June 26, 2023 — Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] It is 601622 pm. I'm gonna call this meeting to order. We have a quorum. could you please, Rosa, make sure that we're recording the meeting. Here he is. You just get it started. hey, Bernie, do you mind grabbing your name plate to put it in front of where you're sitting. Just let me know when we're recording. Rosa. Okay. okay, just can you confirm, are we recording? Okay. okay, so thanks everybody for coming tonight. We have a core, and we're going to start the meeting. The first item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. and I'm gonna throw a wrench in that in motion. to actually amend the agenda. to have.

[1:01] Item 6 a moved up in front of Item 5. In the interest of ensuring that our staff. who are amazing, can present that tonight and go home at a reasonable hour. do I have a second second. Second, yeah. okay, thank you. Any discussion. Okay, are we going to do a roll call for this? Or do we just vote? Okay? I'll start with Bernie, do you? Did you second it? Okay? So, Anna? Yes. yes. yes. Jason. Yes. yes. Okay. So we've

[2:02] now change the agenda. Such that item 6, a will be presented before the action item tonight. so, Allen, you could. Please remind me that we did that. That would be awesome. Okay, The next item is Future board items and tours. and I'll hand it over to Staff for that. Good evening. Members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory board and community members who might be listening on Alley Road, the director of Parks and Recreation, and during this portion of the meeting we just provide some highlights on the upcoming agenda and other items or community may find of interest. the one I wanna highlight because we are in our summer travel and vacation season is that tonight you're going to Talk about the first draft of our historic places plan. And you have that scheduled for action in July. And so, just as a reminder as Rosa sends out meeting details. If you would let us know planned attendance to make sure we have a quorum that'll be critical, especially because we have an action item that we look forward to moving forward. The other thing I'll call out is that we have confirmed. We are able to do a roving meeting or field trip for your August meeting.

[3:09] and so we'll be working with the chair and vice chair to schedule logistics for that, and anticipate bringing you a brief item at your July meeting to get input on sites that will align with our capital improvement plan, and where we would benefit from having an onsite conversation. And so we are working on keeping that meeting very light for you, so that it can be site based conversations about some of our upcoming capital projects. Other than that, I would just call your attention to everything in the department events and items of interest. There is a lot going on in our community this summer. The social streets experiment began yesterday with Roller Pelosa on Thirteenth Street. I have 2 working legs today. So that's pretty exciting after in line skating with my daughter. And with that I just I would encourage you to always look at this and know what's going on in the community upcoming meetings. And as a reminder, this is also an opportunity. If board members have items they would like discussed in the agenda. You could mention that for the chair and vice chair to bring to the agenda setting meeting that we're having tomorrow

[4:11] any discussion on this item. Okay? ally. Anything else? That's it on future items. Thank you. Item on our agenda is public participation. And this portion of the meeting is for members of the public 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 tonight. There are not any public hearing scheduled. No, there are There are public hearing scheduled for later in the meeting, but I think that all of our commenters are for this initial public participation section correct. That is our understanding. However, I will note that if any community member has joined us virtually, and intends to speak at the public hearing. That is, item 5, a. I believe. that they should communicate. There is a form online, or you could put your name in the Zoom chat for our board secretary to pay attention to.

[5:21] I'm not in the zoom, so I'm not sure if we have community members here for the public, for the public meeting. Thank you. Ali. During this public participation time 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 min. depending on the nature of your matter. You may or may not receive a response from the Board after you deliver your comments. The Board is always listening to and appreciative of community feedback. Secretary Rosa, will you please present the additional guidelines, and then call on our first speaker tonight.

[6:00] and if you want me to read from the slide, I can do that. Just let me know. Okay. so I'll go ahead and read from the slide on kind of decorum. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and council and board members, as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to sign up in its speak in advance, and use the name they are commonly known by

[7:06] individuals, must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. You have 3 min for public comment. Vice chair. Who would you like to bring. First I get to pick the first community member. On the left is Mary Ann Briggs. Hi, good evening. My name is Mary Ann Briggs, and I've been a tennis player in boulder for 50 years from my first week in town in 1,973, when I signed up for a tennis class at Centennial. What used to be junior high

[8:05] to this very day. I've been involved with Bta League tennis. Many tournaments, including Austin Scott and the boulder open now just recreational tennis. I was also a health and physical education teacher at Fairview High School for a very long career. during which I enjoyed teaching tennis as one of many activities we offered. I do have some concerns, however, over the dwindling availability of courts. It seems like we are losing courts rather than gaining or even improving the ones we have. We've lost the 12 Kittridge Courts, the 4 Williams village courts, and possibly soon to lose the Rocky Mountain tennis Center courts as well as the Cu South Courts. The ones we still have have seen better days. and may have been lined with many, have been lined with pickle ball lines which prevents us from having League matches there. You may or may not know, but the Colorado Tennis Association does not allow official usta and Cta matches to happen on courts that are lined with pickle ball lines.

[9:05] Most of the Rec center courts have been compromised also due to these lines, and it's very difficult to play a good game of tennis with so many extra lines of import. The courts associated with Boulder Valley School district are often unavailable for much of the school year, so it's hard to get a court. The reservation system for tennis has gotten very difficult as well with pickle ball blocking out certain times and days. I'm curious why, the pocket part courts like Martin Park and Columbine, which, by the way, look great. Thank you for resurfacing them. Why, they weren't the ones that were allowed to be lined with pickle ball lines because of facility, having 4 or 5 tennis courts, like the Rec center courts, is appropriate for leak tennis as long as they aren't lying with pickle ball lines, whereas the parts with only 2 ports cannot accommodate the 3 to 5 matches required by a league match.

[10:00] So bottom line is we need more courts, but at the very least we need to maintain the ones we have, we need to avoid lining them with pickle ball lines. And we need to keep the reservation system open to all types of players. also, with fewer available courts, the general public family and children, families and children have a more difficult time finding an open court. These folks are probably not going to be waiting on a computer exactly a week ahead to reserve a court. So there needs to be the opportunity to spontaneously show up at a court in the city of Boulder, and be able to play some fun tennis with family or friends. I, personally have never been a member of a tennis club, and have not had the opportunity to play indoors throughout the year. So in my dreams I envision a beautiful public facility with indoor courts as well as outdoor courts like the Apex center in Jefferson County. Why can't Boulder do that? Thank you. Thanks so much, Marianne. we have Mac Matt Ricktel.

[11:53] Rosa, do we have Matt?

[12:00] Matt? Go ahead and I'll time you be on my phone. Hello, can you hear me? Okay, we can hear you. Okay. I'm so sorry. tennis I can play. Technology clearly evades me. I apologize. all right. listen. I I grew up in first of all, many thanks for having me. I grew up in Boulder, and I thank Miss Briggs for her comments, because I I want to echo some of them when I grew up here as a kid. Tennis was a thing for more affluent kids who could belong to places with courts, particularly in winter. And now I'm a dad with teams who play tennis, and I play myself, and things have changed over the years here and elsewhere, and humbly, but with urgency. I just want to ask this community not to go backwards and not to return tennis to a thing for those while I love them. But I do not belong to Meadows and Boulder Country Club, where the wait is years and there is exclusivity. This will be all but the certain thing in winter, if we do not act

[13:10] to to create a facility with this preface, I'll make just 3 very quick points, one to echo Miss Briggs. This is about family members and members of all ages, kids and parents love to play in winter and summer. We need. We need facilities for that. There are so many people. I am aging myself sixties and seventies and eighties, who find recreation and fitness to community members across the country have found a way to accommodate tennis, even ones more land starved than boulder San Francisco, to wit, has a recent opening of a wonderful facility that allows year round play and finally, and this is the most important midpoint I'll make tonight. Please, please, please do not engage in magical thinking. This is happening the closure of courts. It's happening imminently. For months I and others have been in conversation with Miss Rhodes. Thank you, Ali.

[14:05] we appreciate being. Listen to, and I guess what I want to urge tonight is, please hear us as well. Not just listen to us. This is happening in absent action. Tennis is going to return to the thing only for those who belong to the exclusive clubs. Thank you for listening. Thanks so much, Matt. Next we have day we win. Okay? I can. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Okay. I'm just gonna go ahead and start. I don't see a timer my name is Day. We win my husband, Brad Hayes and I moved to Boulder from Massachusetts 2 years ago. Our small town of 23,000 had 11 good quality public tennis courts at the High School, Junior High, and at a public park. Even the Co. Even though the courts were well used, reservations were not required. You could usually jump on without waiting. Competition with pickle Ball was not an issue then, but it may be now.

[15:06] There were also many private tennis clubs with indoor courts in our town and neighboring towns. Of course we had to pay high hourly rates when we first moved here to Boulder we are excited to be able to play tennis at the south boulder rec center with an easy walking distance to our house. We rarely made reservations, but sometimes did for a nominal fee. The courts seemed well used at various hours by recreational tennis players. such as ourselves and others. My husband and I play on several usta teams for mixed doubles and men's and women's doubles. We love the model of the Tennis Association, making use of public courts and not forcing us to pay costly hourly fees for courts and lessons. With pros. however, due to inadequate and unavailable courts, we have been forced to join associations in neighboring towns, such as Longmont and Lewisville

[16:05] combined. We played Boston. Excuse me, Folder Tennis Association, C. Vta. And Lta. long Mont. Tennis Association. Playing out of town is especially disappointing. Since we have public courts near our house and table mesa, that Fairview High School ones and the Sovo Rec Center courts are with an easy walking distance. The High School courts have big cracks. The sober Wreck Center courts have been taken over by pickleball with little opportunity for drop in at regular times. as others have mentioned. Also, as Mary I mentioned, because of the Pickle Ball lines, we can only play Bta League matches at Centennial or C. You South. The hope is that there would be more public courts available for tennis in South Boulder and other parts of Boulder. We would love to investigate whether the Fairview High School courts could be repaired, or the Sovo or Cu. South Courts could be made more available to the public.

[17:03] We do occasionally play at East Martin in Centennial. But it'll be nice if we can play closer to home. Tennis has been a great lifelong sport for us, and we would love the next generation to enjoy the sport easily and at a low cost. Court availability and quality would certainly contribute toward that end. Thanks for listening thanks so much. And and Rosa, before we call the next speaker. Do we have the timer so that the speakers can see? Thank you. Next step is Leonard Siegel. Good evening. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Great Hi! Yes, I'm a Leonard Siegel. I'm an architect by training, and the executive director of the preservation organization, historic boulder, Inc.

[18:01] And I want to bring to your attention 3 topics of relevance to your scope of review this evening. The first is a historic places. Plan historic boulder has appreciated being included as an expert stakeholder at several informational meetings. During the research phase of this project some of our members have contributed many hours of time to review the text of the hip, and have offered corrections to make the report as accurate as possible, to comply with State Historic Fund Grant stipulations since we received the new hip report this past Friday, several of our expert volunteers reviewed the new documents in the very short period of time over the weekend regarding the Columbia Cemetery, we have found some inaccuracy still, and whole items of historical importance left out of the text. Also, there does not seem to be much in the way of recommendations for maintenance and protection of historic features like grave markers. I'm happy to email the details of the corrections that would improve the hip report. But can we have a little bit more time for review?

[19:00] It was our understanding that the Huntington Banshell in Central Park was a part of the hip, but it doesn't show up in the documents sent out this past Friday. So the question is, is it in, or is it out? The second topic I wanted to speak about is the proposed civic Park historic district. and on July twelfth the city preservation landmarks award will have a public hearing about the district application. As you know, Central Park was designed by the most famous Landscape and planning company ever in the history of America. The firm of Frederick Law, Homestead and Sons is one of the very few parks by the Olmsteads that is west of the Mississippi. Others include Yosemite Park, Berkeley, and the Stanford University Campuses. Historic preservation is certainly warranted for this treasured property in the heart of Boulder. Be assured that a historic district does allow selective changes over time, its creation will also provide the opportunity to begin to rebrand the neighborhood as an attractive community asset. And the third topic just really quickly is a cultural landscape assessment that's being promoted by parks. Recreation staff. Historic boulder appreciates that the staff is interested in the history of Central Park.

[20:10] I can assure you that this area is one of the most heavily researched parts of Boulder because of the many landmark approval processes for all the properties in and around the park. In the opinion of historic boulder, there is no reason that the Cla should hold up the landmark district designation process. Thank you for your time. Thanks so much, Leonard. And then finally, we have Greg Meanski. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. and if we could get a timer for Greg to look at, so he knows. Thank you so much, Rosa.

[21:05] Hey? Can you hear me? I can hear you perfect, all right. Good evening, members of the Boulder Parks and Rec Advisory Board. My name is Greg Meanski, and I'm here today to advocate for developing a new multi court indoor and outdoor tennis facility. I myself, I'm an avid tennis player and former coach for Gonzo tennis. As we all know, the city of Boulder itself already has a very limited number of public chords and or affordable private facilities with the impending development of See you South and Rocky Mountain Tennis Club. The city of Boulder stands to lose over 25 courts in the next few years. I believe that, in addition to losing the courts, we send to lose what is a very vibrant tennis community. Adequate court space for teaching programs is essential to the growth and development of players at all scale levels. As a city, we must provide accessible and well maintained courts to allow as many people as possible to learn and enjoy the sport. This should not be a sport for the elite, or for those that can afford to pay daily court fees.

[22:07] I can also help but include a word about the needs of the wheelchair tennis community. Accessible courts and broadcast programs, like the ones that are in PC. Currently offer cough or sorry. Excuse me, currently offer individuals with disabilities. The chance to engage in physical activity, develop skills and build a strong sense of community by building a wheelchair player-friendly facility. We can create an inclusive community that embraces diversity and promotes the values of equal opportunity and accessibility. On top of that a new facility would also benefit. See you women's tennis with the loss of existing courts, providing a suitable space for collegiate athletes to practice and compete is critical. By offering a state of the our facility. We can support the growth and success of see you tennis while building a stronger connection between the university and the tennis community. And then, lastly, there are the recreational players, the folks like myself.

[23:04] We, too, require ample court space to enjoy our favorite sport by providing a central hub with multiple indoor and outdoor courts. We can ensure that recreational players have access to quality facilities throughout the year. This will help promote a healthy and active lifestyle among our residents and create a welcoming environment for players of all ages and skill levels. In conclusion, constructing a new multi-core facility. Here in Boulder is a no-brainer investing in such a project would secure a central tennis, hub and boulder, and the Grady, the greater Rocky Mountain region ensuring that our community continues to thrive and enjoy the benefits of this fantastic sport. Thank you. Rosa, do we have any additional speakers who've signed up after the deadline? Okay, thank you. thanks to everybody who called in with comments. We hear you and appreciate your comments. I.

[24:04] Since there are no other community members who would like to speak tonight, I'll now close the public participation section of this meeting with any members of the crab like to comment or question any of the public comments. Jason? yeah, thanks to everyone who who called in and for those comments. you know, we talked about this a little bit last meeting, Tina, when you presented on that kind of status of the courts. you know clearly there's a there's an interest in a, a, a demand for indoor tennis. And so it seems like 2 things I you know we should probably in any kind of re thinking of a Rec center that should probably be part of that conversation about what that looks like. I have no idea what this costs, but you know that this there's clearly demand there, and obviously for the loss of all the current, you know, indoor places to play And secondly, again, I don't have any sense of the cost here. but it seems like there maybe would be an opportunity for some kind of partnership with the university, with the school district to to tent current, you know. Current outdoor facilities to allow indoor use, and you know, possibly recoup some of the funds through.

[25:14] you know, some kind of entrance fee. It just seems like there's you know. I'd love to know what that looks like what that costs. you know, if that's even an option. Have some of these partnerships been explored? you know, this is like, this is obviously multiple meetings where we've heard from the public about the need, for you know, more indoor space, obviously more courts generally. But I think the one of the messages, loud and clear is that we really don't have any spot places to play year round. so to in. I don't have anything else, you know I don't have any ideas, if it's more like what's, you know might be worth exploring, and maybe coming back to this at a future meeting. I'll give you a chance to address that if you want to, in your general update. But do you want to address his point now, or do you only ask the there any other comments from the Board? I can answer some of that. So just about everything that you you mentioned there in that court system plan is part of that.

[26:07] that outline in that scope. So we can kind of go back to that again and look at in this court system plan. What we're looking at is explore an alternative. So the outcomes of this plan will even start to look at locations and alternatives and indoor and outdoor. And then we're kind of think about it in the terms of as you've seen a million times the physically constrained action and vision right? What can we do to take care of what we have? What can we do with the money we have in that physically constrained? What can we do in that action with partnerships or different additional funding. And then the vision generally kind of goes into that sort of larger vision. those larger types of partnerships, also included in that would be identifying potential future partnerships. And it will be looking at things like If there was an indoor facility, or potentially something like the bubble that is currently at Rocky Mountain tennis like, what does that look like? And does that make sense for us?

[27:04] Any other members of the Board pretty just a related question. Sure, it's very loud. I notice that the the budget line item for the court for program increased substantially. I know I know this is probably discussed last week that I wasn't there last month, and I wasn't here. But could you just tell us a little bit about what the additional budget will be used for. So what we had been looking at previously was about $60,000 per year that was bumped up in that in the early years to do some resurfacing of courts. And then, as you get further out, is Actually replacing the tennis courts with post intention, which has a longer lifespan. And then there's also the addition of some took a ball courts at East Boulder, so you'll look at that. And so it bumps up exponentially by the few out years. And then the court system plan will really direct what that future and what? That, what we, including the capital improvement strategy moving forward is

[28:04] any additional questions or comments? Yeah. thanks. I just had a question. appearing a lot of people who, in the public comment that are saying, It's not enough, it's not enough. So I was just wondering if there's any kind of benchmarking that's been done to determine what is in a reasonable amount of courts per capita in a similar. So there is a benchmark study that was done. for the last master plan. that shows per capita against similar cities. I think when we did that, though the 2 things that have arisen are the explosion of took a ball in the community. So then, having to share those courts, and then, in addition to that, our community is really feeling the heat from several other private courts that are coming out of the system. They were private courts, but could be reserved or used publicly. so they're feeling that stress on both sides.

[29:02] But where did Boulder stand with respect to the other cities? if I recall, we're right at or even above the benchmark per capita. And I guess, since I am unmuted, I'm just gonna add that all of these are exactly the questions that we'll be exploring through the court system plan, and I'd love to speak to the community members listening. We thank you for joining us on your Monday evening, and I just want to call out. I I hear folks saying, you know that maybe they they don't feel heard because we don't have shovels in the ground right now on tennis courts. But we do serve a community of 106,000 people. and anything we build monies we spend we have to be very thoughtful and make sure we're doing it for the whole community. But for both tennis and pickle ball. I'm excited about the work ahead. We've allocated staff resources. We've allocated dollars for this work, and by the end of the year we'll be looking at final recommendations for a court system plan. One other thing I'll just add for community members listening. If you want to stay up to date on that plan, including as there's progress and opportunities for input, if you just Google, boulder parks and recreation racket sports. There's a feedback page where if you give us some feedback, we'll capture that email and add it to the email list for this project.

[30:20] Thanks, Ali. Anything else you want to add. I think we had at all okay. Great. okay. So that concludes the public participation portion of the meeting. The next agenda item is approval of the consent agenda. and I just want to remind the Board that approving the consent agenda includes the minutes from the past meeting and the design construction updates and the operations updates in one fell swoop. So if you have any comments or questions about or proposed amendments. Any of those things? now is the time

[31:04] any questions on the planning design construction updates or operations updates? hearing none. I will just add that from our absent and esteemed chair, Chuck Brock. he wrote some comments that he wanted me to pass on that congratulations on the ground, breaking for the golf facility, exclamation, point And thanks to me and Jason for representing the prab at the ceremony, and I'll just say that. I had the chance to attend the groundbreaking of the new golf facility. It looks fantastic, and there was a lot of buzz at the event about this facility, and it's going to be so great. And it was great to get community engaged with community members and city leaders at that groundbreaking, and it was awesome to be able to hold the shovel in my hand and pose for that picture.

[32:03] So thank you. I know Jason agrees with me on that. any other comments on the consent agenda? Yes. just quickly. I noticed that my name is penciled in. It's a liaison to the Recreation Center Exploration. I'll just down the record. I'm very glad to help out in that way. Are you asking for an amendment to any of the minutes we the minutes. Say, ask Bernie So consider me asked. And I'm getting an answer. Okay? So with that amendment. can we get a motion to approve the consent? Agenda. Sorry is that a question on that? We're going to go back to that list again another time? Right. So that's I was noted. It's actually an item under the matters from the board tonight, so you'll be able to discuss the list. So we got names thrown out and penciled in. And it's an item for you all to explore later under matters from the board. Okay, so I'll second it. Then we'll have the mic.

[33:09] Anybody want a second? I second. okay. So I'll just go from the side. Jason. Yes or no. Yes. Sunny Bernie. Yes, yeah. yes, and yes, so the consent agenda is approved with that amendment, I guess, to the minutes. The next item on the agenda is on the new agenda is, item 6, a, which has been moved up in front of action. Item. So that's now, item 5. And that is about the historic places plan final draft. Thank you so much. So this item is going to be presented by a senior landscape architect, Tina Briggs, and I just want to call out a theme here. Court system plan flat. Aaron's golf course, historic places. Teama is bearing an incredible workload on our team, and we're so grateful to have her because she's doing really great work on some really important projects. So Tina is going to be joined. I just want to personally think that Mercy Growing is here. She is a principal plan

[34:20] with the Planning and Development Services Department and the city's real lead and expert on historic preservation. So really grateful. Here, she's going to speak to some of the topics. I know you guys have a plan for how we're gonna do that. And it'll also speak to some of the comments that Mr. Siegel shared during public comments. So with that, I'll hand it to Tina. Yeah, Rosa, can you make me a admin, so I can share my screen. And then Christopher should also be online if we can. while they're getting to organize. Also, just thank Kj for being here. Christopher Johnson is the senior comprehensive planning manager with planning development services part of the long term planning and historic preservation team as well, and so, having their expertise here. We really appreciate you guys being here.

[35:20] Okay. the zoom link the one you sent to me? I think it was Wednesday. Is there a different one you'd like me to use? Yes, you mean the part presentation. I don't have my email open. It's taking a minute. It actually is in the prab folder. It'll be easier to grab from there.

[36:06] and I'll start out while we're talking today so that the the presentation is going to be about the historic places plan however, there are 2 kind of adjacent projects that are happening. on one of the properties. And so we're gonna change the order a little bit, because in the memo they were attachments. but because we have the folks from planning and development services here. to run through what that historic district process looks like. We'll touch on that first, and we'll touch a little bit on the cultural landscape assessment, and then we'll just jump right into the hip. I just emailed it to your email, Rosa.

[37:02] that's it. Okay, let's move it. There is Christopher also on there as a presenter. Okay, perfect. alright. So if you can hear me, I I am here. I am a real person, for sure, but I'm not. I'm not able to share my video. So I apologize. No problem. why don't we go to the next slide? And I'll just that. I just talked about the agenda a little bit here. see? right? So the adjacent pro projects that we're talking about, and then we'll do the project overview of the hip, just to remind us what the purpose is. And then looking at the process and outreach, and how we got to where we are today, and then you'll see that chapter content, like the 3 big building blocks of this project where the his start context, the condition assessment, and then the recommended actions. When we talk to you in February we didn't outline of the historic conduct text and condition assessment and shared that information with you then. So we aren't going to go through that again. You certainly have access to it via the project page. If you want to go through and look at that, you're welcome to. We'll focus on the recommended actions tonight and explain kind of what those are and how those will affect

[38:11] our system. So with that, I'm going to give it over to Christopher, who's going to talk a little bit about the civic area historic district application that was submitted. and for I know you guys have heard a little bit about that in the past, so I won't go to too too much detail. but, Christopher, if you want to introduce yourself and take it over. Great. Thank you, Tina, and thank you all for that introduction earlier. As I mentioned, my name is Christopher Johnson, I'm the comprehensive planning so oversee within planning and development services. Our, our long range land use planning. So the Boulder valley. Comprehensive plan is really the the focus of a lot of our work. But the historic preservation program is also part of our part of our comprehensive planning team. And so Marcy growing is there. She is the lead preservation planner, principal within our

[39:06] within our division. and so both of us will be available to answer questions. that you may have, but I've got just a couple of slides to walk through quickly, to give you an update on an application that was referenced earlier also. Just so you can really understand the process that is out before us. As Tina mentioned, you may have heard about some of this in the past, and if you remember, back to about the middle of last year there was originally a application to expand the the boundary of individual landmark of the Glen Huntington Band shell. and as part of that process ultimately went to city council, and the staff recommendation was not to expand that boundary. In lieu of a more comprehensive and intentional. You know research into and exploring of a historic district as opposed to just addressing that one particular individual landmark

[40:06] by itself. So we have been working with parks and recreation staff through the beginning of this year to develop really a strategy for that. And what that looks like. And and Tina will speak to you about that cultural landscape assessment which is ultimately what we had landed on the groups and the individuals that were interested in that band shell expansion originally, and then also very much advocating for this historic district. they have the ability to submit an application on their own, and that is what has has occurred. And so we received a complete application from them on May thirtieth. So about a month ago. and have reviewed that. And it's it is going then to the landmarks board for what's called an initiation hearing on July 12 that vote in that meeting is really the Board's opportunity to vote whether or not to accept that application at this time.

[41:05] if it is accepted, then we have quite a bit of work to do in front of us as staff, and we there's a a window of time that is in the Boulder Revised Code that defines this process. and we have about 4 months to complete a number of different activities. So ultimately we would meet with the property owners, which, of course, in this case is the city of older and the various departments that are represented within this entire civic area. So obviously, it includes Parks and Recreation Department, but also facilities and several other departments as well. there would be a need for some continued involvement coordination among the landmarks. Board this group as well, and city council to make sure that they are up to date and informed of the process. we would have to develop and draft some design guidelines as part of this process as well. That would ultimately apply to a future historic district. If it was applied, and then there would be more broad community outreach through the end of the summer, and they would

[42:10] so ultimately that would all land and go towards a recommendation or a designation, hearing with the Landmarks board, and then also, historic districts are reviewed by planning board for any land use implications and then ultimately move to city council. So based on our schedule, we're and looking at really a realistic timeline of approximately 6 to 8 months to ultimately reach the decision point of city council, who would have the authority to designate. designate the historic district sometime in that early part of the 24 you go to. The next slide rose up. This is just kind of a visual layout of that same process that I just described. And I I want to highlight 2 important touch points. So in the green on the left hand side you could see that

[43:07] during the 4 month process that would occur between that landmark's board initiation hearing, and then ultimately a designation hearing we would want to touch base and really engage the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and 2 key milestones. So if that initiation, or if the application is accepted by the Landmarks board then we would want to come back to you and really give you a more in-depth overview of the application of the history of the area. And importantly, what what does designation mean? for example. So there are some departments that historic designation may already apply to landmark structures. And so you know the application of the district really wouldn't have too much of an effect, but because the district would also apply to those areas between the existing landmark structures. that certainly would be within the purview of of this board and of this department. So we would want to explain really what that means for future changes going forward

[44:12] the second point, of course, would be as we are developing. Those do the draft design guidelines. We would want to have input from from this board, and also the Landmark Board. You know, we haven't figured out a lot of this out in detail, but we would anticipate possibly a joint meeting to where those trap design guidelines can be reviewed and discussed. But again, this is all. I would say, this is all contingent upon the landmarks board. Accepting that application on July twelfth. Next slide, please. So this is the boundary that is proposed within the application. You can see there that it includes the Penfield Tate Municipal Building, where you are this evening generally follows the creek down to the to the east, into the south, to Arapaho, comes up Thirteenth Street and then over to Fourteenth and back along Canyon. So it includes Central Park

[45:12] itself. The 5 individual designated landmarks that already exist, which are the the Municipal building, the band shell, the Atrium building the the Boca Building and the Duchamp Bay T House and then also would include portions of Broadway and Thirteenth Street, the plaza, that space that is, between the Inter and the T House, and then also includes the parking lots behind those buildings next slide. And really, that's kind of the overview and description of the application that's been received. So the Marcy and the rest of the historic preservation staff are working very diligently on the memo and materials that will be available at this link here, and also on the Landmark Board website.

[46:03] I believe, a week prior to the meeting. so that's coming up fairly quickly. And certainly we are here to answer questions this evening, and also Marcy and I will be available down the road as well. If you have any questions, you are more than welcome to reach out directly the microphone. There, it doesn't work. Oh, the light is green. Yeah, no, I think it doesn't that you can't. There's no camera there, and you can't present from there. Okay, I will also be a disembodied voice this evening, except for you all. thank you. Kj, for that overview. I just also wanted to introduce myself, Marcy growing principal historic preservation planner and The purpose of tonight is really to let you all know that an application has been submitted. and the J. The July twelfth landmarks board hearing will be kind of a decision point whether or not they accept the application.

[47:03] It kicks off this 6 to 8 month process, or if they choose not to But we wanted to get ahead of that. Let you all know that we're thinking ahead that we want you all to be involved in this process. and then also, just to answer any general questions that you have, but know that there's plenty of time. in the code process for us to next. Thank you. If you want to get to the next. Well, we are there any questions? Quick before we jump in? Okay. I I I do. I want to recommend. We pause there. If there are, because I've heard question, if there are questions about what the historic just application means, or the process is it? Does it work teen? If we pause there and make sure we get questions out about what it means in the process. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board. Jason? I just had a question. It sounds like all the structures, are already designated, the Municipal Building, the tea House, and then when we deal with this issue, really, when it's just the Banshell area. There's a there's a level of protection already. So what? What? yeah, that someone mentioned that this is come to

[48:15] the board wanted them to go back and have a more comprehensive proposal. So so it sounds like this is really just the kind of the streets, the connecting area, some of the other like what is what is not currently protected, I guess. Diagram. There. there we go. Okay. So the proposed boundary is Central Park. And so, as you mentioned, part of Central Park is currently designated as part of the V shell site, and then it would extend south all the way to a Rappaho, and then would include the already designated Community Building, Atrium Tea House and Bemoca Building, and then the the districts also proposed to include Thirteenth Street, Broadway, the Thirteenth Street Plaza, and then the parking lots behind those buildings and along 14. It's kind of the area in between those 5 landmarks.

[49:10] and then just kind of, you know. I think it's related like, what what does I mean? I understand. Start preservation doesn't as well when it's when it's land and streets like. What is that? What kind of how does that? What does that prevent, or what does it not allow? what it? What is the? And I understand the kind of the vision here, and having a comprehensive area. But you know what what is, I guess? What's the point of the the larger designation versus kind of individual or the smaller ones. Great question. And I think the biggest difference between individual landmark designation and a historic district is the ability to create design guidelines. That's specific to this unique area. And so a couple of examples of already designated arc, managed areas of the Pearl Street Mall. So, looking at changes within their Columbia cemetery and Chautauqua, of course.

[50:02] we review about 200 applications a year, so I would say, preservation has a, you know, reputation of everything's kind of cast in amber, and and nothing changes. But our whole Pre program is about reviewing changes, and it's about how it changes. I will say, of all the landmark sites, there's so much change on Pearl Street with the different businesses going in and out. but I would say, in general, parks are very stable areas, though they change, they evolve, they kind of reflect the current. I don't know ways we recreate. But compared to the rate of change across the city, I would say, Parks tend to be more stable. Okay, thanks very much. Thank you, Jason. Are there any other questions? Comments from the Board? Yeah.

[51:00] What limitations would a historic district parking lot have on it? That would be different from a regular parking lot in Boulder. Great question. So In a historic district, there are typically features or structures that contribute, and those that are considered non- contributing and contributing ones are held to maybe a higher standard non contributing. It's more about how to the changes their impact contributing items. And so for a parking lot. we don't have many vacant downtown, but it would be looked at as infill of if that were to be developed. How? What's the form, the shape of the materials? How does that relate to the character of the historic district? so it does have a layer of review in terms of how it changes if it stayed a parking lot. Sorry to interrupt. If it state a parking lot I don't anticipate there would be a whole lot of review for that. It's more looking farther down the line of if buildings were proposed to be there.

[52:13] Thank you. any other questions, comments important. I just want to. so thank you for your presentation. But also I just want to firm up kind of the timeline and the perhaps role? so maybe you can help me with that, just to make sure the public understands what we have to do with this. so from what I understand is, there's been an application submitted. and the planning board in July is going to vote on. Whether to accept the application. Is that right is so the acceptance of the application then kicks off like a 8 month process where there's more community. Input right? Yes. Rosa, would you mind going back. One more slide.

[53:11] Yes, thank you. So the code specifies. A pretty structured process, I would say, in terms of the community engagement. It's written more for property owners in mind, but to go through the community engagement, and then the review process. So the landmarks designation hearing on the twelfth is whether this process starts or not. And so between. I think that's July to October or November. Is this pretty intensive period where we would meet with the department reps, and then would meet with you all, and what we have proposed, and our thinking of coming back to you all to do a presentation. Here's an overview of the history. Here's what historic designation would mean to you all, and to this site.

[54:01] And then, look to have a joint landmarks, board and crab joint study session to look at design guidelines and help shape those before it then goes to the Landmarks board for a designation, hearing where they make a recommendation to council, and then we go to planning board for their recommendation about the land. Use implications. Okay, thank you. And then so just so, I'm clear there's going to be. You're anticipating. There might be a joint session or a study session between this board and the landmarks board. That's what we're thinking. We're open to your thoughts. If you feel that would be helpful. But it the intent there is to have you all involved, and to meet together with the landmarks board. As it's the 2 boards are, I think, the most involved in in this project. Right? And then we advise on this and provide our input. But the landmarks board actually presents an action to send this to Council for approval, correct.

[55:11] like in the form of that special meeting that would be in the Thank you. Any other questions off of my questions. Okay, thanks. Okay. So to further complicate this. what we are doing? when we talk about the cultural landscape assessment, this kind of dialed way back when we first started talking about does historically designating park property, which is slightly different than what you would think of as a structure, for example. And so we looked at the National Park Service guidelines of what it would look like. to designate a park space.

[56:03] And we're setting your precedence here thinking in the future of when we talk about designating a park property? how do we actually evaluate that? And what are the criteria? So that's where the cultural landscape assessment comes in. It was attached, and attachment in the memo, which shows that it's a much smaller area. So the historic district, right is covering the application as submitted. However, we've started the process to really look at just the park area in particular, since that that's what we have the most pur view over and looking at What if it is if it's significant, if what is significant about it, and what are the right periods to be looking at for that? So what we're hoping to do is have this completed in September. It's more of a research document, and making sure that you have the right information and solid information to help in that decision, making and making rest recommendations in the future. so really, just again, the areas history, the main periods of development and then the existing features that have integrity.

[57:04] so, before I go too far on that do we have any questions on the landscape assessment? I have one question. I think this came up in the public comment where the the the comment was that this was a and I don't know. I think it was that this is an unnecessary step, that it provided another layer. It sounds like it's going to be done in September, so it's not that time can be, you know. want to like to things too much. But what is the response to that kind of issue of whether this is an unnecessary step? I don't. I? More just repeating the comment than, Yeah, no, I hear you. no, I I yeah. I mean what we're talking about, too, is right. it's something commonly in Boulder. We haven't designated a lot of park spaces. So what is the actual process? Look like? So it's kind of setting that precedent moving forward. If we're going to look at another Parkspace, what is the actual assessment? And then I think we have a lot of different like

[58:01] parts of the documentation and that started to get to put together for the historic places. Plan, however, the historic Places plan is only looking at the designation boundary in. This is actually kind of adding information to that boundary out to all of Central Park. So we have all the information to share with you. So, for example, right now, if I asked you, a central parks should be designated based on what criteria we want to lay that out for you just to help look at it and see what that picture is. and I just want to add one other clarifying comment, thanks to again to folks. I want. The the application was received by community groups with their proposed boundary. Part of the process is. is there historic, and is there historic relevance? Is it intact? Is there integrity to the site? And then what is the appropriate boundary? So all of that is part of the conversation in the process?

[59:05] Any other questions. okay, whereos are we hit the next slide, please. Okay, so just going back to the hip purpose, I think this touches on a little bit of the the comment, as well. So in this document. Again, it's the the properties that are currently historically designated with their current boundaries. so we were in each property documented well and at the same level. So we know we have so many stories about some properties and a lot less information about others. And we really wanted to kind of focus on the hardcore facts. So when we look at historic context, we're really looking at the facts. And so you're not going to see a full history of all the Pr. The properties. So if it feels like something's maybe missing it is in draft form. I'd love to address anything that's missing, but it is intentionally kind of set to be a very specific set of like guidelines, and what the history looks like. And what this document was really meant to do is for that proactive planning

[60:07] for our historical cultural assets. We've been very reactive in the past. This is really the opportunity to change that into a proactive planning process. So when you look at that, another thing that Lynn had mentioned is he doesn't see maintenance pieces in there. This isn't intended to keep the maintenance. what we're looking at is future capital improvement plans. So what we want to look at is when we're looking at 24 to 29 capital improvement strategy. We have the big items that we can take. Look at together. So even when you look at each property, we have priorities. Then, when you look at all the historic and cultural assets, we have to prioritize within that, and then that has to fit into the greater system as well. So we focus basically on on taking care of what we have. And that really is based upon even that is a 5 to 10 Year plan to really even get close to

[61:02] hitting the priorities that we have on just the capital main, but not maintenance, but the capital projects of rehabilitation. And then there are a few pieces on there where we would love to. have this documentation. It's set in stone. It's something we can share. So for communication education, even when volunteers are asking for information, we're giving everyone the exact same information. Excuse me. And then it's also that document as other planners. are looking at the system that they might be doing something adjacent to our properties, that they actually have something to look at as well. That includes some treatment, recommendations and things that they should consider. Next slide, please. This is just a quick overview of the timeline you can see it's been a multi year process. and really, the sort of the top green section is really the process itself. The red section is the touch points that we've had. One is public, with several public meetings and outreach, and then the stakeholders touch points with each of the properties with them as well as you may know when you're doing research on historic properties, you could keep going forever and digging deeper at at 1 point we do kind of need to put the pencil down. so that's kind of where we're at.

[62:21] And then you can see in the blue the touch points that we've had with prab. And as mark this board as well, we're nearing the end. So what we're looking at is the draft we brought you the draft in pieces because it is a 400 page document that's been overwhelming. so we had touched on the meet before, and we'll just kind of review the priorities tonight. Next slide. again, right? This just shows us what was in the historic context was the overview and the boundaries, the history, the significance. And then we did the condition assessment. So we really had to look at the conditions, the structural integrity architectural and historic. And then what are the current issues? And all of that bundled together helped us develop the treatment guidance with that focus on preservation and rehabilitation.

[63:13] And then really just the future capital investment guidance. What you won't see again in here is things that we kind of hope and dream for in the future. So not that this document in any way share our form will like will prevent those opportunities. But any future opportunities that would enhance the properties would likely come within a project. like you would see. for example, with the civic area. some of the things that we looked at in this document will be looked at and considered as they're developing those plans all right next slide. So taking the condition assessments, and the historic context, these are the priorities we used are the sorry.

[64:00] the criteria we use to develop this priorities. So first and foremost is impact for safety and stabilization. The threat of loss of integrity right? Like something with a historic background. Once you lose it, it's not replaceable, so we would do our best to make sure it keeps its integrity. for condition falls in the line with that then a pen potential impact due to enhancement. so we want to just make sure if things sorry could have an impact that we have this basis and the treatment recommendations. And when it says, critical path adjacent to other planned work, that's where I'm talking about. If there were projects adjacent to our property, let's say I don't have a good example of as a transportation project. Perhaps that was, you know or utility project that was going through the project. We definitely have this information to share with them. just to start the conversation. I know it's available. And then we have those conversations and then relative, and see to other current plans. So just looking at all the other plans that we have in our system. We want to make sure they're aligned and working together.

[65:09] The you can hit the next slide. so Glen hunting banshell. What you'll notice is that one is not actually posted online. Right now, we do have the draft ready. But because we're doing the cultural landscape assessment that is so directly related, we pulled it up, put it on, pause just for a minute, so we can finish that cultural landscape assessment and make sure all the languages will aligned and if any of the new documents rise we can share it. But the hip will still remain with the current boundary. And so we did add the the priorities here. because even if a little bit, some of the words changed because of the outcome of the culture landscape assessment, the meat of what we've learned and the treatment recommendations inside there remain the same. So these priorities and I'll just run through a few of them. Right? Is

[66:06] rehabilitation of the roof and floor. So whether it's weather or high level of use. that's a consideration. And in your packet that it there are more words to that. I just kind of made a synopsis of it here, lighting and security rewire Ballards. But there's a crack in the foundation. we're looking at, repair and potentially replace the seating if needed. But I think right now it's really just in a paint situation and and review and then repairs from the sidewalks. And some of the sandstone retaining. Well. now, I'm not gonna go through every one of these because they were in your packet and I just wanted to highlight a few. So if Rosa, you wouldn't mind maybe going to like her back house. So tap down just next slide. Yeah, so this is another property that you're probably familiar with. if you've been on the board for a couple of years.

[67:06] right. Some of the main things we need to do here is assess the structural and integrity of the chimney. So, for example, if you're standing in the parking lot, you can actually see some deterioration. This plan didn't go to the level of actually getting someone up on the rough. So the recommendation is, let's get someone out there and actually look at it. See what that you know. If it, if it is a visual, if that needs to be fixed, or if there is actually a structural window treatments or something that we're looking at. partly working with the tenant, but partly wanting to make sure, even though only the exterior is, you know. Let let's say that the part that the landmark covers. We know that you know sun exposure to the wood floors and some of the interiors. it's in that preservation mode of wanting to make sure we keep them as prime as they are. So we can go on from there. before we go to. Actually, if you want to go down Rosa to

[68:03] and next step slide, it's probably 6 down. Yeah, one more. There you go. So what we were talking about basically is what we really focused on. What are the top priorities for each process for each property. And then we want to prioritize those within each other and then within the greater system. once we look at what that looks like in the capital project, we're going to put cost estimates together, develop those project plans, and then those can actually be inserted. And then you'll have timelines and some of those projects. before I go on. Do you have any questions questions from the board? Okay, next slide.

[69:04] Just yeah. So basically, the outcomes of these, right as we know that they're going to put into the capital investment strategy. We're also looking at. You know what we can do this year. and the and 24 So right now, actually, this says Lac. Application submitted. Landmark alteration certificate. it's actually approved now. So we have the approval to Do these in the next well with it by the end of 2023, let's say And so I you know, I think this is a really good example of that being proactive, now that we have this list, it's really starting to it easier and easier to insert them into our process. So this just I kind of to me show some action in the near term of how it is actually being used. In addition to these capital projects, we also have our list of maintenance projects. Right? We know the things that we're the small things that we're doing that are just regular maintenance. that are just standard. So we, you know, that's not something we normally talk too much about with prep, right? It's just our our regular operations and maintenance.

[70:06] so we can go to the next step. so these are really just the questions that were outlined. I did change the order a little bit, because I know we have Marcy, and Christopher on the phone? so this one is really about. Do you have any questions about the sequencing of the project? So those 3 projects. You know they all have slightly different timelines. They sort of fit into each other. but they are. They all also do have their own process. Questions from the board. Great? pretty clear. How about any questions about the technical findings like how we we form those and the priorities? Yeah, could you go through the the details of how you did all the technical findings for each of those. If you would like I I could. We'll we'll pull up the 400 page document we go page by. No.

[71:05] It was. It was fun. It's I mean, it's nice. And so there really are several technical sub consultants. that have a high level expertise. that we sat really and and looked at those priorities one by one. And in some cases we knew we had some things we wanted to move up, and in some cases because they are the technical expert they're like, no, this has to stay a priority. So. and number 3 any questions about the prioritization, or how that will inform the future capital funding. Thanks so much for your presentation. Thank you. Sorry I my pleasure to be here, and I appreciate you all taking in time to to listen and ask really good questions. Thank you. Okay. Allie.

[72:02] yeah, we are going to do a little shuffle here. we're gonna have our business services team join me up here on the day as your next 2 items relate to financial matters. So we're having our financial team come on up. So just give us a moment. This is a good opportunity for a bio break. If anyone needs it. Give us a minute or 2 to shuffle teammates and ready to go in just a minute. Yeah, let's take a 3 min break from the meeting. Thank you. Mr. Chair. So

[73:04] yeah. for account for this. Okay. you say. yeah. yes. yeah. It's okay to that door

[74:04] number one. Oh. I don't know if the systems are it's a full waterfall. So because there was water we for 10 years. but when that I think the voting. I was on Monday when we were there. We have to.

[75:01] 3 young people shut up their Shep. They get them out out of the life. and so I agree. I think it's a barrier for a lot of I don't know what the answer is before trying to figure out yeah, and anywhere in the States system. See. you can go to Westminster doesn't allow any watercraft on Stanley Lake anymore, because it's the sole water source for 400,000 so huge, if also super muscles are the species that is all like how. if they were to get into our like. you can't eradicate them. So you have to constantly claim that they take some. So there's no easy answer. But I would love to 0. So that's

[76:17] yeah. Yeah. They're problematic with the infrastructure. They're really bad for the apology, because they like drive out all other like. You. Fish will go away. It's a screen underwater. Flora will go over. You can't go. You feel like it's it's tall. And so we're really restricted. But there's a consequence of that as well. I'm happy. It's those

[77:39] okay, is staff ready to go. We are, Mr. Chair. So tonight you all have an action item to approve our 5 year capital improvement program. This is probably one of your most important jobs. We're really grateful for this conversation tonight. presenting this item is our senior manager for business items. Jackson. Ha! Our business services, business items, business items that's a good term for your unit So Jackson Height is our senior manager for business services and joining joining us on the day. This is Stacey Hoffman. She is a senior budget analyst. We've got some really great people on our team, and we'll let them take it from here.

[78:19] Perfect thanks for the introduction. Ali. we are going to dive right into cip in your agenda packet. There are 2 different items but we are going to just run through them back to back So first up is the public hearing related to the 2,024 through 2,029 cip. I'm sorry. I just want to clarify. You're going to do the cip presentation and the operating budget. Can we check Rosa, do we have anyone here for the public hearing for C, I, P. Okay. so far. perfect. Thank you.

[79:01] Okay, thank you. Business items. First. so You have seen the perhaps role for budget development before. This is the shells, as far as what you shall be doing. any appropriation or expenditure from the permanent Parks and Recreation Fund does require the perhaps approval. So what we are looking for tonight is your approval of that which will then go to the Playing Board and City Council and then the second aspect is, when we get to the operating budget we are looking for the prop shall make recommendations to the Council concerning the proposed parks and recreation annual budget and then we do have the fee policy. This is being brought back to you tonight. and then it will be an action item in the July meeting. to continue forward with the process that we've been on so I'm just going to remind you of the timeline as far as where we've been. we've been talking about budget and numbers with you since March In addition to the top half of the screen which identifies the prep touch points we have met with city Council at their May study session. We've met with the community connectors and residents to gather feedback from an equity perspective.

[80:11] And we spent probably hundreds of hours in staff meetings meeting with our different programmers facility site supervisors and senior manager staff to get their input on the overall budget. both the operating and the cip budget. Well, this is probably the last touch where we are looking for your input on the budget. we still have 6 months left in the year to go through the budget process. So we actually have submitted all of our preliminary numbers to the executive Budget team in the Central Finance department, and they are spending the next month reviewing the work that has already been done, and then they will roll that up into the city. Managers recommended budget, which will be shared at no later than September. First in September there is a study session focused on the budget process, and then in October there will be 2 different public hearings to approve the budget with the 2,024 budget actually going into effect on January first of 2,024. So

[81:11] quite the marathon we're about halfway through. But your role in involvement is nearly wrapped up. That being said, we do plan to come back to you and report on what the status is. what changes are made through the recommendations of the executive budget team. The city managers recommended budgets as well as planning board and city council. So finally, diving into cip as you know, I the cip is a next year, plus a 5 year outlook. So the cip encompasses a total of 6 years the first year is what's actually appropriated through the budget process. Well, as the remaining 5 years are kind of what is planned and accounted for. So back in the study session in April Mark shared with you kind of what the Cis 6 Year Plan looks like. And this is a cyclical process that we do typically go through every year. to really identify what the big spend and projects are or projects will be, over the next 18 to 24 months. But then, also what is in our pipeline, so we can start the

[82:15] community engagement, the funding and the work planning associated with many of these large scale projects to take several years to complete so as a reminder, we do have the 6 year Cip, the 2 year work plan, and then the one year. Cip. What we're asking you to approve tonight is really the one year Cip, since that is the appropriation. But we are looking at it holistically with the overall. 6 years. of cip funding that's basically penciled in. And as we get to each year, we write it in sharpie as far as what the numbers are based on cost escalation, scheduling staff capacity. It's earth. So just as a reminder, the cip was developed looking at the 6 key themes from the 2,022 department plan. I think that the everything is relevant. But the one that we really focused on this year was taking care of what we have in financial sustainability.

[83:10] As a reminder. Both of these graphics were in the 2022 plan, and everything in the physically constrained column is addressed at some point in the 6 year Cip. So we do want to highlight that we are really taking the plan and implementing it and using the recommendations from that plan to help us guide the next 6 years of capital spending as market shared earlier. this year the Updated Work Plan categories really fall into asset management which is taking care of what we have, the parks and recreation facilities, which is where a majority of our funds are spent, and then the system planning the system planning is looking a bit further ahead and more strategic in nature, whereas the other 2 categories are where we see the majority of our spend. So we're just going to hop right into the different categories. as far as it relates to asset management. You will see we have several different asset categories based on the types of assets within our system, and in 2,023 we really took some of the direction from the 2,022 plan and started allocating out to different asset types.

[84:15] well, that was a first stab at it. we didn't have a lot of information. And as we continue to gather information through beehive and better cost estimating, we have updated the amount that we plan to spend in the far right hand phone, which is 2024. You will see that for the majority of these columns they have increased in dollar amounts. just accounting for the reality as well as community input and feedback As was mentioned earlier, the courts has increased from $200,000 a year to $360,000 a year We do have a few numbers in bold that have changed slightly from the agenda that was sh! Or the prop packet that was shared with you last week. We have just continued meeting with our colleagues in other departments and central finance, and this has resulted in some minor shifts that we just wanted to call out for your attention to me.

[85:11] Can you tell us how those changed. Yes, absolutely. the historic property was left out. that was actually under system planning at the $62,000. We have Updated it here just as it relates more to asset management. and then the 0 in general maintenance. We just wanted to call out the fact that that 310,000 allocated in 2,023 was actually an operating dollars. It wasn't in Cip. So you aren't seeing a significant decrease in cip. It's just where the money is being tracked to spend out of. And then finally, in play areas, we had 200,000 allocated. And all of that is going to North Folder Park, which is on the next slide. so you will see that in a park system plan

[86:02] all maintenance. Is that a like that's going to be zeroed out going forward and go into operations, or that I'm going to turn the services. Yeah, so good evening. so general maintenance will not be zeroed out. We actually do have that this can this way. right sure. So that will actually be seen on the next slide. If you remember, when we did the Scott carpenter full redevelopment, we also have to do the street area for about a million. So we had that programmed under general maintenance. We've called it out in a separate project for 2,024, and then starting back in 2,025. We do have general maintenance in the plan. I'll just pause it. I'll pause here. Are there any other questions? Okay. So, moving ahead to the parks and facilities? just given the overlap with where our planning team is at and the funding is at. We have included several 23 projects that are shovel ready under construction or about to go through community engagement. just as a reminder that these are in the work plan, and we don't want you to feel as if they've been forgotten.

[87:13] And then we also have projects that are new in 2,024, or have some existing funding in 2,023 for the design work. But we need additional funding in 2,024 to actually complete the project. So these numbers are giving you more of what the total project cost is associated with it. and really just wanted to highlight those. Once again we have bolded 2 numbers on here that have shifted around since the prep packet was shared. Stacy had mentioned. The Violet Park plan was higher in the prop packet, and Scott Carpenter park was emitted. we have rectified that. And do you have funding set aside for both projects? based on collaboration with our other departments?

[88:06] Yes. I'm going to defer to mark on this. I know that our portion of it was widening the Thirtieth Street corridor for the bike way and the roadway. But Mark said it all. it's it's it's the improvements that we all agreed upon. And this was portion of it, and it's also a bus stop bike path. And they actually including the Brain Garden good project. Thank you for those questions and thank you for the specifics mark. So moving over to our system plans. we have several plans that are underway, and once again just wanted to highlight the 2,023 projects to let you know that these aren't lost. In fact, I believe every one of these is currently assigned to a project manager and underway.

[89:03] and then in 2,024. We do have a natural land system plan, and then a nature play system. Plan. you will see that system planning is the smallest portion of our overall cip budget. just because, these plans really identify how we spend our asset management dollars as well as our parks and facilities dollars. There weren't any changes to highlight here. so I'm going to go ahead and move forward. We have a question. oh. the process for the park recreation, activity, service, activity survey is that the one that the community connectors were involved in? Come on, turn this over to Mark. Yeah, thanks. A good question. No, that isn't related to that. That's a separate project where they put on the cip. we've had discussions where we don't technically at this point. Have you go into engagement and look at data in parks on particular projects.

[90:02] But we don't have trend data for activities in parks and the types of recreation activities that occur, as well as the numbers of people visiting parks related to that. So this is to begin a process to begin basically counting the number in people with parks. I didn't find the recreation activities, so we could better understand the needs and that better informs the types of facilities we have. There are been forms out planning down the road. So this will start that off with the goal. That that's a longitudinal study, not typically, they happen to say, every 3 years and over time. Then you can get better trend data to make sessions. we're literally today. We're working with Nrpa. With that got a contact through Alli to start looking at some of the national standards, for how to do that will be in line for the communities. The equity focus be brought into that to see who is doing what in absolutely we, we use that we have the equity instrument, and we use that on every project we do didn't share nowadays that we cover all aspects of equity, and that's huge improvement by the city over the last few.

[91:08] Thank you. Speaking of equity. part of the 2,022 plan was looking at equity mapping throughout the city. and this map really just highlights the darker the colors and blues and purples. I'm going to say. means there. There is the greater need for equity, and we've identified where various projects in the 6 year Cip plan are located, and you can see that there is a huge emphasis on equity for our various cip projects. We've highlighted so in terms of dollar amounts. we do have the 2,024 cip by fund. As a reminder. This is what we'll actually get appropriated with the 2,024 budget and because this is split across funds, we do have a variety of different funds. the 3 funds that parks and recreation really has the greatest control over and considers part of our annual capital. Expenses are the point 2 5 cents sales tax fund. The permanent Parks and recreation fund and the lottery fund.

[92:13] so you can see that those account for about 2 thirds of the budget. we have several other capital funds that we'll use on an inter intermittent basis or project by project basis. And those are, a variety of funds across the city that we do want to call out directly. so you will see that that accounts for about a third of the budget in 2,024, and that's split across the Boulder Junction fund which mainly supports the project at East Mapleton ball Fields. There's additional money set aside in the development impact fees and then Ccrs for more of the design and scoping of the overall Ccrs projects within the 6 year Cip. There is 41 million dollars of capital proposed. this is up from 34 million in the 2,023 through 28 cip.

[93:05] So we are continuing to invest in our capital assets. Once again, you'll see that the 3 dedicated parks and recreation funds do account for the majority of the projects and spend. We have left off the Ccrs projects on this slide. just because we are going to talk about that a little bit more in detail. But the additional funding really comes from development impact fees which will be going towards The park on Violet and Boulder Junction, associated with the Boulder Junction Pocket Park, as well as the East Mapleton ball fields. So collectively. This averages out to about 7 million dollars a year. in the 2,022 plan we were spending, I believe, 5.6 million a year in Cip, with the goal of getting to 7.5 million a year to basically meet the physically constrained environment. So we are making significant progress. But this still isn't fully funding. our physically constrained vision.

[94:02] And with that we did want to provide you a breakdown as far as where the dollars are going. So you will see the asset management accounts for almost 50% of our spend. we believe that this really aligns with the 2022 plans, taking care of what we have theme and wanting to really maintain our existing assets in a good condition. And then the additional 47% is going to parks and recreation facilities. And then you can see there is a small sliver associated with system planning. once again, that spend is smaller because it's really creating the plans that inform how we spend the remaining dollar amounts. As I mentioned earlier, Ccrs was left out of everything except for the 2,024 budget. Just because this is a big ask and several high profile projects that are still going through the full vetting process. you'll see that our ask is about 63 million dollars for 3 projects listed here. There is the Boulder Creek Linear Park for about 12.5 million dollars. which is the total Project budget. And with that we have already received $450,000 in 2,024.

[95:14] as a reminder. Boulder Creek linear Park really extends the entire backbone of the city east to West and creates greater accessibility to the creek as well as improves the transit. mobility options across the city reimagining so to carry East. has a total price tag of 41 million you'll see that there's about $750,000 requested for the design work. and then future construction costs would be coming out of that 41 month. and then finally, the Pearl stream all refresh is about 9.7 million and that project wouldn't actually start until 2,025, but we do have it included in the 6 year Cip. So I wanted to highlight it. These numbers do not include the cost for any recreation center refresh. our facilities. Team is still working with various consultants on our staff to understand what the total scope is, and we'll have updated numbers to share as part of their budget request

[96:13] going to pause here. Are there any questions on Ccrs projects? I have a question. those in here. There we go, all right. The linear the Boulder Creek Linear Park. Is that just maintaining what we've already gotten? Or do you have a vision for doing more along that parkway. yeah, thank you. It's a good question. We currently are just writing what we call the charter. So preliminary scoping. So we'll obviously be coming to prop like we've done for, like civic area re imagination project. And in about 6 months time

[97:02] we're looking at various things, the the stuff off. We've got natural resources along the creek, and then the water quality of the creek itself. So we're partnering with utilities, looking at what that looks like, what's condition, what is future, desired condition? And how would we make improvements? And we can't do it all. There's a limited budget. So what we prioritize. Then, obviously, then, looking at recreation opportunities, taking in mind, you've got a focus of the Boulder Creek path. and then we do have access to the creek. So this things like, how do we improve safety? How do we improve the recreation opportunities? How do we improve equity of access to the area. So as we do the project, we'll sort of be flushing out that school more. But it is quite diverse. And then, obviously again, with budget, we'll have to prioritize which areas we can take on first and which ones are in. Thank you. And I'm also curious as to why we don't see South Boulder Rec Center on there we're looking in the next 6 years. East Boulder was simply the name Ccrs project. this really should be all of the 3 rec centers together.

[98:08] we did not update the slide fully from last year. I'm sorry for that. Thank you. Okay, just as a reminder. I'm sorry I did also have a question, and that's actually the same question as Sunny had, except I was wondering up Pearl Street. is it sort of the same answer. We're doing initial scoping. yeah, at Pearl Street we'll be getting into the main scrolling in 2,024. There is the and it is it? Fiftieth anniversary got the right date in 2,027. So we've got the drive to really get Hill Street refreshed by that date. So we can celebrate the fiftieth anniversary. And that is really a focus on the capital maintenance enhancement. Not so much new. Got it? Okay? Thank you.

[99:01] Okay, we have the list of under and unfunded projects. this is just sort of a reminder that sorry. even with 41 million dollars in the cip budget. there are certain things that we just don't have the full, physically constrained action or vision level funding that, would be desired to meet all of the community needs. So some of these relates to maintenance enhancement, and then obviously new facilities, such as 5 months out or area 3. So we just wanted to make sure that you have this running list and are aware that these projects do not have the full funding that would be recommended as called for in the 2,022 plan. So with that, we have reviewed everything we do have a 2 suggested motions for you tonight. related to the capital improvement program. The first is, recommending the expenditures from the permanent Parks and Recreation Fund for City Council appropriation, and then the second is considering the entire 24 through 2,029 cip.

[100:04] But we can pause and answer any questions before we get there. Any questions, any additional questions on the board. I push on. The increase of, you know, kind of unexpected increase in funding. It looks like in the packet went from what 28 million to 36 million over that 6 year period. So the things you highlighted the increases were those increases that change as a result of these projections, or like, where did that money go in terms of the revenue or the expenses? It looks like that's it. Well, as I read that it it looked like an additional revenue. Right? Yes. So we have received updated projections in the point 2 5 cent sales tax fund. basically, when the 2,023 revenue projections were established. We were still in a recovery phase from covid Those numbers have come in significantly stronger, based on 2022 actuals, and then the CEO economists looking forward. The city has taken an approach to kind of go with a more moderate revenue projection rather than a conservative ones that they've been relying on for the past 3 years. So there is additional revenue there. I don't want to paint anyone, but property taxes have gone up, and the city is taking a rather conservative approach to what property tax increases will be just based on

[101:23] the different ballot initiatives that will be on the ballot in November. but collectively, those 2 are the largest funding sources for how we have additional funding to allocate. So so it's but it hasn't been designated. Those additional funds have a design that's just anticipated. It's anticipated revenue. If you look at our fund financials, we do have additional revenue that exceeded expenses the past 2 years, that we basically have some additional cash that we're sitting on waiting to put forward to these projects right. Now. do you have a sense of how that'd be prioritized? If once that's finalized, it really comes down to staff capacity and the prioritization. So I think that Mark and his team shared up the Cis as far as what their staff capacity is and priority projects. so everything that's already identified as 2,023 projects where

[102:14] prioritizing before we get to 2,024 projects. Thanks, Jason, any additional questions. Anna. yes, I had a question going back to the previous side about the underfunded projects. What is the amount that is required for funding like these. Mark? I'm gonna actually there's a sort of 2 answers to this. And one of them sounds a little bit bureaucratic. But it's the way we're at the basically, we're updating our asset management system. So when you see in the maintenance and then the enhancement. the reason, I said, it's bureaucratic is we got a little process to go through the Rollout asset management program. Phase 2. We got a little bit delayed. Covid. What that will do is give us, you know, current replacement values Jackson mentioned earlier. We now cost estimating.

[103:07] and we're supposed to put 2 to 4% side per year or maintenance. But we know that will be huge number. Once we get through that. So we're going to be kind of realistic about what is who a condition, what's fair condition? How do we bring that up to power. And what is it that we have to prioritize within budget we've got? So that's where most of that thinking will go in the maintenance enhancement. And you'll be seeing because we're rolling it out this year. The phase 2, the asset management program over the next 2 touch basis with prep, you'll see, is providing more information with dashboards on where that funding is needed and where the how we prioritize it. And then the projects. the new projects. We are still really like Area 3. We don't have a cost estimate of that yet. We do know. However, if we want to do ballpark cost estimating, it's about 1.2 million for park development per acre on average. Nowadays we've done this by doing some benchmarking as well as looking at our own costs.

[104:07] And so if we're looking at Area 3 and say, we're developing 15 acres. Well, it's sort of intense park development. Let's say you might be coming in, you know, 15 to 20 million. There's a cost for that. So these are things we're working through to improve the cost, estimating all that. Why are bathrooms and shelters not being funded at the level they need to be. It's in terms of, yeah, we put it in urgency of, yeah, it's the story. And it doesn't. We, we, we initially, we're basically looking at bathrooms on a sort of a emergency or safety need basis. We've now actually got 125,000. And I'm set aside for bathrooms. and what we're doing is we're spreading that looking at the cost. It would be great to have, say, 300,000 a year. But when you look at the whole as a management system that says this percentage, how much we can afford to invest in that and move them from, say, poor to fair condition of that degree.

[105:03] So it's it's proportional, based upon the amount of what we have any additional questions. yeah, go ahead. No, no, no, go ahead. This can be a last question, too. Sorry I I was just curious. I I think maybe 2 meetings ago. We we did the surveys where we kind of ranked priorities. And Was that fact? How to? How was that used in all this process? If at all? I mean, if at all. Just curious how that I think One of the messages that came through was what Texas pointed out, and I was thinking of what we have. So we definitely, you've seen that there's a the asset management program has got more categories identified. So where previously, like bathrooms didn't have funding, we've got funding now and then things like ports, and that by 200,000 play areas have moved up. I from 200 to 3, 300 to 800,000, the averaging out of 500,000 years, 300 to develop. So that's that's where the main feedback we got from you.

[106:01] And then, on the other side of things, there was the investment in some of the like. Let's say, Violet Park, the newer parks that are going in and having an equity focus on that. So I'd say, that's where most of the information we got back to you was sort of used in this effort. Anybody else. That's it. Don't go away. So I I just have one comment on this. I I think you would. I understand the need to be efficient with slides and and combine information, but I think that it might be more helpful to have to distinguish what is under funded versus unfunded. I think that might actually alleviate some of the confusion, because we're left to kind of guess which ones aren't getting enough money versus no money. So I think that just as a comment, I think that would be helpful. Actually, that's a excellent process improvement. And I think, as you know, we're but basically our last cost. Estimating effort was sort of 2,019. There's been huge escalation since then.

[107:07] so part of it on our end to say, Give us a chance to sort of update everything and get back to you. So yeah, that's something we definitely do for next year. And you'll see more detailed costing. Okay, thank you. Appreciate your transparency on this as well. Yeah. okay, so can we go back to the thank you. is this the language you would recommend that we use. Yes, it is okay. so I would like to ask for. Yes. this is a public hearing, Mr. Chair. I don't believe we have any members of the community. But we might want to pause and confirm real quick. We can grab the handbook to confirm. Okay, but just second. So this is so. There's a public hearing portion of this for members of the public.

[108:04] Rose, are they any anybody signed up to make public comment on this particular agenda. Item. Okay, so because there are no members of the public who've signed up for this public hearing portion of this agenda item, I'll close public comment. And now I will ask for a motion to for the item number one. Anybody want to move? It's written up there for you, Jason. You look like you're you're ready to go. I wasn't ready to go, but you're you're born ready. We read to read the motion now year 4, I should know this most motion, approved the 2,024 recommended expenditures. 3 million dollars from the permanent Park and Recreation fund to City Council for appropriation. Second. second. any discussion.

[109:02] Okay. Rosa. Would you mind calling the role Anita Spears? 17209870195: Yes. Andrew Bernstein. Elliot Hood. and a secret. Yes, Jason, hunger? Yes. sounds like the motion passes. and we have a second motion to do so. We actually have to send our recommendation to council. So do I have a motion to do that. Anna, you want to give it a go. I motion to recommend the 2024 to 29 parks and my Christian capital improvement plan to city council and planning.

[110:04] Second. I second Rosa, can you call the role? I'm sorry discussion. I want to follow the Roberts rules here. Done. Okay, Rosa. Anita spears. 17209870195: Yes. Andrew Bernstein. Eliot Hood. and a secret. Yes, Jason Unger. Yes. all right. Second motion passes. and that should close out this agenda item. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you so much for your presentations. Always as always. Well done. Thank you. So now we're going to shift gears onto the next agenda. Item. we have the 2,024 proposed budget and a few policy. We have broken this out into 2 sections as they are slightly different.

[111:04] once again, the same timeline applies that we had talked about earlier. So thank you for the efficiency of having these back to back with the 2,024 budget. We did want to highlight what the key changes are. we really didn't spend as much time going into the nuts and bolts of this year's budget. just because there are so many things that we do on an ongoing basis that have incremental increases. We did highlight for you in the Prep packet. the areas where we did see key changes. And I just wanted to call out the program growth. so specific examples are are. the golf program. The gymnastics program will continue to see continued growth based on our trends in those program areas. And as a result, we are increasing costs. additionally, maintenance to support taking care of what we have. we do have regular maintenance that gets embedded into our operating budget, such as the cost to take care of our different park amenities. and just the routine mowing weeding, blowing of all of those areas. So we are seeing cost increases for basically just operations of our costs

[112:14] new. In this year's budget. We do highlight to ongoing transfers. as you all know, the General Fund subsidy to the Recreation Activity Fund is expected to decrease and we took a look at all of our plans. and different guidance that we've received over the last 15 years is we are updating the fee policy. something that the city hasn't undertaken, or the department, I should say, is aligning where the revenue and expenses for the sports field rentals are coming from. So we receive Revenue and the Recreation Activity Fund. But the majority of the expenses come out of the point 2 5 some sales tax fund. So with 2,024, we're proposing, aligning that by bringing in all of the expenses for field maintenance into the Recreation Activity Fund But given, there is such a substantial cost associated with that we are looking at creating an ongoing transfer to pay for

[113:09] that overall cost and then over time we will update fees to account for. the cost recovery targets established by the fee policy. Additionally, we have a general fund contingent subsidy. as we've seen the Recreation Activity Fund really does, provide a great deal of community benefits. The fund as a whole is very difficult to balance, based on perceived revenues and expenses. And it's something that we spend a whole lot of time with you on each year. to basically lose $500,000 of general fund support overnight would have a significant impact. So what we are asking for is $250,000 of contingent subsidy in 2,024 that would stare up, down by 50,000 a year. This basically allows us time to implement the fee policy and continue to observe the recovery associated with recreation and the significant impacts that we've

[114:03] experience over the pandemic. you will see that our recreation Center visitation is still below 2,019 levels. And that's something that we're struggling with. just because that is something that is required to balance in order to balance the fund. So our intention is the general fund contingent subsidy would only be relied upon. if revenues don't outpace expenses. And we have that as something that would stare up, down over time. as I mentioned earlier, the key increases. We are still working on that policy with you and identifying exactly where we are going to see increases. But we have basically penciled in a 2 and a half percent increase in fees. each year over the next 5 years, with about $250,000 expected in 2,024. Finally, on the staffing. we are requesting 16 fte which would bring the total department ft. Up to about 160

[115:07] 3 of these are tied to the Ranger program that is, converting one time fte into ongoing fte. and then we have a request in for 13 additional new ft. In addition to this, we did receive 6 and a half fte in May of 2,023. This year, when the adjustment to base one was approved by city council. and these additional staff are across the department, but really in areas where we are continuing to see significant growth or efficiencies in bringing on staff rather than relying on consultants. and then finally, you did see the C. I. P. Dollars. And this aligns with the capital investment strategy. So we are increasing the overall of budget associated with the IP. So those are the quick highlights. I'm going to pause here and see if there's any questions. and I did want to call out in the memo there is a reference to a navigation coordinator that is something that we had actually been back and forth about, and was included in the memo by mistake.

[116:10] Our intention is to wait until the 2,023 actuals come in and then request that position as an offcycle and or using grant funding just because we do see there being such a great community need for this position. that has a very compelling story behind it. Okay, I'm not seeing any questions. Thank you for letting me catch my breath. I know that some of us could sit here and look at spreadsheets all day. most of you probably love the visualization of this. So this graphic really visualizes how the Department's budget has changed from 2,019, which we really view as the last baseline year. going into 2,024 budgets. I will say that looking at this long of a trend is kind of an anomaly for us as well as finance professionals who typically only look back for 3 years.

[117:09] But given the impacts Covid had on our industry. the revenues within the city. We did think it was important to show you what a baseline year look like. we do have general funds. increasing the 0 point 2 5% sales tax is tight to increases in sales tax activity. The Recreation activity fund is tied to increases in programming. and you'll see continued program growth compared to 2,019 permanent parks and recreation fund has remained relatively stable, and you will see that that fluctuates here over year, as some years we save up for larger dollar amounts. and I have less spend but in 2,019 was a year when we did both Scott Carpenter Pool and the boulder reservoir that we did see a significant spend. So this is basically spending down funding that we've already collected. Lottery fund stays relatively consistent. And then capital. Other

[118:02] are those one-time project-specific funds that really vary throughout the 6 year history of the department. We do have all of this broken down between fund and how this compares to 2,023, you will see overall. we are seeing about a 27 million dollar increase across the board for the typical capital funds. And then we did call out Ccrs, differently, just because there is such a big as associated with that 62 million that was discussed in the Cip But all of that factored in we are looking at about a 25% increase compared to 2,023 is approved budget and once again. this is the department's request. It still has to go through further vetting with the executive Budget team finance department city manager. before it gets included in the recommended budget

[119:00] so new this year with the cities of budget development process was the Finance Department, went to the community connectors and residents and gathered feedback on all of the city's services and city-wide budget as far as what was important to them within. that feedback we did here that there are specific areas of interest from the community for parks and recreation. and this includes the availability of safe gathering spaces and facilities. preventing and dismantling impacts of historically excluded community members, affordability and sustainability of financial assistance programs and accessibility through clear signage and multilingual support. So we did hear all of this feedback And in response to this the Department has shared with the community connectors and residents how our proposed 2,024 budget aligns with this feedback as well as any existing programs that are in place that we could share with those community members. So all of this was included as attachment be in your packet? so you can see exactly what those services are that we are offering, and we're happy to discuss any of those in more depth if you have any questions.

[120:16] So with that that really concludes our 2,024 operating budget and I just wanted to pause here and see if you all have any questions on the 2,024 operating budget. Questions on the board need to pause. My water breaks. Thank you. Okay, we're going to jump into the few policy. you will see that a lot of this content is very similar to what we've presented over the last few months. We just wanted to remind you, as far as what the 2,022 department plan policy shifts were, and basically with no new funding. the Department needed to evaluate levels of service.

[121:03] to identify where reductions could happen or pursue alternative funding to maintain existing levels of service. What we heard loud and clear is the community benefit programs are important to the community as well as this board. So there was a greater emphasis on finding additional revenue to continue to pay for those community benefit programs. With that our intention is to establish a fee policy and then determine appropriate subsidy levels. tonight in attachments a, you have the draft fee policy, and this is something that we are looking for your feedback on. and I'm not going to rehash all of it. But we have identified 10 different program types. some of those had existing policy, others with outset policy. And then various levels of program benefit level from community to exclusive. And I know that one of the areas of feedback is related to the word exclusive, So very happy to

[122:06] look into that word as we get further along. Just as a reminder. This was kind of the spectrum as far as where taxes went and where user fees went. as well as our cost recovery associated with the different types of programs. And once again, The community connectors and residents did have a special session focused just on the parks and recreation fee policy. This was held on June ninth and I'm actually going to turn it over to CC. To give the feedback as far as what was heard there. And what we're trying to do about it. Yeah, sure, absolutely. I'll hear me. Okay. okay. So we had gone to the community connectors and residents and had a very good turnout. we kind of went over the similar slides that we just showed all of you. And really post the question to them, what impact, positive or negative? Do you see the fee policy having in your community, and it was great open dialogue at that meeting. we did receive a lot of good feedback.

[123:06] and I would say it was really focused around specifically about the fee policy. And then also a lot about our financial assistance program that we do offer to the community. So in response, for the fee policy, the What we heard was that there was definite support for a fee policy, and an understanding on why the Department would be looking at a few policy and then also increasing our fees to sustain our programs, our costs staffing costs and everything that does align with that So we did hear support for that. But we also heard which did support the crabs feedback, the need to pursue additional funding and grants to maintain the community benefit subsidy. So Their feedback was to increase subsidy to those in need to offset the higher costs. So certainly for the department not to decrease any subsidy levels mean team, those community benefit programming to the best that we could and then really try to explore grant opportunities to help offset those costs community connectors to definitely volunteer and ask us to reach out to them

[124:20] needed any feedback for our Grant proposals, which we thought was great. so there's just a lot of interest involvement in connection there. in regards to the financial aid program is that was really a top priority for them. the feedback that we received is that they would love to see some increased communication and education surrounding the program. So how can we get the word out better? How can we explain what we're offering? What programs could be supported by financial assistance. also, they wanted to make sure that our forms could be simple to complete and the application process be as dignified as possible. So as a city? you know, how can we kind of streamline that process if someone is applying for aid and another city department, how can that translate over to parks and recreation. How can we make a very quick and easy and comfortable process? for our

[125:14] community members, and then also pursue cooperative agreements with older bally school district. in just working with the district, as many of you may or may not know. they will be going to a free lunch program next year there used to be a letter for an example that would put you on A for your reduced lunch, which you could then use for financial assistance. Can we work with the district and see if something can be in replace of that, just to keep it easy for them to keep applying for it. so really, just, you know, feedback making sure that that financial aid is stained for community members. And you know, very passionate about the work that we're doing, very complementary of parks and recreation. And you know, overall. I think it was a wonderful feedback session, and great to have that opportunity to look at that from an equity lens.

[126:11] Thank you, Stacey. so in attachment be, you do have the draft. If you policy. It's really, I'm sorry it's really broken down into 5 different sections. We have the purpose, the background, the definitions. the policy and the procedure. this is your chance to really provide us any critical feedback that you have, so we can incorporate it before we bring it back to you. We have taken all of the feedback that we've heard at the various touch points of crab which have been 4 different sessions. city councils study session on May eleventh, the community connectors in residence on June ninth, and then we have had multiple touch points with staff and have another meeting set up later this week to review the fee policy before it comes back to you. Next model. just as a reminder we have done so much work already. Q. One and Q. 2 is very much complete at this point. when we bring it back in July. The intention is to get perhaps approval on the fee policy to forward to city council.

[127:16] and that would be included as part of their budget process is approving the fee policy. In the meantime we do have significant work to be done. to understand what our current cost recovery is by program area and then align our cost. Recovery or align our fees to hit those cost recovery targets where necessary. So our intention is to start making recommended adjustments to fees that we would bring back to you to highlight where the fee adjustments are occurring. And, as we've stated since the beginning, anything that is a community or recreation program. we would not increase fees by more than 10% a year, just to make sure that those programs continue to be affordable. our intention would be to start phasing in any new fees on January first. But there will be significant community engagement that goes into that. So impacted users and user groups are aware of those fee increases and can start factoring those into their expenses.

[128:16] So with that I know that you all have had a chance to review the fee policy. this is the opportunity for you to provide any additional input that we haven't captured. to make sure that your voice is heard prior to next month. questions from the board. Jason. I have a question on the. It's a towards the end of that attachment. there where there's the chart. And you know, community benefit recreation exclusive. You know, it looks like the percentages are consistent with community and with exclusive. But some of the recreation. There's one that's 70 when it's 50. How did you all determine that subsidy level?

[129:01] This was really based on the feedback the prop had provided you have that exercise where you kind of ran through on the spectrum where you thought everything would fall, and then we also did just a quick snapshot as far as what our current cost recovery was. to gauge. Are we ball per close with where we think we should be? at the end of the day. We do need to try to balance the overall budget as much as we'd love to subsidize everything. we are trying to make sure that we can continue offering all of the programs that we do offer any additional feedback questions. our share. Chuck Brock, His feedback was. And I I want to echo some of this is, I like the fee policy. I would suggest an appendix with examples of the classification of community recreation and exclusive benefit. The appendix could give an example or 2 of each, and then explain why they were placed in the category they ended up in

[130:06] He also raises the issue of the use of the word exclusive versus something else like individual. but that he's neutral on that and I would just echo Chuck's comment about the appendix. I think that might be helpful. Thank you. Very much understood. And We had heard the exclusive versus individual aspects. and that wasn't changed in time. So yeah, I mean, I can. I can see how you would want to stick with exclusive. But I could also see some benefit to individual. So I had an additional comment which was. do or question comment. Do we have a fee schedule that we attach, or that's readily accessible to where the feed policy lives. Great question, current answer is partially for our recreation facilities. We do list out what the Daily Monthly annual Punch Pass rates are

[131:06] for all of our other fees. They currently live in the guide. we have over 3,200 fees right now. The intention of this is later. This year we want to come back to you with that fee schedule and simplify. What are these 300 fees that we've narrowed it down to to be able to share with you and the public and have it front thing on our website as far as what is a fee to rent a Rec. Center for 1 h. Yep. that's great. That's great to you. Awesome. I really think that would be of great benefit to the public. And for me personally, I would love to have that printed out. any other comments? Questions. okay, so there's no action item on this correct that is correct. We did not include this as a public hearing for the action item with the

[132:04] it doesn't for the operating budget. It doesn't need a public hearing, because you're not taking formal action. You're passing along a recommendation to council. but I just to clarify action on the fee policy. No, the intention was. And this is always when we bring you something for approval. We want to clean read. We don't want to be make. We approve the fee policy with this amendment. Right? So that's not the the goal tonight really was to forge for your input and improvement, so that we bring in back in July. You're like, yes, this is what we said, 2 thumbs up, or we would say, Hey, we heard you on this thing we did some analysis on it. Here's our response. And here's the fee policy. So the intent really is to to get. If if you have any questions or feedback. Please do share them now. don't be shy so that we can bring back a clean or even July So I just want to make sure I'm clear. If we don't have an action item. we do have an action item on the budget. The it says, action item.

[133:18] Oh, yeah, I just had a question. so if there's a group that doesn't agree with the designation, is there an outline process by which they can appeal like that they could present data, and how many low income people they serve, or how many dollars they give out in scholarships or English language learners that are in their members like, is there some like vulnerability statistics that they can share about their programming as we were doing our research with other fee policies? We saw that there wasn't an appeal process identified in most other policies. That is more of a staff administrative process as far as how to identify an appeal. So we did not include an appeal section in the policy. I think that that is something that we still need to clarify on exactly what the

[134:05] appeal would be and what it is that we're looking for. We do have several tools in place, currently, that really help with that. that we would probably rely on updating those. well, I would just add it. So here's here's my dream world, my dream world is. It costs us a hundred dollars an hour to maintain a soccer field community. Here is our rental rate. It is a hundred dollars an hour. You want a discount on that great show us data on how you're serving the community through scholars, shipping through alternate language program. And that's how you achieve discounted access and subsidy. And so I think, because for our own programming we go through. You've heard us talk about the recreation priority index. And so for community based programming. What I think, is an ideal state is this is the rate. and everybody has that rate. You you, we create a process by which people can lobby for discounting right by showing community benefits. So that's where I would love to be rather than us assigning people. Just we don't have. You know, we, when we've worked on this for space allocation. We've had a similar process. We've tried to allocate pool time based on community benefit, even just by residency.

[135:15] We don't have that that data. And so we've had to create a form that the user groups fill out to tell us who they're serving and how they are. So I think that's the ideal state. That would be the next level maturation in this process. Additional question, comments Jason. Just on that. On that point I think we talked about, maybe at their our study session on this, but it wouldn't just be kind of an arbitrary like. Here's your great. Here's here's our justification. Obviously, with a clear kind of these are the things we look for. Here's the potential discount. Not kind of one group gets, you guys get a 20%. Because you're doing this, you guys get to 30% based on Jason. I've served this community for almost 20 years more than 20 years. Now, I guess arbitrary doesn't work here, and and we try to not do it. Never! It wasn't a no, I just. I agree that the intent is, here's no, I agree, because I think some of the questions we get from user groups or rowers is, it's not clear it's not transparent. It feels like we're in some back room, making up fees every year and just tossing them out. And so the the hope is that everything is transparent, consistent.

[136:26] understandable, doesn't mean everyone's gonna support it. Right? I want to be clear. That is not the goal. It's not that every you know, every user group comes to us in January and says, Yay, you increased our fees. We we you know we were excited. but the process, the methodology. It's consistent, understandable, and and people get it. What my specific point was like. The process and methodology for for discounts is clear. I think that's like you got more important, because, you know, then it could be arbitrary. I mean just on that. What is what is? I'm sure we'll get to this at some point. What is the you know, I'm sure there'll be a long kind of public process, and how this is sold, and justification and the benefits of this like, what is there kind of communication or outreach plan around

[137:07] this. Roll out Jackson, if you want to go back to the timeline slide. But I want to be clear that the public process for the development of this is done. It happened during the engagement of the last 2 years, for the development of the 2,022 plan as far as the roll, out of final recommendations like the Oh got so the final all of that is going to be through the prep conversations in the fourth quarter. And then our communication with user groups. Is that is that your question? Yeah. And we're just, you know, anticipating. I mean, this has come up in, you know, lots of different ways, you know, you all knows but us, and just kind of getting ahead of this, as far as being, you know clear about what this policy is. You know the benefits like. Why, we've why the Department has done that, and so, more than it seems like more than just prab outreach. But and you know, user groups, but just kind of a general communication strategy around this before people get upset.

[138:00] a general communication. I I I don't want to promise people won't be upset what I what I will hope for, and I guess all I'm looking to Jackson into Scott. I do think a communication strategy around general community engagement. We have a fall guide right where we know we can reach 45,000 community members that we can talk about. Hey? You know, people have been talking about this. This is going to be implemented. I also want to just call out, I mean. I I'm trying to right size expectations. We're going to do everything we can to not have upset people. Right? We're going to cap increases for community benefit and recreation programs. We don't want to have, you know, 50% increases. That's not. That's not fair to to people trying to recreate. We want people to move. So we'll stagger increases. We'll do general community roll out. I do think those some targeted focused meetings with user groups is actually where we can be most effective, because they that will then shape how they communicate with their their constituents. And so I I think that, like Thoughtful who we talk to when and how is a great idea? Okay? I mean, there's nothing you all do that's not thoughtful and well, but more just kind of wanting to flag that that you know, making sure there's more than just, you know, pro and user groups there. So thanks

[139:11] any other questions or comments. I would just add that, you know, we've definitely got a lot of comments from some user groups who are upset with their categorization. And we've provided a form for them to explain their differences of opinion and their thoughts on the fee policy. And I just would encourage Staff to continue to provide open channels of feedback for those contracts that we're establishing with them and the fees, and to ensure that we continue to have transparency about fee increases, which it seems like you all are obviously thinking about. which is as we transition into the next year as well. So thank you. okay, so we were about to move.

[140:02] we did not get through that, so do I have a motion, and what is there any language you would like? I'm sorry I don't have language on here. You want to pull up the cip motion for the 5 Year Plan. So if you look at motion Number 2, and it's just the instead of the 2,024 parks and recreation cip to planning board and city council. It's simply motion to recommend the 2,024 parks and recreation operating budget to city council for approval. Anybody want to motion Sunny? You want to go for it. It's like an adlet. Yeah.

[141:02] Thanks motion to recommend motion to recommend the 2,024 operation budget. to City Council for approval and appropriation. I'll second that. Thank you. okay, any discussion? Okay? let's call for a vote. Jason. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Yes. Pretty. Yes, yeah. Yes. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Is it need to on the line still. Oh. 17209870195: can you hear me? Yes. 17209870195: yes, that's my answer. Thank you. Sorry I need it for skipping you.

[142:03] Okay? The motion passes. Okay the next. So that completes our matters for discussion. and the action items. I think the next item is the matters from the board. Is that right? Because we switch the to matters for discussion. I think it should be matters from the board. Okay, so we have 3 matters from the board. one is the discussion of the Prep Handbook revisions which I can provide. and then we have a continue discussion on the board liaisons to the Bpr. Projects, and then we have prab matters and I'll just start with the prep handbook revisions.

[143:00] So we're getting close to the end. With that I submitted the draft of the handbook revisions to the city attorney's office and the city attorney's office was able to provide very helpful feedback on that and It is my hope that we can incorporate the comments and changes or recommended changes from the city attorney's office into the draft that we can then present to you. at the next meeting for review. And so just like a as is typical in this type of review, this won't. The next meeting won't be the approval of the Handbook revisions. It'll just be the first reading of the Handbook provisions, and then we'll take the feedback from that, if any, and we'll incorporate them into a change, and then we'll have a second reading. depending on how much feedback we get. The second reading might be good enough. If we need a third reading, we can do that.

[144:05] But we're only a couple of months now, probably away from having a brand new shiny handbook that will be great. So thanks for everybody's feedback on that, and for your patience as we get that done. any questions or comments about that. Sure my pleasure. Okay. So continued discussion on the board liaisons to be Pr projects. So I wasn't in attendance the last meeting. But my understanding is that we continue to have discussion on and head of more through a discussion on liaisons to Bpr projects. And my understanding of what we want to address today is kind of twofold. One is we've got 2 vacancies still. we have nobody assigned to the courts system plan.

[145:07] and we have nobody assigned to the Bpr. Fee policy. discussion. And we have multiple opportunities that have 2 people assigned to them, and 2 is not 2 is great, but not necessary. for these, and so it would be great if we could discuss either reshuffling the the matches. or who's designated to be it a liaison, or if we could get people to sign up for these 2 vacant ones. and so I'll open up for discussion on that. despite what I said earlier. If I'm happy to take on one of the ones that doesn't currently have anyone assigned. I can't say that I know anything about tennis orpical ball. But I'm willing to learn. That sounds like perfect. Okay for that. All right. So put me in. Put me on the core plan. You can ask good questions.

[146:08] I I I will. Okay, so any I mean any opposition, any discussion about Bernie being our designated liaison to the court systems plan. Okay? Good. All right, Bernie. The penciling you and my friend. okay. And then we've got the Bpr fee. Policy also has no takers. Chuck would be all over that for sure, if he was. What did he say? He said Chuck had actually a comment. I want to make sure we communicate. Oh, yeah. He wanted to be considered as a board member to the play play Boulder Foundation and definitely wants to be a liaison for the Violet Park development.

[147:00] which I don't see he is on there. No? Oh, yeah, liaison. Okay. so he does. He did not raise his hand for the fee policy. so I'll just open it up for discussion on the fee policy. We've got a blank space here. Chuck is not here, so I don't want to volunteer him for something he hasn't said he wants to do. although I think he would be really good for the fee policy discussion. Mr. Chair, would it help if I just reminded everyone from May what the what we're looking for with the liaison? That'd be great. It's one input on process and community engagement. So we're all buried in this all day long, and your questions about engagement and how we're talking to people are super helpful to us. Second, to have a deeper level of knowledge, not expertise on a project, so that when it comes before the board you can help create connections there also. And then finally just supporting the board conversations on the topic at the business meetings and study sessions. So it does not require expertise in any one topic. Hopefully. That's what our team is bringing to the table. But really, you're a community expert.

[148:16] Any additional many takers? just just in in Bernie's defense. I would. It seems like the Rec. Centers are a big enough topic that we, if we could have 2 people on that one, she was. If you still want to do it. I don't. Wanna this I need to. I mean, I'm I'm very interested in that. It's such a huge issue. Yeah. Well, Ellie, do you a sense of how much additional time each of these projects will require 5 h a month? No, just kidding. that's a that's a really good question, when, as we talked about this, I would expect it's it's an hour to 2, a quarter, and it really depends. So like Rec Center's future, we're on hold now, while our partners and financing facilities go out to the market to test these different funding models. but for each of these you can see we've tried to scope out the quarters I would anticipate. It's an additional hour or 2 of your time a quarter.

[149:13] Okay? Well, I'm happy to have the Rec center project, but somebody else has 2 feeds. so I'm happy to step up and and I'll also know. I mean, we just had a significant conversation about the fee policy. what I anticipate. The engagement on that one is through Q. 2 of 2,024 is, as we start looking at current costing and and where we are with cost recovery, with where we think we might need to be. We're going to be identifying next steps and implementing that. But it, it's not a heavy lift, and if there isn't a board liaison to that one, it's probably because we're almost fully complete here. It it's not awful. So I want to make sure we give Anita a chance to weigh in if she has any

[150:02] comments or suggestions 17209870195: not right now. Not right now. Thank you. So As I said, I'm happy to step up and do the fee policy liaison role in addition to the Boulder Junction liaison role. And yeah, I will just say, given based on my experience with the Boulder Junction group, it's fairly minimal in terms of time commitment, and I think we've had one meeting so far, and there's another one coming up in July and you know, it's a couple of hours, a month, maybe of extra time. if if not less so. just on the, so that it looks like I'm up here a few times. But I'm happy to get that to Chuck.

[151:03] I think he's waiting. He's holding out for the Violet park. There you go. Yeah, because he's got that. Chuck's got the Violet Park one. He's already on the civic area, one as well. My recommendation would just be to keep him, as it may be on there, just because he's not here. But that's just my recommendation. Any anybody have any comments on that? Okay, okay, so I think we've got our 2 vacancies filled. We've got the we've got Bernie for the Court Systems plan. We've got me for the Bpr. Fee policy. Bernie is committed to the Recreation Center Center's future. Anything else. I'm missing, Allie. No, I think you all covered it, and I just I want to appreciate your time. Really, then, T, with these liaison roles is that when conversations come to you, we've done an even better job with community engagement and process. So thank you.

[152:08] And then moving on the last item for matters in the Board is Prad matters, which is just a chance for us to share activities that we've done or participated in that relate to the department's work, or just, you know, thoughts from the community about Vpr's work. it's kind of an open open mic at this point anybody want to share. So I was really sad to Miss Roller. My mother in law flew in from the Netherlands, and was just not adjusted for something that incredibly fun. So we did not go. But I love the idea. and I just want to shout out to summer camps. My kids have been doing

[153:02] They they got to do growing gardens last week, the farm to fork. They have been making smoothies and garlic knots, and just really enjoying the benefits of that experience on the farm last week, and my son is doing the reservoir camp this week and just came home exhausted and happy. So great job with those camps, and I've heard lots of great things from other people, too. So anybody else. I'll just add that really excited about the golf course facility and getting to participate in that was really fabulous. And I know that everybody in the community is excited about that, that. I've spoken to and it just seems like a really really great place to direct our

[154:00] our, our attention and our our funds, and I think it will greatly increase the quality of the experience, for not just people who play golf, but people in the community as well as family members of people who use that facility, I mean, I think it will truly make it a more region. It will enhance the the the regional feel and reach of that facility. And I'm very really. I'm very excited about it being finished so well done on that. Anita. Did you have something you wanted to share? 17209870195: Yes, I wanted to add that my daughter also went to the sailing camp today, but she was not tired, so she was still awake. 17209870195: but it has been a great experience. She has also been playing tennis 4 times a week or so, and we keep running into the issue that 17209870195: they are adults playing as well either tennis or pickle ball, and they keep cursing. And I just don't think that you know my daughter should be listening to those

[155:05] 17209870195: phone words. And I was wondering if maybe we can put up some signs. or you know, what else can we do when people are not being respectful. 17209870195: So yeah, that's all. Thank you. Thank you, Ania. do you want to respond to that as Staff? I can do that, Anna, were you gonna add on that, or did you have a different code yet? I I need. I'd love to talk to you, offline about that, and just learn a little bit more about when how often, and and see if we could, what? There's a lot of different options there. So perhaps you can email our call, and we can talk more. Sure. Sounds good. Thank you. I just wanted to say that we have been to the Scott Carpenter Pool a couple of times so far this summer, and I think the like. Previously, when in previous years, I think it was probably during the pandemic

[156:05] the. the the pool with the lapse was kind of off limits for kids to play in. because they just had lap swimming all the time. And I see a lot of the older kids are like they've opened up. There's more availability for the to use that pool now, and I think that balance is in better place, because I I see a lot of older kids playing in that area. And like, I've counted and compared how many people are swimming labs? How many are people using that area. So I think opening that up was a great decision. For bring those kids. It's because spruce pool is open that you know, we There's less demand on the lane lines at Scottie, which means that we can open. I think they've got 4 to 6 open of the 20 a day for just open swim which relieves one. It's great. So it gives older kids something to do, but it relieves pressure on the rest of the amenities. It's amazing. And it's possible because the team got spruce open. We have enough staff. It's working so it's huge. It's a big one. And I would just add on to that. I don't think we've truly given you guys enough credit. I mean that

[157:07] last the change between this year and last year with life card coverage and facility. Availability is really great. And you all should be commended for achieving a really important win on staffing our pools and making sure that we, the community, can use our facilities. I am looking to my left because Scott joined our team at the end of November last year, and from the day he started we said, You have one focus. Our our teams need help recruiting. They need help. and he's led a a staff team. We have a a last last year you heard us talk about aqua force, which was the team we had where we are allocating resources it this year. It's called Summer Squad, because really, we know we need staffing across the department in camps and the pools and in park maintenance, and we have more people on our team this summer than we have ever had. part of that. It's because it takes 9 million people an hour to operate Scott Carpenter pool which we didn't have before. But They! They've done such incredible work, and I'm so grateful for Scott's leadership and that work.

[158:09] and what's even cool. And I think just so. illustrative of the type of people on our team is that they already have a work plan for the fall of things that they, you know, in May we had a nice lunch we celebrated, they said. Now we're going to put our heads down and and provide great experiences all summer, but they have a work plan for the fall of things they want to build so that they have a really solid foundation for next year. We're going to do a job fair in August, because all of these children that are working for us, these students that are working for us right now are going to go back to school. and so we know that that we're not done and we've got to keep going. But they have done an incredible job. I agree. And I'm really grateful. Thank you. And then I had one other question just to follow up with Scott. I know you had said you were. Gonna have a meeting with the superintendent of Pbsd about the financial aid. Now, just wondering if that happened. Then what the Update was. Yeah, I'd be happy to talk about that. yes, Scott Schutenberg, deputy director, ally and I actually both got to meet with Dr. Anderson. We had a wonderful conversation.

[159:11] and this Thursday I'll be meeting with their marketing and communications specialists with the school district. So I'm excited because Dr. Anderson was very receptive about ways we can communicate and break down some of the barriers that students and families are facing. what I did find out, though, is that the reduced lunch and free lunch letters that go out to the students really wasn't a big factor in determining financial eligibility for financial aid with us. we have other avenues of determining whether or not individuals qualify. but I feel really, really good about the meeting with Dr. Anderson and the relationship and the future of how our department and the city as a whole can work with the school districts. Anything you want to expand on with that. Yeah, so good things happening right? Great, great connection. So thank you for the introduction, and it was great to to sit down and have the conversation.

[160:07] And one of the exciting things that I'm really looking forward to is, we know we want to make data-driven decisions. And Dr. Anderson did share that. he's open to the conversation about sharing some data which is really impactful for us and can can help us with grant opportunities and some other things and showing how our programs make a difference for students in their success in the classroom with participation in our program. So more to come with the school district, but really excited. So thank you. Any other questions. Okay, so that is the last item on the agenda. Our next meeting is 6 pm. On July 20, fourth. and there's no objection. We will adjourn the meeting. Okay? Adjourned. Thank you.

[161:02] Yeah.