Laserfiche WebLink
Open Space Advisory Board <br />Minutes <br />November 9, 2022 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />the data directly comparable. He presented the data shown in the meeting packet. The impact <br />of the fire has been mixed on the prairie. He pointed out a few highlights, including: (1) the <br />effect of the Colorado State herbicide studies, saying this work probably inhibited the re- <br />establishment of cheatgrass after the fire. (2) bindweed cover had been enhanced by the fire. <br />(3) Species diversity and desirable vegetation has generally gone down. <br />David asked if this work was done specifically because of the Marshall fire. Ember said this was <br />a division focus but was completed sooner than planned in response to the fire. <br />David asked if there was a take -away lesson about timing and the nature for prescribed burns <br />and management going forward. Jesse deferred, but said in general, studies have shown that <br />low -intensity burns can be helpful in this ecosystem, but specifics are hard to predict. Ember <br />added that it is well-known that fires can increase weed density (especially initially), so follow up <br />weed monitoring and control was always the plan after a prescribed burn. <br />Helen asked if this data might be helpful for planning a bindweed response if we do a prescribed <br />burn. Ember said a land management strategy has to be adaptive and based on what pops up <br />in specific areas. <br />Jesse said that using Rejuvra (the weed control from the Colorado State Study) after the fire is <br />probably a very effective strategy. <br />David asked if there had been follow up data collection after the prescribed burn at Aquarius. <br />Ember said there had been a before and after study. <br />Laura commented that this long-term monitoring is so important for responsible resource <br />management of the land we have stewardship over and she was happy to see it being <br />supported by the City. <br />Discussion Item: Brief Overview of the Parks and Open Space Fund by Sub Program <br />Expenditures. Presented by Ember Brignull, Open Space Superintendent <br />Ember said that Kevin Watson, the Finance Director had been planning to come to present this <br />topic. But this staff member has recently resigned, so Ember presented documents that had <br />been published in City Council and Finance Committee meetings. She said that the Open <br />Space and Parks sales tax fund was initially just for open space land acquisition. Later it was <br />funding both acquisition and management. Still later, the funding began to be used for Parks as <br />well. Helen pointed out that Parks is currently getting the larger share of expenditures from the <br />tax fund. OSAB has asked for these expenditures to be broken down into Parks via Open <br />Space for transparency. <br />A few items to notice: <br />1) This is the only funding source for Open Space, but Parks generally also receives money <br />from other sources as well. The budget tries to label what is being spent on Open Space and <br />what is being spent on Parks (page 28). <br />2) There had been talk of maintaining a minimum fund balance. The intention had been to <br />maintain enough money in the budget to be able to acquire a desirable parcel of land, if one <br />