January 22, 2024 — Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Text. good evening, everyone. A quorum is present, so we will begin the January 2024. Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. I have a suggestion for a couple of changes to the agenda, so I'd like to make a motion to amend the agenda. Is there a second second? Alright. The changes I'd like to make would be moving. Item 7 B, which is the Central Park cultural landscape assessment, which is scheduled for 15 min to go in front of matters from discussion, information which is the proposed civic area historic district. and the reason for that is that will be the the the Cla is a sub component of the civic or area historic district evaluation, and will be It would make sense to get that done first before going over the entire entire evaluation under Matter 6 a. And the other change I'd like to make is adding,

[1:06] and discussion of the retreat agenda and their matters from the board. Item 8. Adding a d. to that portion of the meeting. Is there any discussion on these 2 proposals. Jason, are you? Are you able to unmute and speak? Yep, I'm here. Okay, I can barely hear you. Can you speak again. Sure. Can you hear me now? Yeah, adequately. The volume could go up a little more, but I think they're working on it here. Okay. okay, do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the agenda? No, I was gonna ask to add to the what you just propose to add to the retreat agenda to be added at the end. So thanks for doing that. Yeah. Item 8 d. Under matters from the board. Okay, great.

[2:01] All right, all in favor of the changes the agenda say, Hi. okay, that passes next up. We have future board items and tours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Ally Rhodes, director of Parks and Recreation gonna sketch out just a a few key milestones for February and March. one. I just wanted to flag under the just other events. And I this will come up briefly under your matters from the board, but Prab recruitment is open. It closes I believe, on the twenty-ninth. and sometimes encouragement and way finding with current board members is the best way to find new board members. And so we just encourage you to help us find really great people who care about the community and make sure the prab continues to be as wonderful and helpful as it has been. Those appointments will come in march at the City Council meeting.

[3:06] and then as far as topics for you to be aware of. I think the I'm sorry I was doing tech things, and I'm not as prepared as I normally am for this portion of the meeting. You have several discussion items coming up that will then lead to action items. And so just wanna remind you all how helpful it is when we're aware of your attendance, whether you will be in person or virtual or not in attendance, so that we can make sure we have a quorum for those meetings where we will be taking action. And then I also wanted to flag for our chair that we are excited. In February. We're gonna be talking about how we talk about climate emissions reporting and alignment, and that'll also connect to our Violet Park project. So I know that has been a request from the board, and we were able to figure that out and look forward to that conversation.

[4:04] Great. Thank you very much. Next up we have public participation. Yeah, please go ahead. Ally. Are you able to share, if we? How many applicants you've had to this board so far we are at 2 at the moment. and we have one opening. We have 2. You'll learn more that, or I guess I'm it's it's not a novel. There's no, there's no need to wait for surprise. Anita shared with us last week that she's resigning effective immediately, and so we have a vacancy. Now and then we'll have another one. Chuck's term ends at the end of March. Thank you. Typically, we average anywhere from 8 to 12 applications for one to 2 seats. And then Jason continues. Yes. Well. his term continues, and as far as I know, his yes. it's a heavy lift to be on 2 different boards at the same time. Rosa, do we have anyone signed up for public participation yet?

[5:04] They don't have any questions. Okay, since there's no one signed up for public participation, we'll just skip that section of the agenda. and we'll move on to the consent agenda. As usual. We'll start with a motion to approve the consent agenda, which consists of the minutes. the design and construction updates and the recreation updates. Would some one like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda so moved? And a second. I'll second Jason. Okay, thanks, Jason. So are there any discussion of amendments to the minutes, or to any comments or questions regarding the design and construction updates and the operations updates. And did Sony ever come online? I just wanna know who's here and who's not?

[6:01] Okay? Would you please let me know if you do see her. Thank you. I do have one comment I wanted to. Thank Ali for the discussions she had with City Council about the civic area phase 2 development. I watched that video, and it was very nice how you presented that, and seemed like council, was very receptive and had some good feedback. I had really good feedback, but I have to flag that mark Davis and Shih-koreagawa colleagues from planning development services. There's there's II really shouldn't get the credit. We have an incredible team working on this project, and I share your excitement for it. I meant you and your team. Okay, we have a motion to approve the consent, agenda and a second all in favor of approving the consent agenda, please say, aye. Hi! Oh, I'm sorry, Jason, I missed you. That's okay. It wasn't it wasn't a very important question. I just I wanted to note it looked like somewhere in the consent agenda. I forget the page.

[7:07] Look like. but the it was the chart showing the you know different. sorry. Let me try to find it here. The the number of people go into the Rec. Centers, and it was really encouraging to see that 2023 numbers get close to pre pandemic numbers. and so congratulations to Ali and the team and everyone for everything you've done. I you know, I joined the board. Yeah, 2 weeks after the pandemic started. So to see the trajectory is really incredible. So so well done. Actually, I'm sorry, Jason reminded me of a question that I had isn't reminding me of the question that I had the that same chart which is on page 11 notes that there's still a 6,000 person visitation Gap is that from the peak in 2,019. Okay, thank you. I agree with Jason. It's encouraging to see these numbers.

[8:01] I've been at East a lot this month, and I can't wait to see January numbers. It feels like a recreation center. It's really exciting. Great. Okay. Moving on from the consent agenda, we'll go to the the revised agenda. We'll now have a discussion on the Central Park cultural landscape assessment. Mark Davidson, our senior planning manager, is gonna present this item, and I think, are you presenting from your you're ready to go then that's pretty. Jason, your hands still up. Oh, got it! Hi, Mark Davison, senior planning man planning manager at parks and recreation, and I'll be presenting on the cultural landscape assessment for Central Park tonight. I just realized it's been maybe 3 or 4 years since Covid since. Have been up here. and I've got a 15 min time limit. So Ali's gonna put the time on me just in case I'm gonna cover, as you can see on the slide tonight 5. The items, the Cla process

[9:06] a little bit of the methodology. And we know, This is new for us. A cultural landscape assessment. The hip report we did, which the Board reviewed was almost like an overview of the cultural landscape, a historic preservation for our various sites. This dived into a lot more detail. So try and de demystify some of the language around this process. Then we'll dive into the evaluations, the findings, and then the next steps the staff who worked ours include the historic preservation staff at Bpr. Including the Supervisor. For that Tina Briggs and Shahomei, who was mentioned earlier, has been as the project manager on the civic area. And then we've also worked with our Ps. Staff to pull this report together. What you can see here is a contents of the Cla, which was the appendix in the Prab memo, and the things I've highlighted in yellow are the items where we'll dive into detail directly from the report. I think it's good rather than just sort of a summary of findings is to pull the direct findings.

[10:09] And that's the methodology. A description of the study boundary, how we analyze existing conditions, and this thing called significance and integrity, that we need to get to where you need both to ultimately have a sort of historic value for the site. I won't spend log on this slide because you've actually seen this before. But it's basically the process that we used we last came to you in December, which I still unfortunately have shown up as today. It is actually January. Now, we basically with the Cla. Developed this as staff, and then asked for a consultant in historic preservation mig to review it in terms of collaborating with on content ensuring we had the right methodology, and then ultimately, this January, they certified the findings of the CLA. So the methodology. There is 2 aspects to looking at a cultural landscape assessment.

[11:04] And you'll see there what I'm showing up top is where for a historic district the code developed the idea of significance being things that are historic, architectural, and environmental. The Cla takes a slightly different track in that it follows significance according to the Secretary of the interior standards. And actually, when I get to it at a moment, the 2 historic periods that were identified as having one as having potential and significance, and one as having significance, were for criteria a associated with events and criteria. C. Distinctive characteristics of a tight period of method. From that particular 2 periods. And so you'll see on the left that National Register of Bulletin. That is what the Secretary of the Interior Standards uses to develop criteria. 4 historic districts. And then on the right is the cultural landscape's reports that was developed to help us understand significance for not just buildings, but the landscape itself.

[12:04] And what I mean by that is when you start to think about something like the integrity of a landscape so initially looking at significance, you're saying something's historic. From what period is that important to us? The integrity then says, Well. Ok, it's important to us. But what's left of that period to day that would convey what is important about the site. And that's the physical features. That's the key part of understanding integrity. And basically, in the nineties the national parks recognized the initial efforts with the National Environment Preservation Act had a focus on buildings and then on historic districts that were mostly groupings of buildings. So the document in blue. A cultural landscape report guide 2 started to develop the idea of. Well, let's look at landscape's system characteristics and you'll see me talk through that to night. So where is it the top? You'll see that in our code we don't specifically have guidance on integrity, but it does guide us back to the National Register, which is the Bulletin on the left, and that was developed in 1997 and then 1998, the blue document got a culture of glance. Landscape reports said, Use the document on the left, the Bulletin, but for landscapes use the document on the right, and then, when you get to the end. Go back to the document on the left to sort of finalize your assessment.

[13:23] little bit clunky, but it's the method, and we all follow it. And when you're sort of demestified, it's it's actually quite a good, well developed method that's well used across the US. so here's the the methodology in a nutshell, and how we laid it out. First of all, do a chronological history. Once you've done that, you can then identify specific historic periods. look at the existing conditions, and the ideas, then, to see which features are historic from that period or periods, and which are non contributing from it. Once you've got that in place, you're able to do your evaluation of significance for those historic periods, and then for the integrity you look at the contributing and non contributing features to understand if they

[14:04] allow the landscape characteristics to convey integrity, and once that's in place, you move to the last part, which is looking at the 7 aspects of integrity, and from that you produce findings. So here is the study area in blue on the left, and that is Central Park. And then what you see on the right in green is the historic area identified by the CLA. And I'll explain that as I go into it further. the full historic periods identified were acquiring the land at the back end of the park and then at the front end was the modern update modern updates the 2 periods which we really realized had significance with the 1923 to 36 homestead. And that is potential significance. It hasn't yet been confirmed. But we identified the potential, whereas 1937 to 1973 had already identified significance. And we were able to affirm that. And this is just basically summing that up in a nice little diagram to show you that

[15:03] as Step one, when we identify for this progress, does it have significance? Central park, we were able to say yes for the Olmsted period, and yes, for the hunting de Boer period, but no, for the other 2 periods, therefore, when we do an integrity analysis. We look at the middle 2 periods that have the green checkmark. I see some nodding heads. So I'm feeling good, though making progress. What you knew. What happened next was then, as I described here is an evaluation of Central Park for non contributing and contributing features for that homestead period 23 to M. 1936, and you do it for various things like topography, vegetation in terms of trees in the middle ground cover in terms of vegetation on the right. And you're basically using blue to say it's contributing and red to say it's not contributing. And then the lighter the darker shade is, it wasn't actually built out of the design. The lighter shade was, it disappeared over time. And ultimately, when we did this for the Olmstead period, although we were excited by the fact that the significance of it being a potential Olmstead Junior Park.

[16:08] Unfortunately, as you see on the right, the landscape characteristics pointed to. There not being integrity. too many features had been missing over, the years had disappeared, had been overlaid with new structures in the modern era, and frankly, even the Banshell overlaid the historic Parks year. You lost that sense of it for the next period, 37 to 90. It's funny the little black thing is in the image, and I really should know it off by heart. And I think it's 1975. This is the hunting de Boer period, and what you see here is the contributing features from that period are the ban shell, the seating area, the circulation of the 2 diagonal paths to the left and right, and then coniferous trees behind. They were the major features that were added during that feature period from Huntingdon during the design, and then Duboa locating where it would go, and there wasn't actually non contributing features in the sense of from that. Those designers.

[17:07] There was obviously things like rail trucks added that then disappeared. But they really weren't part of the significance of the site. And so when we evaluate it and think about this. the landscape characteristics for the 7 aspects of integrity. We can see that on the left were unfortunately not seeing integrity for Homestead. But we are for Huntingdon. What's interesting about this is we, we are a certified local government. and the current code, for example, does not point to give direction on how to do integrity. Instead, it points to the National Park Service for guidance. So that was part of the CLA. To say, and I mentioned that earlier with the Bulletin. the Black Bulletin document, and then the blue Cultural Landscape Report Guide. We were able to follow those guides to understand the integrity, and we know this research and evaluation within the CLA. Will be used to help inform when you get to the guidelines in the historic district which our colleague Marcy will be presenting later.

[18:11] So what are the findings? Well, this is actually taken directly from the cultural landscape assessment. and it outlines in green the area of the park where there was historic significance and integrity identified for the 1937 to 73 period. And then, unfortunately for the Olmsted period we do have significance, but we don't have integrity. And that's where the National Secretary during the standards are pretty clear that, indeed, as you see in that line there at the bottom of the third paragraph a property must be determined, historically significant, and retained sufficient historic integrity to be historic. So that's where the information from the Cla. Landed. I've sort of gone through that fairly quickly. Feel free to read the 70 pages bedtime reading to get a better sense of the report, and I'm happy to answer any questions that come up on the technical aspects of this.

[19:05] It's been a really great collaborative, collaborative process. And also, frankly, when you're introducing a new type of rapport, we've had to really think it through and collaborate. And we know there's some next steps to really focus on alignment, on how we figure out integrity and guidelines for a potential future district. But I would say the interesting thing about the cultural landscape assessment for parks. It is a multi tool kind of Swiss knife style document, and I've just listed some bullets there for what it'll be used for in next steps like I've talked through just in this presentation. We really do get to the contributing and non contributing features in the existing conditions. That's critical cause. Then, you know from each period what is historic and what's not historic. And that's not existing conditions analysis. And basically, we've potentially established a really good practice for evaluating design cultural landscapes, a K. Parks in boulder. We haven't really had that before, except for the overview with the hip. So this is hopefully a good precedent for us to collaborate on as a city. When we think about these types of landscapes, and what is interesting is because landscapes came into being only in

[20:14] really as a guideline in 1998. In the last 25 years they've really come into being as a way to evaluate. not just the buildings, but the landscape itself. And the reason, I say that is, if I can give an example that I mean it was Penn Station being knocked down in New York that led to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1960. The guidelines developed initially, really were for buildings, and it was folks at the National Park Service, looking at national parks and at state parks, and frankly, city parks said, they don't really convey how to assess the systematic aspects of landscape like circulation, like topography, like vegetation. So that's why this cultural landscape guidelines come into being. And it does really dovetail nicely with the building's assessment as well. So we see it for parks and boulder being a helpful guide.

[21:03] it also. Obviously, as we move into the civic area phase, 2 project can be a very helpful guide for thinking in the context of that, and it is one of the principles to look at the historic aspects of the civic area. So this will help inform it. It's also critical. You can typically do a historic preservation maintenance plan for a park using something like a cultural landscape assessment. So you're thinking of the best ways. For instance, if you're looking at those 2 paths to maintain them at what, in their historic state, while making sure. Yeah, you incorporate things like Ada guidelines, etc., like modern uses. and then, in terms of the civic area itself. the CLA. Through the chronological history and the identification of their start periods with all the graphics and images and plans. is really helpful in the interpretive story. You know whether that's media a guide out there or a web site. So it also informs that side of it which isn't the historic physical side of it. But it's really the telling the story side.

[22:02] and, like I mentioned the last part of this, which has been a the purpose that set us off on this track initially, was to help support the historic district. Information inform informing of the boundary, the guidelines, and everything else that comes with that. And it's been a pleasure working with our staff to try and get to this point. And we know with this new method, we've got things to learn as we go through the process, but we think it will set us up good in the future for anything else that comes down the pipe. And with that I'll conclude the presentation. What Mark didn't say is that I put him on a timeline cause. He knows more about this topic than than I'll ever learn or forget. A significant part of his career so far has been with the National Park Service. One of his first offices was it Frederick Law Olmsted's house in Brookline, Massachusetts. He's helped with historic districts in the park service all over the country, and so doing that so well and succinctly was a challenge accepted and well met. Thank you. I do tend to waffle some time.

[23:12] and what I like to do tonight, since we have some members who are remote is to give their remote members a chance to speak first. That way. It'll they aren't just trying to interject and raise their hands and not be seen. So Jason, you want to have first crack at it and sunny if she's online yet. Okay, Jason. sure. II do have a question. I think I don't know if this is the right time, or if there's more to come, I missed what's what's after this mark? Or Ali and this is kind of related to the conversation we had in December. But just this process you know, I was reading through the presentation. It says it. You know it does obviously create new, you know. Additional kind of bureaucratic curdles, you know. Rightfully so in some cases. But how? How would this process, you know, thinking ahead. Impact the civic center. Phase 2 that we were looking at, that we toured in the fall.

[24:09] Ii know there's there's kind of conflicting things I've seen from the from the packet and from things that it's you know. It's a fast process. It's not a it's not a big hurdle, but you know it does. It is another another layer. And so just curious. I again, if this is, if this question is better discussed at a later point. I'm happy to hold on to that, too. I just was curious about the intersection there. II think I would recommend that we hold that question off unless you have something specific about the cultural landscape assessment that the mark was speaking to. Then we're going to have another presentation on the proposed civic area historic district that will follow. And then that would be a great time for that question. A simple answer would be, just answer this, this really gets to, you know, as it were, the historic features on the site, the contributing features that they call it. And it's there was a grayness before that about that. And though with the historic district analysis as well, we'll be able to fully establish what is historic, what isn't.

[25:08] And that's critical. Isn't it? Same as natural resources. You want to establish what the 100 year 500 Year flood plain is in order to make decisions hopefully, the between the historic district and the CLA. Will have a tool that can do that for cultural resources as well. Yeah, I think this is a great background and preface to the deeper discussion. We're gonna follow on with. so do you have any comments, Brian? I have 2. And first of all, I just want to. Thank you very much for the assessment. It's it is interesting. And I appreciated your summary because the reading was very interesting, but also quite dancing long. but the the ultimate conclusion points. Just make sure I understood you. This is not historic, right? I wanna be really clear. The identification in the Cla. Points to you could for Secretary of Interior Standards for integrity, says you need to look at the 7 aspects. What the Cla pointed to was that the

[26:06] there was integrity for the Huntington Dubois period, which we pointed out earlier in one of the slides. The analysis on that. But there was, unfortunately not his integrity for the Homestead junior period, which led the period of significance to be from 1937 to 1933, which aligns with what you'll see for the historic district. So the historic area of the site well, in the Cla is identified as the northern third. But the historic district will need analyze integrity for the historic district as a whole. That's a little bit of a nuance. But you'll hear that in the next presentation. Okay, thanks. So I have one other question that's a little bit more philosophical. But we now understand that as story as his achievements are, Frederick Law, so Junior was a somewhat problematic figure as someone who worked at a space dedicated to them. Can you speak at all about how that history was handled at your past job?

[27:00] Oh, yeah, I see. No, I mean, I've got to be honest. It was 25 years ago, and and unfortunately the conversation wasn't in the forefront for that type of conversation. I am pleased to say, Charles Birnbaum. He came up at the last meeting. He's head of the Cultural Landscape Institute and achy him with Bar Page, who wrote the Cultural Landscape report, were colleagues together, and Charles Birnbaum recently gave a lecture in Denver revisiting specifically Olmsted junior as noting where there's been gentrification and the destruction of communities that were typically underserved. So I would say in the last few years, that's really started to come to light, and I think it'll bring frankly a new light on how we analyze these landscapes. Thanks, Mark, appreciate it while we transition. I'll just add one thing to that comment that the the fact that there's not so significance in in the way I translate it is yes, it's old. But is it special right like there's stuff all over Boulder. That is old. That doesn't mean it's special. That's the significance part. And then the integrity. You know. What what of it is. In what condition is it in for Olmstead? It's not there. So in a way.

[28:12] it. I would say. And you'll you'll hear from the story map and the great work that the Plan Development Services team has done that. Yes, And I also think that Frederick Law Olmsted and the Olmsted Brothers didn't a significant amount of work to advance the field of landscape architecture and the values of parks. And and that's there. But what I'm dancing around delicately is, we won't be celebrating this as an Olmstead Park, because it doesn't have the integrity. And so the story can really about be about from the time Boulder was settled, and certainly even in time Memorial. It's been a place where nature is important and parks are important for the settlement, and so the Olmstead period doesn't have that integrity, but the hunting tend to board us. So that'll be more of the story with historic elements as much as, and this will be a good segue to introduce Brad and Marcy that the history actually begins even before that. Did you have a

[29:08] I saw you point. Did you have a question? Kinda I didn't have a question. I just wanted to say, thank you to mark for a great presentation that made it a lot easier to understand than the content of the packet. We've all learned a new language with this team that went into making this deeply appreciated. Yeah, great. Alright Mark and Marcy are gonna transition Marcy growing is a principal planner with the planning development services. She's also she's gonna join us up here. She has. I guess the city's chief historian for for lack of a better translation. And then Brad Mueller is my colleague and counterpart, the director of planning development services and he's going to introduce this for us. Yes, thank you, Ally, and thank you so much for the invitation to talk to you all again. I'm wanna speak very briefly, just to give some context to Marcy's much more thorough and comprehensive discussion. But just as we had the opportunity to come. Talk to you in preview this we're excited this evening to give you

[30:12] overview of our preliminary findings relative to the application, as you all know, has that has been submitted by 3 historic groups for potential designation of the historic district. And I want to emphasize something that we probably won't touch on a whole lot as part of the presentation. And that's just the extensive a number of stakeholders that are involved in this district, unlike one that maybe would be for a residential district. This is the people's property, and so we've done outreach to get feedback from the public at large, but also it serves the area. The civic area serves as much more than just a park. It's also a floodway. It's also consisting of buildings. It's consisting of transportation elements, these. And so we've been in roast bust conversations with those various departments and department leaders as well as part of the overall process. Not coming to any of those boards that was reserved for you all alone, recognizing your

[31:14] a special relationship with Parks, but did want to. Give you that context. And then, Marcy will speak to the larger context of consideration for districts. So thank you so much for inviting us here this evening. Wonderful! Thank you for having us back. This evening. It wasn't that long ago in December when when I saw you. So let's make sure I can advance the slides. Umhm. I cannot. Oh, my notes. Okay. Oh, thank you. Thank you. I think it's

[32:01] whatever it is. Okay. right. Thank you for having me back here tonight. Starting with the purpose of this meeting. It's an opportunity for you all to provide comments on the proposed designation, and any significant features or alterations within the park that would go into the designation ordinance, and then the design guidelines if designated, and then, of course, we'll start with an overview of the proposed civic area historic district. As we talked about in December the different boards have different roles, and while the Parks and Rec Advisory Board doesn't have a formal role on historic district designation, because you make recommendations to City Council regarding the protection in maintenance of Parks land in this proposed district includes a park. It's appropriate for us to come and give you all an opportunity to weigh in your feedback will be included in the landmarks, board, planning board and city council memos and we're proposing that it be captured in a written summary and shared with our colleagues in parks to ensure that everything is captured accurately. We're open to other venues. If you have a a preferred alternative. But the landmarks board packet is planning to go out in about a week, and so a quick turnaround will be important

[33:28] we've offered a couple of questions to help frame your discussion. You're welcome to use these or speak more broadly, the first one is, do you all have comments on the proposed designation? And would you all like to provide comments on features that should be recognized in the ordinance or the design guidelines going back to the beginning of this application it it can be traced back to 2021 when there is a request to expand the landmark boundary for the Ban shell, and the Landmarks board voted to initiate that process, and then later recommended to Council. That Council expand the boundary

[34:10] at the City Council, hearing they voted they didn't vote to expand the boundary, but instead gave a nod of 5 to parks and planning and development services staff to explore the exploration, to explore the creation of a district in this area. And then, at the beginning of last year we determined an approach to explore a historic district, including the creation of a cultural landscape assessment. In May of 2023 3 community groups submitted a application for historic district designation, and that launched a code required process. The Landmarks board voted to initiate that process in July, and we signed an agreement with the applicants to provide a little bit more time. In August we began the research and department coordination the process provides an opportunity to tell a more complete history of the area, and also provide time to coordinate with the 9 different city departments 3 ditch companies in C dot

[35:14] in September, October and into November we had our community engagement focus, which included walking tours story map events like Whatsapp Boulder and online engagement, which is still live. Now people can go on the website and provide comments. And then in December we formed a technical advisory group to create a draft design guideline framework which you all along with the landmarks board members provided comments on at your December eighteenth joint study session. Since then we've had another check in across the departments, and then that brings us to now, which is the very beginning of the Board and City Council Review. After you all weigh in will then go to the Landmarks board for their recommendation. February seventh. Then the Planning board, February twentieth, and then City Council in March and mid April.

[36:11] So getting to some questions I heard last time, and and starting to hear today as well, is, well, what does this mean? What would designation mean. And so local designation recognizes and protects areas significant to boulders history. There are, 10 historic districts currently designated at the local level, and 4 of those include parkland. That's Chautauqua. That's a pretty obvious one. The Pearl Street Mall is part of the downtown historic district. The Campbell, Robertson Park is in Mapleton Hill, and the fortune park is in the West Pearl historic district. and then 7 of the 215 individual landmarks are managed by a Bpr. And those are covered in the historic places. Plan to help manage those assets. And then the Penfield Tate to Municipal Building, where we are now includes a stretch of the Boulder Creek path

[37:09] the benefits and responsibilities of local designation. The benefits include eligibility for tax credits. Grant funding possible code variances staff assistance through the process in a bronze plaque, or in the case of a district street signage the responsibilities are that physical changes are reviewed by the historic preservation program to ensure that they are compatible with the site's historic character and the intent of the designation. and in 2023, looking at the last year, we had about 200 landmark alteration certificate applications. 88% of those were approved. 11% are still in review, and only 1% were denied. And of the approved Lec applications, 90% were improved within 2 weeks. I should note that in the rare case where an Lac is denied by the Landmarks Board, that decision is subject to call up by the city council.

[38:06] Typically, we can find a a compromise, or we can find a solution within the regular process. But there is kind of a checks and balances in the case that we cannot. So then, turning to the application in front of us this evening, this is the map of the district boundary proposed by the applicants extending from the west side of the Municipal Building to Fourteenth Street, and then Canyon down to Arapaho, including Central Park in the 5 individually landmark structures within that area. moving to the and I'll go through the history as as we go through the criteria. So the criteria for review we have the language in the Boulder revised code. We're guided by the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. And then the Landmarks Board adopted local significance criteria for historic districts. In 1975.

[39:01] As Mark mentioned, we don't have criteria specific to integrity or determining boundaries in our adopted code or regulations, but as a certified local government, we look to the National Park service for guidance. So, going to the Boulder revised Code, the section 9, 11, one asks whether the proposed designation will preserve, protect, and enhance historically significant buildings and sites or architectural styles of the past? And will the designation develop and maintain appropriate settings to enhance property values, stabilized neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interests and fostered knowledge of the city's living history. City Council will weigh whether the designation is in balance with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. There are a handful of policies that relate directly to this designation. One is the leadership and preservation for city owned resources. Another is the role of arts, culture, historic and parks and recreation amenities.

[40:08] And then there's another one about the role of the central area as we go into the designation criteria for local significance, and forgive me if I may need to unshare my slides with this one. We have the photos I can share in a bit. But I also need my notes. oops. Let me transition here. I'll go through the local designation criteria which asks us to look at an area's historic, architectural, and environmental significance. So the area meets the criteria for historic significance, for the public function of the area as a symbolic, political and municipal center of boulders, local government, and as the site of numerous social, cultural, and political events, and for its significance in the history of boulders, park system, development as well as as for the contribution of the social and cultural life of the city. For over a century

[41:06] the use of the park reflects the community over time following the construction of the Banshell. In 1938, Central Park became a focal point for social activists around music, educational or religious activities during the fifties and early sixties the event became more nostalgic with memorials to Pioneer Huck, thin days and sing alongs, and in the 19 sixties and seventies the area was the site of rallies, protests, and experimental theatre under the criteria for recognition by authorities. The district includes 5 local landmarks. and the ban Shell and Tea House are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register, while the atrium and the Muni Building are potentially eligible for listing on the State Register. Central Park was identified in the Greenways plan, which was most recently updated in 2011, as potentially eligible for listing in the State and national registers as part of a historic district.

[42:04] The area meets the criteria for architectural significance, as it includes multiple significant works by notable architects, landscape designers, builders, and urban planners, including James Hunter, Glenn, Huntington, Hobart, Wagner, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. And Sacco de Boer. It has a unique architectural identity, representing a progression of styles that provides an eclectic municipal character unique to Boulder's history, location, and climate. and the area also meets the criteria for environmental significance for its planned and natural sight characteristics, including but not limited to the spatial relationship of the civic areas in Central Park. Pacific buildings in Central Park, Boulder Creek, and the boulder slew the circulation paths with the park, creating a relatively flat central green, mature trees planted in groves and lining the perimeter of the park and the views towards the flat irons. The area is an established visual and prominent feature of the community, due to its location near major thoroughfares.

[43:07] As Mark mentioned, integrity is critical in in terms of historic preservation. And that's the ability of a place to convey its historic significance. We look to the 7 aspects of integrity. Which are location, design setting materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. So Png staff agree with the Cla. Findings that the 1923 to 1937 period does not retain its physical historic integrity. The design of the park was substantially changed with the introduction of the Ban shell in 1938, and its seating in 1950, which interrupted the distinct circulation pattern of diagonal walks that form a central green. little remains in terms of the material and workmanship. From that period the art deco bandshell has significantly altered the feeling of Central Park, as it is a prominent feature, both visible within the park and from the surrounding area

[44:03] overall. The park to day does not retain the physical features to convey the integrity of association with the Olmstead Brothers. However, we do consider the area retains its integrity from the 1938 to 1974 period of development. the location of Central Park and the 5 landmarks structures have not moved since their establishment. The setting of an urban park, surrounded by unique municipal buildings, retains its historic character. Located at the prominent intersections of Broadway Canyon, Thirteenth, and Arapaho. The area is centrally located in a familiar visual feature within the community. The spatial relationship between the park and surrounding buildings retain a high degree of integrity of design, defining design characteristics include the urban street grid, a park with its central green and tree plantings around the perimeter of the park, as well as in Groves Boulder Creek, and the boulder slew 5 architecturally distinct structures in and adjacent to the park, many of which were designed in relation to their park setting. The workmanship is evident in the integration of art and architecture in the Du Chambly Tea House, the high quality of masonry in the construction of the atrium building and the Muni Building

[45:17] and the construction of the band shell and its seating. and then the district also retains its integrity of materials. And it's feeling as a historic urban Park, surrounded by 5 unique structures representing distinctive architectural styles and periods, and overall. The district retains historic integrity to convey its association with that 1937 to 1974 period. and its association with the numerous social, cultural, and political activities that incurred within the park and in the surrounding public spaces so overall staff considers that the changes to the Park and public spaces, including the introduction of the Boulder Creek path and the realignment of paths within Central Park don't over. Don't detract from the overall setting and feeling associated with the district's historic significance

[46:10] and go ahead and share my slides again. Here. Okay, so the final piece of our analysis looks at it. What is an appropriate boundary? The National Park Service Bulletin provides guidance in terms of are there visual barriers? What's the significant concentration of contributing sites or features? And are there visual changes? So our recommendation is a boundary, as shown on the screen which extends from west of the Muni Municipal Building to the edge of the landmark boundaries to the east, and then from Canyon down to Arapaho, including Central Park. In the 5 structures within, as well as the full extent of Thirteenth Street between those 2 between Canyon and Broadway.

[47:18] Our analysis is that it contains the significant concentration of contributing buildings and sites. It utilizes Canyon and Arapaho as visual barriers, and it follows the rear of the existing boundaries, recognizing the decline and concentration of the contributing resources. The parking lot themselves aren't aren't historic and shouldn't be included as a buffer. And then the southern boundary follows the midline of Boulder Creek, which is a contributing feature and a visual barrier. So with that to summarize the proposed area meets the local criteria for designation based on its architectural, historic, and environmental significance. The area remains. It's retains its historic integrity from the 1938 to 1974 period of development

[48:04] and the recommended boundary encompasses the significant concentration of contributing features, and uses. The street Grid and Boulder Creek as visual and physical barriers. and the designation, Ordinance and design guidelines will address contributing and non contributing features. You can have both within the district. And those would be outlined as we get further down in the process. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have, and then pull up the questions that you can use for the framework of your discussion, or you're welcome to provide broader feedback. Well, the question that would be helpful. Great. Okay. For this discussion. We'll start with our online members first, do we have Sunny yet? No, okay, so it'll be just Jason, first. if you have a question no real question on this just kind of my previous question which I've been deferred to when we're gonna have kind of a conversation about

[49:05] overall process. So let me know, Chuck, II think this is that time. So yeah, well, first of all, II didn't mean to jump ahead with that question. I did appreciate your presentation. I learned a lot from that. And I didn't mean to kind of jump to the actual discussion on the impact. So appreciate that. And I hope that anyway, I didn't mean to to jump right ahead on that. But yeah, just the the question I had previously, which is you know, and looking through the packet. you know. I think it was on page 15 or 16. It talks about you know, any changes to the site would still need would need the approval of a of various. It says landmark or historic preservation programs. And then, further in the further on, in the packet, it talks about you know how 90% of these are relatively quick approval processes. And you know, it's not a not that time consuming of a process. But I'm more just have a question, you know, as as this is kind of moving, you know, and then we're also moving forward with the civic center.

[50:09] rethink, you know rethinking of this, the civic center phase 2. You know, where does like, how does this interact? And will it? Will it limit? Kind of what we can do with the civic center, the second phase of it. Or is this just as it says, just another kind of a small step. That's a relatively quick step in the process. So II guess, kind of big, open, ended question. But that's my I guess. Question slash concern about this designation. Thank you. And why don't I go ahead and offer an answer? And then Ali or Mark, if you wanna add to it please do? So yes, the statistics show, you know, for regular projects, and those do include larger things in the residential realm of additions or changes. It is a relatively quick process which I think surprises surprises people. And we've done a lot of work to streamline and clarify our process.

[51:07] And also help set expectations about what do the design guidelines say? And so I think applicants are are very informed in coming with proposals that have a higher chance of getting approved. So I think that's a change that we've seen. More recently. the civic area phase 2 is a large scale project. With a great team shepherding it through. And so the design review process depends on the scale of changes. Regular maintenance. Things wh. If they require review are handled at the staff level. The map. The vast majority of applications are reviewed at this weekly design review committee level. Something larger, like a a park redevelopment would likely be reviewed by the landmarks board. And so that would add somewhere between, I think, 3 to 6 months in terms of the review process. The board meets

[52:05] monthly, but there's the preparation before, and then afterwards. So it does add time to the process, and it also provides the guidance or the review through a historic preservation. Lens. To say, are these changes compatible with the historic character of the area? In in reviewing the landmark, alteration certificate. anything to add there. I don't think so. I mean, I think that was a really nice summary, but I will just give a few examples. I think they again, they take a topic that most of us don't talk about every day and make a little more relatable. So Marcy mentioned earlier that Chautauqua park is part of a historic district, and so recently that playground opened in 2021. It required a landmark alteration certificate. Now, when folks designed Chautauqua in the late 18 hundreds. There was a playground there, but it didn't look like the one we have today. It didn't have that, you know. Incredible

[53:02] handmade, flat Iron Rock, but that all went through the lac and was approved because it was done in a way that complemented the historic district. It it is a modern playground. It's lovely. It's one of my favorite spots it that that change was easily facilitated. And I think you know what we hear in a lot of these questions is that will a district stop incredible things happening in the park? II don't have that concern for a lot of reasons, one of which is this is a community park with a lot of interest and stakeholders. Just the list of boards engaged alone. Is a page in the civic area plan. The landmarks board already would be consulted on this project because of the historic nature in the park. We're gonna be competing a lot of or competing. We're gonna be balancing a lot of competing interest in the park. And let's just say you know that again, the the fear I hear in these questions is, we're not gonna be able to do something that that the community wants to have happen. Let's let's say something does go through.

[54:01] I always wanted to give an example, but then it like it doesn't help. But so you know, if someone wanted to put a space needle in the middle of Central Park, and there was incredible community support for that. And it wasn't in a flood plain, and the landmarks board said, that's not really gonna fly with historic, different guidelines. City Council can call it up so it's not It's it's it is not a you know. That what probably isn't a helpful example. But I think it's just sometimes, you know, you have to go really extreme to explain like there is the possibility of of. If, for some reason, there was something that landmarks Board thought didn't align. You know. I would hope that we're working through all of these competing interests with stakeholders. But let's just say that happened. There is the call up possibility. I didn't get a chance earlier to introduce or reintroduce Christopher Johnson, KJ. Is the Planning manager for the comprehensive planning division within our department, and he's listening and also available to answer questions, and he did indicate he'd like to say a few things if he's available. Rose, I know he was looking to get access. Okay.

[55:15] so we'll see if. Thank you, Brad, are you able to hear me? There's there's this voice speak, speaking from on high. Thank you, Brad, and and thanks for that question. I did. I did also just wanna offer, I think, a little bit of context as well in terms of if you know if the area were to be designated. and if they, you know, obviously the the sort of large scale repositioning and redevelopment that will ultimately come out of the civic area phase 2 process. You know, the landmarks board and other P. And Ds and historic preservation staff are going to be part of and really integrated into that process. And so we would be able to, I think. you know, as as that process moves along, and as the design is being developed, we'd be able to have updates and conversations with the landmarks board. So by the time a a proposal or a you know a a landscape alteration certificate that would be applied for in relation to that construction. By the time that would come forward I think there'd be the opportunity that the Landmarks board would already be very well informed. And

[56:21] you know it wouldn't be anything new to them necessarily. So I think the timing of their review and the timing of you know ultimately what we would hope would be an approval. Through that process we'd we'd be able to navigate that I think fairly quickly, a, as part of you know, as part of that review, just because we'd be able to have have have the opportunity to really prepare them for that conversation before we ever got to the meeting. Thanks, Christopher. And I'm gonna add just something myself, which is marcel alluded to the design guidelines. which are developed in conjunction with potential designation. Excuse me.

[57:05] and those can sometimes be done beforehand, often or done afterwards. In this case we know that it's very important to have a a sense of what those guidelines would be. And so there are some basic guiding principles that we're working with Parks Department, but others as well to have as part of landmark boards consideration. So they have a sense of what? Where that is aiming towards, and the design guidelines are really elemental to this question of change, because it will speak to what elements can and cannot be changed, in what? To what degree. So there'll be ongoing participation opportunities as part of that, too, and I'll turned to Marcy. Just make sure I haven't said anything technically incorrect. No, only you all saw the draft design guidelines framework last month at the at the guiding at the joint study session, and that the intent is to say, Here's the direction of design guidelines. If the district is to be designated.

[58:12] Thank you. I had 2 questions. One is in the whole packet. I didn't see any mention to the parking structures portions, so I was just wondering what is the justification for their inclusion if they haven't been mentioned at all along Fourteenth Street. Yeah. Yes. So our staff recommendation is that the boundary? Not include those parking lots because they're not historic. And so we could be more explicit in the memo, in in saying that I think it's included in the boundary justification that talk about any anything from the historic period that was, there is no longer there. And then the parking lot themselves are not historic, which is why we're recommending, maybe excluded

[59:14] is kind of special or historically significant. Aside from that built in the period that they determined had historical significance. Fair question. That 1969 rustic modern building was designed by Hobart Wagner as the Midland Savings and loan it's one of Wagner's best works in boulder, and is part of that modernist movement in the post war era. It was individually designated as a landmark in 2,020, and it's a designation ordinance, because Council is also thinking about redevelopment of the East Book, and that ordinance talks about. It's contributing character defining features, or it's pyramidal hipped roof. The use of horizontal stone. The masonry is is significant.

[60:06] and the ordinance itself talks about adaptive reuse of that building. To ensure that it could be carried forward in in a creative way while still protecting those key elements. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Ellie. I have a question for you. What do you love about this park? What do I love about in Central Park? Probably the creek, and the connection and proximity to downtown and honestly, it's potential. When we look at the civic area as a whole and the phase one res renovations. And we see what they've done for activation on that side. The pandemic has completely disrupted that I have. I have to be clear. But if you were in that park a lot in 2018 and 19 when it first reopened and we had staff capacity for planning community events and positive activity. You saw the promise of what what this northern portion or

[61:10] eastern portion of the park can bring. So that's probably what I'm most excited about right now is this project? The park is not functioning well, right now. And so I hesitated. There, cause it's it's hard. The farmers market is something I love in this area, and I'm so excited to keep it downtown with this project. Thanks. Okay, that was a very philosophical question. I have a couple more more more direct questions, and I did a bad job of asking this at our last meeting, but if this is a park, we are blowing the grass. We're taking care of. The bandshell, if it becomes designated, is for our district. and we're going. I imagine that we still do all those same things right? Does any anything change operationally with the park operationally? Not that I can think of right now. Already the area that is most so we're talking just Central Park. The area that is most maintenance heavy is the area around the band shell that's already landmarked. And so if we wanna make changes, we already go through an lic in that area, the landmark alteration certificate. To Brad's point earlier. The design guidelines will inform to what extent. But II don't predict right now, based on what I know, based on the significant amount of research for this project and engagement.

[62:17] Operationally, I don't see it making impacts. Is there? Are there any budgetary implications for this designation? that I can predict right now no other than the potential positive ones for historic funding that might be available. Okay, what's my last question? We all know that there's a lot of unhouse people who live in this park. Sometimes does this designation impact the way that those people are treated? Does it impact our ability to provide service to those people. Does it in any way address the unhoused population who are used in this park more than anybody else. Right now. I can't think of anything. I'm looking to my colleagues, but II can't think of a way. I don't anything either. Maybe just stretching back

[63:10] to an analogy. If we had a designated property, a a single building that was somewhat abandoned, and it had been you know. had to unhoused folks in it. I don't know that from a legal or operational standpoint we would treat that any differently. Can you think of any examples here, or just in the broader preservation community. Yeah, broadly, designation doesn't impact the use of a park. But there are the physical components of a use. Right? So adding benches or restrooms, or fencing or lighting that would go through the lac process. But how people are treated, or how it's used. there's not a connection between designation and and the the use in that way?

[64:03] Did did we answer your question? Wanna be sure. Okay, thanks. Those are really interesting questions for you. And I guess I wanna respond to Allie's response to one of your questions about potential costs. I can think of an additional cost, and that is an delay of moving forward in renovation plans. It could significantly impact the budget and cause it area planning effort. In theory. we're bringing them along. And they're part of the design process, so that if there are proposed changes that require their approval, they've been a part of that development, and it's a an easy, unanimous yes, because they see how it connects with the historic area of the park and advances the civic area plan and the community input. We've received. So I think that's our our our best hope. And I welcome Kj. Bradder

[65:06] Marcy to chime in. You can see how much we're all working together on this because it is an intertwining of disciplines and expertise here. Yeah, II appreciate that ally for being able to weigh into. I would even go further than saying a hope and really an expectation. You know we work together as departments and one city on many, many things, and it's our intention to not be surprising one another or not working in tandem. We have the unique ability and responsibility when the city is the owner. to work closely in those areas. So just an example that pops in my mind from today. Council has had a conversation about sanctioned camp camping areas, safe outdoor spaces and questions about permitting and those types of things in interplay between that. And we know that that's something that we have a

[66:01] ability and obligation to be in the conversation right up front, whereas when an individual developer is developing something, they are developing it and then saying, Okay, here's what we're proposing. As city partners, we're able to come along throughout that process. So I would go beyond hope not to disagree with you and just say, that's our expectation. Thanks. It was. It was a a lot of interesting reading, and I took some notes. So I'm going to refer to them as I go along. I wanted to start by thanking Staff for their in-depth analysis, and I really enjoyed the story map. I spent like an hour and a half, just poking around that thing and reading about how how the site had evolved from indigenous peoples through the early settlers and the the houses of ill repute, and different people who live there, and what they did, and what we don't know about them as well as what we did know about them. It's really a fascinating and a nice job. And then it was interesting to read about the Ban shell construction and the Ol Olmsted juniors

[67:09] a role in designing his his overall vision for the area then the social activism of the sixties and seventies and the addition of Duchamp be T house. And what happens today with the farmers market. And so when I look at this park, II don't see a static place. I see a place that's changed with time repeatedly, and it's evolved constantly in response to the society and needs of the city as the city is evolved, the park has evolved along with them. remember the railroad displayed. It was put up right, and that was there for several decades, and then it was vandalized and repaired, and then it was ultimately sent to golden and disappeared. And things have always been changing. And I would say that actually. change is just about the defining feature of the Park. It's it's never been static. And there are already 5 buildings that are near the park that have protected status. There's the Municipal building, the Hrim building the tea house, the storage and Transfer building, which is now the Building Museum, Canippari Art.

[68:09] and then the ban shell. And we've already heard that the land itself. The park that's away from the Ban shell doesn't have a clear relationship to Olmsted Junior anymore. The continuity has been lost. I don't see you mentioned to day that there was a relationship between these different buildings and the park space. And I don't really see that relationship. I see, just for buildings that were built in different arrows that happened to be placed on the street near the park. Certainly. The Municipal building is placed there for a reason, because it's the civic heart of the city, right? So that makes sense. But I don't see how these groupings form a historic district in themselves. They seem to be fairly random and disconnected. The park itself is in the early stages of Pacific era era phase 2 process. and I'm concerned that the

[69:00] part of the intent of this application might be actually to derail or slow, or to gain some control over this process. And II don't that may just be my suspicion. But II don't like for that setting. and I think that this park needs to be able to adapt and respond to the both the current and future needs of the city. It's not operating as a park. Very well, right now, as we've heard, and it needs major changes. And I think that a historic district designation is really not appropriate for this type of part of the city. It's it's a civic part of the city it needs to evolve. It needs to change. It needs to adapt to the needs of the city's residents. So I'm I'm not really in favor of this proposal. II think that the cultural landscape assessment showed the section around the the band shell is appropriate for designation. and I would be supportive of that. But I don't see how the rest of the park. I don't see the benefits of the historic district.

[70:01] and I see many downsides from the point of view of being able to quickly make changes when they're needed. I just had one more question in terms when related to Bernie's question about the costs. The the list of the benefits included a bunch of different tax credits, but it referred to income generating fixtures or areas. So I was wondering if there's any tax benefits to parks of the historic. yeah, the tax credits, both at the State and Federal level are for residential properties or income producing properties. So it would be the grant eligibility that would be more relevant to this historic district. Fo for the park and for the surrounding buildings, and the grants that are provided by the State Historic Fund have to show a public benefit. And so those grants are not available to many of the private property owners in town other than the Hannah Barker house. I think they got a a big grant. But it would be more in the grant funding eligibility rather than the tax credits just income tax credit.

[71:34] Could you speak to any more benefits that would result from having this being historic district designation. Oh, sure! The, I think. What's in the memo that I didn't touch on in my presentation is the economic benefit of historic preservation that we see here in boulder, through through tourism and also through the economy, the what was it? The 9 places

[72:00] most popular places in Boulder 7 of those are historic places in and in and around historic places. The eighth one is celestial seasonings, and the ninth one is the Boulder County farmers market, but the other ones to Taco, Pearl Street, the Tea House, so many of these are in and around historic places, and and that is because it creates a sense of place. And it's a place that people are drawn to and and want to come to. So there's the tangible benefits of historic preservation. And then and then the intangible in terms of of how a community changes over time. And and I would agree with your earlier comment of these places can be very dynamic. Even when they're very old. and I'll just add on to that that you know we certainly respect and and will welcome whatever the group comments are from the board. And and as we said at the beginning. Our task here is to bring that, then, to the landmarks board.

[73:02] So I offer this up just in the spirit of of not trying to change minds or anything, but just recognizing that when when we speak of the design guidelines a theme of those guidelines can be its history of change, and we've had preliminary discussion around that. And and even some of that is and again, I'm gonna ask Marcy to keep me honest. But some of that is articulated in the guidelines, and we would expect that could. Very well, I'm sorry in the what's the term? We're using principles, the guiding principles for the guidelines. and we would expect that conversation to continue. I don't know if you want to elaborate on kind of the preliminary discussion about those. No, it is a theme that emerged, which is what does bring this area together. And it is that there are these very distinct periods of time. It's not that the bandshall was designed in the art deco style, and then everything that came after it was a replica of the art deco style. It's

[74:02] it's the Muni building is different. The tea house is different. And so the if designated the guidelines could could carry that spirit forward. But I also agree with what Brad said is that our job, as the case managers, is to bring the information forward to the decision makers. In this case city council for them to make an informed decision. So we welcome all of your perspectives, and and I won't try and convince you one way or the other. We've we've done our staff analysis based on that criteria. But, we're just collecting the information to them. Have counsel. Make a decision. So thank you for your thoughtfulness in in preparation. I will wanna add one more contextual item, too, and that's I alluded at the beginning to the conversations we've had with other stakeholders. And and again, those are other interests in the civic area, such as facilities. And storm water with flood control. They, too, have asked questions about change. What happens if we need to manage flood control differently over time? What if we need to repurpose the buildings. What if the buildings get sold or torn down?

[75:11] So these are questions that are all part of this, this larger context of potential change. And and and I would submit what makes a historic district for a park. and really not just a park, but a civic area. a much more different animal than probably anything that we do have in in the city's history. Even Chautauqua is primarily identified as a park. although with housing, I guess as I reflect on that. But you know, we've recognized the uniqueness of that and the role of potential change in other conversations as well. Okay, I'll make one more quick. Pass to the board to see if there are any further comments. So, Jason, do you have anything?

[76:02] Sorry? Couldn't find my mute. No, nothing else for me. Thanks. Great question, though. Thank you. I asked Allie her favorite thing about the park, and I just want to take a moment, to say my least, everything about this park, which is that it's bounded west and north by 2 very busy State highways that make it an unpleasant place. Sorry. Make it not as pleasant a place as it could be. And I think that's obviously a reality that we are stuck with, and it's too bad. Well, thank you very much for the presentations, and look forward to seeing the report to the Landmarks board and to city council. and thank you. And just confirming, is it an okay approach with you all for us to prepare a written summary, share it with our colleagues in parks and include that in the landmarks board packet? Or is there another format that you would prefer? Or would you like to see that? Yeah, I was gonna chime in to make sure we close this out in a way that we're in alignment when Chuck and Elliot and I spoke about the type, timeline. For this there is not the time for

[77:16] you. A written summary to come back to you all to review and approve, and so I do. I would suggest that with the great brains we have in the room, we spend just a few minutes to align around what we think we heard were themes that we, we would report back to landmarks board, and then we can do the wording to to include that in the memo. If that works for you all II can share. I heard I heard 2 things. One is, there are concerns around how it will impact, change. And then, second, there are concerns about how it impact funding and just to elaborate on that and again, we appreciate your understanding of the code determined type timeline. This, this represents, and honestly, but for the tolling agreement, I don't know how we would have done it, so we're grateful for that

[78:04] just in terms of that, and recognizing that is there the opportunity or the Forum to just send an email version of that to the board members and then give them a day or 2, or do we not have that ability because of the sunshine laws? There's no way to do that. You would have. I mean you could do it individually. But it it is pretty problematic. Yeah. So I guess. I guess I'm hearing that we we will just do our Ernest best collectively, to make sure we've represented all the comments that we've heard this evening. I'm I'm satisfied with that. Are there any comments from the Board? I do wonder if we should put a finer point on it. Just state our individual positions on whether or not we think they should go forward. Okay. and I'll go first. I'm willing. I you know. I agree with what Chuck said earlier. I'm concerned that designated this designating this area historic district will unduly constrain future development.

[79:01] And I would I I would not recommend the City Council go forward with the designation. Jason. Yeah, I share the same concerns that Bernie just shared is what you share as well, chuck. II think you know, as you said, the buildings are already designated historic. I do have very similar concerns as as to the the necessity of designated the whole area historic and the impact you know, on on our, on future plans. So I would would also. yeah. recommend against it as well. Thank you. Hannah. I would also be on the side of recommending against it. I don't see kind of an overarching theme to the different elements. Except for geographic proximity.

[80:01] and the potential benefits I don't see outweighing the potential I challenges that it could bring. and I'm in agreement with all those statements. and I think I speak for everybody. But frankly, if not that we we believe this barking to be better than it is, and we would like to see that and we don't want a historic designation to stand in the way of of this park improving. or even to slow it down. Yep. okay. Brad, you diving.

[81:03] Thank you. To support our transition. I'm gonna just start introducing this next. Oh, did you have something you want to say in closing? Sorry, Buddy, just further thanks. And recognizing that there's a broader team that's worked on this, including some of our additional staff and planning and development services. So thank you again. Thank you. So I think what we have next is going to be the court system plan, and that is correct. While these folks get organized, I'll introduce them. So we've got a senior landscape architect, Tina Briggs and City planner, Charlotte O'donnell, coming up to the dais to present this item. I'll note that this is a project where we've had a board liaison that's been Bernie over here, and they are. I'm very excited. We've got our first very high level round of findings and recommendations. We know this project has been very much wanted by many in our community, and the work that they're coming up with, and that we're about to view with you all is really exciting. We've got some solutions.

[82:04] the last table. Awesome. Thanks for having us. I think Rosa's gonna go ahead and share slides. Is that all right. Thanks, Rosa. and thanks for that introduction, Allie, as she said. I'm Charlotte Donnell. I'm a city planner, but know some of you well from my time working with prab and I'm going to kick us off with this presentation. As Rosa gets set up, it's really to hit the highlights. The memo went into a bunch more detail but happy to answer questions and go into more of that detail at the end. As as all requested. So, Rosa, if you go to the next slide, this is just to say we're here to provide updates on the on the progress that we've made on this project. We're really excited. If you go to the next slide. Rosa. could you go to the next slide? Rosa? Okay, I know. Switching between screens sometimes get you

[83:01] but the agenda follows. The follows the memo itself. So we're gonna talk a little bit about the background. Remind you what we talked to you in in May and November about some best practices, a draft level of service which really means how many courts we're planning to have in boulder and site analysis where those courts could potentially go, and then how we'll get there the action plan and funding behind it. So next slide And so, as part of the background before we really dive in, you've seen this graphic before from us. But part of the reason that we're doing this plan is coming from direction from the 2022 Bpr master plan or department plan. So we're looking not only at the fiscally constrained, but the action and vision levels of of what courts could be in our community. So next slide. these are tiny cutouts of the slides you saw from us before in May and November, where we talked about our current supply, the changing supply within the community with private courts going away in several cases in the next couple of years, how these sports are growing, how the conditions of the courts are due to the maintenance backlog.

[84:10] back log, and how this fits in with all the multiple priorities that our department has so quick reminder of the slides you've sent seen, and then next slide. And here's this timeline graphic for us again that you saw last last time with us. But, we're really in the middle of the process, as you can see. From that big yellow arrow. But if we look across the top, those black arrows at the top, you can see now we're moving from analysis and evaluation into concepts which is to say, into drawing again what those actual. what additional courts would look like at actual sites within our system? And then later, we'll be coming back to you with more information on the operations, the programming, the funding, and all the things that make those physical sites work. But tonight we're really focused on those physical aspects. So where was the next slide?

[85:02] So next slide again. the best practices and market comparison that we're bringing tonight. Then our focus around those physical pieces. So you've heard us talk a lot about reinforced concrete, maybe too much. But it's really important to us because it improves the playability of the courts for the life and the lifespan of those courts, while at the same time reducing maintenance cost over its lifespan. So it's a huge win for our community as well as efficiency for our team. That's something. Again that was previously identified by Staff. And we're continuing to move forward another emerging best practices dedicated and grouped courts. So we recognize that we've had multi-use courts to serve Pickle ball, as was an emerging need in our community, but, the industry is now recommending to have dedicated courts to best serve both the different needs of both of those different sports as well as grouped courts which allows them to carry out programming like drop in like leagues and and the social nature of the sport

[86:03] and then developing a per capita level of service. For how many courts we we want to serve. The population that we have is also a best practice, and we're going to dive into that in a little bit. So, Rosa, if you go to the next slide before we dive into the level of service itself, one of the data points we wanted to provide. That helps us develop our level of service. But it's not the end. All be all in terms of level service is benchmarking against other communities. So this table is in your memo again, so free, so you can look at it in more detail. The top portion of this table is regional comparisons, and the bottom is other peer agencies nationally that we use as comparisons. So these are the same cities we use in a lot of our planning efforts. You'll notice these are the same cities we compared against in our our master plan, for instance, based on demographics, population, and other factors that make them similar to boulder.

[87:03] But one of the important things I there's a lot of questions on this slide. I'll I'll go a little bit more, and then I can take questions on the slide. If you want. One of the important things on the slide right is, we see a lot of variation, and we also know it's not telling us the whole picture of what's happening. So, for instance. in South Suburban, if we look at tennis. There's only one court per one municipal court or one public agency court per 25,000 people. But we know that's a area that actually nationwide, is a leader in terms of private clubs, hoas, and other courts within the community. So it has a large breadth of tennis services, provided that's not reflected in this just municipal comparison. So you'll see in the memo as well. Right? We I took that out so you could see what that average would be it's a lot closer to what boulders is if we remove that that outcome. So do folks still have questions on the slide, or do we want to keep moving? And

[88:02] I can answer those questions at the end to chuck as a question or, Yeah, sorry here. So we don't have to come back. What what happens to these numbers when you include private courts. So we haven't fully imp included private courts. Because we're really looking at the community access of courts and looking at the courts that are free and available to the public. A significant, our number of hours, or free or low cost. And it's a hard line to draw as well. So it's something we considered and worked with our consultant on. Should we be counting all the hoas, you know. Put them on on Google Maps and try to count everyone that has one in their backyard right? But it becomes a pretty complex calculation in terms of where to draw the lines. So that's at least in this benchmarking table that you see. That's where why, we haven't included those. Feel free to jump in. Anna. Did you have a question on this benchmarking as well before I move on or

[89:03] no, I just couldn't see because of Jason Unger's thing. So then I looked on the packet, and I was able to see alright. So moving on from benchmarking, if you go to the next slide. and then one more, Rosa. So benchmarking is just one piece of what we looked at in developing this level of service per capita level of service. For how many courts? Our our community, should we should provide to our community? We also looked at industry standards. In our case there's not an out of the box. If you have this many people in your community, you should have this many tennis courts and this many pickle ball that doesn't exist in this case. But we did talk with both Usta and U.S.A. Pickle ball and got their input on what seems appropriate. We also factored in the growth of these sports and anticipated growth of these sports. We know they both have grown in the last several years, and especially pick a ball goes notably extremely fast. We. We factored in the estimated current number

[90:02] the people in the boulder population that play tennis. Both these numbers are higher than the national average. Again, details in the packet. But they're about 2 to 3% higher. The percentage wise people playing tennis and pickle ball here in boulder than they are nationally we looked at historically our level of service that we have provided the community before we started multi striping how many courts were available to the community for tennis. And then we also, as I talked about Chuck, a little bit touched on. We talked about what the city's contribution level and what the city's role is in terms of providing courts. So not just that number, but really focusing on the community access. Piece of it. And so, Rosa, if you'd go to the next slide and the memo had some more details on. Oh, oh, I'm I'm one slide ahead of myself. Okay, so go ahead. You're good, Rosa. II switched the order on myself. Okay, so this in conclusion, what this leads us to is that our goal for Bpr. Is to add 22 dedicated pickleball courts, and to add 22 dedicated tennis courts to the existing stock of 20 there for a total of 42.

[91:14] And it's a bit funny that those numbers match to acknowledge that. It was interesting that as we looked at different options with the consultant of of how to calculate. We hovered around 2122 for both sports. So it's interesting that the math we did do math, and it worked out that way. And with this we're also looking to re retain the multi use courts. So not set a defined number of how many multi-use courts to have in our community but recognize, recognize, recognize, recognize their value, that they do provide, especially in places where it might not be possible to have 4 tennis courts, and for pickleball courts, for instance. and just commit to evaluating their use as dedicated courts are added. So now, Rosa, if you'd go to the next slide.

[92:01] Okay? So besides, just looking at the number. as I mentioned, looking at the city's contribution level and the community access this this chart that's also in the memo. So you could look in extra detail. But the dark blue background is looking at the high priority investment areas as identified in our 2022 master plan. So looking where there's economic need or other underserved populations, and then the red that's overlaid is our current tennis court location, just, for example. So you can start to see where geographic gaps may exist, where also those high investment gaps may exist as well, so just to to footnote again, how we're looking at equity, youth and accessibility. Not just the pure number of courts that we're going to add. So, Rosa, could you go to the next slide?

[93:04] Next question on that before we move on this matches to make sure we're and I'm understanding it correctly. You've taken off the the global courts at South South Boulder, Rec. And Chautauqua. Yes, so this. That's a great question. This map is looking just at dedicated tennis courts. That's again, we're we're keeping those multi courts separate for the time being. recognizing that dedicated group courts is is the industry standard but that those contribute in a different way. Thank you. Yeah, thanks, Bernie. alright. Oh, Anna has a question, too. Before we move on. Okay. could you please just explain the different side pink. circle size, like, with the meaning, yeah, absolutely. Yes, good clarification. So the size of the circle represents each court serving 1,750 courts. So in the cases where there's if there was just one court, it would mean that within that red circle 1,750 people live in that red circle, and that's

[94:09] if you if you saw in your memo, that's how we got to 22 courts for each sport being added. Is that 1,000 to one court per 1,750 people. But then, if you have circles that overlap each other. How does that work? Because then you're double counting the same people? True? Yes, and this is not supposed to be like an end. All be all tool. It's just giving us an idea as a start. So that could be something that we look at further as we continue to analyze. This is maybe decoupling those circles. Yeah, that's great. Point out alright. Next slide. So in order to add those 22 courts. We looked at 6 potential sites, foothills, Tom Watson, Belmont, Stasio. East and south. These are our city parks, community parks, or recreational facilities where there was square footage for 4 or more additional courts free of obvious

[95:09] top topography challenges free of obvious residential noise, challenges that we know, pick up all has and then we scored them, based on this different criteria or consultants scored them, based on this different criteria you see, on the side and the next slide we'll show you how these all ranked. which, perhaps unsurprisingly, the top 3 are all 3 that we have upcoming plans for those parks. So East Belmont and Tom Watson are listed there with the years that those parks are. Look, are currently part of our upcoming cip process. And then if we're unable to accomplish those 44 additional courts at those 3 sites by 2,030. We're also going to be looking at foothills and stadio so those will also get drawings as part part of this project in terms of what additional courts could look like at those sites in case we need additional sites to achieve that number.

[96:10] But South is falling off at this point. Through this analysis, we realize there's too many limitations on that site. Too many competing current uses as well as constraints in terms of wetlands and flood, plain and residential proximity. So you will see 5 concept plans as part of this plan. and those are the ones in blue and green. Alright, Rosa. So this is more detail in terms of of how we get there. And looking at those 3 sites. So. starting in 2024 we are investing $400,000 every year for the next 6 years to address that backlog, and Arapaho Ridge and Columbine are the currently identified pros properties for 2024 to receive that post tension upgrade. And we hope that this will address the serious condition concerns at those parts. They're 2 of our worst condition courts. And really bring those courts back online in a way, as as you can see the picture of that lovely crack at or Apo Ridge. It's just one of many. That we know hinders play at those locations. And hoping that that will

[97:27] help take pressure off our our system by really adding those back to the mix. And that's just the first year of that $400,000 funding, and you'll see that it does continue through the 6 year Cip, as we go through so very excitingly in 2024. This concept plan that East Boulder Park will receive for additional courts as part of the court system. Plan is a kickoff for planning a design for up to 8 additional dedicated or 8 additional 8 dedicated tennis courts, not additional 8 total tennis courts at east, and 16 dedicated pickleball courts at East up to

[98:06] so that's 1.7 5 to 2.2 5 million for that whole park project. In with construction in 2025, and then the other thing before we move to the next slide in in 2024 is to note, that's really our focus is to do the post tension work to improve condition and to start planning at East Boulder. So we're not making any other changes to the current distribution of courts. Recognizing that any changes right now would just pit the sports against each other, and would potentially decrease the amount of playing opportunities for one of the sports. But if we move into 2026. So next slide, yeah. Awesome. Through 2028. Again, you see that $400,000 every year continue. And then we see Valmount South come online. So with planning in 2027 construction, starting in 2028, 1 million to 1.5 million

[99:02] for up to 12 dedicated tennis courts at Valmont, South with some indoor potential that Tina will talk about in a little bit next slide, Rosa. and then in 2029 and 2030. That's where we see Tom Watson start to come online up to 8 dedicated tennis courts and 4 dedicated pickle ball courts there. So 1.2 5 to 1.7 million dollars there. For that park project. And then, after 2030 again. we have 2 more properties where we could consider building Rosa, could you go back to slides? Sorry. Just. I know I people start to read and we have 2 more properties where we could consider adding courts. If we haven't achieved the numbers that we we want to. through the 2330 cip. And then, speaking of long range. I'm gonna turn it over to Tina to talk about indoor. So if you go to the next slide now. so we do know our community is interested in in in an indoor facility. So we are also gonna pay attention to the some some of the potential that we have there. So part of what we're looking at is when we do this part of this study is looking at some of the initial outcomes. Right? So what is our role in that. So what is Bpr's role? Is that something? In a partnership development, that we would be the land we would

[100:23] being the capital. What would a partnership look like? And to get there we would have to look at our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and constraints. And then we're gonna put some funding to that. What does that also look like? And then, when we talk about funding, there's lots to that, right? It's that capital and annual maintenance. But then it's actually the operating costs right? And then looking at what a matrix with a partnership could look like. We know, adding any type of facility right now. As you well know, you're aware of rec centers in the end. Aquatics and some other facilities that we are looking at some big dollar renovations. To those facilities in the near future. So looking at also what that looks like in the future years, and making sure that we have those that funding set up.

[101:08] So once we have some of that laid out a little bit, we start to look at actually, numbers and types of courts. And then things that are associated. So one of the properties, obviously, that we're looking at for our facility is the Belmont and in that right? We know there's access in circulation, which means right? There's not driveways and parking lots right now in that facility or in that vicinity. There are prairie dogs there that would have to be move that sort of thing. So we really have to dig in a little bit deeper. And come out then with that framework of what that would look like, and then also pay attention, not just placing other things that were potentially in that area or looking in the future. Of how would those work together? So basically, we're looking at the fiscally, we know it's in a far out future. We know there's no current funding for it. But this is going to be designed to help us develop a path to get there.

[102:07] And, Rosa, I see our consultant mics that's has just been able to join. Do you mind? Jump into the zoom, and adding him as a panelist as we, as we finish up the presentation awesome. And then if you go the next slide. So that's that's what we have for you tonight. To hit the highlights in terms of what we provide in the memo. So we're looking at all all levels of the the physical spaces, fixing the maintenance backlog prioritizing the funding. We have planning that 400 k. Of annual investment for maintenance and then looking at what the needs are for additional dedicated courts, and where those dedicated courts could exist before we come back to you with the drawings of what those sites could actually look like in March. So, Rosa next slide.

[103:03] Those 5 drawings would be part of engagement. Window 2 the first one having been this past October. and that will include a public meeting on March fourth. So we'll provide you more details and invitations to that. Of course. Prab members are welcome to attend. We just set that date. So we wanted to share it with you tonight, and after that public meeting we'll be bringing that feedback and those designs to you all at your March meeting and then, Mike, I don't know if you have anything you want to chime in with now, but, if we have any questions for him as well. We can direct it. Direct it there. and Rose, if you want to go to the next slide. If Prab has any questions for us in terms of the number of additional courts or the sites where they're planned, and how? What actions we have to get to those build builds? Or any questions for Tina about the indoor facility. We'd love to take anything else from you.

[104:01] Thanks very much. Let's start with Jason online. Yeah, really appreciate the presentation and the really thoughtful approach to this looking at Equity, looking at geographic need so really appreciate that, and good to see you here, Charlotte, even though I'm not there in person. good to see you presenting here. I have a question on. Maybe it's too far too early to process. But and I was reading about the the limitations at south, and so then east looks like it's most feasible option. where you know it's again, maybe too early for this. But where where is there room there for 18 ports? Is that? Would that be on the like? I mean it. It's either surrounded by open space. It seems like, or residential areas except to the south, I guess. Yeah, at East

[105:00] Jason, just yeah. At east. Yeah. So that's part of what we'll look at a couple of options. In terms of the drawings that we bring to you in March. There's some space there between where the dog parks are and where the current courts are, there's also potential to yeah. So there's a sub, a couple of different potentials. I don't know if anybody else wants to add detail on that at this point or. yeah, yeah, I can jump in. So you will see mapping in March what we're looking at right now is the potential like what those some of those numbers you saw was really like the Max that we would think we could provide in that area. So exactly where they go and how they're configured. We're working out. That's really the feasibility part. And that's what in you know the public meeting will see those, and we'll be sharing those with the stakeholder team also. And then and perhaps so to be determined. That's our goal. That's what we would love to see. There, there may be some constraints. But that's what we're working through right now.

[106:06] Alright, thanks very much. Yeah, thanks, Jason. if so many questions. we know from the pickleball community that it's really important to them to have a complex 16 courts in one location. Do we think at this point that's at all feasible? And if so, where do you think that might end up? That's again at east. What we're what? Why, we're hoping for that number, and why we're looking to see where that could be possible on that site. Yep, the interesting part about the pickleball courts, and the mass of 16 is theoretically right. Now we use 2 pickle ball per tennis court, because we're confering them by by multi sport. If you just looked at square footage, if you packed them in perfectly tightly, we could fit 4 of them on a tennis court, so the the land mass that we need for pickleball courts is, you know.

[107:00] two-thirds versus, you know. Yeah. Okay. so regarding indoor the facility is in, it's interesting, and I certainly understand why people want it. But I wonder, have we concentrated at all purchasing a bubble that we could put over some smaller quantity of ports in the colder months. So that actually is one of one of the things that we're looking at. As we start to get into the management and operations of them. So, depending on the shape of you know how they're configured and what that looks like. There is. There is some potential for looking at what that would look like. But again, we haven't done all of the evaluations yet. just to chime in on that we've previously studied bubbles for different facilities, and of course, pools and tennis courts have different needs. But this was pretty heavily considered in 2017 is, and we are in final design for Scott carpenter Pool. A bubble on its own is is problematic under boulders, code and goals. For a lot of reasons. They require an Hvac system that is very, very, very, very energy intensive. And what you'll learn is we go through the recreation centers project that the building envelope is where you get your efficiency, and a bubble is not an envelope. And so they're just incredibly energy and efficient.

[108:20] The other challenges the ongoing operational expense to put them up and take them down every year, and so they're seen as a short term and quick answer, but they may not be best for the long term and for our community. and I'll say that, having spent a lot of time racing at the Velodrome in Colorado springs, which is under a bubble. It is, quite apparent the energy that goes into keeping the bubble aloft. So do appreciate that. Thank you. So thank you for this overview. My question. I had 2 questions, one since this kind of seems like a

[109:02] a roadmap for the next 7 years in terms of court availability and planning. I was wondering I don't see anything about the handball, and I know that that is a sport that many Hispanic men in boulder community play. And so just wondering like is, Where does that figure? And is that like a separate planning, or has there any been consultation or engagement with Hispanic community about the handball courts and needs? Yeah, so we do have handball courts currently, in 2 locations, East Boulder and Tom Watson, and you'll notice those are the 2 that are on the list for park renovation. So as we're talking about the court system, really just focusing on tennis and pickleball for this particular study. We know that those those 2 parks are also getting park renovations which would include looking at how those are being used. And should they be improved, expanded, or what that looks like in that park renovation?

[110:02] So it doesn't mean that there's going to be like no new handball like when it says 22 pickleball, 22 tennis. It doesn't mean like 0. Everything else got it? And then my other question was that like for me. Having bathrooms is super. It's like a deal breaker for any like outdoor recreation. I was just wondering what bathroom plans are for these permanent facilities that you're going to be standing up. Yeah. So East Boulder Community Park does have rest rooms. And it would be located, probably central to where the tenants and pickle ball would be and then, addition to that, Tom Watson. Currently, the restroom is closed. And shutdown. As we looked at that park renovation, we would look at what bringing that buck online would look like as part of that? That park renovation budget as a whole. And I think putting a complex out there right? If you're putting a mass of facilities like that, that's something we would have to consider within that renovation. And then for some of the smaller, like standalone ones like Columbine. Is there any

[111:06] planned put like part of potties like they have it centimetre use at a park. They are adding Porta potties the challenge with. And so if it's just about portable restrooms, I believe that moving forward and I'll double check with the team if if we have a site where there's scheduled use. Yes, we know, like Columbine has often soccer, we are requiring the groups to have a portable for that, having a restroom in every park is not financially possible. Unfortunately, the math that the total 20 year 20 year cost of a simple park restroom is around a million dollars. And so when you add in that, we have about 50 sites, it's it's just simply not financially feasible. I agree with you, it'd be ideal. yeah. So Columbine will have bathrooms for the soccer. Now they're supposed to let me check on that and maybe report back next meeting, because I just see like it.

[112:08] II think they did as of last year or a couple of years ago. But I let me let me make sure I'm not making stuff up, and we'll report back in February. Well, this is great news. It's gonna make the tennis community happy, although they're gonna wanna next year and not spread out over 6 years. But that's the realistic time schedule. I'm wondering. Given the changes to the cip. What's where we getting money from? What's getting lost? That won't get money to pay for these. Yeah, I'm gonna have Mark come up to answer this question. I do wanna say we really appreciate the stakeholder group we've been working with. I think we've gotten to a great point with them. And and they actually saw parts of this presentation first, and helped us just with the messaging and all those questions that those that are not planners might have about our planner speak and really appreciate them. I know some are listening in tonight as well. So appreciate all their work towards this, too.

[113:11] Mark Davidson planning manager. Thanks, Chuck. It's a great question. the asset management side of it the 400,000 a year, as you know, we only approve. One year ahead. You make the Recommendation Council approves. It's just for 24 rest is projections. When we wrote the CI plan to you for 23, we included the 400,000 per year. So that is already identified. The other 3 sites, the numbers you're seeing. That's I want to underline. And Tina pointed that out. It's up to it all depends. And then in the memo there's very clear caveats that those 3 parks will require community engagement. Understand the needs for the parks, and there is a larger sum to cover the capital investment for those 3 sites. and the figures are pointing out what the cost is would be to add up to that many calls. So they'll undergo an engagement process and then identify coming up with the final outcome and the final plan which obviously would come back to the board.

[114:07] and we'll be bringing that more of that information to you in March of April. I'll add just one note from a timing piece that part of the design of the timing of this project that you all would have this information. And this plan is we develop the next years of approved and then plan spending so that can inform further allocations. Right? I guess I guess we can get a 5 year projection of the cip. And we have these nice table that says, what we're going to spend, where? And yeah, it'd be nice to see where this falls in in there, and where that money comes from. Yeah, absolutely. And then when we come back, obviously in April, you'll see that login, Ninja. No, I won't. Good point. You're gonna pull that every month now, aren't you so sad? But thank you. Anyway, the Board will review it with their 5 year capital plans that we start talking about in April, and you'll have this information for that conversation. It'll be a prioritization conversation, as you all know. We do not have enough money to both. Take care of everything in our system and build new. And so there'll be a prioritization of 15 min neighborhoods. And I like having facilities that we can access by bike and walking. And us

[115:25] and these sites are hard. Tom Watson specifically, is especially hard to get to. East is pretty far out there, too, which is why there's space to build things right. I mean, that's that's part of the trade off. Did you consider Violet park. And it's in this new development because it's going to be developed. And there's probably not a lot of space there. And it's in a flood plain. And there's probably other caveats. So yeah, it's a neighborhood park with a of the 1110 acres plus one, potentially because it's 2 acres that would allow for park development and a neighborhood park like North Boulder Park, the intense development. It's like 1.7 acres just to cover the picnic shelter. The play area, gathering space. So then add another

[116:06] recreation activity that would be very constrained. But we are looking across the border by it all recreational opportunities made no decision yet, so you never know what might pop up from. I would encourage you to look at like parking area areas that are under utilized as a potential footprint for some tennis courts at least. The other comment I had was relevant Hannah's comment about handball. Have you considered moving the handball courts to Howard Houston Park, and that would provide more space for tennis. because many of the people who would use handball courts probably live much closer to Thirtieth Street than they do to Far East Boulder. I just I, Tina's gonna have an answer this, but I think that's the that's the whole point of the thoughtful engagement. That's a pretty deep assumption. We have like we need to talk to that community. It's heavily and regularly used to Anna's point when I'm out there. I that community is is so strong, and I love talking to those gentlemen. They have such an incredible camaraderie, but we have no clue where they live. So

[117:09] yeah, it's an assumption on my part, for sure. Yeah. And what you'll notice is, we actually started out looking at all of our parks, and then we kind of went down, down, down, right and like as we're eliminating, and then looking so, there was like a whole list of criteria that we were looking at. And the we, the reason we landed on those 6 particular properties was basically looking at that criteria and our best option. So part of that's land mass, part of his accessibility. Part of it is. could we put enough parking there? Right? So if you're gonna put, you know 8 tennis courts somewhere. You have to account accommodate for the parking for those folks as well knowing some of them are going to drive, and hopefully multimodal will be an opportunity. So through those criteria, we really did break it down to those 6 parks, and even within those 6 you can see how some of them are prioritized. Based on, you know, the topography and that sort of thing. So if that helps, we actually did look across our system and really honed it down to identify at the 6 that make the most sense or 5. It turned out.

[118:12] and Rosa's pulling up up that criteria as well. Thanks, Rosa. If you go back a couple more. yeah, the numbers. Those numbers are wrong. If you go back about 7 slots the right way other way. This is all our math, just in case you wanted to see it. Now you get to see it. We we had a lot of spreadsheets while we're waiting to pull that up, I'll just chime in. And I did get an answer on Columbine and a Porta Potty. And so we do put one out there during the soccer season, and so it is. Between the tennis area and the the fields along the Glenwood kind of tucked up near the trees during the season, not over at the Bbsd fields. So I figured I would pass that information along.

[119:04] Yeah. And I think I kind of skipped over the handball courts, too. So what we are looking at is when we're looking at configuring things. So one of the reasons. For example, South Boulder fell to the bottom is in order to place any kind of mass of those courts would then offset or remove some other activities. Is it a multi-use field? Is it volleyball courts? Is it? Who else is it, then, gonna impact versus some of the other parts that we have, we still have room to put without impacting those or taking them away. and then, as far as you're right, the handball that as we do those park renovations that absolutely will be a good question of. Is this the right place? Right when you're used to going there? And you used to meeting your friends, creatures of habit, sometimes to have some into that right like, where do we gather with our friends? So making it a really nice place to gather might, you know, might be more important to them than the location. So those are some of the questions that we would ask during those public engagement sessions.

[120:05] Okay, are there any further questions or comments from the board? Great next item is the 2024 action plan. Alright, Rosa is gonna drive this presentation for me. The intent of this item is to give you just a brief overview of planned work. You all see our capital improvement plan. But wanna remind you of just high level timing of some of the key projects coming this year, and then also wanna tell you a little bit about what is going on operationally. So we're both gonna get that set. but first, I just so the the first slide here before we talk about the special accomplishments and all the E exciting work we have ahead to make our make our system stronger, better, faster. We just have to celebrate that if you'll go to the next slide

[121:02] the work that our team does every single day to achieve our mission. You can see here just some of the points of the people sometimes forget how robust our system is. I know you're all aware, but we have 86 sites, 42 playgrounds, 3 Rec. Centers for dog parks. So many trees and flowers. We operate the boulder reservoir, the flat irons, golf course, Belmont Bike Park, and this is not everything. And so the bulk of what our team does is operate this system. And I and I share that, because, you know, we we all get interests from community members and things they want us to fix right now or to do differently right now and so often. We just aren't resourced in that way from a staffing capacity. And so we are always trying to prioritize what is most important next? And in alignment with the Bpr plan, so that. Yes, we're operating this system, and we're planning for the future. Recently, the city released results from the National Community Survey. This is a a nationwide survey that many communities use to connect with their community members

[122:10] and to hear how they're doing. Boulder is a city and a community that's committed to equity. And there are lots of ways that that data continue to improve, to hear from the community. And I think we do that with community connectors and so many other ways but that doesn't diminish some of the statistically valid responses we heard. We're over 9 out of 10 community members have rated quite high. The quality of life here in boulder, including the way the parks and recreation system contributes to that those results are higher than most of the national Ben Marks, and I share that all to say that not only do we robust or really operate a really big system, our team, does it really? Well and so often? Certainly, as leaders of the department, and you all as the board. You hear about the things we're trying to make better. And I think it's important to remember that we're already so good. So with that, I'm going to tell you about some of the things we're doing to be better, but just wanted to remind you that from soccer fields to tennis courts we we have a pretty great system that, of course we want to make better.

[123:10] the next slide. So everything we do in the city we are trying to connect our work always, ever better and ever stronger together. Across departments into the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan, the sustainability, equity, and resilience framework is a way that we have summarized as a city, the community we want to be for you all. What's most relevant is that it outlines that we wanna be a healthy and socially thriving community. We wanna be a liveable community. We wanna be an accessible and connected community. And there's measures and data points for how we see if work is achieving those outcomes. You guys will hear us talk about that. the I'm gonna talk most about the So departmental strategic plans formally known as master plans. The city is working on eliminating that term for connotations and the way it conflicts with our equity goal. So we what previously you would hear us call the boulder parks and recreation. Master Plan, you'll hear us call the Bpr. 2022. Plan. That is what guides all of our work, and every year we look at it to say, Okay, what are we gonna do to advance our work?

[124:12] Every year we have an action plan and our teams have work plans. And then every single individual on our team has goals that show their role in in connecting all of this. Another graphic on the next slide that you've seen before, just as a reminder. You see the rings around this. This started with the 2022 Bpr. Plan. This is the framework and the the icon. Really for every decision that we make, that it's rooted in sustainability, equity, and resilience. and informed by 3 critical things, community engagement, data and policy. It can never be just one, because one person's opinion may conflict with research. Research may conflict with our community courts is a really great example that if we just use data and benchmarks from other communities. We tell our folks you're fine. but we know that they swim. They play tennis. They do lots of things at higher numbers than national averages. So it's that synthesis of the input from the community, the data and the policy that that guides our decisions.

[125:12] So you've already heard me talk on the next slide just as a reminder. We have a recent recent in in City speak. We have a 2 year old this summer in our Bpr plan, and with that plan we committed that it wouldn't sit on the shelf, that we actually would capture the significant amount of time and investment from both our community and our staff and developing that document. So every year we look at that and we decide what's most important next. and I'm gonna start with something you are seeing for the first time something we're very excited about. This is the iconography for our Capra project you've heard us talk about Capra, for before that is the accreditation by the Commission for the the commission for the accreditation of parks and recreation agencies.

[126:00] We're really excited about this graphic cause. We think it captures. Why we are doing this project. And so I'm gonna tell you a little bit about it. First of all, we're using the slogan. Vpr shines because that when you look in the thesaurus and look at all the things that shine means it means to excel, to stand out or to have a gift for. And that's the department that we wanna be. It can mean to glow or to gleam, and we know that our teammates shine. It also acknowledges the abundant sunshine in our community that in the flat irons remind us that everything we do is rooted in our community. The people in this graphic demonstrate that really for us, accreditation is about the professional development and the learning that is going to come and the culture affirmation. We have incredible teammates in our department and through accreditation, we're gonna strengthen the tools we provide them for onboarding, for implementing the fee policy you all approved in 2023 is a great example of that. You might have heard me say that had you joined our department in 2019, and said, Allie, how do I set fees? I would have said, read these 10 proud memos, and figure it out

[127:04] and now, as you all know, we have a concise and all in one place, fee policy, and fee schedule. The path demonstrates that this is a journey for us that we're. It's about developing resilience and continuous improvement. The first step in process improvement is to document your current process, and we're excited that through this project will be driving innovation and the Capra flag there on the top of the second flag, just recognizes that Capra is the industry standard of excellence for parks and recreation. There are over 10,000 agencies in the United States that could be Capra, accredited in less than 200 R. We know that our community expects high quality parks and recreation. And for us, this achieving this excellence will help show that. So how are we gonna do it. When we have so much work to do operating our system. If you go to the next slide, Rosa, matrix teams are something that many private industry companies used. And we've used in boulder parks and recreation to drive work.

[128:00] In a matrix team. You have teammates who are in different functions at different levels and in different areas of the department. And they all report to a project lead to do the work. Every matrix team has project based work with a clear scope, objectives and timeline. There'll be learning opportunities for team members where they can lead the work. They can report out on the work. They can teach the work. So the professional development out of this is huge and it's really gonna increase information flow across the organization cause you have folks from park operations working with folks and recreation planning in planning and natural lands, and just across the system. So on the next slide is just a summary. I'm not gonna read you all of this, but there is a team for the major chapters of Capra, so Capra, as 84 standards that are aligned around chapters. These key, these ones up here are the major chapters, chapters 1, 2, and 3 are really around administration and planning, and we're calling them minor chapters because we achieve them just today without doing any additional work, just by documenting the work that we do. We've achieved those standards.

[129:10] With some minor improvements. So we have an entire chapter around the way we on board train and support our teammates. Recreation service, maintenance, safety and quality. I wanna call out those 2 teams at the bottom. They're not connected to Capra, but they're so critical to our work. They are matrix teams in 2024 summer squad is what we had last year. It's where we have folks working across the department to make sure we can hire the hoards of people. We need to deliver peak summer funds safely. So that team is already in motion and planning for 2024. We hope to have another banner year and then we have a safety committee. So you'll notice that Chapter 8 of Capra is about law and risk management and safety and security. That's really about making sure you have the standard operating procedures and a a general security plan. The Safety Committee is about making sure our teammates know it, and about making sure we're reviewing workplace incidences and teaching folks. So if I were to summarize Chapter 8 is about what we do in the Safety Committee is how we do it and live it

[130:18] last, just to summarize. You've had this in your consent, agenda already, but where? We asked everyone in the operations for their work plans for 2024 typically, everybody would have their own individual work plan. That would be the work they do, and then any projects for their area that might be coordinated across the department. For example, one year we had a whole group of folks improve their onboarding for seasonals. So if you're in operations, your work plan is basically anything you're committed to for service delivery plus capra and then planning had does have some functions with Capra, but they, if you will go to the next slide, Rosa, we've got some really big projects. Either in the hangar and head or the runway, or in the runway. So in the contracting stage, are North Boulder Park and the civic area.

[131:08] We've talked about both of those a couple of times. You just heard an update on the court system plan, and that'll move to completion in Q. 2. We are scoping now. The future of the Rec centers. And I'm glad Burn, I sent you all an email about a week ago on some exciting updates there, as it looks to. Just how do we think for the next 50 years of our community? There's this incredible in my mind, just significance to the fact that it was in 1973 that our community first approved funding for North and South. and then it was 30 years ago that they first contemplated funding for East. And so we're at this critical milestone of what does it look like for the next 50 years to meet our community needs? So you're gonna hear a lot more about that in and in scoping. But for now I think if if a community member were to ask you, what is parks and recreation doing, you can say they, they are contemplating these major legacy conversations

[132:01] with the thoroughness and thoughtfulness that they require. We are not going to be shovels in the ground tomorrow, and I know for folks some folks that's frustrating. But you don't plan for 50 years in a day. Flatter and golf, course gonna be open this summer, and I cannot wait till we have you all out there. I believe it's next month that we're coming to you on Pleasant view. Yes, next month we'll be talking about both Pleasant View and Violet so soon we're gonna be talking about Pleasant View and Violet. So really, the intent of this was just for you to understand. Again, I know, as members of the Board. Sometimes you get questions from the community, and hopefully, this provided some helpful information, and if you have any questions Scott will answer them. Happy. Thank you. We'll open it up for any questions or comments. Starting with Jason. Nothing for me. I like the logo a lot. It's very cool. But thanks for those updates, Ellie.

[133:05] I'm calling on you, Jason, just to make sure you're still in there. Good! Get getting a little late back to on the East coast. I have a quick question about the Capra process is is this gonna be ongoing and recurring, continuing in the future? Is this a one time? Once you get certification, you're done, renew every 10 years. How does that work? Thank you. So this will be our first time through this to become certified. And once we become certified, we will have to, and and our hope is that we are able to accomplish that by fall of 2,025. After that process, then we'll go through and do re accreditation. I believe it's every 5 years. So it but we've we will have established some very strong foundational pieces as part of this initial process. So this is the this is the big lift, and from there it's just continuous improvement.

[134:05] That's perfect. What I'll add is that I learned from talking to colleagues that there's annual reporting. So you can't just be status quo for 5 years. And then, you know, just update dates like they're actually getting. The Commission is very rigorous. Around this was your service delivery model in 2,020. This is it 2,025? Having reflected, are you? It. It really is about ridiculous improvement if you don't catch. Just thanks. Th, th. This sounds very similar to the academic accreditation process. So I used to be a professor at University of Denver and engineering, and we had to do accreditation and renew it every 5 years. So I'm very familiar with the process, and how much energy and effort it takes so congratulations to getting. The first accreditation is a big step, and then, once you have a process and stay in in place. The next ones are easier until you sort of have a rhythm developed. and so, setting the the framework and groundwork now really pays off in the long run. So congratulations on doing that. So well.

[135:03] maybe we'll have to go for a walk, and you can share with me your your lessons. It is fascinating as I talk to folks in the public works. Field, like accreditation is is common in most local government industries, but It's rare in in Colorado and and in the city for departments to be accredited. So we're looking forward to excelling great. Okay? We are. Gonna move on to matters from the board. We'll start with discussing when we're gonna have our meeting in March. Mr. Chair. I'm gonna take Bio break and be right back. I don't think you guys need me to talk about. I'll be right back. I don't know what to talk about like I don't know when our meetings planned or okay, Rosa. So check. I noticed that. Our March meeting falls on the first day of Bbsd spring break. and so I don't know if some of the families would wanna

[136:02] go away, or, you know, have that week off, so we might want to move it to earlier in March. II think that's very advisable. I'm sure there'll be lots of people gone. Jason, do you think you'll be available? Or yeah, I'd I'd prefer to move it up a week or or back a week. Okay. what? These are currently scheduled, Rosa. I believe it's March 20 fifth. So moving it to March eighteenth would be a possibility. And would you have a problem with that? Bernie should be fine. Okay, why don't we tend to be plan on that? Would you mind sending an email out to all the members of the Board? And confirming that. See if anyone has a problem with that cause, we we have limited number of people right now. we're we're now. We're now gonna be down one number. and I'll confirm that we have the council chambers as well. Otherwise we can meet downstairs. Okay? So we're talking about moving the March meeting which falls during the Boulder Valley School district. Spring break up a week.

[137:10] So instead of being on March 20, fifth, having it on March eighteenth. either. Right? Okay? So I'll reiterate this in an email and confirm location. Okay, next up is board membership. So, as we heard at the beginning of this meeting anit, Anita Spears has step down from the board effective immediately. meaning that we'll have another vacancy. In some ways it's advantageous that she did it now, because we have time for people to apply through the process that the board and the the board and Committee process.

[138:00] So that means we have another opening to fill. And hopefully, we can all make an effort to find good people in our community who, we think would be good members of the Board and ask them to apply. So ask around your circle of friends, acquaintances, colleagues. people that you think would would be good chuck. I wanted to add that the application period ends on the twenty-ninth of this month. Right? So basically one week. not much time. And there's an online questionnaire to answer. So it does take a bit of time. Are are you able to share anything more about why I need to resign. II mean II I'm taking a leap of faith, and I think that she would be comfortable sharing that she just found one. She has an opportunity for some extend learning which she's very excited about, and as the primary caregiver for her daughter evenings were pretty challenging for her, but it it sounds like she had an opportunity for some learning that she's really excited about. And it just it. It was the schedules were conflicting.

[139:06] Thank you. And just for the record, we'll miss having her on the board and the input that she gave us. So good luck, Anita. Okay. Next up we have prab matters. So this is a chance to bring up any topics that you've heard from the community or any issues that you think are appropriate for discussing in this setting. Okay, hearing nothing, we'll move on. And we have added a item which is discussing the agenda for the retreat. and Sonny and Jason are in charge of the retreat agenda, so if Jason is prepared and awake. it'd be great to hear from him. On what the agenda is looking like. I am awake, but barely So I actually, you know, to be honest, sonny. I connected earlier today on this, I don't think she's at this meeting tonight.

[140:09] So we still have time to do some planning. But yeah, we have a list of things that have been talked about, but I don't know and maybe it's because I've been remote for 2 meetings in a row, but I don't know that we have settled on a an actual topic. Last year, when I think Ellie and I worked on the retreat we actually had you know, if you recall, I think because before Bernie joined but and I guess, and as well, we had a kind of deeper dive into 2 specific issues. So this one, I just have a list that that Rosa sent along of things that have been talked about and so happy, you know, to open it up to any ideas. and then Sunny, that can take those and start planning in a little more detail Rose, if I I'm just gonna read from the list you sent us. If that's okay. Some of it seems dated, maybe, but I'll I'll read it all.

[141:01] vpr equity work, including water, safety access. I know. And I think you've mentioned that in the past. board and commission report debrief and discussion. prab handbook, deep dive that I don't know if that's necessary anymore, since we've already approved that. But deferred others, if people want to spend some time on that perhaps role and authority. We kind of touched on this a little last year. We could. We could do that again. And then prab process. So those are the 5 things that we have as potential agenda items. But we can open this up to for discussion. Take some more just getting, or take this in a different direction. I don't have any strong feelings on either way. I think I've just here mostly to advise Sunny, who, I think, is really taking the lead on this. or maybe not, maybe the 2 of us together. So from my perspective, II think, having a really thorough discussion of the equity work that

[142:02] is ongoing, and the department would be fabulous. And I think one element of that is the question of swimming training for all boulder children as a desired equity outcome. So I would definitely like to see those 2 items discussed. Ii agree with the equity issue. I think that's it's a good use of our time. I also support equity theme and the universal swim. Thank you. Can I need to ask a little more on that to help us make sure we support your. Are you looking for if and I guess maybe we'll follow up with Jason and Sonny. What we did last year on the 2 topics you did a deep dive on is, I think we did a 10 min presentation, and then you all had some discussion time to talk about it. Is that about the format, what you all are looking for?

[143:01] We didn't write any memos we just did. A. This is something you are curious about. You wanted to talk about. It hasn't necessarily aligned with the agenda. So here's an overview. And then you had a discussion. II think that worked well last year, and it it hopefully minimize the amount of work you all have to do just something, you know, some basic background open to for discussion and then go from there. But I yeah, I think that format worked last year really? Well. So the equity questions I have are where the income cut offs are, and how those are chosen. Things like that. I'm very interested in a graded grad gradation of financial support as opposed to hard cut off at a particular income level. Because if you earn $1 more than that, you suddenly don't qualify for any support, even though your needs have not changed by more than point 0 0 1%.

[144:01] So ha! Being prepared with that kind of information. How many people are helped? What the demographics look like. I'd be very interested in those kinds of things who's not being served. What the community needs are that you've heard. So what I'm hearing a lot of questions are around our financial aid programming. And so I just just again to make sure we're meeting. The questions are not around equity and decision making with planning. I think you hear that a lot in the projects. It's really on the operational side? I'm hearing these questions. That's that's my main concern. I don't know if Anna agrees with that, or she's more interested in a broader look at it. I'll let the other members talk about their interests. Jason, do you have any further comments on what you? I'm glad you raised the I think this kind of gets a little bit, maybe

[145:02] gets broader, but it's it's a good part of the equity discussion of just that kind of. I know we've talked before financial aid and the thresholds and kind of moving to more of a sliding scale. And I know that there's been. We've we've talked about this at various points over the years. So you know, hopefully, it's not too much to ask Ally of you and your your team. But I'd be interested in kind of looking at that issue again as well. And I'd like to find out where support for those programs comes from. And what options and opportunities there might be for expanding programs and income. Yeah, everything you all have said, I believe, and we can confirm with the team and get back to you if there's any challenges I believe we report on. And because a lot of what we're talking about gets Grant support

[146:01] that that can help drive really good documentation data analytics. The one I heard that is a bigger. Ask around sliding scale. So that is an initiative. We would love to address. It's outlined in the 2022 Bpr. Plan. It is not in our work plan for this year, and so to develop that this year would would mean taking something off the table. Gotcha! I think I think I'd like to have a discussion on what that might look like, though, at least. and put it on your radar. I'm regarding the the deep dive into the Prab hand book. III agree. I don't think that's necessary. I think it might be useful to have sort of a brief reminder of some of the basic rules of recusal. what we can. Comment on how we communicate with Council. You know. Something sort of a 5 min reminder, I think, would be, would be appropriate just to

[147:03] remind everyone the handbook exists. Make sure you read it, refresh everyone's memory on it, and then move on. Yeah, that's up to you all we could. Jason mentioned the prab roll piece. I don't In October of 22 we have a very brief 8 slide deck that we could send to folks, and they can ask questions that might serve. And we can again we can talk to. I know Ross is coordinated with Jason and Sonny, and if we can support that, we're happy to what do you think, Jason? Yeah, that sounds good. And we also, I think last year in previous years, we did some. you know, kind of icebreakers and get to know you games. And it was fun. We'll try to come up with some new ideas again this year. Yeah, I remember the question about What's your your hidden pleasure for music? That was that was a good one. Your secret pleasure for music.

[148:05] for a road trip, or something something like that. Luckily it did not involve much singing thankfully. okay, is there anything else under prab matters? What? Just timing wise Ali and team? When when do you all need kind of a final agenda to do your planning very soon this retreat I'm just popping up the calendar. So I what I am hearing from you. All is that you don't need 40 page memos for us on any of this, that it would be an overview and information that we can share that evening. So what we want to do is publicly notice the meeting and the agenda and I think that the code and Rosa can confirm is just that we do that 24 h in advance. It is our practice to post things on the Wednesday before, which would be the 30 first in a week from this Wednesday, but I think we have some wiggle room, and if if you, if we had a final agenda by the second and posted. That would comply with open records laws, and let the public know

[149:11] that you're having a retreat, and of course there, there wouldn't be public comment to retreat. But folks are welcome to it anytime you meet, it's open to the public. So okay, that's doable. We're talking this week, so we can get sent to you by then. and the date is the fourth is, or the fifth fifth. Okay, thank you. And do we know where their retreat will be held here. Okay. is it possible to meet downstairs where there's a circular table or a little less formal environment? Great? Thank you very much. Anything else, Jason? No thanks for raising that cause. That is, that is, it's better to have a more collegial room than the council chambers. So appreciate that

[150:06] those chairs are way better than these chairs. Okay, nothing else on the agenda, may I? Next board meeting will be well. We have our retreat on February fifth, and then we'll have a february 20, sixth for meeting. I will entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn second. all in favor. Aye, aye. thank you all very much with you.