Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet - Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - 01/23/2012 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Council Chambers 1777 Broadway Monday, January 23, 2012 6:00 p.m. AGENDA All agenda times are approximate 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 November 28, 2011 and December 5, 2011 B. Informational Items (1) Department Update V. ITEMS FOR ACTION (6:30)) VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION (6:30) A. Capital Improvement Program (powerpoint presentation) B. Thunderbird Lake Year End Report C. Pottery Program Management Assessment Next Steps VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (7:30) A. Department Master Plan Update B. City Council Retreat Update/Park Closure Rule Update (verbal update) C. 2012 Board/Commissions Recruitment - 2/16/12 Deadline (verbal) D. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) Update/Next Steps (verbal) VIII. NIATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS (7:45) A. Fourmile Canyon Creek 19th to 22nd Street Greenways Improvements CEAP IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: February 27, 2012 (8:00) X. ADJOURN (8:05) PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FUTURE BOARD ITEMS (prepared January 23, 2012) 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 Updates • Approval of Leases, Licenses and Permits Next Board Meeting Items (February) • Master Plan Update • Thunderbird Lake Potential Public Hearing • Budget 101 • Pottery Program Next Steps Future Items • February 20, 2012 - Boards and Commissions Application Deadline • April 23, 2012 - PRAB Chair and Vice Chair Elections Citv Council Meetings on P & R Items • March 6, 2012 - Thunderbird Lake - Matters from the City Manager • March 20, 2012 - Boards and Commissions Appointments Announced Tours and Study Sessions • CIP Study Session (prior to February 27, 2012 meeting) • PRAB Tour - Pottery Lab and Columbia Cemetery - March or April 2012 • May 29, 2012 - City Council Study Session on Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan 2012 PRAB Meeting Dates • February 27, 2012 • March 26, 2012 • April 23, 2012 • May 28, 2012 • 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 November 28, 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.. Staff Present: Kirk Kincannon, Jeff Dillon, Alice Guthrie, Sarah DeSouza, Sally Dieterich, Keith Walzak, Stacy Cole, Matt Claussen, Mike Lamb, Steve Whipple, Christie Coleman, Jeff Arthur Guests Present: Adrienne Horn and Katie Sevier - Museum Management Consultants, Inc. Donna Gartenmann, Arts consultant Bill DeOreo, Board Chair, City of Boulder Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) The meeting was called to order at 6:08 p.m. ro 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved with the following change: Items VI-A and VI-A1 reversed order to have public participation prior to the consultant summary in order to permit the public to ask questions. Yates made a motion to approve the agenda. Estrella seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS Kincannon provided an update on future Board items: • Prior to 1/23/11 PRAB meeting - Pottery Lab outreach meeting with the PRAB, staff and Friend of the Pottery Lab (FoPL) members - date TBD • 1/17/11 - City Council meeting - Tentative public hearing and acceptance of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan • 1/23/11 PRAB meeting - Pottery Lab Report discussion 1 • 1/23/11 PRAB meeting - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) discussion related to the impact of the approved 2011 Bond and 2013 CIP and beyond • 1/23/11 - Update on the Department Master Plan • Spring 2012 - PRAB tour of the Pottery Lab and Columbia Cemetery III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation was opened. Al Gunter, resident, spoke on the Pottery lab assessment, feeling it to be very narrow and not looking at all the possibilities available. He suggested that staff design a program with the PLAY Boulder Foundation that would allow memberships, tax deductible donations and allow control to be kept with the City of Boulder. He added that staff should encourage public/private partnerships and explore all options. 'IY Public participation was closed. IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes from October 24, 2011 The minutes from October 24, 2011 were approved as written. B. Informational Items 1. Park Development Update 2. Update on National Cyclocross Race Bid 3. Boulder Creek Festival 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 accept Item IV-B. Estrella seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. ITEMS FOR ACTION A. Public Hearing and Recommendation of Approval of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) Walzak gave a power point presentation providing an overview of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP). He said that the PRAB is being asked to approve the adoption of the plan. 2 He explained that the purpose of the Master Plan is to establish management goals and objectives for the Boulder Reservoir. He added that the Master Plan was developed over a three year period in three phases: 1. Vision, Goals and Issues II. Policy Options III. Draft and Final Master Plan He said the Master Plan represents months of discussions, public meetings and input from recreational users, neighbors, members of the community and water quality specialists. He added that after the Master Plan is approved by the PRAB and City Council the next step will be to develop the one year Management Plan, funded through the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The public hearing was opened. Kelly DiNatale, non resident, spoke on the need for the Department to address traffic and noise impact from existing special events at Boulder Reservoir before adding more special events. Soraya Smith, non resident, spoke on the negative impact of automobile idling on 51st Street, the access road to the Boulder Reservoir. She said 51st St. traffic at idle can be backed up for 30 minutes or more during a special event at Boulder Reservoir. She said idling puts more carbon monoxide into the air in one minute than three packs of cigarettes and added that this is a terrible impact on the Valhalla neighborhood air quality. Gretchen Nordham, non resident, spoke about negative impact on environmental quality and habitat destruction at Boulder Reservoir and the Valhallah neighborhood during the past 13 years. Neil Anderson, non resident, thanked staff for the development of the Master Plan, but expressed concern about doubling or tripling the number of special events at Boulder Reservoir. He felt the potential exists to transform the character of Boulder Reservoir from a recreational resource that hosts events into an events center. He asked the PRAB to look at the true impact of this type of change. Nancy Delacroix, non resident, spoke of the negative impact of sound and activity levels on wildlife at Boulder Reservoir. She congratulated Stacy Cole, Boulder Reservoir Manager, for her willingness to meet with the Valhalla neighborhood and for having the neighbors included in this process. Delacroix provided some solutions to aid in Valhalla residents having "peaceful living"restored. • Parking for special events could be in the lot behind IBM • Bussing • Exit to the north instead of south on 51St Street • Create additional exits to minimize congestion 3 Carl Forest, non resident, spoke of the need for the City of Boulder to partner with Boulder County. He said the Boulder County Sheriff's Department blocks exits so that residents cannot enter or leave the neighborhood. He added that the Department is providing misinformation as to the actual number of events being held which doesn't fully address the larger noise/congestion impact. Anne Turnacliff, non resident, asked to add two additional factors that add to congestion: • Addition of the fire training center during the past year • Building of church at 51st Street and Jay Road Bill DeOreo, Water Resources Advisory Board chair, suggested that in order to proceed with approval, that all references to limits be removed from the draft Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP). He said that currently limits are an unknown and before the BRMP Management Plan is begun the Carrying Capacity Study should be completed and neighborhood involvement should be part of the process. Arnie Rasker, non resident, felt the BRMP is an incomplete plan without substance, very superficial and only an idealistic vision. Diane Kelly, non resident, spoke of traffic issues on 51 st Street. She said that when she goes to work on Sunday mornings and there is a bike race, the street becomes a dangerous place to be. There are blind spots, very little shoulder on the road and autos attempting to pass cyclists which places everyone at risk. The public hearing was closed. PRAB discussion included: Estrella favored moving forward with passage of the BRMP with the following stronger language regarding transportation: • Chapter 8 - Goal 1 - 1K - Implement improved bicycle, carpooling, alternative fuel vehicle and shuttle facilities and implement those that are found feasible in the redesign in the South Shore • Chapter 8 - Goal 1 - 1L - Work with GO Boulder and appropriate agencies to develop a bicycle/vehicular parking management strategy that promotes and supports alternative transportation mode and carpooling to Boulder Reservoir. Establish incentives for pricing strategies to encourage carpooling and multiple occupancy visits • Chapter 8 - Goal 1 - 1 M - Encourage and require the use of shuttles for special and group events through permitting processes that requiresa specific percentage of alternative transportation for large events and determine feasibility for requiring participants to use shuttles • Chapter 8 - Goal 1 - IN - Needs to be more definitive - find temporary shuttle pick-up and parking locations in other areas of the city for events 4 • Chapter 8 - Goal 1 - 1P - Would like this to be stronger, but feels it is out of PRAB's control • Chapter 8 - Goal 8 - 8B - Work with appropriate agencies to explore the potential for a second vehicular access point Thayer felt that Goal 8 didn't address safety issues adequately. He said the traffic and safety problems were not captured or dealt with sufficiently. Wyatt also felt that Goal 8 doesn't really address the importance of the adjacent neighborhood. Conroy (Myriah) had the following comments: • Do we have a safety issue? Is there a safety record? • Need to address the number of people involved in the evens: participants, volunteers, staff, etc. • Time enforcement • Policy questions - capacity issues missing from the BRMP (parking, access questions, etc. - why add more parking if there are capacity issues? • West Shore trail - against this because of wildlife degradation • Transportation - not addressed in depth - need to look at transportation holistically, what transportation is, not just traffic - no mention of impact of transportation on carbon emissions • Air quality/water quality issues - fears wildlife destruction • Special events - too open ended Yates referred to the limits and regulations for special events on page 60, questioning if these limits are appropriate. He believes that the intention was not to increase events, but to make certain they don't exceed a certain number. Gralapp had concerns with no numbers on limits in the BRMP. She added that the management plan does not come under the PRAB's review and if the PRAB doesn't recommend limits at this point, two years later it may be three times as much. Kincannon said that the Department will continue to address concerns raised by the community, the neighborhood directly around Boulder Reservoir and community recreational users. He added that the Department's next step will be to move the Master Plan forward with the Carrying Capacity Study, the Resource Allocation and all that has been identified as part of the Site Management Plan. Conroy (Myriah) noted that she would like to pass the BRMP, but feels that it still needs more work. Yates agreed with Estrella's proposed changes and suggested the following approach in response to the Board discussion: 1. Make changes now and potentially pass the BRMP tonight 5 2. Schedule a meeting continuation between now and January 4, 2011 to make changes and potentially pass the BRMP Yates polled the Board to determine how to proceed: • Conroy (Mike) felt that the Master Plan should be general and that most of the issues discussed could be handled in the Site Management Plan. He preferred to amend and vote on the BRMP at this meeting. • Thayer proposed adding 8C to Goal 8 in conjunction with impacted neighbors and develop a traffic and environmental impact mitigation plan. That would involve the neighbors and the issues of most concern; traffic and environmental. • Wyatt said she is conflicted • Conroy (Myriah) felt there could not be completion tonight and opted for a continuation of this meeting prior to January 4, 2011. She added that she spent considerable time on her changes and that they were not integrated into the BRMP. • Estrella preferred continuing the meeting and not proceeding tonight. • Yates suggested continuing tonight's meeting before January 4, 2011 due to tonight's meeting agenda being full. The PRAB decided to continue the meeting at 5:00 on Monday, December 5, 2011 at the West Senior Center, 909 W. Arapahoe Avenue. VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION A. Pottery Program Management Assessment Consultant Report Guthrie introduced Teri Olander, City of Boulder Recreation Administrator and Pottery Assessment Project Manager, Donna Gartenmann, Project Technical Advisor and Adrienne Horn and Katie Sevier representing Museum Management Consultants, Inc. (MMC). The Pottery Lab has been a valued community service for over fifty years, receiving a significant operating subsidy. A management assessment has been completed to address cost recovery goals. Horn provided a brief power point presentation of the management assessment detailing short and long term recommendations for operation and management of the Department pottery program. The assessment can be viewed in it entirety at http ://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/Parks%20and°/o20Recreation/PRAB/2011 mkt packets/VI-A_Att _A.pdf A.1 Public Participation - Pottery Program Management Assessment Consultant Report Public participation was opened. 6 Ann Fontenot, resident, thanked the consultants for their diligent work on Pottery Lab sustainability and felt that some constructive ideas have been addressed She asked about the possibility of continuing the process including Pottery Lab staff, members of Friends of the Pottery Lab (FoPL) and PRAB members, to bring it to the next step. She said she hopes all can continue to work together and make something wonderful happen. Irv Bell, resident, said he has been a student of the Pottery Lab for the past ten years. He added that he read the consultant's report, and was very impressed. He urged the City of Boulder to go with the 3-5 year transition period. He agreed that this plan makes sense if the City is firm on the subsidy reduction. Christy Gunter, resident, asked if there is to be a public/private for 3-5 years and then the City of Boulder is no longer involved or is this a 3-5 year time period in which to develop a long term public/private partnership? She questioned if this is the correct way to proceed. Public participation was closed.' Next steps: • Solicitation of public feedback and suggestions through online and written comment • Online comment for available at www.boulderpottery.com • January 23, 2012 PRAB meeting - Review of management assessment recommendations and ideas B. Eben G. Fine Creek Restoration Project Christine Coleman, City of Boulder Engineering Project Manager for Greenways and Mike Lamb, Parks and Recreation Department Project Manager, provided a brief power point presentation on this project. Lamb explained that the purpose of the collaborative project is to redo the habitat and park restoration along Boulder Creek in Eben G. Fine Park. Coleman said the project restoration area is the northern portion of the park located between the park's two pedestrian bridges, north of the northern sidewalk She added that this area is most often used for picnicking and access to Boulder Creek. She noted that this area suffers from stream bank erosion, creating negative impacts on water quality causing the area to be unappealing to park users. The restoration project will provide habitat and recreation improvements. Stated project goals are: • Erosion control • Water quality improvement • Habitat improvement • Improved recreation access 7 • Park character enhancement Next steps: • Development of site plan • Finalization of cost estimate based on PRAB feedback • Researching of potential grant funding Coleman concluded with a request for feedback on the project from the PRAB. The Board was generally supportive of the project. VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT A. Update on Round 1 CISC Projects Kincannon mentioned that the CISC information has been presented to City Council. He said staff is meeting the definitions of the bond and as things move forward will return to the PRAB with an update in January 2012. VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS -me A. December meeting The Board agreed to cancel the December PRAB business meeting, but to continue the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan portion of this meeting on December 5, 2011 at 5:00 p.m. B. Board and Commission 2012 City Council Priorities Yates said that City Council has requested that each City of Boulder Board and Commission provide a letter setting forth Parks and Recreation Department recommendations for City Council Parks and Recreation priorities for 2012. He added that he and Board vice chair Estrella could draft the letter with PRAB approval. Unanimous approval was granted by the Board. Gralapp made a motion to continue the public hearing portion of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) on December 5. Estrella seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: January 23, 2012 X. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 8 APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Bob Yates Board Chair Attest: Sally Dieterich Recording Secretary 9 City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board West Senior Center Creekside Room 909 W. Arapahoe Ave. December 5, 2011 Action Meeting Minutes To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link: www.bouldeiparks-rec..org Board Present: Bob Yates, Michelle Estrella, Rick Thayer, Myriah Conroy, Kelly Wyatt, Mike Conroy Board Absent: Marcelee Gralapp Staff Present: Kirk Kincannon, Jeff Dillon, Alice Guthrie,: Sally Dioterich, Keith Walzak, Stacy Cole, Matt Claussen, Steve Whipple The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Estrella made a motion.to approve the agenda. Conroy (Mike),. seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0 with Gralapp and Thayer absent. 11. ITLMS FOR ACTION A. Continuation of,$oulder Reservoir Master Plan Recommendation of Approval (public hearing was closed 11/28/11- discussion continues 12/5/11). Yates explained thatihis meeting was a continuation of a public hearing from the previous PRAB meeting on November 28, 2011. He added that there would be no public comment at this meeting. Yates thanked those from the public who provided written comments and suggested changes to the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP). He said these comments were published on the City of Boulder PRAB webpage and are included in the December 5, 2011 PRAB packet as Attachment B, Requested Revisions to Draft Plan. He added that staff took those comments, adopted many and suggested some language changes, which can be viewed in Attachment C on the City of Boulder PRAB webpage. Yates indicated that he met with staff and members of the public to review the attachments and make some minor changes, reflected in Attachment D. 1 PRAB Discussion: Conroy (Mike) asked if proposals to cover costs were in any plans. Kincannon said most of the information was calculated as future expenses, unbudgeted at this point because it's a several year process. He added that there are dollars identified for 2012 for the beginning of the Site Management Plan process. Conroy (Myriah) said that most of the concerns she had at the November PRAB meeting (and concerns of the public also) are things dial will be completed in the Site Management Plan. Estrella asked how the documents will be pieced together:' Yates responded that if approved tonight,.language from Attachments A, C and D would be incorporated into the BRMP b staff witli delegation of 1 PRAB members to assist staff. He added that un itlhe site Blau is caneluctod and there is a better understanding of what is needed, tlidt fl eg, iatus quo be maintained. Estrella had a follow up questia) regarding special<cvents. She said PRAB's recommendations for the BRMP 6-fl < resemed prey i> isly to City Council and included specific numbers. She asked how that would be communicated to City Council at this time. Kincannon answ- ercd tliait they will identify, through the memo to City Council, PRAB's recominciidatioi this evening fo..arnalyze the numbers and keep events consistent with i i ibcrs>£hat,ar,e approximate to the last few years. lstrella acknowledged s- aff's twenty-nine months of work on the BRMP and added that if the PRIAB Basses tonight's recommendations that staff would be able to go to City CoOricil, as a unified force with the hope that City Council would }pass the WNW. Conroy (Mike) asked if the specific language being referred to is in tonight's packet matGtials. Kincamlon said the following language has been added: The reference to Special Events on page 60 will remove the specific reference to the number of events, which is bullets one and four a statement will be included in the BRMP to indicate that the type or number of events will be an outcome of the future Site Management Plan. Until completion of the Site Management Plan, the number of events should be limited to the current levels as a guideline. 2 Yates suggested changing the wording "current levels as a guideline" to read "recent past levels as a guideline". Estrella made the following motion: To approve the draft Boulder Reservoir Master Plan and as presented on 11/28/11 to the PRAB to include the spirit of the changes outlined in the following documents: Attachment A, titled Proposed Modifications to the Draft - Final BRMP, Attachment C, Staff Response to Valhallah Resident's Comments and Attachment D, Summary of Neighborhood Representatives Meeting. Conroy (Myriah) seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0, with Gralapp absent. Thayer arrived prior to the motion and was involved in the discusgion portion of the meeting and participated in the vote. IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: January 23, 2012 X. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.rn. :•1 4r414i41 t 1~411 APPROVED BY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Bob Yates Board Chair 3 Attest: Sally Dieterich Recording Secretary r 411f14 „ 11 it lllllllltl.. • ' 111 111 Iii ',11~1 I i ~ 'i . N"• 4 TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Kirk Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager Sarah DeSouza, Senior Manager for Marketing, Communications, And Partnerships SUBJECT: Consent Agenda DATE: January 23, 2012 A. Minutes - Approval of minutes B. Informational Items 1. Park Development Update • CIS 2011 Bond (Round 1) o Existing Park or Recreation Facility Renovations As part of the voter-approved 2011 CIS Bond Funding, Staff are currently in the early stages of planning for improvements that will address critical deficiencies in the Park and Recreation system. Improvements include new playground equipment, upgrades to irrigation systems, upgrading playground surfacing and providing new site furnishings. o Shelter Replacement and Improvements As part of the voter-approved 2011 CIS Bond Funding, the Parks and Recreation Department will be refurbishing shelters and pavilions that are in need of improvement in several of the City's parks. These improvements include repairing concrete, addressing ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) access issues, and replacing site furnishings. The shelters at Eaton Park, Martin Park, and North Boulder Park are currently scheduled to be refurbished. Several parks will also receive new shade structures, shelters, and rentable pavilions. New shade structures are currently planned at Valmont Dog Park and Foothills Dog Park. New shelters are currently being planned at Pleasant view Fields. Playground shade structures are being planned for Palo East Park, Wonderland Park, and Beach Park. New, large pavilions are currently planned for Harlow Platts and Valmont City Park. Agenda Item IV-B page 1 o Columbia Cemetery Upgrades / Enhancements Bond funding has been approved for improvements to the cemetery that will provide a new irrigation system, repair of religious markers, constructing new fencing and coordinating with the Anderson Ditch Company to address ongoing maintenance issues. Construction will begin in April of 2012 and continue through 2013. o Boulder Reservoir Infrastructure Improvements Bond funding will address critical deficiencies that exist at the reservoir including utility upgrades, entry gate improvements, dock repair, building improvements and trail maintenance and construction. Planning and design is currently underway with initial construction to begin in the fall of 2012 and continue through 2014. • Valmont City Park / Dog Park Restoration of the Platt Farmhouse house has been completed with the exception of the landscape improvements around the house. The landscaping is scheduled to be completed this summer. Other projects identified for the 2012 construction calendar are underway, including: renovation of the Dog Park, ROW improvements along Airport Road, Shade Shelters, and the addition of one more Bridge Crossing of the ditch. A public open house to review the upcoming dog park renovations was held at the newly renovated Platt Farm house on Jan 12th from 5:30 to 7:30 • Mesa Memorial Park Planning staff has initiated the Mesa Memorial Park project that was placed on hold nearly two years ago. With the 2012 CIP funding in place, staff has re-contracted with the consultant team and is underway to review the 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. • Elks Neighborhood Park The Elks Neighborhood Park project is nearing 100% design completion and will be ready to go to bid in January 2012. The project will be advanced in two phases to address a require access bridge improvement component at Four Mile Canyon Creek. The second phase park construction will be scheduled in 2013 in order for staff to budget the total capital improvement funds needed to complete the construction phase. A recent neighborhood touch was conducted in December to inform the adjacent neighborhoods of the park project and anticipated construction schedule. • East Mapleton Ball Fields As part of the energy performance contract, the East Mapleton Ball Fields are under construction for more efficient lighting. The new lights will have cutoff shields to prevent light pollution into the surrounding neighborhoods and brighter more efficient lighting on the fields. Project should be complete in March. Agenda Item IV-B page 2 • American's with Disabilities (ADA) Audit Process Update In November of 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provided all Title II entities with final accessibility guidelines for parks and recreation facilities, policies and procedures. The DOJ has directed each entity to complete an audit and Transition Plan by March 2012. The plan will provide the department with direction regarding updating policies, procedures and facilities for accessibility. Parks Planner, Jeff Haley and Recreation Administrator, Colleen Fitzgerald have been coordinating the ADA audit process since March of 2011. A consultant was hired to assist the department and since, the consultant spent two weeks with twelve department staff from both Recreation and Parks Divisions. The first week, twenty different parks and playgrounds were audited and during the second week ten recreation facilities were audited. The Train the Trainer program gave the twelve department staff the tools and knowledge to complete the remaining sixty-five parks and eight facilities audits. A checklist for each park/facility is being completed and photos of all deficits have been taken. As of January 10, staff has completed 90% of the audits and has started to compile checklists and photos onto a final report form per park/facility. The goal of staff is to complete the Transition Plan by March, present the document to PRAB as well as to host an Open House for the general public. • Ready to Work Homeless Work Program Pilot Project The Parks and Recreation and the Downtown and University Management and Parking Services Departments have joined together in a 6-month pilot project to assist in the development of a homeless work program called "Ready to Work". "Ready to Work" is a new initiative of Bridge House, the day shelter and social service agency formerly known as Carriage House that aims to provide real work experience for motivated homeless adults. The hope is that by the end of the six-month program, the employees of this program be able to find private-sector employment that will allow them to support themselves. Crews began working on December 12, 2010 and a public launch of the event was held on January 10, 2012. • Valmont Bike Park Closure: Valmont Bike Park continues to be closed due to poor trail conditions. Although the top layer of the surfacing looks dry, the base layers are still full of moisture that can cause damage when ridden or walked on. Information and updates are posted at www.ValmontBikePark.org • Volunteer Program: Staff is preparing for the 2012 season that includes the upcoming Community Cleanup Day, Birds of Special Concern Monitoring Volunteers, Adopt-A- Park and Adopt-A-Flowerbed program and others. Requests from the public to arrange for volunteer opportunities regularly come into the Volunteer Coordinator who matches up requests with the appropriate departmental staff. Agenda Item IV-B page 3 2011 Annual Operations Report Admiral Arleigh Burke Park: Thunderbird Lake Pilot Project r. P4 ~ ~J~ M F . 45.1 .~.J~ ~ ~ } ,lam i'1.~~'~ . Prepared for: Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation City of Boulder Prepared by: Matt Claussen, Urban Resources Manager Parks and Recreation Department City of Boulder January 13, 2012 Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide an annual assessment covering management activities involving Thunderbird Lake, located at Admiral Arleigh Burke Park. This is the last of three annual reports that will cover the pilot project operations from 2009 through 2011. This report will review implementation of the Adaptive Management Plan as well as evaluation of the goals described within the management plan for the 2011 operational year. The general components listed below are described in terms of how they were implemented. At the end of each section, a brief analysis will be presented with a summary at the end of the report. As part of supplemental information, attachments will be used for references to some of the activities or monitoring that took place. The components of the report will cover: • Implementation of Adaptive Management Plan • Water Budget • Wetland Status • Groundwater Monitoring • Water Levels • Project Labor • Water Discharge/Outlet Flow • Project Costs • Water Quality • Education/Outreach Proiect Background In 2007, some members of the community contacted the PRAB and City Council requesting that the city increase the water level of Thunderbird Lake and improve its aesthetic quality. Department staff held two neighborhood meetings to discuss the changes in the lake and to gather community input on potential management options. Subsequently, staff hired Biohabitats, Inc. to prepare a report that would address the history of the lake, current conditions and to offer four potential management options. These management options were presented to PRAB on September 22, 2008 and the Board voted 5-2 to approve Option B, Adaptive Management - No Supplemental Water. The WRAB considered this item at its Jan. 12, 2009 meeting and recommended Option D - Use of Potable Water with multiple fills per year. The recommendations from the PRAB and WRAB were provided to the City Council at a February 19, 2009 public hearing. At this meeting, the Parks and Recreation Department received direction from City Council to pursue Option D (Use of Potable Water - multiple fills per year) for future management actions at Thunderbird Lake. The emphasis would be to periodically use potable water to fill the lake and increase lake surface area. The target size of the lake and its target surface elevation were not determined nor were details of how the lake would be filled. Since then, staff has been working on the next steps for implementing this option. Members of the project team included staff from the Departments of: Parks and Recreation, Community Planning and Sustainability, Public Works/Water Quality, and Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, in addition to the consulting firm, Biohabitats, Inc. Biohabitats, Inc. developed the management options that were presented to City Council and have developed a lake management 2 and implementation plan, wetland permit and mitigation plan and groundwater well monitoring protocols. Annual Reporting A first year report was completed in March of 2009 and detailed the preparatory work to initiate the water additions for that year as well as other associated costs and management actions. The 2010 year-end report was completed in March of 2010 and continued the project review and monitoring of; water charges, labor, maintenance and other management plan implementations. For 2011, this report will follow the same format as the previous two years providing relevant details of operation and monitoring of the lake. A final project report will be prepared for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and City Council, providing background information of the project, synopsizing the three year pilot program and include options for future management of Thunderbird Lake, including a staff recommendation. Review of Proiect Components 1. Implementation of Adaptive Management Plan As part of the management for Thunderbird Lake, two general goals have been the primary focus; a) Increase the surface area of the lake, and; b) Improve the overall water quality. Staff expanded these goals within the Adaptive Management Plan to include ecological factors and opportunities that may become present as part of this project. Four goals were further defined: 1. Increase the lake surface area to approximately 2.2 acres (water elevation of 5,315 ft); 2. Improve the water quality of Thunderbird Lake; 3. Minimize the changes in wetland function and aquatic habitat; and, 4. Provide opportunities for education and passive recreation. The flexibility built into the management plan allows for alternatives to be evaluated and implemented if there was a significant divergence from meeting one of the above four goals. This allows for staff to experiment with activities as new information becomes available or to modify the plan due to environmental conditions. Some of these management actions included; • Water delivery to the lake via a retrofitted irrigation system, in addition to hydrant delivery as needed (hydrant use did not occur in 2011); • Ongoing maintenance practices including treatment for mosquito's and aquatic vegetation; 3 • Weed control around the lake periphery; • Monitoring of water surface levels; • Monthly water quality sampling protocol; and, • Collection of groundwater data. Analysis: The Adaptive Management Plan remains a guideline for the operation and maintenance portions of the project. There have been no substantive changes to the environmental conditions the past two years, thus there has been no need for significant alterations or new recommendations to the plan. II. Wetland Status There were no changes or additions to the wetland mitigation area in 2011. In the 2009 Year End Operational Report, details were provided for the wetland construction and mitigation that was required as a result of increasing lake water levels. The wetland mitigation in 2009 included the necessary site grading, vegetative plantings and management of water levels. The expectation was to replace the loss of existing emergent wetlands as a result of high water levels. Emergent wetlands are generally characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous, hydrophytes (water-oriented vegetation). An upland vegetative (e.g. woody plants and shrubs) transition area was also created to blend into the surrounding park environment. The following photos provide a visual example of the mitigation area from 2009 to 2011. ` •yfM:z 7f~ #w;, Newly planted wetland mitigation area. July 15, 2009 4 .'S`IT' i # ~n +r r~1r:z~~• n y'* 1 Established mitigation area, June 15, 2010 55,,~~ TT ~N Same mitigation area June 1, 2011. Wildlife continue to utilize the shallow water area for shelter and foraging as ducks, shorebirds, small aquatic invertebrates and minnow-type fish were observed during the year. Wetland vegetation around the lake continues to flourish especially on the western shore including the mitigation area. Bull rushes and cattails, common around the shoreline, seemed to be denser than year's past, prompting several citizen requests to remove or cut-back vegetation around the lake. Established view corridors were trimmed back to accommodate a better view in those areas, but only within the Wetland Ordinance guidelines. Analysis The wetland mitigation area has responded well and developed quickly to offer seclusion areas for wildlife, away from the main lake area. No nesting was observed by avian species but no specific monitoring was conducted for such activity. The wetland permit for view corridors expired and was not extended based on the uncertain future of the lake. General weed 5 maintenance of the wetland mitigation area and surrounding lake was performed within compliance of the Wetland Ordinance. On a related note, several hundred koi carp were observed in the shallows of the emergent wetland area. While these are not a stocked species by the City nor the Colorado Parks and Wildlife, it is assumed that the fish were introduced illegally to the lake ecological system. It is unclear as to the long terns impacts of this species, but generally, these fish species do well in residential ponds and water gardens in Colorado. However as with any introduced species, disease, health and food impacts to other aquatic species could result. This may require removal or specific management of the species to keep the balance of the lake's ecological system in a positive state, but no direct impacts to the wetland integrity seems to have occurred. III. Water Levels Water additions to the lake began on May 17, 2011. The additions were purposely delayed into May to utilize water budget funds efficiently. Beginning lake elevation level was at 5,313.61 feet. The water level hovered just below the target elevation of 5,315 feet for the majority of the summer. The target of 5,315 feet was met on September 12th and was sustained for the duration of the season, ending on November 1, 2011. Overall, a small fluctuation of water levels was experienced, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 5,316. (Target Elevation) 5,315. water elevation 5,314. i 5,313. 0, Ip 11- 9~rs .9~~1 1r'd The water addition rate ranged from 74 - 77 gallons per minute. Flow times were coordinated with the surrounding park irrigation schedule and to reduce repeat site visits by staff. The water discharges into two rock pits, to reduce water force and potential erosion, then filters through the wetland into the lake. 6 a i` (.C U J ,i ~ h Flow meter reading. 1 lnL.- 46.34 r . 3.20-. ~ 3•~ Qr' " s3..30 i~ - Highest water measurement on September 16, 2011 Analysis Weather trends over the operational period (April October) were evaluated to see if this would lend to any significant affect on water levels. There were no periods of higher than normal temperatures (average monthly temperature was 63 degrees). Average monthly precipitation rates during this period were 2.44 inches and overall annual precipitation was in the normal annual range (18.38 inches). During significant rain storms or snowfall, ground water saturation was noted with an increase in water flow from the existing tile drain, and usually tapering off within a few days after the event. IV. Water Discharge/Outlet Flow The release of water to maintain a flow-through system to balance out nutrient levels was explored in 2010 and again in 2011. The release of water is manipulated via a screw valve that was installed in early 2009 on the east shoreline as part of the outlet pipe re-construction to lower the outlet. As stated in the 2010 report, one of the difficulties in monitoring this effort is access to the underground outlet pipes to the storm sewer system and getting an accurate outflow reading. While this remains true for 2011, more emphasis was placed on water cost savings rather than 7 the flow-through system. Staff decided not to release any water so as todreduce the amount of potable water being needed to maintain lake elevation. Analysis The release of water is still recommended to assist in reducing the nutrient loading that likely remains. The addition of the aeration system has improved conditions, but bottom sediment and nutrients are still present that could become problematic, especially in a drought year. Securing water funding to allow for increased water use and the release of water would assist in a more regular flow-through system- V. Water Quality As part of maintaining water quality and meeting potable water discharge regulations, the water supply required removal of chlorine before entering the lake. A dechlorination mixing tank is utilized to facilitate chlorine removal and is effectively removed during this process through the use of sodium sulfite tablets in the mixing tank. Chlorine levels are checked at the discharge point manually by park staff. No changes were made to the system in 2011 and there were no other significant operational issues. The aeration system that was installed in 2010 continues to improve overall conditions in the lake and runs continually year-round. There was a short lapse in operation during July when an electrical component needed replacing. The SolarBee has been left in the lake to provide supplemental circulation and may be removed at some point in the future to be used at another lake location (possibly Viele Lake). ~r y - - Bubbling aeration system. July 2011. Water quality for the lake seems to have taken a significant step towards stabilizing, if not showing overall improvement. The monthly water monitoring efforts show that temperatures, pH values, dissolved oxygen levels and specific conductance all normalizing as compared to 2009 and are fairly consistent with 2010. (See Attachment A) 8 There is no scientific evaluation of the water data other than what is mentioned below by city staff. Summary Notes of 2011 Water Quality Monitoring: Dissolved oxygen most values met criteria) • The majority of dissolved oxygen profile readings were above the warm water oxygen minimum criteria of 5 mg/L except the bottom 0.6 meters in July and bottom 0.2 meters in August. At these dissolved oxygen levels tolerant warm water fish species should survive throughout the growing season. Numerous minnows and koi were seen throughout the monitoring season evidence that these fish were able to survive. pH (all values met criteria) • All pH profile values were within the 6.5 to 9.0 criteria range. Specific Conductance (good dilution) • Specific conductance decreased from 530 to 332 umhos/cm between June 2 and October 3. This change is mostly due to the addition of low conductance finished distribution system water during this time period. • Specific conductance and estimated total dissolved solids were below the 820 umhos/em and 500 mg/L maximum criteria levels June through October 3rd. • Sulfate decreased from 112 on June 2 to 24 mg/L on October 3, well below the 250 mg/L maximum criteria. • Hardness and Alkalinity were fairly stable ranging from 159 to 142 mg/L and 122 to 131 mg/L respectively. Chloride dropped from 35 to 14 mg/L. Temperature (met criteria) • Temperature values stayed below the upper chronic criteria of 26.5 °C for warm water lakes. Other interestirim results • Total phosphorous stayed above the 60 ug/L maximum criteria limit throughout the sample season except for the 50 ug/L concentration observed on July 5. • Chlorophyll a values were above the 20 ug/L upper criteria except for the June 2 sample where a 4.5 ug/L concentration was recorded. • E-coli counts spiked above the 126/100mis maximum criteria on July 5 and August 30. • Very low nitrate data throughout the monitoring season indicates a nitrogen limited situation. Although ortho-phosphorous values were low August through September, there's plenty dissolved phosphorous present for free floating algae (phytoplankton) to utilize. • Secchi disk depth values are an indication of water clarity and were recorded to the lake bottom during the June and early July monitoring. The lake wasn't as clear August through September compared to previous years. Numerous minnows not seen before 2011 maybe eating most of the zooplankton that feed on phytoplankton creating algae blooms which in turn reduce the lake clarity. Bottom aerators may also be keeping fine silt material suspended causing less clarity. • Rooted aquatic vegetation primarily coontail and pondweed appeared to be less numerous during the 2011 monitoring season. 9 Odors from the lake were still evident and likely result from the decades of sediment and detritus accumulation on the bottom of the lake. It is also likely that due to the bubbling action of the air diffusers, the bottom sediment layer was disturbed and released odors to the surface. This may be an issue unresolved until removal of this sediment can occur. However, the amount of decomposing vegetation should be less, given the increased water quality resulting in fewer algae events. Filamentous algae remain pre-dominantly present under the water surface. There were no significant algae blooms as experienced in past years. While there continues to be a large amount of aquatic vegetation, there appears to be a reduction in the amount of surface algae observed. Duckweed was prevalent in the wetland areas of the lake intermittently during the season. W A MMWN!-W r fa y Some surface algae on June 30, 2011 Lake conditions on September 12, 2011 Analysis As in 2010, the conditions of the lake remain improved in terms of aesthetic appearance as well 10 as general water quality measurements. The aeration system runs on a continual basis. The contractual services for algae microbe additions were again continued to try and control organic growth, to assist in reducing organic matter within the lake. VI. Water Budget The goals of maintaining higher water levels and improving water quality were directly related to the amount of water made available during the year. The total amount of added water was 4,139,330 gallons. The budgeted water amount provided to the Department/project at no charge is 1,307,000 gallons. The actual amount of water charged for over-budgeted use was 2,832,330 gallons. The cost figures according to the city water schedule rates, totaled $31,593.04. Analysis Water budget remains the most costly portion of this project. Due to available funding set aside for this project was less than previous years, the beginning water additions were delayed until May. Allowed water budget was only for the pilot portion of the project and will need to be re- evaluated if water additions are continued, as well as securing funding for water charges. VII. Groundwater Monitoring This data is not yet available, but will be included in the final pilot project report. XIII. Project Labor For 2011, labor maintenance cost was minimal as weed control and dechlorinator monitoring were the primary labor charges. Contractual labor showed little change as the project scopes were the same as 2010. City staff labor amounted to approximately $1,100. (Other costs are noted in Section IX.) The primary labor effort went towards: • Monitoring the dechlorination system and adding dechlorination tablets (2-3 visits/week); • Contractual work for algae and mosquito control (site visits bi-weekly); • Contractual work for groundwater monitoring and reports (twice per year); • Staff observing and collecting water level data (variable); • Weed management control around the lake (32 hours). Analysis General maintenance costs remained low, as basic maintenance needs were performed during the season. (This could vary if there is a need for reducing shoreline vegetation or if surface algae conditions warrant removal.) Contractual labor will likely remain similar if monitoring for groundwater and mosquito management continues. IX. Project Costs The major cost for 2011 was for water additions to the lake. Water charges occur when the existing water budget is exceeded (over 1,307,000 gallons) and the city of Boulder Water Rate Schedule is used to assess charges given the amount of overage used. Contractual charges were for groundwater monitoring and algae and mosquito control. Other I1 associated costs went towards staff labor and monitoring efforts (weeding, dechlorinator monitoring, water monitoring). Total project cost amounted to approximately $41,753. 2010 Major cost breakdown: • Water charges $31,593 • Ottertail, Inc. monitoring $ 3,652 • BioHabitats, Inc. monitoring $ 5,408 • General staff labor 1,100 $41,753 Plant Investment Fee In March 2009, a Plant Investment Fee (PIF) ordinance was adopted related to water, wastewater and storm water PIF changes. These changes are to be phased in over the next three years. In brief, these fees are charged when an increase in demand is placed on the City's existing water system. If the use of the retrofitted irrigation system is continued after the completion of this project term in 2011, a PIF fee of $215,186 ($2.47/square foot, for two surface acres) will be charged to the Parks and Recreation Department. No charges have been incurred to date. Analysis The costs for 2011 may be considered minimal operational costs considering the late start of water additions, the low level of lake maintenance undertaken and continued contractual labor for monitoring to track conditions over time. 2011 was the lowest of the three years of operational costs during the pilot program ($90,201 for 2010 and $93,022 for 2009). X. Outreach/Education For 2011, there was no definitive outreach or educational program other than visitor contacts made at the lake site by staff. The effort to work with the neighborhood and schools was set aside due to staff work load and no further follow up by the previous year workgroup. Monthly reports were reduced as conditions at the lake were consistent with no significant activity to report upon. Analysis Staff received positive feedback from visitors and community residents as to the conditions of the lake. Staff work loads resulted in setting aside any major project goals such as interpretive displays or signs for 2011. There is still potential to use the lake/wetland as an interpretive or educational opportunity; the priority will need to be set within the annual work plan of projects for the department. Evaluation of Goals As part of the Adaptive Management Plan, goals were derived in order to evaluate the performance of management actions at Thunderbird Lake. These goals apply not only to the direction received from City Council, but also to the overall enhancement and positive benefit to the lakes aesthetic and ecological condition. 12 Goal l: Increase the lake surface area to approximately 2.2 acres (water elevation of 5,315 ft.). Goal partially met. The water levels were within target range of 5,315 feet; however the actual target was not met until September. Water levels prior were within 6" for most of the season. Water addition rates did not fluctuate substantially, so it is not clear as to why levels did not rise sooner other than normal evaporation and ground saturation conditions. Goal 2: Improve the water quality of Thunderbird Lake. Goal was met. Indicators from the monthly water quality reports show that stabilization is being established, most likely from the aeration system installed in 2010. Release of water could also be helpful in reducing nutrient loads, but would contribute to higher water charges. Goal 3: Minimize the changes in wetland function and aquatic habitat. Goal was met. The designed wetland construction to facilitate continued ecological function did maintain the functional emergent wetland components for the lake. The regular presence of waterfowl and small fish during high water times indicated some preference and function for these areas. Invertebrate activity and reproduction was also observed during the summer (dragonfly nymphs) within the mitigated area. As ecological function cannot be fully evaluated in the short-term, the bases for longer term wetland functions are present and appear to becoming well developed. Goal 4: Provide opportunities for education and passive recreation. Goal not met. Staff work loads contributed to no formal educational effort that was pursued in 2010. While the goal remains a positive one, determining the priority with other work items is necessary. However as in 2010, passive recreation opportunities for walkers and lake/nature enthusiast still occur, as noted by comments to staff that the lake is now an enjoyable place to visit. Summary Overall, 2011 was again, a positive year for the lake and surrounding wetland. There were no significant negative events during the season; algae blooms and odor issues were minimal. The water quality appears to have benefited greatly from the aeration system as the last two years of data show stabilizing effects on the water quality criteria as compared to 2009. The cost of water has been the most significant expenditure and general labor remains the lowest cost factor. If the need for additional vegetation removal is felt necessary, the cost of permitting this work will be needed, as the current permit has expired. 2011 was the final year of the Thunderbird Lake Pilot Project. A final project report will be completed in the first quarter of 2012, providing background information and future management options for Thunderbird Lake. The final report will be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and to City Council for future management direction. Attachment A 13 Water Quality Monitoring: 2010 - 2011 Comparisons Dissolved Oxygen Thunderbird Lake Dissolved Oxygen Profiles (2010) 0 Sample Dates 0.2 0.4 I- - 016 0.8 ; E 1 r .--F-417 " ,t ~-5110 1.2 - r. -f 716 '9M5 1.4 - Oxygen Criteria X10+a 1.6 1.9 2 - 2.2 .101234567891011121314151617181920 Dissolved Oxygen (mg►L) Thunderbird Lake Dissolved Oxygen Profiles (2011) 0- 0.2 Sa le Dates 0.4 - - - l 612 . i 715 0.6 912 8130 i 1a- 10/3 ` - L o. 0 1.2 - - 1.4. - - s 1.6 - Oxygen Criteria 1.8 - - - 2 - - - - - _ _ a 2.2 L -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dissolved Oxygen (mgll) 14 Temperalure Thunderbird Lake Temperature Profiles (2010) 0I 0.2 i 0.4 0.6 0.8 E 1+ C CL ~ 1.2 )Sample s 1.4 1.6 ' 1.0- 6 9115 tlaa 2 _ 2.2 - - - - - - - 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Temperature (°C) Thunderbird Lake Temperature Profiles (2011) 0 0.2 Sample Dates 0.4 - 0.6 . 612 0.8 w i 6/30 r -Lion • n 0) 1.2 D 1.4 + 1 ~ 1.6 c-~*- 1.8 - - - { Temperature criteria 2+ 2.2 - - 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Temperature (°C) 1S pH Levels Thunderbird Lake pH Profiles (2010) 0- Semple Dates 0.2 -4-4/7 0.4 silo 611 0.6 - - - - - - -716 ~ 911b E t CL 1,4 t - - 1.6 - 2 - - 2.2 - - - - - - - - 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Dissolved Oxygen (mglL) Thunderbird Lake PH Profiles (2011) 0 02 Sample Dates 6/2 0.4 - - - a 7!5 ' - - W2 0-6 - 1 8/30 0.8 - - - } 1013, gay ~ O 1.2 + - 1.4 1.6 - - 1.6 - - 2a PH Criteria _ 2.2 - - - _ 6 6.5 7 7.5 B 85 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 11.5 12 PH 16 Specific Conductance Thunderbird Lake Specfic Conductance Profiles (2010) 0 - 0.2 - i Sample Dates 0.4 417 0.6 ` - -6^5110 611 t7JS 0.8 r - -.a - - - oils ~f 1014 r C - 1.2 - - - 1.4' j to - - - - - - - s 2.2E - 300 400 500 Soo 700 600 900 1000 1100 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) Thunderbird Lake Specfic Conductance Profiles (2011) 0- ~ r a 0.2 + Sample Dates 0.41- - * t 8/2 0.6 • 715 ` - - 1 812 0.6 - - ? - 8/30 - - -x-1013 0 1.2 1.4 - 2., 2.2 - - 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 Specific Conductance (umhos/cm) 17 CITY OF BOULDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 23, 2012 AGENDA TITLE: Pottery Program Management Assessment Next Steps PRESENTERS: Kirk W. Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Teri Olander, Recreation Administrator BACKGROUND 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, the Department contracted with Museum Management Consultants, Inc (MMC) to complete the Pottery Program Management Assessment (Attachment A). 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. The Department provided MMC's final report to the community in November and solicited feedback and suggestions about possible next steps in creating a successful future for this program. Some members of the pottery community attended a community meeting on November 22, 2011 to offer comments and others provided feedback through online and written comment and question forms. At the November 28, 2011 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) meeting, MMC presented their findings and recommendations and addressed questions and comments from the PRAB as well as questions received from members of the public prior to the meeting. NEXT STEPS Upon completion of the Pottery Program Management Assessment, staff reviewed and included MMC's program recommendations in the Pottery Program Workplan Timeline, based on the time required to complete analyses and staff workload (Attachment B). AGENDA ITEM VI-A PAGE 1 Program recommendations from the Pottery Program Management Assessment and Pottery Program 2012 Work Plan Timeline will be discussed with PRAB on January 23, 2012 and with the community in the 1St Quarter, 2012. Staff will begin the analyses identified in the assessment, evaluate and review MMC's recommendations and will determine which recommendations might be implemented as based on findings. First Quarter actions will include the following: 1. Financial analyses • Fully loaded cost of clay • True cost of Pottery Sale • Fee structure of classes 2. Update on 2011 financial information for Pottery Program, January 23, 2012 3. Evaluate "Independent Study" course 4. Brainstorm and evaluate additional short-term offerings 5. Department Round Table with public to discuss Pottery Program Management Assessment Recommendations 6. Update on 2011 Program, Service and Facility Viability Assessment Updates will be provided on the Pottery page of the Department's website http://www.boulderpottea.com. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: City of Boulder Pottery Program Management Assessment Attachment B: Pottery Program 2012 Work Plan Timeline 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 Pottery Program 2012 Work Plan Timeline Long term objective for Pottery Program: The City of Boulder seeks to provide an innovative, creative and financially sustainable instructional pottery/arts program for the Boulder community. 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 and recommendations are being reviewed and evaluated as indicated on the work plan timeline below: 2012 - V Quarter 2012-2 d Quarter 2012-3 d Quarter 2012 - 4th Quarter Financial Analyses - 2013 Budget Submission - Provide additional youth offerings a 2013 Budget adoption by City Council o "Fully loaded" cost of clay (include glazing & firing costs) - Review potential actions to enhance (camps) a Revisit City Department within which Pottery o True cost of Pottery Sale marketing & cost ■ Implement new short-term offerings, Lab resides o Fee structure of classes (ensure class minimums cover ■ Staffing analysis intensives or courses as determined o Review budgets direct indirect costs, variable pricing) o Identify skills/expertise needed ■ Implement new program fees as o Discuss options/impacts ■ Evaluate `Independent Study' course o Evaluate staff strengths determined by analysis o Recommendations ■ Brainstorm and evaluate additional short-term offerings (i.e. o Recommended adjustments ■ Research and educate community ■ Stakeholder Outreach workshops, mini-sessions) ■ Continue discussions with pottery about arts nonprofits ■ PRAB meetings/discussions ■ Stakeholder Outreach (Department Round Table with public to community to formalize structure for ■ Evaluate membership program ■ Determine if City will contract the discuss recommendations volunteers to organize and run pottery o Structure Management of the Pottery Program and issue ■ PRAB meetings/discussions sale o Impacts RFP ■ Stakeholder Outreach o Recommendations ■ PRAB meetings/discussions ■ Stakeholder Outreach ■ PRAB meetings/discussions Implementation of recommendations related to course offerings will align the deadlines for the Parks and Recreation Department's Recreation Guide: Spring and Summer Camps 2012: January 9, 2012 Summer 2012: March 5, 2012 Fall 2012: June 4, 2012 Winter 2012: October 8, 2012 Spring and Summer Camps 2013: January 7, 2013 TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board FROM: Kirk Kincannon, CPRP, Director of Parks and Recreation Alice Guthrie, Recreation Superintendent Jeff Dillon, Parks and Planning Superintendent Abbie Poniatowski, Senior Business Manager Sarah DeSouza, Senior Manager of Communications, Marketing and Partnerships SUBJECT: Matters from the Department DATE: January 23, 2012 A. Department Master Plan Update Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Kickoff Week Schedule - Jan 30-Feb 3ra, 2012 January 12, 2012 Unless noted all meetings are scheduled for Iris lower conference room. Senior Staff will send invites to each of the meetings listed below that they are responsible for leading. Monday, Jan 30"' 8-loam Team Kickoff Meeting Lower Iris Conference Room 3-5 pm Senior Management Stakeholder Interview 5-7pm Stakeholder Interviews Tuesday, Jan 31st 4-7pm Stakeholder Meeting Wednesday, Feb 1" 10-7pm Stakeholder Meetings Thursday, Feb 2"d 10-7pm Stakeholder Meetings Benchmark Peer Communities - The following communities are being considered for benclumark comparisons. The project team will evaluate which cities and areas share important characteristics with Boulder and which are models that are recognized as national leaders: • Similar geographic size and population • Active and biking friendly • Similar beliefs and values • Similar funding model - 50% fee based • Gold Medal winning - communities we may aspire to be more like • Natural open space and environmental values AGENDA ITEM # VII-A PAGE 1 Front Range Apex P&R District - Golden Arvada Broomfield Foothills P&R District (Jefferson County) Lafayette Longmont Louisville South Suburban P&R District (south Denver) Westminster Arapahoe P&R District (southeast Denver) Peer Cities Ann Arbor, MI Berkeley, CA Eugene, OR Fort Collins, CO Madison, WI Norman, OK Provo, UT Santa Barbara, CA Santa Cruz, CA Tempe, AZ Portland, OR Austin, TX Fairfax County Park Authority, VA Agenda Item # VII-A pg. 2 CITY OF BOULDER INFORMATION ITEM FOR: TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD - Jan. 9, 2012 PLANNING BOARD - Jan. 19, 2012 WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD - Jan. 23, 2012 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - Jan. 23, 2012 OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES - Jan. 25, 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - Feb. 1, 2012 GREENWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Feb. 15, 2012 SUBJECT: Draft CHAP for Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenwa s Improvements from 19`h to 22nd Streets REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Anne Noble - Greenways Coordinator Kurt Bauer = Engineering Project Manager Utilities Division Marni Ratzel - Transportation Planner lI PURPOSE: A summary of the draft CHAP is being provided to board members as an information item. It is requested you review the full CHAP available on the Greenways webpage under "Current Greenways Projects and Opportunities" and forward any comments or concerns regarding the draft CHAP to your Greenways Advisory Committee representative. If you have questions on this material, please contact Kurt Bauer at 303-441-4232 or 13auerK(tiabouldereolorado. =ov. The full CHAP is available at: Bouldercolorado.gov > City A-Z > G > Greenways Program > Current Greenways Projects and Opportunities > Fourmile Canyon Creek (19t - 22"d Streets) CHAP > CHAP GREENWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED: A recommendation from the Greenways Advisory Committee to City Council concerning the CHAP for the Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvements froml9th to 22nd Streets is requested. One of the recommended alternatives (emergency access to Tamarack Avenue) will require an amendment to the North Boulder Subcommunity (NoBo) Plan. Amendments to the NoBo Transportation Plan are reviewed and approved by Planning Board and subject to call-up by City Council. Pending GAC approval, Planning Board review of this amendment is scheduled for March 15, 2012. Attached is the Executive Summary from the Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvements fromi 9th to 22"d Streets CHAP along with a figure summarizing the proposed recommendations. I'.+~c7!~. AGENDA ITEM # J 111-A FOURMILE CANYON CREEK 19TH -22 ND STREETS CEAP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fourmile Canyon Creek project from 19th to 22°d Streets is bound by 19th Street on the west, Upland Avenue on the north, 22°d Street on the east and Riverside Avenue on the south. The purpose of the project is to improve safety and accessibility in the area of Fourmile Canyon Creek within the project bounds. Project objectives include the following: • Provide flood improvements at 19th Street and Fourmile Canyon Creek • Improve emergency access to Tamarack Avenue • Improve pedestrian and bicycle access from 22nd Street to Crest View Elementary School and 19th Street Crest View Elementary School is located at the northwest corner of 19th Street and Sumac Avenue. During a 100-year storm event, flooding would prohibit safe vehicular access to Crest View Elementary School. In 2009, the city completed a flood mitigation study for Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek. City Council stated the importance of flood improvements at Crest View Elementary School to provide safe vehicular access during a major storm event. Vehicular access to Tamarack Avenue is currently only available by way of 22"d Street from the east. Recent and potential future annexations in the project area allow for subdivision of existing parcels. Future subdivisions will require a secondary access for emergency vehicles to Tamarack Avenue. The North Boulder Sub-community Plan (NoBo Plan) and the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) show a secondary road connection from Upland to Tamarack Avenues along the west property line of 2010 Upland. A multi-use path exists along Fourmile Canyon Creek from Foothills Parkway to 28`h Street. The path will be extended in 2012 from 28th Street to 26th Street through Elks Neighborhood Park along Fourmile Canyon Creek. On-street designated bike routes and small segments of multi-use path exist west of 26th Street to 22"d' The NoBo Plan the TMP and the Greenways Master Plan (GMP) show a conceptual multi-use path connection alignment along hourmile Canyon Creek from the east end of Riverside Lane at 22nd Street to 19th Street. Project alternatives fall into three categories: 1) flood mitigation alternatives at 19th Street and Fourmile Canyon Creek, 2) alternatives to provide improved emergency access to Tamarack Avenue, and 3) east-west bicycle and pedestrian connection alternatives. This Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) report presents a comparative evaluation of the following specific alignment alternatives in each category: Flood Improvements • Fl: Replace the existing bridge at Fourmile Canyon Creek and 19th Street with box culverts sized to convey 100-year event flows. • F2: Replace the existing bridge at Fourmile Canyon Creek and 19th Street with box culverts sized to convey 100-year event flows. One of the box culverts would be used as a pedestrian and bicycle underpass. A'o Emergency Access to Tamarack Avenue • EA1: A 20-foot wide paved local access road located within a 30-foot wide right-of-way between parcels 2010 Upland Avenue and 4306 19"' Street. This alternative would provide primary emergency access to Tamarack Avenue from Upland Avenue and serve motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic in a shared roadway. • EA2: A 12-foot wide paved multi-use path located within a 20-foot wide right-of-way between parcels 2010 Upland Avenue and 4306 19`' Street. This alternative would provide secondary emergency access to Tamarack Avenue from Upland Avenue and also serve non-motorized traffic. • EA3: A 12-foot wide paved multi-use path located within an existing 20-foot wide right- of-way just south of parcel 4270 19t" Street. This alternative would provide secondary emergency access to Tamarack Avenue from 19th Street and also serve non-motorized traffic. East-West Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections • EW 1: A 5-foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Riverside Lane/ Avenue and the east side of 19th Street. • EW2: Multi-use path along the north side of Fourmile Canyon Creek. Two subalternatives for this alignment were evaluated: a) a 10-foot wide concrete path b) an 8-foot wide crusher fine path • EW3: A 5-foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Tamarack Avenue connecting to a 10-foot wide concrete multi-use path from the west end of Tamarack Avenue east to 19th St. • EW4: No new connections. Staff Recommendations The following presents staff recommendations based on the draft CEAP review. The attached figure presents a map showing the recommended alternatives. Flood Improvements The underpass option (F2) for flood mitigation at Fourmile Canyon Creek and 19th Street is recommended. It was overwhelmingly selected as the preferred alternative from responders to public comment and would provide vehicle traffic separation at 19th Street. Construction of this alternative will require purchase of an casement from 4270 19`' Street. Improved Emergency Access to Tamarck The 19`' Street to Tamarack Avenue alignment (EA3) is recommended to provide improved emergency vehicle access to Tamarack Avenue. This alternative would consolidate the future bicycle and pedestrian access to Tamarack Avenue with emergency access. It would require enhancing a crossing of Fourmile Canyon Creek to accommodate the weight load of emergency vehicles. Normal vehicular access would not be permitted. By eliminating the proposed north- south access to Tamarack Avenue (shown in the NoBo Plan) just east of 19th Street, several properties (4306 Upland, 2010 Upland and 4270 19t" Street) would not be fronted by public access on three sides. This alignment was identified as the preferred alternative by public input responders. Construction of this alternative will require purchase of an easement from 4270 19`x' Street. Selection of this alternative will also require an amendment to the NoBo Plan (the current NoBo Plan shows a secondary road access between Upland and Tamarack Avenues just cast of 19th Street). The City Transportation and Development Review Divisions agree that a [oc<ll access roadway providing full (non-emergency) vehicular access is not warranted based on current and projected traffic volumes generated by potential future subdivisions along Tamarack Avenue. l=ast-West Bicycle and Pedestrian Connection The 10-foot wide concrete path alignment along Founnile Canyon Creek (EW2a) is recommended for the east-west connection. This alignment is shown in the NoBo Plan, TMP and the GMP. Public input identifies this alignment as the first choice connection alternative. It is the only alternative that provides motor vehicle separation for both cyclists and pedestrians and is therefore the safest alternative. The hard surface would be maintained by the City of Boulder to a transportation standard. It would be plowed in the winter, providing year-round access to school children and bicycle commuters thereby meeting goals of promoting walking and bicycling for both the Boulder Valley School District and the city and it provides the best user experience. The GMP identifies a multi-objective program that integrates numerous activities, needs and community resources. The objectives include: • Protect and restore riparian, floodplain and wetland habitat • Enhance water quality • Mitigate storm drainage and floods • Provide alternative modes of transportation routes or trails for pedestrians and bicyclists • Provide recreation opportunities • Protect cultural resources The GMP divides each tributary into reaches to facilitate a manageable implementation approach for improvements. An inventory of each reach was completed to identify existing conditions and future opportunities for project-based improvements. The GMP also ranked each of the six Greenways objectives for each stream reach for the purpose of balancing conflicting interests at the time a project is being undertaken. Each objective was given a low to high rank based on specific criteria outlined in the Master Plan. For this reach of the Fourmile Canyon Creek, the transportation and recreation objectives ranked high, recognizing the relationship of this reach to Crest View Elementary School and nearby parks. Habitat restoration ranked medium in this reach, based on the average ranking of the existing habitat and the ability to easily replace and enhance the existing vegetation. Recommended alternative EW2a best meets the transportation and recreation objectives of the GMP, As part of the recently completed environmental assessment, ERO Resources Corp. (project environmental consultant) found virtually no wetlands in this stream reach and no suitable habitat for threatened and endangered species. The specific alignment along the north side of the creek was determined by ERO Resources in an effort to minimize impacts to mature and native riparian vegetation and to avoid inner wetland buffer and avoid and/or minimize encroachment into the outer wetland buffer zone as defined by the city's Streams, Wetlands and Water Body Ordinance. City staff acknowledges that while urban species are tolerant to human presence and the addition of this path connection will not eliminate species, there could be wildlife impacts through the reduction in number of animals as a result of this project. The project would include a habitat restoration component. Vegetative habitat impacts can be mitigated and enhanced through planting native vegetation. In addition, if there is a path in the riparian corridor, the city's Greenways Habitat crew assumes responsibility for control of invasive species thereby enhancing the overall habitat. The EW2a alternative will require purchase of a public access easement from 2020 Upland Avenue to construct the path. While the property owner has expressed no current interest in selling an easement for the path connection, the EW2a alignment is the best ultimate alignment and is the recommended preferred alternative. Until securing an easement, the city proposes to complete the Eroposed east-west multi-use path connection from the west end of Tamarack Avenue to 19` Street. Summary of Recommended Alternatives 1885 '•'t8t7L+ to17 ,_G 1075 - 2.105: 2125.- - 3 Fourmile Canyon Creek Centerline ' Wetland Bounds/Buffers Property Lines F2 Bncge with Pedestrian , • 7 Required Easements n Bicycle Underpass } ;L'>r'•".,~ e •f,'~` Unannexed Parcels Y R' EAT 12 ft Concrete Multi-Use Path -427x; " 7. 'I and Emergency Access * 's5 t • 1281 1847 ♦ 4 Segment of Tamarack Ave 2,~c+` § FW2a: 10 ft Concrete ' ?±c~ s Sidewalk Connections Currently Under Construction ?21 t ~ ,~".v. -.ty h~ Z - ~ t ~~r ,2158 ; 2, 3.2~♦ Multi-Use Path Ir_ r Ow ic 1... ~ r~ ~ .1 R~ , ~w ~ a ~ ~ Al , ~T y ; ~ i r ; ~ ~ ~ as ~ -w ~Rf~.... , ~ •d, -3~ ~t~`• r~~f_ ~.~'88G 1C3~ - tr... gc 2Pt5 t - ' - ~ 4`.Pr 1 1C t ' 7{,3P 1088' y ~ s f 7x48 F , 2 `.•q, 2g5 i 2i,5 •j23q AGENDA ITEM # Vlff PAGE