[1:09] Yeah, I mean, I use this trail all the time

[1:12] actually, and it's like, why, I mean, why would you

[1:15] not close this section? Oh, it is, okay. Welcome everybody

[1:21] to today's Boulder County Parks Advisory Committee Media. Hello, can

[1:26] we hear me out there? Great, we've reached our start

[1:29] time. These meetings are held in a hybrid virtual format

[1:33] via Zoom webinar in just a moment. I'm gonna start

[1:36] the webinar. My game. That's not

[1:45] me, it was my brother. I was suddenly there. Fantastic.

[1:48] And please note that it tickly takes a few seconds

[1:50] for the Zoom. To bring members of the public into

[1:54] the session as attendees. Just a friendly reminder to all

[1:57] post - Act members, presenters, and public speakers. Please make

[2:01] sure you're within two inches of the microphone once speaking.

[2:04] This helps ensure we maintain an accurate public record. Members

[2:07] of the committee. Are you ready? Yes, we are Nick.

[2:11] Okay, we're recording. Okay, thank you. Good evening and welcome

[2:16] to the May 28th meeting, the Boulder County Parks and

[2:19] Open Space Advisory Committee. I'm Trace Baker Pocsack Vice Chair.

[2:24] I'm filling in for our previous chair, Janet George, who

[2:27] resigned to attend to personal matters last fall. We'll start

[2:33] out with Raw Call. Trace Baker here. Ariel Barbieri Agib.

[2:41] Here. Carol Byrly. Christine Johnson. Here. Lauren Kelso. Here. Vicky

[2:50] Lawrence. Here. Joan Lutz. Jeff Oddy. Here. And John White.

[3:02] Okay, so. For new Post Act members, and first of

[3:06] all, I want to welcome the three of you. And

[3:11] please remember that when you do speak to state your

[3:14] name for the record. And as neck reminded you, keep

[3:22] your mouth about two inches from the microphone. And that's

[3:27] very important to be heard. And your microphones are always

[3:31] on. So anything you say becomes part of the meeting

[3:34] record. And the little button on the base of your

[3:37] mic, and that will mute your microphone if necessary. Before

[3:42] we get started, I want to introduce a new meeting

[3:48] format that the Boulder County Commissioners have asked all advisory

[3:55] committees and boards to follow. First off, we will have

[4:00] discussion topics, and these are subject, or I mean, decision

[4:04] topics. These are subjects that require post - Act to

[4:08] make a non - binding recommendation to commissioners. And there

[4:12] will be a presentation from staff, followed by public input,

[4:18] followed by POSAC discussion, and then POSAC will vote whether

[4:25] to make the recommendation to the County Commissioners. Then there

[4:31] will be information topics, and these are also presentation by

[4:36] Parkstaff. Postac members may ask questions or make comments, but

[4:41] there will be no vote or recommendation to the County

[4:46] Commissioners. Members of the public who wish to comment on

[4:50] an information topic have two opportunities. One is to attend

[4:55] to a commissioner's meeting where public input is accepted. And

[5:00] the other is to send an email to the commissioners

[5:04] as described on the commissioner's website. But again, we will

[5:08] not be accepting public comment here on information topics. And

[5:13] finally, at the conclusion of the meeting, Posac members may

[5:17] raise topics to staff that will be addressed at some

[5:22] future meeting. So the next

[5:32] item on the agenda is the election of officers. According

[5:38] to our bylaws, this happens at the first meeting of

[5:41] the year, but this is the first meeting of the

[5:44] air, so we will have elections tonight. First off, do

[5:51] we have any nominations for the chair, Christine. Christine Johnson

[5:58] Posack. Uh, I nominate Trace Baker to be the chair.

[6:02] Um, currently, Trace is the member of Posack with the

[6:07] longest standing. And I think in this time of change

[6:12] that some institutional memory would benefit all of us. And

[6:17] he has stood us in good stead in the past.

[6:20] Second. Thank you, Christine. So we have a nomination. Nomination

[6:25] of the 2nd. Do we have any other nominations for

[6:28] chair. Okay, so, uh, vote all in favor of electing

[6:35] trace baker as a chair. Aye. Aye. In opposed. So

[6:42] it's unanimous, so I will continue as chair for this

[6:47] year. Uh, second topic is nomination for vice chair. Do

[6:53] we have any nominations. Then may I nominate Carol Byrly.

[7:02] Yes. You may. Do we have a second? Mickey Lawrence.

[7:05] Vicky Lawrence, I second care on Biley. Okay, all in

[7:09] favor of Carol Byerly as Vice Chair. Aye. Post. Carol,

[7:15] you are nominated and elected as FICE chair unanimously. Thank

[7:20] you. Buddy's chair. Huh? Okay, so we will go on

[7:28] to our first meeting topic. And this will be presented

[7:33] by Heidi Wagner and talk about Oak Parks and OpenSpace

[7:40] highlights December 2025 through today. Heidi, it's all yours. That's

[7:45] right. Well, thank you so much, Trace. Thank you, Pozak.

[7:48] It's lovely to see you all again. I enjoyed our

[7:51] retreat last month. An Ariel, I don't think I had

[7:54] a chance to meet you, so it's nice to see

[7:56] you in person tonight. Um, my name is Heidi Wagner.

[7:59] I'm the Deputy of Director of Strategic Foundations, and I

[8:02] was asked to give this presentation tonight to really highlight

[8:08] the work that we achieved over the interim period. So

[8:12] it's really just an opportunity to share that, um, update,

[8:17] because it was roughly a five - month period, and

[8:21] the department was navigating unusually high turnover and major internal

[8:26] transitions. Um, so my goal is to give you a

[8:31] transparent view of what was happening happening operationally, why there

[8:36] were no items, um, brought to POSAC, share the work

[8:41] that we did and share with you how it sets

[8:45] the stage for future stronger POSAC meetings. So you all

[8:53] play a critical role in parks and open space. So

[8:58] I want to make sure you have context for what

[9:01] happened behind the scenes. So during this period, we weren't

[9:07] in a position to bring forward plans, proposals, um, or

[9:12] policy updates that would have been your input. Um, we

[9:16] didn't even have any acquisitions or dispositions during that time,

[9:20] which is pretty rare. So instead, we focused inward. And

[9:27] we really had a rebuilding period of our structure, of

[9:30] our capacity, um, and work to give our staff support

[9:35] and clarity. So this briefing highlights what we accomplished and

[9:39] how those changes now strengthen everything that will come to

[9:43] pose ACK moving forward. Okay, so first I want to

[9:51] set a little context for you. Parks and open space

[9:54] has, I think, 169 FTEs. And as of December of

[10:00] last year, we had 14 staff leave pretty much all

[10:06] at once. In. I want to say like a six

[10:11] week period, um, and 12 of those were long tenured

[10:17] staff. So there was an early buyout for longtime staff,

[10:22] so 15 years and above. It was available to staff.

[10:26] Um, and then we also, unfortunately, had three layoffs. So

[10:30] we had 14, um, staff vacancies. And 11 or 12

[10:35] of those were just, they'd been here. 20 years, 25

[10:40] years. In one case, 49. And you don't just pick

[10:44] back up the next day and do everything like you

[10:47] did before. And so we lost a lot of institutional

[10:51] knowledge. We lost a lot of historic knowledge. We lost

[10:54] a lot of, um, people that had just been doing

[10:57] things for so long. And if I'm sure all of

[11:01] you are familiar with that effect of like you just

[11:04] get really good at your job, do you actually ever

[11:05] sit down and document it? Like how many people actually

[11:08] take the time to, you know, thoroughly document what it

[11:11] is they do, how they do their processes, um, especially

[11:14] when you've been there, you know, 25 or 30 years.

[11:18] And so it was really time for a reset for

[11:21] parks. So what I did knowing that there was just

[11:26] this transition period, um, I created a 30, 60, 90

[11:30] plan, um, for what I was going to do during

[11:33] the interim, what I was going to accomplish. And I

[11:36] had a theme of focus on the foundation. So think

[11:41] about the foundation of our work at parks and open

[11:44] space, the mission, what we are designed to do. And

[11:47] it was really to give staff a shared North Star,

[11:52] um, to rebuild our core systems to reconnect with our

[11:56] mission and each other. So I created three focus areas

[12:01] under that theme that I focused on kind of every

[12:05] month of the transition or of the interim period. Um,

[12:09] and, you know, communicated and over communicated about it. Um,

[12:13] so staff knew exactly what was going on and what

[12:16] they could expect from that upcoming month. So the first

[12:20] 30 days was really just around stabilization. And I directly

[12:24] told staff, I said avoid, um, starting any new things.

[12:30] Now is not the time to start. You're all very

[12:32] innovative and creative. And I love that. We love that

[12:35] about our park staff. But now is not the time

[12:37] to kick off a big project. And you'll see some

[12:40] tools that I put in place behind the same to

[12:43] help reinforce that message. And then the next phase was

[12:47] really about strengthening. So I mentioned we lost all of

[12:50] that long tenured staff. And so I said take the

[12:53] time to document. Look at your processes and write them

[12:58] down. And also look at the processes that we'd been

[13:02] doing for a while by staff that had left and

[13:05] say, okay, this person always did this thing. How can

[13:09] they did document it? It's great. It's served us for

[13:11] a long time. But how can we, let's look at

[13:14] it and how can we strengthen it? How can we

[13:16] make it more efficient? How can we do it with

[13:19] less people. And then the last phase of this plan

[13:24] was really around sustaining those two things. So that filling

[13:27] of stability, um, and the process improvement, um, and, you

[13:33] know, really connecting to each other, our culture at parks

[13:37] and be ready for the transition for a new director.

[13:40] Um, parks and open space has had three directors. In

[13:44] 20 years. It wasn't a position, you know, Ron Stewart

[13:47] had it for years and years. There was a short

[13:49] period of another gentleman. For already, you know, 20 years

[13:55] at that point. And so we're just, we weren't used

[13:58] to a lot of, you know, leadership change at the

[14:00] top. And so that transition was very important. Okay. If

[14:08] I can get my slides to advance for me, we'll

[14:11] move on. There's always one technical difficulty in these presentations.

[14:17] Otherwise there. Okay. So, um, a little bit here why

[14:23] you saw this pause. And frankly, we did not have

[14:29] any items that were well formed enough to bring as

[14:33] information items or any plans, policies or acquisition that needed

[14:39] your vote to the board without full staffing and consistent

[14:45] internal processes or clear alignment across divisions. Um, any proposal

[14:49] would have been premature. And I'm saying those things not

[14:53] because we, we didn't do that well. It was just

[14:57] when you pull out 14 staff across the organization, things

[15:02] do change. And so what we wanted to focus on

[15:07] is when ensuring we did come back to POSAC, we

[15:10] did so with stronger, um, more complete materials, um, that

[15:15] really reflect the department's best integrated thinking and aligned with

[15:19] our boards priorities. And you're going to hear some of

[15:22] those items tonight. So what did we focus on? So

[15:30] first I want to talk a little bit about the

[15:32] strengthening of internal capacity. This is a little bit backwards

[15:36] from my stabilized strengthen and transition period. But it all

[15:41] goes together in harmony. So we've really developed three tools

[15:46] on strengthening internal capacity. The first is what I call

[15:49] the stoplight system. So we evaluated all of our 26

[15:55] work plan, um, items. And for any of you that

[15:58] know, uh, parks and open space and have been here

[16:02] a while, we are an ambitious crew. We always put

[16:06] more on the list than what we have time to

[16:07] accomplish because we're very passionate about what we do. And

[16:11] so I put a stoplight system in place to help

[16:14] staff really just slow down, pause and evaluate. What is

[16:19] your capacity now? And so it's just, you know, red,

[16:24] yellow, green means continuous planned. Yellow was just do the

[16:29] work, but slow it down a little bit. Maybe someone

[16:31] on your team, um, retired. And so you need to

[16:34] do the project a little bit slower. Um, or pause.

[16:38] So that was the red was just to pause the

[16:40] work for now. It doesn't mean that it's not important.

[16:43] But maybe your lead on that project, uh, left, um,

[16:46] for example, there was a outlet that we were going

[16:49] to do. The project manager left, um, and so we

[16:52] put that redesign on pause. And the next thing we

[16:55] did was to document our property stabilization procedure. So you

[16:59] can think about when a new property is acquired into

[17:03] our system, what needs to be done to stabilize that

[17:05] property before a management plan can happen. And again, long

[17:09] tenured staff, they just did things. They went out there

[17:11] and put up signs. They did fences, but we needed

[17:14] to actually document that process. So we worked on that.

[17:18] And then lastly, we refreshed our cast process or our

[17:21] capital and stewardship process. Um, Tina Nielsen, uh, retired, um,

[17:27] and she was the person that did cast for us

[17:29] every year. And she was instrumental in the creation of

[17:31] our caste project. And that would come to you for

[17:35] a recommendation to the board every year. Um, and so

[17:38] she left. And so we thought, well, this is a

[17:41] time to re - examine that process and refresh it.

[17:44] She'd built a wonderful foundation for that work, but it

[17:47] was time to evolve it. And so we worked on

[17:50] that, um, and really worked on prioritization, um, lining with

[17:56] staff capacity and our budget cycle. Okay. I don't expect

[18:02] you to read this, um, uh, spreadsheet. It was more

[18:06] of an illustration for you. Um, the other, the next

[18:09] thing that we did is we put in place an

[18:11] annual work planning procedure. So, uh, this is the first

[18:16] time the department, um, has ever had a comprehensive department

[18:22] - wide annual work planning process. And so it aligns

[18:26] our entire organization on an annual rhythm from setting priorities

[18:30] to coordinating work across divisions to preparing our budget requests.

[18:35] So it also explicitly connects board priorities with staff workload

[18:40] and resources ensuring we allocate our time and funding more

[18:45] intentionally. So that was a big win. And then of

[18:51] course we still continue to do what we do. We're

[18:53] parks. So we still continued our operations. And we delivered

[18:59] a large volume of essential services. We had a couple

[19:02] of, um, emergencies in there that our staff responded to

[19:07] beautifully and professionally. You can see some, or you can

[19:11] see our quarter one report that was in attached to

[19:14] your memo that goes to the board of County Commissioners.

[19:17] And I wanted to share it with you all because

[19:19] it does a good job summarizing everything that we did

[19:22] accomplish in quarter one of 26. So you can still

[19:25] see we were doing the stewardship, the agriculture, the trail

[19:29] and facility work. We still had acquisition efforts. Um, and

[19:32] youth programming. And then additionally, you'll see in there that

[19:36] there were highlights from previously board directed or supported efforts,

[19:42] that things that you had voted on, like prairie run,

[19:45] um, implementation continued as expected. So I think that that,

[19:50] you know, if you look at that report, it really

[19:51] reflects staff's commitment to public service despite all of this

[19:55] transition. Okay. And then lastly, um, we prepared for new

[20:03] leadership. So this was the last phase of that 30,

[20:06] 60, 90 day or 90 day plus plan. And it

[20:09] was again, we continued to strengthen and refine the documentation

[20:13] and processes that I already explained. Um, but we also

[20:18] took the time to strengthen and focus on the culture

[20:21] of parks. So staff were encouraged to take intentional time

[20:25] to rebuild relationships, share knowledge and reestablish cross team communication.

[20:32] And I feel that this cultural reconnection was just as

[20:36] important as all of the operational improvements. And on the

[20:40] slide here, I put a few pictures from an event

[20:43] that we had. It was called Renew our space clear

[20:46] out, clean up and connect as a team. Um, our

[20:50] building had, um, had some musty things in it, like

[20:54] some things that had maybe been hauled in right after

[20:57] the building was built. And it was time for refresh.

[21:01] And we wanted to clean up the space before the

[21:03] new director came. And so the picture on the lower

[21:07] left, like we were just, we were just getting started.

[21:10] By the time we were done with this event, every

[21:13] table was piled high. And they're all underneath all the

[21:17] tables was just full of stuff. And so we repurposed

[21:21] it. We recycled it. We donated it. Um, and it

[21:25] all, it all went to appropriately diverted places. But it

[21:29] was just a great opportunity for staff to spend some

[21:31] time together. There was pancakes, food snacks. Um, all of

[21:35] those things. And we were done. It was bright and

[21:38] shiny new building. So, um, it's just a highlight of,

[21:42] uh, some of the things that we did to really

[21:43] just give staff some time together. And so by April,

[21:48] we were ready to welcome our new director, Jason Suk,

[21:53] who started April 6th with us. So what are some

[22:00] of the benefits that I think you're going to see

[22:02] or I hope that you'll see moving forward? Because what

[22:05] I think you're going to see is this internal work,

[22:08] these internal processes and, you know, SOPs is that it

[22:12] really will, I think, enhance the quality of materials that

[22:14] come before you. Because projects will now be shaped by

[22:19] improved coordination, clear resource planning and strong analysis. So you

[22:24] can expect complete information, uh, good alignment with board strategic

[22:29] priorities and proposals that reflect comprehensive internal input. So these

[22:36] improvements hopefully mean that your discussions will begin from a

[22:39] stronger baseline. So you can share your recommendation to the

[22:42] board for proposals that require your vote or give your

[22:45] feedback to staff, um, on information items. So just a

[22:54] summary here, this period, this intram period, it wasn't just

[22:58] about navigating this enormous transition. It was about intentionally rebuilding

[23:04] the foundation of parks. Um, that will support, um, our

[23:08] organization and this work for years to come. So with

[23:12] stronger systems, processes and a culture in place, we are

[23:16] well positioned to bring you all thoughtful, strategic, and well

[23:20] - prepared items. So I appreciate your patience with us

[23:24] as we went through this period. And as always, your

[23:27] partnership is deeply appreciated. And thank you for your time.

[23:31] And I'm happy to answer any questions. Trade spaker, Posack.

[23:36] Thank you very much, Heidi. Do we have any questions

[23:41] or comments from post - hack members. Can I make

[23:46] a. Comment? This is John Wright Pozacki. Um, since from

[23:54] the orga chart, your next boss, he's done an amazing

[23:57] job covering for the other people who've been missing from

[24:02] the Pi group, uh, and I just wanted to make

[24:04] sure that he got acknowledged before you leave. John, thanks

[24:09] for saying that. To Nick, the man behind the screen

[24:14] there. Christine. Thank you. Christine Johnson Posack. A few questions

[24:21] I have. How does the SOP integrate with the asset

[24:27] management tool? Is that like, is it another layer? Um,

[24:32] is it replacing it? Not at all. So the property

[24:36] stabilization, um, effort, basically integrate seamlessly with acid management because

[24:42] what we're saying is, okay, we just acquired this property.

[24:45] It needs two miles of fencing. That fencing then goes

[24:48] into asset management with a cost and, you know, a

[24:52] re, um, a refresh or a maintenance interval. And it

[24:56] will actually help improve our asset management because we'll be

[24:59] able, um, to know once we acquire that property. What

[25:04] it's going to take to maintain it moving forward. Thank

[25:07] you. Um, that's awesome. That was what I hoped. Another

[25:13] question I have, I assume that other county departments had

[25:16] the same kind of, um, loss of staff as Parks

[25:21] and OpenSpace. Um, I have always, um, hoped for, for

[25:28] greater coordination between parks and open space and other county

[25:32] departments or more reflection about that in our meetings, um,

[25:36] is any of that going on? Yes. I think, you

[25:41] know, you'll hear an item tonight from our colleague at

[25:44] Community Planning and Permitting, who we closely coordinate with. And

[25:48] we coordinate with Oscar, which is our sustainability group. We

[25:52] coordinate with them for several projects that we do in

[25:54] related to waste reduction. Um, and small grants for agricultural

[25:59] especially. And then I know, um, Jason has been making,

[26:04] um, additional efforts with Oscar as well. And maybe he'll

[26:06] share some of those in his update tonight. Um, thank

[26:12] you. And one last question. I know, I know that

[26:19] three things that happened are ongoing, um, while we weren't

[26:25] meeting, um, the, um, the trial on, um, uh, changing,

[26:32] um, trail user management. I'm wondering, um, when we'll hear

[26:40] about that. And if there will be a formal update

[26:43] on prey run and if we'll have a chance to

[26:46] talk about the weed report, those three things, those three

[26:49] things. So you'll hear about the alternating new state pilots

[26:52] in night. So that was bored directed as of March.

[26:56] And so that's why we spoke to about it in

[26:58] the retreat. And so we're going to talk about it

[27:00] tonight. We can definitely give you an update on prairie

[27:03] run. Um, and then I will defer to, um, Steffen

[27:08] Reinhold about the weeds. There is an open comet period

[27:12] for you all in the agenda. And you can formally

[27:15] request that item. Or comments from Posack.

[27:26] I just have a quick comment, which is, um, as

[27:30] long remember to stay tuned. Oh, sorry. Thank you. I'm

[27:31] going to need a lot of training on these sorts

[27:33] of rules. Um, Lauren, my name is Lauren Kelso. My

[27:38] comment is just that, uh, as somebody in a leadership

[27:40] position in a much smaller organization who goes through a

[27:43] similar process every year, the fact that you guys, it's

[27:47] very clear that you really needed this time to do

[27:50] that. So I just want to, I mostly just want

[27:52] to say thanks for taking the time. I think I

[27:55] also maybe need my own internal like stoplight thing, but

[28:00] I just, I think, um, this sort of foundational support

[28:03] is, is really important. Um, through so much transition. So

[28:07] just thanks for taking the time and having the vision

[28:10] to pull it off. Um, I think it was really

[28:13] important. I think it's important that it made people wonder

[28:17] to have such a long break. I think that's okay

[28:19] for people to have those questions, but I really appreciate

[28:22] you walking us through what you guys have been working

[28:23] on. And yeah, just put the time into it. Great.

[28:26] Thanks Lauren and I'm happy to share the instructions to

[28:29] the stoplight system if you'd like. I have a five

[28:31] page write - up for you. Okay, thank you. Uh,

[28:36] Carol Byerly. Carol Byerly. Um, thanks for the presentation. Um,

[28:41] I'm, I see a lot of changes, but they're not

[28:44] all the same thing. And so I can see the

[28:48] internal parks and open space reorganization with all the, um,

[28:52] openings and the transition. But then they're the changes for

[28:55] how we operate. Um, and those came from on high.

[29:01] And, um, I'm wondering if anybody could tell us the

[29:04] impetus for that. And because that's, that's not related to

[29:10] reorganizing the Parks and Open Stabilizing the Department. Thank you,

[29:16] Carol. That's a good question. So Natalie Springet, the commissioner's

[29:19] deputy has been making an ongoing effort to align all

[29:23] of our boards and commissions. So that's how that started.

[29:26] And it was discussed with me as interim. Okay. Anything

[29:35] else from Poseck. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Heidi.

[29:39] Thank you. Nice to see you all again. So next

[29:43] on the agenda is Cena Burghart who will be talking

[29:47] about several, um, real estate takings. Hang on one second

[29:54] while I. Get plugged in here. Hopefully it'll work. Okay.

[30:06] Good evening. Pozak. Nice to see many of you and

[30:09] welcome new members. Um, I'm Tina Burkhart Real Estate Division

[30:13] Manager. And, um, before I go, um, to my items,

[30:18] I just want to speak a little bit, um, in

[30:20] a general sense about dispositions of open space, because as

[30:23] you see on the agenda, we have three disposition items

[30:27] from real estate. And sadly, no acquisitions for you guys

[30:30] to weigh in on. So, um, open space is defined

[30:35] in the comp plan is lands being intentionally left free

[30:38] from future development. And except for passive recreational uses and

[30:43] associated facilities compatible with the county's open space management objectives.

[30:47] The county limits non open space uses to conserve open

[30:50] space lands for their intended purposes. To that end, um,

[30:54] private use of open space is prohibited by the county's

[30:57] open space sales tax resolutions. So Boulder County does not

[31:01] grant private parties, access or permission to use open space

[31:04] for private purposes. However, ditch and utility companies, special districts,

[31:10] uh, the county's public works department, the Colorado Department of

[31:13] Transportation all have legal rights where they're existing ditches utilities

[31:16] and roads run through County Open space or along its

[31:19] edges. Um, Parks and Open Space honors those rights and

[31:24] requires them to obtain, um, temporary permission for work that

[31:27] might, um, occur outside the areas of the historically use.

[31:31] These same entities typically have condemnation power, um, to take

[31:35] new portions of County Open space or private properties covered

[31:38] by County Hilled Conservation Easements for widening roads, running new

[31:43] utility lines and other public utility purposes. Well, as you

[31:47] know, we spent the last 50 years preserving over 100,

[31:50] 000 acres of open space interests and predictable consequence of

[31:53] that. Is that our open space lands are increasingly impacted

[31:56] by public uses. So you'll hear in each of our

[32:00] presentations, um, about these dispositions that in order to dispose

[32:04] of any open space property, um, we are required to

[32:08] go through a disposition process that includes this meeting tonight.

[32:13] A public hearing in front of the, uh, Boulder County

[32:15] Commissioners soon after this, as well as notices to nearby

[32:18] neighbors and publish newspaper notices. On top of that, if

[32:22] a disposition is approved by the commissioners, there's a mandatory

[32:25] 60 day waiting period before the conveyance can be made

[32:28] to allow the public to petition to request the disposition

[32:32] be submitted to a public vote. So with all of

[32:35] that, I'll start my first item. Just wanted to set

[32:37] the table a little bit and give some background context.

[32:40] Again Tina Burghart real estate division manager. My first item

[32:45] is the Lily Roberts Thompson, um, 2026 Excel Takings. The

[32:53] three affected properties that I just mentioned are located on

[32:55] the southeast corner of the County and they all abut

[32:58] 120th Street. And the little circle. Like I said, the

[33:03] South part of the County. And a little background on

[33:07] why this is, this happening is that actually Boulder County

[33:10] Public Works Department is in partnership with City of Lafayette

[33:13] is reconstructing and widening 120th Street to accommodate two five

[33:19] - foot paved shoulders and two - foot painted buffers

[33:22] to separate shoulder users from vehicular traffic. This project will

[33:26] flatten some of the extreme grades of the area's hillside

[33:29] to reduce energy use by the numerous large trucks and

[33:31] other vehicles that are currently using the road thereby reducing

[33:34] noise and fuel consumption. As a result of this project,

[33:40] some have excels existing power poles and overhead lines that

[33:43] are along 120th will need to be relocated because they're

[33:46] getting pushed out by this widening. The map on your

[33:50] left shows the effect open space properties outlined in blue,

[33:54] which as I mentioned, are the lightly Roberts and Thompson

[33:57] properties. The map on the right, um, is zoomed in

[34:00] a little bit and the black lines that are running

[34:03] vertically adjacent to 120th Street, which is the line down

[34:07] the middle of that map. Um, indicate the areas which,

[34:12] um, to which the power lines will be relocated. And

[34:15] we'll zoom in a little bit more in the next

[34:17] maps. So for the Lily property, um, those two white

[34:21] strips sort of on the, uh, southwest of the properties

[34:25] there on either side of the northwest Parkway. Um, some

[34:28] lines are going to go there. For the Roberts property,

[34:32] that white box is where, um, lines need to be

[34:34] moved and a listed the associated sizes of those areas.

[34:39] Um, for the Thompson property, um, there are two areas

[34:42] as well on the top, down the north there and

[34:45] then below the northwest Parkway. Utility companies like Excel have

[34:51] condemnation authority over Boulder County. So the county is legally

[34:54] unable to prevent Excel from locating these lines. As such,

[34:58] the County prefers to cooperate informally with entities with condemnation

[35:01] authority in these instances to negotiate fair compensation rather than

[35:05] a full formal condemnation process that is more costly and

[35:09] time consuming for both parties. Excel is being cooperative and

[35:13] meeting staff's request designed to protect and preserve the open

[35:16] space interests impacted to minimize site disturbances and to provide

[35:20] reclamation standards to the extent practicable Excel is also required

[35:25] to provide just compensation for their takings of these parcels.

[35:30] And, um, the county in Excel have negotiated 19, 957

[35:37] dollars for the easement areas in the County agrees that

[35:40] this is a fair market value. The property being taken.

[35:46] The terms of the resolution creating the sales tax that

[35:49] was used to purchase the affected properties require specific procedures,

[35:53] uh, to be followed, to dispose of these easements. In

[35:56] this instance, staff notified neighbors and nearby property owners within

[35:59] 500 feet of the property. And notice of, um, these

[36:03] hearings and the commissioners public hearing on this matter, um,

[36:06] have been published in official newspapers. Um, and the notice

[36:09] is also included an invitation to attend and comment, um,

[36:12] at this meeting. I did receive three requests for clarification

[36:16] on the areas that were being affected. And they were

[36:20] largely, um, folks that didn't understand that the existing lines

[36:23] were being moved and not that new lines, they thought

[36:26] new lines were being, um, put in. So if the

[36:33] permanent easement as easement as I've described here are approved

[36:36] by the commissioners. There is a mandatory 60 day waiting

[36:39] period prior to the conveyance of, um, those easements. Staff

[36:44] supports granting the requested easements to excel for the use

[36:47] described because Excel has condemnation over Boulder County. Therefore, we

[36:52] are requesting recommendation to the Boulder County Board of Commissioners

[36:55] for approval of the disposition of the Eastmans, as I

[36:58] have just described. Happy to answer any questions. Yeah. This

[37:05] is John Wright Bosak. Do we have any. Power in

[37:10] the right word, but I'll use it. Any power. If

[37:15] the sides of the roads are being dug up, why

[37:17] aren't they burying them? Yeah. Yeah. That is, that is

[37:21] the, the obvious question. Um, my understanding is that Excel

[37:25] has their own larger plans of where and when they

[37:29] bury. And in this instance, they, um, determined it was

[37:33] much more expensive to bury. And we have no leverage.

[37:37] No. We is actually a County public works project that

[37:41] is pushing the lines out. Anyway. So it was. Yeah.

[37:46] I don't mean blocking them from moving their lines. No,

[37:49] no, no, no. Yeah. It just they're going to do

[37:52] what they're going to do is the public utility. Thank

[37:55] you. I wish we did. Trey speaker post sac. Postac

[38:00] members. Let's see if we have any public comment first.

[38:06] And then because that might influence what our discussion is.

[38:10] So is there anybody in the room here who wants

[38:13] to comment on this topic. I don't see anybody. Nick,

[38:20] do we have anybody online. Yeah. Thanks for those that

[38:23] are joining on the Zoom webinar. If you would like

[38:25] to make a comment on this agenda item, please use

[38:28] the raise hand feature so we can call on you

[38:30] and allow you to speak. Trace, I don't see any

[38:34] raised hands. Thank you, Nick. Okay. So now Posack, let's

[38:38] start with Christine. Christine Johnson Posack. Looking at this area,

[38:44] I was wondering, is there going to be any incidental

[38:49] benefit to cyclists with this issue, this matter? I believe

[38:56] so. I don't know the scope of the project, but

[38:59] my understanding from the description, um, from public works is

[39:03] that that that's a large part of it is to

[39:05] widen the shoulders for safety purposes, which presumably is cyclists

[39:11] and maybe pedestrians, but it's, it's one of the slides

[39:14] I had. You guys know it's a pretty narrow shoulders.

[39:17] And there are fairly steep drop offs on either side.

[39:20] So the project is going to kind of take the

[39:22] edge off the steepness there and create the shoulders. So

[39:25] I presumably it will be safer for cyclists. Thank you.

[39:30] Any other post sac questions comments. Okay. So, um, POSEC,

[39:38] um, may I have a motion regarding approval of this

[39:42] taking. So move Carol Byrly. And second. Mickey Lawrence. So

[39:51] second. Uh, thank you Vicky. Okay. So, um, all those

[39:55] who approve the motion for this taking, say aye. Any

[40:02] opposition. Okay. It passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And

[40:07] I'm not leaving. Okay. All right. Tina, before we go

[40:12] on to your second presentation, I have a general question

[40:17] on takings. So are you going to be here for

[40:20] the duration of the meeting? Are you planning on ditching

[40:23] out. Is that a taken? That's a load. Well, um,

[40:32] I was going to leave after, after our real estate

[40:36] items, but I, I could. Answer. No pressure. So I

[40:42] will go ahead and ask right now then. Because as

[40:47] you mentioned, um, the County cannot resist a taking. So

[40:55] why is it that Posac has to make a pro

[41:00] formate to approve. Well, um, the county can resist

[41:10] a condemnation effort. We've just as a practice chosen not

[41:16] to because Excel has condemnation authority. It would cost a

[41:21] lot of money to take this to trial. And a

[41:25] lot of staff time. And I don't think we'd prevail.

[41:28] Um, so the reason why we bring it to POSAC

[41:30] is because the sales tax resolution language says any disposition

[41:34] of open space needs to be brought to you for

[41:37] your approval to the board. Okay. That's a clear answer.

[41:39] Thank you very much. Okay. So let's go on to

[41:42] your second topic. All right. Okay. Tina Burghart real estate

[41:45] division manager. My next item is the Montgomery 2026 City

[41:50] of Longmont Taking. So this affects the Montgomery property up

[41:54] on the north part of the, um, County. It is

[41:58] located approximately two miles east of lions. Just south of

[42:01] Highway 66 near the intersection of Highway 66 and North

[42:05] 53rd Street. So here's a vicinity map with a Montgomery

[42:10] property in blue shaded and blue kind of right in

[42:13] the middle of this map. So the City of Longwamp

[42:18] proposes to acquire a permanent non - exclusive easement over

[42:21] approximately 400 square feet or about 0. 009 acres of

[42:25] the Montgomery Property to construct a bore entry point for

[42:28] emergency overflow of the city's Montgomery Tank Water Tank Replacement

[42:34] Project. So here's a closer in view. And what you're

[42:39] looking at here is the City Long wants existing water

[42:42] tank is that white circle up the north, um, the

[42:45] new facility is going to be constructed to the east

[42:48] of that, um, on property that the City of Longmont

[42:51] owns, which is north of the County's Montgomery property. This

[42:57] slide is a design slide as a preliminary design of

[43:00] the, um, project. And again, the white circle is the

[43:03] existing tank and the dark gray one is the replacement

[43:06] tank that's going to be constructed. And I show you

[43:08] this because on the bottom, middle of that slide, you

[43:11] see that kind of black line. That's the pipeline that's

[43:14] going to run under highway 66 and the outfall pipe

[43:18] is going to, um, be on the Montgomery property. Here

[43:25] is an exhibit of the piece, the 400 square foot

[43:29] piece. And then on the right, you see the, um,

[43:33] I've superimposed that roughly where that outfile will be. And

[43:36] it will be, um, as part of this facility, the

[43:40] City of Longmont plans to construct this buried emergency tank

[43:45] overflow pipeline and associated outfall infrastructure. And they are going

[43:50] to install this, um, via trenchless war method. And they

[43:53] are doing all their work on foot onto the County

[43:57] property. Um, so they won't be bringing any equipment on

[44:00] there. Um, the approximate area where this is buried is

[44:04] like I said, is about 400 square feet. The outfall

[44:08] has been designed per state regulations to convey for a

[44:11] potential emergency overflow of the new storage tank that's going

[44:15] to be constructed. While this emergency overflow is a required

[44:18] project design element per state requirements, the City of Longwent

[44:22] doesn't anticipate conveying any significant flows through the overflow pipeline

[44:26] and outfall outside of an emergency event. Municipalities have condemnation

[44:33] authority over Boulder County. So the county is legally unable

[44:36] to prevent this project. Again, Boulder County prefers to cooperate

[44:39] informally with entities with condemnation authority and in these instances

[44:43] negotiate fair compensation rather than a full formal condemnation process

[44:47] that is more costly and time consuming for everybody. The

[44:51] City of Longweight is cooperative in meeting staff's request designed

[44:54] to protect and preserve the open space interests, minimize site

[44:57] disturbances and provide reclamation standards to the extent practicable and

[45:01] the, uh, the walk - on requirement came from our

[45:04] work groups, um, requesting that long minimize their impact when

[45:10] they're boring this pipeline. Or pipe. The city is also

[45:15] required to provide just compensation for this taking, um, accordingly

[45:19] the City and the County of negotiated five, The County

[45:24] agrees this is a fair market value of the property

[45:26] being taken. The terms of the resolution to create the

[45:29] sales text that was used to purchase a property require

[45:31] specific procedures to be followed, to dispose of this easement,

[45:35] which include notification of nearby property owners and notice of

[45:38] upcoming, um, this hearing and the Boarda County Commissioners Public

[45:42] Hearing on this matter is being published in the official

[45:45] newspapers. These notices include an invitation to attend tonight and

[45:51] a comment, um, at this meeting, one member did contact

[45:55] me and expressed objection that the City of Longmont was

[45:59] citing the new facility on their property just to the

[46:03] east. Um, if the permanent easement is approved by the

[46:07] commissioners, there is a mandatory 60 day waiting period, um,

[46:10] prior to the convenience of this easement. Staff support the

[46:15] requested easement to the City of Longmont for the use

[46:18] that I've just described because the city has condemnation authority

[46:21] over Boulder County. Therefore, I am requesting recommendation to the

[46:24] Boulder County Commissioners for approval of the disposition of the

[46:27] easement. Request, as I've just described. Happy to answer questions.

[46:34] Trace Baker Posack. Thank you. Um, do we have anybody

[46:37] in the, um, hearing room who wants to comment on

[46:41] this particular taking. Next, we have somebody online. Oh, just

[46:49] give a chance for anybody on the Zoom webinar to

[46:51] use the raise hand feature if they want to make

[46:53] comments. I don't see any raised hands. Thank you, Nick.

[47:00] So POSAC questions or comments for Tina? Yes. Ariel Barbariaki.

[47:06] Hi. I have a question. Would you mind going back

[47:08] a few slides to the one this one? Yeah. I

[47:10] think this is a scale thing. It is a scale

[47:13] thing with making sure where the, yeah, it's going to

[47:16] go under and it may not be exactly there. Okay.

[47:20] Trying to kind of put it roughly where there exhibits

[47:22] are. They're still in a design. Phase. Of finalizing the

[47:28] exact shape and all that. But it's roughly where it's

[47:30] going to be. Okay. And it will be underground. So

[47:32] they'll just be sort of an outfall. Okay. So it

[47:35] won't be an above ground thing. Okay. Thank you. That

[47:38] was my question. Uh, Jeff Oddi Posack. So this is

[47:44] an emergency outfall. Something. I don't. So what, what's like

[47:50] the function of this? Like if there was like some

[47:53] sort of emergency where there was too much water in

[47:55] the tank, then it would come out of this thing

[47:58] into the, into the open space? Yes. Not being an

[48:02] engineer. That is my understanding from the city and from,

[48:05] from what we've heard is that it's the states requiring

[48:08] it. And again, it must be some emergency release area.

[48:12] If yeah, there's maybe a failure in the tank somehow.

[48:16] I don't know. Okay. Follow - up question. Just, just

[48:21] curious. It sounds like the County doesn't, it's sort of

[48:28] obligated to honor this request because this city of Longminht

[48:33] can force it essentially in terms of like the taking

[48:38] of the land, I wonder. It seems odd that they

[48:44] can take the land. Like, can they take the land

[48:47] and then also like discharge, you know, water from this

[48:51] tank onto the lamb? Like is that part of their,

[48:54] uh, condemnation power? Um. Their condemnation power, my understanding involves

[49:02] the taking of the property interests. And in this case,

[49:04] it's a, it's an easement. They're not going to take

[49:07] the fee piece of that parcel. Um, as for the

[49:10] discharge, I'm guessing because it's a state regulation that somehow

[49:15] that's wrapped into their ability to do it. I honestly

[49:18] don't know the. Legal justification for that. That's a great

[49:24] question. I'd like to know. I'll probably find out. Christine.

[49:30] Johnson Posack. Um, I'm not sure how to express this

[49:37] question precisely. But, um, I'm concerned about, um, uh, silt

[49:45] entering the creek, um, during the construction or during any

[49:49] potential discharge, um, the county, um, being responsible for whatever,

[49:57] whatever impacts, um, that has, do you, does the county

[50:02] have, um, any control over or, or input into this

[50:06] process to protect the waterway. I don't know the answer

[50:12] to that question. I know, I know. I wish I

[50:14] knew it all. I don't. If the one in the

[50:17] room that knows the answer, I don't know. I am

[50:24] assuming that because, um, and I believe the Longmont has

[50:29] gone through a 1041 process for this. So all those

[50:34] considerations have been addressed. But it wasn't part of our,

[50:40] um, analysis and working with them on this takings piece.

[50:45] Sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Vicky. Thank you, Lawrence Pozak.

[50:50] So I think this is another question you don't know

[50:52] the answer to, but I'm going to ask it anyway.

[50:53] Um, sorry. So right. So I mean, you're not expecting

[51:01] this to get used. Fine. But if it does get

[51:04] used, how much water? I mean, is there should there

[51:07] be an issue that they should have an outflow like

[51:10] rocky area or something so it's not making a huge

[51:13] gouging gorge across the property. Or are they just assuming

[51:16] it'll never be used? So they're not thinking beyond the

[51:19] end of the pipe. You're right. I don't know the

[51:22] answer. I can, I can either, I believe the pipe

[51:25] is 36 inches. It's pretty big. Yeah. Um, and I'm

[51:29] guessing that's what the state regulations are requiring for the

[51:33] tank of the size that they're going to build. Um,

[51:37] and, but my understanding is that there should be little

[51:40] to no water coming out of that outside of an

[51:45] emergency event. And the, that emergency event is presumably some

[51:48] kind of failure of the tank. Vicky Lawrence with pose

[51:51] again. Um, just so would that mean that if there

[51:55] were then damage to this property due to excessive outflow

[51:59] and erosion and that kind of thing would Longmont be

[52:01] responsible for that? Or would the county be responsible? My

[52:05] assumption would be Longmont. Ariel Barberia Gabe, even if it's

[52:09] not within the point of the easement, like even if

[52:11] it's past the easement, the damage occurs not with it.

[52:14] It will, it would be past the easement because the

[52:16] easement's 400 square feet. So really. So yeah, but that

[52:19] would be how would they be liable for how? Because

[52:22] it would be their water. Yeah. Okay. It would be

[52:25] their infrastructure. Lauren. Uh, Lauren Kelso. I guess I'm a

[52:34] little bit curious about what the next step is here

[52:36] because I mostly would just voice that I think a

[52:38] lot of these concerns are valid that like in case

[52:40] of emergency, it would only happen. We have emergencies all

[52:42] the time as you all are well aware. So I

[52:44] feel like it's what is the process for kind of

[52:48] having those addressed before we would vote on something like

[52:50] this. Cause I mean, I mean, I could, I could.

[52:55] Ask all those questions of our contact of the City

[52:58] along wasnt their engineering firm. You mentioned, thanks. Yeah. You

[53:02] also mentioned some, uh, and it might just be not

[53:05] familiar with the process that you mentioned that the city

[53:07] would have gone through already around, was it an environmental

[53:11] assessment? Or is it 1041 review? And I'm, I'm not

[53:15] from community permitting planning. So I can't speak to the,

[53:18] um, totality of that process. But it's a pretty robust

[53:23] review process that, that the City of Lawn One has

[53:26] gone through. Got it. And I could find the docket

[53:29] for that and get it to you, but not right

[53:32] now. Any other post sack comments or questions. I don't

[53:38] see any and remind Posec that our recommendations to the

[53:44] County Commissioners are non - binding. So if we vote

[53:48] to disapprove, uh, you know, that's unlikely to, uh, it'll

[53:54] send a message, but it won't stop the project. Yeah.

[53:57] Carol. Carol Byerly Pozak. But this process may be, um,

[54:05] lets you know what commissioners might be asking and that

[54:08] you might want to be ready for those. And that

[54:11] we could recommend that you prepare for those kinds of

[54:15] questions when you present it to the commission. It will

[54:19] likely have a City of Longwent Representative at the. Mar

[54:23] Carol. That's it. John, your hand was up. Well. I

[54:29] like her at her response better than I think. Yeah.

[54:35] Cause rather than postponing it to the next meeting, um,

[54:40] if we approve it with a caveat, that you guys

[54:43] get more information about our liability in case that there

[54:48] is some kind of, you know, wash through or whatever.

[54:52] Okay. Is that okay to do? Uh, if you so

[54:55] move, yes. But let's, let's wait until we're undiscussing. Jeff.

[54:59] Oh, I think that kind of answers the question ask.

[55:05] Okay. So we do, we have a, uh, motion regarding

[55:09] the City of Longmong City of Longmont taking. Carol Byrly

[55:19] Pozak. I will move, um, approval of this with the

[55:22] recommendation, not requirement for contenctions on, on emergency, um,

[55:32] water and who would be responsible for the liability. We

[55:36] have a second. I second that. Second. So, um, POSAC,

[55:41] we need a vote. All those in favor of the

[55:43] motion as stated by Carol say aye. Aye. Aye. Anybody

[55:50] disapproving. Okay. The motion carries unanimously. And thank you, Tina.

[55:57] Thank you. I'm going to get the slide deck ready

[56:00] for Michael. And I apologize for, um, putting you in

[56:04] a bad place as far as staying for the meeting.

[56:06] It's, Oh, no, no, no problem. Let's see. We're here.

[56:30] Hello, Bozak. My name is Michael Sylvester. I also work

[56:34] for the real estate division of Parks and OpenSpace. And

[56:37] today I am presenting on the Woodley Conservation Easement CDOT

[56:40] Taking. This disposition affects the Woodley Conservation Easeman Property, which

[56:48] is located just east of Arapaho in 75th Street in

[56:51] the Southeastern part of the County. CDOT is requesting the

[56:58] disposition of a strip of land on the Woodley Conservation

[57:01] Eastman property due to its highway seven multimodal chloridor project.

[57:05] Highway 7 is locally known around here as a Rapajo

[57:08] Road. Our stretch of this project consists of a highway

[57:13] widening for congestion and safety purposes. The property has an

[57:20] address of 7957 Arapaho Road and has been owned by

[57:24] Chris and Jennifer Anderson since 2015. The County purchased a

[57:28] conservation Eastman over the property from the City of Boulder

[57:31] in 2006. The subject of the taking is a 0.

[57:38] 09 acre strip along the southern edge of the property.

[57:43] One C dot and the Andersons agree upon a final

[57:45] valuation. The County is entitled to its share of the

[57:49] condemnation proceeds, which represent the value of its conservation easement

[57:53] interest. On that 0. 09 acres. The terms of the

[58:00] resolution to create the sales tax that was used to

[58:03] purchase this conservation easement interest requires specific procedures to be

[58:08] followed to dispose of the property and trust. Notice was

[58:11] mailed to the 14 property owners within 500 feet of

[58:14] the property. Notice of this meeting as well as the

[58:18] June 9th Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing was published

[58:21] in local newspapers this week. So far no public comments

[58:25] have been received. A 60 day waiting period, uh, following

[58:30] the Board of County Commissioners hearing is required before the

[58:32] conveyance could potentially be finalized to allow the public to

[58:35] petition the request the disposition to be submitted for a

[58:40] public vote. CDOT has condemnation authority over Boulder County. So

[58:50] the county is legally unable to prevent this project and

[58:53] acquisition. The County perverts to cooperate informally with entities with

[58:57] condemnation authority in these instances. Uh, to negotiate a fair

[59:02] compensation rather than go through the full formal condemnation process.

[59:08] Staff recommends the approval of CDOTS acquisitions of fee title

[59:14] to the 0. 09 acres of property described. The action

[59:19] requested by staff is to recommend the approval to the

[59:22] Board of County Commissioners of the Partial Release of 0.

[59:26] 09 acres of the Woodley Conservation Easement, as I have

[59:30] just described. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you,

[59:34] Michael. Do we have anybody in the audience who is

[59:39] wanting to discuss this particular taking. I don't see anybody.

[59:45] Nick, do we have anybody online. Uh, anybody on the

[59:49] Zoom webinar, if you want to make comments, use the

[59:52] Raise Hand feature so I can call on you. I

[59:56] know we had someone signed up, but I've not seen

[59:58] them in the webinar. So I don't see any hands

[1:00:01] raised. Okay. Thank you, Nick. Um, post that comments. I

[1:00:05] see Vicky. Vicky Lord's Poseck. Thank you, Michael. Um, this

[1:00:12] is maybe not a totally relevant question, but I'm hoping

[1:00:15] you can clarify for me. It would seem as though

[1:00:18] only a conservationist stops development. So I guess this is

[1:00:23] seen as development, whether it has to be a taking

[1:00:25] on this. I mean, I guess I was surprised since

[1:00:28] we don't actually own the property that we're having to

[1:00:31] give up an easement. Does that make sense? That question

[1:00:35] at all. I think so. Um, I would say that

[1:00:39] we are not able to, well, we're not able to

[1:00:45] prevent this project from going forward. And the taking that

[1:00:50] it requires since the taking would be happening. We do

[1:00:54] need to release the conservation easement as it covers that

[1:00:58] portion. Um, you're right in that probably the conservation easement,

[1:01:03] uh, could prevent development. But since we can prevent the

[1:01:07] condemnation and this project from happening, we do need to

[1:01:10] release the conservation easement as it applies to this strip

[1:01:14] of the property. That makes sense. I hadn't thought that

[1:01:18] all the way through. There questions or comments from Posack.

[1:01:23] Yeah. Jeff Oddi Pozak, just curious. Um, the other two

[1:01:27] taking proposals had a dollar amount attacked attached to them.

[1:01:32] Uh, for like how much we would get for the

[1:01:35] easement. So I'm just curious. It's like why this one

[1:01:37] doesn't. I think in the materials that we had before

[1:01:40] the meeting had said that's still under negotiation. So just

[1:01:43] wondering like why, I don't know what's that difference. Sure.

[1:01:49] Um, right now we have an initial appraisal amount, but

[1:01:53] since they haven't actually settled on a final amount, uh,

[1:01:56] C dot and the property owner. We don't have that

[1:02:01] ultimate amount. We have the amount that C dot has

[1:02:03] appraised the property for, which I do have numbers available

[1:02:07] if you'd like to see those, but essentially since we

[1:02:10] are going to get a share from whatever is ultimately

[1:02:14] negotiated between CDOT and then the property owner, um, we

[1:02:20] did not speak to us specific amount. At this time.

[1:02:26] Lauren Kelso. I have one question, which is once we

[1:02:32] release this easement, if C dot chooses to do something

[1:02:36] else with that property, and just the general public comment

[1:02:40] about people that support this as long as it's used

[1:02:43] as intended. Um, where there's a design that's been proposed

[1:02:47] through CDOT through a bigger project that's happening for that

[1:02:50] Arapo corridor. Um, we don't really have any say in

[1:02:55] that, I'm assuming. Basically once we release this easement, whatever

[1:02:59] happens to that property and that project is not anything

[1:03:02] that Boulder County would have any say over. There are

[1:03:10] some really specific things in the design, right? That are

[1:03:13] around multimodal transportation. And like not turning it into a

[1:03:18] four lane highway and other things, right? Where I think,

[1:03:21] I think those details are kind of important in this

[1:03:23] one. So I'm just wondering if there's any reason to

[1:03:26] hold on to it until all of that is very

[1:03:28] clear. Um, or if, if we want to engage in

[1:03:32] that in that way. I think my response would be

[1:03:36] that since CDOT has condemnation authority in the first place,

[1:03:41] I'm not sure that keeping the conservation easement really changes

[1:03:46] our position over preventing CDOTS ability to condemn. The property

[1:03:54] and do potentially other things. Um, right now they do

[1:03:58] have a pretty large multimodal project, which as I mentioned

[1:04:02] stretches from, you know, here to City of Brighton. Yeah.

[1:04:07] I can really only go based on the plans that

[1:04:10] they have currently submitted. So because of, and I feel

[1:04:15] like this is maybe a little redundant to earlier questions,

[1:04:17] but I just want to be clear. The whole condemnation

[1:04:20] language makes this all sort of a formality. Is that

[1:04:24] right? That's essentially right. We can't really prevent the condemnation,

[1:04:28] but it's because condemnations are technically a disposition that we

[1:04:32] do need to, um, bring dispositions in front of post

[1:04:37] sac. Interesting. There's lawyer lingering behind you. Hi everyone. My

[1:04:41] name is Rhyme Malarkey. I'm an assistant County Attorney. I

[1:04:43] thought I'd just jump in real quick since we're talking

[1:04:45] condemnation. Um, yeah, I mean, basically these condemning entities have

[1:04:51] authority to take property, um, for legitimate public purposes, like

[1:04:57] building roads. Um, so C dot in this instance has

[1:05:01] the authority to take property it needs from this particular

[1:05:05] property owner for its road improvement project. And it looks

[1:05:08] like here it's 0. 09 acres. So relatively small strip

[1:05:12] of land. Um, if we were to be involved in

[1:05:18] a condemnation litigation process like a lawsuit over this. And

[1:05:22] it went all the way to trial. What happens is

[1:05:25] the court at the end would decide what the fair

[1:05:27] market value with the just compensation is that should go

[1:05:31] to the property owner, the fee owner, um, and then

[1:05:36] based on that dollar amount, every other entity or person

[1:05:41] or party that has an interest in that particular stretch

[1:05:44] of property would all work together to decide what portion

[1:05:48] of that chunk of money should go to each property

[1:05:52] interest holder. So if, um, this strip is condemned and

[1:05:57] we have a conservationisement. We are owed a percentage of

[1:06:00] whatever that lump sum is, whatever that just compensation is,

[1:06:04] um, that goes to the property owner. So that's kind

[1:06:07] of generally how the process works. And staff here in

[1:06:11] the county, uh, works with these condomining entities, these authorities

[1:06:16] rather than going all the way through that process. Try

[1:06:18] and get to some agreement that on a fair value

[1:06:21] that would come to the county. And it sounds like

[1:06:23] that's what Michael and staff are still negotiating. But I

[1:06:27] know the other questions. So I'm happy to answer them.

[1:06:31] If you have any. I do. Ariel Barbier Game Poseck.

[1:06:35] Are you able to speak to a previous item that

[1:06:37] we discussed before you were here. Well, we're just on

[1:06:40] this one now. Okay. Is that like a later? Forgive

[1:06:43] me. I'm new. I'm just trying to learn here. Is

[1:06:45] that a later question? Let's stick with the, uh, agenda

[1:06:49] and get a plater if we can. Okay. Thank you.

[1:06:54] I'll stay here in case. Okay. Thank you very much.

[1:06:57] Okay. Christine. Christine Johnson Posack. This is a point of

[1:07:03] information. Michael, since you broach the topic, um, the multimodal

[1:07:09] project is starting from where and going to where do

[1:07:12] you happen to know that. Um, it is going, I

[1:07:18] know that I believe it actually starts on 75th Street.

[1:07:21] So it's starting just west of this property. And it

[1:07:24] goes to the City of Brighton. I'm not exactly sure.

[1:07:28] As it leaves the county, what the project looks like.

[1:07:31] Thank you. Any other questions, comments from Poseck is John

[1:07:36] White Bosack. Do you know when this is supposed to

[1:07:38] happen. I don't mean the condemnation. I mean, the road

[1:07:42] widening. That is a good question. I'm actually not sure

[1:07:48] exactly when, um, this project is supposed to start. I

[1:07:52] apologize. Anything else. Well in May we have a motion

[1:07:59] to approve this taking. Javae some moved. And second. John

[1:08:08] White second, uh, we have motion and second. All those

[1:08:12] in favor. Aye. Opposed. So we have a unanimous recommendation

[1:08:20] to approve this to the County Commissioners. Thank you, Michael.

[1:08:25] Thank you.

[1:08:59] Pretty. Nice. Maybe another 2013 flood.

[1:09:17] It's a fun. Logo. I'm ready when you are. Okay.

[1:09:21] Go ahead. Thank you. Good evening. Poc sack. I am

[1:09:24] Hannah Hipley. I am the long range planning division manager

[1:09:27] at Boulder County's Community Planning and Permitting Department. That's a

[1:09:31] mouthful. I am here today to share a high level

[1:09:35] overview of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan with you. As

[1:09:41] an item for your information. Um, the Boulder Valley comprehensive

[1:09:45] plan kicked off about 20 months ago at the later,

[1:09:50] um, in 2024. And we are at the end of

[1:09:57] this process. Uh, the plan recommended plan has been published.

[1:10:01] We have hereings, uh, with the four approval bodies scheduled,

[1:10:06] um, just around the corner. So I'm excited to present

[1:10:10] this to you today. We are going to do kind

[1:10:12] of a high level overview. There's a lot of information

[1:10:15] in this plan and it can't possibly hit it all

[1:10:17] with you today. I'm going to try and highlight some

[1:10:19] of the things that might be of, you know, greater

[1:10:22] interest to the open space board. Before I dive in,

[1:10:28] I do want to note that staff from parks in

[1:10:31] open space were involved in this process all the way

[1:10:34] along Justin Atherton Wood and Juliet Bonel acted as primary

[1:10:40] subject matter experts from Parks and OpenSpace throughout this process.

[1:10:46] Um, reviewing various iterations of policies and maps and occasionally

[1:10:51] working directly with staff, uh, open space and mountain parks

[1:10:55] at the City at Boulder. So there is a lot

[1:10:57] of collaboration in cross - pollination as we do these

[1:11:01] plans. Um, I cannot do all of this alone. And

[1:11:04] I had lots of subject matter experts around the county

[1:11:07] to help me. Um. So moving forward, uh, I'm not

[1:11:14] quite sure how familiar you are with the Boulder Valley

[1:11:17] Comprehensive Plan. So I'm just going to stop here for

[1:11:19] a minute. Um, and talk a little bit about how

[1:11:22] this plan relates to the Boulder County comprehensive plan. Excuse

[1:11:26] me. Can I ask a question? Yes. Carol Byerly POSEC.

[1:11:30] Are you with the County, the Broadder County or with

[1:11:33] our Parks and OpenSpace? I am with the county's community

[1:11:37] planning in okay. Yes. We have our own planning. Yes,

[1:11:40] exactly. Okay. But the larger one. Okay. Thank you. You're

[1:11:43] welcome. Um, sorry. Just my train of thought. Um, yes,

[1:11:51] I was going to talk here a little bit about

[1:11:52] how this Boulder Rally comprehensive plan relates to the Boulder

[1:11:56] County Comprehensive Plan. So the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan covers

[1:12:01] the geographic area of the entire county. The Boulder Valley

[1:12:06] Comprehensive Plan has a smaller geographic footprint being the City

[1:12:10] of Boulder in the lands immediately adjacent to the City

[1:12:13] of Boulder within the defined boundary. Um. And we use

[1:12:18] both of them at the same time when we're working

[1:12:20] in the unincorporated areas of the Boulder Valley. So they

[1:12:23] are layered on top of each other. They're Boulder Valley

[1:12:27] Comprehensive Plan is the city's primary planning document. It's their

[1:12:31] comprehensive plan. Um, so it's very detailed on a lot

[1:12:36] of city items, less detailed on some of the County

[1:12:41] items, um, for instance. There's a lot of detail in

[1:12:46] the city about the future land use map, less level

[1:12:48] of detail in the unincorporated County. Um, and it's primary

[1:12:52] purpose has been to coordinate growth of the city with

[1:12:56] the county over time. And also coordinate with the county

[1:13:01] on cross jurisdictional issues. There are a lot of things

[1:13:03] that don't stop at the City line. We know that.

[1:13:06] Um, so the comprehensive plan offers us a way to

[1:13:11] develop guidelines about how we're going to do things in

[1:13:14] the valley. Before we go further, I just wanted to

[1:13:21] give you an idea of what the county's open space

[1:13:24] looks like within the Boulder Valley Planning area. The planning

[1:13:28] area is shown here in purple. That's the outline. Um,

[1:13:33] and then the three different colors are County where we

[1:13:36] have County related open space. So there is some fee

[1:13:39] ownership in the Boulder Valley planning area. Um, the more

[1:13:46] conservation easement than anything else where we have an interest.

[1:13:49] And then there is some joint city County Municipal Open

[1:13:53] Space. If you look at this entire map and saw

[1:14:00] all of the open space that has been preserved, if

[1:14:03] we add it in the open space and Mountain Parks

[1:14:04] layer, um, kind of void between the city of Boulder

[1:14:09] and the purple line would fill in substantially. So the

[1:14:12] County interests and ownership are in open space within this

[1:14:16] area. They are not insignificant, but rather small compared to

[1:14:20] what open space and Mountain Parks manages. Um, so going

[1:14:28] into this, we did have a few major goals. This

[1:14:33] plan is not an edited version of the current plan.

[1:14:36] So it really was a refresh or rethink. And so

[1:14:40] there have been, um, big structural changes primarily. We had

[1:14:46] some goals in mind. And these were to simplify the

[1:14:49] plan. Making it easier to read and understand, remove some

[1:14:53] of the redundancy and repetitiveness, um, try to get to

[1:14:57] some more straightforward and easily understandable language in hopes that

[1:15:02] the plan would be clearer to people and more people

[1:15:04] would be able to engage with it. Part of this

[1:15:09] effort included making the plan less prescriptive, removing details about

[1:15:13] how things are going to be accomplished. Um, by setting

[1:15:18] the content at the plan of the plan at the

[1:15:21] right level, having it be about setting direction and giving

[1:15:24] guidance without being overly rigid or limiting and how ideas

[1:15:29] might come to life allows the plan to stay relevant

[1:15:32] and adaptable to changing conditions, needs technologies and priorities. It's

[1:15:38] a little bit of walking the line between being action

[1:15:41] - oriented in the plan and aspirational as the plan

[1:15:45] should act as our compass moving forward while also trying

[1:15:48] to point us towards concrete steps. Okay. So I'm going

[1:15:56] to dive into kind of the overview of the plan

[1:15:58] itself. Um, chapter one provides an introduction and overview of

[1:16:04] the plan process. It provides some history of planning and

[1:16:07] the Boulder Valley over the past 50 years. And provides

[1:16:11] a community snapshot in trends information that was, um. Really

[1:16:17] reflecting our existing conditions work that was completed in the

[1:16:20] winter of 2024. Chapter two establishes the planned vision and

[1:16:27] values, which was that work was completed in the spring

[1:16:30] of 2025. Um, there are also feature topics that provide

[1:16:34] more depths on a variety of, um, subjects, including open

[1:16:38] space. There's a feature on open space in there. Um,

[1:16:42] the vision statement is a direct statement. And there are

[1:16:46] values spelled out that align with the city's adopted sustainability,

[1:16:50] equity, and resilience framework. Diving into chapter three. This builds

[1:16:57] on the groundwork of the previous chapters and is really

[1:17:00] where we start to get into the kind of heart

[1:17:02] of the plan with the policies. There are 104 policies

[1:17:10] in this plan. Um, and they provide guidance and direction

[1:17:14] for achieving the plan's vision. We attempted to have them

[1:17:19] be clear, limit redundancy, conflicts and complexity. Our existing policies

[1:17:25] were evaluated through a series of reviews with subject matter

[1:17:28] experts to identify policies that could be edited, combined, or

[1:17:33] removed. Um, the current plan has 210 policies. So we

[1:17:37] were able to reduce the number quite a bit. We

[1:17:41] wanted to plan to be simple, making it easier to

[1:17:44] read and understandable for more people. So policies were written

[1:17:48] with an eye towards achieving a 10th grade reading level.

[1:17:53] And then in order for the plan to be resilient,

[1:17:55] keeping the policies on an appropriate level of detail to

[1:17:58] guide decisions without limiting options as conditions change.

[1:18:09] In this chapter, we find the planning areas map in

[1:18:12] policies. Um, the planning areas map reflects the longstanding framework

[1:18:19] of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. It really defines where

[1:18:22] the city might grow where they might annex land and

[1:18:26] where they will not. Um, and this is really the

[1:18:29] heart of shaping the Boulder Valley's characters. We know it

[1:18:33] today with Boulder being a compact city surrounded by open

[1:18:37] space and rural lands. Chapter four covers the

[1:18:47] future land use strategy. And includes the future land use

[1:18:51] map. And this is an area where we, um, do

[1:18:56] see significant change from the current plan as the Land

[1:18:59] Juice designations in the maps have been reimagined. This is

[1:19:06] a spread from the plan and it shows how the

[1:19:10] new land use designations have been developed. There's a series

[1:19:14] of classifications and the different designations within each classification. Neighborhoods

[1:19:23] are urban residential areas differentiated by the scale of development

[1:19:27] and mix of uses. Hubs are mixed use urban centers

[1:19:30] that range and scale and expectations for activity. Special purpose.

[1:19:36] Maybe speaks for itself, but represents areas where community assets

[1:19:39] are opportunities are unique and, um, reflect governance and economic

[1:19:44] needs of the city. The systems classification are areas that

[1:19:49] make up the framework of habitat, recreation areas, agricultural activity,

[1:19:55] um, and this is where we find the open space

[1:19:58] designation within that systems classification. Rural lands are those unincorporated

[1:20:04] areas where the future of the land uses are driven

[1:20:07] by County Planning and Zoning. Um, as I mentioned earlier,

[1:20:11] the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan does not undertake a fine

[1:20:14] grain future land use planning in the rural areas. And

[1:20:17] so this is the future is really guided by, um,

[1:20:21] county zoning in place at the time. Open space, the

[1:20:29] open space designation, a big change, I think, in this

[1:20:33] plan. There were three designations that were combined into one

[1:20:38] open space definition. So the open space acquired open space

[1:20:43] development rights in open space other were simplified into this

[1:20:48] open space designation. In this reflex, um, city open space

[1:20:53] and county open space. They all fall into that same

[1:20:56] designation that highlights preservation of these lands in accordance with,

[1:21:00] um, sort of city charter and our tax. That funds

[1:21:04] the purchase of open space. So future land uses in

[1:21:09] those areas are really going to be guided by how

[1:21:12] they were purchased in those goals. For from those programs.

[1:21:19] Again, this just shows you the map I showed you

[1:21:21] earlier. So the lands designated on this map would be

[1:21:24] fall into that open space category. And this is the

[1:21:29] entire future land use map. It's designed to show the

[1:21:36] overall framework for development and change across the Boulder Valley

[1:21:40] reflecting the community vision in principles. Um, rather than focusing

[1:21:44] on individual parcels, it highlights neighborhood scale patterns and how

[1:21:49] different parts of the community connect. It's meant to guide

[1:21:53] decisions, provide clarity for future development and remain flexible. Um,

[1:22:02] I think we went from 26 designations down to 12.

[1:22:07] So the map does reflect the effort to simplify some

[1:22:12] of these land use designations. Chapter five is a discussion

[1:22:20] on the implementation measures on the plan and then six

[1:22:23] is a necessary glossary of terms. So while the plan

[1:22:29] looks different than it used to, um, the foundations from

[1:22:33] the original planning efforts, um, really domain the goal is

[1:22:37] really still remains a compact community surrounded by rural lands

[1:22:41] and open space protection of those open lands, natural systems

[1:22:45] and scenic vistas. The support for strong neighborhoods in a

[1:22:50] sense of place leading and climate environmental stewardship and continuing

[1:22:56] the efforts of collaboration between the city and the county.

[1:23:03] But there were new ideas and areas of emphasis brought

[1:23:06] into this plan. Um. The city and the community assembly

[1:23:11] did a lot of, um, work on developing ideas around

[1:23:14] 15 minute neighborhoods. Um, there's been some advancements. There are

[1:23:18] new ideas around housing supply and diversity and how to

[1:23:22] achieve that within this city. Um, some thoughts about what

[1:23:25] a ninth economy might look like local agriculture and food

[1:23:29] system. So the things on this list, I'm not going

[1:23:32] to read them all to you, but kind of some

[1:23:33] newer ideas in the plan. Just to give you a

[1:23:40] quick set of next steps, we do kick off the

[1:23:44] planning, or I'm sorry, public hearings, uh, on the plan

[1:23:49] June 4th with City and Council City Council and City

[1:23:53] Planning Board are going to have a joint public hearing.

[1:23:55] Um, our board of County Commissioners and County Planning Commission

[1:23:58] will also do the same. So those two, uh, hearings

[1:24:03] will give a chance for us to review the plan

[1:24:05] and for those boards to hear from the public during

[1:24:08] the public hearing portion. After those each board goes into

[1:24:12] their own deliberative, uh, meeting where they will discuss and

[1:24:17] vote on the recommended plan. So for June 16th is

[1:24:22] city planning board followed by County Planning Commission on the

[1:24:26] 17th. And then both the board at County Commissioners and

[1:24:29] City Council will deliberate on June 25th. That concludes my

[1:24:39] presentation for you. I can field any questions you might

[1:24:42] have or take any comments. Thank you, Hannah. And because

[1:24:45] this is an information topic, we will not be taking

[1:24:48] public input at this time. But, uh, POSAC, what questions

[1:24:54] come? And John. This is a niche. But when you

[1:24:59] were showing the detailed stuff with the county, the area,

[1:25:04] the Spanish Hills neighborhood just south of South Boulder Road

[1:25:07] was labeled rural as opposed to neighborhood. What's the difference.

[1:25:13] It's a good question. Um, the neighborhood designation is going

[1:25:17] to be a lot more urban in its design. If

[1:25:21] you look in that land use designation, it has sort

[1:25:24] of different set of expectations than we would see for

[1:25:27] a rural subdivisions, um, probably a greater density expectations around

[1:25:34] higher levels of transit, things like developed curb and gutter

[1:25:38] and stormwater. Um, so it's just a really different feel.

[1:25:42] So these would be bigger, bigger lots, for example. Yes.

[1:25:45] And usually often in the unincorporated County, we're talking about

[1:25:49] subdivisions developed around wells and septic systems, not. But it

[1:25:55] is a sum of the areas where the city may

[1:26:01] annex in on incorporated Boulder County. Those are designated for

[1:26:06] a neighborhood. Do you have a neighborhood designation. Which reflects

[1:26:11] the fact that if the City of Boulder ever annexed

[1:26:13] into those areas, it would have a similar neighborhood. Future.

[1:26:20] As other city, um, neighbor existing neighborhoods. Okay. Thank you.

[1:26:25] Sure. Carol. Carol Byerly POSAC. Thank you for your presentation.

[1:26:33] And I really think it's great to go from 210

[1:26:35] policies to 104 policies. Too bad you couldn't have gotten

[1:26:38] it to 100. Uh, we started there. We really did.

[1:26:43] Um, so my question is whether the university is included

[1:26:47] in this planning process. Um, the City of Boulder does

[1:26:52] have a number of. Actually a variety of entities that

[1:26:58] they've done quite a bit of coordination with throughout this

[1:27:00] process. And definitely the city, um, was it entity that

[1:27:04] I know they worked with. The university in the, because

[1:27:08] it's an engine of growth. It's just a growth engine.

[1:27:11] And I wondered if it has taken policies or something

[1:27:16] like these, um, utilities. But I can't answer that question.

[1:27:21] Can't answer that. Okay. Well, thank you. South campus. And

[1:27:28] the other Jeff Oddy. Jeff, go ahead. Hi, Zach. We're

[1:27:34] a little ahead of schedule. So I'm just going to

[1:27:36] like indulge my curiosity here. Like what. How, um, how

[1:27:43] is like the comprehensive plan used on a practical level,

[1:27:48] you know, like once you develop it, how do you

[1:27:50] sort of put it into practice? What is it govern

[1:27:54] and who uses it. That's a great question. Um. Who

[1:28:01] uses it? I think it's a pretty long list. Yeah,

[1:28:05] I'm sure. Um, I know staff use it at our

[1:28:08] level members of the public might use it to see

[1:28:12] what might happen around town going on, you know, into

[1:28:15] the future. So it might set expectations for the public.

[1:28:20] You know, property owners who want to do development might

[1:28:22] use it. City Council might use it in refer to

[1:28:26] it when they're doing planning on all sorts of things.

[1:28:30] Um, including capital improvements and directing departments in their jurisdiction

[1:28:36] to work on different projects. So I think it is

[1:28:39] used really from the top down. Follow up question. It's

[1:28:46] curious about the land use. Map. What governs those land

[1:28:54] use designations? Is it like a zoning thing or. Currently.

[1:29:03] Let's see how to best answer this question. The future

[1:29:06] land use map I would look at and think about

[1:29:08] it as a guide for where maybe we're going. Right?

[1:29:13] Zoning is a current situation. Um, and they don't necessarily,

[1:29:20] they're not necessarily the same. So there might be zoning

[1:29:25] changes that better reflect what the comprehensive plan direction is

[1:29:30] giving. Um, so once a current static state and one

[1:29:34] is a sort of a future tense. Yeah. So I

[1:29:39] guess maybe what I'm what I'm asking here is the

[1:29:43] vision for future use that we're looking for on this

[1:29:47] map. Um, is like an ideal state.

[1:29:59] Am I making sense here? I don't. Yeah. I guess

[1:30:02] I don't know if you what ideal necessarily means. It.

[1:30:06] Or like this is this is where we sort of

[1:30:07] like hope to get through a variety of means. Yes.

[1:30:11] Okay. Yeah. But it's not necessarily like this is how

[1:30:15] it's going to be. It's sort of a vision for

[1:30:18] how things might be. Right. Okay. Yeah. And I think

[1:30:22] there's a lot of flexibility in what the final, you

[1:30:25] know, what, what the city might look like in 20

[1:30:28] years under the same plan, um, based on a variety

[1:30:32] of decisions is probably pretty wide. There's a lot of

[1:30:38] factors. Into how this actually gets realized. Okay. So just

[1:30:43] to, and I hope, hopefully I'm not dominating that conversation

[1:30:47] here, but just looking at like the areas, the green

[1:30:50] areas of parks and open space here. So these are

[1:30:54] not areas that are currently all designated for Parks and

[1:30:59] OpenSpace. These are areas that we're hoping to acquire for

[1:31:03] Parks and OpenSpace. Now you're getting to a little bit

[1:31:05] more of the subtleties of this map because the open

[1:31:09] space on the map is actually open space currently. And

[1:31:15] we expect it to stay open space. Cool. Thank you.

[1:31:22] Joan. Joan, let's pose act. So, but this would guide

[1:31:27] the zoning map. It very well could. Um, not extremely

[1:31:31] familiar with cities owning. Um, so I couldn't tell you

[1:31:36] sort of what things might need to change in order

[1:31:38] to implement. Let's say, a regional hub. But yes, this

[1:31:44] provides the vision for our community and zoning as a

[1:31:47] tool of implementation. Uh, Ariel Barberie, gay postak, just, uh,

[1:31:56] can you confirm this is non binding, right? This is

[1:31:58] just like for the fourth time now we've asked you

[1:32:01] to confirm this, but I just want to make sure

[1:32:02] I'm understanding. This is like the representation of what the

[1:32:07] plan and the vision is, but the implementation of that

[1:32:10] is up to whichever like different arms of the government

[1:32:14] or city, County level, choose to do, correct? Right. Okay.

[1:32:18] Okay. Thank you. Um, for instance, let's just talk about

[1:32:20] zoning real quickly. If there were zoning changes say changes

[1:32:25] to the city zoning code, um, that would have its

[1:32:29] own public process. Right. So. Tray Baker Posack, I want

[1:32:37] to follow up to one thing that, uh, Jeff had

[1:32:40] asked very often when staff makes a presentation, uh, two

[1:32:47] post hack, they will reference the comprehensive plan as guidance

[1:32:54] for what they're planning on doing. And Hannah then, um,

[1:33:01] one of my questions is that, uh, do you expect

[1:33:07] changes to the plan to drive or influence any modifications

[1:33:12] to how, uh, Boulder County Parks and Open Space Managers,

[1:33:18] its properties. That's a really good question. And I don't,

[1:33:28] I don't think so. Okay. Um, the Boulder Valley comprehensive

[1:33:34] plan is really. Intended to be aligned. And with the

[1:33:39] Boulder County comprehensive plan. So there shouldn't be divergence in

[1:33:43] goals. Okay. Thank you. Any other post - it discussion

[1:33:48] on this topic. Okay. Hannah, thank you very, very much.

[1:33:53] Thank you. I appreciate the interest and the questions.

[1:34:19] Good evening, Perzak. All right. I think we're good. Um,

[1:34:28] my name is Jarrett Roberts. I think I've met many

[1:34:30] of you. It's nice to meet a couple of new

[1:34:32] faces. Um, I am our community amenities deputy director. Um,

[1:34:36] at Parkstandon Space 104 Deputy Directors, I oversee the community

[1:34:40] amenities branch, which includes our trails, trailheads, signs, fairgrounds, youth

[1:34:43] core, things like that. Um, I'm here tonight to talk

[1:34:46] to you about alternating use. Which is a pilot project.

[1:34:49] We were, uh, requested to look into. And we'll go

[1:34:52] through. This is just an informational. So I'll kind of

[1:34:54] bring us up to speed, um, talk about where we're

[1:34:56] at and what the next steps are and then answer

[1:34:58] any questions again. Um, so purpose, like I just said,

[1:35:02] um, provide an update on where we're at and then

[1:35:04] talk through what the next steps coming up. Are. So

[1:35:09] the project overview, um, this is meant to be in

[1:35:11] a community informed pilot. And we're looking at testing alternating

[1:35:16] trailles. And the goal is really to understand visitor experience

[1:35:19] and feasibility. Um, when we say alternating use, we mean

[1:35:24] assigning days and times for hiking, biking equestrian. So the

[1:35:27] type of use. This is a pilot. So short term

[1:35:31] reversible. We were given some constraints, which included no construction,

[1:35:35] no permanent changes at this point. What alternating use means?

[1:35:41] So schedule times and days before specific activities. So single

[1:35:44] trail, different uses on that. It applies only to existing

[1:35:48] multi - use trails. So if you have, um, alternating

[1:35:51] use, you would take a trail that's multi - use

[1:35:54] and allow different uses at different times potentially. Um, and

[1:35:57] we were not asked to explore new parallel trails, permanent

[1:36:00] designation changes, um, or changes to hiking only trails. Um,

[1:36:04] that being said, we were told that this point in

[1:36:06] this phase to explore with the community and get community

[1:36:08] input on this project. One of the questions that's come

[1:36:12] up through this is why are we considering alternate use?

[1:36:15] So we have 140 plus miles of trail 124 of

[1:36:18] those are open to bikes. Um, and we have as

[1:36:21] 1. 7 million visits this past year. Um, and that

[1:36:25] means that we're seeing a lot of visitors in our

[1:36:27] system. We've heard a lot of feedback through different channels

[1:36:30] us and other parts of the county from those that

[1:36:34] are not using the trails. Um, we've been asked to

[1:36:38] evaluate community ideas and feedback and interest on the topic.

[1:36:41] So again, at this point we're just exploring the topic.

[1:36:44] And we're really looking to explore of alternating use could

[1:36:47] address, um, things like visitor experience. So again, at this

[1:36:50] point, it's just getting the input. That's what we've been

[1:36:52] doing. To do that, we've run, I guess before that

[1:36:56] I'll do a little background. So we have visitor studies

[1:36:59] that we do on a five year basis. And then

[1:37:01] we also do an annual study. And from those, we

[1:37:04] know that hiking is the most popular, uh, use across

[1:37:07] the system. We know that there's high biking use of

[1:37:14] potassium, Ohio and Hal. We know that conflicts are in

[1:37:17] frequent system white. They're about four percent. But within those

[1:37:20] conflicts drivers are often speed and narrow trails and yielding

[1:37:24] confusion. Um, and all these are online, all the reports.

[1:37:29] So when we are requested to explore this topic, uh,

[1:37:33] we put together a community engagement plan, um, this is

[1:37:36] guided by a new process through the County called the

[1:37:38] Community Engagement Framework. We started this very early to help

[1:37:43] to help shape the pilot. So the purpose of this

[1:37:47] phase is to really explore, get community input. Um, the

[1:37:51] two main outcomes of this guided community engagement framework. We're

[1:37:55] to do an online survey that we ran from April

[1:37:57] 20th to May 19th. And then we were originally going

[1:38:00] to do one open house. But through community feedback decided

[1:38:03] to do two, to allow different dates and different locations.

[1:38:09] So we ran the survey, which closed May 19th about

[1:38:12] 10 days ago. Um, we got about 7, 500 responses,

[1:38:16] which were very excited. Um, again, we wanted community input.

[1:38:20] And so we're thrilled that there was a lot of

[1:38:21] passion ideas and thoughts out there. And we captured a

[1:38:23] lot of those. We also ran those two open houses

[1:38:26] where we had about 300 plus attendances. Um, we have

[1:38:29] a lot of data. That's to give you an idea

[1:38:32] through things like prayer run. We've collected around 1200 responses.

[1:38:35] So this is a big data set that we got.

[1:38:38] Um, we're going through, we typically like to go through

[1:38:40] and clean that up to make sure that there's not

[1:38:42] any comments about Jarrett smells funny or something. We would

[1:38:46] typically redact the staff's name. Or if someone came in

[1:38:49] and said, Hey, I really support this or don't support

[1:38:52] this and get back to me. And here's my email.

[1:38:54] We would typically take that out of what we as

[1:38:56] the County Post online. Um, so cleaning up the data,

[1:39:00] getting ready. We plan with all of our data, um,

[1:39:03] with the visitor studies and these. We plan to share

[1:39:05] that data publicly. So we're trying to get that ready

[1:39:07] in a report. And we share all the raw data

[1:39:08] again, except for those things that we talk about taking

[1:39:10] out. And we're planning to do that in late June,

[1:39:14] early July at the latest. So we're, we're working hard

[1:39:16] to get that done. That data is meant to inform,

[1:39:22] uh, the pilots. And so as we start thinking about

[1:39:24] what pilot alternatives are things could be, some considerations were

[1:39:28] taking into account. Are that community feedback? Um, visitor experience,

[1:39:33] visitor comprehension and ease. We, you know, we, we want

[1:39:36] this to be an implementable plan. And then operational feasibility.

[1:39:41] So the next steps, again, I mentioned, we're cleaning up

[1:39:44] that engagement data and getting ready to pose that. We

[1:39:47] anticipate presenting this community input feasibility in operational considerations, um,

[1:39:52] to the county commissioners. And we actually just found out

[1:39:54] we have a work session set for June 30th. So

[1:39:57] that is one more planning on bringing that forward to

[1:39:59] the commissioners. And then we plan on giving you regular

[1:40:02] updates through these monthly post - AC meetings. Uh, with

[1:40:05] the pilot would likely occur and conclude in 2026 if

[1:40:08] it's approved. Um, we're waiting to find that out. What

[1:40:13] POSAC can expect? There's no decisions requested today. This is

[1:40:17] just informational to kind of bring you up to speed.

[1:40:19] We had talked about this very briefly at the retreat.

[1:40:22] I think most people remembered, um, but there was a

[1:40:24] lot of interest. And I know this is an interest,

[1:40:26] a topic of interest to the community. So we wanted

[1:40:28] to keep you up to date with everything that we

[1:40:29] know at this point. And that was quick, but that's

[1:40:33] what I have. And I'll take any questions, do you

[1:40:35] have. Jarrett? Thank you. And, uh, again, this is an

[1:40:40] information I'm only topic. So we will not be taking

[1:40:43] public discussion. POSAC. Christine. Christine Johnson Posack.

[1:40:53] This is a speculative question, but, um, are you anticipating

[1:40:57] doing this on all of the multi - modal trails

[1:41:01] or a select proportion or will the study determine what

[1:41:05] you do? The community engagement will help determine that. So

[1:41:09] we, we, uh, did you get a, did anyone get

[1:41:12] a chance to attend any of the open houses? I

[1:41:14] think that's okay. The survey is great. Um, through the

[1:41:17] survey, there were questions about what areas. So that's one

[1:41:19] of the areas. And then at the open houses, we

[1:41:21] actually had these huge maps that people could put stickers.

[1:41:23] So we, we really wanted to hear from the community

[1:41:26] like where should we be thinking about this. Um, another

[1:41:30] question I have is, um, so, um, the Boulder OSMP

[1:41:37] has more miles of trails than the Boulder Parks and

[1:41:43] OpenSpace. And I believe a much lower percentage of their

[1:41:48] trails are open to bikes. It did that come up

[1:41:55] as attention. In the open houses and the surveys. Do

[1:42:00] you anticipate that being an issue. I can't speak generally

[1:42:04] to the surveys yet because we haven't consolidated all the

[1:42:06] data. I can, I can speak to the experience. I

[1:42:08] had going through that process, which was I didn't hear

[1:42:11] direct comparisons between the city and the county. I had

[1:42:13] some really interesting conversations with individuals about what those miles

[1:42:17] of trail look like. So one thing that was brought

[1:42:19] up is there are a number of multi - use

[1:42:21] trails that allow bikes. A lot of those for the

[1:42:24] County are commuter trails like the Lobo Trail. And the

[1:42:28] difference between those and something like Batasso was something that

[1:42:30] came up in a numerous conversations with me. Um, and

[1:42:35] then I guess, um, I, I find that, um, the

[1:42:42] POSAC integration into the process, I think has been really,

[1:42:48] um, useful in the past. And I, I understand the

[1:42:52] last six months were really unusual. Um, are you anticipating

[1:42:57] that you will be coming back to us, say in

[1:43:01] six months, um, after this is concluded. To, to present

[1:43:07] on, um, what happened and recommendations going forward. I think

[1:43:13] the depends in there. Um, because we don't even know

[1:43:15] what or if the pilot would look like at this

[1:43:17] point. Um, I wouldn't, I would definitely anticipate we're coming

[1:43:20] back and keeping you informed. Depending on what the outcome

[1:43:23] is, um, that would determine whether or not we're coming

[1:43:26] back for recommendations or things like that. Okay. Thank you.

[1:43:30] Ariel. Ariel Barberia Gieb Posack. Um, could you just as

[1:43:34] a point of information clarify how the decision is made,

[1:43:37] whether the pilot is run or not? So the, the

[1:43:40] work session is where we're going to get direction on

[1:43:41] that is my understanding. Okay. Yep. Jeff. Uh, yeah, Jeff

[1:43:49] Otti Posack. So my understanding is that the impetus for

[1:43:55] the proposal is, um, is to ameliorate conflict on the

[1:44:00] trails. Just wondering how, how did you arrive at that

[1:44:07] four percent conflict number, and I'm not also exactly clear

[1:44:12] on what that means. Does that mean like four percent

[1:44:15] of unique visitors experience some sort of conflict on the

[1:44:20] trail and how do you, how do you capture that

[1:44:23] conflict? Like what, who's reporting that or observing it? Yeah.

[1:44:27] I think so it's interesting when I was talking about

[1:44:29] why we're doing the study that earlier slide. Conflict is

[1:44:32] a piece of it, but I don't think it's the

[1:44:33] only piece. So I think to say that we're doing

[1:44:35] this solely because of conflict is not necessarily accurate. And

[1:44:39] I think something that's come up through the way we

[1:44:42] were requested to explore this and through community conversations has

[1:44:46] been, the, we have the visitor data, which is for

[1:44:50] our visitors. But there's also members of the community that

[1:44:53] are not visiting our trails. Um, and where and how

[1:44:56] are we capturing their feedback on things like this? And

[1:45:00] so part of the community engagement was to reach out

[1:45:01] broadly, which we did to visitors and nonvisitors. Um, then

[1:45:05] the conflict piece itself. Yeah. My understanding is the four

[1:45:08] percent is when we do the visitation studies, we measure

[1:45:12] how many people experienced conflict. And the different specific, um,

[1:45:15] definitions of what they consider conflict in the visitor reports.

[1:45:19] And that's what's coming in at four percent. Can you

[1:45:24] give an example of, of what that might look like.

[1:45:26] I could, I don't have her in front of me,

[1:45:28] but I could send you if you'd like later, I

[1:45:29] could send you the exact definitions. We have again, like

[1:45:31] when we do the survey, it'll say I experienced conflict

[1:45:35] and that defines what that is. Trey Spaker post sac

[1:45:40] to address Jeff's comments a little bit, um, every five

[1:45:45] years, uh, one of the staff members, Michelle Murati, uh,

[1:45:50] runs a visitor exit survey where she has individuals, volunteers

[1:45:58] who stay at a trailhead and will ask visitors, um,

[1:46:04] and this is all, or at least most recently done

[1:46:06] on an iPad where there are questions. And one of

[1:46:11] the questions, if I remember correctly, was have you experienced

[1:46:14] conflict and was, you know, simply yes or no. And

[1:46:18] so it, um, you know, it could be biker to

[1:46:23] biker, hiker to biker, equestrian to hiker, whatever. And so

[1:46:30] the four percent comes from Michelle's last five years ago

[1:46:37] survey. And I believe she will be presenting, uh, the

[1:46:41] 2025 survey to Pro SAC, hopefully very soon in the

[1:46:45] next couple of months or so. That is accurate. It's

[1:46:48] supposed to be this summer, Trace. Joan. I help collect,

[1:46:53] um, surveys in this last five year one. And so

[1:46:58] for example, and it was filled out after they had

[1:47:01] done their hike or the bike and you call them

[1:47:04] over and try to get them to participate, fill out

[1:47:07] this thing. And so for example, they're at one site

[1:47:11] there was a biker who was, you know, visibly upset.

[1:47:16] And he wrote down that he had been yelled at

[1:47:18] by a hiker. Then later the hiker comes in. I

[1:47:21] don't know if they were there. Pass each other and

[1:47:26] they're upset about the bike hair, you know, so that

[1:47:29] would be conflict. And they were able to describe it

[1:47:34] a little bit. So, um, but I'm really glad that

[1:47:39] you are considering this alternating use plan. I think it's

[1:47:43] a great idea. And I hope you go forward with

[1:47:46] that. And you get some. Feedback. See how the public

[1:47:49] likes it. And I'm also glad that you're considering people

[1:47:52] who aren't on the trails. And why aren't they on

[1:47:56] the dri. Yeah. Uh, Traes Baker Poseck. And also part

[1:48:02] of this, um, direction we received or the County received

[1:48:07] from the commissioners, uh, was the idea of perceived conflict.

[1:48:15] You know, I, um, you know, for example, you know,

[1:48:17] I, I haven't had a problem with the Mountain biker,

[1:48:20] but I know they're out there and they're mean. You

[1:48:23] know, kind of thing, you know, as, as a mountain

[1:48:25] biker, I, you know, I can, I can say that,

[1:48:27] of course, but, you know, but, but the idea, and

[1:48:32] this came up, um, when I was talking with one

[1:48:35] of the staff people at the second open house, this

[1:48:40] whole idea of perceived conflict. Lauren. Yeah. Um, Lauren Kelso,

[1:48:48] I guess you alluded to this early on, Jarrett, but

[1:48:51] the, uh, you know, you all were requested to look

[1:48:54] into this. And I guess it seems like a very

[1:48:58] specific pilot was put forward as opposed to where my

[1:49:02] brain would have started, which is like considering a lot

[1:49:04] of different ways to address that sort of conflict. So

[1:49:07] it sounds like this was put forward as like the

[1:49:10] thing to trial. And I'm wondering through this process how,

[1:49:14] cause that is certainly like what we're seeing in some

[1:49:15] of the comments coming through, right? It's like, how do

[1:49:18] we start here as opposed to starting a few steps

[1:49:20] backwards with this? And yeah, if you can just kind

[1:49:23] of explain that a little bit. Yeah. I think, I

[1:49:25] mean, we again, we were asked to explore this specific

[1:49:27] topic. And I think through this, we've gotten a lot

[1:49:30] of community feedback and a lot of ideas. And that's,

[1:49:32] that's what's going to come forward for this work session.

[1:49:35] Um, whether or not that changes the direction. I don't

[1:49:37] know. But that like we've, yeah, I guess we've been

[1:49:40] following what we've been asked to look at, but also

[1:49:42] being very open to what the community is wanting to

[1:49:45] say to us. And now I think if you look

[1:49:47] through a lot of the questions, they're framed in a

[1:49:48] way that allow the community to have a voice and

[1:49:51] share their experience and their stories. Let's see, let's, I

[1:49:59] interrupted you, Jones. So Joan and then Vicky. Okay. Joan,

[1:50:04] let's POZAC. And the County has done some other things.

[1:50:08] Like for example, signs that talk about yielding and be

[1:50:12] a polite user and ring your bell or that kind

[1:50:15] of thing. So there has been some little efforts. I

[1:50:19] wonder if you were thinking about something else besides that.

[1:50:23] Yeah. I think, um, I'm not an expert in this

[1:50:25] field. I mean, this guy's about to be, but, um,

[1:50:28] I think, I think, uh, my, uh, I think there

[1:50:31] are a lot of different approaches to this, right? When

[1:50:34] you start thinking about planning and long - term trail

[1:50:37] use, um, the ones that I've heard of are certainly

[1:50:41] like, uh, nominating some spaces that are biker only so

[1:50:45] that, right? That, so that's one, we have some hiking

[1:50:48] only trails. Are there some that are biking only trails?

[1:50:51] That's one, but I know that there are many, um,

[1:50:54] and I'm, I mean, I'm sure there are other things

[1:50:56] that go beyond signage around training. Um, I'm also a

[1:51:00] mountain biker. I participate in other mountain biking groups and

[1:51:02] the one that I participate in, communication of training of

[1:51:07] really requirement if you want to participate with the group

[1:51:10] that you abide by these certain rules. So I think

[1:51:13] the, um, ideas out there for how to approach it.

[1:51:16] So I think it's, I think it's important that it

[1:51:18] be brought up all the different sort of ways of

[1:51:21] a approaching the problem that they're trying to address. Yeah.

[1:51:25] That's well heard and visa community feedback we heard as

[1:51:28] well. Vicky. Vicky Lords Pozak and being of a different

[1:51:35] generation. I have a lot of friends I've heard from

[1:51:39] a lot of people that say a multi - use

[1:51:42] trail as a bike trail. And there are certainly a

[1:51:47] number of people within my generation in an older senior

[1:51:50] generation that are very hesitant to be on trails with

[1:51:52] bikes. And so I'm glad you're doing this because I

[1:51:57] think we're not catching the numbers of people that might

[1:52:00] be out there if they felt like they weren't going

[1:52:03] to be an issue with a bike. People that don't

[1:52:06] move quickly, people that don't hear well or a variety

[1:52:10] of different reasons why having bikes around might be of

[1:52:14] a concern. So I think it's an important thing to

[1:52:16] look at this and do it and see what comes

[1:52:19] out of it, ultimately. Or if you do the pilot

[1:52:22] and see, there was a letter to the paper recently.

[1:52:26] I don't remember who wrote it that had their statistical,

[1:52:30] they'd use their statistics so poorly to describe why hikers

[1:52:33] weren't using the trails. Well, maybe there's a reason hikers

[1:52:36] aren't on the trails and we need to be thoughtful

[1:52:39] of that as well. Jeff. Yeah. This is maybe, um,

[1:52:47] sorry, Jeff Oddeck. Uh, this is baby TBD. Currently, uh,

[1:52:56] the only alternate use sort of that exists on the

[1:53:00] County Trails as far as I know is, um, restrictions

[1:53:04] for bikes such as at potassio preserve. So is the

[1:53:08] idea that this proposal. Will include like hiking only days.

[1:53:16] Biking only days, equestrian only days. Like, will there be

[1:53:22] alternate use or is, um, just curious about that. Because

[1:53:28] it's, it's not totally clear to me whether the proposal

[1:53:33] is for like a true alternate use, you know, where,

[1:53:37] where, um, different user groups are like taking turns or

[1:53:41] if it's about restricting cycling. Well, I hope you fill

[1:53:45] this survey out because that, that, that's the whole at

[1:53:48] this phase, it's community engagement to get all those ideas

[1:53:51] to create with the alternatives could look like. So I

[1:53:54] like, yeah, I can't answer at this point what the

[1:53:56] alternatives are because we were just getting to that point.

[1:53:59] I'd, you know, by the 30th, I think that's where

[1:54:01] we'll have potential alternatives on the table that can be

[1:54:04] looked at. And yeah, that's where we would be at

[1:54:07] that place. Carol. I'm Carol Byerly Posag. I would like

[1:54:13] to hear about an update on this before six months

[1:54:17] actually. It would be very interesting to see the survey

[1:54:20] data. Um, because it's all speculation at this point. But

[1:54:25] if you come up with a report or something for

[1:54:28] the County Commissioners, I would appreciate it if we could

[1:54:30] get a copy to or get a presentation. Yeah, absolutely.

[1:54:34] The plan is for any of that report to be

[1:54:35] publicly available with all the data so that everyone can

[1:54:39] look through it. Like we're trying to be very transparent

[1:54:41] here. Okay. Great. Yeah. Anything else from Posic. Uh, Trey

[1:54:48] Baker Posack. You know, I'm all for data driven approach

[1:54:52] to changing public policy. And so this belief will influence

[1:54:58] most of my reigning comments here. And as you do,

[1:55:04] um, you know, fill out the design of this pilot,

[1:55:09] I would very much like you to present a detailed

[1:55:12] discussion of what you're going to measure and how you're

[1:55:15] going to do your analysis. Um, I don't know if

[1:55:18] Michelle is going to be involved in this, but you

[1:55:21] know, she has been very, very good at her statistics,

[1:55:25] you know, over the last few years. And I would

[1:55:32] also hope that, um, any results that are published comes

[1:55:39] early enough so that the public can look at them

[1:55:44] understand them and make their issues known to the County

[1:55:49] Commissioners before the commissioners make a decision. And a bit,

[1:55:57] you know, I find it a bit unfortunate that the

[1:56:00] commissioners did not bring this as a topic to POSAC,

[1:56:06] you know, thinking about, you know, a number of years

[1:56:08] ago when, um, the idea of allowing Mountain bikes on

[1:56:13] planes areas came up, um, that was brought to POSAC

[1:56:18] and POSAC voted. And, um, you know, again, very disappointed

[1:56:23] that this doesn't happen. I know that that's directed to

[1:56:26] the commissioners and not to you. But, you know, that's

[1:56:29] my feeling. And so that, that is all I have.

[1:56:36] Any other POS AC members? Actually, Vicky Lawrence Pozak of

[1:56:41] one of the other questions I was going to ask,

[1:56:42] who is it that asks you to do this? Is

[1:56:44] that the commissioners that requested that this you look into

[1:56:46] this? The commissioners as a group requested that we explore

[1:56:50] this. And if I can real quick to trace is

[1:56:52] Michelle is heavily involved in this and they could miss

[1:56:55] because she is phenomenal. And has really helped shape the

[1:56:58] surveys and things. That's very cute. We're working very hard

[1:57:01] to get the data out as quick as we can.

[1:57:04] Um, we've pulled staff off other priority things to be

[1:57:06] able to do that. So, okay. Thank you. I have

[1:57:09] one more Jeff Oddy Posack. So once you finish kind

[1:57:14] of analyzing the data and putting together your report, um,

[1:57:19] which it sounds like the goal for that is late

[1:57:23] June early July, what, what's the next step after that?

[1:57:28] It's the 30th, the meeting the work session with the

[1:57:31] commissioners. Oh, gotcha. Okay. So then you'll go over the

[1:57:36] report with the commissioners and what's the, uh, anticipated outcome

[1:57:42] from the work session that you'll come up with some

[1:57:45] sort of pilot proposal. Right now my understanding is the,

[1:57:50] the anticipated outcome is for us to have more guidance

[1:57:52] on whether or not we're pursuing an alternative or doing

[1:57:55] something else. So it would be, it would be like,

[1:57:57] what is our next step after that. Joan. White bozak?

[1:58:04] So if you're giving something to the commissioners by the

[1:58:07] end of June, does that mean you're going to give

[1:58:08] something to us next month. Yes. We would be. We

[1:58:12] will be updating you every month on this. I think

[1:58:14] that clarification. Sorry, Lauren Kelso. I think, um, the question

[1:58:17] is what is a working session with the County Commissioners?

[1:58:22] And I think that's just where you guys will discuss

[1:58:25] this in a little more detail with them. And then

[1:58:27] it would come back to Posac. That's my understanding, yes.

[1:58:30] So we wouldn't get anything work session. Yeah. It's my

[1:58:35] understanding. Yes. But then necessarily decided at the work session.

[1:58:40] That I don't know. We could be asked to pursue

[1:58:44] an alternative potentially. Uh, R. L. Barbaria, give Posack. So

[1:58:49] there is a chance that you guys have the working

[1:58:51] session with the commissioners before any data is publicly available.

[1:58:55] We are not planning to do that. Okay. Yes. I

[1:58:57] know it says late June, July, but we like we're

[1:59:00] a little tentative to set a date because this is

[1:59:02] a bigger data set than we were expecting, which is

[1:59:04] great again. Um, and again, we've pulled staff off other

[1:59:07] things and they're working like this is the priority to

[1:59:10] get this out. So. Thanks. Yep. Okay. Uh, Jarrett, thank

[1:59:17] you very much and very much looking forward to details,

[1:59:21] details, details next month. Thank you. Thank you for the

[1:59:24] great questions. Thank you. Um, so post sac. Next thing

[1:59:28] on the agenda is any topics that you want to

[1:59:32] bring up as perhaps for, um, future agenda, uh, Riel.

[1:59:40] Yes. Is this one I can ask a question about

[1:59:42] a previous item? Yes. To the attorney about the east

[1:59:47] mint, um, I'm just curious about the, we had talked

[1:59:52] a lot about the liability of Longmont if there was

[1:59:55] any excessive water flow coming out of the easement that's

[2:00:00] going next to St. Frane, I believe. Um, and so

[2:00:03] I'm, we're just curious if that liability is something, even

[2:00:06] if Longmont hypothetically were too damaged an area that's outside

[2:00:11] of the easement, is that something that they would be

[2:00:13] liable for or the county would be liable for? Yeah.

[2:00:16] I mean, I can paint and broad strokes as, you

[2:00:18] know, how easement's working this context. Yeah. If, if it's

[2:00:22] Longmont that's discharging water through its easement. So its property

[2:00:28] right. And it causes damage that outside of the scope

[2:00:31] of its rights under the easement. Then yes, presumably Longmont

[2:00:37] would have liability there. Okay. You know, I mean, the

[2:00:40] issues of governmental immunity and things like that. But, um,

[2:00:45] based on what I heard in the Presentation, I don't

[2:00:46] think the county would have liability for a discharge by

[2:00:50] the City of Longmont. Okay. Thank you. Joan, did you

[2:00:56] have your hand up? Yes. Joan Lutz Pozak. And I

[2:01:00] just wanted to state that I agree with Tony Lewis,

[2:01:03] the former Pozak member and his comment today, May 28th

[2:01:08] at the changes made to POSAC are negative because it

[2:01:15] dilutes our. Power to help the commissioners decide open space

[2:01:24] questions. And also, because it decreases the opportunity for public

[2:01:31] comment. Which is important for a democracy. That's all. Thank

[2:01:36] you. Um, Christine. Christine Johnson Posack. I wanted to comment

[2:01:44] on. Comments from the public. Um, the first is, um,

[2:01:52] Bridget Gordon contacted us about Tom Watson Park, which is

[2:01:58] managed by the City of Boulder, Parks in Rack. And

[2:02:02] I would love it if a member of staff would

[2:02:05] let her know that. Um, and she also commented on

[2:02:10] the lack of comment period for items, not on the

[2:02:13] agenda, which if she'd been able to comment, she'd find

[2:02:17] out directly. Um, uh, Crystal Markovich asked for, um, for

[2:02:25] a field trip open to the public and to Posac,

[2:02:31] uh, to the Red Hills to see where the, um,

[2:02:35] and Dazaflam aerial spring is planned for faller, winter 2026.

[2:02:42] I'm curious about that. I'm curious about any possible field

[2:02:47] trips this year. Um, I'm also interested in, um, the,

[2:02:53] um, 2025 report from the integrated weed management plan. Um,

[2:03:00] I also want to underscore, um, Lewis's comments. Tony is

[2:03:07] a former member of Posac. And at one point was,

[2:03:12] um, the chair. And, um, I, I agree that when,

[2:03:18] um, the, that when the public contacts us, um, and

[2:03:24] they, they contact us through the contact form. Their comments

[2:03:30] see the light of day. If we amplify them, like

[2:03:33] I am doing right now. And otherwise it's a, it's

[2:03:37] a very, um, it's, uh, hard way to get attention

[2:03:44] to a matter. And I strongly believe that the public

[2:03:48] has given, um, really good feedback, valuable feedback, um, uh,

[2:03:55] in the past and diminishing their capacity to comment is

[2:04:00] not great. Um, I understand that the, um, the commissioners

[2:04:08] are directing public comment to go to them. Instead. And

[2:04:14] the problem with that is once again, um, the, the

[2:04:19] capacity to speak, uh, on open agenda items, uh, or

[2:04:25] non - agenda items with the County Commissioners. And I'm

[2:04:28] reading from their guidelines, uh, Boulder County Commissioners hold regular

[2:04:34] open public comment sessions on the first Thursday of each

[2:04:37] month at 9 a. m. and speakers are typically limited

[2:04:42] to three minutes each with the open comment period capped

[2:04:45] at 10 participants. That's not, um, allowing for public participation

[2:04:52] in a meaningful way. And I would encourage, um, staff

[2:04:57] and the County Commissioners to change, um, what's going on.

[2:05:02] I realize sometimes it's messy. And sometimes it takes time,

[2:05:07] but I really feel like, um, the staff, um, serves

[2:05:11] the public post act serves the public and all together.

[2:05:15] We do a better job stewarding the public's assets. Thanks.

[2:05:27] Anybody else from Posack, Carol? Um, I would like to,

[2:05:31] um, continue to speak on this issue of public comment.

[2:05:35] And, um, with, with some caveats, um, so I guess

[2:05:39] they're trying to make it similar across all the advisory

[2:05:42] committees, but, but we are intended to be a conduit

[2:05:47] between the public and the Boulder County Commission. So it

[2:05:52] seems, um, that it does frustrate our mission to some

[2:05:56] degree. I think it has been difficult at times. So

[2:06:00] I believe we could put some rules in if we

[2:06:03] were going to open it up and say, you get

[2:06:06] to speak once every so often you don't, there are

[2:06:09] ways to. Make it more better. So that is one

[2:06:14] issue. I don't know where we're going to go on

[2:06:16] that. But let me ask another one is if the

[2:06:19] public is supposed to be talking to the Boulder County

[2:06:23] Commissioners on our top issues, um, I gained a lot

[2:06:28] by watching the County Commissioner meetings. But they meet a

[2:06:32] lot and they meet all of it. And so I

[2:06:35] would love it if we could be told that the

[2:06:39] County Commissioners acted on the weed program Tuesday. And if

[2:06:44] you look at their meeting from nine to 930, you

[2:06:48] can see what they said. Because I have gotten back

[2:06:51] to meetings and trying to find where they talk about

[2:06:53] it. Um, if we are now not going to hear

[2:06:56] directly from the public, maybe we could be staffed and

[2:07:00] told when these issues come up before the County Commissioners.

[2:07:06] And then we would be able to learn, um, what

[2:07:09] the public is saying, um, rather than, because it is

[2:07:15] in the open and all of these things are online

[2:07:18] and available, but it really is hard to go through

[2:07:20] them and find, um, the specific discussion. And when you

[2:07:25] find it, it's really informative. Trace Baker Posat Carol, do

[2:07:30] you get the, uh, email from the commissioners given their

[2:07:34] agenda for every, every day? No. No. That is available

[2:07:41] on the commissioner's website. You can sign up to get

[2:07:47] an email. Yeah. And that's, and that's a lot. They

[2:07:51] see, they do a lot. Oh, yes. And I would

[2:07:53] think that if I, okay, let me pursue this. I

[2:07:56] think that if they're handling parks and open space issues,

[2:08:01] then someone from the department will be there. Yes. We'll

[2:08:04] know when they are speaking and then we'll have a

[2:08:07] slot and say at this meeting. Because commissioners are handling

[2:08:10] lots of different issues. Yeah. Yes. But, uh, for example,

[2:08:14] Stefan gave a talk in Jason on the weed management

[2:08:19] plan was that this week, last week, very recently. And

[2:08:24] that was in the email agenda. Not only saw the

[2:08:28] earlier one. I didn't see that one. Can I surprise

[2:08:31] that it occurred? Those agendas are huge and it takes

[2:08:34] a while to read through the agenda too, but it's

[2:08:36] there. Trace something. I guess I have a question. Lauren

[2:08:38] Kelso. So, um, kind of to echo what Carol's saying

[2:08:42] though, I am wondering, and maybe this is some, I'm

[2:08:44] not sure where all of these questions and thoughts go

[2:08:46] to in the ether, but, um, I do think it's,

[2:08:50] it's, it's a really important, I'm going to tag onto

[2:08:54] what Carol's saying here. Like we are working full time

[2:08:59] and here in the evening. So just like you all

[2:09:01] are. So if there is an opportunity to consolidate some

[2:09:04] of that, Nick has been an enormous asset preparing us

[2:09:07] for these meetings. Maybe we get a snapshot from the

[2:09:11] last month or as it goes along or whatever's administratively

[2:09:16] possible. Again, maybe none of this is necessary if we

[2:09:19] can bring some public comment back into this space, um,

[2:09:24] so I think there's two different ways the different ways

[2:09:26] to get at it, right? And those are the two

[2:09:28] different options, which is either we can receive public comment

[2:09:30] directly. So we're getting that. But if the goal is

[2:09:33] that we're going to get everything that happens at the

[2:09:35] commissioner hearings that we're going to be discussing and giving

[2:09:39] advice on, uh, that it be consolidated into some helpful

[2:09:44] information that we can then digest and utilize. And I

[2:09:47] would like to say to Trace that an agenda is

[2:09:49] very different than a meeting. Right. And so I'd like

[2:09:53] to know what happens afterwards rather than what happens before.

[2:09:57] Because that's what's interesting. And that's what instructive for us.

[2:10:01] Yeah. Trace Baker Posack. And this is halfway serious. If

[2:10:08] you could take those agendas and put it into Claude

[2:10:11] and ask it to highlight Parks and Open Space issues.

[2:10:21] Trace could you do that each and send those to

[2:10:24] us. I'll take those cloud notes. Uh, Jeff Oddy, Posack.

[2:10:31] Carol, I think if I'm understanding what you're asking for

[2:10:35] correctly, and I just want to make sure that I

[2:10:36] am, it's, it's that, um, if the County Commissioners are

[2:10:41] hearing and considering, um, some business that has been before

[2:10:47] POSAC, that POSAC be informed of the outcome of whatever

[2:10:55] they discussed. Or just the commissioners met on the weed

[2:11:03] program and it's at 1020. And you've confined it on

[2:11:08] their website. Yeah. I think that sounds good. I like

[2:11:14] that. It needs to be summarized or memorized or anything,

[2:11:18] but because, but it would be then we could say,

[2:11:21] okay, because they don't talk about Parks and Oakland space

[2:11:24] all the time. I don't imagine. It's not a lot.

[2:11:28] And so, but when there is an issue and I

[2:11:30] guess I was very surprised about the weed issue. And

[2:11:33] if I, I'm not going to go to the meeting

[2:11:36] and haven't, you know, say anything, but I want to

[2:11:38] see what happened. And what, who said what and how

[2:11:42] it was represented. And if there was public comment. And

[2:11:46] if I then can go back and do my homework

[2:11:48] and see that, then I'm better prepared. So, so I'm

[2:11:51] not asking, I don't want to add to the workload

[2:11:54] too much, but it's just an advice of what was

[2:11:59] discussed that concerns us at the County Commission meetings at

[2:12:04] one time. And where to find it. Okay. Uh, Trace

[2:12:08] Baker, Posac, were coming up on eight o'clock and would

[2:12:12] like to give our new director Jason a chance to

[2:12:16] give his update and hopefully questions from him afterwards if

[2:12:22] the time. Sorry, one more thing. Uh, go ahead, Ariel.

[2:12:28] Ariel Barbaria Pozac. This might be, I don't know if

[2:12:31] this is the right forum, but, um. In the spirit

[2:12:35] of, this was talked about, I think Carol, you might

[2:12:39] have been in my interview when we, you might've spoke

[2:12:41] about this. More young people and then posack. Right. About

[2:12:45] equity. I think something that would be, uh, really helpful

[2:12:48] would be to try to schedule things. And I understand

[2:12:51] that there was something scheduled on a Friday during work

[2:12:53] hours. But to maybe try to be, um, and I

[2:12:56] understand these meetings are not during the work day, but

[2:12:59] if we could moving forward, taco field trips or other

[2:13:02] instances in which POSAC members could choose to go and,

[2:13:07] you know, see in the community what is going on

[2:13:09] or what is proposed to be considered and mindful of

[2:13:12] those of us that are working 40 hour weeks and

[2:13:15] don't have the ability to take, uh, half a day

[2:13:17] off on Friday. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

[2:13:23] Jason all yours. Jason Sook, Parks and Open Space Director.

[2:13:33] Well, this is my first pulse sack meeting. Um, so

[2:13:35] I'm, uh, I'm new like some of you and learning

[2:13:38] the format and, uh, in the rhythm here. And I

[2:13:41] think mostly I'm pleased to be here. Um, I'm pleased

[2:13:44] to be participating. And in this, uh, in this very

[2:13:49] important form for them. And I'd really like to thank

[2:13:52] you all for your commitment, your public service. And I've

[2:13:55] seen already that your perspective and experience, um, evidence by

[2:13:59] a lot of the good participation questions, uh, very helpful

[2:14:04] guidance, our critical to guiding our parks and open space

[2:14:07] program and the Board of County Commissioners as they make

[2:14:10] importance of decisions governing parks in open space. So thank

[2:14:13] you for your commitment and what you're doing here. You

[2:14:15] know, despite having jobs despite having many other priorities, you're

[2:14:19] here tonight and we really appreciate that. Um, maybe a

[2:14:23] few updates, uh, first on some of the discussion, I

[2:14:25] guess I would address. We'll take some of this back

[2:14:27] and try to think about how best to, you know,

[2:14:31] remain engaged with you all and form you on, um,

[2:14:34] what's happening. You know, the nuance there as well. Um,

[2:14:37] you know, the different formats and we can get into

[2:14:39] this another time. But there's different formats of how the

[2:14:43] Board of County Commissioners are meeting. And when there is

[2:14:46] public comment and when it is open to the public.

[2:14:49] So there's, there's different ways that they go about doing

[2:14:51] that. And, um, and, and having these meetings in public,

[2:14:55] the public comment at all of these meetings, um, so

[2:14:58] I just wanted to make that clarification. And then maybe

[2:15:02] just a few updates from my side. First, the youth

[2:15:06] core, um, the team leads start on Monday the first

[2:15:09] coming up. We're really excited about that. All the team

[2:15:12] leads and crew members have been hired for the season.

[2:15:14] So, uh, we're looking forward to this very exciting program

[2:15:18] where we get to engage with youth and get them

[2:15:20] to invest in their own community. The fairgrounds, the Rocky

[2:15:25] Mountain Regional and Westworld Horseshow begins on June 12th and

[2:15:29] the Longmont Farmers Market as well underway. I guess the

[2:15:32] point we've had a lot of rain recently and even

[2:15:35] with recent moistures, Drought was very much still an issue

[2:15:37] for ag producers. Many of the ditches are not running

[2:15:40] at all. And those that are very at a very

[2:15:43] reduced rate, less than 90, up to 90 percent less

[2:15:45] than normal. So planting rates are changing weekly. Cattle producers

[2:15:49] are scrambling for additional forage and it remains an issue.

[2:15:52] Um, to be managed. The watershed center is holding a

[2:15:57] public tour of their 2025 South St. Rain Restoration on

[2:16:00] the Hall 2 Property on Saturday, June 6, 9 to

[2:16:03] 12, um, PM. So that morning. So that's, um, that's

[2:16:06] something that might be interesting for, for, for some of

[2:16:09] you all to attend. We have completed temporary repairs on

[2:16:15] the Boulder Canyon Trail Bridge Approach. We also have Stern's

[2:16:21] Lake Restroom Rebuild in Progress. And a lot of new

[2:16:24] signs have been installed bilingual sign replacements on the OpenSky

[2:16:28] Loop Trail. Ron Stewart Preserve and Walker Ranch Loop Trail.

[2:16:33] And then, uh, last week I think it was, I

[2:16:35] visited our community forestry sort yard in Netherland. And we've

[2:16:39] got two one in Netherland and on another at the

[2:16:41] north side. They're now open. Um, very impressed with the

[2:16:44] operations. Um, and their popularity with the public. June is

[2:16:49] Pride Month, uh, we're celebrating that with our education and

[2:16:52] outreach team with Community members by hosting two Pride in

[2:16:56] the Park Burning Programs, outreach tables at Boulder and Long

[2:16:59] Mont Pride. And pride in the parks trailhead pop -

[2:17:01] ups across our network throughout the next month. And then

[2:17:04] finally, um, getting to some of those, those work sessions,

[2:17:08] um, we presented on Tuesday, May 26th to the Border

[2:17:11] County Commissioners, uh, in a work session for a new

[2:17:14] concept for district level planning. So this concept, an idea

[2:17:18] really is to replace parcel by parcel management with larger

[2:17:22] ecologically meaningful districts that better reflect how ecosystems, visitors, agriculture,

[2:17:28] and communities actually function. And, um, I guess the result

[2:17:32] of that is I think the board was generally supportive

[2:17:34] of the concept overall. And they asked Parks and OpenSpace

[2:17:36] to come back to a follow - up work session

[2:17:39] with additional research, uh, particularly around where there is and

[2:17:43] is not currently management plans on our properties. Um, how

[2:17:46] to engage community and the considerations for when Parks and

[2:17:50] Open Space staff, uh, think about the districts I think

[2:17:53] we've got six that we are currently thinking about in

[2:17:56] this overall concept. And, you know, where we might start

[2:17:59] first. So, um, as for this overall concept and the

[2:18:03] plans, um, as we move forward, we'll be in close

[2:18:05] touch with you all. And we'll be providing additional information

[2:18:09] soon. Hopefully as an informational item first. Eventually has an

[2:18:13] item for recommendation to the Boarda County Commissioners. Um, this

[2:18:16] is a very long process. So right now it's just

[2:18:19] a very initial concept and thought about, Hey, how, what's,

[2:18:23] what's the strategic way to move forward with overall management

[2:18:26] plans? Um, what's the right way to think about these,

[2:18:29] you know, 110, 000 acres that we have. And, um,

[2:18:32] you know, how to bring them under management and think

[2:18:35] about kind of the, you know, connectivity between them, um,

[2:18:38] and, you know, an overall more strategic approach that can

[2:18:40] also put more acres under, you know, underneath a management

[2:18:44] plan. So this is, um, I think we estimated, you

[2:18:47] know, if you were to take one of these districts,

[2:18:49] it's a, it's a two year process. Um, so we're

[2:18:51] just starting the concept. So no, no decisions coming soon.

[2:18:55] Um, and we'll be soon in touch with you and

[2:18:58] informing you more as we develop our thinking a little

[2:19:00] bit more. But I wanted to highlight that for you.

[2:19:04] And overall, um, I think next week I start my,

[2:19:08] maybe my second month, um, it's been a fantastic ride.

[2:19:12] We've got a tremendous staff, um, a pretty broad remit,

[2:19:16] um, an act of public. And, you know, a lot

[2:19:19] of, uh, amazing opportunities, amazing assets. And also, you know,

[2:19:23] challenges to deal with as we move forward. So, um,

[2:19:26] I'm really excited to be here. Thrilled to be in

[2:19:28] front of you all and look forward to, you know,

[2:19:30] developing a close relationship and working together as moving forward.

[2:19:35] Thanks very much. Thank you. Poseck, any discussion for Jason.

[2:19:41] John. This is John Wright Posack. On the list of

[2:19:45] projects that we were sent before this meeting, one of

[2:19:49] the things his prairie runs, uh, hold, because you have

[2:19:53] to remove an oil well, um, it's not like an

[2:19:56] oil will just hopped into place. What's, how many was,

[2:20:02] what's going on. It's a good question. I wonder actually.

[2:20:10] Ls next month. I think the one here just stepped

[2:20:14] out. Maybe they can answer that question. Just a moment

[2:20:16] and maybe I can get that back to you. And

[2:20:17] if not, I'll anybody else while we're waiting. I've got

[2:20:20] one traced. Lauren, um, Lauren Kelso, um, just something you

[2:20:25] said, Jason made me think of another conversation I had

[2:20:27] recently with Tim at Oscar. You mentioned, uh, this I

[2:20:31] love, I saw this in the notes to developing sort

[2:20:34] of landscape level planning framework. Um, as opposed to parcel

[2:20:38] by parcel planning, I think that's super important. And, um,

[2:20:42] I think you should reach out to Tim. He is

[2:20:45] ideating at a similar level. It sounds like as you

[2:20:47] are. So, um, just that's all I'll say there. I

[2:20:51] think it's worth connecting and just making sure he's aware

[2:20:53] that you guys are pursuing that because it sounds like

[2:20:55] maybe the extra resources that could go work be doubled

[2:20:59] down on there. That's all. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[2:21:04] Anybody else? Uh, Joan. Joan Lutz Pozak. And I just

[2:21:08] wanted to say welcome to Boulder County and Parks and

[2:21:11] Open Space. And from what I can see, you're really

[2:21:15] outgoing able to talk to lots of different types of

[2:21:17] people. And that's very important for the role. Thank you.

[2:21:23] Anybody else. Well, then for Posec, first of all, I'd

[2:21:29] like to thank all of you for very, um, insightful

[2:21:32] discussions tonight. And particularly our new members, you're willingness to

[2:21:38] jump into something new, um, at, I think a very,

[2:21:43] very high level. So thank you. I'm looking forward to

[2:21:45] working with you for the next year. So meeting adjourned.

[2:21:51] Before eight o'clock.

Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee

Agenda

Transcript