and pricing methodology. The group was charged with assessing the Core Services Business Model (CSBM) and making recommendations on the following: • Is the model a good fit for Boulder? • Does it need some changes? • Do we need a new model? The group was also asked to make recommendations regazding the current financing structure for recreation operations, services, and facilities, and the Recreation Activity Fund (RAF). To date, the work group is in the final stages of developing its recommendations. It appeazs the recommendations will not include major changes to the CSBM, but offer criteria for how programs should fit in the model resulting in the determination of their cost recovery goals. Another potential recommendation could be the establishment of enterprise funds for the operations or facilities that could be self-sustaining (e.g., Flatirons Golf Course). The group is scheduled to finalize the recommendations for the CSBM and the Recreation Division's financing structure at their final meeting on Mazch 19. Once the recommendations aze established, staff will determine the policy implications for the 2009 budget. 4. Does City Council support the existing agreement between Parks and Recreation and Open Space Mountain Parks departments for the allocation of Lottery Fund monies? In an effort to improve a $300,000 funding shortfall identified in the 2007 Recreation Division's budget, the Pazks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) agreed that the Open Space Mountain Pazks (OSMP) Department would forego its allocation of Lottery funding for two years. In 2009, the agreement will expire and revert to the original interdepartmental agreement between P&R and OSMP. In 2001, the departments agreed that portions of the annual appropriation would be earmazked for P&R to pay off debt service and for OSMP to fund Mountain Pazks projects ($100,000) and Tributary Greenways projects ($150,000). Thereafter, the remaining Lottery funding would be split 50/50 between departments. The department is experiencing a deficit within its current capital budget as planned projects are aligned with the department's Master Plan goals. ht an effort not to delay planned projects (e.g., Violet Neighborhood Park, East Boulder Community Pazk), the department could utilize Lottery funds to supplement unmet needs not currently included in the capital budget, in particular Valmont City Park. Recent public hearings on the Valmont City Park concept plan have increased the community's desire to develop the pazk. PRAB and City Council aze expected to approve the final site plan by the end of the second quarter 2008. However, the department is unable to adequately fund the project using monies from the Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund or the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund. AGENDA ITEM # V I-A PAGE 4 2009 Bud¢et Timeline The following activities aze key components of the citywide budget process: ay 27 ity Council Study Session: initial bud et allocation and major issues une 12 a artment O eratin and Ca ital bud ets due une 30 eeting with City Manager to discuss Pazks and Recreation's 2009 budget submission id-July latming Board meets to review 2009 - 2014 CIP u ust 14 009 recommended budget is distributed to the City Council ugust 22 epartments submit u dated fees ugust 26 Ci Council study session: review recommended 2009 budget September 23 City Council study session on the 2009 budget October 21 ity Council -First readin of the 2009 budget azly-November it Council -Second readin of the 2009 budget Next Steps Additional information regazding the department's 2009 budget submission will be presented at the June 23 PRAB business meeting. The department welcomes input and questions regazding the 2009 operating budget from the PRAB. As always, PRAB members aze encouraged to attend the community discussions over the next six months. Please contact Abbie Novak at 303-413-7253 with any questions or comments. Attachments A: 2008 Pazks and Recreation Funds AGENDA ITEM # V I-A PAGE 5 Attachment A and Recreation Funds - 2008 Lu Ilnallei talc; Tax. • Prytetq''I ax • I rr5 P..• e` :n $3,981,000 • Plaerruund;utd Sacltr; \lamtutarce • Hor+.ICUlunr, T ua and hriv_aliuu Alautl • Pra[I St Mall and Bnaiilcr (7eci: ['ail: • "I taxi: aril Sno„ Kcrnm al • [ u•naal Park Alanricnancc & \i!_ntt Furryn • 'l'ace I':utarr_ a::d Ylauutuy • liar:edit:nlrrc•Rcnunca • CiIS T: cr Im~cala:~~ Adminialrativc Support Services • C3u>u:ess arai Frratktal .\tgrnt • Pol:a~ end Inf xmetirn ticn'irr~ cstabLshed to lina,ne the ilxcif IunfUU:n ul Parks and Etcctcauon Xntc Thz Gcncral Fund s ailcw;tuao dedifatc+l ful Hccrcxliuni 1; uat5 pruetdrd th:ocph an annual trartslix to tae Rectrlllnu :\ctivrt}~ Pt:nd wvcnuc (wxl ur acatnnt fur I opalarvnw of tenrtt~un Inn3'rarn.a and ,,... ' x...p,~,x p;,.,.n, t,. 1. ,Y ~ I~,. rr.:. °t..~ -- - - - .. ,~ t - t. --- ~ ~:.,, .~ .- i~ ~ .. 515' ..~ I.• i. , i„I` 532: xi'. ..,.. i ~- l+, ~,:' ' .~,9,R 10,000 _ --52.207,000 - • ['rogran: I~cesaud FxiLty C'hatzrc(8Y-< • Dedir.,ted Y null liom PrU;x-,ly'I•as m _'t1iHi1 • Dcvclop:rant fzc:., ]'axes • Ju{>fdrn+ental Fundmf; prnidrd by dre • Omentions t~.. , ' ,~ filar; ~. •, .,A~. I+x 1 , ~: 5, ~+i,. .~..., $9,882,000 S 1,8R•1,(!DO • 'e'nnh, I':ast aad S,xnit lttctra?inn C~cntc,~ • U.ht Set1'tcc • Spru:c Ywl and Scow Carpnxcr Youl Argnisi[ion anti Drvclopnecnt • liaurauGoliC'uwic• • AcquisttwuufPnl'•. L:w;i • Huuldcr Rcsavnu • Park Dcvclnpmcnt • I'ntten• I ab Hanuvalion antl Refilrbi,hment . Plrasaru \'rcrs Alhlctlc ('omp:cx • Utbalt P_::k k ht R • Savo. \laplr.;nn. ~ IY Salelhte fiaiil,eld} • I(ecrer.•:ao r „:ildy k K R Programs Capital 6uprnremcnts • (,erI111d511:.} ~',}•.l, I)al K't' • I'1fk I.)2l•c' :~pn I'll • IiNPANI) K 5'outh Uulrcach Prograrn.~ • ltccrcannn Faci~::;\• Imprrn'ements • .-lquatica. Atidctits. Poncty;rrl:! rltts Otht:r . n.-,m,at~•.n,,,._~ • CosLAlloca:;nnlTrans}erstnnther F5labhslxd to fund the opera?inns o)' Appropt:a::nns of the fund u:..}i be ucrca?ws progtanu. scrn'tces, turd f actlritc~ xyyroved by v'c PRAE3 The fund sita'.I not 6e ttaed for any pwposc other r'••.an xcyuiring pal k land or ;x m::>rcntly nnprormg park and rccrc:mn factlitres - $23.2 million Special revenue fund -i,•dtcated Rn I'.-.ohs Sl,ecral tevent:e fund eanrrarked for specific anti k2caca::un. The s.:ir_ Ws was approacd mwuctyal putposes• tncludmg Yieastntt by enters ut I')45 for x 20 }.,.~• ;xriud t'tcw and Staztn ('outplexes. i some„ _ _., tee s,x~,,v.> vn ,~• • • A pnntmt of the fJedtcated I S ('ent Sales T'az - -. - - IY., mn es. ... Kw ilvxk u~.e 5•U ( S21l i.h ~, SG,132.,t100 $287,000 Debt Set~•ice A[Ide~ z Alaintentmce • Debi Ser arcs • Plea}nnt \'teu' :\dtleuc C'nmplez Operations and Maintenance Mauricnancc • Pr:a: Vxunece~lce and putrsuy Slacio Ifa"I`.eld ;tilamtenanrr • Natur' Lands 4pcraurnts I Capita[Im provcmcnlx • liallfleld \1am.cu,~ntcc Slaiin 11: "Itirlds • Fatality ~dator A4mntenancc (FAA{1 Pleasant \'tew .llhlcLC Complex Renovation and Replacement • Urban Park ~':d Rccn:aurnr PaclLties ('apit:d 6npromments • Park [}cvclt+yment • Historic and C'nltural !'aalit.es xctlune L~.~~d, and secundltnly on yark mmnt , w'bmt park refurb to crnl}Uuct cn renUV.~re tee fdcii:ties. pUOls. urban yar'as. historic./cultural facdutcs, civic center complex, development nl all exl..•m u's of dcrclopmcnt of k'lediant \'tcw xttd Sla7i0 at4deuc enmylczes Re,ml:e +olatil Ire may occur due to i D:r-~ p,xtinn is a Itennanert salts tax A ~ Pnndmg is peen-.: cent according to coy (t 38°-a ;x~titcm rgnres on 12`? I'?D1 I. inflamntt wcati+rt, x,caasrd cnu lxauon nr i chattel S:I'++s [x>: rxpues nn 12d I f2015 Sales 1 xa e~;:nes nn I $ ; I ~2U1? dce.tn:rg usage. of Coiurndo dlsrtilulc s ou a pr: capita aanls Lanai \lan:;.tfmcnt I Lupnrrctuents m the {'ark nal Imn:orcrncnts Irt aildltlnll i(r tllr $C511,(I;li) I' < . a SI SU,i;40 anna~i allxau::n Itc;i Iu Tltburaly (.111Y'mvay} fact be Lscd IOr the .'.C.';lll Went, att'd :rtsin:cnance of diun site: of Iw cat, iptl mcnL' Ur mmrtettancc ti,: nal yurpnse} ou any puhl date fiurn the start ~ is stable Lour;p fu C, US\II' and fitbut :lil bz us:n~ C)SAiI''