Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2015 09 09

Home Browse Search

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes August 12th 2015 Page 3 of 5 noted that easements are especially nice since they don't require the City's management (the landowner manages the land). Helen suggested that this could be part of a future brainstorming session. Chris asked Jeff if City Council considers conservation easements. Jeff says that Council takes advice from the County, since a lot of these are co -owned parcels. Jeff felt that there isn't a sense of urgency for some of these parcels since they essentially cannot be developed economically due to County regulations. Laura mentioned that she isn't too concerned that the city would ever let a high - priority property slip by, but Mike cautioned that it's the unplanned events (e.g. recessions) that make drawing down the fund balance dangerous. Linda worried that promises made by current City Council members may not apply to future Council members. Jeff reminded the board that mostly the Council was talking about not transferring funds to the open space fund from the general fund, rather than siphoning down the fund for other projects. Mike wants a thoughtful middle road between the opportunity costs of keeping a fund balance vs. the risk of not doing so. Jeff complimented Helen on her presentation. He especially noted her comments about how OSAB was looking for accounting transparency above all. Jeff said that the city will probably ask voters for a parks tax for the recreation /senior center expansion next year. Laura asked if this parks tax was going to be just for the building itself or for maintenance as well, since Parks' maintenance is a large draw on the Open Space /Parks Fund. Mike explained that the tax would have two components: a finite one for the facilities upgrades and a non - sunsetting one for maintenance. Jeff pointed out that demand for parks are getting bigger and bigger and maintenance on parks is only getting bigger, as well. Missy and Chris asked that the two tiny parcels on Dillon Rd. be put on our target acquisition list, since they are surrounded on three sides by Open Space. IX. Discussion Item: Finalize Boulder County Annual Trail & Acquisition Request — The board discussed the County's suggestions /comments from last year's requests and considered whether to change our recommendation /requests for 2016. This document needs to go to City Council in September and subsequently submitted to the County, making this meeting the only time OSAB will review this process. LAND PARCELS: Last year the board ranked "property UU" (in Lafayette) as our 3rd choice recommendation. Ember reports that apparently part of that land will be developed, but part of the land (near Coal Creek) was purchased by the City of Lafayette for open space. Chris asked about parcels east of Hwy 42, north of Dillon Rd. Jeff said it has all been zoned commercial. Laura said that the parcels she wished were rezoned were the areas west of Centennial Valley. Helen suggested that we drop last year's #3 (UU), and move #4 (MM) to the third spot. Helen made the point that none of the properties are available, and asked if there was anything else to add to that #4 spot, to get the County's input. Chris asked if there was a map that included things like land under easement, to get a better sense of the land- status mosaic. The board's discussion again came around to our refrain that the city could really use a FORMAL PROCESS to manage land acquisition, since so much is unknown about the properties we are asked to rank and evaluate. Jeff suggested a letter to the mayor on the topic. 4