Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2017 11 08

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes October 11th, 2017 Page 3 of 5 communication with her. Mike commented that it might be difficult for Louisville to take leadership in this issue, since the land is currently part of Boulder County and Lafayette wants to ultimately annex it, but thought that Louisville might be supportive of conserving the land. He also suggested that the owner might be willing to put a conservation easement onto the land, which would prevent the sort of high-density development the citizens' dread. Missy explained how land conservation easements work, and recommended Janise Wisemen at the Boulder County land acquisition department as a possible resource. Missy expressed her support for this land's conservation in some form. Ms. Ladwig asked for a letter or motion from the Board. Jeff said that the City Manager, in conference with City Council, gets referrals from various municipalities and can make a recommendation, too. He suggested that it is unlikely that the developer would get the housing density they are looking for, and that they might have to consider what Lafayette is looking for. Fiona asked how issues around the ditch would work, given that the ditch is owned by a private company. Jeff said the ditch company will also get a referral from the developer and have to negotiate. Ember reported that Open Space staff has received multiple letters with many signatures from citizens regarding this issue. Jeff cautioned that this should be a discussion item for a future meeting before any letters or motions are made, since this was not a discussion item on the agenda. Mr. Abernathy reported that the developer called a public information meeting with citizens in Lafayette and the meeting was somewhat acrimonious. VIII. Discussion Item: Debrief from City Council Study Session There was a study session between OSAB and the City Council on October 10th, the night before this current meeting. The study session was preceded by a Council budget meeting that also touched upon Open Space issues, including the current state of the tax -funded Open Space/Parks Fund, which has been much -depleted recently, particularly by the purchase of the Mayhoffer property. Helen summarized her impressions and take-aways from the meeting to the board. Helen began by talking about the budget meeting. She reported that there was an action item to the City Manager from the Council's budget meeting that there should be a $400,000+ transfer from the General Fund into the Open Space/Parks Fund. Additionally there should be a reclassification of the CIP funding on the Highway 42 underpass from the Open Space/Parks Fund to the General Fund, ie. it should not be funded from the Open Space/Parks Fund, but rather funded from General Fund. Jeff said that Council had decided that the City would look at it more as a transportation project rather than an Open Space project. Jeff cautioned that this might mean that future Open Space -adjacent capital projects will have to compete with the City's other projects down the road. Jeff reported that the Council decided that the amount that goes to Parks Management from the Open Space/Parks Fund should be tied to the spending ratio at the time of the ballot passage. Jeff expressed that the Open Space/Parks Fund should not be burdened with funding park maintenance that was funded from the General Fund traditionally. He commented that this part of Council's budget conversation was productive. He added that some shifts may be included in the 2019 discussion, as that budget plan gets done. Helen reported that the other big issue of the budget meeting was the minimum balance for the Open Space/Parks Fund. There was a consensus that $1.2 million should be a minimum fund balance, though it probably won't reach that target in 2018. Helen explained that the debate is between the opportunity costs of holding funds idle in a fund and the need to keep funds in readiness for land acquisition that may need to 4