Public use is important to the success and support of Boulder's natural lands program. A variety of quality user experiences should be provided so long as critical wildlife habitat and ecosystems are protected. In most cases, trails can be routed so that this protection occurs.

If users walk over private property to get to trails, the city should investigate fences. Regarding concerns about the use of trails close to private property lines, this depends on a reasonableness standard. For example, one buying or living in a home near or adjacent to open space--a great amenity in itself--should reasonably expect users in their neighborhoods or within sight on a trail. As use increases, these issues will become more difficult to resolve and will need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis In general, all parties should be as considerate as possible because of the difficulties in legislating or enforcing courtesy.

This is a good idea in concept. I do not know the particulars, but would think that the protection of critical wildlife habitat and ecosystems may argue against come connections. Otherwise, regional connections are an important way to maximize open space resources among jurisdictions.

Given the probable regional growth and resultant future demands on trails, I think that all alternatives should be considered. However, we must realize that there is limit on what we can do to keep up with the demand.

As I previously stated, it is reasonable to include all user groups--with the caveats that critical natural areas be protected and that use does not irretrievably damage the natural resource. Also, it may be wise to segregate uses for a variety of reasons such as safety.

Philosophically I do not like the ideas of fees or resident priority, but increasingly understand why they may be necessary to protect the resource against excessive burdens on local resources and to insure that local user's recreational desires are not undermined. Enforcement would be difficult and must be factored into any decision.

The primary purposes of open space should be to provide urban buffering between or among municipalities and to preserve critical natural areas. Open space also acts naturally to protect a community's economic base. I do not believe that recreational use is a primary function, but is an important secondary one. Preservation of Boulder's mountain backdrop has been a priority since before the open space program began.

I believe that the current percentages are about right. I also feel that it is important to purchase land as quickly as possible because of increasing land values.

I believe that a merger should occur for practical and fiscal reasons, although more information is needed on the latter point. However, the unique characteristics of each program should be preserved in any merger.

Areas of fragile ecological habitat and areas with rare or threatened species should be off-limits for recreational use including a generous buffer zone. Ample areas of Mountain Parks and Open Space can be carefully managed for recreation use. There may be need for seasonal closures or other temporary restrictions to permit revegetation. We much remember that once the resource is destroyed or damaged, recovery time is very lengthy in the ecosystems that we have. User options should be balanced with long term resource sustainability as a primary goal.

Even recreation areas have a biological carrying capacity. That balance between use and preservation must be watched carefully. If it is a private backyard there should be privacy. If beyond the backyard there is open space land, then the public should have access with signage to suggest "coexistence". We enjoy having people hike past our backyard so I can share excess vegetables from our garden.

I believe there should be seamless connectivity with careful biological safeguards in place. Zones of specific activity may be part of an integrated network.

Overcrowding should be controlled by capacity limits of parking lots or entry point limits. New trails which break up fragile habitat should not be constructed beyond what we have now. When the movie theater is full, you go somewhere else or wait until the next show or come back another day.

I support passive recreational use on open space land with guidelines for noncompatible uses. For example, no mountain bikes on the Mesa Trail. Breeding, courtship and other special times justify area closures in order to maintain wildlife population levels.

I like the honor and donation system for paying non-resident fees. It is almost impossible to monitor which open space users have paid our local dedicated sales tax and thus might have "owner benefits." We should explore parking fees with a sliding payment scale based on income and non-residency if that could be administered. Youth and seniors could be free.

Highest priority in following order: 1. Sprawl prevention; 2. Preserve mountain backdrop and wildlife habitat. 3. Water recharge. 4. Passive recreation. 5. All others (tied for 5^th).

67.5% to accelerated acquisition; 32.5% for management and education.

Have not yet heard compelling reasons to merge. No public clamor for merger. Certainly we should not merge to help subsidize Crossroads redevelopment.

As I have throughout my first term as a member of the Boulder City Council, I will always advocate for management practices on our Mountain Parks and Open Space lands that provide citizens an opportunity to access these properties for recreational purposes. This includes the full spectrum of non-motorized sports activities. However, I am very sensitive to the unique environmental qualities that Boulder's land acquisition efforts have preserved. As the stewards of these properties, it is imperative that our management decisions not undermine the long-term sustainability of the natural environment.

Those who are fortunate to live adjacent to Open Space and Mountain Parks lands must recognize that these are public facilities and may be subject to recreational uses that benefit all Boulder citizens. As your first question suggests, the pressure to permit additional recreational uses on Open Space and Mountain Parks lands likely will continue to grow. It is my hope to accommodate these uses. However, I believe we must make every effort to mitigating the adverse impacts of city actions on the quality of life for Boulder residents. This includes thoughtful planning which addresses legitimate issues of concern.

Consistent with my efforts to build stronger regional partnerships, I am supportive of measures to integrate our system of Open Space and Mountain Parks trails with those in other communities. I also will personally enjoy the advantage of accessing natural spaces in other communities that an expanded regional trail system will offer. As we pursue additional regional connections, though, we must make certain that we do not compromise the values that the Boulder community places on protection of natural resources. This may entail sharing with our neighbors information concerning some of the important lessons we have learned regarding Open Space and Mountain Parks management practices which set the appropriate balance between recreation and environmental protection.

My goal is to continue seeking opportunities to develop new Open Space and Mountain Parks trails to meet the growing demand of Boulder residents, consistent with the balance between environmental and recreational values I mentioned previously. I believe my strong support for the purchase of additional Open Space and Mountain Parks lands is consistent with this effort.

It is my hope that we can accommodate all such non-motorized uses on Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks lands. Of course, it may be necessary to address potential conflicts between these various users thorough a limited segregation of uses. Our efforts to preserve certain environmental values may dictate additional regulations and restrictions. However, I will work to make certain that all regulations and restrictions on uses are narrowly defined to meet specific objectives.

I am uncomfortable with the precedent for regional relationships that implementation of a permit or user fee system for Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks lands, including parking prioritization, would set. However, I also am sensitive to the role that Boulder can play as the backyard for many less responsible communities who have failed to protect open lands and provide outdoor recreational opportunities for their residents. I will monitor the use rates for Open Space and Mountain Parks lands closely throughout the coming years. To the extent that I believe access and enjoyment of these lands for Boulder residents is compromised over time, it may be necessary to implement certain use restrictions for non-Boulder residents.

This list of important benefits Open Space and Mountain Parks lands reminds me why I have been such a consistent advocate for purchasing more of these properties. If I had to select any single priority purpose for purchasing more land at this juncture, I probably would lean toward a focus in the land-use planning area. The development pressures are so great in the Denver region at this time, that I believe Boulder must do all it can to buffer itself from the creeping forces of sprawl. Fortunately, it is the peculiar feature of open space preservation that it most often offers numerous residual benefits such as those detailed above. Of course, purchasing lands that provide the most diverse range of benefits to the community are desirable.

Given the growth pressures in the Denver region, I am committed to a pace for the acquisition of Open Space and Mountain Parks lands that will protect undeveloped properties from development in perpetuity. This will entail a great commitment of resources. In the short-term, this accelerated acquisition policy may mean that many new property acquisitions receive little improvement for recreation purposes. However, in the long run, this is preferable to allowing these properties to be lost to development forever.

I believe strongly that the City of Boulder must manage its resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible. For this reason, I support measures to share responsibilities and eliminate duplicative services between Open Space and Mountain Parks. I believe we will learn a lot about the operation of these two divisions from their efficiency efforts. Ultimately, this will help us to determine if merging Open Space and Mountain Parks is appropriate.

Deborah Olszonowicz

Boulder is currently doing a pretty good job at balancing environmental and recreational uses of city Mountain Parks and Open Space. Environmental preservation goals, however, should take a more important role than recreational uses when the two objectives are truly in conflict.

There is no point in having recreational opportunities on Open Space and Mountain Parks land if appropriate access is not available. However, if people are trespassing on private property, neighbors' concerns are definitely justified and must be resolved.

I generally support the regional system of interconnected trails, as it affords additional recreational opportunities while mitigating crowding on existing trails.

One of the best solutions to decrease crowding is to provide better public access to areas which are now lightly used, as the investment has already been made to provide these recreational opportunities. A limited number of new trails may also help alleviate the crowding. To the extent possible, Boulder should encourage surrounding communities to also consider a limited number of new trails to take some of the stress off Boulder's Mountain Parks and Open Space.

Boulder has purchased enough Open Space to allow all user groups the opportunity to enjoy it! There are instances, however, when restrictions may be appropriate due to wildlife concerns, safety issues, etc.

At this time, I would possibly consider charging small parking fees in newly designated areas for open space users who do not pay taxes.

I support the priorities as listed in the Open Space plan. As I mentioned in question #1, environmental preservation should have priority over recreational uses if the two are truly in conflict. The purchase of Open Space to prevent urban sprawl is also extremely critical.

I support a higher percentage of the budget being used for land acquisition than management, as we need to protect the land now! However, as the amount of land available for purchase decreases, more money will be needed to preserve what we have acquired.

I need to know more about the pros and cons of the merger to properly respond to this question.

Francoise Poinsatte

Open Space and Mountain Parks should be managed to both provide recreational opportunities and preserve ecosystems and wildlife. The two goals are not mutually exclusive of each other, in fact they can enhance each other if proper precautions and management policies are implemented. When people benefit from open space through recreational opportunities, they are more willing to support open space ballot acquisitions by voting for ballot initiatives, thus protecting more land from development. On the other hand, it is in all our best interests that the land we acquire is not degraded. People recreate on open space largely for the beauty and connection with nature: If the land is eroded and wildlife disappears, our experiences are greatly diminished. We need to emphasize education and enforcement in order to minimize negative impacts, such as social trails, erosion of riparian areas, and user conflicts.

Again, if users are respectful and follow "Open Space etiquette", i.e. controlling dogs, staying on established trails and not being too loud, then most adverse impacts should be minimized. People who live next to open space land are reaping large benefits from their close proximity and need to understand that citizens must have access on publicly owned land. Good signage which clearly spells out rules, and indicates where private property starts, is very important, as well as enforcement of those rules.

An interconnected trail system, such as the Mesa trail which allows users to traverse the breadth of the Mountain Parks and Open Space lands, is desirable in many respects. We need to work with other jurisdictions, such as Boulder County and Jeffco Open Space, to design and implement the regional system of trails. Care must be taken that trails do not come too close to sensitive wildlife habitat and areas that are more susceptible to damage from high use. Well designed trails should minimize the problem.

We should proceed very carefully whenever we construct new trails. If well designed, thay can help consolidate use and actually alleviate impacts on the land. For example, land around the Red Rocks area, just south from Mt. Sanitas was severly degraded with so many social trails that hikers couldn't tell where to walk. A new trail was established with clear signage, while the eroded land and social trails were marked off with tree branches and signs, allowing the areas to revegetate. Restoration is a long process, so it is clearly better not to let the land get denuded in the first place. I am opposed to placing trails where they disturb sensitive species and ecosystems. Crowding can be somewhat alleviated by offering recreational opportunities in other areas. For example, allowing well behaved dogs to run off leash in city parks could take the pressure off open space from dog owners whose main objective is to allow their dog to stretch their legs and run. Cycle cross training areas could be set up on urban lands to provide opportunities for participants of that sport.

Conflict between different user groups is obviously a problem. As a mountain biker, hiker and former equestrian who has extensively used open space for these purposes, I believe conflicts can be greatly reduced by, again, following rules and trail etiquette. I also teach children by taking them out in open space where we learn about wildlife and ecosystems. Most people are respectful, but it only takes a few "bad apples" to spoil the experience for everyone and possibly even cause injury, (such as the time I saw an out of control dog cause a horse to throw its young rider). The first step is strict enforcement of rules for multi user trails: dogs must be under strict voice control and should not harass people and other animals, cyclists need to proceed slowly alerting hikers to their presence while passing, etc. It is up to the user groups to "self police". The Boulder Off Road alliance, FIDOS and the Access Fund have been doing a good job in educating their respective user groups. I would like to see more volunteer "rangers" out on the trails who enforce rules.

Imposing fees on non taxpaying users is difficult because we can't put fences and entry points around open space lands. However we can, to a certain extent, charge for parking for out of town users, such as at the Gregory Canyon Trail head. I'm in favor of restricting, or charging for, parking for non taxpayers, but we must take care to alleviate spill-over parking in surrounding neighborhoods. This is the hardest part about restricting parking at trailheads and there aren't any easy solutions.

I feel the existing balance of funding allocations, about 65% acquisitions and 35% management, is about right. It is imperative that we keep city sales tax revenues strong so we can continue vigorously acquiring more land. On the other hand, if we don't manage this land responsibly, we will hurt wildlife, habitat and degrade its beauty, and recreational value, for future generations. As the red rocks example above indicates, it is far more costly and difficult to restore land once it has been degraded by erosion and off trail use than it is to keep users on well marked trails. As our population increases, so does the need for both strong management and aggressive acquisition. Over time, as acquisitions are completed, we will shift to a higher percentage of management.

The City is currently conducting management audits to more accurately measure how much money would actually be saved. The initial figure indicated a savings of approximately $500,000, or about 10 FTE positions. The audit findings of the consultants will be important in determining what steps to take.

We need to save the integrity and the mission of each department as defined by their respective charters. Further, it is important that the ability of each department to implement management and vigorous acquisitions is not compromised by the merger.

There might be ways to save almost as much money, without a complete merger, by greater cooperation and sharing of resources and labor. In short, I believe we should not rush into the merger before the above issues have been addressed.

Gordon Riggle

Personal Commitment: As a marathon and mountain trail race runner, I cover about 1,000 miles a year on Open Space and Mountain Park trails. Good access, new trail development, and high quality maintenance are very important both the public and me personally. I have also been a member of the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy since 1987.

With good planning and careful allocation of use, both environmental concerns (including wildlife habitat) and recreational needs can be accommodated within Boulder's Mountain Parks and Open Space.

Reasonable public access to Open Space and Mountain Parks must not be compromised.

It is highly desirable that we increasingly integrate Boulder's trails into a comprehensive regional system. A regional system will encourage other communities to develop additional trails, expand recreational opportunities, and help to relieve crowding on Boulder's existing trails.

Additional trails and improved access are both good ways to alleviate overcrowding. Further, we should encourage surrounding communities to accelerate development of their own trails and continue to pursue an integrated trail system for the Boulder Valley region.

Within our 26,000 acres of open space, there are areas which can accommodate each of these activities. Some regulations and restrictions may be appropriate, including geographic and seasonal limitations on access or certain activities.

Restrictions and fees might be difficult and costly to administer. Again, the best way to address overcrowding is to build additional trails, improve access, and encourage other communities to join us in developing an integrated regional trail system.

There is an existing Open Space Master Plan in place. New open space purchases should support the plan and serve to complete the green belt around the city begun in 1967.

With the purchase of land, comes a responsibility to maintain it for the good of the community. The funding allocation between acquisition and maintenance should be continually adjusted to meet changing needs. About 42% of the Open Space budget currently goes to operations/maintenance activities. Over time that share will necessarily increase as acquisition spending decreases and maintenance needs grow.

The City Manager has stated that rationalizing duplicative and/or overlapping activities in the Open Space and Mountain Parks Departments could potentially save $500,000 per year. A management audit of both departments, to begin shortly, will provide useful information concerning how best to proceed on any merger.

Fred Smith

We would balance environmental and recreational uses of city Mountain Parks and Open Space by limiting the number of trails and how much can be used for public use. We must enforce the "Leave No Trace" policy much more than we do.

The city has an obligation to make environmental preservation goals priority! What's the sense of having Open Space if it's natural habitat is not protected?! Quality user experience is provided enough on our Open Space and Parkland; the concentration should be upon protecting wildlife breeding, fauna and foliage preservation and uses for agricultural projects.

To balance the desire of the city as a whole to have access to recreational opportunities on Open Space and Mountain Parkland and to keep the occasional adverse impacts caused by users out of neighboring backyards; We must close off Non-designated commonly used trails (created over time out of frequent use) that are close to backyards (such as on Shanahan Ridge) and devote it for re-growth.

Bring about awareness of the "Designated" access trail to Open Space; and if these trails fall in conflict with neighbors too; re-evaluate those trails.

Open Space and Mountain Parks trails should be integrated into a regional system of interconnected trails such as that envisioned by the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan only enough to maintain the cooperativeness between City and County where we don't neglect and destroy the environment!

There is not a significant crowding problem on Open Space; I hike there every other day and always find myself well isolated from other people. New trails are not needed; there are plenty of trails in some areas paralleled every hundred feet or so.

The alternatives are diversity, community and interactiveness; this should be encouraged! Alternatives are for people to plan alternate directions on existing trails themselves if they feel crowded.

The regulations that are already in place are significant; but more public awareness should be stressed and promoted! Let's not "crowd" our freedom with too many rules now!

There should be user fees for Out -of-Towners; but employing a monitoring system may not be cost effective. This issue must be studied in further detail. For the case of parking; Out-of-Towners generally are the ones who need a car to get here; but all people can take the bus or use their feet from commercial areas and parking lots to get to open space; I do!

The city should decide what new open space lands to purchase by the following priorities:

(1.) buffers to protect neighbors from adjacent development

(2.) control of urban sprawl

(3.) wildlife preserves

(4.) preservation of the mountain backdrop

(5.) recreational opportunities

A good balance so that we don't break the bank! New land can be purchased at a lower cost immediately by buying bonds to acquire it. Maintenance is always important; but also remember, this is a natural habitat and that should be respected by the people; so there shouldn't be much cost to maintain it; let it be!

If the merger doesn't jeopardize one department over the other than it will save costs and number of employees needed; if the merger shows a neglect for one department over the other; re-evaluate it!