Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - 1/23/2012 City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Council Chambers 1777 Broadway January 23, 2012 Action Meeting Minutes To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link: ~N-,Ay.bouldeLparks-rec.or~ Board Present: Bob Yates, Rick Thayer, Marcelee Gralapp, Myriah Conroy, Kelly Wyatt, Mike Conroy Board Absent: Michelle Estrella Staff Present: Kirk Kincannon, Jeff Dillon, Alice Guthrie, Sarah DeSouza, Abbie Poniatowski, Sally Dieterich, Matt Claussen, Teri Olander The meeting was called to order at 6:03 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS Kincannon provided the following update on future Board items: Parks and Recreation Master Plan updates ongoing for the next 12-15 months • PRAB study sessions and public outreach meetings to be scheduled to coincide with the Master Plan updates • 2/27/12 PRAB meeting - Thunderbird Lake public hearing • Budget 101 and economic outlook for the City of Boulder • Pottery Program - Continued outreach, updates and next steps • Reminder that 2012 Boards and Commissions recruitment is now open and that the PRAB has one vacancy due to the conclusion of Marcelee Gralapp's term - City Council appointments to be announced on 3/20/12 • PRAB study session - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prior to 2/27/12 PRAB meeting • March or April 2012 - Pottery Lab and Columbia Cemetery tour 5/29/12 - City Council study session on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan - to discuss issues related to the fee study III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation was opened. 1 Tim Downing, resident and student of the Pottery Lab, said the work plan timeline is too long and drawn out. He detailed three items as most important to consider: 1. Highly qualified staff needs a guarantee to honor their valuable work during the year long process 2. Requests that the PRAB decide if they should follow the consultants recommendation to have the Pottery Lab operated as a public/private partnership 3. 2012 budget figures will provide a clear picture of how much financial support the Pottery Lab needs to maintain its educational program Chuck Lawhead, resident, asked the following questions: • Why will this subject take a full year to discuss when only dealing with a $60,000-$80,000 budget gap • Is public input upfront or are we simply to be informed of the Department's foregone conclusions • Is there really a long term sustainability objective He added that everyone should be involved in discussions upfront: Parks and Recreation, the PRAB, Pottery Lab staff, FoPL and Pottery Lab users Ron Broome, resident, noted that there have been many meetings with Parks and Recreation staff, PRAB members and FoPL members, but things have not moved forward. He asked why the timeline provides more of the same instead of progressing towards a conclusion. He asked that the PRAB look at a sustainability plan in terms of what is being presented tonight. Ann Fontenot, resident and Pottery Lab student, said she spoke at a previous PRAB meeting, asking if all stakeholders would be involved in a roundtable discussion about the sustainability of the Pottery Lab. She added that the answer she received was yes. Tonight she asked what happened to the roundtable discussion and why a timeline has been established and recommendations agreed on without the roundtable discussion. Public participation was closed. IV. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes from November 28, 2011 and December 5, 2011 The minutes from November 28, 2011 and December 5, 2011 were approved as written. B. Informational Items 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, that item would be moved to Agenda Item VI, Items for Discussion/Information. 2 V. ITEMS FOR ACTION There were no Items for Action VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION Yates suggested that Agenda Item VI-C be moved to VI-A due to public interest in the Pottery Lab Next Steps. A. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Poniatowski provided the overview of this item. She said this is the first touch on the process of the Department's Capital Program. Her power point presentation agenda included: • Guiding principles & prioritization • Capital definitions • Economic update & capital funding • 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Program • Accomplishments • PRAB roles • Process & next steps She included the following schedule for the CIP: 2/27/12 - PRAB CIP Study Session (2"d touch) • 3/28/12 - PRAB CIP Public Hearing, Discussion and Recommendation (3rd touch) a 4/12 - Citywide CIP Information Sharing Meeting • 5/12 - I" Draft CIP to Planning Department • 5/12 - CIP Advisory Board Review • Late May 2012 - Proposed Operating and CIP Budget Submittals Due to City Manager's Office • Mid June 2012 - CIP Submitted to Planning Board • Mid July 2012 - Planning Board CIP Hearing • 8/14/12 - City Council Budget Study Session • 9/11 & 9/25/12 - City Council Budget Consideration B. Thunderbird Lake Year End Report Claussen provided a verbal update on the Thunderbird Lake Pilot Project. • 2011 was a positive year - negative events minimal • No algae or odor issues • Data shows benefit to water quality compared to 2009 - due to aeration system • Cost factors: water cost highest - labor cost lowest • Vegetation removal - if needed will need to be permitted 2011 final year for pilot project • 2012 - i s1 quarter - final project report to be completed and will provide management options for Thunderbird Lake 3 • 2012 final report to be presented to the DRAB and City Council for future management direction C. Pottery Program Management Assessment Next Steps Olander spoke briefly on this item and said before scheduling the roundtable meeting, staff wanted to make certain that all the consultant's recommendations were slotted into the Pottery Program Workplan Timeline and provided a recap of the process during the past few months: • 11/22/11 - Pottery Program open house - Pottery Program Management Assessment from Museum Management Consultants, Inc. provided - public questions and comments on the Management Assessment requested • 11 /28111 PRAB meeting - Consultant's recommendations presented - questions from the PRAB and the public were addressed Olander provided the next steps: • Staff will be scheduling a roundtable meeting in the first quarter, most likely in February • l A quarter - Financial analyses, evaluate independent study course, conduct the stake holder outreach and involve the PRAB • Subsequent quarters - Opportunities for stakeholder outreach and communication with the PRAB • Update on 2011 Program, Service and Facility Viability Assessment which includes cost recovery for the Pottery Program from 2011 Olander said that the purpose of this meeting's item is to receive PRAB feedback and discussion on timeline items and how the Department can move forward. Olander added that the 2012 budget is the same as the 2011 budget and that no money has been removed from Pottery Lab allocations for 2012. PRAB discussion: Conroy (Myriah) requested that the Pottery Lab roundtable meeting be scheduled as soon as possible. Gralapp said the process is too drawn out and asked why this process has gone on so long. She urged staff to organize a subcommittee comprised of staff, PRAB members, Friends of the Pottery Lab (FoPL) members and some Pottery Lab users to do some of the things more quickly than staff members, who are busy with numerous other projects and commitments. She encouraged staff to think about a faster way to proceed. Yates asked about the best way to involve the PRAB in the process. Should this be opened to all PRAB members or should one or two be selected as representatives? Wyatt, Conroy (Mynah) and Thayer agreed that there should be one or two representatives. 4 Yates, Conroy (Myriah) and Wyatt volunteered to be representatives feeling this would assure that at least one person is present at each meeting. Conroy (Myriah) said she feels that the process has taken a step backwards, requesting that set meetings be established to help to accelerate the process. She added that although she understand staff s workload, from the user's point of view and for the sustainability of the program, it is important that the momentum not be lost. Kincannon asked the Board to review the agenda of the proposed timeline where it is noted that the majority of decisions happen in the ls` and 2"d quarters with implementation begirming in the 3`d and 4` quarters. Addressing questions about subsidy and allocation, he said that when staff returns to the PRAB with Budget 101 that will be when staff will go over how programs are laid out specific to how the City operates. He added that revenue vs. expense numbers are being finalized and will be available soon. Thayer said what still concerns him is that there is no methodology to analyze. Do we subsidize because we like something? He asked for a more granular analysis and some methodology with tools to analyze. He added that without an apples to apples comparison the process will become apolitical issue, which doesn't serve the Pottery Lab or the Board. He urged staff to provide something to use as a tool. Kincannon responded that there was an analysis completed during the Recreation Program and Facilities Plan and said that this information will be provided again as things move forward and will make certain it is clear and understood. Conroy (Myriah) asked that the line of communication be kept open. VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT A. Department Master Plan Update Dillon provided a verbal update on this item which included a Master Plan schedule for week one, January 30 to February 3, 2012 and said the most significant part will be discussion of fees, finances and charges, looking at the entire economic picture. This includes both commercial, private, non-profit fees and the revenue stream and added that the first three months are critical to have PRAB's engagement in the process. Dillon noted that Studio Terra Landscape Architecture has been contracted as consultant, and includes Denver economist Ford Frick and the Eppley Institute from Indiana University School of Parks, all which will be attending the initial kick-off, January 30 to February 3. He said that is the time to gather as much information as possible and the Department urges PRAB members and other key figures to be a part of the discussion and added that staff will be reviewing finances, recreation uses, parks and programs and the communication plan Dillon provided the following timeline: 5 • Six potential contacts with the PRAB during the next year - February, March and April being the most important • City Council study session May 29, 2012 - presentation of data on finances and fees B. City Council Retreat Update/Park Closure Rule Update Kincannon provided a short update on the City Council retreat held January 20 and 21. He said that retreat information is posted on the City of Boulder website. He noted that City Council member KC Becker asked about the Parks Closure Rule, requesting further discussion on the advocacy issue and freedom of speech issue hoping to move to development of a permit program. Parks, police and the City Attorney's office will monitor the effects of the closure rule, which is 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. and report back to the PRAB in May or June 2012. C. 2012 Board/Commissions Recruitment - 2/16/12 Deadline Kincannon reminded Board members that the recruitment process is underway for City of Boulder Boards and Commissions. He said there will be one vacant seat on the PRAB, as Gralapp's term concludes. He urged Board members to communicate this vacancy to citizens who may be interested in becoming a PRAB member and ask them to fill out the online application. D. Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) Update/Next Steps Dillon provided this update. He said the next step will be to begin looking at the adaptive management process, identifying the vision that was provided, then taking that vision and applying it to measurable outcomes that can be identified for each of the larger goals. He added that this process will take place over the next few months with the total process being approximately eighteen months. VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS A. Fourmile Canyon Creek 19'h to 22nd Street Greenways Improvements CEAP Yates spoke briefly on this item. He said, as the PRAB representative to the Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC), this item was being provided to the PRAB as a courtesy item, as it does not directly impact the Parks and Recreation Department. He added that the PRAB is being asked to provide any concerns with the project to the GAC. There was no comment from the PRAB. IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: February 27, 2012 X. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. 6 BY P ARCS A~~ APPRO A p i R~ Bob tes Board Chair i Attest: sally Dieteri Recording seCretary