Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet - Parks & Recreation - 11/28/2011 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway Monday, November 28, 2011 6:00 p.m. All agenda times are approximate AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (6:00) II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (6:05) III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (6:10) This portion of the meeting is for citizens to communicate ideas or concerns to the Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled later in the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on the need for parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers are limited to 3 minutes. IV. CONSENT AGENDA (6:25) A. Approval of minutes from October 24, 2011 B. Informational Items (1) Park Development Update (2) Update on National Cyclocross Race Bid (3) Boulder Creek Festival Update V. ITEMS FOR ACTION (6:30) A. Public Hearing and Recommendation of Approval of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION (7:30) A. Pottery Program Management Assessment Consultant Report A. 1 Public Participation - Pottery Program Management Assessment Consultant Report B. Eben G. Fine Creek Restoration Project VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (8:30) A. Update on Round 1 CISC Projects (verbal) VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS (8:40) A. December meeting (verbal) B. Board and Commission 2012 City Council Priorities IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: TBD X. ADJOURN (8:45) PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FUTURE BOARD ITEMS (prepared November 29, 2011) Department of Parks and Recreation Mission The mission of the city of Boulder Parks and recreation Department is to provide safe, clean and beautiful parks and facilities and high-quality leisure activities for the community. These services shall enhance residents' health and well-being and promote economic vitality for long-term community sustainability. We will accomplish this through creative leadership, environmentally sustainable practices and the responsible use of available resources. Regular/Ongoing Updates • Park Development/Energy Efficiency Program Update • Approval of Leases, Licenses and Permits Next Board Meeting Items (December) Future Items • Pottery Lab Public Roundtable - Date TBD (prior to January 23, 2012 PRAB meeting) • Pottery Lab Report Discussion - January 23, 2012 • Capital Improvement Program Discussion - January 23, 2012 • Department Master Plan Update - January 23, 2012 City Council Meetings on P & R Items • Public Hearing on the Acceptance of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) January 17, 2012 Meetinus, Tours and Study Sessions • PRAB Tour - Pottery Lab and Columbia Cemetery - March or April 2012 2011 PRAB Meeting Dates • December TBD 2012 PRAB Meeting Dates • January 23, 2012 • February 27, 2012 • March 27, 2012 • April 23, 2012 • May 28 * Will be changed due to Memorial Day holiday • June 25, 2012 • July 23, 2012 • August 27, 2012 • September 24, 2012 • October 22, 2012 • November 26, 2012 • December 17, 2012 City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Council Chambers V 1777 Broadway October 24, 2011 Action Meeting Minutes To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link: www.boulderparks-rec.org Board Present: Bob Yates, Michelle Estrella, Marcelee Gralapp, Rick Thayer, Myriah Conroy, Kelly Wyatt, Mike Conroy Board Absent: None 1 Staff Present: Kirk Kincannon, Jeff Dillon, Alice Guthrie, Sally Dieterich, Mary Neumann, The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS Kincannon provided an update on future Board items: • 11/16/11 - Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) public meeting at Calvary Bible Church, 3245 Kalmia, Boulder, CO, 6-8:30 p.m. • 11/28/11 - PRAB meeting - Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) public hearing • 11/28/11 PRAB meeting - Pottery Program Management Assessment 4. Update • 11/28/11 PRAB meeting - Eben G. Fine Park Item • 1/17/12 City Council meeting - Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) public hearing on final plan • Future date - PRAB tour of the Pottery Lab III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation was opened. Peter Richards, resident, requested that the Department provide more information regarding the monthly PRAB meeting agenda in the News from City Hall ads. He also asked the department to designate more staff attention to trash issues at Eben G. Fine Park. Public participation was closed. 1 IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes from September 26, 2011 The minutes from September 26, 2011 were approved as written. B. Informational Items 1. Park Development Update 2. Pottery Program Update Written updates on these items were provided to the Board as part of the packet materials. Board Chair Yates explained that these items are informational items that require no Board action or discussion. If the Board prefers more detailed information or discussion, the item would be moved to Agenda Item VI, Items for Discussion/Information. Gralapp made a motion to move Item IV-B, Pottery Program Update, to Agenda Item VII, Matters from the Department. Estrella seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. ITEMS FOR ACTION There were no Items for Action VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION A. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) Update Kincannon distributed the draft Boulder Reservoir Master Plan to the PRAB and thanked staff for their combined efforts and many hours of work. Guthrie spoke briefly on the BRMP and Policy Options. She referred to the Boulder Reservoir Draft Plan and a comparison chart detailing staff recommendations, the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) recommendations, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) recommendations and City Council's final decision on the Policy Options. She said that the majority of chapters provide information that the Board has previously seen through study session materials or memos, with Chapter Eight (Implementation Plan) being the new section, requiring PRAB feedback and input prior to approval. Parks Planning Manager Walzak provided an overview of the BRMP with emphasis on Chapter Eight (Implementation Plan), specifically the Goals and Objectives section, as the Objectives are new and the PRAB will be asked to recommend them to City Council as part of the final BRMP. 2 Kincannon added that staff is fine tuning the capital and operating costs that will be forwarded to the PRAB shortly. Guthrie added that staff will request input from the PRAB on the new items in the plan in Chapter 8 as staff moves forward. Information will be collected from the PRAB, the public at the upcoming public meeting and staff from other departments who have reviewed the plan to create a final document for approval by the PRAB. She said that staff is conducting a revenue comparison of 2009, 2010 and 2011 to date that will be sent to the PRAB shortly to be reviewed with the plan. This item will be a public hearing at the November 28, 2011 meeting for PRAB's consideration and recommendation to City Council. VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT A. Staff Retreat Update Kincannon said that a staff retreat will be on October 26, 2011 and facilitated by Heather Bergman. B. Pottery Program Update Yates and Conroy (Myriah) provided short summaries of the Friends of the Pottery Lab (FoPL), PRAB and staff meeting on the status of the Pottery Program and the Pottery Program Management Assessment. Conroy (Myriah) gave a brief update on this item. She provided the following assessment of her meeting with staff and Friends of the Pottery Lab (FoPL) members: • Positive relationship is being developed with staff • Management assessment will be provided to PRAB members in the near future • Budget items were discussed • Some questions unanswered due to comparisons not being "apples to apples" • Realization that the way programs are listed and evaluated is inconsistent across all programs Yates also provided a brief update on the meeting: • Cost recovery model was discussed and the comparison to other programs • Would like to consider re-visiting cost recovery at a study session in early 2012 • There is a need to more fully understand cost recovery methodology Guthrie added the following: • 11/21/11 - Final recommendation from the consultant will be provided to the PRAB electronically • 11/22/11 - Potential open house to collect comments from the public • 11/28/11 - Have public comments available to the PRAB • Public hearing early 2012 3 PRAB members were not in favor of an open house on November 22, feeling that this would not provide enough time to digest the consultants' final recommendation. Yates suggested scheduling an additional open house for early January. Conroy (Myriah) suggested having two open houses: one on November 22 where the assessment could be presented to the public and one in January prior to a public hearing. VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS A. PRAB Retreat Update Kincannon spoke briefly on the PRAB retreat, thanking the Board for attending and also thanking Board member Gralapp for hosting the retreat. He said that much was accomplished, setting the stage to move forward. He added that an update on the PRAB-Department next steps will be emailed to the Board shortly. Yates thanked staff for organizing the PRAB retreat and felt that much was accomplished. He also reminded PRAB members that the Department has requested input from PRAB members on areas of interest they deem most important. B. December Meeting This item was deferred to the November 28, 2011 PRAB meeting. C. Capital Investment Strategy Committee (CISC) Report Yates gave a short verbal update on this item. He said that PRAB members Wyatt and Thayer attended the most recent CISC meeting last week for Round 2 and 2012 budget discussions. He added that many in attendance felt the PRAB presentation to be the best of those presented. IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: November 28, 2011 X. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 4 APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Bob Yates Board Chair Attest: Sally Dieterich Recording Secretary 5 TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Kirk Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Sarah DeSouza, Senior Manager of Communications, Marketing and Partnerships Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent SUBJECT: Consent Agenda DATE: November 28, 2011 A. Minutes Approval of minutes from October 24, 2011 B. Informational Items 1. Parks & Planning Division Overview - Park Development Update Division Name: Parks & Planning Division Supervisor: Jeff Dillon, Parks & Planning Superintendent Program Overview: (1) Boulder Parks & Planning Park Updates Workgroup: Parks Planning Program Overview: Responsible for planning (feasibility/needs assessments, policy and programming, business plan and fiscal analysis, and master plan studies), annual capital improvement programming for parks and recreation facilities, and the design development and construction associated with city-wide parks and recreation renovations and new park developments. Key Projects: • Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update The request for proposal was posted and replies have been received. Several companies were shortlisted and interviews will begin November 21 A final decision is expected to be made by mid December. • ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Compliance With almost all the parks and recreation facilities having been audited, parks and recreation staff are on track to meeting the federal mandate of having a transition plan in place by March of 2012. The transition plan will indicate accessibility deficiencies AGENDA ITEM IV-B PAGE 1 within the parks and recreation facilities and set a course for addressing the compliance issues to ensure full access to all members of the community. • Boulder Reservoir Entry Improvements As part of the voter-approved 2011 CIS Bond Funding, planning staff are proceeding with the final design and implementation of the major improvements to the reservoir main entrance at 51 S'. Street. The much-anticipated project will provide a designated right-turn lane into the reservoir, new entry buildings, entry gates, roadway improvements and landscaping. • Valmont Bike Park Three successful bicycling events were held this year at the bike park. Continued partnership with BMA has proven to be a successful venture. The historic Platt Farmhouse has been relocated to its new location near Airport Road. Restoration of the house has been progressing over the past months and is nearing completion. Finishing touches and painting the exterior still remains but is anticipated to be done in early December, weather permitting. Planning for next year's construction activities is underway with the anticipated improvements to include renovation of the Dog Park, ROW improvements along Airport Road, Shade Shelters, Landscape Improvements around the Platt Farmhouse, and the addition of one more Bridge Crossing of the ditch. • Mesa Memorial Park Planning staff are reviving a project that began in 2009 and recently received funding through the 2012 CIP by soliciting consultants, reviewing approved concept plans and beginning preliminary discussions with the neighborhood representatives. The project is anticipated to move through public engagement, design development and construction documentation through 2012 with construction to be completed in 2013. Project of the Month: • Elks Park Planning and Construction documents continue to be developed for this Neighborhood Park. The 4th public meeting will be held on Dec. 15th to review the construction documents with the community members that are interested. Construction on the park is anticipated to start in the early part of 2012 and be completed by the end of the fall 2012. Below is a rendering of the renovated park structure and a sample of the artwork that will grace one of the interior walls. 2 i.~,.,~.. ice. . 1 G iF 4;1.; PA, -A ~0-;== 10 Elks Park Shelter Rendering and Sample of the Mosaic Artwork for the Interior Wall Workgroup: Urban Resources Program Overview: Responsible for natural resource management and coordination involving urban forestry, horticulture, volunteer services, wildlife, wetlands, integrated pest management (IPM), conservation and resource protection. Program includes departmental GIS and asset management program design and supervision. Key Projects: • Snow and Windstorm Damage Clean-Up: October 26th snow storm did significant damage to public trees throughout the city. As of November 7', Forestry received over 600 emergency requests for hanging tree limbs, broken branches and questions about pile pickups, property boundaries and other related private property issues. Over 100 sites were addressed by staff to remove downed branches that blocked sidewalks and streets. Most heavily damaged was the University Hill residential area. "Repair" pruning will continue well into 2012 and regular fall/winter rotational pruning will be setback by six months. • Forest Education: Last month, the Continental Dialogue on Non-Native Forest Insects and Disease, a non-profit group associated with the Nature Conservancy had their national conference in Boulder to discuss and tour Thousand Cankers Disease (TCD) of walnut and other Rocky Mountain Region forest pests. Boulder Forestry staff presented and led a discussion on the management of TCD and led 50 conference attendees on a tour of five sites through the city of invasive pests of concern. • Forestry staff is also participating in the "Emerging Pests in Colorado" workgroup comprised of local city foresters and staff from the CO Department of Agriculture and the federal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) to develop educational material on TCD as well as other potential invasive insect and disease pests such as emerald ash borer and Asian longhorn borer. Other workgroup actions include: ensure consistency in Colorado community response from TCD, review Colorado state response 3 plan for emerald ash borer, development of a community response plan template for emerald ash borer and organization of an invasive pest workshop planned for spring, 2012 to educate local city and state district foresters and arborists on the identification of invasive pests • Prairie dog barrier replacement: Replacement of old vinyl barrier at Pleasantview Soccer Fields with metal barrier to reduce long term maintenance costs and address encroachment issues from the neighboring lands. • Update and Evaluation of the city Nuisance Mosquito Control Program: City staff submitted two memos to City Council updating and evaluating the pilot program. Discussion of the effectiveness of the program and staff recommendations to continue the program as well as implement monitoring of wetlands being treated for mosquito populations. • Volunteer Reporting: 2011 volunteer projects in Parks and Urban Resources have increased by 39% from last year's volunteer projects. With the use of social media in the form of Twitter, e-Blasts, YouTube and Facebook, the Department has seen a larger response and awareness to volunteering in general. (This increase does not reflect the entire department - a year end report will provide full departmental data). • Weed Management: staff continues to remove Russian Olives from various park sites such as around Boulder Reservoir and Harlow Platts Park. Staff follows guidelines to transition from `weed' tree dominated areas to more native tree and plant communities over the course of several years to minimize vegetative cover impacts to flora and fauna that utilize such areas as habitat. 4 Project of the Month: 'A~ ~ y5`:" 1; ~ shy ✓yr' ' ttlll Forestry staff coordinated with city departments and local tree companies on emergency response for dangerous hanging limbs and branches from the October 26Ih snow storm. Workgroup: Urban Park Operations Program Overview: Responsible for the management and maintenance of urban park and other City facilities, including: centralized irrigation system control, irrigation system installation and repair, playground safety program, shelter rental program, athletic field maintenance, general park turf maintenance, integrated pest management (IPM), snow removal, trash removal, fleet management, garage operations, High Use Park Sites (includes, all aspects of maintenance at Pearl Street Mall, Downtown Municipal Complex, Boulder Creek Bike Path, East Boulder Community Park, Harlow Platts Park, North Boulder Recreation Center/Olmsted Park, Foothills Park, Tom Watson Park, Columbia Cemetery, the Andrews Arboretum, and Valmont Park and Valmont Bike Park). Responsible for parks construction Repair and Renovation Projects and Capital Projects. Key Projects: • Snow Removal and Windstorm Damage Clean-Up: October 26th brought our first snowstorm with over 12 inches of heavy, wet snow that caused significant tree damage that was followed by a second snow storm dropping 9 inches of snow on November 2°`t. Parks crews are still cleaning up the branches in the parks and assisting Forestry with pruning of damaged trees. • Pearl Street Mall: Staff planted nearly 15,000 spring-blooming bulbs and 8550 winter- blooming pansies on the Pearl Street Mall. 5 • Baseline Controller Irrigation System: Staff continues to install the Baseline System wiring at Foothills Park • Aurora 7 Irrigation and Turf Renovations: The irrigation and turf upgrades are complete within the ball filed areas and continue outside of the fenced areas. • Pleasant View Complex: The fence fabric (metal mesh) was replaced with a heavier gauge fabric at Pleasant View Sports Complex. The existing lighter gauge fabric would not withstand the wear and tear of balls being kicked into it and people climbing over it. • Parking Lot Repair: Asphalt repairs and resurfacing have been completed at Tom Watson Park and the Iris Center parking lots. • Winter Bathroom Maintenance and Repair: Staff has begun the winter bathroom maintenance and repair at Chautauqua Park bathrooms. The bathrooms have been power washed and will be painted. • Municipal Complex Irrigation, and Landscape Upgrades: Staff continues to work in the Municipal Complex area replacing older components with the new system, complete with soil moisture sensors and irrigation audits to establish appropriate watering schedules. • Boulder Cup CycloCross Race at Valmont Bike Park: The final event of 2011 was the Boulder Cup Cyclocross Race held on October 30thMore than 700 cycling participants and up to 2,000 spectators came out to the park to enjoy this international race. Staff worked closely with the event organizer before the event to ensure the park was in optimal shape for the event. Staff now are restoring the trails and natural areas of the park that were damaged due to the race. Staff have identified deficiencies and areas for improvement at the park in order to hold large events in the future. • Chautauqua Stewardship Framework: Continuing to work collaboratively with Colorado Chautauqua Association, and city departments to create a 2020 Stewardship Framework for the Chautauqua area that includes; Program Management, Parking and Access, and Facility Plans. Next public meeting will be held December 14th at 4:30 at the West Senior Center. • IPM Report: The IPM consultant report is anticipated to be released sometime in January. Also in January, staff anticipates the release of the Annual IPM Report of current IPM practices and IPM data from the year. • Fibar Additions: As part of the Playground Safety Program, 210 cubic yards of "fibar" wood were added to three park playground areas, including; Beach, Eben and Greenleaf parks. This is an annual program to ensure safe playground surfacing for areas with "fibar" surfacing. 6 Projects of the Month: • Shanahan Ridge and East Mapleton Playground Surfacing Upgrades The playground surfacing at Shanahan Ridge Park and East Mapleton Park were recently upgraded to Poured-in-Place surfacing that allows for improved access and ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance as well as increased fall safety. A new sidewalk was also installed at Shanahan Ridge Park that will provide improved access to the playground for people with physical disabilities. Ili 7 I I a. - z J&"' s' A-hil ~r7 East Mapleton and Shanahan Ridge Playgrounds with New Poured-in-Place Surfacing • Aurora 7 Backstop Replacement: As part of the refurbishment at Aurora 7 Park, all three backstops were replaced. 4, - - New Backstop at Aurora 7 Park 7 2. Update on National Cyclocross Race Bid Valmont Bike Park recently celebrated its' 6 month anniversary of offering cycling recreation to as many as 350 riders per day in the peak summer season. The Park also hosted three city- sponsored cycling events for mountainbiking and cyclocross with 1,800 racers and over 3,000 spectators participating in all events. Recently the City of Boulder Parks and Recreations submitted a formal Bid for the 2014-15 USA Cycling Cyclo-cross National Championships. Valmont Bike Park hopes to be one of three finalist selected for the site visit and review in December and hopefully the award announcement scheduled for January 8ti' The 2009 Championships held in Bend, OR reported an economic impact of $1,000,000 to its local community in hotel, restaurants and race visitor tourism. The Valmont Bike Park is a 42-acre off-road cycling facility designed and built for multiple riding styles including unique features for UCI competition cyclo-cross courses that make it an ideal venue for Nationals. If selected, the Championship expenses would be paid by expected racer revenues and other event incomes. 3. Boulder Creek Festival Update The City of Boulder and Boulder Creek Events, a 501 (C)(4) nonprofit organizations specializing in event planning and production, have signed a contract for the management and production of The Boulder Creek Festival® (Festival®) for 2012 through 2014. Contract highlights include enhancing zero waste measures, increasing the use of local food vendors and locally grown food products, increasing protection for the use of city parkland, reducing the Festivalg's carbon foot print, increasing cost recovery for the City of Boulder, and creating a reinvestment fund that will be used to enhance the festival offerings each year. The community's sustainability values will be reflected in the actions and themes in all areas of the Festival® and it will focus on highlighting sustainable methods and actions that demonstrate how individual choices and actions help move the community to a sustainable future. "This new contract provides goals that the city desired for the Festival®, including improved overall sustainability, enhancement of the event to reflect the important use of local food vendors and a commitment to continually improve the offerings to the public," said City Manager Jane Brautigam. Chris Dailey, Executive Director of Boulder Creek Events said, "We appreciate all of the hard work that both Boulder Creek Events and the City of Boulder put in to resolving the issues on the table. We are looking forward to continuing what we have been doing since 1998 - managing and producing Boulder County's favorite community event." The Boulder Creek Festival® is the premier annual community event that celebrates the unique aspects of Boulder, including its people, values, and healthy lifestyles. The Festival®, held on the grounds of the Municipal Campus and Central Park in downtown Boulder for the past several decades, is attended by thousands of visitors over a three-day period on Memorial Day weekend. 8 The Festivals is intended to promote a sense of community that is welcoming and friendly and one that draws the greater community together to enjoy a variety of musical and dance performances, children's activities, cultural and art exhibits, and a variety of refreshments. Previously this year, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) adopted guiding principles related to the operation and management of Parks and Recreation Department- sponsored special events. One of the adopted guiding principles states: "Event production vendors should, if any, be determined through a competitive process." The PRAB approved a motion to support the department's issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the operation and management activities involved in presenting the Boulder Creek Festivals during the period of 2012 through 2014. The issuance of an open, competitive RFP also supported the city's purchasing requirements. The city evaluated a few proposals before entering into contract negotiations with Boulder Creek Events. The 2012 Boulder Creek Festival will be held over Memorial Weekend: Saturday, May 26; Sunday, May 27; and Monday, May 28. 9 CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 28, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to adopt the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan and to ftirther recommend that City Council accept the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan. PRESENTERS: Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent Keith Walzak, Parks Planning Manager Stacy Cole, Boulder Reservoir Manager Matt Claussen, Urban Resource Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of the November 28, 2011 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) public hearing is for the board to consider a motion to recommend adoption of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (Master Plan) (Attachment E: Draft Boulder Reservoir Master Plan). The current Draft Final Master Plan is available at www.boulderrez.org. Over the past several months, the Parks and Recreation Department staff has responded to the policy direction provided by various Boards and City Council to develop the Master Plan. The Master Plan includes policy direction provided by City Council at the December 7, 2010 Public Hearing on preferred policy options related to Boating, West Shore Use, North Shore and Coot Lake Use and Special Events. In addition to the policy direction for these specific focus areas, the Master Plan addresses details related to the Plan Goals and Objectives, Action Plan Strategies and a Funding Program based on critical infrastructure needs, priorities and responsibilities for the reservoir. The purpose of the Master Plan is to establish specific management goals and objectives for the Parks and Recreation Department managed land and activities at the Boulder Reservoir, which will guide long-term facility investment strategies. The Master Plan was developed in the following three phases: 1: Vision, Goals and Issues (May 2009 -March 2010) II: Policy Options (April 2010 -December 2010) III: Draft and Final Master Plan (January 2011 - January 2012) Agenda Item V-A, Page 1 As a part of Phase II: Policy Options, a series of critical policy focus areas were identified and evaluated against the goals of the Master Plan. In 2010, evaluation criteria was established and endorsed by City Council. The evaluations summarize the pros and cons of each of the options. Staff provided the PRAB with a preliminary overview of the options evaluations at study sessions in October 2010. Subsequently, the policy options were evaluated by the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) and the PRAB in November 2010 and later by City Council on December 7, 2010. Since that time, Parks and Recreation Department staff has been actively engaged in developing the Master Plan that includes specific implementation strategies, plan objectives and action items, priority projects and funding scenarios. Suimested Motion Lan2ua2e: Staff requests the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board's consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Motion to adopt the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan and to further recommend acceptance to City Council. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) project is to establish management goals and objectives for the Parks and Recreation Department managed land and activities at the Boulder Reservoir, which will guide long-term facility investment strategies. The plan has been developed in the following three phases: I: Vision, Goals and Issues (May 2009 -March 2010) II: Policy Options (April 2010 -December 2010) III: Draft and Final Master Plan (January 2011 - January 2012) In Phase I of the Master Plan process, the Boulder Reservoir planning area was divided into four Management Areas as follows: North Shore and Coot Lake North and South Dam South Shore West Shore Agenda Item V-A, Page 2 > ManagernentAreas Ala Marth Share and n~narchF,] ~ Coot Lake (122.09Acres) W Itf t North and South Dam (207.45Acres) • 'r South Shore (76.47A.,res) West Share ^L~ jI (329.17Acres) ~PlanArea Boulder Reservoir City Limits r.: Creek - Diich 'III Pl~ em. ?emu t r y~ A" + rr~r-a r l` -9 a I.. '~i [`n`rr~ " i I Ile-c-t !r 0.25 OS Miles 1 , ~rr.r -.J is I Fy r+,~ • , r ti. _ ~ ~ f ~ 1 ~ _ ~ 4 r , fit. - Boulder Reservoir Management Areas Staff completed Phase I of the project in January 2010, after providing several opportunities for public input on the Plan. These included two public meetings, a user survey and three focus group discussions. Phase II of the project involved identifying key policy focus areas that included: 1. Boating 2. West Shore Uses 3. North Shore/Coot Lake Uses 4. Special Events For each policy focus area, staff developed policy options that were evaluated and presented to the general public on October 13, 2010 at a Public Meeting. A number of community members attended the meeting and provided input. At the November 15, 2010, Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) meeting staff provided an update on the BRMP and requested a recommendation on the proposed boating policy option. WRAB moved to support the staff recommendations of boating policy Option 2 -11otorboat Standards with modifications, as follows: Parks and Recreation staff continue the current management practices to control ANS or Milfoil supported by an annual report that evaluates status ofANS and iWilfoil in other water sources throughout CO, and bring new, up to date methods to the board as they Agenda Item V-A, Page 3 become available. The board's number one priority is to maintain the water quality of the reservoir, and there was considerable amount of concern about the potential loss to the water resources of the city should Boulder Reseivoir be infesting with ANS. At the November 22, 2010 PRAB Public Hearing staff provided the PRAB with an update on the Master Plan and requested a recommendation on the policy focus areas. 1. Boating - Option 2 (Motorboat standards) 2. West Shore - Option 3 (Low-impact use) 3. North Shore and Coot Lake - Elements of Options 1 and 2 4. Special Events (Maximum Special Events) At the PRAB Public Hearing, the PRAB moved to adopt boating Option 2 (Motorboat Standards) and included a requirement that motorboats and large sailboats remain on site throughout the season, with the following modification: Trailered boats must remain in the Boulder Reservoir once in and cannot return once out, on a seasonal basis with the exception of human powered watercraft such as canoes, kayaks, windstnfers and paddle boats. For the West Shore Uses, the PRAB supported Option 3 (Low-impact use) plus a phase-out of the aeromodeling use and a requirement that the PRAB have an approval of final trail plans proposed for the 5150 Street corridor. For the North Shore & Coot Lake Uses, the PRAB supported the staff recommendation that combined elements from both Option 1 and 2, including; support of the current passive uses along the North Shore and Coot Lake and prohibiting humans from swimming in Coot Lake (dogs would be allowed to swim in both Coot Lake and the Reservoir from the North Shore). The recommendations also addressed improving the existing trail system including a pedestrian- only trail for access to the north shoreline of the Reservoir. Voice and sight control requirement for dogs in most areas with the exception of the designated trail around Coot Lake wetlands. On December 7, 2010 the City Council conducted a public hearing and directed staff to move forward with the following policy direction: Boating Regulations: ■ Maintain the diversity and flexibility of boating uses on the reservoir ■ Eliminate `personal watercraft' from the reservoir except for water safety purposes and any craft used for department approved or managed programs ■ Phase out two-stroke engines that do not meet EPA exhaust emission standard (two stroke engines that meet current emission standards would be allowed) ■ No fueling on water ■ All watercraft must launch from designated areas on the south shore ■ No watercraft allowed in Coot Lake (including belly boats) Agenda Item V-A, Page 4 ■ Eliminate `Jet Ski Cove' and expand the `no wake' zone at the Dry Creek inlet to protect aquatic and wetland habitat and; ■ Include the provision from Option 2 to set limitations on the size (500 horsepower maximum) ■ Implement up to two full `no wake' days per week at the reservoir ■ Set the fees on the inspection program for full cost recovery starting in 2011. North Shore and Coot Lake: ■ Continue to manage and maintain the passive recreational use in the area ■ Allow voice and sight on the trail and institute regulations that prohibit dogs and people from accessing established wetland areas ■ Reinforce the fencing and provide better signage to educate the public and report back to City Council in one-year on the results of the pilot program ■ Current voice and sight rules shall remain for all other areas of the North Shore and Coot Lake area ■ Dogs are allowed to swim on the South and East Shores of Coot Lake and North Shore. West Shore Use: ■ Recreational uses shall be restricted to low impact uses ■ Provide a safe, multi-use trail system around the reservoir while minimizing impacts to wetlands and wildlife o Develop a city-initiated and funded soft-surface, multi-use trail along the east side of the 51st Street right-of-way to connect the North Shore trail system to the main entry gate area of the Boulder Reservoir ■ Continue the current aeromodeling use with seasonal wildlife closures as needed ■ Require that dogs must be on-lease along the trail ■ Designate the wetland and shoreline as a protected area. Special Events: Highlights of the proposed policy include the following: 1. Designating events involving 1200 or more participants as "Signature Events" and limiting those events to no more than two per month (to minimize impacts of large events on neighbors, other reservoir users and number of park closure days); 2. Restricting special events to the South Shore, the reservoir (water), the north and south dam roads or the multi-use trails in the North Shore and Coot Lake management areas (to minimize impacts to the environment and on visitors to the North Shore, Coot Lake and Tom Watson Park); 3. Requiring all special events to begin and end on the South Shore (where adequate parking is available for most events); 4. Limiting special events to two per day, 20 per month in the high season and one per day and 10 per month in the low season; and 5. Setting a limit to the number of park or high use area closures to two per month. Agenda Item V-A, Page 5 With the policy direction obtained by City Council on December 7, 2010, the Parks and Recreation Department concluded Phase II of the project and formally initiated Phase III and the development of the Master Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENT: Several public meetings have been held throughout various stages of the master planning process (see project web site for complete information). With the development of the Draft Final Master Plan, staff planned for and conducted a final Public Meeting to present the Draft Plan tot eh general public. Attachment A: Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Public Process Chronology illustrates the comprehensive community engagement effort for the Reservoir Master Plan process. The Master Plan was posted on the project web site prior to the most recent Public Meeting held on November 16, 2011. Notice for the public meeting was sent via the project listserv to inform the public of the Draft-Final Plan. In addition, staff notified members of the Valhalla neighborhood of the public meeting. The November 16t" meeting was intended to present the Draft Final Master Plan and to obtain additional feedback on the draft Action Plan Items for each management area. A total of nineteen (19) members from the public attended the meeting. In addition public comments have been received following the November 16th public meeting via the online web site (See Attachment B: Public Comments From November 16t , 2011 Meeting). Public comment received as a result of the release of the Master Plan may be found on the project web site at: www,.BoulderResz.org A summary of written public comments received after the November 16, 2011 Public Meeting is organized into the following categories: ■ Adjacent neighborhood concerns over traffic impacts on 51st Street resulting from events at the Reservoir during weekends during the summer season. ■ Crowd and amplified noise controls of large events. ■ Adding wake-free hours may cause additional congestion and safety concerns on the reservoir. ■ Need to require shuttle services as a part of events and to extend RTD service to outlying neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Reservoir. ■ Need to maintain emergency services access to neighborhoods during events. ■ Concern over eliminating all personal watercraft (PWC), including those crafts owned privately that are used to assist and support the city's EXPAND program. ■ Concerns related to costs and restrictions placed upon boaters at the reservoir and the ability for the city to achieve a fully sustainable business model and full cost recovery for the ANS mitigation program. Agenda Item V-A, Page 6 ANALYSIS: The Master Plan represents the culmination of months of discussions with interested stakeholders, recreational users, neighbors, natural resource and water quality specialist and other members of the community. The Reservoir remains, first and foremost, a valuable drinking water supply facility for the city, and secondly a valuable recreation resource for city residents and the region. As such, the 2012 Master Plan considers the current recreational uses and provides a road map for balancing recreation, habitat protection and water quality. The Master Plan is organized into eight (8) chapters that include discussions in each of the following areas (See Attachment E: Draft Boulder Reservoir Master Plan); Chapter 1: Introduction Vision and Goals Community Involvement Process and Timeline Community Trends and Key Challenges Ownership and Management Chapter 2: History of the Boulder Reservoir Chapter 3: Access and Parking and Trails Chapter 4: Management Areas Chapter 5: Water Resources Chapter 6: Habitat Management Chapter 7: Education and Stewardship Chapter 8 : Implementation Plan Goals and Objectives Key Policy Recommendations Adaptive Management Funding Plans and Priorities Next Steps Appendix A: Action Item Responsibility Chapter 8: Implementation Plan provides a summary of the Current Draft Policy Recommendations. This section reflects the outcomes of the December 7, 2010 City Council Public Hearing and addresses the key areas as follows: Boating Regulations West Shore Regulations North Shore and Coot Lake Regulations Special Events The Master Plan also identifies seventy (70) individual Action Items that are linked to one of three Funding Program scenarios. The three funding scenarios include; a Fiscally Constrained Plan, an Action Plan and long-range Vision Plan. Agenda Item V-A, Page 7 Funding Program Scenarios: The Master Plan identifies three funding scenarios as follows: Fiscally Constrained Plan Action Plan Vision Plan The Fiscally Constrained Plan represents the current Reservoir funding program including both operations and maintenance and capital repairs and restoration (R&R) programs using FY 2011 as a baseline. This funding scenario assumes no new additional funding beyond what is normally allocated to operate and maintain the reservoir and is based on current funding availability and/or staff resources to complete the action items listed under the Fiscally Constrained Plan. The Action Plan scenario is the next level of service expansion or restoration that should be taken when funding becomes available. The Action Plan considers critical capital investment priorities and project costs as defined by the Capital Investment Strategy (Initiative 2A Bond Program) approved by Boulder voters on November 1, 2011. The Initiative 2A targeted $3 million for critical infrastructure needs at the Boulder Reservoir. The Vision Plan considers other long-range capital investment program needs and cost estimates and targets the future Capital Investment Round 92 Bond initiative (possible 2012 or 2013) and/or other funding sources (grants, annual CIP and/or R&R program funding). The intent is to address the complete set of services and facility needs based on the long-range sustainable development approach for the Boulder Reservoir. The following table summarizes the projected estimated costs for each Funding Scenario considering both capital improvements and ongoing annual operational costs. For more information on specific projects and estimated costs, see Attachment D: Funding Plan Program by Priority table. Funding Program by Funding Scenario k ( I A Isi'. 7 F' 7M 1 - Capitallmprovements $521,000 $2,720,000 $9,855,000 Operational $912,000 $1,259,000 $1,274,000 Total $1,433,000 $3,979,000 $11,129,000 The Master Plan Action Items are categorized into two areas; 1. Capital Improvement Projects 2. Operational, Maintenance and Agency Coordination Initiatives A total of 30 capital improvement projects are identified in the Master Plan that include a broad range of unmet needs and a backlog of project work such as: infrastructure improvements (sewer lift station and water main line), entry gate improvements, ANS monitoring station upgrades, multi-use trails, parking lot repairs, signage and fencing and boat rental fleet replacements, as example. Agenda Item V-A, Page 8 In addition, a total of 40 operational, maintenance and agency coordination initiatives are also included in the Master Plan. These initiatives include, but are not limited to; inspection station operations, biological species inventory reporting, coordination with Boulder County Transportation and city Public Works on roadway right-of-way improvements (i.e. multi-use trail improvements along 51" street, new directional signage at 51st Street and Jay Road and seasonal and full time staff positions as required to support programmatic and operational needs. NEXT STEPS: Upon approval of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, staff will advance the Draft-Final Master Plan to the City Council. A City Council Public Hearing date has been scheduled for January 17, 2012. With the acceptance of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan, staff will initiate the next phase of the reservoir planning and development of improvements which will include a concurrent effort of advancing both priority projects identified as a part of the Initiative 2A Capital Investment Program and the Site Management Plan. The Site Management Plan will focus on several areas to further refine the market, programmatic and operational aspects of the reservoir. This assessment will include all four Management Areas and not solely on the South Shore alone. A detailed operational plan will be developed based on newly defined programs that may be implemented at the reservoir. A long-term sustainable business model will also be developed to assess current revenue areas (memberships, drop-ins, point-of-sale and special event and picnic rentals) and annual operating costs, and projected revenue sources and operating costs (See Attachment C: Boulder Reservoir Revenue and Expenditures 2009-2011). The Site Management Plan will result in a 20-year physical site master plan for all Management Areas illustrating, among other things, designated passive and active use areas, building footprints, recreational areas, trail alignments, parking area and possible shuttle service access point, landscape and park amenity improvements. The Site Management Plan is anticipated to be a one-year process and is funded through the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program (FY 2012). ATTACHMENTS: A. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Public Process Chronology B. Public Comments From November 16'h, 2011 Meeting C. Boulder Reservoir Revenue and Expenditures 2009-2011 D. Funding Plan Program by Priority E. Draft Boulder Reservoir Master Plan; Report Pages 1-75 Agenda Item V-A, Page 9 ATTACHMENT A Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Public Process Chronology Phase I: July 13, 2009: Public Workshop on the Vision, Goals and Challenges. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the project to the community, get feedback on a draft vision and set of goals for the Boulder Reservoir recreational area, and identify the challenges that need to be addressed in the plan. (approximately 80 people in attendance) July 23 and August 11, 2009: City Council Field Trip to the Boulder Reservoir August 6-9, 2009: User Intercept Survey October 6 -13, 2009: Focus Group Discussions (3 focus groups) August 17, 2009: Water Resources Advisory Board - Update on the project. September 28, 2009: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Study Session - Background on the project and discussion of the vision, mission, goals and key challenges for the master plan. October 21, 2009: Public Meeting - Input on the vision and goals for the master plan. (approximately 20 people in attendance) October 26, 2009: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing - Recommendation on the vision statement, goals and key challenges for the master plan. December 8, 2009: City Council Study Session - Background information on the Boulder Reservoir area and overview of the master plan project. December 14, 2009: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing - Recommendation on the vision and goals for the master plan. January 19, 2010: City Council Public Hearing - Acceptance of the vision and goals for the master plan and the summary of the Dec. 14, 2009 study session. March 4, 2010: City Council Weekly Information Packet - Update on the master plan schedule and information about water quality monitoring at the Boulder Reservoir. Phase II: April 7, 2010: Public Meeting - Input on the preliminary options for boating policy, special events, alcohol use, management area designations; circulation and trail use. April 19, 2010: Water Resources Advisory Board - Update on the preliminary boating options April 26, 2010: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Study Session - Feedback on the preliminary policy options. May 11, 2010: City Council Study Session - Feedback from City Council members on the preliminary options for addressing key policy issues in the plan. July 2010: Focus Group Discussions on West Shore trail connection. Agenda Item V-A, Page 10 ATTACHMENT A October 13, 2010: Public Meeting - Input on the preferred policy options for boating, West Shore use, North Shore/Coot Lake use and special events. October 18, 2010: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Study Session - Update on the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan process and a presentation on the West Shore use and North Shore/Coot Lake use options evaluations. October 25, 2010: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Study Session - Update on the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan and a presentation on the boating policy options and special events policy evaluations. November 15, 2010: Water Resources Advisory Board Public Hearing - Recommendation on the preferred boating policy option. November 22, 2010: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing - Recommendation on preferred policy options. December 7, 2010: City Council Public Hearing - Direction from City Council on key policy areas for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan including boating, West Shore use, North Shore and Coot Lake use, and special events. Phase III: September 1_5th - 22d, 2011: Parks and Recreation Internal Review - Draft was reviewed and altered by the Parks and Recreation senior management team. September 26th - October 7th, 2011: Intradepartmental Review - Draft was reviewed and altered by other city departments. October 24th, 2011: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting - Draft was shared with PRAB members for review. November 11th, 2011: Final Draft Posted - Final draft of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan was posted to the Parks and Recreation website for public review. November 16, 2011: Public Meeting - Shared the final draft of the Boulder Reservoir Master plan with the public, answered questions and offered venues for comments. November 21, 2011: Water Resources Advisory Board Public Hearing - Final draft presented to WRAB for recommendation of acceptance. November 28, 2011: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Public Hearing - Final draft presented to PRAB for recommendation of acceptance. Future Phase III Meetings: December 14, 2011- Open Space Board of Trustees Informational Meeting - Final draft presented to Open Space Board of Trustees as an informational item. January 17, 2012 - City Council Public Hearing - Final draft presented to City Council for acceptance. Agenda Item V-A, Page 11 ATTACHMENT B Public Comments from November 16th, Meeting The following emails are the comments received after the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Public Meeting to review the final draft. From: webmaster@bouldercolorado.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 16,20118:48 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Reservoir Master Plan Comment comment: My comment on the Reservoir Master Plan has to do with the PWC elimination and the impact on EXPAND. While it appears the way the policy recommendation is stated regarding PWC elimination it allows EXPAND to use PWC's it should be understood that currently EXPAND does not own their own PWC's. EXPAND depends upon the gracious donation of the use of the PWC of our volunteers. As these volunteers would not be able to use their PWC's for personal use at Boulder Reservoir with this policy change they would be forced to use them at other reservoirs that most likely have similar ANS requirements. Therefore every Tuesday for 8 weeks during the EXPAND program they would have to pay $35 for ANS inspection then potentially do the same at their new reservoir for personal use. This would most likely result in the elimination of volunteers providing PWC's and therefore make the exemption for EXPAND PWC's impractical. As EXPAND only has 2-3 PWC's in any season it would make sense to consider letting these volunteers use Boulder Reservoir for their personal recreational use. Another option may be for the city to agree to allow EXPAND to use the PWC's already in use by Parks & Recreation by the Lake Patrol. Rodger Stewart EXPAND Beyond Boat Driver & Board Member From: webmaster@bouldercolorado.gov Sent: Wednesday, November 16,20118:55 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Reservoir Master Plan Comment comment: My comment on the Reservoir Master Plan is regarding power boating. The plan calls for developing a viable and sustainable business model. The plan also calls for recovering all the ANS mitigation costs and an increase in the wakeless hours. As a power boater and water skier at Boulder Reservoir for over 30 years I can tell you Boulder Reservoir is already a relatively expensive place to boat. If you value the revenue stream associated with power boating permits in the business model for Boulder Agenda Item V-A, Page 12 ATTACHMENT B Reservoir you should be thoughtful about the costs and restrictions you place upon power boating at Boulder Reservoir or you could possibly see the boat permit revenue line severely impacted. From: John L Crittenden Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 20119:53 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Boulder Res Master Plan comment I attended your presentation this evening and am sending to you my comments. First, a frustration. Comments made during the presentation by city staff and afterwards at the tables had an underlying theme: "give us your comments, we want/need to hear from you; we want to have a conversation with you". As was stated at the meeting by one of the attendees, we have been having meetings with various city staff regarding our issues for the past 20 years. Stacy who has been our contact point for the past 5 years or so stated she faithfully passed on to appropriate ears each and every time we raised a concern. It is no wonder there was such sparse turnout.... call it'comment fatigue'. But as I said, I will be optimistic. Here goes. I am not the spokesperson for the Valhalla neighborhood, but I can safely say my views are widely held in the neighborhood. There are 3 primary issues concerning the operation of Boulder Res: 1. We (and that probably also includes the Waterstone subdivision and residents along 51st from Jay Rd to the 55th st parking lot) feel like all we get is lip service from city hall (see frustration above). Table 5 Action Item Responsibilities page 70 #15 is Maintain and improve on-going communication with and support from neighbors. Communication is a fine activity, but concrete action on items 2 and 3 below is what we are optimistically expecting. 2. Traffic on 51st, particularly during large events. On page 22 B. Challenges you talk about a new design of the 51st St entryway. It's hard to see how adding a turn lane is going to mitigate the traffic along 51st. It is even stated in your master plan that traffic backs up all the way to Jay Rd. Since nearly 100% of that traffic is trying to get into the 51st St entryway, there will still be a traffic jam from Jay Rd up to the beginning of this new turn lane. So unless the turn lane is going to run the length of 51st, the problem of ingress/egress from our homes during these events will be not be improved. And of course the northbound turn lane will do nothing for when the crowd is exiting to the south. Goal 8 (being a good neighbor), Objective 8b is to explore an entryway to the reservoir directly from the Diagonal. It is our understanding that the Boulder Fire Department has recently plowed that ground with state DOT for the new fire training center and was refused. But good luck with that endeavor; we're 100% in favor of it. Agenda Item V-A, Page 13 ATTACHMENT B 3. Noise, particularly amplified noise at Special and Signature events is obnoxious. Waking up the neighborhood at 7 AM Saturday or Sunday morning to amplified rock n' roll or a screaming MC is not what I call being a good neighbor. And the master plan calls for increasing these events. How about eliminating the amplifiers until the participants are finishing the event? And finally I think the reader of the master plan is misled as to the impact of these Signature events. You define such an event as those having 1200 participants. I know of no such event that doesn't have at least as many (and typically) more spectators. I believe it would be more informative if you were to use an overall headcount to define these activities. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to a productive and mutually beneficial dialog. From: CHARLES GOWER Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20119:11 AM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: traffic There must be some way to better control the rez traffic during events. If a Valhalla resident needs to leave on a Sat or Sun during an event it can take almost an hour so all residents here if they have somewhere to be must plan it very carefully. If an emergency occurs good luck with that. The city does not seem to realize that being trapped in your neighborhood, as nice as it is, is not acceptable. From: Joye Fuller Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20119:12 AM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: concerns about reservoir 51st St and old Fire Department Am out of town at the moment-but would like to express my concern about the entrance to the new owners??? for the fire department locale--is there any way to have the entrance to be retained that goes out-on Jay Road. I am concerned about additional traffic for reservoir and also the church or other occupant especially when there are events at reservoir. I am homeowner in Valhalla and do have concerns regarding this traffic issue. Thank you. Joye Fuller From: Lisa Brussell Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20119:58 AM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Church at Jay/51st ST Importance: High Agenda Item V-A, Page 14 ATTACHMENT B I live in the Valhalla neighborhood in Boulder County and would like address the passage of the Church at Jay and 51st ST. Please do not do this without considering the traffic that is already a complete imposition on our neighborhood. I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to have to deal with the traffic in and out of the Resevoir each summer weekend. I hate it. Can't you please, please, please think of our neighborhood for once and create a different way for events/church/etc to get into and out of the Resevoir? It is like we do not even exist to you! Elizabeth Brussell From: Angela Forest Sent: Thursday, November 17,201110:33 AM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Valhalla resident on Boulder Reservoir master plan The master plan needs to include mitigation for traffic for the Valhalla neighborhod. I have lived there for 18 years and the traffic gets worse and worse every summer as the number of events including triathalons EVERY weekend has increased. One solution would be to route traffic around the reservoir instead of gridlock down 51st to the stop sign on Jay Road. Add a church going in where the fire station was at 51st and Jay and access to my neighborhood will be very difficult on weekends. Thank you. Angela Forest From: webmaster@bouldercolorado.gov Sent: Thursday, November 17,20111:10 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Reservoir Master Plan Comment comment: After a thorough review (80 pages?!?!?!) of the final draft Master Plan it occurs to me that there is an inconsistency relative to the elimination of PWCs on the water effective Spring 2012. You refer to the EXPAND Program as an invaluable way for disabled folks to enjoy the City's facilities and therefore are allowing the PWCs used by EXPAND. However you are eliminating all other PWCs. Please realize that the PWCs used by EXPAND are privately-owned and voluntarily offered for use by EXPAND with the PWC owner donating all time gas insurance maintenance and other costs of the PWC. If the private owners of these PWCs (there are two currently) are forbidden to operate on the reservoir recreationally at other times they must go to other bodies of water to do so pay repeat ANS testing fees each time they return and these costs inconveniences and prohibitions of use at the reservoir will certainly cause them to lose interest in a continued EXPAND program. The owners of the PWCs used in the program should be allowed to use thier PWCs recreationally on the reservoir as well in order to insure the continuance of the EXPAND program. Agenda Item V-A, Page 15 ATTACHMENT B Paul DiMarchi PWC owner EXPAND rescue PWC driver President of the Board of Directors of EXPAND BEYOND (the S01c3 that financially supports the City sponsored EXPAND Program) Reservoir boat-fee- payer and City taxpayer since 1981. From: Jennifer Arnold Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20112:46 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Boulder Reservoir As a Valhalla resident for 28 years we have had numerous issues regarding the traffic in and out of the reservoir. Growing up in Boulder we too used the res as a recreational summer pastime. However, as years have flown by the use of the Res has stretched it's capacity to its limits. My concerns are mostly the traffic and use of the loud speakers. I have an elderly father who spends the summers with me. We had an emergency regarding his pacemaker during one of your events and had extreme difficulty getting him to the emergency room. We were lucky, one day someone in our neighborhood will not be. I would suggest that the north route in and out of the reservoir would make the most since for us. Leave NS 1st for the neighborhood access. I know you have difficult decisions to make, but consider the neighborhood when you make them. Thank You Jennifer Arnold From: Soraya Smith Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20111:06 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Valhalla resident traffic concerns Hi, I am a resident of the Valhalla neighborhood. We have lived on Valhalla since 2001. The traffic on S 1St has steadily increased to and from the Boulder Reservoir, especially during events sanctioned by the City. I understand that the reservoir is a money making property for the City, but the safety and quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood has been compromised significantly. I personally have been stuck in North bound (incoming to the Reservoir) traffic, unable to enter my own street, and have also been stuck in Southbound traffic, unable to exit my neighborhood, all because of the badly managed traffic from events held at the Reservoir, that I have not attended. I also have been unable to turn towards the Diagonal from S1st Jay Rd., because of a bike race course. These issues may seem minor to you, but when you are stuck in "event" traffic unable to navigate into or out of my own neighborhood, on a regular basis, it is frustrating and could be dangerous. Our daily lives are affected by the decisions made by the City without regard Agenda Item V-A, Page 16 ATTACHMENT B to the impact it may have on us. I also sent a letter about the Church that will be at the corner of 51St and Jay Rd., this will just add more traffic to an already bad situation. I have always believed that REQUIRING an event to mandate use of shuttle services in and out of the neighborhood, would alleviate a lot of traffic and tension. It would also serve the neighborhood/Reservoir and Events to have a regular RTD bus route in and out of the Reservoir. It is ridiculous that the RTD stops that "service" our neighborhood, are located on Jay Rd or on the Diagonal. Talk about dangerous. Much of the traffic into and out of the Reservoir could/would be alleviated by a regular Bus service. I really believe that bad traffic management, over use of the ONLY access and egress to our Valhalla neighborhood, over booking of events at the Reservoir, and MAINLY the likelihood that the City is IGNORING us, Valhalla (County) residents is the cause of all of this tension. Please contact me if you have any questions that I can answer for you. I am very willing to talk to anyone about this situation. I also would like to have an effort made to come and see these issues that we all are talking about. Thank you! Soraya Smith Colorado Spice From: Lorraine Prata Sent: Thursday, November 17,201112:52 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Res master plan comments As part of the Valhalla neighborhood let me add my opinion to the plans as they have a direct impact on my family's lifestyle and my property value. 1. Traffic congestion on 51st must be addressed and mitigated as it's impassable for hours during several weekends each Summer. 2. Crowd and noise control should be a requirement with every permit issued to large events, with reasonable and enforced limits. 3. Adding more wake-free hours will congest the lake and reduce the safety of all boaters. There were times this summer (early June) when there were too many boats on the lake (25+) and it was dangerous to water ski. Sincerely, Lorraine Prata From: Nancy DeLaCroix Sent: Thursday, November 17,20114:45 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Comments for City of Boulder RE: Reservoir Mgmt Agenda Item V-A, Page 17 ATTACHMENT B Hi Keith: It was nice to meet you last night. Thank you for your time. It has been a very long time that someone besides Stacy cared at all about what we think. We usually get blank stares and lip service so you were quite refreshing. As we discussed, we know the reservoir is not going to stop having events. However, it must be managed from start to finish if you are going to do it. There should be traffic control before each event, alternative parking and bus transportation whenever possible. The traffic control should also stay until the traffic is gone at the end of the event. At least half the traffic should be routed north with instruction on how to get back out to the Diagonal. They think they will get lost so they turn around. Even for a non-event, there should be a limit to the amount of cars you allow in. The City and County need to work together. This has been a common problem. Neither wants to embrace the issues and figures it is the other guys problem. We have tried hard to work with a cooperative effort and express our distress at our loss of peaceful existence that we used to have and really, that we are entitled to. We would also like to do what we can to support the City of Boulder's approach with DOT regarding access from/to 119. Please let us know if there is something we can do to help with this. If you set the gates back for entrance and there are alternatives for exit, that would probably work pretty well. Thanks again. Nancy DeLaCroix From: Shelly Rowan Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20114: 10 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Boulder Reservoir Master Plan I live in the Valhalla neighborhood across from the Boulder Reservoir entrance. I wanted to take this opportunity to strongly urge you to consider the traffic on North 51St street when making any decisions about the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan. In light of the increasing number of special events at the reservoir over the last 4-5 years, North 51St Street has become completely overburdened on the days these events are held. It can take me up to 20 minutes to travel the 1 1/z miles from my house to Jay Road, due to the bumper to bumper traffic on North 51St. Often, traffic is prohibited by police from going north on the dirt road portion of North 51St, so we have no other alternatives. It can be very difficult to judge how to get to scheduled meetings or events on time (events that we cannot reschedule, such as kids soccer games, etc.). Further, we are continually bombarded by loud music and running commentary over the loudspeaker by radio stations or other announcers, as well as overflow parking in our neighborhood. There have been days that I hated to leave my house unattended while there were still 4 or 5 strange cars parked outside my house waiting for strangers to come back to later, possibly drunk or disorderly. Not to mention the increased litter. Simply put, I do not see how North 51s' street can handle any more traffic than it already does, at least in its current 2-lane format. I also think a stop light at the intersection of Jay Agenda Item V-A, Page 18 ATTACHMENT B Road and North 51s' street will soon become absolutely necessary for public safety. I urge to you keep these very important public safety issues in mind while considering the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan. Quite frankly, the Reservoir has become something of a nemesis to the Valhalla neighborhood, generating increased anger and resentment when we really should be enjoying being its neighbor. Shelly M. Rowan, Esq. COHEN SILVERMAN ROWAN LLP From: Anderson Sent: Friday, November 18,201110:07 AM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Boulder Resevoir I am a resident who lives five houses upon Valhalla from the Reservoir --We moved here in 2008 and love the natural setting even with the wind, fire, coyotes, and freezing temperatures. However, I was surprised to experience blaring music and announcers that are extremely enthusiastic about what they are saying (I know because I can hear every word ("Tommy from BOULLLLLLDERRRR, COLLL OHHHHH RADDD 00000", come on, youuuu cannn dooo itt). I look out our windows and wonder what do the animals, especially the delicate bird population think of this intrusion into their space. I look to the horses to see what their reaction is---instead of sleepy on a sunny day, they stand in a row with ears pricked watching for what is causing these strange things in their lives that might come to get them. I have grown to accept the fear of coyotes eating my dog, but I have a harder time with the more or less subtle effect of noise, movement and a surge in the number of people that gather at the Reservoir. I try to avoid going anywhere on summer Saturday and Sunday mornings as I cannot keep track of all the events. Not only do these events impact me and my horses, but I would assume the bird population, after all it is a wetlands area. I don't see the eagles like I did when we first came here. I would hate to lose the owls, too. Doesn't seem like the noise bothers the prairie dogs, but the traffic on that dirt road certainly kills a few. One concert is not a big deal just like July 4th when we expect fireworks to be set off by some uneducated person and possibly start a fire, but the number of events has gotten louder and more often. On our moving day at first, we had to drive from Quince to Niwort Rd and come down 51st to get to Valhalla, later we had to change our route via the diagonal and sit in traffic to get to our home. It increased our time considerably. I have had friends sit in traffic on 51st for 20 minutes waiting to get to Valhalla. I actually thought while being transported out of Valhalla by ambulance when I had a serious fall from a horse, "Thank God its not on an event day". When you add the Eagle Trail activities, the sky-divers whopping while falling out of airplanes (until this summer), the people learning to fly airplanes banking over our property, the model airplanes whirring around, the trainers in their cars following runners who even sprint up and down Valhalla, the balloonists who sometimes land very close because of malfunctions, the boats on the Res, with sometimes loud boaters, the cyclists who haven't learned to share the road, and the ambulances that have to make their way Agenda Item V-A, Page 19 ATTACHMENT B here when there is an accident, then you get a whole lot of activity that is beginning to back fill the environment, both human and wild. I respectfully submit that there is way too much going on out hereto add anymore. It is useless to have Open Space unless the sound and numbers of people traveling through are also added to the mix, not to mention the effect of declining efficiency for emergency vehicles. Fire and rescue could be blocked from all directions. Thank-you for receiving this, Sharon Anderson From: Leigh DiNatale Sent: Thursday, November 17,20118:15 PM To: Walzak, Keith Subject: Re Bldr Res. Master Plan Hi Keith, As you stated at the meeting last night on the Bldr Res. Master Plan, I am sending my concerns in writing to you with the intention that they will be included in future presentations to the various boards and councils that will be giving input on the draft document. I live in the Valhalla neighborhood on the north side. Although my house is not within sight of 51st St. I have been woken up in the early morning hours by event MC's and music. This happened at 3:00 am when I was woken out of sound sleep wondering where this voice was coming from. Really, the noise is too much ...I consider myself a tolerant person. Loud music all day and sometimes all weekend long ...the same songs over and over! I didn't have this much noise when I lived in Newlands in Boulder and we could hear the CU stadium there. The traffic is another problem. We are trapped with in our neighborhood during events and high use days like the 4th of July and student mass events organized online. Really? I can't believe this is considered acceptable. If I decided to have an event with even a couple hundred people attending at my home I would be ticketed because the traffic and parking would impact my neighbors and the public using the county roads around here. But this is the city and so you all get away with it? Seems that if you are going to have this kind of traffic you need to have the road infrastructure to support the traffic. (Would an event with 1200 people take place at North Boulder Park with the hours, noise, and traffic like this be allowed?) Many people in this neighborhood have tried to explain the high level of the problem for years. It is time it was taken seriously enough that there is relief! Not just bandaids like the new entrance and turn lane into the reservoir. What does it take to get CDOT to take a request for and entrance off 119 seriously. It may be a long process, but if events are the future of the reservoir then it is time to start the process. Agenda Item V-A, Page 20 ATTACHMENT B I am cheered by the proposed multi-use path along 51st/55th St. North of the reservoir entrance. This is much needed for everyones safety along that stretch of road. I would love to be able to see the design of the path and input into that subplan as well. However I am disappointed that 51st St between the Reservoir and Jay Rd. are not part of the plan. There are so many bikes and runners along the narrow shoulder there also. The safety issue is no less important for this stretch of road. If Boulder is about making a low carbon footprint then there should be a way for people to access the Res. in ways other than cars. RTD busses coming down 51st is one way (I understand RTD is not very supportive of this idea) or access from the stop at 51st and Jay Rd. Why is there not a parking area and bike rack there???? If this isn't part of the Bldr Res Mstr Plan then please send this comment on to whom ever it is appropriate for. Thanks for listening and considering my complaints, but action is what I'm after here. Leigh DiNatale Valhalla resident Agenda Item V-A, Page 21 ATTACHMENT B 6 (1 A Q, a D~ dcLLDlq lot Namel Agenda Item V-A, Page 22 ATTACHMENT C r G m ~f ~ LL Y % N LL A C L S ~Q ~ a L VI W ~ 91 'y ~ j 50• ~ N O C - ~l M - u L N N q Q m C d t_. = L N y' c - Y v o ~ w W v+ ~ - cc Z ~ m ^ N - N -a ~ W N MC d n % ~Q O ~ V M C] v q ,t s N o v ac °c = a c ° °v o v v N - = n o e O1 y : c d c d o p e: o^ sr r.i s - o C 15 ry -n 'n N w w 'n r cR rv U N .h r. v+ a 3 = dp } ~ cam'. ° ~ s ~ ~ .u Q ~ ~ ~ di 4 CC ~ m " ~ ti ~ 3 ~ ~.c r ? `o O} ° W •n j• ~r •n n .F Y s a. s t0 s 4 8 2 L O 7C o = 0 - V! A N a E o o rNV G ix r^s ✓r u'i Q w ~ ~ ~ ~ .^1 ~ N T~ - O •..l - O O !f N T 1 app 9 L r4 ~ N QNj N ~ T ✓1 ~l1 ~O V1 C] W rv x m M1 Z d ~ ~ •M'~ ~ ~ ~ n p1 N y } ci m x d~ v G M1 = `=n S ^ W Vi l ~3 •r ~O .v. AI o[W :n ^n .n i> -n 7 'n .Wir i c n°Q' `d ~ p "a LL~~yyJ m N 4 9 d N c N T V N N GI W g N X C3 N w v M N m g S E A w m L' 6 LL a 00 1 Y y G t4 Q d y Vy N W Zv V ~ ~ rG ~ ~ ~ 4 C Lvy y 'a z x cz: w b m 4+ d m~ q ~ n •c ~ V L ~ ° v u y c a°c 91 a ro cl n a yN~ ~ C a N 9 C m r9 C L ~ ~ 6 Si C 01 7 - O ~ W? ? EO C_ D a, lJ w U, w vii .'n D va+ d Agenda Item V-A, Page 23 ATTACHMENT D E K~ 9 ➢ O° - y ^ tip ~3&~~ C g~e'gf x nEz" s~ s$ •Sr a 5@f ~ o gN a.~ ag'nS'eaaotsERS::~e ~aq s `A pII ~E SU- ~ _ ~~"E~~~ ~~eoR$~g~ {x- mFE 57E.~ u yq p em s a ~-a ~ 2 # ties 3 ,e&' E _ - nc b Y~i - S =Y z g a ~ E E O n` _ g S LL f =E 4 V V 8 4`4 6}s~E_ fig? x Es~`34 EBB` - V" 29s°bgg x~ pg~ > 14~t r {ao ~p$c ,g ^ s€ x 2 a~ 19 a iaoa~ a .c ~L aEc. - g _.~'s Fs ~~~u3 u55if Eoo_ R ~ li fr S O eE6 o ~ a - - Uw Zf, E LL c ~ ~ p~ = E n _ E E E E E i~ 9 4 ° 6 C Q a S ~ ~ u vec a2 F Qe 9 ¢ ~ a z ~ _ QYs xa "s E 9 cc C a :'s Rya =?x ai 8 ? s!M1~o~ y 21 1 ~s'r 3 ~ `a2Fs ~ E £ o e.^F ~.B $~`ie EE~S _F c° EE' _ - E~o3 u c=•~ 3 ~g_ _ fib. °v~i ^g~ ~'~v Q ¢ ? ,~`3 a~:.u 3a is z Agenda Item V-A, Page 24 ATTACHMENT D V °p t ~gf $ 'ey a3a a €"s x u - - y }o 2 6 ~ 6 E 6 36 ~ c - u E ~ s ~1P gag,. s * s° cE F9~ , - ~ c+F Bsy E.,fiag -~y.-7 2. 1 r e~~s XJes ~'<<~ Cm°% X0$9 ~,°~~e~s ~~p `Fs YS€2 LL~c v~~E u~r'.sECa ,E 'v an''`y g~ugu~~°~^ ~~F~~r9~`,~ $E~`y }1~kE4 e? c•`< c n so'~ a M a a 0 v C E C li - X03 - ia a 04 a~ E~£F A e~~ pE~ ~~beS g USA _~LeP ~~YS S °ry qy "y q@ vo 252 n ~ v~ i~rLL a~f~ En ~g;Tn,y g"~u. gin ~q 3-r~ Lg= s 7- g fezy v F g r a yw qq gg ~'3 t~. CO - O LL U ~ ~ ed2 Y 3g °r Erb J n PH, F Agenda Item V-A, Page 25 ATTACHMENT D so s ~n Z; Z; QN se a n ~ A ~ O ~ Z F m tiF ~ ~ o M' u° O obi m E"~z~ os 5 pEg~ C 2F yy~ nn E EL r gE ~ eat ~v sa~ xq35€ ~ °ra 8 O S, e $ O $ ~ a ° e o 8 0 N, o ~ ❑ ^ 9 v u t =8 ~ ~s s g~ ~ ~ 4~~_ a a KF ~~<bS ~uo4?3~m f_ p 51s- 2 pg a E o Agenda Item V-A, Page 26 ATTACHMENT E r« 71 W-... w -y~ a- .1 r S _4. B ' 1 , RESERVOIR MASTER PLAN D RAFTV6 2012 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Acknowledgements Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Members 2011 Water Resources Advisory Board Members City Council Bob Yates, Board Chair William DeOreo, Board Chair Susan Osborne, Mayor Michelle Estrella, Board Vice Chair Susan Lott, Board Vice Chair Ken Wilson, Deputy Mayor Mike Conroy Charles Howe Suzy Ageton Myriah Conroy Kate Ryan Matt Appelbaum Marcelee Gralapp Vicki Scharnhorst KC Becker Richard Thayer Macon Cowles Kelly Wyatt Public Works Department/ Utilities Division Crystal Gray Jeff Arthur, Director George Karakehian Former Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Members Jim Shelley, Source Water Quality Program Manager Lisa Morzel Todd Bryan, former PRAB Chair Bret Linenfelser, P.H., Water Quality and Environmental Suzanne Jones* Pete Webber, former PRAB Vice Chair Services Coordinator Tim Plass* Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor Parks and Recreation Department Kim Hutton, Water Resources Specialist City Manager's Office Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Community Planning and Sustainability Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent Department Sarah DeSouza, Policy and Information Beverly Johnson, Senior Planner Services Manager Adopted by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on , 2011 and accepted by City Council on Mary Neumann, Parks Budget Specialist Special Thanks To 2012. Keith Walzak, Parks Planning Manager Ned Williams, former Director of Public Works for Utilities Steve Whipple, Recreation Administrator for Facilities * New members will be sworn in on Nov 15 Stacy Cole, Boulder Reservoir Manager Matt Claussen, Urban Resources Manager Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P IZIM Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Chapter6. Habitat Management 41 A. Overview 1 A. Landscape Setting 43 B. Purpose of the Plan 3 B. Species of Special Concern 44 Chapter 1. Introduction 5 C. Management Challenges 47 Tables 1. Existing South Shore Parking Lot Data 21 A. Vision and Goals 6 Chapter 7 Education and Stewardship 49 2. Management Area Overview 27 B. Community Involvement 6 A. Introduction 50 3. Recreation Activity/Potential Water Quality Concerns 37 C. Community Trends and Key Challenges 8 B. Opportunities 51 4. Adaptive Management Program 61 D. Ownership and Management 8 5. Action Item Responsibilites 65 E. Relationship to Other Plans 13 Chapter B. Implementation Plan 53 A. Goals and Objectives 54 Figures Chapter 2. History of the Boulder Reservoir 15 B. Key Policy Recommendations 59 1. Sustainability Program 3 A. Introduction 16 C. Adaptive Management Approach 60 2. Community Engagement Process 7 B. Development of the Boulder Reservoir 17 D. Funding Plans and Priorities 62 3. Adaptive Management 60 C. Boulder Reservoir as a Recreational Amenity 18 E. Next Steps 63 4. Funding Plan Bar Graph 62 Chapter 3. Access, Parking and Trails 19 Appendix 65 A. Existing Conditions 21 A. Action Item Responsibility 65 B. Challenges 22 B. Re vie wer'sNote 75 Chapter4. Management Areas 25 A. Management Areas 27 Maps • 8. South Shore 27 1. Vicinity Map 2 C. North Shore and Coot Lake 30 2. Land Use Map 9~~~ D. West Shore 31 3. Ownership Map 11 n ~ _ - 4. Agency Responsibility Map 12 E. North and South Dams 32 5. Colorado-Big Thompson System Map 16jY Chapter 5. Water Resources 33 6. Transportation and Access Map 20 g A. Introduction 34 7. Trail System Map 23 B. Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) 34 8. Management Area Map 26 L _2j! C. ANS Inspection Program 35 9. South Shore Site map 28 D. Water Quality in the Boulder Reservoir 36 10. Vegetation and Wetlands Map 42 i S E. Water Supply and Recreation 39 11. Sensitive Species Map 45 a C;~. ~r c Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P A. Overview Executive Summary The Boulder Reservoir is a 700-acre water supply and the rich diversity of wildlife in the area. Several recreational concerts and festivals. The Parks and Recreation recreation facility located west of the Gunbarrel area in facilities and services in the Reservoir and Coot Lake areas Department also sponsors a number of camps, classes and Boulder, Colorado. The Reservoir provides a range of are provided bythe Parks and Recreation Department. recreation programs at the Boulder Reservoir during the recreational opportunities in an exceptional, natural and The South Shore provides facilities to support year-round summer months. Classes related to canoeing, kayaking, visual setting. It is a popular multi-use resource that water-based activities including motorized and adaptive water skiing for people with disabilities, sailing, contributes to the health and well-being of the Boulder non-motorized boating, swimming, water skiing, fishing, sail boarding and boater safety classes are periodically community and to the quality of the natural environment. wake-boarding and tubing, and land-based recreation offered. Several community organizations involving including picnicking, running, and cycling. A multi-use rowing, sailing and aero-modeling also use the Constructed in the 1950s, the Boulder Reservoir collects trail system, including two trailheads and parking lots, Reservoir for member activities and events. and retains water for municipal, domestic, agricultural and supports passive recreational uses of the North Shore and R industrial uses for members of the Northern Colorado Coot Lake including hiking, dog-walking, biking, nature Water Conservancy District (Nortern Water). The observation, and picnicking. The West Shore area is Reservoir is, first and foremost, a valuable drinking water known for its extensive wetland and grassland complex supplyfor the city. The recreational activities atthe that supports a diversity of sensitive wildlife species. (See Reservoir are supported and managed by the Parks and Management Area Map on page 26)-~~ Recreation Department in a manner that is compatible ; with the protection and management of the water Over the years, the Boulder Reservoir has increased in supply. popularity as a local and regional venue for small and large-scale group and organized events. In 2010, the The Boulder Reservoir and Coot Lake are popular Reservoir hosted over 30 special events which attracted destinations for over 300,000 visits per year, who come to more than 30,000 participants and spectators. Special - - hike, swim, boat, fish, walk dogs, ride bikes, picnic and enjoy events held annually include triathlons, marathons, Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Executive Summary 1 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map 1. Vicinity L Cn C7 L M Neva Rd Cf) z a z Niwot Rd cMO z ^ mA vai.r= r Reser: Monarch Rd LO COON Mineral Rd Plan Area Lake Plan z ~c Greek Area Dry Boulder ca Reservoir a Jay Rd p\mAo 3 Lookout Rd o Boulder, m City Limits mdeo, `n Arapahoe Ave Boulder, City Limits Srx - 5 r~ es Priva''1 C CO VS 3 ~ L Jay Rd Jay Rd A in L in U) ti o~m w N Q Z Executive Summary Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 8. Purpose of the Plan The original Boulder Reservoir Master Plan was completed The master plan applies the principles of sustainability to the plan also supports city and county alternative in 1983. This plan outlined a development plan for the the management of the water, recreational and natural transportation goals by acknowledging the need for trail South Shore area and resulted in the creation of the swim resources of this area by integrating city-wide goals linkages to the regional trail system plan and promoting beach, picnic area, boating facilities, parking lots and the of energy conservation and waste reduction in future multi-modal travel options whenever appropriate. main office building, which exist today. The master plan facility development and improvements. In addition, has not been updated since 1983, yet community needs and interests have changed, visitor activities in the area have multiplied and existing facilities have aged. Figure. 1. Sustainability Program The 2012 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan considers the current recreational uses and provides a road map for balancing recreation, habitat protection and water quality Social at the Reservoir. The plan establishes management Equity objectives for recreation and wildlife habitat around the Community Involvement Reservoir and is intended to guide future investment to Set Priorities strategies and operations for the Parks and Recreation Economic Policy Direction Department (see Figure 1). The plan broadens the scope of Vitality Representing Community Values the 1983 development plan significantly to outline several Limits of actions for improving and expanding the active recreation Resources facilities on the South Shore as well as improving the Environmental passive recreation facilities in other areas around Health the Reservoir. The plan also integrates city goals of protecting water supply and quality and conserving Balance of Input Filters Results and enhancing valuable wetland and wildlife habitat surrounding the Reservoir and Coot Lake. Credit: City of Boulder Social Sustainability Strategic Plan Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Executive Summary 3 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4 Chapter l Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P Chapter 1. Introduction Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 1 5 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A. Vision and Goals B. Community Involvement The Boulder Reservoir Master Plan vision and goals 3. Identify sensitive wildlife and plant species and The Boulder Reservoir Master Plan was developed over were crafted from input gathered in public, board and protect, enhance and restore their natural habitat. three phases involving numerous public meetings, study City Council meetings and through user surveys and sessions and public hearings. focus groups discussions. The vision and goals provide the 4. Develop and implement strategies and partnerships framework for the actions outlined in this plan. to reduce and manage the risks of Aquatic Nuisance The community engagement process identified a wide Species infestations. range of participants, including; Reservoir visitors, Vision recreation and wildlife organizations, the Parks and Recognizing that the Boulder Reservoir is first and 5. Identify and minimize water pollutant sources. Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), the Water Resources foremost a source of clean water and valuable Advisory Board (WRAB) and City Council. Community natural resources, the community envisions a 6. Promote and support visitor safety. input was received through focus groups, a user survey, Reservoir where high quality and appropriate 7. Develop and implement a business model for long - open houses, workshops, e-mail and public hearings. recreation activities are managed and sustained in term sustainable management of the Reservoir, The Parks and Recreation Department created and , a manner consistent with preserving and enhancing including the use of public/private partnerships. continues to maintain a project web site as well as an . the environment. e-mail list with over 300 recipients. These measures 8. Endeavorto be a good neighborto adjacent keep the public informed and solicit input as plan ele- Goals properties. ments developed overtime. The department has received 1. Support City sustainability objectives at the Reservoir. over 400 comments on various aspects of the plan. 9. Promote visitor and community awareness and • Waste reduction. stewardship of the Reservoir through ongoing • Carbon emissions reduction. education and outreach. • Water conservation. • Reduction of single occupancy auto trips through 10. Ensure the security and maintenance of the facilities encouragement of alternative transportation and infrastructure in the Reservoir area. options and management of parking. 11. Collaborate with other agencies and departments 2. Provide for a range of high-quality recreational uses, to accomplish mutual goals.= T C events, facilities and services that are inclusive of the Y. ~ community. 6 Chapter l Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Figure-2. Community Engagement Process Phase I Phase II Phase III VISION, GOALS AND CHALLENGES ANALYSIS AND POLICY OPTIONS ANALYSIS AND POLICY OPTIONS May 2009-December 2009 January2010 -Apri12010 May 2010 -Jan 2012 Public meeting on vision, goals Public meetings on policy options Public meetings on draft plan and challenges V Community and user survey Board discussions on policy options Board recommendations on draft • WRAB plan - • PRAB • OSBT (informational) • WRAB PRAB and WRAB Updates V • PRAB V City Council public hearing on policy options Public meeting - City Council review and acceptance V Public meetings PRAB public hearings on on preferred policy option Vision, Goals, and Key Challenges - V Board public hearings on preferred policy option City Council study session • WRAB e • PRAB - - - - City Council public hearing City Council public hearing on preferred policy option _ Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 1 7 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E C. Community Trends and Key Challenges The Reservoir is a popular assetto the community and • Visitation and demand for recreational services Transportation and Utilities presents numerous opportunities for meeting community and facilities. The City of Boulder Transportation maintins 63rd street goals in a sustainable way. However, a growing population • Conflict among users and need for more safety, from the Diagonal Highway to Monarch. The City of in the Boulder Valley may likely lead to an increase in educational outreach and enforcement services. Boulder Public Works Department Utilities Division demand for recreation facilities and services especially • Traffic along the access roads and main entries. (Utilities) owns the majority of the immediate land around for those areas in close proximity to population centers. • Maintenance needs. the Reservoir and is responsible for providing safe drinking Increased user demand combined with aging facilities, • Impact to natural resources. water for the city. All roads, infrastructure and buildings threats from invasive plant and animal species around associated with the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment the Reservoir, and growing budgetary constraints pose There are six management entities in the Boulder Reservoir Facility are managed and maintained by Utilities. According challenges for the Parks and Recreation Department, area with different management roles and missions, that to operating agreements between the city and Northern include four departments in the City of Boulder, Northern Water, the city is responsible for maintaining all land above The Parks and Recreation Department 2006 Master Plan Water, and Boulder County Department of Transportation. the high water line in the Reservoir, or more specifically describes key demographic trends in Boulder County and above an elevation of 5,183 feet (with certain exceptions- their implication for recreational services. A key trend A Ownership and Management see below). This responsibility has traditionally fallen on affecting management of the Reservoir is an expected Utilities, if maintenance is not specific to, or in the purview increase in the population of the city and the county. By City of Boulder of the Parks and Recreation Department, Open Space and 2030, the city's population (areas I and II) is projected to Parks and Recreation Department Mountain Parks Department (OSMP), or Fire Department grow from the current estimate of 113,000 to 130,000. The Parks and Recreation Department owns a total of 81 acres activities. in fee on the South Shore and West Shore and manages As population in the region grows, demand for new and the majority of the land in the Boulder Reservoir area for Open Space and Mountain Parks Department expanded recreation opportunities will likely increase active and passive recreation and wildlife and habitat The OSMP owns and manages several hundred acres of requiring additional resources to manage recreational conservation. property to the west, north and east of the Boulder Reservoir uses at the Reservoir in order to minimize conflicts area. A small, 18-acre parcel of city open space is located between uses and habitat resources. A growing and a k immediately south of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment 5 changing Boulder County population is anticipated to Facility(WTF). This property is managed by OSMP for its wetland and grassland habitat values and falls outside the result in increases in the following matters related to the Reservoir. Boulder Reservoir master planning process. 8 Chapter l Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map 2. Land Use ' >fali Ditch ~'I I, Monarch Rd Land Use Residential t ,.I Business 1 Industrial I Mixed Use P Open Space _ Park, Urban and Other - Farmers Ditch +r ! - ~ Public co Plan Area j Boulder Reservoir City Limits I Dly Creek II Creek Ditch _yl.,~ Boulder oom,rf Reservoir O`a { r' r-- L okoUt'Rd I fF. + fir {s i----- - Sixmile Reservoir Spine Rd (Private) F"91111',%`, _ , A 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 1 9 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Fire Department and industrial use. Northern Water has rights to Through a series of agreements, Northern Water and The Boulder Fire Training Center is situated on 12 acres use approximately one-third of the total capacity of the City of Boulder have established an understanding in the South Dam area. The purpose of the center is to the Reservoir and the City of Boulder has rights to the of how to mutually handle a variety of issues that affect support the training of regional fire fighters in the basic remaining capacity. Northern Water's operations on city owned land and skills to respond to emergencies. The facilities include facilities. These agreements limitthe extent of recreation an education and administration building, garage, burn Northern Water delivers the city's share of water to either access and public use of certain areas around the building, training tower, driving pad and pavilion. Access the WTF intake structure on the Boulder Feeder Canal Boulder Reservoir and make all recreational use at to the center is through the Reservoir's main entry gate or directly to the Reservoir. Water conveyed through the the Reservoir subordinate to the primary use of the on 51st Street. Reservoir for other members of the district is delivered Reservoir for irrigation, municipal, domestic and industrial through the north dam outlet works to the Boulder Creek purposes. For instance, while public pedestrian and Supply Canal. bicycle use is allowed on the maintenance and access roads in the North Shore area and along the Northern Water has exclusive and sole control of the use, dams, vehicular access by the general public is not occupancy, operation and maintenance of certain lands permitted. In addition, the city must obtain approval for around the Reservoir and within these areas only specific any facilities including trails and bridges, built in areas uses are allowed. These use restrictions have affected controlled by Northern Water. " - the present land use pattern at the Reservoir. The areas under sole control by Northern Water include the following. Boulder County Department of Transportation Boulder County maintains 51st street and associated 1. Boulder Feeder Canal Inlet Area and a 30 foot rights-of-way and has authorization to issue permits or buffer on either side of the canal from the inlet north, allow closures for any special events along these roads. including the access road. 2. The parcel of land to the east of the north dam and Northern Water (See map on pg. 12) west of 63rd Street (North Dam management area), Although the city owns the dams, facilities and underlying including the spillway. land, Northern Water manages and operates the water 3. The parcel of land within the Reservoir which lies supply storage and delivery facilities. Northern Water's below the high water line or, more specifically, below primary responsibility is to supply members of the district an elevation of 5,183 feet, with raw water for irrigation, municipal, domestic 10 Chapter l Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map 3. Ownership it City of Boulder Ownership • ` ' Parks & Recreation - - - - - I Monarch Rd------ Parks & Recreation C, and Utilities co L I f ~ , - ~ 5:'.-.f#Utilities El Open Space and Mountain Parks Conservation Easement Fee Property IBM Ownership r &5 il 65 - 9-1 k N M Ownership Parcels Boulder Reservoir I I - I Plan Area L---~ City Limits Cit i ~J-~- Soulder Creek - - - - Ditch r!• Reservoir oar try y Look ut'Rd { r~, ~lXr'7i'i2 I lr~~ Spine:Rd . T l,.f r r ' I ~ ~ 11 rY4 II {f ' _ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles II ~ _ ~ ' I_ t r ~ ~ r' Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 1 77 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map a. Agency Responsibility Star Ditch- Monarch Rd City of Boulder Management °~i•. t _ Parks & Recreation j -Fi Parks & Recreation Prairie Dog Mitigation Area Lr) `n Utilities i Fire Department r. Open Space and Mountain L Parks f, N ~ l - Conservation Easement Fanners Ditch { ) Fee Property M cD N n Norther Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) NCWCD management Boulder Reservoir a L'tt/~ _ Aoc Plan Area ` ,:C~ Ora `f - City Limits Creek 5 fi l i Ditch ~ f i \ x ~ ~ fir. ~ }f-,~,'- .Ir - - - • Lookout Rd - r r* t- I _ r.` } j?. rJti r r i-°i. ~'~'yro'~~r i /r i-^ F- M' ixmile s All t' ° r RBSB~VO/!" 'Spine, R. ` - ` j 4,W ~F ;f r tp. (PliVate) j6i x ~a r~+ r 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 12 Chapter l Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E E. Relationship to Other Plans Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (2011) 2010. The goal of the plan is to guide future decisions Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan provides the and resource allocation for Boulder's recreation needs. Visitor Master Plan (2005) and Grassland Ecosystem general statement of the community's desires for future The plan includes an assessment of recreation trends Management Plan (2010) development and preservation of the Boulder Valley. The and issues; local demographics and recommendations Over the past decade, the Open Space and Mountain plan policies guide decisions related to city services and for recreation programs, services and facilities. Several Parks Department (OSMP) has developed a series of creates the overarching frameworkfor individual department of the recommendations in the Recreation Program and management plans to clarify how the City of Boulder master plans. Department master plans address policies, Facilities Plan pertain to and guide the Boulder Reservoir will manage OSMP properties and deliver community priorities, service standards, system needs and funding Master Plan. services, including sustainable natural resource for the delivery of specific services. conservation and passive recreation. In 2005, the city council accepted the Visitor Master Plan, which outlines Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan (2006) the vision and strategies for providing sustainable The Parks and Recreation 2006 Master Plan identifies recreational activities and facilities. The Grassland investment priorities guided by community input, the Ecosystem Management Plan (Grassland Plan) focuses Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and City Council. 7 ' upon the conservation of the 24,000 acres of land Investment priorities are based on the city's business plan dominated by mixed grass and xeric tall grass prairie. and the department's financial situation. Investment The Grassland Plan is intended to provide a framework priorities for recreation facility development are for on-the-ground management actions, public policies prioritized based on needed improvements within ; and land and water acquisition priorities to conserve a fiscally constrained funding level and leveraging the ecological values of Boulder's grasslands and ensure existing infrastructure and resources by investing in ongoing agricultural production. The Grassland Plan applies revenue producing facilities such as the Reservoir. The `d to extensive city open space surrounding the Boulder department's master plan also includes a number of Reservoir. goals, including the need to prepare management plans yztsw,a for all developed and undeveloped park lands, and _ Coordination and collaboration between the OSMP and natural areas. _ the Parks and Recreation Department on trail and trail head development and location, as well as weed, wildlife, Recreation Programs and Facilities Plan (2010) grassland, and wetland management will be important in The Parks and Recreation Department Recreation = - - -16000 attaining mutual departmental goals and objectives. Program and Facilities Plan was completed in September Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 1 13 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Source Water Master Plan (2009) Water Quality Strategic Plan (2009) Climate Action Plan (2002) The Source Water Master Plan documents the current The Water Quality Strategic Plan outlines water quality The overarching vision of the Plan is to develop a status of the city's water resources and raw water goals, strategies, priorities and performance measures sustainable energy future for Boulder and Boulder County. facilities and defines key issues addressing the city's for the Water Quality and Environmental Services Group, The Climate Action Plan provides a framework to compare future water supply needs. The Source Water Master which is part of the Public Works Department, Utilities and analyze alternative strategies and policies, in order Plan recommends capital improvement projects, Division. Water Quality staff participation in the Boulder to facilitate Council's review and the decision-making programs and studies while providing a framework for Reservoir Master Plan process has integrated water process. The Plan includes baseline data and emissions sustainable management of the city's source waters to quality goals with those outlined in the plan. reduction strategies for all sectors - commercial, ensure that future water supply needs are met through industrial, residential, transportation, and solid waste. It drought periods without violating adopted reliability Boulder Reservoir Development Master Plan (1983) also addresses city operations, water conservation and criteria. The master plan endorses the need to The purpose of the plan was to develop an existing urban forestry. collaborate with all stakeholders in the Boulder Reservoir facility analysis, examine program development, create basin to develop and implement source water protection a functional organization of uses, determine recreational Master Plan for Waste Reduction (2006) strategies such as active and passive recreation planning use suitability and explore alternatives. The main focus of This Master Plan for Waste Reduction contains goals, and aquatic nuisance species management. this plan was on the South Shore. objectives, and policy guidance for waste reduction and recycling programs. In addition, it outlines an investment x Urban Wildlife Management Plan strategy for waste reduction programs in Boulder. Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Component (2006) '4, The purpose of this plan is to understand the context, Transportation Master Plan (2008) P benefits and conflicts posed by urban wildlife and to The Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the city's long ~Y outline a plan for the management of individual species or range blueprint for travel and mobility. The goal is to create groups of species. Since most wildlife/human conflicts in an innovative and balanced transportation system that - the urban area occur out of the context of the natural sustains to quality of life valued by Boulder residents, vY ecosystem of that species, most urban species employees and visitors. The TMP covers all forms of management will be addressed on a species by species personal travel -walk, bike, bus, and auotmobile. basis. Where appropriate, the plan will address the 4 management of species on an ecosystem level. 14 Chapter l Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P Chapter Z. History of the Boulder Reservoir Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 2 15 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A.Introduction The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Map 5. Colorado-Big Thompson (Northern Water) was formed in 1937 as a result of severe and long-term water shortages caused by the drought Courtesy: Northern Water NORTH POUDRE ♦ Le end of the 1930's. The ur ose of the Northern Water was to DIVERSION TUNNEL _NORTH POUDRE 9 P P East Slope I SUPPLYCANAL develop, manage and operate a supplemental water C-BT Reservoirs Distribution City/Town PLEASANT VALLEY supply projectto protect water users in the northern System HANSENSUPPLYCANAL PIPELINE ~ Canal Colorado region. The project is known as the Colorado it,,, Pipeline/Conduit DIXON FEEDER CANAL Tunnel Big Thompson (CBT) Project, which delivers water from Dam HORSETOOTH power Plant the headwaters of the Colorado River to water users RESERVOIR Fort Collins in northeastern Colorado for agricultural, municipal, O Pump Plant domestic and industrial uses as a supplemental supply to Rocky I HANSEN FEEDER CANAL ■ native basin water supplies. Moutain DILLE DIVERSION% - Windsor National TUNNEL Park TTUL NEL POLE HILL PINEWO D Z Rl'y Loveland Greeley The CBT Project is the largest trans-mountain water I -_TUNNIL RESERVOIR©: rhryl diversion project in Colorado. Built between 1938 Estes Park ~►I~ ~~~~~~-y~~~~ j+ Ricer LAKE ESTES lyt FLATIRON RESERVOIR RAMS HORN and 1957 at a cost of $150 million, the CBT Project TUNNEL PROSPECT MOUNTAIN RATTLESNAKE River on RFv 10 TUNNEL s .t TUNNEL Berthoud hurn4 provides "supplemental" waterto 30 cities and towns Ep5 KEYS CARTER T,,Oe T in northeastern Colorado. The stores water from ADAMS Poral LAKE- - NORTHERN WATER project TUNNEL SAINTVRAIN HEADQUARTERS SUPPLY CANAL 1 C the Colorado River headwaters in a series of reservoirs SOUTHERN WATER /Forth Si. Orrun Ricer Lyons ~ SUPPLY PROJECT PIPELINE T 'O F°P on the western slope of the Continental Divide. Water is . Mor, Arai" - - gi e7 transported, via the 13 mile Alva B. Adams Tunnel, through St. Longmont BOULDER S the mountains to Northern Water's eight-county service So FEEDER CANAL _ 1 y area on the eastern slope. Boulder Reservoir is the Fort nd BOULDER CREEK A Lupton Leftha BOULDER SUPPLY CANAL SOUTH PLATTE southern terminus of the CBT Project. - RESERVOIR` SUPPLY CANAL Erie i J Boulder The term "supplemental" refers to the fact that native k f(oulder~ _ , Louisville Lafayette water (waterfrom local watersheds on the eastern slope) Superior was historically available and used on the lands within ° 5 10 '520 Broomfield Northern Water boundaries and the CBT water Scale of Miles (Approximore) 16 Chapter2 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E B. Development of the Boulder Reservoir supplements the historical supply. In addition to The city began acquiring land for the Reservoir in the dams, Boulder Feeder Canal and spillway, for water providing supplemental water for municipal, domestic, the 1950s and issued utility revenue bonds to fund the supply storage and delivery. The Parks and Recreation and industrial uses, CBT water is used to help irrigate construction. The first parcel of land was purchased Department maintains the land and facilities related to approximately 693,000 acres of northeastern Colorado from the Axelson family's dairy farm. The city began the recreational use of the Reservoir area. farmland. The CBT Project delivers, on average, 213,000 construction on May 1, 1954 and finished in April 1955. acre feet of water annually to northeastern Colorado. The size of the Reservoir is currently 13,100 acre-feet The Boulder Reservoir area, the water treatment with approximately one-third of the capacity reserved facilities, as well as several hundred acres of open _ for Northern Water and two-thirds reserved for the city. space land in the north portion of the Boulder Valley The Reservoir was originally built to store agricultural were annexed in the 1970s and 1980s as part of an effort and industrial water for downstream CBT users and to to bring the IBM Corporation property, east of the provide a source of municipal "exchange" water for the Reservoir, into the city and provide it with city services. city. The city did not intend to directly treat its CBT water - s; for municipal use. Rather it "exchanged" the CBT water for Boulder Creek water that could be treated at Betasso Water Treatment Facility. "Exchange" refers to meeting #.v water demands of downstream users through delivery of an alternate water source, such as CBT water, so that the city may divert Boulder Creek water when it otherwise The City of Boulder annexed to Northern Water in 1953 to would not be able to do so. Over time, population ensure it had sufficient water supplies to meet municipal growth increased water demand and necessitated the and agricultural water demands. The terms and conditions construction of the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment - of annexation to the district were originally detailed in Facility in 1975 to satisfy peak day demands in the summer a 1953 agreement and later modified through a series of that could not be met through the Betasso Water Treatment agreements. As conditions of annexation to Northern Water, Facility. (See the Water Resources section for further the city was required to back-pay assessments from information on the water supply function of the Reservoir.) 1938-1953, build Boulder Reservoir (initially called Twin Lakes Reservoir) and provide Northern Water with capacity Although the city owns the dams, facilities and underlying Photos Courtesy of-Boulder Public Library : in the Reservoir to store and deliver water to users in the land at the Boulder Reservoir, Northern Water controls, Carnegie Branch Libraryfor Local History. southern part of the district. operates, and maintains the infrastructure, including Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 2 17 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E C. Boulder Reservoir as a Recreational Amenity Like the majority of the reservoirs in the CBT system, the the development and improvement of the facilities on the Boulder Reservoir has always been used for recreation. South Shore. After passage of the initiative, the Though the Reservoir's initial purpose was the storage of Boulder Reservoir Development Master Plan was initiated irrigation and municipal water, it quickly became the to investigate alternative master planning approaches for region's most popular destination for boating, swimming the redevelopment of the boat, swim and picnic facilities. and fishing. Under the operations and maintenance Shortly after the plan was approved in January 1983, the agreement with Norther Water, it was established that swim beach was moved to its present location toward.. the Reservoir could be used as a recreational facility but the more protected southwest "corner" of the Reservoir ' that recreation would be subordinate to water supply and and the facility received its first running water (provided storage. through the Lefthand Water District) along with many of its current structures. During the first 4th of July celebration held at the Reservoir I f , in 1955, more than 1,400 cars paid the 25 cent admission Coot Lake, a twenty-five acre water body, located to picnic, swim and enjoy the festivities. That August, the northeast of the Reservoir, was the original borrow pit first boating licenses were sold. Over the years a variety for earth needed to construct the dams at the Reservoir. of site amenities were added including a concession area, Due to the natural flow and elevation of ground water in boat launch, guard stations, boat storage and rental and the area, the pit filled with water and remains a popular outhouses. By the early 1980s, the initial facilities had place for recreational activities and as a wildlife preserve. fallen into disrepair and visitor use of the facilities had From 1955 until 1983, the Parks and Recreation Department increased beyond the capacity, provided basic facilities for health and safety at Coot Lake including portable toilets, parking, and trash cans. In the In reaction to community demand for facilities at the late 1990s, a pittoilet, parking lot, ADA accessible pier, Boulder Reservoir, a parks bond issue was passed by city trails, benches and interpretive signage were installed. residents in November 1981 which provided $2.4 million for - 18 Chapter2 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P Chapter 3. Access, Parking and Trails Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 3 19 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map 6. Transportation and Access Q Parking / Trailhead Monarch' Rd r' _ Restricted Access Boulder Reservoir 1' i Plan Area - I L---~ City Limits >rL} - ~,1 Creek Aeromodelling I fir » " - it - - - - Ditch L I Jet Ski Cove' I I r 1 Z ~A. a ------n ' - _ - Fisherman's oc il: Point Windsurfer's t x ` Point . " South Shore ~a~ L okout Rd ' Recreation Area ~r I ,L Main Reservoir Entrance tU y ° 1 G' I off • • I I _ D •r F / ~,.s, r ! C r 4 1-nd Sef Spine Rd~~+.:~ l y ~f , I r Re r. { - ;t • yi3 r'! f'. ~'~47 • t~!7V: ir? 1 _ . f l 1.n ,r L 1 " " r"r h f r 0 0.25 0.5 Miles .ate,. s~„ 7. i r r,~ ~ -'f ' ''9'9• il"._ 'e. fir'.. M ~ r I 20 Chapter 3 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A. Existing Conditions Access is on 51st Street on the southwest side of the Reservoir. There are three designated entry points to the 51st Street is a two-lane paved road from Jay Road to the recreational facilities at the Reservoir which include: Reservoir entrance gate. Passing opportunities on 51st 1. The main entryway to the South Shore on 51st St. Street are limited due to the rolling topography. There 2. The trailhead and parking lot on 55th St. are currently no turning lanes along this road for access 3. The trailhead and parking lot on 63rd St. at Coot Lake. to residential neighborhoods or the Reservoir. There is also no bike lane and a limited shoulder for bicycles. The main entryway provides separated ingress and egress ` i. . lanes for vehicles and boattrailers accessing and exiting Parking ~y the South Shore area. It also includes a gatehouse or fee There are 12 parking lots on the South Shore of the station, which is staffed during open hours, and a lockable Reservoir with a total capacity of 4275 vehicles. The table gate to prevent vehicles and boattrailers from entering the below details the capacity of each lot. Reservoir when the park is closed. Table 1. Existing South Shore t.. i There are two trailheads providing pedestrian and bicycle Parking Lot Data :~h t access to the North Shore, Coot Lake and the dams. One Parking Lot Capacity of vehicles) of the trailheads is located along 55th Street on the North ~y North Overflow lot (grass lot) 1450 x j' F•: Shore of the Reservoir. This trailhead includes a small parking lot with a ca pacityfor 10 cars, a portable toilet South Overflow lot (grass lot) 1120 Eight parking spaces are available at the Coot Lake and an information kiosk. Windsurfer lot 124 trailhead and 182 at Tom Watson Park. Coot lake lot is Prohill Dirt lot 65 often filled to capacity. Tom Watson lot often serves as Coot Lake trailhead is located west of 63rd Street across Main Beach lot 330 overflow parking for Coot Lake as well as general parking from Tom Watson Park. Amenities at this site include 8 Main Beach overflow lot 206 for Tom Watson Park. Expansion of either of these lots to parking spaces, a pedestrian crosswalk, a fishing dock, Sailboat lot 60 accommodate more vehicles is limited. Expansion of the a rest room and an information kiosk. Sailboat overflow lot 75 Coot Lake parking lot is constrained by its location in a Marina lot 92 wetland buffer zone. Renovation or expansion of the Tom The primary roads leading to the Boulder Reservoir area Marina overflow lot (dirt lot) 612 Watson parking lot would require approval by the IBM are 51 st Street, 63rd Street and the Diagonal Highway (CO Boat Trailer lot 66 Corporation, which is the underlying landowner of the 119). The main entry gate to the South Shore facilities Boats only 75 property. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 3 21 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Trails along the north and south sides of the Reservoir spillway, annual visitors enter the Reservoir area atthe 55th Street The trail system on the North Shore and around Coot Lake which provides a connection to the North Dam road. The and Coot Lake trailhead. On heavy-use days or during has evolved over several years of visitor use without an north and south dam maintenance roads provide a link events, traffic can be backed up along 51st Street from the adopted trails plan or initial trail development. The between the Coot Lake area and the South Shore for Reservoir entry gate to Jay Road. In addition, when event multi-use trail that has been maintained over the years pedestrians and cyclists. The IBM connectortrail will attendance is high, parking demand on the South Shore by the Parks and Recreation Department provides a link provide access from Gunbarrel to the east side of the can exceed capacity in the designated lots resulting in between the 55th Street and Coot Lake trailheads. The trail Reservoir. overflow parking along 51st Street. crosses the Boulder Feeder Canal via a narrow bridge that is owned and operated bythe Northern Water for B. Challenges A new design for the 51st Street entryway will create maintenance access. From the canal to 63rd Street, the Managing Traffic a northbound turn lane off 51st Street into the main trail connection is on a maintenance road that provides Traffic and parking along the primary access roads has entrance and relocate the gate house to allow more vehicular access to the Boulder Feeder Canal for city, become more of a concern over the years as popularity stacking of vehicles off the main road. An Aquatic emergency and Northern Water staff. and use of the Reservoir have increased. Recent Nuisance Species boat inspection station and an trailhead data suggests that increasing numbers of additional gate house are also part of the new design. The multi-use trail connection between 63rd Street and These entryway modifications will ease traffic flow on the Boulder Feeder Canal provides a future link in a 51st Street and improve overall safety during major regional trail system along the Boulder Feeder Canal. events at the Reservoir. Although the development of this trail system is , currently on hold, it has been included in the Boulder Periodic traffic along 63rd Street can also pose safety Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Boulder County concerns for pedestrians and cyclists. Since limited Comprehensive Plan. Future enhancements to the Coat parking is provided atthe Coot Lake trailhead, visitors to Lake area trail system should take a regional trail system the area typically park in the Tom Watson Park parking into consideration. lot and cross 63rd Street to access the trail system. 63rd Street is a two-lane paved road and a major commuter Other trail linkages in the Boulder Reservoir area include x`= 1 i road between Gunbarrel and residential areas in the a pedestrian-only trail circling Coot Lake and the adjacent north Boulder Valley and west Longmont areas. Traffic on wetlands and several unofficial social trails that provide xr 63rd Street has grown steadily over the past few years, access to the north shoreline of the Reservoir. There is increasing the risk of accidents involving vehicles, also a social trail connecting the maintenance roads y~z y ,xs 5 pedestrians or cyclists. 22 Chapter 3 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map 7. Trail System Potential S a~ Drrr_l% Monarch Rd - Existing Trails Lyons/Boulder Trail - - Pedestrian Trail i Multi-use Trail r J i~ ~ ; Paved Path Q) , Proposed Trails - - - - Multi-use Trail Coot ; PedestrianTrail _ - Lake - - - Multi-use Trail - Connection 5 Potential Multi-use Trail Connection Jet Ski Cove E Boulder Reservoir i o l7rv Creek s Creek Ditch z a Boulde Fisherman's n<. Point Ora Windsurfer's Point South Shore Lookout Rd Recreation Area ~r Main Reservoir Entrance Sixorile - Spine Rd Reservoir r - 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 3 23 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E ManagingAccess(55th Street and South Dam) 55th Street trailhead and non-motorized craft are often Currently, the parking lot at the 55th Streettrailhead does brought in from this parking area and launched on to the not meet the existing demand. The parking lot is typically Reservoir. The lack of control over boat access on the full on mostweekends, and on busy days cars are parked North Shore increases the risk of Aquatic Nuisance along both sides of 55th and 51st streets. There is no fee Species infestation to the Reservoir. requirement, entry gate or boat inspection station at the Managing Social Trails Several undesignated social trails have developed ter: i "t 0A - over time on the North Shore and Coot Lake area -Alw from walkers, cyclists and dog walkers accessing the shoreline of the Reservoir and forging links between the Coot Lake area and the dam road. Unmanaged visitor access to all areas of the Reservoir and Coot lake shorelines often fragments and degrades habitat, and impacts water quality in the Reservoir. Unmanaged access to the north and west shorelines also increases 4?s . E the risk of aquatic nuisance species infestation through illegal launching of small watercraft. A D < challenge for the Parks and Recreation Department K will be to remove and prevent undesignated trails and 9t ro y; access points, and guide visitors along routes that anti Cep, ' ~s tq, of c P,~ minimize impacts to sensitive resorces. A% yen 24 Chapter 3 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P Chapter 4. Management Areas Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 4 25 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map 8. Management Areas Management Areas Monarch 'Rd' North Shore and Coot Lake " •I -a(122.09 Acres) 6511 North and South Dam L j + If (207.45 Acres) LO South Shore I ° 1 (76.47 Acres) F - West Shore rrtti. j (329.17 Acres) - _ j i. Lake pFp' O Plan Area Boulder Reservoir N _ • _ City Limits Creek A ] - - - Ditch li - L f V. f s a_ Lookout Rd • r - 1 1 T y r ~aS,• b'S~.~!'i'"i ~~';$`...a,•.-®e~-~r,n-~"_ -,`j ~ JY,- XmIle irS vJ;Spine Rdr,:`'~ - q , f r~ ins ~f r ,rr 'rte 0 0.25 0.5 Miles ' ti-I fr r 26 Chapter 4 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A. Management Areas The Boulder Reservoir consists of the following four management areas which provide the framework for Table 2 Management Area Overview recreation facility improvements and services described Management Area Estimated Area (acres) Type of Use Access Habitat Quality in the master plan: • South Shore South Shore 76.47 Active Recreational Full Low to Moderate • North Shore and Coot Lake North Shore & Coot Lake 122.09 Passive Recreational/Natural Limited Moderate to High • West Shore West Shore 329.17 Passive/Natural Limited High • North and South Dams North and South Dams 207.45 Utility Dam Structure Limited Moderate B. South Shore Uses and Activities The South Shore of the Boulder Reservoir is a primary for planned events. The picnic sites are available for Boating Boulder Valley destination for water-based recreational group picnics such as corporate parties, family reunions, Boating has been a popular activity at the Boulder activities. Although recreation occurs year round, weddings and birthday parties. The South Shore facility Reservoir since it was first opened to recreational use in visitation is highest during the summer months when the also provides a snack food concession, a seasonally- the 1950s. Boating at the Reservoir includes the use of beach, concessions and boathouse are in operation. Daily guarded swim beach, restrooms, showers, volleyball large water craft, such as powerboats and sailboats, and summer drop-in activities include boat rentals (small craft), courts, and horseshoe pits. Picnics or other planned small craft such as sail boards, wake-boards, canoes, swimming, sun-bathing, running, walking, picnicking, biking, activities that are expected to draw at least 50 participants kayaks, paddle boats and kite boards. Personal Water beach volleyball and fishing. From October through must obtain permits from the Parks and Recreation Craft are allowed to use the Reservoir on a limited basis. March, the South Shore is mostly frequented by runners, Department prior to the event. dog-walkers, cyclists and some boaters. Special events While boating at the Reservoir takes place year-round, are also held in the winter on the South Shore. The swim beach is open on a daily basis from early the majority of the boating activity occurs May through May to Labor Day when lifeguards are on duty. Open October when most of the South Shore facilities are in Picnics and Swimming water swimming is periodically allowed at designated service. Limited services are available for boating The South Shore offers a number of facilities to support times in the summer months. Swim groups of 10 or more throughoutthe year including dry and shore moorings, boat and enhance swimming, picnics and other group events. people require a reservation to ensure staffing levels are ramp access and Aquatic Nuisance Species inspection. Thirteen picnic sites accommodating as many as 1,000 adequate. people, are available and can be reserved in advance Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 4 27 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map9. South Shore Site Map Boulder Reservoir Recreation and Facilities - Ramps/Docks Swim Beach Site Map Boat Mooring~Wet & Dry Boat ) Main Entrance PrimaryParking N Bluegill Mallard - Life Guard Trailer Day Parking w E Coot Osprey Main Admirdstration South Shore Area Eagle Pelican Boat House ` Natural Area S _ 0 - - Eagle - Snapper Trailer - Park Maintenance Eagle Snapper Bike/Trail ® Restrooms Quail Trout X,~~ First Aid Boulder Reservoir Hawk ~ Bluegill Trailer \ \ Picnic Site Locations Kestrel Trout Trailer tricted Area 1- Dream Cove 6 - Beachview 10 - Hobie Haven zi~r 2 -Lakeshore 7 -Chandler Beach 11 -Marina Hill Boulder Reservoir 01 BOVC ~ Parks and Recreation ,SJ Q 3 - Pro Hill 8 - Cottonwood Cove 12 - Sunset City of Boulder 1 5 -Concession Hill 9 -Sailor Point 13 -Sunrise 5565 N. 51st Street V - Vii' \ Boulder, CO 80301 u 303441-3461 Dream Cove Dock . Z Guard Dock 3 Sao f pPNO yo A r Rowing Dock Main Entrance rl © ~ Sailboats JetSki Dock S 6 7 Sailboat Ramp 12 f ~T _ 8 Spey 11 ~ 13 ~~mt.o~~` +r is 10 9 _ r Powerboat Ramp ~ ~ Maps ~ ^c 4 Cool . Qg`l~ab VaU pec el Six Mile Reservoir (Private) Stca~~ec go°9e` o \0s11 Scab c Sco `,e, l0 9 / - To Boulder/ Hwy 119 - - _ t<a Ea0 J i 'J 28 Chapter 4 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E To manage the multiple boating uses on the Reservoir, that are open for participation (with or without a fee) to be permitted by the Parks and Recreation Department. various boating policies, rules and regulations have been the general public. "Signature Events" are those special Instruction programs, athletic or sports company developed to minimize the conflicts among uses and to events involving 1200 or more participants or requiring events, outdoor guide services, clubs, dog walking for make boating a pleasant and enjoyable activity. A Boulder public entryway or high use area restrictions or closures a fee, environmental education courses or any other Reservoir boating permit is required for all watercraft using (e.g. gate or boating closures). In 2011, the Reservoir activities conducted for monetary gain are considered a the Reservoir - including sailboats, power boats, kayaks, hosted 30 events which attracted more than 30,000 commercial use. canoes, kite boards, sail boards and paddle boats. "No participants and spectators to the Reservoir from February wake" periods are regularly scheduled during the week to through November. Facilities and Services accommodate the interest of non-motorized boaters. The South Shore currently provides several facilities A permit is required to organize, promote or stage a to support both water and land-based activities. Many Camps, Programs and Classes special event at the Reservoir. All special events involving facilities and services have been developed over the past The Parks and Recreation Department organizes and the multi-use trail system around the Reservoir must be thirty years to support a variety of active and passive sponsors several water sports programs, classes and planned to begin and end at the South Shore to minimize recreation uses. Most of the South Shore facilities were summer camps at the Boulder Reservoir for children, impacts on daily visitor use in the North Shore and Coot built in the early 1980s to implement the original Boulder teens and adults. Summer camps for children include Lake area and at Tom Watson Park. Special events may Reservoir Development Master Plan adopted in 1983. instruction in water sports such as swimming, sailing, take place using the South Shore area, the water, and/or canoeing, kayaking and windsurfing. City-sponsored on the multi-use trail system around the Reservoir. On the There have been limited renovations to the original programs are popular with the community for learning West Shore, special events must remain on designated structures on the South Shore, which are aging, outdated and enjoying water sports and are a source of revenue trails or roadways (with permission from the Boulder and, in some cases, inadequate in meeting current demand for the department. Expanding and enhancing these County Transportation Department). and current building requirements. As use of the Reservoir recreational opportunities will be important in development increases, there is a need for increased operations of a sustainable business model for the Reservoir. Commercial Use and maintenance services, renovation and refurbishment Several local businesses and organizations use the of existing facilities and construction of new facilities to Special Events Boulder Reservoir facilities for non-public events, classes replace aging ones. Refurbishment and replacement of The Reservoir is a popular regional venue for large and and programs. In general, the Reservoir recreation facilities South Shore buildings presents an opportunity to meet small scale special events, including triathlons and are for the public good and were not built for private the city's green building requirements and to incorporate marathons, races for people and dogs, and concerts and profit. Any activity requiring a fee, charge, purchase of renewable energy facilities, water quality best management festivals. Special events are planned activities (for- goods or services, donation forthe service or as a condition practices and water conservation measures in profit or not for profit) involving 50 or more participants of participation is considered a commercial use and must redevelopment of the site. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 4 29 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Future Challenges popular destination for wildlife viewing and bird watching Facilities and Services The Parks and Recreation Department faces challenges for several years. The Audubon Society and the Boulder The facilities provided in the North Shore and Coot Lake in the near term in providing necessary funding for capital County Nature Association periodically monitor bird include multi-use and pedestrian-only soft-surface trails, improvements and ongoing operations to maintain and species of special concern and provide the Parks and two small parking lots with a trailhead at both Coot Lake improve the quality of the recreation facilities and services Recreation Department with ongoing monitoring data and and off 55th Street, pit toilets and portable toilets, a provided on the South Shore. Budgetary challenges information about changes and trends. wheel chair accessible dock for fishing and pedestrian include insufficient revenues, lack of stable long-term The North Shore and Coot Lake area is a very popular access to both the Reservoir and the lake. The multi-use funding, and the expiration of sales taxes that support destination for people to walk their dogs and for dogs to trail system also provides an important recreation and the department. Maintaining and increasing revenues swim in either water body. Dogs are permitted on the trails commuter link for bicyclists in the Boulder Valley. from activities at the Boulder Reservoir is critical to along the North Shore and in Coot Lake throughout the both maintaining the facilities at the Reservoir and the year if in compliance with the city's Voice and Sight Dog Future Challenges financial future of the department. Tag Program. The level of visitor use in the North Shore and Coot Lake area has substantially increased in recent years Although special events must begin and end on the South and is expected to rise in the future as the population in C. North Shore and Coot Lake Shore, the trail system in the North Shore periodically Boulder County continues to grow. Summer weekends Uses and Activities serves as a connection for running and walking events and evenings are particularly popular for people and their The North Shore and Coot Lake are popular regional circling the Reservoir. All special events and any dogs and the parking lots at Coot Lake and on 55th Street destinations for visitors seeking passive recreation commercial use of the trail system must obtain a permit are often filled to capacity. Because parking is limited at opportunities in a quiet, peaceful setting with wide-open from the Parks and Recreation Department and minimize either trailhead, many visitors park in the Tom Watson lot views of the Boulder Valley. The recreational uses in the impacts to general visitor use of the facilities. and cross 63rd Street to access the Coot Lake area, posing North Shore and Coot Lake area include hiking, wildlife viewing, dog walking, bicycling, horseback riding, running, and fishing. Swimming and watercraft launching are not allowed on the North Shore or in Coot Lake. Passive recreation is managed to minimize impacts to - the abundant wildlife habitat in the area and to promote - - - water quality in the Boulder Reservoir and Coot Lake. s Consequently, the Boulder Reservoir area has been a 30 Chapter 4 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E D. West Shore considerable safety concerns. As the regional trail system ANS inspection and launch from designated launch areas Uses and Activities is developed and popularity of this trail system increases, on the South Shore. Education and information at the The West Shore of the Boulder Reservoir supports an safety at this crossing will be a concern. trailheads about boating regulations and ANS risk will be expansive and largely unfragmented wetland complex provided to supportthis management objective. providing high quality habitat for numerous wildlife As popularity and use of the area has increased, unmanaged species. The City of Boulder identifies most of this area shoreline access to both the Reservoir and Coot Lake The North Shore and Coot Lake area do not currently as one of the most exemplary wetlands in the valley due has increased resulting in impacts to resources such as generate revenue to help cover the cost of trail to its size, the quality of its vegetation and its location in vegetation loss and erosion, fragmentation of habitat and maintenance, weed management, shoreline protection, a semi-protected landscape. This wetland sanctuary has runoff contaminants in the water. The extensive wetlands and restroom and trash services in this area. While fees proven to be a rich environment for many wildlife species in the area limit the feasibility of expanding the trail system are charged to enter the South Shore, access to Coot Lake including birds, fish, muskrats, bears and coyotes. in most of the North Shore and Coot Lake area and several and the North Shore is free and open. A business plan for improvements are needed to manage growing use of the the Boulder Reservoir area should include an evaluation of Although most of the West Shore area is not directly area and minimize user conflicts. options for generating additional revenue from use of the accessible to the public, it is a popular site for raptor area and ensuring an equitable access and fee system viewing and environmental education. Due to the high The Lyons-to-Boulder Regional Trail is a proposed 13-mile value and sensitivity of the wetland and grassland habitat in soft surface, multi-use trail along the Boulder Feeder Canal (entrance or parking) as well as funding for maintenance needs in conjunction with OSMP. the area, most of the West Shore is designated as a protected that would connect the regional trail system with the town area. Seasonal wildlife closures are evaluated annually for of Lyons. This regional trail connection would merge with nesting species of concern. the trail system in the North Shore and Coot Lake areas, cross 63rd Street and then link to the IBM Connector Trail Current recreational use of the area is restricted to a and the Gunbarrel area. The regional trail system linkage is public aeromodeling facility located on the northwest side anticipated to increase the popularity and use of the Coot of the Reservoir near Dry Creek. Model airplane flying Lake area and may pose future challenges to the Parks takes place most of the year atthis site with a few large and Recreation Department in managing potential conflict - flying events held during the year. The club has had an among the different uses of this area. agreement with the Parks and Recreation Department for use of the site since 1980 and helps to maintain the facility. Ongoing management of the North Shore area to deter Due to the potential conflicts between the aeromodeling illegal boat launching and water access will be essential in use and seasonal use of the wetland area by various bird minimizing the risk of Aquatic Nuisance Species infestation _ species of special concern, the site is evaluated annually for in the Reservoir. All watercraft are required to go through closure during nesting season. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 4 31 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E E. North and South Dams Future Challenges Uses and Activities The dam roads provide an important link between the North The need for a safe, off-road multi-use trail connection The North and South Dam management areas are located Shore and South Shore for pedestrians and bicyclists. Fishing along the 51st and 55th Street rights-of-way has been to the east of the Reservoir and include the dams, the dam is also allowed in this area and generally occurs along both expressed by the public, City Council, and City and Boulder roads and roughly 250 acres of wetland and grassland dams as well as along the shoreline where accessible. County staff. The conceptual location of this trail is habitat. Both habitat areas support black-tailed prairie dog identified on the Trails System Map tin Chapter 3). A colonies and other important grassland wildlife species. Future Challenges future trail alignment study will define the trail corridor The North Dam area is particularly important because of In recentyears, the number of visitors accessing the South that is envisioned to be located on city-owned land along the historic occurrence of burrowing owls, which nest in Shore via the multi-use path on the North and South Dam the county right-of-way to the extent possible. If natural abandoned prairie dog burrows. structure has increased substantially. In addition, the Water resource and wetland constraints limit the potential to Treatment Facility(WTF) and current and future programming build portions of the trail on City property, the City will Recreational use and development of the North and of uses and activities atthe Fire Training Center may also have work with the Boulder County Transportation Department South Dam areas is limited by land ownership and other impacts on access and circulation for recreation users along and other agencies to evaluate the feasibility of locating public uses of the area. The dams roads are managed by the multi-use path atthe dam structures and atthe South portions of the trail in the county right-of-way. Northern Water but owned by the City of Boulder Utilitites. Shore area near the Fire Training Center entrance. The Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility and the Fire The future Site Management Plan will address access Training Center are also located in the North and South Dam and circulation for all users including recreational users, areas. These facilities are not accessible to the general maintenance and operations staff for all uses in the public and pose further restrictions to the recreational use vicinity of the Fire Training Center including an emergency of this area. preparedness plan to address multi-use functions between recreational uses and emergency providers atthe Reservoir. } 32 Chapter 4 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. +yr a. .r- r Chapter 5. Water Resources Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 5 33 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A. Introduction Currently, 40 percent of the city's drinking water supply Sixmile Reservoir, owned by the City of Boulder and White to the city because of the enormous impact introduction passes through the Boulder Reservoir facility. Twenty Rock Ditch an Reservoir Company, is located immediately of these plant species in the Reservoir would have on percent of the city's total supply is treated directly at the south of the Boulder Reservoir area and outside the the economic, environmental and social aspects of the WTF and the remaining 20 percent, exchanged from the topographic drainage basin of the Reservoir. However, community. The City Council has identified ANS prevention Reservoir to Middle Boulder Creek and North Boulder Creek, water quality in Sixmile Reservoir potentially influences as a priority for the city and instituted a boat inspection is treated at the Betasso WTF. Water is transported to the that in the Boulder Reservoir because of an emergency program which reduces ANS risk in the Boulder Reservoir. WTF from one of two intake structures along the Boulder spillway connecting the water storage facilities. However, further diligence by the city and visitors to the Feeder Canal or in the Reservoir itself. In general, the city Reservoir will be essential in the long-term prevention of treats water from the Reservoir during the fall and winter ANS infestation. when the feeder canal is not running (from November through April) and treats water directly from the feeder Zebra and Quagga Mussels canal in spring and summer (from Maythrough October). Zebra and Quagga Mussels have been a growing problem I 1 , I I I N,~~ in US waters since the 1980s. Zebra and Quagga Mussels The Boulder Reservoir is a low volume shallow reservoir y I I 1° ` IPrpr- are small, freshwater mussels originating from the Balkan with a surface area of 700 acres and a capacity of 13,100 region of Eastern Europe. They were first identified in acre-feet. Its depth normally ranges from 19 to 28 feet9 the Great Lakes in the late 1980s and have rapidly spread deep. Between 80 and 90 percent of the water in the f throughout water bodies and river systems in the east. The Reservoir comes from the Boulder Feeder Canal. Small ' mussels were probably introduced to United States waters flows also enter the Reservoir on the west side from Dry when ships arriving from Europe discharged ballast water Creek, Farmer's Ditch (summer months only), Little Dry containing the mussel larvae or veligers. Creek and Unknown Creek. 8. Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Mussels spread from one water body or river system to The Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Facility (WTF) is The risk of ANS infestation in the Boulder Reservoir has another via recreational boats and fishing activities. The located directly east of the Reservoir. Until the 1990s, become an increasingly important issue for the city in mussels have the abilityto attach themselves to various the WTF was used only as a summer peaking plant. Since recent years. ANS are waterborne, non-native plant or surfaces, including boat hulls, and can survive under dry 1998, the WTF has been operating year-round based animal species thatthreaten the diversity or abundance of conditions for several days, making trailered boat transport on varying requirements of the city's overall raw water native species, the ecological stability of impacted waters, one of the primary culprits for their spread. Other concerns supply, water demand, and other factors such as drought or recreational activities. Zebra and Quagga Mussels as include standing water such as in bilges, live-wells, fish bait and maintenance. well as Eurasian Watermilfoil (milfoil) are of special concern buckets and ballast water. 34 Chapter 5 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Establishment of mussel populations in the Boulder recreational activities such as swimming, fishing, water Reservoir would have serious implications for skiing, and boating. Milfoil can also interfere with water recreation, drinking water quality and operations, transmission and treatment by clogging water intakes. and aquatic ecosystems. The mussels can reduce fish populations, ruin boat engines, jam steering equipment, Milfoil can drastically alter a water body's ecology by make reservoirs unusable by boaters and swimmers, out-competing native plants and reducing food chain ii _ ~ degrade ecosystems, and clog the infrastructure of the animal diversity. Milfoil starts spring growth soonerthan water supply and treatment facilities. native aquatic plants and can shade out these beneficial If infestation occurs in the Reservoir, the city will incur plants. The mats can also reduce oxygen from the water by preventing the wind from mixing the oxygenated significant financial impacts. Zebra or Quagga Mussel surface waters to deeper water and the plant material growth and build-up in the city's water collection decay can create low oxygen situations. When milfoil C. ANS Inspection Program and treatment infrastructure would prompt capital invades new territory, the species diversity of aquatic The Colorado State Parks Board adopted regulations replacement and long term maintenance costs for the plants typically declines. in 2009 to assist in the statewide management of ANS. WTF. These regulations apply to all waters within the State of Eurasian Watermilfoil (milfoil) Once milfoil becomes well-established within a waterbody, Colorado. Boaters are responsible for compliance with Eurasian watermilfoil (milfoil) is an attractive plant it is difficult or impossible to remove. Milfoil reproduces the new regulations while water body agencies have the with feathery underwater foliage. It was once commonly extremely rapidly and can infest an entire lake within responsibility for the protection of managed waters from sold as an aquarium plant. The plant originated in Europe two years of introduction to the system. Milfoil is able ANS introduction and infestation. and Asia, but was introduced to North America around to reproduce very successfully and rapidly through the 1900 and is now found in water bodies over much of the formation of plant fragments. Milfoil will also grow from Protection of the Reservoir from ANS is a priority for United States. fragments created by boaters or other disturbances the city. In 2009, the city implemented an inspection during anytime of year. A new plant can startfrom a tiny program for all boats using the Reservoir. The program Milfoil has never been observed in Boulder Reservoir. piece of a milfoil plant, demonstrating how easily it can involves inspection, tagging, ongoing monitoring and data However, milfoil is considerably problematic once in a be transported from lake to lake on boat trailers or fishing collection. One of the key components of the program is body of water. Milfoil forms very dense mats of vegetation gear, educating boat owners and fishers, and raising awareness of on the surface of the water. These mats interfere with the ANS issue, as well operating the inspection program. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 5 35 Aganda Item V-A, pReport Pages ATTACHMENT E Inspections are conducted by state-certified city staff Coot Lake will be necessary for years to come to prevent A secondary purpose of the Reservoir is recreation. The at the Reservoir. Inspectors are present when the main ANS infestation. The Parks and Recreation Department will high quality of the raw water in the Reservoir supports entry gate is open to the public to help provide the level of continue to monitor the program on an annual basis and many water and land-based recreational uses including protection and customer service required for the program. make recommendations related to protecting this water boating, swimming, fishing and wildlife-viewing, all of To help offset the cost of the program, inspection fees source from ANS in the future. which contribute to the health and well-being of city and are charged to all watercraft owners who have Reservoir county residents. boating permits. The Reservoir is home to many species of animals and The availability of a hotwater decontamination station at plants that depend on the aquatic and wetland environment the South Shore would allow for better customer service K fortheir health and survival. Water quality in the Reservoir and provide the opportunity for staff to provide options for is a necessary component of supporting the wildlife, plants boaters. A decontamination station would give boaters r° 1 and natural ecosystem processes which, in turn, contribute the option of quarantine or decontamination on-site at to the popularity of the Reservoir for wildlife viewing and the Reservoir and decrease the amount of driving to the appreciation of the natural landscape of the Boulder Valley. Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife headquarters in ` Denver to have watercraft decontaminated. During a wet Maintaining good water quality in the Reservoir reduces year, drain and dry quarantine procedures may not be as the resources required to meet water demands and to effective. A hot water decontamination station provides an y; t~y+~. ~•r~, cur meet regulatory standards set by the state and federal x ~~a 3iri+b°` enhanced preventative measure to introduction of mussels governments. Degraded water quality could lead to during wet years. This would also provide an option to allow A Water Quality in the Boulder Reservoir reduced flexibility in use and treatment of the water and boats that have been to other bodies of waterto access The primary purpose of Boulder Reservoir is water supply additional costs to meet regulatory standards in both raw the Reservoir in a timely manner. The ability to clean boats storage for municipal, domestic, agricultural, and industrial water and treated water. of oils and other contaminants on-site would also help to uses. Water quality in the Boulder Reservoir is a critical maintain water quality in the Reservoir. public health, environmental and economic issue for the The city has adopted several goals and policies regarding community and essential to achieving many facets of City protection of source water quality that are described in the Protection of the Reservoir from ANS is a priority. of Boulder sustainability goals. Good, dependable water Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Public Works- Consistent oversight of boat launching and fishing quality benefits the city by contributing to the health of Utilities Source Water Master Plan, and Water Quality activities in the Reservoir through the main gate of the residents, increasing the city's economic well-being and Strategic Plan. Overall, the city's policies are to minimize South Shore as well as the North or West Shore and in enhancing quality of life. point and nonpoint sources of pollutants, protectthe water 36 Chapter 5 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E system, and continually maintain and improve the quality of water, as well as secondary drinking water standards. watershed and the Northern Water system. The Reservoir the drinking water. This master plan expands upon the goals Secondary standards are non-enforceable guidelines for developed as a multiple use resource, and the city and the and policies described in the previously referenced plans contaminants that may cause cosmetic or aesthetic effects Reservoir users must continually evaluate and balance by outlining objectives and actions to address water quality in drinking water. Drinking water regulations also relate to the uses. The raw water in the Reservoir is impacted by concerns related to recreational use of the Reservoir. a water system's water supply by establishing treatment various land use activities outside the city's jurisdiction requirements based on the quality of source water and such as nutrients and sediment in residential and Water Quality Standards also requiring public water systems to assess existing and agricultural runoff and bacteria in wild and domesticated The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission potential contaminant sources to water supplies, animal waste. Land and water-based recreational activities (Commision), part of the Colorado Department of Public around the Reservoir can also impact water quality in Health and Environment, regulates the quality of surface Water Quality and Recreation several ways as shown in the table below, water (lakes and streams) and treated drinking water. Water quality in the Reservoir can be impacted by both Water quality regulation is mandated under the Clean Water human-made and naturally-occurring conditions in the Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act atthe federal level, and under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations at the state level. Table) Recreation Activity and Potential Water Quality Concerns State water quality policies and beneficial use classifications Recreation Activity Potential Water Quality Concerns for all surface waters in Colorado (such as Boulder Reservoir Swimming Pathogens, personal care products (suntan lotions, insect repellents) and its tributaries) are developed by the Commission. To protectthe quality of Colorado's surface waters, the Commission Power boating Fuel or oil spills (filling, accidents), turbidity, ANS develops and implements narrative and numeric water Non-motorized boating Aquatic & terrestrial nuisance species, erosion from shoreline access quality standards. Water quality standards describe the chemical, physical, and biological conditions necessaryto Parking lots Sediment, nutrients, fuel, oil, solid waste from runoff achieve and protect a water body's beneficial use classification Fishing ANS (i.e., water supply, aquatic life, agriculture, recreation, industrial). Wastewater management (lift station, portable toilets) Pathogens and nutrients from spills The Commission is also responsible for establishing Trails for biking, hiking, and horses Sediment, pathogens and nutrients from runoff and erosion Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations, which Dogs and horses Pathogens from waste include maximum contaminant levels in treated drinking Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 5 37 Aganda Item V-A, RReport Pages ATTACHMENT E Although several recreational activities can impact water accumulation of PAHs in the Reservoir. PAH results Other recreational activities around the Reservoir can also quality in the Reservoir, the potential impacts of motorized from this monitoring do not indicate an accumulation in have a significant impact on water quality. Stormwater boating have raised the most concern from the public in Boulder Reservoir sediments (i.e., consistent with PAH runoff from trails and trail use, if poorly managed, can recent years. Motorized boating has the potential to impact results from a reference in Rocky Mountain National contribute to the cumulative impact of nutrients and water quality by introducing fuel and oil related chemicals Park). Few two-cycle engines are in use on the Reservoir sediment in the Reservoir. Bank erosion from overuse or into the raw water, infesting the Reservoir with ANS, such and all newer outboard motorboats are four-cycle removal of vegetation, can lead to increased sedimentation as zebra and quagga mussels, and contributing to water engines that create less oil pollution than older two- in the Reservoir and impact aquatic life. E. colifrom human, turbidity (cloudiness of water). cycle engines. dog and wildlife waste in runoff or from bodily contact with the water, is also an ongoing concern and monitored The two primarywater quality concerns associated with Monitoring data collected on BTEX and other volatile regularly during the summer season to complywith health- fuel-powered boating on the Reservoir are the introduction organics have been substantially below state regulatory based swim beach standards. Therefore, the City monitors of BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene and Xylene) criteria for health and aquatic life and do not suggest an for E. coli as an indicator of pathogens. from gasoline and PAN (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon) ongoing water quality impact of fuel-powered boating from oil. BTEX compounds have been detected during high on the Reservoir. There is always, however, a potential Water Quality Monitoring use activity in Boulder Reservoir, near the marina where risk of fuel discharges and spills from boat engines and a The city's Public Works-Utilities Oivision monitors and boats launch and engines are started. However, BTEX potential risk of PAH contamination in the sediment from evaluates treatment processes at various locations compounds are volatile and evaporate when exposed to older two-stroke engines in outboard motors that do not within the WTF, including treated water quality prior to air. BTEX compounds also have a tendency to float, and meet current EPA emission standards. entering the distribution system. With treatment, the WTF the Reservoir water treatment intake near the Reservoir *F I consistently meets all of the state drinking water and -_r I bottom provides another barrier against these compounds secondary standards. entering the treatment facility. BTEX has not been detected - near the water treatment facility. l r While there are water quality standards that applyto surface water, the city is not required by law to monitor PAHs can be introduced into the water from oil-burning the raw water in the Reservoir for the full range of two-cycle engine emission. There is a tendency for some Y W constituents. Monitoring of constituents includes physical PAH compounds and accumulate in lake sediments. pounds to sink (e.g., temperature, oxygen, pH, clarity), chemical (e.g., In 2010, the city conducted low-range sediment monitoring nutrients, metals, alkalinity, organic carbon), and biological in the Boulder Reservoir for regulated and unregulated (e.g., E. coli, algae) components. The city monitors all PAH compounds to evaluate if there is potential constituents with established water quality standards, 38 Chapter 5 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E as well as 33 additional constituents. The city monitors The Parks and Recreation Department has a role in the through the feeder canal. Northern Water cleans the canal Boulder Reservoir and its tributaries at least monthly to protection of water quality through its management of land before the start of the season and ice, snow or excessive evaluate baseline source water conditions, water quality and water-based recreation in and around the Reservoir. debris in the canal can delaythis process. Northern Water changes, aesthetics, treatment decisions, nutrient loading The department monitors E. coli at the South Shore swim starts filling the Reservoir in April or May and it is and indications of possible pathogens and other health beach weekly during the summer recreational use period generally filled by June. Once the Reservoir is filled, related contaminants. The city monitors seven locations, to comply with health-based swim beach standards. These Northern Water closely regulates how much additional including the five tributaries flowing into the Reservoir and standards are established for the protection of people water is added throughout the summer. There is a the Reservoir itself close to the treatment facility intake who may ingest water during recreational activities. If preferred maximum winter storage elevation, one that near the top and bottom depths. Water quality is generally E.coli levels exceed the standards, the department will minimizes damage to the dams from freeze-thaw effects consistent throughoutthe Reservoir primarily due to the its immediately close the swim beach. of water, and Northern Water attempts to reach that shallow depth and mixing by wind. elevation by the time the feeder canal turns off. The E. Water Supply and Recreation water level in the Reservoir may fluctuate throughout Recent special studies in addition to the ongoing routine The main source of water in the Boulder Reservoir is the summer as Northern Water delivers waterto meetthe monitoring include the following: delivered by Northern Water through the Boulder Feeder demands of the water users, but generally, the water level • High Quality Water Supply Reservoir Project The city Canal. Agreements between the City of Boulder and is at its highest after the initial spring fill, drains throughout participated in the 2010 state-funded study of nutrients, Northern Water provide policies and guidelines on the the summer, fall and winter, and is at its lowest in the spring organic carbon, and disinfection byproduct formation timing of water delivery and storage volumes in the before the canal turns on. potential, which will provide data for the upcoming 2012 Reservoir. Because the Reservoir is primarily operated Commission rulemaking hearing on nutrient criteria for and managed as a water supply, water-based recreation Water quality in the Reservoir is stronglytied to the amount lakes and reservoirs. opportunities may be constrained by water supply needs. ofwaterflushing through the basin. In wetyears, the amount • Coordinated reconnaissance monitoring. The city is _ of water passing through the Reservoir tends to be low coordinating with other Colorado-Big Thompson water The operating season since the need for supplemental water is low. Otherfactors utilities in monitoring for a larger unregulated group of of the Boulder Feeder which might affect the amount of water and the water organic chemicals. Canal is April 1 through quality in the Reservoir include draw down of the Reservoir October 31; however for eriodic ins ction of the summerd outlet ates in • Aquatic vegetation surveys. In 2007, the city conducted periodic inspection 9e g an aquatic vegetation survey at Boulder Reservoir as a the actual startupdate the dam (as required by the State of Colorado Engineers targeted evaluation in response to observed vegetation is dependent on water Office), maintenance of the dam or WTF intake structures, changes. A more comprehensive aquatic vegetation demands and the ability or capital improvements to the Reservoir facilities, shoreline, survey was performed in 2008, to safely convey water ,e~ mss; dam or WTF. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 5 39 Aganda Item V-A, pReport Pages ATTACHMENT E 40 Chapter 5 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P Chapter 6. Habitat Management Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 6 41 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map ]0. Vegetation and Wetlands Generalized Vegetation fi NN Urban Park Land Monarch Rd Short Grass Prairie N~ Regulatory Wetlands .rr rl r High Functioning lei i i j` Low Functioning Coot I Q Boulder Reservoir _ I _ - Lake F Q Plan Area ! I z - - Cit Limits o Creek Ditch ~ry Creeks - r' _1 _ Boulder ova - ryC;~ek Reservoir rte` ` oat - ___-___-_-••~~551 ffr- :F.fJ _,'i - ~,J_ J, Lookout Rd A11111 9 - f i +f.. Irr L~ ~ r rt~ a Spine,Rd t F vp a p i r lTat7 ~1Y ~yp r r e~ a r r~ 0 0.25 0.5 Miles E ' a: a giki7~ + I IL L I ia F~ ~ I R• ^ I I I 42 Chapter 6 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A. Landscape Setting The Boulder Reservoir and surrounding land area lies values. Natural Ecosystems may also contain features that Coot Lake were developed in the 1980s as a mitigation site within the Dry Creek watershed in the north edge of the are rare, unique, or sensitive to human disturbance and and contain more than a dozen small ponds. The wetland Boulder Valley. The natural watershed of the Reservoir are essential to maintain the scientific and educational types found in the Reservoir area include open water, encompasses a nine square mile area north of Boulder and importance of places representing the rich natural history marshes, wet meadows, salt flats and lake shoreline. consists of hillyterrain along the foothills and rolling slopes of the Boulder Valley. Marshes in the area are characterized by the presence of nearer the Reservoir. The watershed is characterized - permanent or semi-permanent shallow water on the edges primarily by native shortgrass and midgrass prairies` of the Reservoir and Coot Lake and wetland plants such on mesas and outwash plains, and wetlands along the as cattails, bulrush and pondweed. The wet meadows in i r drainage swales. y' the West Shore area lack permanent standing water but are supported by a seasonallyfluctuating high water table. Prior to construction of the Boulder Reservoir in 1955, the f' The wetlands in the North and South Dam areas are salt Dry Creek drainage area supported many acres of wetland ^ t` At a"6 or alkaline flats, a rare and diminishing type of wetland habitat. The area around the Boulder Reservoirtoday is a ecosystem in the Front Range. remnant of the rich mosaic of wetlands and mixed grass r~ p..-"pt FI,1y prairie that characterized the Rocky Mountain foothills, but r Wetlands play key roles in retaining floodwaters, of continues to support a rich complex of upland prairie, sedge maintaining water quality, and enriching the biodiversity meadow, cattail marsh, salt flat, lake shoreline and aquatic Wetlands of an area. Wetlands store and/or transform nitrogen, habitat. Since the remaining wetland and upland complex The vast majority of the West Shore, North Shore and Coot phosphorous, sediment, and other contaminants that around the Reservoir represents a fragment of what was Lake areas are delineated as wetland or within the city's may wash down from agricultural areas, roadways, or originallythere and because of the continuing loss of large wetland regulatory area. Wetlands are areas that are other human land uses upstream or within the watershed. wetland complexes in the county, this habitat area is in inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater Vegetation in wetlands prevents erosion and further particular need of protection and conservation. with sufficient duration and frequency to support life degradation of water quality in the Reservoir. Wetlands adapted to saturated soil conditions. Open bodies of water also provide important habitat for plants and wildlife, as Nearly all the undeveloped land area on the West and such as the Reservoir and Coot Lake are also considered well as play a vital role in many food chains. Wetlands Norh Shore, including Coot Lake, are designated as a wetlands, can be easily degraded or lost by the pressures of Natural Ecosystem in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive development, recreational use and poor land management Plan. Natural Ecosystems are defined as places that The Boulder Reservoir wetlands are a product of water practices that can result in sedimentation, introduction of support ecological systems of native plants and animals or in the Dry Creek sub-basin being backed up by the dams, weeds, erosion and urban runoff. possess important ecological, biological, or geological The 20 acres of wetland habitat on the western edge of Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter6 43 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E The wetlands in the West Shore area are considered to Mixed Grass Prairie Management efforts have focused on preserving and be one of the eleven most exemplary wetlands in the City Much of the habitat in the Boulder Reservoir area that enhancing these habitat areas to continue to support these of Boulder due to the size, diversity, lack of fragmentation is not wetland is mixed grass prairie habitat. Native species. The Audubon Society, Boulder County Nature from human use, and role in protecting surface water grassland plant species such as blue gramma, big bluestem, Association, and members of the general public have served quality from the Dry Creek and Little Dry Creek drainage- needlegrass, scarlet globemallow and dotted blazing star as raptor monitor volunteers who work with city staff for ways. In the semi-arid region along the Front Range, can be found in the North Shore and West Shore areas. observation and monitoring efforts, in order to document wetlands are less abundant than upland areas, greatly Various large and small mammals use these grassland trends of these species. Management works with volunteers increasing their ecological importance to wildlife. Because areas for hunting and as travel corridors through the and organizations to conduct annual bird counts and wetlands support both aquatic and terrestrial plant and Boulder Valley. Rattlesnakes, meadow voles and a variety often travel the roads around the Reservoir area for animal species, they contain a disproportionately high of grassland dependent species occupy important habitat regular and unique sightings to add to bird inventories. level of biodiversity relative to other ecosystems. The throughoutthe Reservoir including niches along the ditches connectivity, density, large size and location in a semi- and canals that feed into the Reservoir. Fencing along both the North and South dams was protected landscape increases the wildlife value of the constructed in 2001 to deter prairie dogs from damaging Boulder Reservoir wetlands even more. Protection of the black-tailed prairie dog populations and utility facilities and potentially compromising dam integrity. habitat is important in maintaining the biodiversity of species The city has established a working agreement with Northern The ecosystems in the Boulder Reservoir area support around the Reservoir. Prairie dogs are the most common Water that provides protection of the dam while preserving numerous species of wildlife that require both upland small mammal seen in these grasslands and have served as historic prairie dog habitat. and wetland or aquatic habitat to complete their life - an important prey base for raptors cycles. Prairie dog colonies in upland, mixed grass prairie that nest and forage in the area, ecosystems surrounding the Reservoir provide a food particularly those raptors that are B. Species of Special Concern source for more than ten raptor species that nest, roost around in the winter. The prairie dog The marshes and grasslands around Boulder Reservoir or forage in the area. The wetland habitat around Coot, burrows surrounding the Reservoir support more nests of Boulder County avian species of Lake and west of Boulder Reservoir support several native !k"A also provide excellent habitat for concern than any other comparably sized area in the county. amphibian species including spiny softshell, snapping turtles burrowing owls. The location of the Bird species of concern found in the Reservoir area during and tiger salamanders. Important species found in the area prairie dog colonies adjacent to the various seasons of the year for foraging, breeding, nesting include songbirds, fox, coyote, black bear, and black-tailed wetlands and raptor nesting areas enriches the importance or roosting include rare and declining bird species such weasels. of this unfragmented ecosystem as wildlife habitat as northern harriers and American bittern and species of local concern such as osprey, white egrets, snowy owls and sandhill cranes. Wintering and migrating bald eagles use the 44 Chapter 6 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Map 11. Sensitive Species Noted Birds of Concern Monarch Rdh Bald Eagle •_~+I ro = _ Burrowing Owl Osprey AtLO LO 4 z r © American Bittern Northern Harrier -51 Shoreline Restrictions _ I 'o ®Sensitive Habitat Farmers Ditcl? ti y'~ I ~er,~ Prairie Dog Mapping Current Parks Mapping ..e 5 y 3 - + Prairie Dog Dam Buffer Significant UWMP Wildlife Habitat ``r~,~r e Y{: Q Boulder Reservoir r,.~ --------i QPlan Area t '_l ®ti`i City Limits - a~~ Creek O z. - - - Ditch Lookout Rd'" r- J r ~'*sriL r ~'1S 51XIi ' l r I f Y- • r? ReSe )t ASpine Rd~:~, 'IT, r:T Q11, #F - -yt 3~ ~P1~~V~ r'J - ,f of s ! I f Y r 4[ ~~(r5t r 0 0.25 0.5 Miles _ 4 I i rc . f - ~ ~ 5 • ~ 5 ~x~ j~6+` Y t Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter6 45 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E perch and roost opportunities in the area as well. Some rare retained and nesting platforms have been designed to Burrowing Owls species that have been historically found at the Reservoir increase the nesting opportunities atthe Reservoir. The Burrowing owls, a rare and declining species in Boulder include short-eared owls and burrowing owls. A brief area around the nesting platform is closed to human use County, have historically used the natural areas around the description of some noted bird species that maybe from February 1 through September 10. The closure area Reservoirfor nesting found at the Reservoir and Coot Lake are listed below. is within 300 yards of the nesting platform on land and and foraging since at within 100 yards of the nest site on the water. The closure leastthe late 1970s. American Bittern boundaries are marked with signage both on land and on The owls feed upon American bittern nest in the marshes and wet meadows water (buoy markers). During the nesting season, the nests insects and small - 3 _q{ tr7.: r around the Reservoir and Coot Lake. American bittern were are monitored by city staff and volunteers. Maintaining a mammals around listed as "rare and declining" in the 1999 Boulder County buffer around the nesting platforms on both land and water prairie dog towns and Avian Species of Special Concern List, however, nesting will be an important management practice in the continuing depend upon prairie populations of this species appear to have increased in conservation of this species at the Reservoir. dog burrows for their Boulder County over the past few years. At least three nests. The North Dam area, however, is one of only a few nesting territories were active in the Boulder Reservoir locations in the county where burrowing owl nesting activity area during each year from 2006-08 and in 2009 on the Northern Harriers has been reported within each of the past three decades. West Shore. The Boulder Reservoir area is a known successful nesting Although the frequency of nesting has decreased in recent ground for northern harriers in Boulder County. They are years, a successful nest was observed in 2005. Osprey identified in both the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan In 1997, the first documented successful nesting by osprey in and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as a rare and Burrowing owls have been declining in Boulder County Boulder County occurred in the West Shore area. Ospreyhave declining species. Harriers need both dense marshlands over the years for a variety of reasons. The massive nested successfully on the West Shore near Windsurfer's for nesting and adjacent grasslands for hunting. As destruction of prairie dogs throughoutthe Front Range over Point on an annual basis, seven months out the year, ground nesters, harriers are susceptible to ground the last century has probably contributed to the decline of fledging at least two young each year. predators such as coyotes and foxes, thus requiring a the burrowing owl populations. However, this species is large area for both nest concealment and protection. sensitive to human and predator activity and will abandon Osprey are considered a sensitive bird species in the Maintaining contiguous wetland properties reduces noise sites if threatened. Lowfledge rates of nests throughout region because of the limited availability of suitable nesting and physical disturbance. Minimized habitat fragmentation Boulder County suggestthat high mortality of young owls, habitat in the Front Range of Colorado. Due to the rarity of is importantto provide opportunities for breeding pairs of possibly caused by predation, has contributed to declining nesting sites forthis species, old utility poles have been harriers atthe Reservoir. burrowing owl numbers as well. 46 Chapter 6 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E C. Management Challenges Maintaining the health and biodiversity of the natural lands as Mediterranean sage, purple loosestrife and spotted Wildlife Disturbance around the Reservoir is essential to both protecting water knapweed, must be eradicated by state mandate. While individual visitors may not produce a visible effect on quality of the Reservoir and providing a high quality visitor Several management tools are used to control noxious wildlife habitat in the area, a cumulative impact results from experience. As the popularity and recreational uses of the weeds including manual, cultural, biological, and chemical the sheer amount of overall human activity in and around Boulder Reservoir area continues to increase, unintentional methods. Control of noxious weed spread is a priority for wildlife habitat. Adherence to the trail use policies and impacts to the wildlife habitat from visitaion will become the department in maintaining biodiversity in the area. regulations around the wetland areas and in the vicinity of more of a challenge. Some of the issues associated with Additional resources will be required to stay ahead of the nesting bird habitat is essential to protecting biodiversity in visitor use on the North Shore, Coot Lake and West Shore continual weed problem in both wetland and grassland the area. It will be importantto continually educate visitors are listed below. areas and to complywith state mandates. Maintaining of the value and sensitivity of the habitat and to reinforce a buffers between sensitive areas and trails, managing sense of stewardship forthe natural environment around Noxious Weeds stormwater runoff and preventing development of social the Reservoir. Noxious weeds occupy a significant portion of the wetland trails will also be important in controlling the spread of and grassland areas around the Boulder Reservoir and Coot noxious weeds. Social Trails and Shoreline Erosion Lake. Noxious weeds are plant species that degrade certain Social or undesignated trails are always an issue in habitats and reduce biodiversity by out-competing the native heavily used natural areas. Since the trail system around vegetation that provides a specific food source and type the Reservoir has evolved with the level of visitor use, a of cover for wildlife. Noxious weed seeds are dispersed in designated trail system has not been clearly delineated and a variety of ways, including by wind, through stormwater visitors have created routes and access points to popular areas on the North Shore and around Coot Lake. Overuse runoff and by people and animals. .~y : 'U_1 -A 00kri and unmanaged access to certain areas, however, has led Noxious weeds are most predominant in the Boulder to decreased vegetation from trampling and subsequent Reservoir area along trails as weeds are commonly spread erosion in sensitive areas such as the shorelines of by people. Visitors can in advertentlytransportweed seeds both water bodies. Clear delineation of trail routes and on their shoes or clothing or in the mud of bicycle tires. development of specific water access areas will be an ;r , 1i y Dogs running off trail and leaving feces also contribute to important step in improving the amenities on the North It'll Shore and Coot Lake while maintaining the integrity of the the spread of weeds in off-trail areas. g t i r~~~ habitat. It will also be important to close social trails that The Parks and Recreation Department actively manages provide access to sensitive areas such as the West Shore over 25 different noxious weeds ecies in this area. A p wetlands, restore grassland areas and to install fencing to few prolific and very difficultto manage species, such deter future access. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 6 47 Aganda Item V-A, pReport Pages ATTACHMENT E 48 Chapter 6 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P Chapter 7. Education and Stewardship Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 7 49 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A. Introduction Many of the Boulder Reservior Master Plan goals • Pamphlets and publications Since 2004 volunteers will be accomplished through a combination of • Partnerships (e.g. adapt-a-trail, have monitored capital investment, visitor education and stewardship facility investments) nesting activities promotions. For example, to prevent ANS infestation, • Channel 8 programming of avian species of boaters and fishers will need to fully understand the • News releases (r'' concern within the recreational, environmental and cast implications of Boulder Reservoir ANS infestation, if it should occur, and take personal Volunteer programs can be a primarytool for building area. Locating responsibility in preventing the spread of zebra and quagga awareness and promoting stewardship atthe Reservoir. nest sites, tracking mussels by following all boating and fishing procedures Volunteerism not only supports the Parks and Recreation nesting success, and and rules. Water quality protection will best be achieved Department's mission in providing recreational services to monitoring human by building awareness among visitors of contaminant the community, it provides opportunities for individuals, .F_ activities that might sources and the actions individuals can take to reduce families, businesses and organizations to learn about and disturb nesting c impacts. Similarly, conservation of wildlife habitat around are forthe Reservoir facilities and natural resources all contribute to the Reservoir will require visitor understanding and through a hands on work experience. Volunteerism can conservation of consideration of the value and sensitivity of the natural take the form of environmental education, wildlife and sensitive bird species on city land. Since Boulder resources at the Boulder Reservoirto promote responsible plant monitoring, clean-up events, instructional programs Reservoir receives tens of thousands of visitors each recreational use. and trailhead guides or hosts. Currently, the following two year, nest monitoring is particularly helpful to the volunteer programs provide invaluable services at the department in managing recreation use near sensitive The Parks and Recreation Department currently provides Boulder Reservoir. wildlife areas. many programs for enhancing awareness and stewardship of park facilities and resources. Several educational Birds of Special Concern and Raptor Monitoring EXPAND Program for People with Disabilities programs offered in the summer provide instruction on The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department This program matches volunteers with people water-based recreational activities and water safety. The organizes volunteers every year to monitor birds at with physical disabilities to participate in multiple department also provides information about visitor safety, the Boulder Reservoir. Volunteer activities include recreational activities. At the Boulder Reservoir, wildlife protection, departmental policies and special events monitoring, observing, and documenting nests, wildlife EXPAND staff and volunteers provide program support through the following communication and programmatic closures, and surrounding areas for birds of prey; for water-based activities such as water skiing, tubing, tools: reporting significant bird events; and assisting with sailing and kayaking. • Information kiosks educating the public about bird activities in the area. •Trailhead information 50 Chapter 7 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 8. Opportunities Visitor education and stewardship promotion atthe by expanding upon current department-wide programs betterment of their city. Participants help by Boulder Reservoir are not a "one time only" costfor or partnering with other city efforts. The following are removing trash and recyclables, planting flowers the city. Investment of city resources in these efforts examples of current city programs that could be expanded and pulling weeds from parks and greenways. will be an ongoing and long-term priority forthe upon or modeled to provide volunteers atthe Boulder Parks and Recreation Department. Development and Reservoir. Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)Pick-up- Poop Derby Adopt-a-Park In association with Community Clean-Up Day, the The Parks and Recreation Deptartment recruits and OSMP organizes volunteers to help pick up dog waste trains individuals and organizations to help maintain in selected areas of city open space property. the park system by choosing a park, establishing a maintenance schedule, and providing ongoing - guidance and support. This program provides volunteers with the opportunity to gain valuable work F;~n~' `r I experience, make a contribution to the community and to meet new people. Expansion of the Adopt- f a-Park program to help maintain the trail system or landscaped areas in the Reservoir area could_ provide needed resources and promote a sense of = stewardship for the natural environment around the t - - Reservoir. - - - - ~ - R OSMP Trail Guides/Hosts Community Clean-up Days The OSMP administers a volunteer trail guide program - - The City, in collaboration with the Boulder City to greet and assist visitors on trails and attrailheads, Improvement Association II, sponsors Community providing information on trail use, area features, Clean-Up Day in May to help maintain, improve and management and natural history. Trail guides also administration of new volunteer programs involves beautify Boulders public lands through directed observe and report on visitor issues and inquiries to staff resources and may be difficult to fully implement volunteer efforts, and to provide a convenient outlet staff as needed to guide future policy development or under current and future budgetary constraints. There for Boulder citizens to participate in the physical facility investment. may be opportunities, however, to leverage resources Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 7 51 Aganda Item V-A, pReport Pages ATTACHMENT E 52 Chapter 7 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E 4. 2 'M 1P Chapter 8. Implementation Plan Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 8 53 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A. Goals and Objectives The Boulder Reservoir Master Plan outlines a set of goals Goal 1. 1g. Investigate opportunities for carbon sequestration and objectives intended to achieve the vision established Support City sustainability objectives at in the Reservoir's natural environment. for the Reservoir over a ten-year time period. The the Reservoir. Water Conservation Plan defines funded and unfunded capital improvements • Waste reduction 1h. Incorporate water conservation principles and necessary to maintain the Reservoir. The Plan also identifies • Carbon emissions reduction practices into the design and installation of an programmatic and operational needs, and educational and • Water conservation irrigation system on the South Shore. promotional initiatives. • Reduction of single occupancy auto trips 1i. Complete installation for landscape irrigation pump through encouragement of alternative mainline and laterals using raw water supply from transportation options and management of parking. the Reservoir for the South Shore. The 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan outlines several goals and strategies intended to make the Objectives: 1j. Emphasize the use of low-water use and drought- department more economically sustainable. One strategy tolerant plant materials in landscape Waste Reduction improvements on the South Shore. is to invest in facilities and programs at the Reservoir, 1a. Promote and implement and the City's zero such as special events, that waste principles and best practices related to Alternative Transportation Modes waste prevention, source reduction and reuse. offer additional revenue 1k. Determine the feasibility of providing improved bicycle, carpooling, alternative fuel vehicle and opportunities. Collaboration 1b. Continue to applyzero waste policies to special shuttle facilities in the redesign of the South Shore. with other departments events and other permitted activities at the Reservoir. 11. Work with GO Boulder to develop a bicycle and agencies also will and vehicular parking management be an important step in 1c. Promote a "pack-in, pack-out" policy for the North strategythat promotes and supports alternative r Shore and Coot Lake. transportation mode use to the Reservoir. leveraging resources, and accomplishing Carbon Emissions Reduction 1m. Encourage or require the use of shuttles for mutual goals at the Reservoir. Building partnerships with 1d. Improve facility energy performance through special and group events. energy efficient retrofits of the existing facilities community organizations and businesses will also contribute to and site management (i.e., placement, orientation In. Identify and determine the feasibility of the long-term sustainable managementof the Reservoir area. and clustering) for new buildings on the temporary shuttle pick-up and parking locations in South Shore. other areas of the city for events. The following goals and objectives have been identified for le. Strive to exceed all city energy efficiency 1o. Coordinate with the Denver Regional Council of the Boulder Reservoir in support for providing high-quality requirements for commercial buildings and meet Governments to promote use of the on-line the city's goals for high performance building car-pool organizer recreation facilities and services, water quality and habitat certification for new and remodeled facilities. protection while meeting current and future needs of the 1p. Work with Boulder County Transportaion to design If. Determine the feasibility of using on-site and construct improved bicycle lanes along 51st community. renewable energy systems in the redevelopment Streetfrom Jay Road to the South Shore entryway, and renovation atthe Reservoir. 54 Chapter B Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Goal2 2e. Determine the programmatic feasibility for 2n. Work with the Northern Water to design and Provide fora range of high-quality recreational uses, increasing the number of camps, classes, construct a new multi-use bridge over the Boulder programs and other revenue-generating services. Feeder Canal. events, facilities and services that are inclusive of the community. 2f. Implementthe main entry gateway West Shore enhancements to address traffic and vehicular 2o. Work with OS MP, Boulder CountyTransportation, conflicts on 51stStreet. neighbors and the community to develop design Objectives: and funding options for a multi-use trail along the South Shore 2g, Improve si na a to help guide circulation and 2a. Develop a Site Management Plan to address the g g p g 51st and 55th Street rights-of-way that provides parking in the South Shore. a safe, off-road trail connection for cyclists and fallowing: • Programmatic opportunities pedestrians while avoiding and minimizing 2h. Work with Boulder County Transportation to impacts to wetland and prairie dog habitat. • Operation and management threshholds improve directional signage from Jay Road. • Busineses plan (profit/loss) 2p. Work with the Boulder Aeromodeling • Equal access Society the a ero modelin facili • Sustainability North Shore and Coot Lake to m a na9a 9 tY in a • Site plan 2i. Improve all multi-use trails to meet minimum manner that minimizes impacts to the adjacent design standards for all users, and to improve wildlife habitat. 2b. Develop a detailed site plan (as part of the Site connectivity, communicate routes, and Management Plan) and a capital improvement accommodate current and planned regional trail North and South Dams program for each Management Areas to connections while minimizing impacts to sensitive 2q. Determine the feasibility of an off-road multi-use accommodate new and relocate existing areas. trail connection along the dam road. facilities, improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular circulation, minimize conflicts among 2j. Discourage development of undesignated social 2r. Work with the Colorado Department of recreational uses, accommodate parking demand trails through defined trail corridors, additional Transportation and the City of Boulder to explore and improve the attractiveness of the park. closure nd restoration signage and fencing where the potential for public egress from the South Evaluate the feasibility and prioritize development appropriate. Shore to the Diagonal Highway (State highway 119). of the following: _ • Boathouse and dry storage for small watercraft 2k. Design and construct a new pedestrian trail • Picnic shelters and permanent shade structures along the north shoreline of the Reservoir with5 • Outdoor performance venue and event staging area designated access points to the water. • Accessible playground and ropes course w, • Area for special group functions such as 21. Make improvements to the existing 55th Street andf ,g. weddings and reunions Coot Lake parking lots by improving access and tl. lam-' -Turf areas egress, and installing informational boards. :nom. .r a 2c. Replace and expand the boat rental and patrol 2m. Improve fishing access areas on the fleet. North Shore, around Coot Lake and along the ~+T North and South Dams, which complement the ` 2d. Develop a rental program for swim beach goals of the ANS program. 't amenities and equipment. wrt Lam...,: Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 8 55 Aganda Item V-A, pReport Pages ATTACHMENT E Goal 3. 3h. Work with local organizations and other 4f. Redesign the multi-use trail connection from the Identify sensitive wildlife and plant species and educational institutions to monitorwildlife and 55th Street parking lot and install fencing to deter plant species over the long-term and to analyze access to the Reservoir shoreline in the Dry Creek protect enhance and restore their natural habitat. population trends. inlet area. Objectives: 4g. Improve and enhance education and awareness about ANS atthe 55th Street and Coot Lake 3a. Conduct a biological species inventory. trailheads and at appropriate points along the trails 3b. Develop and implement wetland and grassland ii and shorelines. restoration and management plans.R • Identify noxious weed species and prioritize theirs 4h. Increase enforcement measures and capability eradication based on level of threat. throughout the Reservoir area to reduce potential • Identify degraded areas and determine forillegal boat launching and use of live bait. mitigation standards, costs and timelines to Goal 4. restore identified areas. Develop and implement strategies and partnerships • Establish conservation goals for wetland and to reduce and manage the risks of ANS infestations. 4i. Develop and implement a monitoring program for upland protection areas. areas and species not monitored by the state (north shorelines, Coot Lake, and for milfoil) and prepare 3c. Install fencing and/or visual barriers between Objectives: for possible city monitoring for all ANS. trails and sensitive areas as appropriate to 4a. Evaluate and provide an annual report on the discourage direct disturbance of wildlife and ANS inspection program, the status of ANS 4j. Provide the most updated computer hardware promote protection of rare and declining infestation throughoutthe state, and best wildlife species. management practices available for prevention and software for ANS inspection, monitoring and and control. tracking. 3d. Close "Jet Ski Cove" and buoy off the Dry Creek inlet area to restrict boat access. 4b. Provide a decontamination station with the 4k. Develop a response plan and strategies to prepare for all potential ANS infestation, including Zebra 3e. Work with the Colorado Division of Parks and necessary infrastructure on the South Shore. and Quagga Mussels and Eurasian Water Milfoil. Wildlife to coordinate enforcement and to establish fish size criteria for the Reservoir and Coot Lake to 4c. Continue ANS inspection certification of support a healthy aquatic ecosystem. Boulder Reservoir staff and continue city staff participation in the state ANS task force. _ 3f. Implement access and seasonal closure policies to protect nesting birds. 4d. Maintain inspection staff on site at all hours when . 3g. Update and expand interpretive and regulatory the main gate is open. signage along trails near sensitive habitat areas. 4e. Ensure full cast recovery of the inspection program y- 1^pp5?'~ - through boater permits and passes and other userfees. - - - - 56 Chapter B Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Goa15 Goal 6. Goal 7. Identify and minimize water pollutant sources. Promote and support visitor safety. Develop and implement a business model for Objectives: Objectives: long-term sustainable management of the Reservoir 5a. Integrate stormwater best management practices 6a. Increase enforcement capability to provide a including the use of public/private partnerships. into all facility improvements. consistent level of enforcement and staff presence Objectives: throughoutthe trail system. 5b. Restore portions of the Reservoir shoreline to 7a. Develop operations and business plans for the 6b. Improve and enhance lake patrol and water safety minimize erosion and sedimentation from services to meet all programmatic and use needs. Boulder Reservoir Area which provide detailed stormwater runoff. analysis on the following items. 5c. Continue standard water quality constituent 6c. Improve signage to ensure ongoing safety and • Staff resources needed to support current and monitoring atthe current frequency. awareness and to clarify emergency procedures. expanded services including daily use, special 5d. Add specific water quality monitoring to evaluate 6d. Clearly mark designated "no wake zone" near the events, ANS inspection, safety and enforcement, habitat management and maintenance. recreational impacts at specific locations and dams and spillwayto ensure boater safety. during selected periods of the year. • Use of partnerships and sponsorships from 6e. Implement and promote use of a new "no-wake" recreational user groups, organizations, and local 5e. Monitor and evaluate recreational management time policy of up to two full weekdays to support businesses to support Reservoir programming, practices to be consistent with water quality non motorized boating. events and facilities. thresholds. 6f. Improve the safety of road crossings near trail -A marketing strategy to promote revenue- 5f. Use an adaptive management approach heads. Evaluate the 63rd Street pedestrian and generating uses, programs and services. to monitoring (evaluate trends annually and make bicycle crossing between Tom Watson Park and necessary changes). Coot Lake and consider enhancements to improve . Operating hours for Reservoir functions and safety. 5g. Check-in with the Parks and Recreation Advisory services. Board and City Council on a periodic basis to report 6g. Work with the Northern Water to improve signage . A second fee station between the South Shore on trends in water quality and boating use at the atthe Boulder Feeder Canal. and South Dam areas to manage access to the Reservoir. South Shore. 5h. Work with Utilities and Northern Water to develop policies and protocols for recreation management T , 7b. Pursue a variety of funding sources for future in response to water supply changes. capital improvements through multiple sources including grants and partnerships. Si. Provide educational information attrailheads q r r~ and kiosks about water pollutant sources including v 7c. Perform ~I : _ - periodic visitor use surveys to gauge stormwater runoff, pet waste, bodily contaminants and fuel spills. future demands and future management and funding decisions. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 8 57 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Goal 8. Goal 9. Goal 10. Endeavor to be a good neighbor to adjacent Promote visitor and community awareness and Ensure the security and maintenance of the facilities properties stewardship of the Reservoir through ongoing and infrastructure in the Reservoir area. education and outreach. Objectives: Objectives: 8a. Maintain and improve ongoing communication Objectives: 10a. Work with the City of Boulder Emergency Services with and support from neighbors. 9a. Provide up-to-date information about ANS to promote communication and to develop an inspection and prevention, recreation policies and emergency preparedness plan. 8b. Explore the potential for a second vehicular regulations, visitor safety, resource conservation access point to the South Share from the and recycling, water quality and habitat protection 10b. Develop a facility security and lighting plan for the Diagonal Highway. through several mechanisms including, the Boulder South Shore. Reservoir web site, informational signage at trailheads and in public areas on the South Goal 11. Shore, brochures and personal contact at various locations along trails, entryways and Collaborate with other agencies and departments to high use areas. accomplish mutual goals. 9b. Provide wayfinding signage in all areas around the F 7 Reservoir to guide circulation and inform visitors Objectives: about allowed uses and sensitive habitat areas. 11a. Coordinate with other city departments and 9c. Develop partnerships with local organizations to agencies to clarify management responsibilities of r facilitate environmental research and education. the Boulder Reservoir area. rr~ f ; 9d. Develop a volunteer or "Adopt-a-Park" program to 11b. Continue involvement in the Boulder Reservoir help with habitat management, trail maintenance Watershed Management Group to maintain and annual clean-up. communication among departments on water resource management. 9e. Consider development of a "brand" forthe 11c. Work with Boulder Cou nty Tra nsp ortation to clarify Boulder Reservoir to promote familiarity and a regulations and enforcement jurisdiction along sense of place as well as to market revenue 51st and 55th streets. generating uses. 11d. Work with City of Boulder Public Works staff to 9f. Provide signage or posters to recognize volunteer evaluate the feasibility of a solar array system to c work and donations. support the Reservoir. 58 Chapter 8 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E B. Key Policy Recommendations The following policies and regulations were developed • All personal watercraft (PWC) shall be eliminated West Shore Use Regulations: for the Boulder Reservoir per city council direction on from the Reservoir with the exception for water • Recreational uses shall be restricted to low impact December 7, 2010. Implementation will occur in Spring safety purposes and any craft used for the department uses. 2012, unless otherwise noted. approved or managed programs. • The feasibility of developing a soft-surface multi-use Boating Regulations: • A'no wake' restriction, up to 2 full days each week, trail shall be pursued along the 51st Street corridor • Motorized boat use will be limited based on the size of shall be implemented. right-of-way connecting the North Shore trail system the engine to 500 horsepower maximum, to the main entry gate area. • Implement a full cost-recovery and fee program • A phase-out of all two-strokes engines that do not addressing Aquatic Nuisance Species regulations, • The Aermodeling facility shall be allowed to remain meet current EPA exhaust emission standards will be inspections and ongiong monitoring. in its current location with seasonal wildlife closures implemented by 2013. as needed unless a suitable and acceptable land area can be identified for the relocation of the • Refueling of motorized boats while in the water shall. Aeromodeling facility. be eliminated. - - = . • Future trails on the West Shore will require that dogs • All watercraft shall be launched from designated be on-leash to protect habitat. areas on the South Shore only. • Pursue designation of wetland, shoreline and prairie • No watercraft shall be allowed in Coot Lake (including 5 „ dog habitat as protected areas. belly boats). J • Eliminate 'Jet Ski Cove' and expand a 'no wake' zone at the Dry Creek inlet to protect aquatic and wetland , habitat. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Cha ter 8 59 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E North Shore and Coot Lake Use Regulations: • Allow voice and sight management for dogs on the - - • Continue to manage and maintain the passive trail and institute regulations that prohibit dogs and recreational uses of the area. people from accessing established wetland areas_,.._ including installation of new fencing and signage to • Dogs are allowed to swim on the South and East educate the public and report back to City Council in Shores of Coot Lake and North Shore of the Reservoir. 2012 outlining results of the programs as described. Human swimming is prohibited in these areas • Current voice and sight rules shall will remain for all • Improve the existing trail system and build a pedestrian other areas of the North Shore and Coot Lake area. trail for access to the north shoreline of the Reservoir. • Reduce access to the northwest shoreline in the Dry - • Maintain the 55th Street parking lot. Creek Inlet (currently Jet Ski Cove) to protect wetland • A maximum number of special events (50+ and aquatic habitat and to discourage illegal boat participants) allowed at the Reservoir include; launching. High Season: Two special events per day and twenty per month maximum. Special Events: Low Season: One special event per day and • Special events shall be restricted to the South Shore, ten per month maximum. Reservoir (water), North and South dam roads, or u the multi-use trails in the North Shore and Coot Lake • Limitthe number of park or high use area closures to ,•,y,;. _ b - * ; management areas. two per month. • Special events are required to begin and end on the • Develop a cumulative analysis and impact report, as South Shore. well as standards and tiered approach to event permitting to be aligned with the Boulder Reservoir r;: f Limit the number of signature events (1200+ vision and purpose. z h particpants) to two per month. 60 Chapter 8 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E C. Adaptive Management Approach Figure 3. Adaptive Management The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) indicates that 'The city will employ an adaptive management approach 1. Conceptualize to resource protection and enhancement. An adaptive management approach involves the ongoing monitoring of resource conditions, assessment of the effectiveness of management actions, revisions of management actions based on new information from research, and learning from experience what works and what does not work.' 5. Capture and 2. Plan Actions and - BVCP Section 4.02: Adaptive Management Approach Share Learning Balancing Monitoring Water Quality, Natural Resources, An adaptive management program represents good and Recreation planning beginning with the identification of measurable goals and strategies intended to meetthe plan objectives, and the formation of action items that are linked to the fiscal and resource limitations of the organization. The following conceptual diagram represents a typical adaptive 3. Implement 4. Analyze, Use, Actions and management approach: Adapt Monitoring Step 1: Conceptualize This includes the initial visioning and goal setting ef- Step 2.• Plan Action and Monitoring that are linked to a fiscally-defined business plan. A fort and is represented by the Boulder Reservoir plan Step 2 includes the refinement of goals and strategies and monitoring plan will establish measurable criteria to process and final Master Plan. This step identifies a detailed Action Plan highlighting project priorities. The assess ongoing capital improvements and operations collaborative team members and considers the project next phase Reservoir Site Management Plan will address and assessment of resources, water quality and scope, key targets, potential threats and a situational programmatic and operational strategies for the Reservoir recreational impacts overtime. analysis. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 8 61 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Step 3. Implement Actions and Monitoring aesthetics. The monitoring effort provides guidance to atthe Reservoir, the analysis of user information and The implementation of actions will be expressed as part the annual work plans, project timelines and capital and possible impacts related to sensitive resources will serve to of the annual work plan intended to coordinate individual operating programming and budgeting. inform each agency as to how and when adjustments are management agencies, staff and resource availability at required. Specific data collection methods may include user the Reservoir. Ongoing monitoring programs developed by Step 4. Analyze, Use, Adapt surveys, field observations, mapping, capital improvement individual agencies will serve to identify bench marks and The ongoing data collection and analysis guides programming, policing and/or educational and awareness limits of acceptance associated with visitor and recreation recommendations and possible adjustments to the strategic campaigns. Programmatic and operational adjustments may use, impacts on habitat and water quality, safety and planning effort overtime. As recreational uses increase be required when considering a range of strategies from least restrictive to more restrictive options as necessary. Table 4. Adaptive Management Program Step 5.• Capture and Share Learning An important but often neglected step is the documentation ■ Define affected agencies and team members ■ Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) of learned experiences and the sharing of information with ■ Define scope, vision and targets ■ Boulder Reservoir Master Plan the end users, agency staff, and decision-makers whom 1 Conceptualize Utilities Master Plan ■ Identify critical threats ■ Open Space Mountain Park Master Plan all have a stake in the long-term health and success of the ■ Complete situation analysis . Transportation Master Plan Boulder Reservoir. ■ Reservoir Site/ Management Plan Business Plan Plan Actions and ■ Develop goals, strategies and objectives Reservoir 0 & M Plan 2 ■ Develop monitoring plan ■ Reservoir CIP/ R&R Monitoring . Develop operational plan ■ Asset Management Plan Inventory 77 ■ Public Engagement Program 71-- PW. ■ Specialized Programs/ Events k-: ' 0.W h~+v... py4~{ Annual Work Plan ■ Annual Operating Program ■ Develop work plan and timelines - Implement Actions and Asset Management plan 3 Develop and refine budget A Monitoring Implement plans ■ Project Management Plans 4 ■ r ■ Biological Assessment Reports ■ Natural Resource Plan Periodic Reviews/ Updates: - ■ Prepare data foranalysis ■ Annual Work Plan T 4 Analyze, Use, Adapt ■ Analyze results ■ Annual Operating Program; h ■ Adapt strategic plan ■ Asset Management Plan • Post Construction Evaluation Reports ■ Document learning • Educational Awareness Programs/ Campaigns Capture and Share ■ User Surveys 5 Learning ■ Share learning ■ Water Quality Research ■ Create learning environment . Program Profit/ Loss Evaluations 62 Chapter 8 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E A Funding Plans and Priorities The implementation of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Fiscally Constrained Plan: based on currentfunding availability and/or staff resources to complete the action item. will be a challenge for the Parks and Recreation Department Action Plan: the next step of service expansion or restoration that should be taken when funding becomes available. under the current budgetary conditions of the city. As use The action plan identifies services and capital investments that are in need of restoration, growth, or addition. of the Reservoir increases, there will also be a need for Vision Plan: the complete set of services and facilities desired bythe community and aligned with values and policies, with increased operations and maintenance services, including renovation and refurbishments of existing facilities and alternative proposals to fund them. construction of new infrastructure to replace aging facilities. Figure 4. Funding Pull Bar Graph The Parks and Recreation Departmentfaces funding $11.1 M challenges including insufficient revenues, lack of stable $11 Million long-term funding, and the expiration of sales taxes that support the department. The department has two ongoing $10 Million sources of capital funds: 1) the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund, Operations and Maintenance and 2) the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund. Those $9 Million Fiscally Constrained funds, however, must also be used for park development and renovation of all department facilities (includin those atthe Action Plan 9 $8 Million Reservoir. Vision Plan Operational funds are generated atthe Reservoir through $7 Million Capital Improvement gate fees, boat permits, picnics, events, boat rentals, camps, $6 Million Fiscally Constrained - special events and other programs. Revenue from the uses Action Plan atthe Reservoir goes into the department's Recreation $5 Million Vision Plan Activity Fund which provides operational funding for programs and services throughout the Recreation Division. $4 Million $3.5 M FOOTNOTE: The Action Plan Funding Plan considers capital investment $3 Million program priorities and cost estimates as defined for the Round #1 Bond Initiative (approved by voters Nov 2011) targeting $2 Million - - - $3 million for critical infrastructure needs at the Boulder Current Funding Level Reservoir. $1 The Vision Plan Funding Plan considers other capital Million - - - investment program needs and cost estimates and targets the - future Round #2 Bond Initiative (Nov 2012) and/or other funding $0 Million sources (grants, annual CIP and R&R program, etc.). Fiscally Action Vision Constrained Plan Plan Plan Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Chapter 8 63 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E E. Next Steps With the adoption of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan, purpose of this project is to collect existing data prior to needs, regulations, education and enforcement policies the Parks and Recreation Department will continue to the upcoming Site Management Study and to summarize and procedures and wildlife and water quality protection advance the master plan's vision, goals, and strategies essential infrastructure needs and deficiencies, as well standards. The Plan will include a market analysis and and respond to and reflect a collaborative approach to as regulatory and compliance issues related to health financial business plan to determine revenue potential managing critical resources and recreational needs atthe safety, environment, and accessibility. When completed, opportunities, partnerships, funding needs and priority Reservoir. The collaborative approach will engage various the Infrastructure Needs Assessment Report will serve improvements at the Reservoir. city departments, as well as outside agencies whom all as the principle database providing guidance to condition have a role in monitoring and ongoing management of the evaluation for infrastructure such as; buildings, roads, Annual Report valued resources offered by the Reservoir. utilities, and recreational uses affecting docks and ramps The department will develop an online annual reportthat is and amenities (shelters, volleyball and horseshoes and available to the community and provides information on the The next phase of the planning process includes the trails). progress towards achieving goals and recommendations development of a detailed capital improvement program of the master plan. The report will describe successes and operations plan as part of the upcoming Site Site Management Plan and challenges toward each goal, required next steps and Management Plan. The department will also produce The Site Management Plan is intended to address the what resources may be required to achieve the goal or an annual report evaluating accomplishments and details associated with the recreational facility including; strategy. deficiencies in context to the goals and recommendations programming, operations, management and the business as outlined in the master plan. The annual report will plan for the Reservoir. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) Updates be linked to the department's ongoing budget, capital Parks and Recreation staff will provide periodic updates improvement program, refurbishment and repairs (R & R) The Site Management Plan will address each management to PRAB on the progress associated with the Reservoir and operating programs and will be used to address future zone at the Reservoir considering infrastructural needs Master Plan goals as a monitoring strategy. The reviews master plan updates as required. and parks and recreational needs such as; public spaces, may result in the development of new strategic priorities natural areas, shoreline conservation and habitat areas, over the coming years. The master plan implementation process will include the access and circulation, trail connections, parking, signage, following: building programming and sustainable development Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and Operating Budget strategies at the Reservoir. Reviews Infrastructure Needs Assessment Report Parks and Recreation staff will provide annual updates The Infrastructure Needs Assessment was initiated in The result of the Site Management Plan will be an to PRAB on the department's CIP that will include the December 2010 as a data collection effort of all known annual work program and a detailed capital improvement Reservoir capital and operational programs. infrastructural-data related to the Boulder Reservoir. The program and operations plan addressing management 64 Chapter 8 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Appendix A. Action Item Responsibility This master plan details an ambitious plan for creating Table 5: Action Item Responsibility outlines over 70 other City departments as well as the need to coordinate a self-sustaining recreational facility at the Boulder individual action items that will require a collaborative with outside agencies beyond the City of Boulder. Reservoir. With the adoption of the plan, the Parks approach to plan, design and implement each item. In most and Recreation Department commits to facilitate a cases the Parks and Recreation Department will serve The department will continue to assess needs for habitat collaborative approach to the objectives and action items as the lead agency to facilitate the action item. However, and water resource protection and recreational facilities in the Fiscally Constrained Plan and to actively pursue to be successful, the Parks and Recreation Department and programs while engaging the community in decisions viable partnerships and funding opportunities to address recognizes the importance and need to work with many that affect the long-term sustainable development at the both the Action Plan and Vision Plan elements. Reservoir. Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Public Works, Utilities t Conduct a Site Management Plan to assess existing facilities and identify required improvements Public Works, Transportation Fiscally Constrained Plan and develop a site plan and capital improvement program for all Management Areas. OSMP Other Agencies: County Transportation Count OSMP 2 Install a portable ANS boat decontamination station. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan 3 Complete the installation of the landscape irrigation pump, main line and laterals using raw water Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan supply from the reservoir for the South Shore. 4 Continue ongoing maintenance and repair of prairie dog fencing. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan 5 Complete the initial installation of fencing and signage at Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan Coot Lake. 6 Complete minor road repair cracking and sealant as needed. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan 7 Complete the installation of new gas pump refueling station. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Appendix A 63 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities 8 Assess safety implications for priority dock/cable systems (2 locations) and determine a long-term Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan approach to replacing existing reservoir dock cable systems. 9 Replace sewer lift station at Main Bldg. and Boat House. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan Implement the main entry gate enhancements including; new entrance building, water and sewer Lead: Parks and Recreation 10 service, security gates and signage, right-of way, landscaping and site improvements. Supporting Departments: Action Plan Public Works, Utilities Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Design and develop multi-use trail system improvements including site work, trail modifications and Public Works, Transportation 11 expansion, fencing and signage. OSMP Action Plan Other Agencies: County Transportation County OSMP Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Redesign the North Shore multi-use trail connection from the 55th Street parking lot and install Public Works, Transportation 12 fencing to deter boater access to the reservoir shoreline. OSMP Action Plan Other Agencies: County Transportation County OSMP Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Public Works, Utilities Work with Northern Water to design and construct a new multi-use bridge over the feeder canal and Public Works, Transportation 13 OSMP Action Plan improve signage. Other Agencies: County Transportation County OSMP Northern Water 14 Replace and expand the boat rental and patrol fleet. Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan 15 Make improvements to the 55th Street and Coot Lake parking lots. Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan Lead: Parks and Recreation 16 Work with Boulder County to improve directional signage from Jay Rd. and 51St Street. Other Agencies: Action Plan County Transportation 66 Appendix A Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: 17 Work with city and county transportation staff to improve the safety of road crossings neartrailheads. Public Works, Transportation Action Plan Other Agencies: County Transportation Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Provide updated computer hardware and software forANS inspection, monitoring and tracking. Public Works, Utilities 18 Develop and implement an ANS monitoring program for areas and species currently not monitored by Public Works, Water Resources Action Plan the state and prepare for possible future city monitoring for all ANS issues. Other Agencies: State Department of Health and Environment Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Public Works, Utilities 19 Complete the installation of the upgraded sanitary sewer line. FAM Action Plan Other Agencies: State Department of Health and Environment Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Public Works, Utilities 20 Complete the installation of the new water main line including Plant Investment Fee (PIF) charges. FAM Action Plan Other Agencies: State Department of Health and Environment Lead: Parks and Recreation 21 Conduct a feasibility study assessing dock replacement for safety and ADA compliance options. Supporting Departments: Action Plan Public Works, Utilities FAM Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Appendix A 67 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Decommission Left Hand Water District and transition to city of Boulder as the primary domestic Public Works, Utilities 22 water source provider. FAM Action Plan City Attorney, City Manager Other Agencies: Left Hand Water District Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: 23 Design and fund a multi-use trail along the 51st and 55th Street rights-of-way. Public Works, Transportation Vision Plan OSMP Other Agencies: County Transportation Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Public Works, Transportation 24 Conduct a feasibility analysis on the Boulderto Lyons Trail atthe Boulder Reservoir to include a OSMP Vision Plan potential trailhead, parking, signage, and restroom facilities. Other Agencies: County Transportation State of Colorado Division of Park and Wildlife Lead: Parks and Recreation Complete infrastructure improvements including: roadway and parking lot improvements, utility and Supporting Departments: 25 stormwater management, prairie dog mitigating fencing' landscape and irrigation upgrades. Public Works, Utilities Vision Plan Public Works, Water Resources FAM Design and construct improvements identified in the Site Management Plan that may include; Lead: Parks and Recreation redevelopment of existing structures, new park amenities, boat ramp and camp equipment storage Supporting Departments: 26 facilities, upgraded ADA play equipment, outdoor performance venue and beach areas, wayfinding Public Works, Utilities Vision Plan and signage, permitting and fees. Public Works, Water Resources FAM 27 Replace docks with new ADA accessible floating dock system. Lead: Parks and Recreation Vision Plan 28 Re-evaluate the option forthe Six-Mile Reservoir lease purchase as a recreation and ANS measure. Lead: Parks and Recreation Vision Plan 68 Appendix A Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities Lead: Parks and Recreation Work with Boulder County to design and construct improved bicycle lanes along 51" Street from Jay Supporting Departments: 29 Road to the South Shore entrance. Public Works, Transportation Vision Plan Other Agencies: County Transportation Lead: Parks and Recreation Restore portions of the reservoir shoreline to minimize erosion Supporting Departments: 30 and sedimentation from storm water runoff. Public Works, Utilities Vision Plan Other Agencies: Northern Water 1 Ongoing operations and maintenance including visitor services, maintenance, operations, seasonal Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan staffing, equipment, etc. Lead: Parks and Recreation 2 Develop management responsibilities, and operations and business plans for the Boulder Reservoir Supporting City Departments: Fiscally Constrained Plan (part of the Site Management Plan - FY 2012). Public Works, Utilities Public Works, Water Resources Determine programmatic feasibility for increasing the number of camps, classes, programs and other 3 revenue-generating services at the reservoir (part of the Site Management Plan - FY 2012). Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan Clearly mark designated "no wake zones" and implement a "no-wake" time of up to two full 4 weekdays to support non-motorized boating. Control boat use near the dams and spillway to ensure Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan boater safety and close "Jet Ski Cove" to boating. 5 Work with local organizations or other educational institutions to monitor wildlife and habitat areas as Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan a long-term program. Conduct an annual water quality assessment report for the reservoir and the ANS inspection Lead: Parks and Recreation 6 Supporting City Departments: Fiscally Constrained Plan program. Public Works, Water Resources Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Appendix A 69 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities 7 Check-in with City Council periodically to report on trends in water quality and boating use. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan Review current operational policies and procedures and implement revised regulatory, code and rule Lead: Parks and Recreation 8 changes as required (part of the Site Management Plan FY 2012). Supporting City Departments: Fiscally Constrained Plan City Attorney, City Manager 9 Promote ongoing waste prevention, source reduction, reuse, composting and recycling principles and Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan practices where feasible. 10 Encourage the use of shuttles for special and group events. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan 11 Work with Boulder Aero modeling to manage the aero modeling facility. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan Develop and implement access and seasonal wildlife area closure policies (part of the Site Lead: Parks and Recreation 12 Management Plan - FY 2012). Supporting City Departments: Fiscally Constrained Plan OSMP Continue ANS inspection certification of Boulder Reservoir staff and continue city staff participation Lead: Parks and Recreation 13 in the state ANS task force. Supporting City Departments: Fiscally Constrained Plan Public Works, Water Resources 14 Maintain inspection staff on site at all hours when the main gate is open atthe South shore only. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan 15 Maintain and improve on-going communication with and support from neighbors. Lead: Parks and Recreation Fiscally Constrained Plan Lead: Parks and Recreation 16 Work with emergency services to promote communications and to develop an emergency Supporting City Departments: Fiscally Constrained Plan preparedness plan. FAM Fire and Police Continue involvement in the Boulder Reservoir Watershed Management Group. Lead: Parks and Recreation 17 Develop standard water quality monitoring and expand frequency to evaluate recreational impacts at Supporting City Departments: Fiscally Constrained Plan specific locations and during selected periods of the year. Evaluate developing water quality Public Works, Water Resources thresholds to support recreational use decision-making criteria and management responses. Lead: Parks and Recreation Work with Boulder County Transportation to clarify regulations and enforcement jurisdiction along Supporting City Departments: 18 51st and 55th streets. Public Works, Transportation Fiscally Constrained Plan Other Agencies: County Transportation 70 Appendix A Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities 19 Increase enforcement measures and capability throughout the reservoir area. Expand lake patrol and Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan water safety services to meet all programmatic and use needs. 20 Improve and enhance education and awareness about ANS atthe 55th Street and Coot Lake Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan trailheads and at appropriate points along the trails and shorelines. Lead: Parks and Recreation Develop a response plan to prepare for all potential ANS infestation. Supporting City Departments: 21 Determine future 0 & M and capital costs associated with required improvements that will be Public Works, Water Resources Action Plan determined as a part of the Site Management Plan. Other Agencies: State Department of Health and Environment Conduct a biological species inventory and develop and implement wetland and grassland restoration Lead: Parks and Recreation 22 management plans based on inventory assessment findings and preferred implementation strategies. Supporting City Departments: Action Plan OSMP Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting City Departments: Work with Utilities and Northern Water to develop policies and protocols for weed management and Public Works, Utilities 23 recreation management in response to water supply changes. FAM Action Plan City Attorney, City Manager Other Agencies: Northern Water 24 Develop a volunteer or "Adopt-a-Park" program to help with habitat management, trail maintenance Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan and annual clean-up. Lead: Parks and Recreation Work with GO Boulder to develop a bicycle and vehicular parking management strategy that Supporting City Departments: 25 promotes and supports alternative transportation mode use to the Boulder Reservoir. Public Works, Transportation Action Plan Other Agencies: County Transportation Identify and determine the feasibility of temporary shuttle pick-up and parking locations in other areas Lead: Parks and Recreation 26 of the city for events. Supporting City Departments: Action Plan Public Works, Transportation 27 Develop a rental program for swim beach amenities and equipment (umbrellas, chairs). Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan 28 Update and expand interpretive signage along trails near sensitive habitat areas. Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Appendix A 71 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan 29 Work with CDOW to coordinate fishing enforcement and to establish fishing criteria. Other Agencies: Colorado Division of Wildlife 30 Perform periodic visitor use surveys to gauge future demands and future management and funding Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan decisions. 31 Install fencing and/or visual barriers for sensitive habitat and wetland protection areas and along Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan trails and high use pedestrian areas. 32 Implementthe city's zero-waste policy and programs practices where feasible. Lead: Parks and Recreation Action Plan Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting City Departments: 33 Develop a full inspection, monitoring and cost recovery ANS inspection program for the South shore. Public Works, Water Resources Action Plan Other Agencies: State Department of Health and Environment Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting City Departments: 34 Develop a feasibility analysis of possible expansion of ANS monitoring facilities for the North shore Public Works, Water Resources Action Plan and West shore access points. Other Agencies: State Department of Health and Environment Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting City Departments: 35 Explore the potential for a second vehicular access pointto the South Shore from the Diagonal FAM Vision Plan Highway. Other Agencies: State Department of Transportation Lead: Parks and Recreation Supporting Departments: Public Works, Utilities 36 Determine the feasibility of an continuous off-road multi-use path adjacent to the paved road system Public Works, Transportation Vision Plan (South Shore Management Area). OSMP Other Agencies: County Transportation County OSMP 72 Appendix A Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Table 5. Action Item Responsibilities Work with Utilities staff to evaluate the feasibility of and identify a location for a large-scale solar Lead: Parks and Recreation 37 array system to support the Reservoir and surrounding facilities. Supporting City Departments: Vision Plan Public Works, Utilities 38 Develop partnerships with local organizations to facilitate environmental research and education. Lead: Parks and Recreation Vision Plan Lead: Parks and Recreation Coordinate with the Denver Regional Council of Governments to promote use of the on-line car-pool Supporting City Departments: 39 organizer. Public Works, Transportation Vision Plan Other Agencies: Denver Council of Governments Lead: Parks and Recreation 40 Evaluate the feasibility of incorporating energy performance enhancements for the reservoir facilities. Supporting City Departments: Vision Plan Public Works, Utilities FAM Boulder Res oal IU~asjjr Pla~ ' Xppdix At Pages 73 gan a em , ATTACHMENT E 74 Appendix A Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Reviewer's Note Appendix B. The related documents referred to in the text of the Boulder the related documents. Some of the linked sites below are contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such Reservoir Master Plan are listed below with web links. The not under the control of the City of Boulder and the city is sites. online version will have hyperlinks within the text linking to not responsible for the contents of any linked site or and link Chapter 1. Section C: Community Trends and Key Challenges Transportation Master Plan City ofBoulder2009Community Data Report http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331&Itemid=1201 http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/PDS/2009_community_data_report.pdf Chapter 4, Section B: North Shore and Coot Lake Chapter 1. Section E: Relationship to Other Plans City of Boulder Voice and Sight Dog Tag Program Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5562&Itemid=411 http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1482&Itemid=1611 Parks and Recreation 2006 Master Plan Chapter 5, Section A: Aquatic Nuisance Species http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2504&Itemid=2019 Aquatic Nuisance Species http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1540&Itemid=3684 Recreation Program and Facilities Plan http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10519&Itemid=254 Chapter 5, Section C: Water Quality on the Boulder Reservoir Open Space and Mountain Park Visitor Master Plan State of Colorado Water Quality Standards http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3065&Itemid=1032 http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/Standards/Standards.html Open Space and Mountain Park Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan Chapter 7, Section A: Current Eff orts http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6821&Itemid=1124 EXPAND Program for People with Disabilities Source Water Master Plan http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index. php?Itemid=848&id=1472&option=com_content&task=view http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7871 &Itemid= 1189 Chapter ],Section B: Opportunities Water Quality Strategic Plan Adopt-a-Park http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9535&Itemid=3222 http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2616&Itemid=831 Urban Wildlife Management Plan, Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Component Community Clean-up Day http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1704&Itemid=1410 http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2343&Itemid=2964 Climate Action Plan Open Space and Mountain Parks - Trail Guides/Hosts http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1124&Itemid=2150 httpJ/www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2798&Itemid=1098 Master Plan for Waste Reduction http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13750&ltemi d=450 Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Appendix B 75 Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages ATTACHMENT E Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Aganda Item V-A, Report Pages CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 28, 2011 AGENDA TITLE: Pottery Program Management Assessment PRESENTERS: Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Teri Olander, Recreation Administrator Museum Management Consultants, Inc. Adrienne Horn Katie Sevier EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the past 50 years, the Pottery Lab has been a valued community service that receives a significant operating subsidy. In an effort to maximize the value of the Pottery Program to the broadest segment within our community and to address cost-recovery goals, a management assessment has been completed. (Attachment A) The Parks and Recreation Department contracted with Museum Management Consultants, Inc. (MMC) for the assessment. MMC, which has provided consulting services to over 300 museums, art centers, parks, theaters, and other cultural organizations throughout the United States, is known for its expertise in organizational assessment, institutional planning, and audience research. ANALYSIS: The Pottery Program Management Assessment summarizes findings from stakeholder interviews and outreach, program analysis, benchmarking/market analysis, and provides program recommendations. The assessment provides short-term and long-term recommendations for the operation and management of the Department's pottery program. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: After a brief presentation on the Management Assessment, MMC will address questions and comments from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) as well as questions received from members of the public. The Department will also solicit feedback and suggestions about possible next steps in creating a successful future for this program. The city is offering ways for community AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE I members to ask questions about the report and/or obtain more information about the consultants' findings and recommendations through online and written comment and question forms, as well as a community meeting on November 22 at 6:00 pm at the George Reynolds Branch Library. The online comment form will be available for several weeks and may be accessed by going to htt p://www.bouldeMottery.com. At the January 23, 2012 PRAB meeting, PRAB will discuss the consultants' recommendations and ideas from the report. Updates will be provided on the Pottery page of the Department's website hqp://www.boulderpotteKy.com. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A: City of Boulder Pottery Program Management Assessment AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 2 CITY OF BOULDER POTTERY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT Summary of Findings Submitted by MUSEUM MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. San Francisco, California November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Benchmark Organizations 5 Key Issues and Recommendations 7 Finances 7 Facility 11 Program Offerings 15 Class Structure and Fees 17 Open Lab 23 Retail Sales 25 Staffing 26 Awareness 28 Designation within Parks and Recreation Department 29 Concluding Remarks 31 Appendices 32 Appendix A: List of Interviewees 33 Appendix B: Student Survey Results 34 Appendix C: Benchmark Study 49 Museum Management Consultants, Inc. San Francisco, California INTRODUCTION The City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (Department) retained Museum Management Consultants, Inc. (MMC) of San Francisco, California to conduct a management assessment of the Boulder Pottery Lab. This report summarizes the findings from that assessment, which was conducted by MMC consultants Adrienne Horn, President, and Katie Sevier, Vice President. Background The Pottery Lab opened in 1954 as a program of the Department, making it the first city- supported pottery program in the United States. The Pottery Lab is housed in a 3,800 square foot historic firehouse in a residential area of West Boulder. Offerings include classes in the ceramic arts for children, pre-teens, teens, and adults of all levels; summer camps; and occasional workshops. Classes are popular; in Figure 1. 2009, 108 classes were offered and 56% were full. Pottery Lab subsidy 2008-2010 $140,000 - - $117,397 From 2008 through 2010, the Pottery Lab $120,000 $91,412 $$4,963 $100,000 averaged $283,496 in expenses per year and $80,000 - - $185,572 in revenues; the Department subsidizes $60,000 - the difference. Figure 1 shows the subsidy for the $40,000 $20,000 last three years, which averages $97,924. The $0 - Pottery Lab program is a subset of the visual arts 2008 2009 2010 in Boulder. While other arts programs receive support from the City, no other art subset receives the level of support or amount of subsidy from the City as does the Pottery Lab. Given declining revenues from tax support and user fees, the Department is evaluating all of its programs to ensure long-term financial sustainability. In order to work toward a more efficient model, the Department is exploring alternative methods to provide ceramics and other arts programs and classes to the community. Toward that end, the Department issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in 2010 to identify an organization capable of taking over management of the Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 1 San Francisco, California Pottery Lab program and facility. The goal of this effort was to maintain the quality and diversity of Pottery Lab offerings while decreasing the City subsidy for the program. Two organizations submitted proposals, which were reviewed by a committee of community members. The committee assessed the quality of the submitted proposals with an evaluation matrix that was made available to the proposal respondents prior to their submission. Late in 2010, the decision was made not to contract out operation of the Pottery Lab, but the Department remained committed to the goal of improving the program's management and economic viability. In 2011, the decision was made to complete a management assessment of the Pottery Lab program; MMC was retained to conduct the third-party analysis. Implementation of recommendations from the assessment will begin in 2012. Methodology MMC visited Boulder in July 2011 and held confidential interviews in person or on the telephone with 24 individuals, including Department staff, Advisory Board members, Pottery Lab staff and students, and other stakeholders (see Appendix A for a list of interviewees). In addition to the interviews, MMC developed a brief online survey to obtain feedback from Pottery Lab users. The survey was implemented by Department staff in August 2011; a total of 118 students completed the survey. The findings can be found in Appendix B. In addition, MMC researched four benchmark ceramics programs; the findings from this research are introduced in the next section, Benchmark Organizations. Finally, MMC reviewed a broad spectrum of Department and program-related documents, such as financials, long-range plans, community feedback from public input sessions, and results from a previous survey of Pottery Lab users. Summary of Interview Findings Interviewees described the Pottery Lab as a unique, hidden gem in the community, beloved by its users but largely unknown to the general population. One interviewee captured the positive sentiment toward the program by saying, "The Pottery Lab is a singular place that offers a vital service offered nowhere else in town for kids and adults." Students pointed to the Pottery Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 2 San Francisco, California Lab's "supportive community" and "mix of generations" as assets. The quality of instruction was noted as a key strength, as well as the popularity of classes. At the same time, a number of issues were cited by interviewees, including the limitations of the Pottery Lab facility, decreasing City funds, and the uneasy relationship between Pottery Lab advocates and the Department. Everyone involved with the Pottery Lab appreciates the creative use of its facility, but cites its small square footage, inaccessibility, and inefficient layout, as the primary stumbling blocks for the program's growth. Without more space for wheels, more storage areas for pots, or a dedicated retail space, there is limited ability to expand the Pottery Lab's audience and increase earned revenue. The relationship between the Department and Pottery Lab staff and supporters has been compromised over the years. A number of interviewees described the relationship as "adversarial." Numerous incidents over the past two or three years have broken the bond of trust between the two parties, leaving Pottery Lab advocates feeling that the program is consistently on the verge of being closed down. Not surprisingly, staff is "burned out." A group of Pottery Lab students and supporters known as Friends of the Pottery Lab expressed the concern of many students that "the City is constantly undercutting the Pottery Lab" with reductions in staff and elimination of services. It is the Friends' opinion that the Pottery Lab has decreased its expenses and uses its small facility in an efficient and inventive manner. Most notably, they feel the City has not expressed its belief in the value of the Pottery Lab and has lacked transparency with financials. Department staff acknowledges recent missteps and communication breakdowns, and are fully dedicated to finding effective strategies to ensure the Pottery Lab's viability and longevity. Like municipalities across the United States, the City of Boulder has been impacted by the economic downturn and its effect on tax revenue. Municipal arts programs have been hit particularly hard as cities focus their limited resources on core services. In Boulder, the Department has acknowledged the need to reduce their reliance on tax-supported funding. As stated in the Department's Recreation Programs & Facilities Plan: Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 3 San Francisco, California The key elements of this effort will include reducing overall high overhead, program direct and indirect expenses, improving program and facility efficiency, enhancing marketing to increase the customer base and pursuing partnerships and sponsorships as well as strategically leveraging key facilities and opportunities to generate additional revenue. The Department is committed to the Pottery Lab program, but due to their financial constraints, a plan must be developed to achieve financial sustainability within three to five years. Everyone involved with the Pottery Lab expressed the same desire for the program to remain in the community, and a dedication to making changes that will help the program to flourish. The following pages present further detail on the key issues facing the Pottery Lab and MMC's recommendations to address those issues in the long-term while increasing cost recovery and building toward self-sufficiency in the near-term. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 4 San Francisco, California BENCHMARK ORGANIZATIONS MMC researched four ceramics programs in the United States to establish a broader context for Pottery Lab operations and provide operational models from programs with similar challenges. Figure 2 below provides an overview of the four benchmark organizations. Figure 2. Overview of Benchmark Organizations Operating Facility Size Full-Time Organization Location Discipline Budget (indoor gross ft z) Staff The Clay Studio Philadelphia, PA Ceramics $1,500,000 15,000 12 Kirkland Arts Center Kirkland, WA Visual Arts $715,000 9,000 4 Mudflat Pottery Studio Somerville, MA Ceramics $750,000 16,000 2 Pottery Northwest Seattle, WA Ceramics $260,000 3,500 1 Boulder Pottery Lab Boulder, CO Ceramics $283,000 3,800 2 1 Within the Kirkland Arts Center facility, the ceramics studio is 1,200 square feet, another 600 square feet is used for artist studios. Each organization was selected by MMC, in consultation with the Department, based on recommendations by assessment interviewees. This is not meant to be a homogenous group of comparable ceramics organizations. These benchmark organizations were selected with the knowledge that change must take place at the Pottery Lab to become more financially sustainable. With that in mind, MMC researched dozens of recommended programs of varying size, governance structure, location, and discipline. MMC initially researched organizations with budgets at or below the Pottery Lab's, but found these programs to be struggling financially and therefore, not appropriate as models of future operations. Similarly, municipal programs were investigated, but MMC did not find a program of sufficient financial standing and sophistication to serve as an example of "best practices" in the field. Municipal pottery programs themselves are relatively uncommon, but an appropriately robust and thriving municipal pottery program proved difficult to find. As a result of these research limitations, each of the programs selected is an independent nonprofit organization with little to no government support. Despite differences among the benchmark organizations, each organization exhibits characteristics and Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 5 San Francisco, California standards that are instructive for the Department as operational changes are considered for the Pottery Lab. Findings from MMC's conversations with each of the benchmark organizations are interspersed throughout this report; a more detailed version of the findings appears in Appendix C. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 6 San Francisco, California KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on MMC's interviews, research of benchmark organizations, and professional observations, the two primary issues facing the Pottery Lab are financial sustainability and the drawbacks of its current facility. Although there are other significant short-term considerations, these two issues determine the Pottery Lab's viability in the long-term. As such, the key findings and recommendations that follow begin with these two "big picture" issues and segue into findings related to current operations and short-term recommendations. Whether or not MMC's long-term recommendations are implemented, the short-term recommendations provide steps to create greater efficiency and effectiveness in the Pottery Lab program in both the near-term and when considering new directions in the future. Finances Understanding the Pottery Lab's financial position lays the foundation for all other issues that follow. This section is not intended as an in-depth financial analysis, but rather provides an overview of the Pottery Lab's finances and appropriate recommendations. A closer look at class pricing can be found later in the section, Class Structure Figure 3. Pottery Lab Income and Expenses 2008-2011 2011 and Fees, which begins on p. 17. (through 2008 2009 2010 8/31/11) Revenue $196,476 $182,805 $177,435 $107,870 As detailed in Figure 3, Pottery Expense $287,888 $300,202 $262,398 $150,645 Net Revenue Lab revenues decreased (Department Subsidy) ($91,412) ($117,397) ($84,963) ($42,775) between 2008 and 2010 while expenses fluctuated. During this timeframe, the Pottery Lab averaged $185,572 in revenues and $283,496 in expenses, resulting in an average subsidy of $97,924 from the Department. Figure 4. Pottery Lab Main Sources of Revenue Revenue 2011 Revenue (through Pottery Lab revenues are derived Source 2008 2009 2010 8/31/11) almost entirely from class fees and Class Fees $164,105 $157,066 $159,623 $96,112 Pottery Sales $29,017 $24,841 $16,619 $8,798 Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 7 San Francisco, California retail sales (see Figure 4). As a municipal program, income streams are limited to these earned sources, as well as the subsidy from the Department to cover the shortfall between income and expenses. A 15% increase in class fees in 2011 appears to have raised revenues slightly when compared to previous years at the same point in time. The decrease in retail pottery sales is due to the elimination of the Holiday Sale in 2010. The limitations of the Pottery Lab's revenues are best viewed in comparison to the four benchmark organizations. To compare revenues across organizations, MMC categorized income in the following categories: • Contributed Income: donations from individuals, corporations, and foundations; special events; membership • Earned Income: class and program fees, gift shop, pottery sales • Government Grants: grants from local, state, or federal government • Investment Income: interest on organizational investments Unlike the Pottery Lab, each of the benchmark organizations is a nonprofit organization and receives contributed revenues from individuals, foundations, corporations, special events, and memberships (see Figure 5). Figure 5. Benchmark Organizations: Revenue by Source Contributed Earned Government Investment This revenue stream Income Income Grants Income The Clay Studio 35% 58% 7% 0% essentially takes the place of Mudflat Pottery Studio 33% 65% 2% 0% government funds, in the Pottery Northwest 27% 72% 0% 1% form of the Department Kirkland Arts Center 41% 58% 1% 0% Average: 34% 63% 3% 0% subsidy, at the Pottery Lab. Boulder Pottery Lab' 0% 68% 32% 0% None of the benchmark 1 Revenue figures from 2010 organizations receive significant funds from government grants. This comparison reinforces the reality that as the Department's financial support of the Pottery Lab decreases in the coming years, other revenue streams must rise to meet expenses. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 8 San Francisco, California Expenses Expenses related to the operation of the Pottery Lab are relatively simple and fall into the following major categories: personnel (full-time staff), classes (instructors, materials, other direct costs), and administration (office expenses, marketing, etc.). For the purpose of comparison with the benchmark organizations, MMC has reorganized the expenses into standard nonprofit categories: • Personnel: wages, benefits, payroll taxes (full-time staff only) • Administration & Development: office and business expenses, fundraising expenses • Facility: rent, utilities, maintenance • Classes & Programs: instructors, materials, supplies • Marketing & PR: advertising, marketing, public relations • Other: Miscellaneous expenses not categorized above The Pottery Lab's status as a municipal program results in a substantially different expense model when compared to the benchmark organizations (see Figure 6). Most notably, the Pottery Lab does not incur significant occupancy fees, such as rent, since the facility is owned Figure 6. Benchmark Organizations: Expenses by Category Admin & Classes & Marketing Personnel Development Facility Programs & PR Other The Clay Studio 33% 16% 14% 31% 5% 2% Mudflat Pottery Studio 38% 23% 8% 26% 3% 2% Pottery Northwest 36% 15% 24% 21% 2% 0% Kirkland Arts Center 40% 8% 10% 40% 2% 0% Average: 37% 15% 14% 30% 3% 1% Boulder Pottery LabZ 80% 6% 4% 11% 0% 0% Expense figures from 2010 by the City of Boulder. Because expenses outside of classes and personnel are minimal, the existing personnel expenses appear high, but it is the lack of balance from other expenses that gives this impression. While staff salaries and benefits are generous for the field, they are not exorbitant. The percentage of the budget spent on classes and programs is substantially higher in the benchmark organizations than it is at the Pottery Lab. Even Pottery Northwest, whose Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 9 San Francisco, California budget and facility size are on par with the Pottery Lab, spends a greater percentage on their classes and program. It is important to remember that although the Department identifies direct and indirect program costs in the Pottery Lab budget, they do not calculate and include Department indirect costs (Department Director, support staff, marketing staff), City allocation (City Manager, City Attorney, Budget/Finance, Risk Management, etc.), facility costs (rent or mortgage), major maintenance and repair, and capital replacement costs in the budget. As a result, the Pottery Lab budget is significantly higher than what is represented in Figures 3, 5 and 6; in particular, "administration and development" and "facility" expenses in Figure 6 appear to be lower than they are. Although more recent data is not available, in 2008, Department indirect, City allocation, and capital costs totaled $80,000 (28% of 2008 expenses); this figure does not include major maintenance or facility costs. Incorporating these costs into the expense budget would result in a substantial increase in the gap between revenues and expenses. Restrictions On the surface, the solution to the Pottery Lab's reliance on the Department subsidy seems quite simple: increase revenues and cut expenses. Opportunities to increase revenues incrementally are discussed later in this report, but these changes offer marginal revenue enhancements. Significant changes to revenues, such as increasing the number of classes, are limited by the lack of space to accommodate increased production and growth. At the same time, expenses have been minimized; recent examples include the elimination of janitorial services (they have since been reinstated) and the decision to fill an open full-time staff position with seasonal staff. Current operations are lean, and it is MMC's belief that further cuts will critically damage the integrity of the program. As such, this report does not address specific ways to reduce Pottery Lab expenses. With limited expenses to begin with, and a lack of clear accounting of all indirect costs associated with the program, this report focuses on ways to streamline operations and enhance revenue generation that should also reduce costs in the long-run. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 10 San Francisco, California Facility The Pottery Lab resides in a 3,800 square foot historic firehouse in a residential area southwest of the University of Colorado at Boulder. Its location in a residential neighborhood offers limited visibility and challenging parking requirements. For those who know about and frequent the Pottery Lab, the location might appear to be beneficial, but the lack of foot traffic and visible signage that accompany a populated area results in minimal awareness within the wider Boulder community. Its location next to apartment buildings and other homes leads to complaints and concerns about issues related to the kilns. Drawbacks within the building itself include a lack of air conditioning and accessibility for most people with disabilities. The lack of security within the building was addressed by a study conducted by risk management and emergency response consultants in May 2011. The resulting report, Safety and Security Considerations: Boulder Pottery Lab, makes several recommendations to put procedures and controls in place that will reduce the risk to students and staff. Many of the recommendations are basic, such as requiring all patrons to sign in and installing cameras and a public address system, and should be undertaken to ensure the safety of the public, but each item requires an outlay of resources on behalf of the Pottery Lab. As such, the recommendations have been put on hold awaiting the outcome of this assessment. The most significant issue related to the Pottery Lab facility is its small size and layout. The two-story building is used in a creative fashion, but its limitations are considerable. Every interviewee commented on the lack of space, which limits the opportunity to increase the number of classes offered. Adult classes take place downstairs and children's classes and camps upstairs. In the adult classes, once a student has a completed piece, it is carried upstairs and placed on the drying rack. Staff conducts the bisque firing upstairs, then places the student work in a different area of the drying rack. The pieces are brought downstairs by Pottery Lab staff to be glaze fired in the kilns outdoors. Once firing is complete, staff remove the pieces and place them in the outdoor storage area. Many interviewees said that student work can go missing during these moves, but more important, the constant climbing and descending of the Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 11 San Francisco, California narrow stairs with a few pots at a time is not an efficient use of staff time. Almost all interviewees agreed that the drying and storage areas for students are so restricted that production cannot increase. As one interviewee said, "The building cannot take another pot." Potential alterations to the Pottery Lab building itself are limited by its designation as an historic building. One interviewee added, "The small lot has restrictions and prohibitions for change and expansion." The same interviewee noted that the space is only functional "because of creative adaptation by the director." Without a complete reconstruction of the interior space, it is hard to imagine the facility generating enough income to turn a profit; certainly not without a new source of income. Recommendation: Establish a nonprofit organization to operate the Pottery Lab in a public- private partnership with the Department. Without increasing the Pottery Lab's revenues and diversifying its funding sources, the organization's ability to become financially self-sufficient is in question. Even with significant changes, earned income cannot fully support a dynamic organization. It is MMC's belief that financial self-sufficiency will not be possible without a bigger facility. Based on this belief, the Pottery's Lab's ability to be financially self-sustaining relies on finding a new facility, establishing new revenue streams, and rethinking staff roles. Considering the uncertainty of the Department's funding, establishing a nonprofit organization to govern and operate the Pottery Lab will allow the organization to rethink and grow its operations in response to market demand. Many different examples of public-private partnerships exist, but in relation to the Pottery Lab and the Department, MMC proposes that the Department issue an RFP to determine which individuals or organization will operate the Pottery Lab. In turn, this group will establish itself as a nonprofit organization with 501(c)(3) status (if it does not have this status already) and form a Board of Directors. Once a nonprofit organization is established, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department and Board of Directors should outline the relationship between the two parties and their respective roles and responsibilities. The MOU Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 12 San Francisco, California should detail what each group brings to the partnership (i.e. funding, facility). It will be important for the Department to continue its financial and operational support of the Pottery Lab for at least three to five years as the nonprofit establishes itself and begins to reorganize and raise funds. This should include continued occupancy in its current facility, and ongoing repairs and maintenance. Once a new facility is identified, the nonprofit entity will be responsible for developing a strategic plan to program the site and conduct a capital campaign to renovate, open, and operate the new Pottery Lab. If the Department cannot guarantee funding to the Pottery Lab beyond three to five years, it will be essential to start the transition process immediately. Establishing a fundraising infrastructure and building a donor base takes years and the Pottery Lab should not be left without subsidy before it has established a contributed revenue stream. Fortunately, the Pottery Lab has a built-in constituency of current and former students as a starting point. By becoming a nonprofit entity, the Pottery Lab will ease the pressure on the Department's finances while continuing to support and promote the arts in Boulder. Nonprofit status will allow the Pottery Lab to be more flexible; as a nonprofit, the organization will not be subject to certain restrictions that are inherent with City operations, including requirements for employee benefits packages and rules against holding workshops and other events without budgeting for them in the previous year. As noted in the Department's Recreation Programs & Facilities Plan, "The Department has limited flexibility to make adjustments that respond to emerging needs and trends." The current challenges facing the Pottery Lab require rethinking staff roles and necessary skills. If the Pottery Lab is to become a nonprofit organization, it will need a leader with administrative and business acumen who will spend less time engaged in physical labor and teaching. Staff with fundraising expertise will be necessary to develop a donor base of support, and program staff will be required to rethink the organization's artistic offerings. This reorganization around required skills and competencies will result in a more efficient Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 13 San Francisco, California organization. For a more detailed discussion of personnel, see the Staff section, which begins on p. 26. Recommendation: Secure a larger facility in Boulder. Based on M MC's observations, as well as the opinions of interviewees and constituent feedback through Department-initiated surveys and meetings, the Pottery Lab cannot grow and thrive in its current facility. As such, MMC recommends setting a long-term goal of securing a larger facility in Boulder. This recommendation goes hand-in-hand with the above recommendation to establish a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization to work in partnership with the Department to reorganize Pottery Lab operations. MMC recognizes that the City of Boulder does not have the financial means to secure and rehabilitate a new site for the Pottery Lab; by establishing a nonprofit entity and transitioning to a public-private partnership, it will be the nonprofit organization's responsibility to raise funds for the capital project and ongoing operations. Until a larger facility is secured, the Pottery Lab will continue to reside in its current facility for a significant period of time and that facility is handicapped by its lack of storage space for student work. The side effect of this lack of space is lost work. As such, MMC recommends conducting a space analysis to better understand how the current space is used and where greater efficiencies could be created with minor adaptations. In addition, MMC recommends studying the use of the Pottery Lab kilns in order to better understand the proper number of kilns required and if the existing kilns are being used efficiently. Seeking out a new facility will require significant funding. As such, it will be critically important to conduct a thorough assessment of demand for the Pottery Lab's programs as well as potential financial support. This assessment report cannot answer these questions, but they should be addressed before moving forward. MMC recommends this long-term approach to creating a more vibrant and financially self- sufficient Pottery Lab, but acknowledges that forming a nonprofit that will be able to plan for and implement a new facility and program is not without risk. It is possible that the endeavor Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 14 San Francisco, California may not succeed in the long-run, or that it may take longer than anticipated to establish the nonprofit and raise the necessary funds. If either of those scenarios takes place, MMC believes the analysis and recommendations for current program operations that follow will result in the type of internal analysis and change that will greatly enhance the efficiency of Pottery Lab operations. And as a result, the gap between income and expenses, if still present, will be well defined and the Department will be in a better position to make decisions about the future of the Pottery Lab. Program Offerings Figure 7. Programs Offered by Benchmark Organizations Classes & Artist Gallery Outreach Classes are the core program of Workshops Residencies The Clay Studio • the Pottery Lab; they constitute Kirkland Arts Center • Mudflat Pottery Studio • the main user experience and Pottery Northwest • cover 57% of the Pottery Lab's Boulder Pottery Lab • operating budget. When compared to the benchmark organizations, it is readily apparent that the Pottery Lab offers less variety in programming. Figure 7 shows that in addition to classes and workshops, which are at the heart of each benchmark organization, artist residencies, galleries, and outreach programs are essential offerings. All but Pottery Northwest have access to larger budgets and facilities than the Pottery Lab, but each organization works within a relatively limited budget to provide creative and dynamic programming that appeals to the community while investing in local artists. Pottery Northwest, which has a facility and budget on par with the Pottery Lab's, hosts 10 artists in residence and sells their work, along with the work of other Pottery Northwest students and guest artists, in their gallery. While the gallery is not a significant source of income, it is seen as an important part of the organization's mission of service and education. Their artist residency program is described by Pottery Northwest's Executive Director as a transfusion of new energy and faculty every few years. He said the program has "made a huge difference in the studio." Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 15 San Francisco, California The Clay Studio's award winning Claymobile program is another example of programming that increases the organization's visibility and impact in the community. Since 1994, the Claymobile has partnered with schools, community-based organizations, and social service agencies in greater Philadelphia to bring hands-on arts experiences to underserved communities. The Claymobile is equipped to turn any classroom into a ceramics studio. While the program costs about $250,000 per year, it has been very appealing to funders, whose grants make the program break even. Each benchmark organization talked about the challenge of attracting new students, many of whom view ceramics as a significant commitment of time and resources. To address this barrier to participation, many of the organizations offer options to expose the public to ceramics: • Intensives offer an overview of a skill or technique in a compressed time period. For example, the Kirkland Arts Center offers intensives in wheel throwing, handbuilding, and ceramics in general. Intensives include four sessions for $215 (compared to eight sessions for $280 for a full beginner class). • Samplers also take place in a shorter timeframe, but introduce the student to a range of techniques. The Clay Studio offers five-week mini courses for $195 (compared to $295 for a full 10-week class). • Date Nights are utilized by a number of benchmark organizations to provide a very brief introduction (e.g. one, two-hour session) to ceramics at a low fee. • Open Houses also serve as a way to reach new users and demystify ceramics. The Clay Studio takes part in the city's First Friday program, leaving the studio open and free to the public for four hours once a month. They capitalize on the 1,200 to 1,800 visitors each First Friday by inviting small groups to take on a ceramics project during their time at the studio. The Pottery Lab has utilized samplers during special events for children, such as Children's Day, My First Camp, and Green Streets, but not in a systematic way. Offerings are limited by space and staff time, as well as the budget constraints of the Department. One interviewee noted, "The [Pottery Lab] programs aren't designed to bring in non-users." For example, each of the benchmark organizations holds workshops, but the Pottery Lab's ability to host workshops is limited by the need to account for each workshop in the fiscal year budget. Since workshops Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 16 San Francisco, California are often scheduled with only a few months' notice, this rule means the Pottery Lab has to find creative ways to make the workshops a reality. Similarly, outreach activities have been limited due to the cost of equipment and the risk of losing the resulting pieces. But with such limited space in the Pottery Lab facility, it appears that outreach programs or classes and offerings at other locations, such as recreation centers, could expand the reach of the Pottery Lab beyond its four walls. Recommendation: Establish short-term offerings to attract new students. Work within the financial and physical constraints of the Pottery Lab to introduce ceramics "teasers," such as date nights and on-site samplers, that reach new audiences. This will require studying the current class, camp, and open lab schedules to allow for small pockets of time for short-term classes. Branching out into artist residencies or a retail gallery may not be feasible in the current facility, but they should be included in any expansion plans. At the same time, outreach efforts, such as The Clay Studio's Claymobile, could be integrated into the Pottery Lab program with grant funding. During a time when arts education is at an all time low, an outreach program would allow the Pottery Lab to make a deeper impact in the community by addressing a need. Such programs are appealing to funders and should be part of rethinking the Pottery Lab's offerings as a nonprofit. However, the timing for such a program needs to be coordinated with the priorities set for the next three to five years. Class Structure and Fees The next three sections (Class Structure and Fees, Open Lab, and Retail Sales) address the income generating areas of the Pottery Lab program. Each section addresses current operations and recommendations to increase revenues. Please note that although the Pottery Lab offers classes for adults and youth, the analysis and recommendations that follow focus on adult classes. It is MMC's belief although the class participants may differ in age, the issues Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 17 San Francisco, California identified in this report and the respective recommendations are similar. As the Pottery Lab's future direction is decided, it will be important to determine desired target audiences and how best to serve those audiences. Figure 8. Weeks of Class Time Each Year Overview of Classes Among Benchmark Organizations Classes are in session at the Pottery Lab 41 weeks of the Weeks of Organization Class Time year; there are four, nine-week sessions and one, five- The Clay Studio 38 Pottery Northwest 40 week session. The remaining 11 weeks of the year are Kirkland Arts Center 40 Mudflat Pottery Studio 45 used for shut-down and clean up, as well as staff time off. Boulder Pottery Lab 41 A number of interviewees suggested adjusting the length of each session in order to increase revenue. The options include lengthening the five-week session in order to charge a higher class fee (e.g. five, nine-week sessions) or offering more sessions for a shorter duration (e.g. six, eight-week sessions). Figure 8 indicates that the Pottery Lab's class time is consistent with that of the benchmark organizations. ttery Lab Classes [[Adult 9. Overview of Based on data from 2010, which is presented in Figure 9, the es 58% majority of Pottery Lab classes serve adults (58%) and are ses 42% All Levels 26% aimed at beginning potters (61%). The basic class fee for non- Beginning 61% residents is $266 and $213 for residents; all adult classes are /Intermediate 5% Intermediate 7% offered at the same price. The majority of students who took ate/Advanced 2% part in the online survey indicated that the Pottery Lab's pricing was fair (79%), with 11% saying the price was too high and 10% saying they were willing to pay more. Class Pricing and Student Minimums Class fees were raised 15% for the Winter 2010 session in order to ensure that all costs were covered by class revenues. This increase was based on 2009 actuals and 2011 estimates of direct and indirect costs of Pottery Lab classes; indirect costs are based on the Pottery Lab's percentage of the overall Recreation Division budget. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 18 San Francisco, California Figure 10 below was developed from the direct and indirect cost estimates utilized by the Department. The chart details the costs associated with beginning through advanced adult classes. When calculating the cost per student, MMC used a range of 10 to 20 students, which are the current minimum and maximum students for the average adult class. According to internal policy, classes without Figure 10. Pottery Lab Adult Class Costs the minimum of 10 students are Beginningand Beg/Intermediate Intermediate/ cancelled. Please note that the Class Costs Classes Advanced Classes Direct Costs I program cost information utilized instruction $432 $703 (seasonal instructor) (full-time employee) in Figure 10 includes salary Clay $233 $233 information from 2009; as such, Glaze $200 $200 Firing $150 $150 the actual salary costs (at least Total Direct Class Cost: $1,015 $1,286 Indirect Costs for full-time staff) are higher. Program Cost @ $79 $1,778 $1,778 per hour of class time (22.5 class hours) (22.5 class hours) Recreation Cost @ $11 $248 $248 Figure 10 shows that classes can per hour of class time Total Indirect Cost: $2,026 $2,026 be profitable if an accurate class TOTAL CLASS COST: $3,041 $3,312 minimum is established and Cost Per Student Compared to Fee Charged implemented. Assuming the most Cost Per Participant $304 $331 (based on 10 students) conservative figures, 10 Boulder Cost Per Participant $152 $166 (based on 20 students) residents at $213 each in a Pottery Lab Class Fee: $266 Non-Resident $266 Non-Resident beginning class, the Pottery Lab $213 Resident $213 Resident should gross $2,130 and incur $3,041 in expenses on a beginning/intermediate class. Based on these estimates, the class minimum should be higher since a beginning/intermediate class will not break even until there are 15 students who register as Boulder residents (15 students @ $213 = $3,195) or 12 non-resident students (12 students @ $266 = $3,192). No doubt, classes have a mix of resident and non-resident students, but these cost estimates point to a minimum class requirement of at least 12 to make the class profitable. The equivalent minimums for intermediate/advanced classes are 16 resident students (16 students @ $213 = $3,408) and 13 non-resident students (13 students @ $266 = $3,458). Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 19 San Francisco, California Organizational data from 2009 indicates that 80% of the 108 classes offered that year met or surpassed the minimum student requirement. This number is artificially inflated since it is based on a minimum of 10 students for the average adult class. Assuming that the majority of classes do surpass the minimum student requirement, it is unclear why the Pottery Lab does not break even financially on the strength of its classes. Figure 10 reinforces that the class fee increase in 2010 was justified and may not have been high enough. In addition, the data in Figure 10 shows that costs increase as skill level increases, but the Pottery Lab does not charge different fees for different levels, thereby losing revenue for the Pottery Lab and reinforcing the incentive for advanced students to retake beginning classes. Figure 11. Comparison of Adult Classes at Pottery Lab, Local Organizations, and Benchmark Organizations Included in Class Fee Class Price Per Price Per Hour Glaze/ Open Organization Class Price' Session Length Length Session of Class Time Clay Tools Firing Labz Boulder Pottery Lab $266 9 Weeks 2.5 hrs $30 $12 50 Ibs No Yes Yes LOCAL CERAMICS ORGANIZATIONS Fort Collins Pottery $139 10 Weeks 2 hrs $14 $7 25 Ibs Yes Yes Yes Studio Westminster $125 9 Weeks 3 hrs $14 $5 25 Ibs No Yes Yes Pottery Studio Boulder Potters $185 8 Weeks 3 hrs $23 $8 50 Ibs No Yes Yes Guild Mudslingers $150 Beg. 5 Weeks 2.5 hrs $30 Beg. $12 Beg. Yes Yes Yes Yes $1601nt. $321nt. $131nt. (unlimited) Arvada Center $85 Beg./Int. 5 Weeks (Beg./Int.) 3 hrs $17 $6 Beg./Int. No No Yes Yes $170 Adv. 10 Weeks (Adv.) $6 Adv. BENCHMARK ORGANIZATIONS The Clay Studio $295 10 Weeks 3 hrs $30 $10 No No Yes Yes Mudflat Pottery $525 14 Weeks 3 hrs $38 $13 25 Ibs No Yes Yes Studio Pottery Northwest $350 10 Weeks 3 hrs $35 $12 25 Ibs No Yes Yes Kirkland Arts Center $280 Beg. 8 Weeks (Beg.) 3 hrs $35 Beg. $12 Beg. 25 Ibs No Yes Yes $340 Int./Adv. 10 Weeks (Int./Adv.) $34 Inter./Adv. $11 Inter./Adv. ' Includes all levels, unless otherwise noted, member and resident discounts are not shown 2All but Boulder Potters Guild and Mudslingers offer unlimited use of open lab hours. Boulder Potters Guild includes 3 hours with class fee and Mudslingers gives 2 sessions. 3Summer session is 8 weeks 4 The Clay Studio sells each 25 lb bag of clay for $14 5Additional clay can be purchased in 25 lb bags for $23 each at Mudflat Pottery Studio, $15 at Pottery Northwest and $10 at Kirkland Arts Center Figure 11 above compares the Pottery Lab's pricing structure to that of local ceramics organizations and the benchmark organizations. In this context, the Pottery Lab's class prices Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 20 San Francisco, California are higher than those of the local organizations, but lower than any of the benchmark organizations. The price per session and per hour of class time is similar to the benchmark organizations and a few of the local organizations. From this comparison, it appears that the Pottery Lab's class price, session length, and class duration are all on par with organizations in the industry, but if they do not adequately cover costs, prices must be increased to meet them. Included in Class Fee The fee for a Pottery Lab class includes 50 pounds of clay, glazes and firings, as well as unlimited access to Open Lab hours, which take place whenever the Pottery Lab is open and classes are not in session. Compared with other organizations, the Pottery Lab provides more clay with its class fee. The majority of organizations in Figure 11 include one, 25 pound bag of clay with their class fee. Additional bags of clay are available for purchase from the benchmark organizations; bag prices range from $10 at the Kirkland Arts Center to $23 at Mudflat. According to the Pottery Lab staff, many students only use one bag of clay, approximately 10% use four bags, and average use is two bags. MMC heard from many interviewees and benchmark organizations that more advanced students use more clay while beginning students use very little. A number of organizations pointed to the common practice of including the cost of firing and glazing in the cost of clay, thereby including all direct costs in the bag fee. For example, Pottery Northwest said they use a 100% markup on their clay, which sells for $15 per bag. At the Pottery Lab, each bag of clay costs the organization $8; this is the fee charged to students for each additional bag of clay beyond the two included in the class price. While the Pottery Lab staff knows the cost of the clay itself ($8 per bag), it is unclear whether the fully loaded price has been determined through internal analysis. The Pottery Lab believes the fully loaded price, including clay, glazing, and firing, is $16, but this cost is not reflected in the prices charged to students for additional bags of clay. Nor is it clear if a cost analysis has been conducted to determine if class prices themselves accurately reflect the true cost of clay, glazing, and firing. For example, according to the class program sheets, the same expense for clay, glazing, and firing ($582.50) is assumed for all adult Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 21 San Francisco, California classes, whether beginner, intermediate, or advanced. This approach does not reflect that beginners use less clay than advanced students. Class prices should reflect these differences in the cost of materials. Recommendation: Accurately account for all direct and indirect class costs. Conduct a thorough analysis of all direct and indirect costs associated with Pottery Lab classes and adjust class minimums and pricing as appropriate. While class prices are similar to those of other organizations, it is most important that class fees cover the resources utilized in producing a class. Variable pricing based on class level (beginner, intermediate, advanced) would more accurately reflect the true cost to the organization. Recommendation: Include one bag of clay in class fee and charge full price for each additional bag. Based on the class cost analysis above, the Pottery Lab should fully load the cost of additional bags of clay to include glazing and firing costs in each bag. Recommendation: Institute a membership program. As the Pottery Lab looks to the future as an independent nonprofit, different revenue sources will be required. The popularity of classes provides an opportunity to draw students closer to the organization through a membership program that offers discounts and other benefits. Three of the four benchmark organizations have membership programs (see Figure 12); the main reason to join each program is to receive Figure 12. Membership Programs at Benchmark Organizations Basic Number of Membership Organization Members Fee Benefits The Clay Studio 500 $50 • Member rate on classes and workshops • Exclusive shopping events • Exhibition previews and members-only receptions • Admission to lectures and public programs • Acknowledgement in publications Mudflat Pottery 250 $125 • Member rate on classes and most workshops Studio • Discount on purchases of Open Studio sales and at Mudflat Gallery Kirkland Arts Center 400 $50 • Member rate on classes • Invitation to select artist opportunities including exhibits and sales • Discount at art supply stores Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 22 San Francisco, California a class discount. The benefits at these organizations are more expansive than what could be offered now at the Pottery Lab since they have more variety in programming, but benefits might include discounts on class fees, special access to pottery sales, invitations to events, and discounts at local art supply stores. This will never become a significant source of income, but members are the beginning rung on the donor ladder, and as people become closer to the organization, they are more likely to give larger donations overtime. Open Lab The physical space required to house the necessary equipment makes at-home practice of the ceramic arts prohibitive for most casual students and hobbyists. Even some working artists lack the set-up to practice in their own home. Experienced students who are not professional-level gravitate to studios such as the Pottery Lab for the equipment, practice time, and community that such programs provide. While ongoing education may motivate certain students, anecdotal evidence indicates that most advanced students are interested in the Open Lab time. Because the Pottery Lab only offers lab time to class registrants, some advanced students take classes again and again, many times at levels far below their ability. As explained by the Pottery Lab staff, "We offer beginning and intermediate classes but students often sign up for the time slot, not the actual level of instruction. You could have beginners in an all levels class or advanced students in the beginning class." The result can be frustration on the part of beginners who experience a class with very few other beginners. One former student noted, "It seemed like everyone was already an expert" in their beginner class. The survey of former Pottery Lab students echoed this concern and revealed a general frustration with the preponderance of advanced students. One survey respondent said, "The studio seemed to be a little cliquey with people who had clearly been there for a while ...Not so inviting for a first timer." Another referred to the long-time students as an "exclusive club." It goes without saying that having a dedicated group of repeat students is beneficial to the Pottery Lab. In fact, the Pottery Lab should hope to keep these valued students while building up the roster of beginning students. The presence of so many advanced students becomes a Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 23 San Francisco, California problem only when instruction and a welcoming environment are sacrificed. A few survey respondents and interviewees said that instruction was impacted by the presence of so many advanced students. For example, one survey respondent said, "The beginners in the mixed beginner/intermediate class we took received little instruction and guidance." Another said, "I was looking for actual instruction. Not just a place to work." The appeal of the Pottery Lab to experienced students is clear. According to the Department's Pottery Lab Information Sheet, the Pottery Lab is open on average 75 hours per week each semester. Of that time, approximately 20 hours, or 27% of the operating hours, are dedicated to adult, teen, and pre-teen classes on the first floor; another 3.5 hours (5% of operating hours) are dedicated to EXPAND's Journeys Program, which serves adults with Traumatic Brain Injuries. The remaining 51.5 hours, or 69% of operating hours, are available as Open Lab. Numerous interviewees and survey respondents commented on the "generous" Open Lab hours as a major asset of the Pottery Lab. Two of the benchmark organizations appeal to advanced students by offering classes without instruction for experienced students. The Clay Studio's Studio Passport allows access to all open studios not being used for instruction. The class is limited to returning intermediate and advance students; it costs $280 per student, which is a 5% discount on the full class price. Similarly, Mudflat's Independent Study gives students access to the studio during open lab time, also for a 5% discount on the full class fee. Recommendation: Formalize the existing independent study program at the Pottery Lab. List the class in the Recreation Guide at a reduced price of 5% off. By allowing advanced students to have access to Open Lab hours for a slightly reduced fee, more space would be available for beginners and other new students in the existing class structure. If samplers and other introductory programs are offered, it will be essential to ensure there is room for new students. A few interviewees suggested offering Open Lab hours for an hourly fee. In such a scenario, students could buy a punch card of up to 10 hours of lab time. After discussing the options with Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 24 San Francisco, California the benchmark organizations, MMC feels that a full, semester-long class is a better fit for the Pottery Lab because it ensures a long-term commitment and a base level of income associated with Open Lab time. If hourly Open Lab time is available for purchase, the Pottery Lab runs the risk of cannibalizing its classes by removing a number of the advanced students and possibly not being able to replace the income lost. Figure 13. Pottery Lab Revenue Retail Sales from Retail Sales o of Retail sales during the Pottery Lab's Pottery Sales constitute the operating Year Revenue Budget second significant income stream for the organization (see Figure 2008 $29,107 10% 2009 $24,841 8% 13). In past years, there have been three sales: June, September, 2010 $16,619 6% and December. Each sale takes place over a weekend, with five hours of operations each day. The Holiday Sale in December 2010 was an independently operated event not affiliated with the Pottery Lab, even though it was organized by individuals who know each other through their work at the Pottery Lab. In previous years, this sale was held at the Pottery Lab. This change accounts for the drop in retail sales revenue from 2009 to 2010. The direct and indirect expenses associated with the sales have never been calculated. In order to estimate these costs, Pottery Lab staff were asked to account for their hours. Based on this information, staff spend 132 hours on each sale, or 264 hours for two sales in one year. Using 2010 hourly rates, this equates to almost $6,900. In addition, there are direct expenses such as those associated with the "throw-a-thons" used to make pieces for the sale, advertising, postcards to announce the sale, and postage. Assuming a range of $3,000 to $5,000 in direct costs for each sale, the Pottery Lab might spend $6,000 to 10,000 for two sales; when added to the staff expenses, it appears that the sales either break even or may lose money ($12,900- $16,900 in expenses, $16,619 in revenue in 2010). Retail sales can be an important program component; the outreach necessary to draw visitors increases awareness of the program, and purchases are perpetual reminders of the program to Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 25 San Francisco, California the purchaser. At the same time, an accurate accounting of the costs associated with the sales is necessary. Recommendation: Evaluate the true cost of Pottery Sales. With an analysis of all costs associated with the Pottery Sales, changes can be made to ensure that the sales provide net revenue to the organization. Recommendation: Organize a volunteer committee to spearhead Pottery Sales. Just as the Holiday Sale is now organized by volunteers associated with the Pottery Lab, other sales can be produced in this way. Once all expenses are understood, efforts should be made to alleviate costs, such as the significant amount of staff time dedicated to Pottery Sale preparations. Staffing The Pottery Lab functions with two full-time staff, as well as part-time instructional staff and volunteers. Until this summer, the Pottery Lab benefitted from one additional full-time employee; with the departure of that staff member, the Department has decided to fill the role with seasonal/part-time support until this assessment is complete and an informed decision about staffing needs can be made. Spending on personnel constitutes approximately 80% of the Pottery Lab program's operating budget. On top of this amount, the program benefits from Department staff assistance, which is not included in the program's official budget or the above quoted percentage (see p. 10 for indirect Department costs that are not included in the Pottery Lab budget). With a small staff, each full-time employee has a broad role, including administrative tasks, facility needs, programming, and teaching. For example, the Program Coordinator estimates that she spends 29% of her time on administration, 27% on facility, 18% on programs, and 24% on teaching. This "all hands on deck" approach is common in small programs and organizations that lack the financial resources to allow staff specialization, and it is likely that this approach has grown organically with the program itself. The Program Coordinator does not take the Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 26 San Francisco, California executive leadership role found in independent organizations or those with a larger budget; in those organizations, a director, as opposed to a program coordinator, might be responsible for setting the overall vision, overseeing business operations, artistic planning, and staff management. As a Department program, Pottery Lab staff appear to function more as program implementers. As such, each full-time staff member fulfills tasks that range in scope from managerial to artistic to menial. The result is an inefficient use of staff time that is focused - by necessity - on day- to-day needs. One often-cited example in MMC's interviews is the amount of staff time used to move ceramic pieces from the upstairs drying racks to the downstairs kilns. As one Pottery Lab student said, staff time is used inefficiently by handling "each of the hundreds of pots that move up and down the stairs from glazing to firing to the finished shelves." Given the challenges facing the program, this is a logical time to re-evaluate staff roles and consider what staff structure will help the Pottery Lab to run efficiently and effectively in the future. Although the Pottery Lab is over 55 years old, it exhibits many of the qualities of a program in its infancy, with an informal organizational structure and staff roles. Organizations or programs in their infancy often face a crisis when this informal structure clashes with increased need for accountability, and a reorganization takes place. The changes recommended in this report are intended to transition the Pottery Lab into the next phase of organizational development, which includes increased professionalism in operations and management. Recommendation: Reorganize staff to reflect expertise and skills required. In order to implement these recommendations, the Pottery Lab must be staffed with certain skills and expertise. Most important, the Pottery Lab should be managed by an Executive Director type of position, in place of a Program Manager. This role should encompass long-term planning, strategic decision-making, business and financial oversight, artistic planning, and staff management. Teaching and manual labor should not fall to this staff member. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 27 San Francisco, California Other staff roles should focus on facility needs, marketing, and program implementation; this may require less teaching for all full-time staff. MMC recommends researching the possibility of dedicating one or more part-time positions to the firing of kilns and loading and unloading of student work; these duties take up a significant amount of staff time that could be used more effectively elsewhere. A certain level of expertise is required to work with the kilns and MMC suggests that the devoted group of Pottery Lab students and artists may yield a few candidates for a paid position. If not, posting the position and providing training is certainly a possibility. Any changes to the staffing of kiln duties should be made in concert with the analysis of kiln usage recommended in the Facility section (see p. 14). Awareness Those closest to the Pottery Lab, including its staff and students, are keenly aware of its offerings, but time and again, assessment interviewees said that those outside this core group know little about the Pottery Lab. Current marketing and advertising efforts are limited to the Department's quarterly Recreation Guide, which lists all classes and advertises the pottery sales. Limited additional advertising related to the pottery sales is covered by the local paper and emails are sent out to advertise events, classes that are not full, sales, special events, and other happenings. These media sources appear to be enough to attract first-time and return students, but if changes are made that open up spaces for more students, greater effort will need to be paid to ongoing institutional marketing. Recommendation: Increase marketing of the Pottery Lab. If the Pottery Lab expands into a larger facility, marketing and advertising will be increasingly necessary. In the meantime, the Friends of the Pottery Lab suggested a number of free or low cost avenues for marketing the organization, such as the Boulder County Arts Alliance, Craigslist, Boulder Arts Resource, and Boulder Weekly. With staff time at a minimum, MMC recommends working with the Friends of the Pottery Lab to find volunteers to spearhead these efforts. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 28 San Francisco, California Designation within Parks and Recreation Department Throughout the assessment process, the Department has reiterated its desire to continue the Pottery Lab program, but economic uncertainties have resulted in actions that lead Pottery Lab supporters to doubt the true level of support. Many interviewees said that if the Department continues to be involved with the Pottery Lab, as is expected, it will be important for them to communicate their support for the arts in Boulder. As one interviewee said, "This should be articulated as a commitment from the City." In addition, many interviewees expressed hope that this articulation of support will include transitional funding for the Pottery Lab as it begins to operate as part of a public-private partnership. The status of the Pottery Lab as a program of the Department was confusing to several interviewees. The Department provides other visual and performing arts programs, but its main focus is on Boulder's parks and facilities, and recreation activities. One interviewee said the Pottery Lab is low on the City's priority list because, "Boulder is a recreation-driven community, not an art driven community." Another interviewee said, "As part of Boulder's Parks and Recreation Department, [the Pottery Lab] must compete with sports and exercise facilities and programs. In a town that is widely known for sports and fitness, I think the Pottery Lab has not had the attention it deserves as it competes for funds." More than one interviewee believes there is a "prejudice about supporting arts under recreation." Many interviewees question if the Pottery Lab should be moved to the Library and Arts Department, which oversees arts and library programs in the community. The central question is whether or not the Pottery Lab fits within the mission and vision of the Parks and Recreation Department. The Department's guiding principles, which are the basis for decision making for its programs, are: ❖ Champion diversity ❖ Contribute to personal health and wellness ❖ Ensure that youth are a priority ❖ Maintain and protect our facilities and programs Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 29 San Francisco, California ❖ Prioritize available subsidy to introductory level classes and programs ❖ Pursue a sustainable financial model for recreation programs and facilities The Pottery Lab contributes to the mental health and wellness of participants and offers classes for youth. But it is clear that the Department's programs focus on building competency in its participants, gaining skill through entry level classes and programs, and while teaching the ceramic arts to beginners is one important aspect of the Pottery Lab's operations, it is not the only focus. The recommendations in this report would allow for an increase in beginning students in order to keep the organization vibrant and dynamic. But the degree to which the Pottery Lab fits within these guiding principles must be resolved and articulated clearly to the public. Recommendation: Revisit the City department within which the Pottery Lab resides. Moving the Pottery Lab has been discussed by the City in its efforts to eliminate overlaps in departments, but given the current management assessment of the program, MMC believes it is worth another look. It is possible that moving the program to Library and Arts could be detrimental in funding terms; one Department interviewee questioned whether or not Library and Arts can fund operations. This should be investigated further to ensure that the Pottery Lab program is housed within and/or partners with a department whose goals and principles logically encompass the Pottery Lab. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 30 San Francisco, California CONCLUDING REMARKS For over 55 years, the Pottery Lab has been a community resource for quality instruction in the ceramic arts. The program is beloved by most that use it, but suffers from limited awareness in the greater community. At the same time, the current economic climate has impacted the Department's ability to fund the Pottery Lab program in the long-term, and as a result, fundamental changes must be made to current operations to establish the program's financial self sufficiency. This includes growing its programmatic offerings, conducting analyses of the true costs of all revenue generating areas, and adjusting operations as appropriate. Incremental short-term changes to classes and pricing might help the program break even, but the underlying flaws in the Pottery Lab facility and finances must be addressed to ensure long- term viability. MMC believes the path forward includes establishing a private nonprofit entity to partner with the Department, and securing a larger, more accessible, facility. The transition to a public-private partnership should begin immediately to ensure that additional revenues are in place before the Department's support is depleted. The Pottery Lab cannot remain a "hidden gem" if it hopes to survive. The future direction described in this report comes with inherent challenges, but if implemented with thoughtful and strategic leadership, the Pottery Lab can serve the community in even more meaningful ways. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 31 San Francisco, California APPENDICES Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 32 San Francisco, California APPENDIX A: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Kirk Kincannon, Parks and Recreation Director Teri Olander, Recreation Administrator Myriah Conroy, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Michelle Estrella, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Bob Yates, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Marcelee Gralapp, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Pottery Lab Ron Broome, Friends of the Pottery Lab Loretta Cihacek, Friends of the Pottery Lab Dan Dell Agnese, Student Ann Fontenot, Friends of the Pottery Lab Christy Gunter, Friends of the Pottery Lab Rosemary Hegarty, Instructor Kevan Krasnoff, Student Mary Jane Mortimer, Student Denise Peireanlt, Parent of Student Nancy Utterback, Program Coordinator Aaron Winston, Facility Services Assistant Community Members and Other Stakeholders Gina Earles, Studio Arts Lois Edgar, Boulder Potters Guild Donna Gartenmann, Arts Community Paul Hefron, Studio Arts Jim Lorio, Studio Arts Emilie Parker, Clay Arts Benchmark Organizations Wally Bivins, Executive Director, Pottery Northwest Lynn Gervens, Executive Director, Mudflat Pottery Studio Amy Sarner Williams, President & CEO, The Clay Studio Christopher Shainin, Executive Director, Kirkland Arts Center Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 33 San Francisco, California APPENDIX B: STUDENT SURVEY RESULTS Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 34 San Francisco, California Pottery Lab - Feedback SUrweyM©nkey 1. How would you describe your proficiency in the ceramic arts prior to taking a class at the Boulder Pottery Lab? Response Response Percent Count Beginner 76.3% 90 Intermediate 0 13.6% 16 Advanced 10.2% 12 answered question 118 skipped question 0 2. Had you taken other pottery classes before the class you took at the Pottery Lab? Response Response Percent Count Yes 40.7% 48 No 59.3% 70 answered question 118 skipped question 0 1 of 14 3. How did you feel about the class fee that you paid at the Pottery Lab? Response Response Percent Count It was too high 0 11.0% 13 It was fair 78.8% 93 1 was willing to pay more 0 10.2% 12 answered question 118 skipped question 0 4. How satisfied were you with your experience at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not satisfied at all and 5 being very satisfied] Response Response Percent Count 1 ❑ 2.6% 3 2 F-] 4.3% 5 3 0 11.1% 13 4 24.8% 29 5 57.3% 67 Please explain your answer: 65 answered question 117 skipped question 1 2of14 5. How likely are you to take another class at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not at all likely and 5 being very likely] Response Response Percent Count 1 0 12.7% 15 2 7.6% 9 3 16.9% 20 4 0 22.9% 27 5 39.8% 47 Please explain your answer: 53 answered question 118 skipped question 0 6. Do you have any other comments or feedback? Response Count 68 answered question 68 skipped question 50 Q4. How satisfied were you with your experience at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not satisfied at all and 5 being very satisfied] 1 Excellent fascility and wonderfull staff Sep 15, 2011 6:19 AM 2 My daughter enjoyed going Sep 6, 2011 8:37 AM 3 excellent teacher, facilities were fine, the open studio hours are a real benefit for Aug 30, 2011 8:45 AM those of us who have no home studio space 3of14 04. How satisfied were you with your experience at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not satisfied at all and 5 being very satisfied] 4 The teacher was fantastic and very helpful Aug 25, 2011 8:51 AM 5 The staff were accessible and VERY helpful, not just in classes but also during Aug 25, 2011 5:52 AM open hours. The facilitiy is very well organized - I took classes 15 years ago at the Lab and it was not as well organized. Clearly a lot of thought and work has gone into the place. 6 The availability of open lab times throughout the week enabled me to get a few Aug 24, 2011 10:23 PM pieces done during the duration of the class. Thank you. 7 Its an amazing facility to learn in. The staff has great depth of knowledge and Aug 24, 2011 8:20 PM experience in ceramics! 8 great staff and good glazes Aug 24, 2011 7:31 PM 9 1 felt that instructors worked hard to provide a professional atmosphere for Aug 24, 2011 2:23 PM optimal learning. High standards were maintained regarding attendance, organizing work to meet during deadlines, etc., quality of craft, as well as work area awareness. 10 My daughter loved and wants to pursue pottery- Aug 24, 2011 10:30 AM 11 Aaron was a good, patient and inspiring teacher. Aug 23, 2011 11:57 PM 12 1 learned a ton. Instructors and staff very knowledgeable and helpful. If you want Aug 23, 2011 12:25 PM all my feedback give me more space to type in next time. 13 Most of stuff went missing Aug 23, 2011 12:10 PM 14 My teacher, Chris, was amazing. Aug 23, 2011 11:40 AM 15 my kids loved it. Aug 23, 2011 10:48 AM 16 Facilities are small, crowded, and little storage for projects in progress. Aug 23, 2011 6:32 AM Instruction was spotty, and instructor was stretched thin with such a large group of students 17 1 received little to no instruction and failed to complete a single project during the Aug 22, 2011 10:29 PM class. I was incredibly disappointed that I had nothing to show for myself-and felt uncomfortable even asking the teacher for help during class. 18 1 didn't like how much time the instructor spent on demonstrations- hands on Aug 22, 2011 10:06 PM practice would have been more beneficial than watching. I also didn't like how many other students didn't watch the presentation because they seemed to feel they were more advanced. 19 too much lecture time not enough lab time Aug 22, 2011 8:41 PM 20 My son enjoyed the experience. Aug 22, 2011 8:21 PM 21 great for the price. Aug 22, 2011 8:18 PM 22 We have enjoyed the instructors for the children's pottery classes very much and Aug 22, 2011 7:58 PM 4of14 04. How satisfied were you with your experience at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not satisfied at all and 5 being very satisfied] appreciate the opportunity to take a class together as a family. 23 The Pottery Lab is a wonderful, supportive environment that fosters both love of Aug 22, 2011 7:50 PM learning as well as fellowship. It is a rare mix of talented individuals that come together as a community due to a shared interest who otherwise might never cross paths. Housewives sit down at a wheel next to university students or engineers and all are engaged in fascinating conversations about clay and technique, which then leads to more personal topics, relaxation, and connection with others. 24 Space is a bit cramped. Aug 22, 2011 7:35 PM 25 This is a phenomenal studio, great instructors and facility. Loved it! Aug 22, 2011 7:11 PM 26 A definite "in" crowd on Saturdays; kept losing pieces Aug 22, 2011 6:50 PM 27 1 thought the teacher was good and I loved the armosphere Aug 22, 2011 6:39 PM 28 Pottery lab rocks, teachers are great and the open lab hours are convenient. Aug 22, 2011 5:53 PM 29 An incredible community of artists and novices willing to share ideas, successes Aug 22, 2011 4:13 PM and failures. 30 Did not like dealing with shelves filled to capacity: hard to find my pieces, some Aug 22, 2011 2:27 PM were never found. If they broke during firing, it would be nice to know that information. 31 My daughter and I had a great time. The teacher was helpful and knowledgable. Aug 22, 2011 2:25 PM The class size was just right. 32 There is a lot of talented people with much to share and teach at the Pottery Lab, Aug 22, 2011 2:17 PM I was not very satified with the person process of my pots moving through the drying to firing stage 33 It was a good launching pad for my son and myself, but very limiting for kids and Aug 22, 2011 1:48 PM their parents.... especially after taking it for several years in a row there. 34 Not a great kids' teacher Aug 22, 2011 1:31 PM 35 Instructors were great, but not enough time to make- up missed classes, and just Aug 22, 2011 1:26 PM too many rules. 36 would have loved to have had more time per session Aug 22, 2011 1:21 PM 37 Way too cheap! And free time to use the lab?! Crazy! Aug 22, 2011 1:06 PM 38 Kids got frustrated sometime Aug 22, 2011 11:57 AM 39 cost and distance from my home in Gunbarrel were excessive Aug 22, 2011 11:35 AM 40 One of the best facilities in the country. Aug 22, 2011 11:29 AM 41 Seemed more like an already established, somewhat exclusive club. Aug 22, 2011 10:45 AM 5of14 04. How satisfied were you with your experience at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not satisfied at all and 5 being very satisfied] 42 Loved all the lab hours offered. Everyone is very friendly. Aug 22, 2011 10:28 AM 43 Presenter was very skilled and prepared Aug 22, 2011 10:28 AM 44 1 loved my instructors. The atmosphere of cooperation and support that Nancy, Aug 22, 2011 10:16 AM the director, has instituted has resulted in a caring, supportive, environment that is unique to any studio experience I have ever had- The pottery lab participants have become a community, and are not just there to throw pots. 45 My young daughter took a group class, and it was a very good class. Aug 22, 2011 9:51 AM 46 daughter never got her finished product Aug 22, 2011 9:49 AM 47 The beginners in the mixed beginner/intermediate class we took received very Aug 22, 2011 9:48 AM little instruction and guidance. 48 it wasnt clear to me who was the instructur_ I was new and the rest of the people Aug 22, 2011 9.45 AM knew their way around. I felt like I was catching up all the time.. wasnt as relaxing as I expected it... 49 It was a childrens class and both of my children enjoyed it very much Aug 22, 2011 9:31 AM 50 Nice space and supplies, especially the glazes. I did not like Nancy or the Aug 22, 2011 9:29 AM managing staff. 51 more than a class, it is a wonderful community open to share with all! Aug 22, 2011 9:26 AM 52 The staff was amazingly skilled and talented- I learned pottery and grew in my Aug 22, 2011 9:24 AM skills. 53 Instruction was not very helpful, lab in general was not very welcoming to Aug 22, 2011 9:18 AM newcomers 54 too many enrollees for the given space Aug 22, 2011 9:17 AM 55 Loved it! Aug 22, 2011 9:14 AM 56 The instructor was very effective; facilities are in good shape. Aug 22, 2011 9:11 AM 57 To many people in a small space. Aug 22, 2011 9:11 AM 58 My daughter had fun and learned basic pottery stuff. Aug 22, 2011 9:07 AM 59 Mostly very satified, until class sizes began increasing Aug 22, 2011 8:55 AM 60 My 4 year old child took a class with Aaron. It was a really wonderful experience Aug 22, 2011 8:53 AM for her. Thank you. 61 It was an awesome experience and community! Aug 22, 2011 8:53 AM 62 Aron was awesome! Aug 22, 2011 8:49 AM 63 my daughter liked it Aug 22, 2011 8:45 AM 6of14 04. How satisfied were you with your experience at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not satisfied at all and 5 being very satisfied] 64 Too long ago don't really remember Aug 22, 2011 8:44 AM 65 The instruction was very good and I was happy with this aspect. The nightmare Aug 22, 2011 8:41 AM was in retrieving the fired pots for glazing I never found several of my pots and would spend 15 minutes hunting for the pots at the beginning of each class. I've taken other classes elsewhere and never have had this problem. I hope this is the kind of feedback you are looking for. Q5. How likely are you to take another class at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not at all likely and 5 being very likely] 1 excellent teachers and facilities; good fellowship among the potters of all levels; I Aug 30, 2011 8:45 AM believe in community support for the arts--Boulder supports the recreation centers and this is just about the only art/craft center in the city that is available to the public--the private pottery labs/studios are closed to people like me who are not professionals ...we need this space and opportunity as much as gymnasts and swimmers and tennis players need theirs...we are all part of this community. 2 1 have moved to Denver since and am considering commuting for a class. I have Aug 28, 2011 8:49 AM tried other places in Denver and did not like the classes as well as I did at the Boulder Rec Center 3 It was such an enriching experience: learning, community..... Aug 25, 2011 5:52 AM 4 I'm on a very limited income, and it's difficult for me to pay for classes, but I have Aug 24, 2011 10:23 PM had such a wonderful time at the Lab that I won't let this stop me. 5 i am already signed up for the fall session Aug 24, 2011 7:31 PM 6 Excellent idea. Aug 24, 2011 2:23 PM 7 Have to wait for the end of soccer season- Aug 24, 2011 10:30 AM 8 The atmosphere and attitude at the potter lab is very conducive to creative Aug 23, 2011 11:57 PM expression. 9 If I still lived in the area I'd definitely take more classes. Aug 23, 2011 12:25 PM 10 1 have since taken smaller classes with local artists in their studio Aug 23, 2011 6:32 AM 11 Too much money, not enough hands on instruction guidance. Aug 22, 2011 10:06 PM 12 Now that he is in school full time, it is a challenge to decide which classes to do. Aug 22, 2011 8:21 PM He loved pottery, though. 13 athletic activities demanding more time. Aug 22, 2011 8:18 PM 7of14 05. How likely are you to take another class at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not at all likely and 5 being very likely] 14 1 did the mom and kid class and my kids are getting older. Aug 22, 2011 8:08 PM 15 My children will likely take a class or summer camp at the Pottery Lab, and I Aug 22, 2011 7:58 PM would like to take an adult beginner class sometime while they are in school. 16 My life would not be balanced without time with clay and friends at the Pottery Aug 22, 2011 7:50 PM Lab. 17 Already signed up for the next session. Aug 22, 2011 5:53 PM 18 1 enjoyed it so much I want to take more and my daughter saw how much I liked Aug 22, 2011 4:13 PM it and decided to take a class too. 19 No longer live in Boulder Aug 22, 2011 3:08 PM 20 perhaps I would try a different time of year (NOT November) when it might not Aug 22, 2011 2:27 PM be so crowded. 21 1 would love to take another pottery class with my younger child. Aug 22, 2011 2:25 PM 22 We find the Arvada Center offers much more for kids and even adults. If the Aug 22, 2011 1:48 PM Pottery Lab here were to follow that model, we would be more likely to come back, though there is quite a bit of snobbery in Boulder among the ceramics artists who think they are better than everyone else, and a spirit of competition and not one that is nurturing. 23 See above Aug 22, 2011 1:31 PM 24 My daughter took the class and she's not interested anymore. Aug 22, 2011 1:06 PM 25 if I have time Aug 22, 2011 12:33 PM 26 In the beginning, I had absolutely no art experience, this offered me a sort of Aug 22, 2011 12:06 PM therapy which benefited myself, my job and opening my creative side, which I never knew I had. 27 1 moved from Boulder, otherwise I would take another class. Aug 22, 2011 11:51 AM 28 cost, time and distance factor into future decisions Aug 22, 2011 11:35 AM 29 Enrolled for this Fall Aug 22, 2011 11:29 AM 30 1 was looking for actual instruction. Not just a place to work. Aug 22, 2011 10:45 AM 31 When another weekend workshop is offered Aug 22, 2011 10:28 AM 32 i am moving Aug 22, 2011 10:16 AM 33 If the current director and staff are retained I will take classes at the pottery lab Aug 22, 2011 10:16 AM for as long as I live in Boulder. If they were to change, and the atmosphere of the studio environment changed, I will undoubtably stop. 34 If time permits Aug 22, 2011 9:51 AM 8of14 05. How likely are you to take another class at the Pottery Lab? [Use a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being not at all likely and 5 being very likely] 35 depends on availability and our schedule Aug 22, 2011 9:49 AM 36 1 might take a class, but would make sure the class size was small and that it Aug 22, 2011 9:48 AM was geared only towards beginners. 37 1 don't know. I would like a more structured class... Aug 22, 2011 9:45 AM 38 1 wish that the schedule was offered to more pre teens an dteens as it is a great Aug 22, 2011 9:31 AM after school activity option through out the year.. Additionally, it has always been extreemly difficult to take a camp the one week before school starts in August, couldnt you arrange for once to have the camp offered another time in the summer besided the last week of break?? 39 Did not feel welcome, Aug 22, 2011 9:29 AM 40 what a wonderful opportunity for all ages and ablilities Aug 22, 2011 9:26 AM 41 I'm having a difficult time with all the games the park & rec. Dept have played. Aug 22, 2011 9:24 AM The pottery lab is a jem, the staff is amazing, but if the dept. keeps trying to destroy it I don't want to be apart of it. My life and career are stressful enough - the lab is my recreation. I'm loosing the desire to be there with all the added stress and I can't afford any higher fees. 42 Did not enjoy my experience, not worth the money Aug 22, 2011 9:18 AM 43 left in middle of session - facilities are too crowded for # people in class Aug 22, 2011 9:17 AM 44 1 may sign up for another class later this year. Aug 22, 2011 9:11 AM 45 Prices have gone up to much. Aug 22, 2011 9:11 AM 46 depends upon my daughter's interests. Aug 22, 2011 9:07 AM 47 parking is difficult. Aug 22, 2011 9:06 AM 48 Depends. Need more space, or fewer people per class Aug 22, 2011 8:55 AM 49 1 would totally take another class if I lived in Boulderl I am in Illinnois now, but if Aug 22, 2011 8:53 AM we return, I will be back! 50 Great as a family - wish there were more "family" options Aug 22, 2011 8:49 AM 51 class is good but it's too far from Louisville where we live Aug 22, 2011 8:45 AM 52 Too busy with other activities Aug 22, 2011 8:44 AM 53 If I lived in Boulder (I live in Estes Park) and was able to use the open hours Aug 22, 2011 8:36 AM more, it would have been more worth it. Q6. Do you have any other comments or feedback? 1 It's probably obvious that I am a really avid supporter of the arts, especially those Aug 30, 2011 8:45 AM 9of14 06. Do you have any other comments or feedback? available to the community including children, handicapped, seniors, and others. When I needed hand therapy, there was no other available place for such pottery in the city. Plus, the costs of the lab may be high but the facility can't be so costly as the rec center per user.... this lab and the associated classes and studio space are one of the few arts/crafts facilities open to the public in Boulder and belong, importantly, in the community roster of recreation/re-creation facilities. Please keep it public ...if it becomes privatized, many of us will be forced or fazed out, I'm sure. 2 1 have immensely enjoyed my experience at the pottery lab, I like the people, Aug 28, 2011 7:53 PM students, staff and I have learned a lot. My 93 yr old mother has taken classes at the pottery lab also and love it. It is very important to me, my family and community. 3 Everything about the class was fun. Aaron was a great teacher! Aug 28, 2011 7:06 PM 4 1 really loved Nancy's teaching style! Aug 28, 2011 8:49 AM 5 1 took a class with Aaron. He was great! Aug 26, 2011 9:01 AM 6 1 really enjoyed the uniqueness of the facility. Aug 25, 2011 8:51 AM 7 THe pottery lab is an amazing place that serves a wide variety of people: a Aug 25, 2011 5:52 AM range of ages, a range of socio-economic status.... It contributes to Boulder's sense of community. It contributes to the arts in Boulder, making arts more of a participatory event. I cannot stress how helpful the staff have been. The only glich was when one staff left and there was a hiatus in getting his work covered (especially firing kilns), but the remaining staff worked hard to not have it impact the students. 8 1 am very happy with the beginner pottery course I took, with all the great people Aug 24, 2011 10:23 PM I met, and with what I learned while creating a few pieces of pottery. I can hardly wait for the next class to begin! Please let me know what actions I can take to ensure that the Pottery Lab continues to be a wonderful resource for the community. 9 The pottery lab is the gem of the city of Boulder. I have taken classes here since Aug 24, 2011 8:20 PM I was a child and my children have also taken classes here. I hope the City of Boulder will continue to support this unique facility. There are so many lives touched by this program - it needs to survive and prosper!!!! 10 1 have taken clay classes at the Arvada Center and they are considerably more Aug 24, 2011 7:31 PM reasonable. 11 1 love my Wed night class! This is my 3ed year. Aaron is a wonderful teacher!! Aug 24, 2011 5:21 PM 12 At the risk of sounding repetitive, I just want to add that pottery is probably the Aug 24, 2011 2:23 PM most therapeutic of all handiwork crafts and is on par with just about any other meditative type of practice for its aid in increasing healing and focusing attributes. 13 My daughter (Age 10) takes the classes and enjoys them very much Aug 24, 2011 11:06 AM 14 The pottery lab provides great opportunities for the youth to expand their artistic Aug 24, 2011 10:30 AM background. 10 of 14 06. Do you have any other comments or feedback? 15 The Pottery Lab is a wonderful part of our community and we are very happy Aug 23, 2011 11:57 PM with our experience! 16 The staff manage and administer a variety of classes very well that teach quality Aug 23, 2011 12:25 PM ceramics fundamentals to kids, teens, adults, and mentally challenged customers. They do so efficiently as can be with the space and apparent budget constraints they are given. I give two thumbs up to the management of the pottery lab and support their efforts as a former student and as a former paying customer. 17 Please keep this program going. It is truly fantastic. Aug 23, 2011 11:40 AM 18 Aaron is a fantastic instructor- knowledgeable, but encouraged us to use our Aug 23, 2011 7:24 AM own creativity. Taught good techniques, and made the class feel fun--not at all stressful! 19 While quaint ( and very close to my house) the firehouse house is too small- I Aug 23, 2011 6:32 AM think the program has outgrown the building. 20 This is truly a wonderful program. If the rates need to be a bit higher it would be Aug 23, 2011 12:05 AM worth it, but please don't increase them terribly much. I'd like to take more classes with my son, and we do have a limited budget. 21 1 would have seriously appreciated a refund or free entrance to another class. Aug 22, 2011 10:29 PM Any instruction i received during my class came from fellow classmates who had a minute to spare, and much more experience than 1 22 The studio seemed to be a little cliquey with people who had clearly been there Aug 22, 2011 10:06 PM for a while and had established their own rhetoric. Not so inviting for a first timer. 23 This lab is great and a wonderful community resource. Thank you for continuing Aug 22, 2011 8:18 PM to offer classes. 24 1 live in Boulder county so I paid about $50. more than the people in the city paid. Aug 22, 2011 8:13 PM That's why I thought the price was to high. 25 We LOVE the Pottery Lab! Aug 22, 2011 7:58 PM 26 The Pottery Lab costs money, but it provides a community resource that is not Aug 22, 2011 7:50 PM found anywhere else in the city: a public facility where people of all ages, means, skills, as well as physical and mental ability can come together to share a common passion. It needs to continue as a public, affordable institution or a resource will be lost that cannot be replaced. 27 1 think the lab is a great asset. It is particularly great for families. Aug 22, 2011 7:43 PM 28 Like the classes at the Boulder Guild Aug 22, 2011 6:50 PM 29 My two boys, ages 7 and 8 did the clay camp two years in a row, and they loved Aug 22, 2011 6:28 PM it!! Thank you for giving them such a rewarding and peaceful experience! 30 great program for my kids! Aug 22, 2011 6:27 PM 31 This is an incredible resource. I was impressed by the mix of community Aug 22, 2011 4:13 PM members (CU students to retired business folk) all creating together. I found this especially impressive being that it was so near campus where there can be 11 of 14 06. Do you have any other comments or feedback? conflicts between students and residents, but no sign of that at the Pottery Lab! It was a great mix of the Boulder community. 32 The pottery lab classes for teens are a treasure. It was the highlight of my Aug 22, 2011 3:31 PM daughter's summer. Thank you for offering it. The instructor and entire experience was excellent. (Also, as for answer #3 about cost I was pleased it was affordable as we are budgeting, but I suppose I would have been willing to pay more as we value the class so highly and would hate to see it go away.) 33 This was a very important place for me while in college. As CU students, we Aug 22, 2011 3:08 PM could only take ceramics after a year of art history. 34 Can't wait until the next session. Aug 22, 2011 3:04 PM 35 Instruction was good and people working there independently were generally Aug 22, 2011 2:27 PM very nice - sometimes helpful if asked. It worked amazingly well to have all levels of potters together in the same space. Although the firehouse has character, the program would benefit if moved to a larger space. 36 The pottery lab is a wonderful and integral part of our community. It really Aug 22, 2011 2:25 PM provides everyone with an opportunity to explore their artistic endeavors. 37 We wish we could take classes here that were more like those at the Arvada Aug 22, 2011 1:48 PM Center (parent/child classes there). There, the teachers are totally supportive and helpful; they let kids try anything, even making a 24-inch tall sculpture. Kids and parents can use any glaze, glaze their own pieces, etc. In Boulder, we are limited even in the amount of clay we are allowed to use--and we can only use terra cotta. It is not a place folks can grow, sadly. 38 1 appreciate the open lab hours, but it would be great if there were more evening Aug 22, 2011 1:26 PM times. 39 1 did a class with my child so I wasn't expecting to become a master potter. The Aug 22, 2011 1:06 PM class was appropriate for the description. If I were trying to really get skills at pottery I would be willing to pay more and/or seek classes with a private organization. 40 The Pottery Lab is a wonderful place. The current manager of the pottery lab is Aug 22, 2011 12:30 PM not so wonderful. I would like to see the Pottery lab continue in the same vein as it is, but with the manager replaced, either with Aaron Winston (who knows the lab well and would be very good and willing to improve things) or someone else. 41 In the beginning, I believed it was financially affordable, but has been raised over Aug 22, 2011 12:06 PM fifty dollars more since I began. 42 My only complaint was that there was never a single piece of communication Aug 22, 2011 12:00 PM and most of my pieces that I worked so hard on were thrown away. I am sure my teacher told me to write some little note about it, but there was no signage about the closing of the lab over a break and nothing about "recycling" our pottery if it didn't have a note on it before break. I haven't cried in a long time, but that made me cry and I was very angry. 43 1 really like location - very historic, cozy (especially) in winter, unique site, has a Aug 22, 2011 11:57 AM special vibe. 44 1 hope we will continue to have the Pottery Lab as it is a beneficial part of the city Aug 22, 2011 11:35 AM 12 of 14 06. Do you have any other comments or feedback? programs 45 This should be privately owned. The city is subsidizing a club for mostly the Aug 22, 2011 10:45 AM same group of people. 46 Please notify me when you schedule another weekend workshop. Thank you. Aug 22, 2011 10:28 AM 47 They do a great job with the resources they have. This town needs the pottery Aug 22, 2011 10:16 AM lab! 48 As a newer resident to Boulder (4 years) I don't understand all the background Aug 22, 2011 10:16 AM and contention that seems to exist between the Parks and Rec and the Pottery Lab. It almost seems at times vindictive and directed at the very people who make the pottery lab what it is_ I can not imagine what that place would be like without Nancy's (and her staffs) particular guidance. Though I have been in many other studio situations, this has been my first experience with pottery. The caring, supportive, environment has been unique in my experience. It almost goes without saying that Nancy is incredibly talented as an artist, but she is by far the best overall arts teacher I have ever had. If she were to leave I would most certainly leave too. I can take pottery classes anywhere, and fortunately for me I can afford to. I choose to continue at the Pottery Lab because I love going there, I love the clay, I love the old building with all it's issues (despite the fact that my child is disabled and requires significant help on those scary stairs. Where is the elevator?); and I love the community. Isn't community part of what you are trying to foster through Parks and Rec? I've already signed up for the two sessions that go through the end of the year and at that time when decisions are reached about management of the Pottery Lab I'll make my decision about anymore. This isn't an attempt at extortion, it's just how I feel about the issue. Thank you for asking for my input. 49 1 think the pottery lab is a fabulous city facility that is a major asset to the Aug 22, 2011 9:51 AM community. 50 Maybe more assistants might have addressed the problem. Or assistants that Aug 22, 2011 9:48 AM were really assisting instead of working on their own projects. 51 My son, Max, age 6, loved the classes! Aug 22, 2011 9:40 AM 52 My son, age 6, took the pottery class and loved it. The instructor gave a the kids Aug 22, 2011 9:32 AM a great introduction to working with clay, and my son was very proud of his finished pottery pieces. I know he would like to take another class this fall. 53 See above Aug 22, 2011 9:31 AM 54 1 felt that it was almost like an exclusive club, hard to feel welcome in the Aug 22, 2011 9:29 AM environment. But the equipment and supplies are very good. Need a new staff. 55 parents should try exploring with their children here what a wonderful way to Aug 22, 2011 9:26 AM experience your child's perspective, by learning together 56 1 miss the pottery lab that I have grown to love and be nurtured in my abilities. It Aug 22, 2011 9:24 AM seems like another example of big government and P & R can't seem to see that Boulder is a prime location to have its programing grow. Be an example to the rest of the world of how to make a difference in government - grow, be strong and thrive. Stop hurting the people while city leaders get richer and continue to make unnecessary cuts. When the older money of Bldr. stops where is the 13 of 14 06. Do you have any other comments or feedback? money going to come from if you get rid of all the programing. Bad decisions are being made. I asked 10 years ago what the city was going to do to keep small business owners in boulder and for the middle class to want to live there. Well, you didn't do anything - I am one who's business is going elsewhere, because its not worth it to stay in Boulder. This is one of the only recreational programs that anybody regardless of age or ability that the city has. Please city council - make a difference. 57 When you say you're going to offer a class for people of all levels, experiences, Aug 22, 2011 9:18 AM etc-, you should make sure that the instructor is willing to do that. It was a waste of time to sit through the demonstrations and those who didn't need instruction on certain things wasted an hour of their class waiting to be allowed to work again. The open lab hours we also not accommodating to those who work full- time. The price was way too high for the amount of time spent in class. It would make more sense to pay a flat fee for the class and a separate fee for the amount of clay used. 58 The Boulder Pottery Lab is a wonderful environment for all ages to learn, have Aug 22, 2011 9:16 AM fun, and interact with experienced potters. 59 Great class, great instructor, great students. Really enjoyed creating the pieces. Aug 22, 2011 9:14 AM 60 When I took my class, the staff were all very helpful and supportive. It was a fun Aug 22, 2011 9:11 AM and rewarding experience. 61 My daughter enjoyed the class but wasn't wowed by it. Aug 22, 2011 9:07 AM 62 Space and parking could be improved. Aug 22, 2011 9:05 AM 63 1 moved to Thailand but I wish I could teleport to a pottery class in Boulder Aug 22, 2011 8:55 AM 64 Took many classes. Last time, there were a lot more people, and lots of my stuff Aug 22, 2011 8:55 AM went missing or showed up damaged after being missing. Above a certain number of people in that space, and rules were ignored. My last session of the many I did was not much fun. 65 1 am glad we have a pottery lab Aug 22, 2011 8:51 AM 66 1 don't remember what I paid for the class, so I can't really comment on the price. Aug 22, 2011 8:44 AM Also, we LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the historic fire station and encourage you to preserve it regardless of any changes to the pottery lab's classes- It's one of the most interesting, charming, and beautiful buildings in Boulder. 67 We took a children's class; it was a great introduction to pottery. The kids loved Aug 22, 2011 8:39 AM it, I was really happy with the instruction and the class space was good. 68 Good staff, good atmosphere. Aug 22, 2011 8:36 AM 14 of 14 APPENDIX C: BENCHMARK STUDY What follows is an overview of four ceramics programs selected by MMC for their variety in size, scope, programming, and operations. This is not intended as a group of comparable organizations; rather, their differing approaches offer myriad examples of potential future directions for the Pottery Lab. Included are The Clay Studio, a relatively large organization with expansive on-site and outreach programs; Kirkland Arts Center, a multidisciplinary arts organization with a substantial ceramics program; Mudflat Pottery Studio, a growing ceramics organization with a new facility; and Pottery Northwest, a ceramics program close in budget and facility size to the Pottery Lab. For a comparison of the four benchmark organizations, see the Benchmark Organizations section. W kn = 1 The Clay Studio Philadelphia, Pennsylvania U www.theclaystudio.org SHAPING THE FIITIIRF nF Mission: To promote and develop the ceramic arts and the work of new clay artists. History: The Clay Studio (Studio) was founded in 1974 by five artists in need of workspace. It was envisioned as a stepping stone for students fresh out of art school, offering affordable studio space and shared equipment. Within a short time, the Studio shifted from an inward focus to an outward educational and community focus. The Studio was incorporated as a nonprofit in 1979. Today the Studio's programs are geared toward promoting access to the ceramic arts for all levels of interest and proficiency. Its Claymobile program, which travels throughout the region, has become a local and national model for art educational outreach. The Studio is both a community oriented art center and a national and international focal point for ceramic arts. Facility: The Studio is in the final third of a 30-year lease on the 15,000 square foot building in Philadelphia's Old City neighborhood. It is a vital part of the neighborhood, having taken a leadership role in the revitalization of the area through the development of its own multi-use arts building and the promotion of the Old City gallery district. Users: Approximately 32,000 people engage with the Studio each year, including 1,500 students on-site, 1,800 students through outreach activities, and 65 in-house artists. The majority of the Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 49 San Francisco, California Studio's audience is college-educated and/or active/retired professionals. Research shows that 65% are female and 35% are male, with 96% residing in Center City or the surrounding suburbs. Further, 70% fall between the ages of 25-64, and 8% are over 65, with 25% falling in the low-to- moderate income bracket, while 75% are middle-to-upper income. Programs: The Studio's programs include: • Clay classes, workshops, and kids camps (see below) • Social hands-on events, such as Date Night (see below) • Claymobile outreach program in schools, community centers, etc. (see below) • Gallery exhibitions • Retail offerings in the shop • Artist residencies and international guest artist residencies • Work exchange professional development • Lectures, gallery talks, tours, etc. Classes Clay classes are offered over four semesters each year. All but the summer semester are 10- weeks in duration; the summer semester is eight weeks long. Classes meet once per week. • Adult classes cost $295 for 10 sessions, with each class lasting three hours • There are no classes targeted at teens and pre-teens • Parent and child workshops are $35; half-day, week-long camps for children are $165 • Class fees include glazes and firings, and unlimited access to the studio during open lab hours. Clay must be purchased at the Studio; it costs $14 per 25 pound bag. Tools can be purchased at the Studio's tool store. Studio Passport For those with prior experience who want to utilize the studio space without taking a class, there is the Studio Passport, which allows access to all open studios. Each studio is overseen by a monitor. No technical demonstrations are included. The Studio Passport is limited to returning intermediate and advanced students. The fee is $280, a 5% discount on the full class price; this price is further reduced for members. Samplers, Date Night, and First Fridays The Studio's President and CEO, Amy Sarner Williams, notes that time and cost are the biggest barriers to participation in one of the Studio's classes. To address this, a number of shorter, introductory offerings are presented: Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 50 San Francisco, California • The five-week mini Clay Studio Sampler teaches students a new technique each week. The class costs $195, compared to $295 for a full 10-week session. • Date Night ("get a little dirty on a Friday night!") is a two-hour class offered once per month at $35 per person. Beer, wine, and snacks are provided. For an additional fee, the Studio will glaze, fire, and ship the resulting work to the student. • The Studio stays open from 5 to 9 pm as part of First Fridays. Each time, 1,200 to 1,800 people visit the Studio. On select First Fridays, contact information is collected for small groups who are guided through a free, hands-on project, such as making a ceramic ornament, to introduce them to ceramics. Claymobile Started in 1994, the Claymobile is the Studio's award-winning mobile ceramic art program that partners with schools, community based organizations, and social service agencies in greater Philadelphia to bring hands-on art education to some of the region's most underserved communities. Staffed by artists with expertise in ceramics and experience teaching in diverse settings, the Claymobile van contains all of the equipment and materials needed to turn any classroom into a ceramics studio. A Claymobile Residency includes a series of weekly ceramics classes led by a professional clay artist and assistant. The residency length is usually 6-12 weeks and costs $2,400 (for 6 weeks). For those who cannot afford the full fee, partially to fully subsidized residencies are offered. The program costs about $250,000 per year, including staffing and overhead; that sum is offset by grants, making the program break even. The Claymobile program serves nearly 2,000 low income and minority K-12 students annually (75% African American, 8% Caucasian, 13% Latino, 3% Asian); 75% of these children have never had any form of art education. Since 1994, the program has partnered with over 280 regional institutions, and has grown to become a core part of the Studio's educational mission. Gallery/Shop The Studio's on-site shop was expanded in 2007 to 700 square feet, with direct street access. The shop complements the Gallery, which is a "lost leader"; it does not break even. As such, the organization has put a great amount of work into building the shop, including an online shop, where over 100 artists are shown. The artist receives half of the sale proceeds. All membership discounts are absorbed by the Studio, none by the artist. Governance: The Clay Studio is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization governed by a Board of Directors. There are 12 full-time and one part-time staff members, as well as 14 volunteers. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 51 San Francisco, California Operating Budget: The operating budget is approximately $1.5 million. The charts below show a healthy balance between earned and contributed income, with slightly more dependence on earned sources, such as classes. The organization is considering an upcoming capital campaign to raise $5 million for the purchase of a new building with additional space. In order to raise the necessary funds, the Board will be further developed to ensure the resources are in place to complete the campaign. The Clay Studio Income and Expenses Income by Source Expenses by Category Government Investment Marketing & Other, 2% FIR, 5% Grants,7% Income, 0% Personnel Contributed Classes & 33% Income, 35% Programs, 31% Earned Admin & Income, 58% Facility, 14% J Development, 16/ Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 52 San Francisco, California Kirkland Arts Center lac Kirkland, Washington www.kirklandartscenter.org KIRKLAND CENTER Mission: Kirkland Arts Center (KAC) provides exemplary visual arts education in a dynamic, community culture. The cornerstone ceramic arts program attracts artists from the Northwest and further afield who share their expertise with students and teachers, and the Gallery's accessible, contemporary art exhibitions showcase innovative works that stimulate a lively public dialogue. History: KAC was founded as the Creative Arts League in 1962 by a group of artists and citizens interested in providing local opportunities in the arts and concerned about the preservation of a Kirkland landmark, the Peter Kirk Building. From the beginning, the KAC has been a community-driven enterprise, and everything they do today is about the community of arts. For over 49 years, the KAC has owned and maintained this historic structure and transformed it into an exhibition gallery, community arts studio, and education facility serving students of all ages and skill levels. Facility: Built in 1892, the Peter Kirk Building is three floors, 9,000 square feet, and is listed on the City of Kirkland Register and National Register of Historic Places. The building includes a Print Studio and a fully-outfitted Ceramics Studio. The Ceramics Studio is 1,200 square feet; an additional 600 square feet is used as a resident ceramic artist studio. Users: About 6,000 youth and adults utilize the KAC each year. According to Christopher Shainin, KAC's Executive Director, the average student is a woman in her 40s with children just out of school. Programs: KAC's programs include: • Visual art classes for ages four and up, including ceramics, painting, printmaking, drawing, and mixed media (see below) • Contemporary art exhibitions in the KAC Gallery (see below) • Resident Ceramic Artists program • Outreach programs, including Art Opens Doors (art classes, camps, and workshops for underserved youths) and Jump Start (free art classes for those who have lost their jobs due to the recession) Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 53 San Francisco, California Classes Clay classes take place over four quarters. Class price depend on length and materials needed: • Adult classes for beginners cost $280 for eight weeks of instruction, with one, three- hour class per week. Classes for intermediate and advanced adults cost $340 for 10 weeks of instruction; each class is three hours. • Teen and pre-teen classes cost $270 for nine weeks of instruction. Each class is two and one half hours. • Class fees include 25 pounds of clay, glazes, firing, and open studio time. Additional clay can be purchased at $10 per 25 pound bag. lntensives and Workshops The intensives are typically for continuing students in December. Introducing ceramics to children is important, as well as offering classes with limited commitment. KAC offers a series of workshops for this purpose. Topics include wheel throwing, handbuilding, and ceramics in general. Each class includes four, three-hour sessions for a price of $215 (compared with $280 for a beginner class). Gallery The KAC Gallery exhibits contemporary art and ideas, with a focus on emerging artists and curators, encouraging the development of new and innovative work. Through exhibitions and public programs, KAC Gallery nourishes experimentation, collaboration, and discourse in an effort to deepen our cultural understanding and experience. Exhibition programming includes an annual Members' Exhibit, annual Emerging Curator Initiative exhibition, a biennial ceramics exhibition, and a biennial KAC instructors' exhibition. Additionally, the KAC Gallery coordinates more than 20 satellite exhibitions annually at Kirkland City Hall, Kirkland Performance Center, Kirkland Public Library, and Evergreen Hospital. Since the exhibitions are free to the public, the Exhibitions program does not break even. Governance & Personnel: KAC is a private nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization governed by a Board of Directors. In addition, three council groups advise the organization: • Advisory Council: professionals, community leaders, and past KAC Board members who provide advice and support, and work to expand KAC's reach in the community • Guidance Council: a capacity-building body of community leaders and professionals who provide expertise and services that inform and advise KAC's leadership • Creative Council: a body of leading curators and artists who provide expertise and advice to KAC's Exhibitions Director Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 54 San Francisco, California KAC employs four full-time and three part-time staff. The staff is augmented by 10 lead volunteers and interns, as well as another 200 volunteers. Operating Budget: KAC's operating budget is approximately $715,000, with a healthy balance of revenue derived from both earned and contributed sources. Kirkland Arts Center Income and Expenses Income by Source Expenses by Category Government Investment Marketing & Other, 0% Grants, 1%~ Income, 0% PR 2°% Personnel, Contributed Classes & 40°% Earned Income, 41% Programs, Income, 40°% 58% Admin & Facility, 10% Development 8°% Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 55 San Francisco, California MUD ~ Mudflat Pottery Studio Somerville, Massachusetts 1== I- JON-111- www.mudflat.org Mission: To promote and expand awareness and interest in the ceramic arts History: Mudflat Pottery Studio was founded in 1971 by local artists in search of work space. Since its grassroots start in a small, 2,000 square foot facility, the organization has continually transformed itself. Its move to a second location in Cambridge saw an increase in square footage to 4,000 and a budget of approximately $20,000; the focus remained studio artists, with a few class offerings and outreach programs. The third move took place in the mid-1980s, when Mudflat moved to an 8,000 square foot, two-floor facility in Somerville. During this time, Mudflat began to shift its focus to put more emphasis on its classes for adults and children, as well as outreach to children and seniors. Mudflat is in the midst of another transition, having purchased and moved into a new 16,000 square foot facility in 2011. The organization was running at full capacity and felt the need for more space, greater accessibility for the disabled, and the ability to better serve students and artists. With successful classes and programs, Mudflat was able to save $1 million in surplus revenue; along with a grant from the Massachusetts Cultural Council for $300,000, their financial position allowed them to pursue this growth plan. Mudflat's Executive Director, Lynn Gervens, notes that the larger facility was desired to "have a higher quality workspace," not merely to fit in more classes and increase revenues. Today, Mudflat is engaged in its first semester in its new space; they are finishing a strategic plan, and looking toward increases in staff to fully build-out its new operations. Facility: The facility is a 16,000 square foot former movie theater; Mudflat purchased the building from the City of Somerville. The Mudflat facility includes four classrooms; a seminar room for presentations, lectures, and visiting artist workshops; and 18 studio spaces for 34 clay artists. Users: Approximately 300 adults and children use Mudflat on-site, and another 250 children engage with the organization through their outreach activities off-site. The audience consists of adults from age 18 to 80, from numerous communities in the greater Boston area, but primarily Boston, Somerville, and Cambridge. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 56 San Francisco, California Programs: Mudflat's programs include: • Clay classes in wheelthrowing, handbuilding, sculpture, and technical topics (see below) • Workshops, including visiting artists, one day introductions, and slide presentations; workshops for parents and children together • Studio rentals for 34 professional clay artists (Resident Artists and Associate Artists) • One-year artist residency • Outreach programs, such as afterschool clay classes, field trips for school groups, and clay classes at senior centers and local schools • Sale of artist work at the Mudflat Gallery (see below) Classes Clay classes are offered over three semesters each year, with each semester lasting 14 weeks. Classes meet once per week. There is an additional three-week semester in August, in which classes meet twice per week for six sessions. • Adult classes cost $525 for 14 sessions, with each class lasting three hours • Teen and pre-teen classes cost $250, and children's $195. These classes are 10 weeks long, with each class lasting two hours. • Class fees include 25 pounds of clay, glazes, and firings, and unlimited access to the studio during open lab hours. Additional clay can be purchased for $23 per 25 pound bag; tools can be purchased for $20. Students cannot purchase more than six additional bags of clay in order to avoid the studio being used for production work. Independent Study For those with prior experience who want to utilize the studio space without taking a class, Mudflat offers Independent Study each semester and during the August Semester. For a reduced price ($500 for a full semester, $210 for August Semester), students have unlimited access to the studio during open lab time. Membership discounts apply to Independent Study as well. Gallery Mudflat Gallery showcases claywork by 47 Mudflat artists, faculty, and students off-site at the Porter Square Shopping Center, about one mile away from the Studio. The Gallery is 400 square feet and is shared with a craft cooperative, although each group has separate space. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 57 San Francisco, California Governance & Personnel: Mudflat is an educational nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization governed by a Board of Directors. There are two full-time and 13 part-time paid employees, along with 10 volunteers. Operating Budget: The operating budget is in a state of transition as the organization grows into its new facility. The Executive Director estimates an operating budget of $750,000 that will grow to $1 million when fully operational. In the past, Mudflat has relied almost entirely on earned income, which constituted 95% of all revenues. Prior to the new facility, fundraising involved solicitations for specific projects, not general operating support. With the new facility and enhanced operations, fundraising for operations has become a greater focus, as is reflected in the chart below. Mudflat Pottery Studio Income and Expenses Income by Soruce Expenses by Category Government Investment Marketing & Other, 2% Grants, 2% Income, 0% PR, 3% Contributed Personnel Income, 33% Classes & 38% Programs 26% Earned Income, 65% Facility, 8% Admin & Development 23% Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 58 San Francisco, California Pottery Northwest Seattle, Washington www.potterynorthwest.org Mission: To develop and promote excellence in the ceramic arts History: Pottery Northwest originated as The Seattle Clay Club, an organization founded by a group of ceramics enthusiasts who traveled from Seattle to Montana to attend classes at the Archie Bray Foundation. Since its incorporation as a nonprofit in 1966, Pottery Northwest has served as an educational resource for community classes, professional workshops, and exhibitions with nationally and internationally recognized artists in the field. One of its most important functions is to serve as a professional facility for those with a serious commitment to ceramics as they prepare to establish their own studio. Toward that end, a vibrant artist residency program was established approximately five years ago, adding new energy and expertise to Pottery Northwest. Facility: Pottery Northwest is a resident organization of the Seattle Center complex, which is home to more than 30 cultural, education, sports, and entertainment organizations. Their studio is 3,500 square feet; office, bathroom, and kiln space is in additional space nearby. Pottery Northwest's Executive Director, Wally Bivins, noted that, "The most demanding thing in ceramics is real estate." Although the tools and equipment are relatively inexpensive, they require a significant amount of space. Bivins described Pottery Northwest's studio as "quite luxurious," with two large class areas and a separate space (although no separating walls) for each artist in residence. At the same time, the organization has pursued a larger facility; for 10 years, Pottery Northwest was in negotiations for a space within a former naval property being given to the city. Pottery Northwest was to sublet the space from the University of Washington, but the parties did not come to agreement and abandoned the project in 2006. Bivins explains that increased space is always a consideration, but at this time, the trade-off required in the quality of the experience for students and artists is not worth the increased facility size and potential increase in revenue. Users: Approximately 7,000 people participate in Pottery Northwest's classes and programs each year. Users include students, art patrons, tourists, drop-ins, and professionals in the field. Resident artists are on a professional track, while 98% of students in Pottery Northwest classes are recreational and only 2% are serious students. Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 59 San Francisco, California Programs: Pottery Northwest's programs include: • Clay classes for adults (see below) • Workshops • Artist Residencies (see below)) • Gallery exhibitions and sales (see below) Classes Clay classes are offered over four semesters each year, with each semester 10 weeks in duration. • Adult classes cost $350 for 10, three-hour sessions. • Class fees include 25 pounds of clay, glazes, firing, and open lab time. Students have access to the studio almost 24 hours per day, whenever classes are not in session. A security system allows students to know if someone will be on-site. Additional clay can be purchased at $15 per 25 pound bag. Tools can be purchased for $15. In order to reflect the true cost of producing a class, Pottery Northwest has doubled its class fees in the last five years. The fee includes a 100% markup on the clay, which covers the firing fee as well. Enrollment has increased since the price increase. Adults are the focus of Pottery Northwest. Occasional workshops or intensives are offered for younger people, but there is no youth curriculum. They experimented with a mobile outreach program ("pottery on wheels"), but the economy and school budgets made the program not viable. Artist Residencies Five years ago, Pottery Northwest eliminated its Studio Potter program and replaced it with a smaller, but more robust Artist Residency program. Ten artists are chosen through an application process for a residency of six months to two years. Residents pay a studio fee, but if they teach at Pottery Northwest, the fee is waived. Bivins says the residents "are incredibly valuable as faculty." He says the residency program has "made a huge difference in the studio; a residency program provides a transfusion of new energy every few years." Gallery Pottery Northwest has two gallery spaces, which alternate between exhibitions and studio space. The Gallery exhibits and sells the work of Pottery Northwest students, resident artists, and guest artists. Bivins said that the Gallery has "undersold itself" in the past and is not a Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 60 San Francisco, California significant source of income, but it is an important part of Pottery Northwest's mission for service and education. It is a connection to the larger community that is being developed as a stronger business unit. The location is a challenge, as most people coming to the Seattle Center are there for an event, not to shop; as such, approximately 90% of gallery sales occur at Pottery Northwest opening receptions. Governance & Personnel: Pottery Northwest is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization governed by a Board of Directors. The Board continues to grow and evolve from its grassroots origin to a focus on advocacy and fundraising. Pottery Northwest is led by one full-time and two part-time staff; they are supplemented by 40 volunteers. Operating Budget: The current operating budget is approximately $260,000, of which 72% is derived through earned sources, such as classes, workshops, and gallery sales. Fundraising is relatively new for Pottery Northwest and currently includes one major event each year, grants from foundations, and donations from individuals. Contributed revenue continues to grow as the Board is becoming more involved in fundraising efforts. As Bivins notes, "Fundraising allows us to do more of everything." Pottery Northwest Income and Expenses Revenue by Source Expenses by Category Government Investment Marketing & o Income 0% Income, 1% Classes APR, % Other, 0% Program 21% Personnel, Contributed 36% In come, 27% Facility, 24% Earned Admin & Income, 72% Development, 15% Museum Management Consultants, Inc. 61 San Francisco, California CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD INFORMATION ITEM MEETING DATE: November 28, 2011 (FORMATION ITEM AGENDA TITLE: Eben G. Fine Creek Restoration Project PRESENTERS: Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator Annie Noble, Greenways Coordinator Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager Mike Lamb, Parks and Recreation Project Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Parks and Recreation and Greenways staff are completing the concept phase of a stream bank restoration project in Eben G. Fine Park. The project is focused on the area along the south bank of Boulder Creek, between the park's two pedestrian bridges and north of the northern sidewalk. See Attachment A: Project Area Map. Input on the project goals and three concept designs was solicited from the public at two sets of open houses. Based on the input received a preferred concept design and cost estimate have been developed. See Attachment B: Preferred Alternative and Cost Estimate. Staff is requesting feedback from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) on the preferred alternative and possible funding sources for the project. ANALYSIS: The area of Eben G. Fine Park, between the park's pedestrian bridges and north of the northern sidewalk, is currently a high use area devoid of ground cover with unlimited creek access. Under these conditions native understory vegetation and habitat do not exist. The lack of ground cover is causing stream bank erosion and increased sediment loading to Boulder Creek, creating negative impacts on water quality and stream habitat and resulting in the stream bank being unappealing to park users. To address these problems, greenways staff, in coordination with parks and recreation staff is completing the concept stages of a stream bank restoration project in Eben G. Fine Park. This project will provide habitat and recreation improvements to the park area located north of the north sidewalk between the park's two pedestrian bridges through implementing the following project goals. Project Goals: • Control Erosion • Improve Water Quality • Improve Habitat AGENDA ITEM # VI-B PAGE 1 • Improve Recreation Access • Enhance Park Character These project goals, as well as exhibits depicting the current uses and conditions of the park were presented at a May 2011 open house. Feedback on how people use the park and preferred methods of habitat restoration was collected. The feedback received generally supported the development of a habitat restoration project with an emphasis on a natural esthetic that matched the existing park character. A summary of the open house feedback can be found in Attachment C: Open House Feedback. Based on the feedback received from the May 2011 open house, three concepts restoration plans were developed. The three concepts can be found in Attachment D: Three Concepts. These concepts were presented at two August 2011 open houses. Feedback on which concepts people preferred, as well preferred recreation amenities, habitat barriers and surface treatments was collected. The feedback that was received generally supported providing protected habitat restoration areas, maintaining the picnic areas, and providing picnic and recreation access with naturalistic surface treatments capable of withstanding the amount of traffic the area experiences. A summary of the open house feedback can be found in Attachment B: Open House Feedback. Based on the feedback received at the two August 2011 open houses, and input from parks and recreation and greenways staff on project maintainability and best approaches to habitat restoration a preferred alternative and cost estimate have been developed. These can be found in Attachment B: Preferred Alternative and Cost Estimate. Next Steps: Greenways and Parks and Recreation Staff will develop a site plan of the preferred alternative and finalize the cost estimate based on feedback received from the PRAB. Funding for the design and construction of the project has not been secured. Possible grant funding sources will be researched and an evaluation of which grants the project may qualify for will be developed. Opportunities to phase the project will also be explored in an effort to move forward with elements of the project, given limited funding opportunities through the Greenways Capital Improvement Program budget. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Requested Action: Based on the PRAB's review and evaluation of the project goals, three original concepts, open house feedback, preferred alternative and cost estimate, staff requests feedback on the preferred alternative, cost estimate, and possible funding sources for the project. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Project Area Map Attachment B: Preferred Alternative and Cost Estimate Attachment C: Open House Feedback Attachment D: Three Concepts AGENDA ITEM # VI-13 PAGE 2 Eben Fine Park Project Area Map Attachment A it ; "Mrl r Ive :ty t - ~ rY r ~ - T~ :F A { / Illwr,~`Yl ; ~ r A r .r" r 4.. r -Ok 4'A lVv, r' ~ 1* • ~ :~•y'~;~ ~ i 3`3',x%, ; d - . 1. .d ~ _V Oir N Legend Eben Fine Park Project Area 0 70 140 280 Feet Streets AGENDA ITEM # V I- , PAGE Attachment B Eben Fine Park Boulder Creek Stabilization Opinion of Probable Costs Prellminary Design Total Site Area - 35,145 sf. 9-Nov-11 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ITEM TOTAL General Requirements Construction Survey Lump 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 Temp. Diversion, Dewater, Muck Excavation Lump 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Tree Protection Allow 1 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 BMP - Construction Erosion Control LF 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Remove Existing Furnishings Lump 1 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 Traffic Control Lump 1 $ 5.000.00 $ 5,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 38,500.00 Pedestrian Walk = 624 LF * 3' Wide $ 27.54 ILF Earthwork & Site Prep SF 1,900 $ 1.10 $ 2.090.00 Gravel Pave Crusher Fines - Y wide (soft trail) SF 1,872 $ 5.50 $ 10,296.00 Chase Drain EA 6 $ 800.00 $ 4.800.00 SUBTOTAL $ 17,188.00 Picnic Areas = 8,935 sf $ 13.00 !SF Earthwork & Site Prep SF 8,935 $ 1.10 $ 9,828.50 Picnic Tables EA 6 $ 2,000.00 $ 12,000.00 Landscape Pockets SF 5,635 $ 8.00 $ 46,680.00 Leveling Sand CY 5 $ 250.00 $ 1,250.00 Feature Boulders TON 50 $ 250.00 $ 12,500.00 Stabilized Crusher Fines SF 2,500 $ 2.00 $ 51000.00 Irrigation SF 5,835 $ 1.00 $ 5,835.00 Fine Grading SF 5,835 $ 0.05 $ 291.75 Concrete Header - integral Color and Stamped LF 320 $ 15.00 $ 4,800.00 Flagstone / Slab Stone (46" thick cut Lyons Red sandstone) SF 600 $ 30.00 $ 18,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 116,185.25 Habitat Restoration Areas = 15.780 sf $ 8.84 /SF Earthwork & Site Prep SF 15,780 $ 1.10 $ 17,358.00 Concrete Rail Fence LF 729 $ 40.00 $ 29,160.00 Temporary Rope Fence with signs LF 382 $ 1.00 $ 382.00 Topsoil @ 4' depth CY 195 $ 35.00 $ 6,825.00 Cobble Mulch (10'-18" Local Cobble Mix) SF 15,780 $ 3.00 $ 47,340.00 Shade Trees (native) EA 5 $ 100.00 $ 500.00 Multistem Trees (native) EA 20 $ 100.00 $ 2,000.00 Shrubs - B&B (native) EA 100 $ 40.00 S 4,000.00 Perennial / Ornamental Grasses (native) EA 150 $ 35.00 $ 5,250.00 Native Seed SF 15.780 $ 0.09 $ 1,420.20 Irrigation SF 15,780 $ 1.50 $ 23,670.00 Fine Grading SF 15,780 $ 0.05 $ 789.00 Erosion Control Blanket SF 15,780 $ 0.05 $ 789.00 SUBTOTAL $ 139,483.20 Erosion Stabilization = 6,195 sf $ 30.04 ISF Earthwork & Site Prep SF 6,195 $ 1.10 $ 6,814.50 Stabilized Crusher Fines SF 1,500 $ 2.00 $ 3,000.00 Exposed Aggregate Concrete W/Integral Color SF 1,500 $ 9.00 S 13,500.00 Large River Boulder TON 200 $ 250.00 $ 50,000.00 Concrete Footings (reinforcing of bottom terracelstep) CY 150 $ 350.00 $ 52,500.00 Fine Grading SF 6,195 $ 0.05 $ 309.75 Flagstone / Slab Stone (steps/terraces) SF 2,000 $ 30.00 S 60,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 186,124.25 Note: Does not include the following Permitting PROJECT SUBTOTAL $ 497,478.70 Utility adjustments CONTINGENCY 15% $ 74,621.81 Mobilisation (10%) $ 49,747.87 Design (121/e) $ 59,697.44 PROJECT TOTAL $ 681,545.82 AGENDA ITEM V 1 7, PAGE w i •r~.'r~ I p a X Z M W T c a $x rv°a~~~ H 1~1 m ° z .8 W m LLJ m W ~ z~ sma~i ¢ saG m~ r oy~gW Ti Em n g ~ c~ m:2 ~Y o m = a a e Al E c~ a 2o a 'it O lw0 ,O L ~j ~ ~C a M .0 W ° 0 a c t 4,t F ~,4( m m E E a e m Z m II 01 N i. V 0:1 omLMCL F- G ; C 4 ! N 16 / m 3 W of-On ~ moo Z 0 J 4 Z z d11 4~ 3 mr~ a F- i~ Y o 4~ L uU is m r J 7 U- Z LU m LU Attachment C EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION On Site Open House Results (8/23/11 & 8/30/11) General Comments: 1. No areas should use mortar based on the issues we have at the seating area at the Muni. 2. 1 think it is good to provide multiple access points and spread out the picnic areas based on the fact residential uses of this site like multiple access points based on the variety of users. 3. Drop your tube in, eat lunch, leave it alone. A is great, don't protect wildlife with fences, use city ord # and notice. Pave naturally picnic area, flow into creek stonework/boulders. 4. Signage on no bbq's or allow bbq on no drinking as well. 5. More recreation access/ may allow habitat a better chance to become established. 6. Prefer more natural type landscaping. 7. Habitat is in more defendable segments. 8. With this or any model, we need to discourage people from cycling on and off the path. 9. No bike area! Bike racks at edge of area. Signs to sloe down while riding through area. 10. 1 do think barriers need to be man made and sturdy. 11. Creates large recreation access, separate from picnic area. River access. Separate picnic areas allow big groups to be separated from small groups. 12. (Concept C) Feels more like a natural river bank that Concept A and I like the distributed picnic areas. 13. Keep the dirt surface. 14. Mixing recreation with habitat. Mixing picnic with habitat. 15. 1 like concept B because I feel it will be hard to keep separate picnic areas separate. However I feel if you use proper and large enough barriers than concept C could be good. 16. 1 think large fence/barriers are needed for Concept C more than Concept B, but I can see the need for spaced out picnic areas, but it's a concern of spread. I think you could separate B out into smaller groups of tables to singles, all within the designated area, add bushes to create a visual barrier. 17. Control erosion and make stream access more inviting. 18. Although I favor Concept C, I realize it would discriminate against larger family groups who use it now. 19. 1 prefer the mix of large and small picnic areas with the natural habitat mixed in throughout the area. 20. Larger picnic area to encourage community gathering but incorporate native plant habitat restoration to reduce soil erosion. 21. Recreation is mixed with habitat restoration. 22. Stone pavers potentially if integrated (with bouders) somehow. 23. Great opportunity, happy to see plans for future improvements - keep it rustic in keeping with 2 existing structures. 24. Nicer river access. AGENDA ITEM # . PAGE 6 Attachment C 25. Great concepts and plans, Wonderful venue for gathering information. People tend to spread out unless visiting park as a group. 26. Need way to keep things clean, new picnic tables. Nicer picnic options may need even more picnic area. 27. More Boulders for sure. River boulders for sure. More art installations and interactive/active segments to the river. I think more habitat areas with art installations would be very helpful and beautiful to this area in general. 28. Wicked Wave like Missoula MT. Get a scrap ship and make it a toy that the creek can rage around. 29. The more natural the better. When the creek looks like no one has made changes to it its so much more beautiful. The same goes for the surroundings. 30. Just make it look natural. I think the best thing you could do for all of these is make it look and feel natural. By natural I mean that it does not look out of place. 31. Passive habitat protection. Local materials. Rethink the sidewalk, slowdown traffic. Boulders. Bring light into structures. Not contrived, admit the impact. Functional and simple. Cheap and good looking. 32. 1 don't think any of the concepts provide enough picnic area. 33. Native plants as barrier. 34. Plant some FRUIT TREES! 35. 1 like the idea of a natural look blended in with urban art. 36. Educate the public about these purposes and values, we need environmental education. 1 value the great kid friendly beach and swimming hole below the pedestrian bridge but rocky access is dangerous. Better rocks and access would be good. 37. More privacy in option c. 38. Option b keeps picnic area in a containable context. 39. The nature the better, people come to do their own thing, discourage masses. 40. Removing the parking lots would reduce pressure. Netting off the habitat areas works well in Alaska. 41. Prefer less formal design that blends with the natural setting. 42. Care needs to be given to competing funding needs but subject to that turning an eyesore and overused area into more planned but carefree and user friendly is to be applauded. 43. 1 feel that Concept C works the best in light of the current usage of the park and recreation(al) use of the creek. 44. Save the stone chair. 45. 1 like the pocket picnic areas that allow for privacy and interaction with the creek and park areas. 46. 1 like a mix of bring your own and picnic tables. 47. Prefer natural looking and emphasis on habitat. END OF REPORT AGENDA ITEM PAGE Attachment C EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION On Site Open House Results (8/23/11 & 8/30/11) Image Boards Vote Tally Image # Votes 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 6 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 11 9 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 4 1111 13 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 4 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 16 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 1 1 18 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 4 1 1 1 1 20 18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 3 1 1 1 24 2 1 1 25 2 1 1 26 0 27 1 1 28 0 29 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 1 1 32 3 111 33 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 3 111 36 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 2 1 1 38 5 1 1 1 1 1 39 5 1 1 1 1 1 40 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41 3 111 AGENDA ITEM # V ( -,t3 . PAGE Attachment C 42 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 43 10 1111111111 44 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 46 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 47 3 111 48 4 1111 49 6 111111 50 2 1 1 51 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 52 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53 2 1 1 54 5 11111 55 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 56 5 11111 57 4 1111 58 4 1111 Concept Design Options Concept A 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Concept B 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Concept C 39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AGENDA ITEM #V 1-13 , PAGE Attachment C EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION Image Preferences (Open House # 2): Surfaces: e R a W- F. rganic/Naturalizes! Stream Bank - #16 River Boulders - #7 L 7. Stone Pavers - #11 Picnic/Gathering Areas: ~w n. ~q e F i #18 AGENDA ITEM # V1- L-->, PAGE Attachment C #20 a ya T ~T . Stream Interaction: f, #36 fl ~ #40 Habitat Protection and Restoration: River Boulders - #42 AGENDA ITEM # Y PAGE Attachment C ~ ~fx t F ♦ 4 - ~ y Foothills Riparian Zone - #46 AGENDA ITEM # UI fP . PAGE _1 Attachment C Rustic Fencing: 41 #56 #52 AGENDA ITEM PAGE./ Attachment C EBEN FINE PARK - BOULDER CREEK STREAM BANK RESTORATION On Site Open House Results (8/10/11) General Comments: Question 1: How do you use Eben Fine Park? 1. Cycle through on way to canyon 2. Bike, use with my granddaughters - playground and wading in the creek 3. 1 live close by and visit the park several times a week 4. Passive recreation, frisbee, picnics 5. Bike and picnic 6. Infrequent, when events scheduled there. Occasionally, bike through Question 2a: How do you use Boulder Creek within this park? 1. Only for splashing on hot days 2. Tubing entry / exit 3. For hiking and visual enjoyment 4. Passive enjoyment, possible fishing 5. For sound and beauty 6. Biking, sometimes walk Question 2b: Which park amenities do use in the project area? 1. Bike path, picnic tables 2. Bike trails, playground, walking, space for frisbee 3. Walk down to creek (access) 4. All of them - a very minimal natural and recreational facility 5. Restrooms picnic tables 6. Bike and running routes, picnic table 7. Trail Question 2c: Do you have any general comments about the project area? 1. Need to separate through traffic from local traffic 2. More green clumps with places for access, with possible soft trail through green and wider hard trail to accommodate park vehicles and address drainage issues 3. Very serene natural setting. Hard lines & urban looking features would not fit in 4. It's a great amenity for the City of Boulder 5. It's too heavily used. I support buffers and steps to conserve 6. Good concept. Make sure to get community involvement at the park 7. No thin flagstone next to creek 8. Protect tree roots, piers AGENDA ITEM __VJ -F2 PAGE 9. 1 like clusters of tables 10. Large stones in / adjacent to creek 11. Nature side of spectrum Question 3a: What Pictures of the streambank do you like? (Reference numbers from photos) 1. 6, 22, 14, 11 2. Native Plants (53, 52, 47) but fencing likely to be darnaged in that area. Places for people to express (11, 16, 10 33) 3. 47, 3, 4, 14, 50, 49, 22 4. Remove artful rock pyramids from creek 5. 22, 38, 42, 44 6. 52, 43, 42 7. 11,16,6,7 Question 3b: What attributes cause you to prefer these photos? 1. Hardened access and double use - islands of vegetation, match materials 2. Close to creek (10), Natural look - feelings of stones under foot- much nicer than wood (11), Quiet (16) 3. Natural, would blend into park setting 4. 1 think the trails are wide enough and very pleasant 5. Stream itself has natural look and feel, upland are well protected 6. Less structure 7. 47, 42, 54 Question 3c: How can the habitat be improved and protected? 1. Provide varied and hardened access 2. Needs areas close to the creek for walking or jogging, but areas where tubes or waders can access that will be separate - heavier traffic areas, quiet areas, picnic area should be moved. Perhaps snuggled in areas of more greenery 3. Split rail fence around areas to be protected would help add visual delineation on ground. I liked the faux wood or natural stone pavers for this. Would be nice to leave existing boulders along the creek in place 4. Remove mature vegetation along creek path 5. In areas of vegetation loss, plant larger sandbar willows with temporary protection from trampling. 6. if structures, emphasize natural materials 7. 22, 41, 40, 29 END OF REPORT nc. AGENDA ITEM #V1 :0 , PAGE- r r Y~ W. C S ! ' C- Z ,4 pE W m I I c cm o2tg °mti~ L1J o E m~ C C 'A r a ~~$c z cr Z ~ o I. - Im m N m (p a v c~ m y N Cm yam °omm3 ~-I =A N C ku o E ~ i 1 m o 'L e e IL % F o 0 V G Z C O ; I Q ~D I 1. 4 m aC m N ~ 44 t .A ?s w IA 0 fll o All R' W 0 Y o V d a°- z U- Z W m W `4 y i . a tiY _ i ~p I •~r p~ Y ~ a ~ ~ CL a CL b Z 4 2 m $ W b V CL a II C i' p m Y m w~ i. m ~ G o v $ o 0 $ o ` u ~ C _ « ZZ~\ 3 $ r, IL ' ~ W c p- N m Z yam, Z~r ~•E ~ ~ . ~ ~ _O Z E tl ° ° co G / v nc~ ac ~ V) 4oc Z o~ j ~ Z 41 LLJ W p . ce u {Q, - w ~ f 0 0 l` ca LLJ co LLI m C~. i Q W o m U 23 06 3, ~o W a Q i ~ mm Ica ~ 4 z€S W ~rC cc ~q 0 f6a ~8 Leo AO LM 0 Z CL a. A 2 4 / U LM W v w W Cie 14 Y 7 j Z m i T o V) ~ ti q~ Y uU W v , o •oae C<L V Q4 W x _z ^rr, ti J z W co W