January 9, 1998
To: Bob Greenlee, Mayor and Members of City Council, Acting City Manager
From: Former Chairmen of the Open Space Board of Trustees, and the Parks and Advisory Board - Michael Spratt, Jim Knopf, Dennis Berry, Chuck Downey, and Al Gunter
Subject: Managing Boulder's Public Lands for Future Generations
We are excited, yet concerned, regarding the ongoing discussions of a merger between the Open Space Department and Mountain Parks, then transferring Mountain Parks funds for the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall. We would first like to applaud the City Council for examining strategies for managing the public lands of Boulder in a more efficient and less duplicative manner. At the same time, however, we question:
· The timing of the change, in the absence of a permanent City Manager.
· The consideration of the merger in the absence of any analysis regarding cost savings.
· The potential reallocation of funds in the absence of both a public discussion regarding the merger, and a plan(even a preliminary plan) for Crossroads redevelopment.
Our primary concern comes from the way the discussions are currently being framed, i.e., Open Space taking over Mountain Parks. Some of the debate has already digressed into Jim Crain vs. Ann Wichman. As you are well aware, both departments have strong support from the public, and supporters do not wish to see any denigration of their value to the community. We feel that if the public lands of Boulder are to be truly managed more efficiently while preserving the best aspects of both, then a wide range of management alternatives must be explored. While certainly not exhaustive, the following alternatives should be considered and analyzed on their merits. They are:
1. Increased Cooperation/Sharing between Open Space and Mountain Parks. This is the simplest of the solutions. The organizational structures would stay the same but the departments would determine areas of overlap. These could include: integration of ranger services, trail and facility maintenance, environmental education, equipment, and administrative services. This alternative would cause the least amount of stress to staff morale and would certainly bring about cost savings and operational efficiencies.
2. Establish a Natural Resources Department. This alternative probably comes closest to a merger between open space and mountain parks. Two divisions could be created, one managing those lands now comprising our mountain parks and open space backdrop and the other managing the buffer/agricultural lands to the north, south, and east of the city. Again, there would also be efficiencies gained by combining certain operations, staff, equipment, and services. The Real Estate Services could be spun off to report directly to the City Manager.
3. Create a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Department. This is the most ambitious of the proposals but has the potential to truly manage Boulder's public lands under one umbrella. In addition to managing parks, recreation facilities, and open space lands this department would also manage the Tributaries/Greenways Program. To most citizens of Boulder, public lands are public lands, whether they be the mountain parks, open space, recreation facilities, or bike/pedestrian trails. This alternative provides an opportunity to consolidate administrative services and staff, maintenance, facility planning and development, and services provided to the public in one departmental structure. Again, the Real Estate Services could be moved to the City Manager's office.
These are three alternatives, and we are sure that there are others that should be considered and carefully analyzed for feasibility and cost saving potential. Hopefully these thoughts will broaden the discussion. It is critical that the decision regarding who is best suited to manage the new organization(s) be postponed until a structure is chosen that provides the best combination of land use, operational efficiency, cost savings, and service to the citizens of Boulder. At that time, both internal and external candidates should be sought, to ensure that the diverse interests of the community will be met most effectively.
We also feel strongly that there should be much more information provided to the public, and citizen input is essential throughout this process. These are public lands, and as such, the public should have a major say into how they are most effectively managed.
We suggest that a small task force be assembled that includes representatives from the City Council, the City Manager's office, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Open Space Board of Trustees, the Open Space Department, the Parks and Recreation Department, the Tributary/Greenways program, and the public(appropriate user groups). We feel that this approach would provide an appropriate cross-section of interests. This group would prepare preliminary alternatives and take them to the public for their review and comment. Only after adequate task force and public discussion, should the alternatives be presented to the appropriate boards, and, to the ultimate decision-maker, City Council.
Lastly, we are concerned about diverting funds from any City department, whether it be parks and recreation, open space, public works, police, fire, or planning for the redevelopment of Crossroads Mall. We feel that, before reallocations are made(if this becomes necessary), that a comprehensive budget analysis, a determination of the fiscal impact to each City department, an evaluation of all potential funding sources, an analysis of potential cost savings and other ways to increase revenues, and the types of improvements being considered for Crossroads Mall must be completed. This needs to be done in the broader budgetary discussion than just transferring funds from the Mountain Parks budget to the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority.
We have also attached a series of questions which should be answered as you explore ways to more efficiently manage the public lands of Boulder. We represent 35 years of experience and nearly represent the entire span of the Open Space Board of Trustees and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. We hope that as you move forward, you take our ideas into consideration and know that we are ready and willing to help in anyway.
Sincerely,
Attachment to letter from past Open Space and Parks Chairmen:
QUESTIONS about a possible merger of Mtn. Parks & Open Space
11 Jan. '98
1. Is a charter change needed if Open Space money is used to manage Mtn. Park lands? Yes or no, please explain.
2. Would such a charter change require a vote of the public? Yes or no, please explain.
3. Even if a vote of the public is not technically required, would it be best to have a public vote on such a merger? Yes or no, please explain.
4. Explain the savings people think might be possible.
5. Stan Zemler said in the paper that current Cross Roads bonds mature in 2004, making lots of money available for refinancing. Does this make it unnecessary to use Mtn. Parks general fund money? Yes or no, please explain.
6. Should the city consider using Windy Gap money to buy future and past Open Space irrigation water rights, freeing Open Space money for land and other Open Space needs. Could this reduce the pressure to divert general fund money from Parks and Open Space for Cross Roads? Yes or no, please explain.
7. How would Open Space deal with the activities on Flagstaff Mtn., considering the strict Open Space charter? Would this be a problem? Yes or no, please explain?
8. If Flagstaff Mtn. were left under Parks Dept. management, wouldn't things be even more difficult than at present for the public and for the staff, since there would be an even more complicated boundary between Open Space and Parks? Yes or no, please explain.
9. Would it be easier to organize all the Mtn. backdrop natural lands under Mtn. Parks, with Open Space managing the agricultural lands, generally lying to the east? Open Space funds could still be allocated to managing the lands purchased under the Open Space charter. Yes or no, please explain.
10. Do you think the public might become upset at the idea of diverting money from Open Space and Mtn. Parks for Cross Roads, when they just voted to finance more Open Space purchases? Will it look like what the State Legislature did with lottery funds to build prisons? Yes or no, please explain.
11. List and explain ways other than merging Mtn. Parks into Open Space that might be considered. For example:
12. Perhaps most importantly, we could more easily support reorganization of Mtn. Parks and Open Space, with money from both being invested in Cross Roads redevelopment, if we were confident that both programs would gain financially from the anticipated future increase in sales tax revenue. How could this be done? Please explain.