[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.