02.26.18 PRAB Packet

PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
City Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303

6:00 p.m., February 26, 2018
AGENDA
All agenda times are approximate Boulder Parks & Recreation
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (6:00) Advisory Board Members 2018
II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (6:03) Marty Gorce

Tom Klenow
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (6:05)
This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or concerns Jennifer Kovarik
to the Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled Tyler Romero
later in the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on Raj Seymour
the need for parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers Kelly Wyatt
are limited to 3 minutes. Depending on the nature of your matter, you may or may not receive
Valerie Yates
a response from the Board after you deliver your comments. The Board is always listening to
and appreciative of community feedback.
Mission Statement
IV. CONSENT AGENDA (6:10) BPRD will promote the health and well-
A. Approval of minutes from January 22, 2018 being of the entire Boulder community
by collaboratively providing high-quality
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update parks, facilities and programs.
V. ITEMS FOR ACTION (6:15)
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve a License Vision Statement
Agreement with Boulder County Farmers Market We envision a community where every
member’s health and well-being is
VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION (6:30) founded on unparalleled parks, facilities
A. Boulder County Farmers Market (verbal update) and programs.
B. A Discussion of the Need to Provide an Easement Through Part of

Scott Carpenter Park to Facilitate the Relocation of the McCarty Goals of the Master Plan
Ditch Due to Impacts Resulting from the Future Redevelopment 1. Community Health and Wellness
of the Aquatics Facility at Scott Carpenter Park 2. Taking Care of What We Have
C. Updates to the Integrated Pest Management Policy and 3. Financial Sustainability
Related Programs 4. Building Community
5. Youth Engagement
D. 2017 Master Plan Progress Report/Overview of 2018 Priorities 6. Organizational Readiness
VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (7:50)

A. None For more information on BPRD Master
Plan visit the City of Boulder web site
VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS (7:50) at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/
parks-recreation-master-plan
A. PRAB Community Engagement Updates (verbal update)
IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: April 2, 2018
X. ADJOURN
100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018
January 22 February 26 April 2

• Service Delivery Update (d/i) • Boulder County Farmers Market • Boulder Reservoir Boat Rental
License (a) Service Provider Contract
• Public Restrooms in Parks (d/i)
• Boulder County Farmers Market Renewal (c)
• Boulder County Farmers Market
Update (d/i) • Easement Through Scott
(md)
• Scott Carpenter McCarty Ditch Carpenter Park (a)
• PRAB Letter to Council Update (mb)
Easement (md) • Agreement with BVSD Regarding
• Board Recruitment (mb) Collaborative Efforts for Summer
• Updates to the Integrated Pest
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) Management Policy (md) Learning and YSI (d/i)
• 2017 Master Plan Progress (md) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (d/i)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • New Member Orientation (mb)

• PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
April 23 May 28 June 25

• Board appointments (p) • 2019-24 CIP (2nd touch) (d/i) • Creek Festival Update (c)
• Election of officers (p) • Flatirons Golf Course Concessions • Civic Area Activation (c)
Contract Renewal (d/i) • Access Update (c)
• First meeting for new Board
members (p) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • 2019-24 CIP (3rd touch) (a)
• Agreement with BVSD Regarding • Operating Budget and Fees (d/i)
Collaborative Efforts for Summer
Learning and YSI (a) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
• Urban Forest Strategic Plan (a)
• 2019-2024 CIP (1st touch) (md)
• New Member Orientation (mb)
July 23 August 27 September 24

• Commercial Use (c or d/i) • CIP 2019-2024 Update (c) • PRAB Retreat Agenda Review
(mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • Recreation Activity Fund (RAF)
Sustainability and Fees (d/i) • PRAB New Member Application
• PRAB Retreat (mb) Review (mb)
• PLAY Foundation Update (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)

Future Board Items 2018 - continued
October 22 November 26 December 17

• 2018 Operating Budget and • Capital Project Update (md) • Asset Management Plan (md)
Recreation Fee Update (md) • PRAB Retreat Follow Up (mb) • Finalize 2019 PRAB Work Plan (mb)
• PRAB Retreat Follow Up (mb) • PRAB Goals for City Council Work • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) Session (mb)
LEGEND
Procedural Item: (p): An item requiring procedural attention
Consent Item (c): An item provided in written form for consent, not discussion by the Board; any consent
item may be called up by any Board member for discussion during the matters
from the department
Action Item (a): A public hearing item to be voted on by the Board (public comment period provided)
Disc/Info Item(d/i): An item likely to become a future action item (or council item) and/or that benefits from
an in-depth presentation of background, financial/social/environmental impacts, public
process, staff analysis and next steps (e.g., presentation of major project initiative)
Matters from Dept (md): Items that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring the level
of in-depth analysis of an action or discussion/information item
Matters from the Bd (mb): Items initiated by the Board that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but
not requiring the level of in-depth analysis of an action or discussion/information item

COMMUNITY TOUCHES - The City has recently been working on an update to the calendar of all city events
for community use. Please view the calendar online for all of the latest updates for upcoming events. We are
encouraging staff and the community to be aware of and use the new tool.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/calendar
The event list can be filtered to see only Parks and Recreation events by choosing ‘Recreation’ from the dropdown
menu at the top of the page, and then clicking on the submit button.
If you would like more information about any of the events, just use the link above and select the event you are
interested in. Additional information will appear at the botton of the page with a link directly to the event web page.
Below is a sample of what you will see, once filtered. For live links or the most up to date information, please use the
link above.


CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety, please go to the following link:
www.boulderparks-rec.org
Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

Date of Meeting: January 22, 2018
Contact Information Preparing Summary: Sarah DeSouza, 303-413-7223
Board Members Present: Tom Klenow, Kelly Wyatt, Jennifer Kovarik, Marty Gorce, Valerie Yates
Board Members Absent: Raj Seymour
Staff Present: Yvette Bowden, Ali Rhodes, Jeff Haley, Sarah DeSouza, Bryan Beary, Keith Williams,
Stacey Cole, Dean Rummel, Brenda Richey, Maxen Jones, Courtney Cerny, Matt Kamhi
Guests Present: None
Type of Meeting: Advisory/Regular
Agenda Item 1: Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Agenda Item 2: Future Board Items and Tours
Bowden reviewed upcoming community touch opportunities. These events can be found at
www.BoulderParks-Rec.org
Agenda Item 3: Public Participation
Jim Warner, Tim Conarro, Steve Filmer and Jill Isenhart, city residents representing the Platform Tennis
Group, spoke to the Board about the group’s desire to partner with the department to improve and update
lighting at the platform tennis courts. They also outlined other areas of the facility that will require
renovation and/or refurbishment to address saftety and use concerns.
Christina Jurgens, city resident representing Community Montesorri School, spoke to the Board about the
school PTA’s desire to partner with the department to install a backstop on the school’s playing field.
Agenda Item 4: Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes from November 27, 2017
Minutes from November 27, 2017 were approved as written.
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update

PRAB members asked a:
• Question about the city’s lighting ordinance and time line for the implementation of lighting
changes at the North Boulder Tennis Courts.
Agenda Item 5: Action Item
No items This Month
Agenda Item 6: Discussion/Information Item

A. Boulder Parks and Recreation Service Delivery Update
Jones, Kamhi, Cerny presented this item to the Board.
PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:
• What does the department do with the master plan survey results that indicate a very small
percentage of respondents who do not approve of the department’s programmatic efforts?
• Who performs the scoring for each program?
• What is done with the information after programs are scored and prioritized? Do the scoring
decisions result in programs being eliminated or enhanced?
• As programs start meeting all the requirements, there will be a need to update the scoring criteria to
address next level steps (serving underserved).
• Is there a perceived need or opportunity to change a program’s characteristics in order to receive
more points and therefore more funding?
• When all programs maximize their point totals across all categories, will there be a departmental
effort to assess and elevate the criteria to continue to define programmatic benefits?
• Impressed with the work the department is doing to provide excellent and equitable ervices to the
public.
• Nice to see that the Board and department has instituted a paradigm where the department
continues to self improve and address master plan goals.
B. Provision of Public Restrooms in City of Boulder Urban Parks

• Really important to ensure that bathroom facilities are available to the community members as it as
public good.
• Excellent and valuable information that can be used to educate the public regarding resources
required to maintain a public restroom to possibly promote future public/private partnerships for
maintenance and upkeep of the city’s outdoor restroom facilities.
• Benchmarking and cost analysis is very interesting and informative.
• Document clearly outlined the omplexitiy of providing public restrooms in city parks.
• Comprehensiive document that is very interactive.
• Encourage addition of other useful information such as inclusive playground equipment and other
features to this interactive format.
• Question about restrooms at North Boulder Park and how are they portrayed on the map.
• Sign at facility could be revised to indicate that when permanent restroom is closed for the season,
a portable restroom is available at North Boulder Park.
• Is the water supply to the Foothills restrooms separate from the water supply to the dog park and
irrigation?
• Is this type of document valued by the City Manager and City Council?
• This type of document will prove to be useful in the future by helping to frame park design
standards and how they are communicated to the public.
• PRAB supports the next steps outlined in the memo.
Agenda Item 7: Matters from the Department
A. Boulder County Farmers Market Update

• Is there any concern from the Farmers Market Board regarding providing information such as
safety and waste plans to align with the city’s permitting process?
• Does the Farmers Market provide its own security personnel?
• This will be the first time that the Farmers Market Board is provided a codification of the city’s
efforts to ensure the success of the Farmers Market.
• Farmers Market has played a major role in activating the Civic Area over the last decade.
Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Board
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Letter to Counci Update

• Did Council comment on PRAB’s letter at the recent retreat?
Boards and Commissions Recruitment
• Board members have had conversations with interested community members regarding Board roles
and responsibilities.
PRAB Community Engagement Updates
• Board members attended the following activities/meetings/tours: Switch on the Lights event,
excellence in the work of the PLAY Foundation (Wyatt and Romero); Howard Heuston Park
construction site; Council election work; Christianson Park; Library Master Plan process; met with
members of the Rugby community, cleanliness of bathrooms at Foothills Community Park,
Flatirons Golf Course, Open Studios.
Next Board Meeting: February 26, 2018
Adjourn: There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:22 p.m.
Approved by: Attested:
_________________________ ________________________
Tom Klenow Sarah DeSouza
Board Chair Board Secretary
Date _____________________ Date ____________________

TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

Ali Rhodes, Deputy Director
Jeff Haley, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager
SUBJECT: Consent Agenda
DATE: February 26, 2018
A. Approval of Minutes from January 22, 2017
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update
The following information is intended to provide the PRAB with relevant updates on specific
projects as they reach major milestones. This section is not all inclusive of all current projects
and only illustrates major project updates. For a complete list of all current projects and details,
please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.
Planning and Design

The following projects are currently in the planning and design process that involves research,
alternatives analysis, public involvement and development of planning documents and design
plans to guide decision making and future capital improvements.
• Asset Management Plan: Work is concluding on the first several chapters of the Asset
Management Plan (AMP) with a focus on outlining policies and procedures for
management of the department’s asset inventory. Work to date includes guidelines for
development of an asset inventory, performing condition assessments and determining
asset criticality, as well as development of asset cost structures. A high-level overview of
work to date will be presented to the PRAB in May 2018.
• Boulder Reservoir South Shore Site Management Plan: After a brief pause in fall
2018, staff will continue work in first quarter 2018 with Farnsworth Group to develop the
South Shore Site Management Plan. The team will hold a series of open houses in early
summer to solicit feedback on concept plan options, will seek additional public input in
late summer regarding a preferred plan option and will complete the plan in late
summer/early fall 2018. Staff will seek PRAB input at several upcoming project
milestones.
3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Engagement Coordination Committee: The city has signed a contract for a digital
engagement platform with Bang the Table. Staff began training sessions in February and
anticipates launching five pilot projects by March. For a sneak peek at how the platform
will function, please visit the Resilient Together site (also using Bang the Table).
• Urban Forest Strategic Plan: A second public open house is scheduled for March 10 at
Upslope Brewing – Flatirons. The open house will highlight the draft plan goals
developed with the community and subject experts throughout the process. PLAY
Boulder Foundation will co-host the open house as an invested partner that is willing to
support the ongoing efforts needed to achieve the plan goals.
• Planning Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following

projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Beehive Asset Management Software Implementation;

o Boulder Junction Park;
o Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center;
o Carter Lake Pipeline;
o Parks Planning, Construction, Operations and Maintenance Manual; and
o Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool Redevelopment (see items for
discussion/information).
Construction
The following projects are scheduled for construction, under construction or have been recently
completed. For additional details please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.
• Construction Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o 2017 Neighborhood Park Renovations (Arapahoe Ridge ‘Rock’ Park, Howard

Heuston Park, and Tantra Park);
o Civic Area Park Development;
o Elks Park Arbor;
o Foothills Community Park (OSMP led project); and
o Lighting Ordinance Compliance.
Natural Lands
The following projects, focused on habitat and wildlife management in an urban environment,
are currently being managed by the Urban Resources staff:
• Prairie Dogs: Staff continues to participate on the city-wide Prairie Dog Working Group
(PDWG). The Phase 1 Final Report and a Phase 2 update were finalized and presented in
an Information Packet to City Council on February
(https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/prairie-dog-working-group).

The following hotline information was sent to City Council on February 12:
In 2017, 260 prairie dogs were relocated to City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain
Parks (OSMP) property. The majority of the prairie dogs (218) came from three private
property sites with pending development plans, with some (42) coming from city owned
property in the area of Foothills Community Park where the colony had been previously
relocated in 2013 & 2014. The relocation season ended in November, and in two of the
four sites where prairie dogs were being removed, not all of the prairie dogs could be
captured. These “untrappable” prairie dogs are lethally controlled in the ground with
Carbon Monoxide (CO) in the form of exhaust, because it is the most effective and
humane method of lethal control. In November, there were an estimated three prairie
dogs fumigated with CO on private property, and the city is expecting to use CO
fumigation for one remaining prairie dog in the area west of Foothills Park in late
February. The city uses many measures to avoid lethal control when possible. A prairie
dog relocation in the City of Boulder requires an effort to capture the remaining animals
for five days beyond when the last prairie dog was successfully trapped. On some
properties, such as Foothills Park, the five days of unsuccessful trapping was followed by
additional days of attempting to flush the prairie dogs out of the ground using water. This
effort was not successful in capturing the last prairie dog. For a relocation to be
successful, the entire colony must be removed. Therefore, at the end of these extensive
efforts to capture prairie dogs, lethal means will be used for the one remaining prairie dog
to prevent re-colonization of the prairie dog removal area.
The pending lethal control for the one remaining prairie dog at the Foothills Park Area
has been scheduled for the last week of February.
• Birds of Special Concern – The marshes and grasslands surrounding Boulder Reservoir
support more nests of Boulder County birds of special concern than any other
comparably sized area in the county (Hallock and Jones 2010). During 2017, 33
volunteers devoted 562 hours to this monitoring effort.
Between March and August, a total of 91 bird species were observed within the study
area, including 71 potential breeding species. This represents a considerable increase in
potential nesting species over what volunteers have observed during the previous two
years. This increase is likely due to increased training of volunteers in ways to determine
potential nesting along with an increased volunteer effort. Nesting was confirmed for
thirteen species however, birds observed during 2017 included only ten, instead of last
year’s thirteen Boulder County or Colorado Natural Heritage Program listed species
(Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2016,
Hallock and Jones 2010).
The full report includes known disturbances or

closure violations (such as this captured by a
wildlife camera) and detailed recommendations
for management actions, including limiting human
use, in each closure area. The annual Boulder
Reservoir Birds of Special Concern Monitoring
Summary is as follows:
 Northern Harrier – Boulder County Rare & Declining
• Another failed nesting attempt at Dry Creek (model airport area);
• Successful fledging of three young at Little Dry Creek (once again the only
known successful Northern Harrier nest in Boulder County this year).
• Based on recent observations, Northern Harrier appears to be among the most
endangered nesting bird species in Boulder County (see Hallock and Jones
2010). Staff will continue to protect and expand potential nesting areas.
 American Bittern – Boulder County Isolated and Restricted
• During 2017 American Bitterns were seen or heard at eight locations around
the Reservoir. Confirming nests or fledged young is difficult for these elusive
birds however, it is believed that at least some were successful this year.
• In Boulder County the species is still limited to only about a dozen
documented nesting sites, and eight of these are in wetlands adjacent to
Boulder Reservoir, privately-owned Six-Mile Reservoir and Coot Lake.
• Given their vulnerability to urban-adapted predators and proximity to
recreation, strategies that increase the size of marshes and protect them from
disturbance by humans and pets should benefit nesting bitterns.
 Osprey – Boulder County Isolated and Restricted
• Little Dry Creek failed for the first time and Dry Creek area nest failed again
for unknown causes.
 Burrowing Owl – Boulder County Isolated and Restricted

• Burrowing Owls had not been documented nesting successfully within the
study area since 2004 nor even observed since 2011. This year two out of four
young successfully fledged from the
Dry Creek area.
• According to Jones, 2017 appears to
have been the most productive year for
nesting Burrowing Owls in Boulder
County during this century. Protection
and conservation of prairie dog
colonies around the Reservoir may
contribute to future burrowing owl
nesting success, especially if prairie
dog colonies are relatively large and
buffered from disturbance.
• Regulations and Seasonal Wildlife Closures

Closures to protect these sensitive nesting species will go back into effect March 15th for
the western side of Boulder Reservoir and for Coot Lake Wetland.

In addition to these species of concern, there was the rare
occurrence of a migrating Snowy Owl at the Reservoir last
month. The owl was perched on a boat being stored on the south
shore. Reservoir staff started tracking people coming through
the gate to see the owl and counted over 400 people during
business hours that week. Natural Lands staff was not aware of
the large number of people viewing the owl until after the bird
left thereby missing an opportunity to recruit volunteers and
educate the community (especially about the effects of such a
large presence of people observing the bird). Staff has reached
out to other land managers asking about their protocols for
crowd control for these types of wildlife viewing events. A
recent Denver Post article provides interesting information
regarding the presence of owls in Colorado this season and associated viewing responsibly.
• Natural Lands Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
• Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Restoration (see Matters from the
Department); and
• Natural Lands Volunteer Recruitment and Training.
Operations Update
Volunteer Program Update

• The community continues to show its support for the Parks and Recreation department
through its ongoing investment in volunteerism. In 2017, staff worked with over 2,445
individuals for a total of over 30,550 hours collectively. A full review of the volunteer
impacts can be found in the 2017 Volunteer Impact Report. This year, the Volunteer
Service team will continue to serve as a leading member of the City of Boulder’s
Volunteer Cooperative. This initiative is comprised of volunteer coordinators and staff
from all city departments who work with community volunteers. Together we work to
enhance community engagement, increase collaboration and ensure the highest quality
volunteer experience possible. Staff is planning for the upcoming milestones and events:
• Service Enterprise Certification – A national change management program,
led by Points of Light, that helps organizations better meet their missions
through the power of volunteers. City of Boulder will be second government
in the country to complete certification.
• Volunteer Appreciation Week – April 16-20
• Prep the Rez Annual Volunteer Day – April 21
• Community Cleanup Day – May 19
For full list of volunteer events and activities, visit BPRVolunteer.org.

Sweetheart Dance
• On the evening of Saturday, February 10th, the North Boulder Recreation Center hosted
the 12th annual Sweetheart Dance on the evening of Saturday, February 10th. Children
under 10 years of age joined a special adult in their life for a fun-filled night of dancing,
face painting, snacks, and professional portrait photographs to commemorate the event.
Despite a snowy evening, 144 ‘couples’ participated in this community building event
where volunteers staffed through BPR Volunteer Services supported activities and
painted over 100 faces throughout the evening. Previously held as a Father-Daughter
Dance, the event was rebranded as a Sweetheart Dance in 2015 to be more inclusive and
align with the department’s desire to serve the entire community.

CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2018
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve a License

Agreement with Boulder County Farmers Market
PRESENTERS:
Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation
Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director, Parks & Recreation
Margo Josephs, Manager of Community Outreach and Partnerships
Justin Greenstein, Events Manager, Parks and Recreation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This item seeks the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board’s (PRAB’s) review and
considered approval of a multi-year License Agreement with Boulder County Farmers
Market (BCFM) from April 1, 2018 through November 21, 2021 facilitating continued
offering of farmers market programming in the community.
The term of this License, if approved, would be cover 34 Saturdays and 23 Wednesday
each year taking place at that portion of the public right-of-way along 13th Street
between Canyon and Arapahoe, north side of the Atrium parking lot,and the Civic Plaza.
This agreement:
• Highlights and reinforces the city’s significant contribution to the Market’s
success and promotes BCFM’s continued interests as the Civic Area continues to
evolve through community planning processes;
• Extends the term from one year to four years;
• Transfers responsibility for restroom provision to the City; and
• Clarifies the required permits and approvals necessary for BCFM programs.
BACKGROUND:
Established in 1987, the mission of the BCFM is to support, promote and expand local
agriculture, making fresh products accessible to our community and strengthen
relationships between local food producers and food consumers.
For close to thirty years, BCFM has produced a local farmers market on City of Boulder
property, significantly contributing to Boulder’s local foods and agriculture industries
AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_____PAGE___1____

and to community health and vibrancy. To date, the city’s facilitation of this
programming has been documented through annual license agreements as managed by
the city’s Community Vitality Department. The city’s evolving special events processes
and Civic Area-related initiatives call for greater focus on this important relationship and,
preferably, greater stability and role clarity benefiting BCFM and the city. To that end, it
was determined that management responsibility for the contract be transferred from
Community Vitality to Parks and Recreation as operator and permit coordinator for many
of the events occurring on or nearby facilities utilized during BCFM programming.
The parties began negotiations in November 2017 which have concluded in the
presentation of the attached License Agreement (Attachment A).
COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS

Environmental:
Under the proposed Agreement, BCFM programming would align with the city’s Zero
Waste and alt-transportation promotion as required for other programs in public spaces
under the city’s Special Events procedures and policies.
OTHER IMPACTS:
Fiscal:
The agreement proposes annual payments made by BCFM for use of the permitted space
which, though substantially discounted, increases by a rate of 2.7% per annum each year
during the four year-term. The proposed agreement also calls for the city (through the
department) to manage provision of public restrooms on the Civic Area East Bookend
site, an expense BCFM formerly absorbed. In anticipation of this shift, BCFM would
make a flat annual payment to the city to offset some of the city’s expenses associated
with restroom provision and servicing.
Staff time:
Existing staff will manage all aspects of this License Agreement’s city responsibilities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Suggested Motion Language:

Staff requests PRAB’s consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motion:
Motion to approve the Agreement between the City of Boulder’s Parks and Recreation
and Boulder County Farmers Market and authorize the City Manager to make minor
amendments prior to or during the term of this agreement in order to ensure that the
market is managed in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws and the policies
and regulations of the City of Boulder.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will consider the PRAB and public’s feedback and make any necessary revisions to
the proposed agreement. If approved, staff will present BCFM with a final version of the
Service Agreement the agreement. That agreement, based on the proposed length of term

would then be presented on consent for City Council’s approval in anticipation of an
anticipated April 1, 2018 start date for 2018 market programming.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Licensing Agreement with Boulder County Farmers Market and the City
of Boulder

CITY OF BOULDER
AGENDA TITLE: A discussion of the need to provide an easement through part of

Scott Carpenter Park to facilitate the relocation of a portion of the McCarty Ditch due
to impacts resulting from the future redevelopment of the aquatics facility at Scott
Carpenter Park.
PRESENTERS:
Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director
Doug Godfrey, Parks Planner, Parks and Recreation Department
Joanna Bloom, Source Water Project Manager, Public Works
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is to provide the background information and analysis
concerning the disposal of parkland, as a permanent easement, in order to relocate a
buried portion of the combined Smith & Goss and McCarty Ditch (“Ditch”) that runs
through Scott Carpenter Park (SCP). The realignment of the ditch is required to facilitate
future improvements associated with the upcoming Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool
Redevelopment project. The realignment will require vacating the existing easement and
providing an easement in the new location. An easement is required to meet maintenance
and operation needs of the Smith and Goss Ditch Company and McCarty Ditch water
users (collectively “Ditch Water Users”).
The outdoor pool redevelopment project includes the expansion of the current 6-lane pool
to a 10-lane pool, new leisure pool elements, and the renovation of and expansion of the
existing bathhouse. The Ditch in its current location will be impacted by this project.
The concept plan for the redevelopment project was approved by the PRAB in January of
2017.
The conveyance of an easement is considered a disposal. Per City Charter Sec. 162,
disposal of Parks property requires review and approval from PRAB, a non-binding
recommendation from Planning Board and, per Section 2-2-8 of the Boulder Revised
Code (B.R.C. 1981), “Conveyance of City Real Property Interests”, City Council
approval is required for conveyance of any interest in any city real property. Section 162
states that park lands may be disposed of by the City Council, but only with the
affirmative vote of at least four members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
(PRAB).
AGENDA ITEM VI-C_ PAGE 1__

While the city does not need to secure an easement on Parks property to complete the
project, an easement will ultimately need to be conveyed to finalize the agreement
between the city and the Ditch Water Users. Having an agreement in place prior to
bidding the Scott Carpenter Pool Redevelopment project is preferred. The proposed
easement within SCP is approximately 20 feet wide and is approximately 630’ long.
An affirmative vote by at least four members of this Board is required for this disposal.
An advisory recommendation, not binding on the City Council, must also be obtained
from the Planning Board.
BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS:

The PRAB approved the concept plan for the redevelopment of Scott Carpenter Outdoor
Pool (Attachment A) in January of 2017. In November of 2017, the Boulder community
passed an extension of the Community, Culture, and Safety (CCS) tax that provided
additional funds – above the approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – for the
redevelopment project. The project includes renovations to the existing bathhouse to meet
current building codes and standards for accessibility. An addition to the existing
bathhouse to accommodate additional area for locker rooms, family changing rooms,
exterior bathrooms, and a dual-facing concession space is also proposed. The existing
50m lap pool will be enlarged from six lanes to 10 lanes to accommodate 75ft x 50m
swimming. Leisure elements including slides, a diving board, a lazy river and a splash
pad will accommodate a wide range of age groups and interests.
Completion of the project requires the relocation of approximately 530 linear feet of
existing piped ditch to avoid conflicts with proposed aquatic improvements and minimize
impacts to a site that has many constraints. Attachment B illustrates that the existing
ditch runs from the western SCP property line south of Marine St., then runs east and
south through the park site and eventually flows back to Boulder Creek. The relocated
ditch line shown in Attachment B will install approximately 630 linear feet of pipe. The
relocated ditch will begin at the west property line and run east through the southern
portion of the existing ball field and then reconnect into the existing ditch line in the 30th
St. parking lot, just east of the bathhouse. A 20-foot easement for operation and
maintenance purposes will be associated with the relocated portion of the ditch and its
infrastructure (i.e. pipe, manholes, etc.). The relocated portion of the ditch and the
prescriptive easement will be abandoned, and the existing portion of the ditch will be
removed or filled in as part of the pool redevelopment project. Disturbance to the ball
field will be addressed and brought back up to conditions prior to any construction. The
city will assume routine and capital maintenance responsibility for the 630 feet of
relocated ditch. The Parks and Recreation and the Utilities Maintenance Departments will
coordinate on maintenance duties. Attachment C shows a draft plan of the engineered
alignment and easement, as well as, installation details. Attachment D is a DRAFT of
the proposed agreement between the city and Ditch Water Users regarding the easement.

NEXT STEPS:
• February – March 2018: Review of draft agreement by Ditch Water Users
• March 2018: Final draft agreement completed
• March 2018: Completion of ditch alignment and easement survey to be included
with final agreement
• March 2018: PRAB Public Hearing / Action Item on the disposal of property as a
permanent easement
• April 2018: Planning Board Public Hearing on a recommendation for the disposal
of property as a permanent easement
• May 2018: City Council consent item on the disposal of property as a permanent
easement
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: January 2017 Approved Concept Plan for Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool
Attachment B: ‘Exhibit A’ Illustrative Plan of Existing and Proposed Ditch Alignment
and Easement
Attachment C: Draft Engineering Ditch Alignment Plan and Installation Details
Attachment D: Draft Grant of Easement Between City and Ditch Water Users

OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN ATTACHMENT A
LEGEND
Amenity PROJECT GOALS MET
POOL DECK Balance Lap Swimming Needs with
Open Swim Availability
POOLS - 10 lane 50m converts to 21 lane,
25yd lap swim with bulk head
GRASS AREA
A - Building allowing for flexible use
NEW TREE Provide Multi-Generational Amenities

that are Multi-Use
EXISTING TREE
- Deep water exercise areas
- Tower slide, climbing walls, log
OPEN BREEZEWAY
rolls
- Lap swimming and open
B - Lap Pool
swimming alternatives SLIDE FROM BUILDING
D
Upgrade Existing Facilities
- Renovations and additions to the
existing bathhouse to
accommodate locker rooms, pool
C C - Family equipment, and administrative
C Elements functions 50 METER LAP POOL WITH BULK HEAD
Illustrate Partnership Opportunities

D - Possible addition of 2 diving
B A boards
- Possible addition of retractable
roof
D - Site
Incorporate Sustainable and
Elements Environmentally Friendly Design
D LAZY RIVER WITH NATURAL ROCK FEATURES
- Plan allows for inclusion of a
variety of sustainable and
environmental design
opportunities
SHADE STRUCTURE
SITE PLAN ILLUSTRATIVE ELEVATION SKETCH

SCALE: 1” = 60’-0” SCALE: NTS * Plans and drawings are conceptual only and represents general sizes and amenity options for prioritization.
PHASED ENLARGED CONCEPT PLAN ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED FEATURES
Amenity Description of Initial Phase Description of Future
Elements Phase Elements
A - Building  6,000 SF Remodel of existing bathhouse and  21,000 SF Retractable Roof

 1,500 SF Addition building addition
 New ADA locker rooms/changing areas
 Dual facing concession (open to paying
customers and general park users)
 pool and administration spaces
B - Lap Pool  10 lane, 75ft x 50m lap swim (East-West  Diving boards in main pool
Orientation) (main pool depth increase to 12’)
 21 lane, 25yd lap swim (North-South
Orientation)
 6ft to 7ft water depth
C - Leisure Elements  Deep water area for exercising, diving  Splash pad with interactive water
boards, climbing wall, log rolls jets
 1 large tower slide  Second tower slide
 Multi-generational lazy river
 Shallow water, zero-depth with play
structures
D - Site Elements  Improvements to existing park  Updates to existing playground

 Shade structures structures (rocket ship to remain) and
safety surfacing
 Fencing and landscape
Additional shade structures
Renovations to existing parking lot


ENLARGED SITE PLAN * Plans and drawings are conceptual only and represents general sizes and amenity options for prioritization.
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
LEGEND
POOL DECK BATH HOUSE
GRASS AREA
POOLS
FUTURE PHASES NEW TREE
EXISTING TREE
VISIONING ATTACHMENT A
SITE AND BUILDING INSPIRATIONAL IMAGES AQUATICS INSPIRATIONAL IMAGES
CLIMBING WALL
EXISTING PLAY NATURAL MATERIALS ZERO DEPTH ENTRY

GROUND WITH TEXTURE
WOOD WALL WITH METAL AND LOG ROLL

GREEN DETAILS NATURAL DAYLIGHTING
IN BLOCK WALL
FOCAL POINT ENTRY ELEMENT

SLIDE FROM BUILDING
50 METER LAP POOL WITH BULK HEAD

ROCKET WILL REMAIN
GREEN SPACES
OPEN BREEZEWAY
SOFT EDGES WITH

USABLE GREEN SPACE
SCREENING AND SHADE DIVING
SHADE STRUCTURE
STRUCTURES
INTERACTIVE FEATURES
MASSAGE FOUNTAIN & FOCAL

POINT EDUCATIONAL GROUND
FEATURE
COVERED BIKE PARKING SPACE SHIP
WOOD AND CONCRETE
MASSAGE FOUNTAIN &
FOCAL POINT
WATER FEATURE BUILT INTO
NATURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL
ELEMENTS
FAMILY BIKE PARKING

LAZY RIVER WITH NATURAL
ROCK FEATURES
RETRACTABLE ROOF FOR FULL YEAR

SHADE STRUCTURE
PATTERNED DAYLIGHTING OPERATIONS
CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF BOULDER AND
MCCARTY DITCH WATER USERS AND SMITH AND GOSS WATER USERS
(Scott Carpenter Park Reconstruction Project)
1. PARTIES. The parties to this Agreement are the following former shareholders
of the Smith and Goss Ditch Company and the only active current users of the Smith and Goss
Ditch: The University of Colorado and Miles S. King; the following former shareholders of the
McCarty Ditch Company and the only active current users of the McCarty Ditch: [McCarty
Ditch water users] (collectively “Ditch Water Users”); and the City of Boulder, a Colorado
municipal corporation (“City”). Unless the context clearly indicates a contrary intention, the use
of the term “Ditch Water Users” in this Agreement will extend to and include each Ditch Water
User individually.
2. RECITALS. The Ditch Water Users jointly own and operate certain portions of
two irrigation ditches which begin their points of diversion on the north bank of Boulder Creek
near the Broadway Street bridge in the City of Boulder, Colorado. The two ditches combine into
one channel approximately 260 feet east of the intersection of Arapahoe and 21st Streets
(“Ditch)” and a portion of the Ditch runs through Scott Carpenter Park in the City of Boulder,
Colorado. The Ditch Water Users have an interest in the prescriptive easement through which the
Ditch is located (“Easement”). The City desires to obtain permission of the Ditch Water Users to
relocate a segment of the Ditch as part of the City's Scott Carpenter Park Reconstruction Project
("Project"). The Project will realign approximately 530 linear feet of the Ditch to the north of its
current location, as generally depicted on the attached Exhibit A. The Project components
related to the Ditch include the following:
• The Ditch will be relocated approximately 70 feet north of the current Easement
alignment.
• Approximately 630 feet of new 18-inch pipe will be installed.
• Access manholes to the Ditch will be located every 300-400 feet and located near
roads/parking lots for easy maintenance access.
• The Ditch will be designed to pass 5 cubic feet per second at slopes meeting or
exceeding industry standards for the size/type of pipe, and also to meet the
minimum flow velocities of the City standard of two feet per second.
• The Ditch will maintain historical stormwater inputs from parking lots and
developed areas.
Together these components are the “Ditch Relocation.” The Ditch Relocation will be in the NW
1/4 of S32 T1N R70W, just west of 30th Street and south of Arapahoe, as generally depicted on
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Ditch Water Users agree to
the terms, conditions, covenants and agreements as set forth in this Agreement.
3. GRANT OF RELOCATION RIGHT AND RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT DITCH

RELOCATION. For consideration and subject to title covenant conditions and limitations of this
1
Agreement, the Ditch Water Users grant to the City the right to relocate the Ditch and to
construct the Ditch Relocation as part of the Project situated in the City of Boulder, County of
Boulder, State of Colorado. The details of this construction are described in the Project plans
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B, as the same may be modified by the material
submittal and the shop drawings subject to 4.a. herein.
4. CONSTRUCTION. The Ditch Relocation on the above lands under the terms of
this Agreement will be constructed, installed, maintained, repaired, rebuilt and replaced in
accordance with the designs, specifications, provisions and requirements approved by the Ditch
Water Users as set forth in Exhibit B, and the following:
a. The Ditch Relocation will be constructed at no cost to the Ditch Water

Users and in accordance with Exhibit B. The City agrees to provide the Ditch Water Users’
Representative/s with copies of design plans, specifications, materials submittals, and shop
drawings associated with the planning, fabrication and installation of the Ditch Relocation. Such
Representative/s will further be afforded the opportunity to review and approve the as-built
drawings following construction of the Ditch Relocation, as agreed to by the Representative/s
and the City. By entering into this Agreement, the Ditch Water Users hereby authorize their
Representative/s to approve the design of the Ditch Relocation set forth in Exhibit B. The Ditch
Water Users or their Representative/s will not be liable or responsible in any manner for the
structural design or details of construction of the Ditch Relocation.
b. The City agrees to reimburse the Ditch Water Users, or pay directly, for
reasonable legal and engineering costs incurred by the Ditch Water Users in reviewing and
approving the plans for the Ditch Relocation, in an amount not to exceed $4,500 for all Ditch
Water Users combined. Payment will be made as set forth in paragraph number 4.d of this
Agreement.
c. The City will notify the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s at least five days
preceding the date of commencing work involved in the construction, or replacement of
construction, permitted by this Agreement. Upon completion of the Project, the Ditch Water Users’
Representative/s will inspect the Project and verify substantial compliance with Exhibit B. The
City agrees to reimburse the Ditch Water Users for all reasonable administrative and inspection
costs incurred by engineer(s) and other personnel for the Ditch Water Users, in an amount not to
exceed $2,500 for all Ditch Water Users combined. Payment will be made as set forth in paragraph
number 4.d. of this Agreement.
d. The Ditch Water Users will appoint up to three Representatives to be their

points of contact, and such Representative/s will submit to the City an itemized statement with
individual receipts or invoices for the total reasonable costs chargeable to the City, if any and
pursuant to this paragraph 4, and the same will be paid to the Ditch Water Users Representative/s
within thirty days after the billing date. Such payment will pay invoices and/or be distributed as
determined by the Representative/s as may be appropriate. In no event will the City be responsible
2
for the distribution. The City agrees to pay invoices at the actual hourly rate for labor, equipment,
and approved expenses as anticipated in this Agreement.
e. The City agrees that the construction permitted by this Agreement will
proceed with reasonable diligence from the initiation of such construction to its completion. The
City agrees to coordinate the construction with the Ditch Water Users’ Representative/s to the
extent possible to minimize any interruption of the Ditch water, operations or maintenance. The
City anticipates that construction will begin in Fall 2018 and will be complete by February 2019,
barring any force majeure events At all times during construction, whether or not completed by
February 2019, the City is solely responsible for ensuring that the conveyance of the entire
priorities decreed to the Ditch Water Users, with adequate freeboard and capacity for storm waters
entering the Ditch in the Project area, flow through the construction without restriction, subject to
the provisions of paragraph 6 below. For the purposes of this Agreement, “completion” of
construction of the Ditch Relocation will mean the date on which the Ditch Water Users’
Representative/s provide the City with verification of substantial compliance with Exhibit B
pursuant to paragraph 4.c., above.
f. The City has sole responsibility for obtaining all applicable local, state and
federal permits or approvals prior to construction and for compliance with said permits.
5. MAINTENANCE. The Ditch Relocation as approved by the Ditch Water Users,

and constructed and installed by the City as set forth in Exhibit B, will be the property of the City
and will at all times be reasonably maintained by the City in a manner that will not create a
hazard to the public or to the officials, employees and contractors of the Ditch Water Users; will
not damage or constitute a threat of damage to the facilities or operations of the Ditch; or
interfere with the operation or maintenance of the Ditch.
Except in the case of an emergency, in the event that the Ditch Relocation is not so
reasonably maintained by the City, the Ditch Water Users will give notice to the City in writing of
such defective or hazardous maintenance; the City will correct such defect or hazard within forty-
five days. If correction is not made within the forty-five -day period provided, then the Ditch Water
Users’ Representative/s and the City will mutually agree on a schedule of compliance to remedy
the defect. Extension of the forty-five period may be granted by the Ditch Water Users’
Representative/s.
In the case of an emergency, which is defined as a situation which impacts the ability of
the Ditch to deliver water when delivery of such water is being called for by the Ditch Water Users
pursuant to decrees of the Ditch, or required by the laws of the State of Colorado; or a situation
which becomes known to the Ditch Water Users presenting an immediate threat to the public health
or safety, the City will respond immediately to any reasonable maintenance requests made by the
Ditch Water Users concerning the relocated portion of the Ditch. Such requests may be made by
telephone, but will be followed by a written request. If the City fails to respond to an emergency
request within twenty-four hours, or if that response fails to allow for the delivery of water as
3
described in this paragraph or to adequately address the threat to the public health or safety, the
Ditch Water Users may make the necessary repairs. The City will reimburse the Ditch Water
Users’ Representative/s as described in paragraph 4.d. for the reasonable and necessary costs for
such repairs.
• The City Utilities Maintenance Department, Attention: Utilities Maintenance

Manager, 5050 Pearl St., P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306, telephone number
(303) 413-7162, will be the City's designated contact for maintenance related issues
and problems.
• The Ditch Water Users’ primary designated contact/s for Ditch Relocation-related
issues and problems will be [Ditch Representative], whose cell phone number is
XXX-XXX-XXXX and secondary designated contact for maintenance related
issues and problems will be .
6. WATER LOSS. The City agrees that the construction of the Ditch Relocation
will allow the Ditch to transport water without additional carriage or transit loss of such water
than has historically occurred. In the event the Ditch Water Users can demonstrate that the Ditch
Relocation or the construction described in Exhibit B increases the historical carriage or transit
loss in the Ditch, the City agrees to repair the Ditch Relocation to prevent the additional loss of
water.
7. TERM. This Agreement and the covenants herein contained will be perpetual
unless modified by Court order, or a signed written agreement of the parties or their successors
in title.
8. GRANT OF NEW EASEMENTS. Upon completion of construction of the Ditch

Relocation, the City agrees to grant a new easement to the Ditch Water Users for operation and
maintenance of the Ditch Relocation by executing an easement deed substantially in the form
attached as Exhibit C ("New Easement"). The New Easement will include an easement across
the City's Scott Carpenter Park, attached hereto as Exhibit C.
9. The City's grant of an easement across the Scott Carpenter Park to the Ditch
Water Users, is subject to satisfaction of Section 162 of the City of Boulder Home Rule Charter
and related terms of the Boulder Revised Code, which will require approximately 90 days.
10. ABANDONMENT AND VACATION OF CURRENT EASEMENT. The Ditch

Water Users will execute a vacation and abandonment of the current Easement following
inspection and approval of the Ditch Relocation. The Ditch Water Users’ Representative will
record the New Easement and abandonment of the Easement in the real property records of the
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder.
4
11. RESPONSIBILITY. By virtue of entering into this Agreement, the Ditch Water
Users: (1) assume no additional responsibilities or obligations related to the Ditch Relocation
described in Exhibit B, except as may be set forth in this Agreement; and (2) disclaim all
liability or responsibility with regard to subsequent easement grants by the City, or with regard to
the City's acts or activities within the Easement area; except for damages or injury caused by the
negligence or intentional acts of the Ditch Water Users, their agents, assigns or employees. As
between the City and the Ditch Water Users, the City will bear full responsibility for the use and
enjoyment of its property, including public access thereto, except for damages or injury caused
by the negligent or intentional acts of the Ditch Water Users, their agents, assigns or employees.
12. NOTICES AND ADDRESSES. Any notice or other document required by this
Agreement will be sent to the following addresses, email, or such other addresses as the parties
may indicate in writing:
City of Boulder
c/o Doug Godfrey, Parks and Recreation Planning
Iris Center, 3198 N. Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80304
With copies emailed to: godfreyd@bouldercolorado.gov
McCarty Ditch Water Users contact information

Smith & Goss Ditch Water Users contact information
13. WAIVER OF BREACH. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of a breach
of any term or provision of this Agreement, will not operate or be construed as a waiver of any
subsequent breach by any party.
14. BINDING EFFECT AND ASSIGNMENT. It is the intent of the Parties that this
Agreement be and remain binding on their respective agents, heirs and successors. The City will
not assign its obligations under this Agreement, provided however, that the City may contract
with third parties for the completion of the work under this Agreement.
15. REMEDIES. This Agreement may be enforced by specific performance,

including mandatory injunctive relief and damages, together with reasonable attorney's fees to
the prevailing party, except that any action which requires the expenditure of City funds will be
subject to City Council appropriation.
16. WARRANTY OF AUTHORITY. Each party to the Agreement warrants that they
have the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement and that the parties signing on their
behalf have been duly authorized.
17. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES; NO WAIVER OF GOVERNMENTAL

IMMUNITY. This Agreement will not create any duty of care or liability with respect to any
person or entity not a party to this Agreement, or waive any of the privileges or immunities the
5
City, its officers, employees, successors and assigns may present pursuant to law, including, but
not limited to, the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101, C.R.S. et seq., as
amended.
18. SEVERABILITY. The invalidity or unenforceability of any of the provisions of

the Agreement will not affect any other provision of this Agreement which will thereafter be
constructed in all respects as if such invalid or unenforceable provision were omitted.
19. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS; Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in

counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original and valid and enforceable against each
party.
20. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement will be effective on the last date it is
signed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands on the date and year written below.
6
SMITH AND GOSS DITCH COMPANY
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
By:
Title:
Date:
Attest:
_____________________________
Secretary
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BOULDER )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a notary public, this ______ day of
______________, 2018, by as of the
University of Colorado.
Witness my hand and official seal.
_________________________________
Notary Public
(SEAL)
7
SMITH AND GOSS DITCH COMPANY
MILES S. KING
Date:
Attest:
_____________________________
Secretary
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BOULDER )
______________, 2018, by Miles S. King.
_________________________________
Notary Public
(SEAL)
8
MCCARTY DITCH COMPANY
CURRENT USER(S) OF MCCARTY DITCH
Date:
Attest:
_____________________________
Secretary
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF BOULDER )
______________, 2018, by .
_________________________________
Notary Public
(SEAL)
9
CITY OF BOULDER
___________________________________
City Manager
Date:
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________
10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Planning, Housing and Sustainability Department:

Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Valerie Matheson, Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator
Rella Abernathy, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator
DATE: February 26, 2018
SUBJECT: Update on the City’s Ecologically-Based Integrated Pest Management Program

________________________________________________________________________
Background:
Environmental stewardship is a core value of the City of Boulder. The city’s Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) program was developed as an environmentally-sound system for
maintaining city-owned properties and facilities to high standards, while protecting public
health and the environment. The foundation of the IPM program is an ecologically-based
approach for the management of public lands and facilities that focuses on preventive
strategies and emphasizes ecosystem protection by maintaining and restoring ecosystem
health. The city’s Parks and Recreation Department is a national leader for sustainability and
IPM through its award-winning turf management program, urban forestry division,
horticultural program and natural lands management.
IPM Policy:
The city’s first IPM policy was adopted in 1993 and last updated in 2002. The IPM policy is
currently being revised to incorporate program improvements, council direction and to place a
stronger emphasis on ecosystem protection. The proposed revisions are included in the
attached city council Information Packet memo (Attachment A of the attached memo).
Pollinator Programs:
The city is promoting pollinator protection and conservation through two citywide programs.
One is Pollinator Appreciation Month, declared each September, that hosts a variety of events
including pollinator habitat plantings, films, lectures, guided hikes, native seed collections,
workshops and a large children’s festival led by Parks and Recreation staff, the Bee Boulder
Family Festival. City staff across departments, including the Boulder Public Library, local
NGOs, local companies, the University of Colorado and many volunteers work together to
educate the public about the importance of pollinators for native plants and local food
production. The city recently launched a new program, the Boulder Pollinator Garden Project,
which will be promoted during Earth Week in April. These programs emphasize the
importance of both urban and natural lands for pollinator conservation.
Mosquito Management Program:

The city is currently updating the mosquito management program, which was developed in
2003 in response to West Nile virus arriving in Colorado. The program was initially focused
only on the mosquito species that can potentially transmit West Nile virus to people and was
designed to decrease the risk to the public, while protecting the city’s wetlands as much as
possible from the impacts of mosquito control. In 2007, the city expanded the program to treat
limited areas for nuisance mosquitoes—or mosquitoes that present no health risk to people.
This was in response to complaints from patrons at city recreational facilities and concerns
about the potential loss of revenue. Some neighborhoods were added to the program in 2009.
Elements that are relevant to Parks and Recreation for the program update include 1) larval
monitoring, treatment, and potential disturbance of wetland ecosystems and sensitive wildlife
on Parks and Recreation natural lands; 2) the efficacy of the program for decreasing mosquito
numbers, particularly those that can transmit disease to patrons of recreational facilities; and
3) outreach for staff and the public to encourage personal protection measures to prevent
mosquito bites.
The mosquito program is currently being reviewed by ecologists and scientists from Parks and
Recreation, Open Space and Mountain Parks, the Comprehensive Planning Division, and an
environmental consultant. The assessment will include an analysis of the mosquito program
data, and a scientific literature review of the efficacy and environmental impacts of mosquito
control programs. This project is occurring in two phases and the full review of the program is
expected to be completed in April 2019. More information is included in the attached
February 1, 2018 Information Packet memo.
Next Steps:
• Staff will present the results of the first phase of the mosquito management program
review to city council on April 3, 2018.
• The final IPM policy revisions will be included in the April council memo and then
provided to the city manager for approval in May.
Questions for PRAB:

1. Does PRAB have any feedback about the revisions to the IPM policy?
2. Does PRAB have any particular issues, concerns or suggestions that you would like to be
addressed during the mosquito program review?
Attachment: Information Item: Ecologically-Based Integrated Pest Management: Policy

Revision, Mosquito Program and Pollinator Initiatives
INFORMATION PACKET
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager

Jim Robertson, Executive Director of Planning, Housing and Sustainability
Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
Tracy Winfree, Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks
Yvette Bowden, Direct or Parks and Recreation
John Potter, Open Space and Mountain Parks Resources and Stewardship Manager
Jeff Haley, Parks and Recreation Planning Manger
Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Don D’Amico, Open Space and Mountain Parks Ecological Systems Supervisor
Valerie Matheson, Urban Wildlife Conservation Coordinator
Will Keeley, Open Space and Mountain Parks Wildlife Ecologist
Joy Master, Parks and Recreation Conservation Ecologist
Rella Abernathy, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator
Date: February 1, 2018
Subject: Information Item: Ecologically-Based Integrated Pest Management: Policy

Revision, Mosquito Program and Pollinator Initiatives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this memo is to provide city council with an update for the city’s Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) program within the context of a citywide ecosystems protection strategy,
including 1) a draft of the proposed IPM policy revisions and a timeline for program components
that are underway; 2) information about pollinator protection programs; and 3) a preview of a
major update to the city’s mosquito management program. Most of these items are informational,
except for the updates to the IPM policy and the mosquito management plan. Staff will be
seeking advisory board input during February and March for the IPM policy changes and the
mosquito management program review. Staff will provide this feedback to council on April 3,
2018, and will include a final revision of the IPM policy, the analysis for the first phase of the
mosquito program review and seek direction for the second phase, which will take place over the
next year and include a communications and public engagement strategy. Staff will then return in
April 2019 with the results of the mosquito management program analysis with options and a
staff recommendation for council consideration and direction.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2017 contract for mosquito control services was $252,516. Due to increasing costs,
mosquito contracting services are projected to be $259,586 for 2018, with annual increases
expected in future years if the program is continued as it’s currently structured. The mosquito
management program review and analysis is requiring significant staff time and re-prioritization
of work plan items. The ecological consultant fees are estimated to be approximately $50,000.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS

• Economic: IPM-related programs create beautiful, safe and award-winning athletic facilities,
parks, streetscapes, urban forest, natural lands, local food production, and recreational and
outdoor activities, that provide revenue for the city and businesses, and generates tourism.
Ecosystem services are more difficult to monetize, but protection and enhancement of
healthy ecosystems supports a sustainable economy and saves money and resources by
mitigating the impacts of climate change and reducing the costs from extreme weather
events.
• Environmental: Protection of plants, wildlife and biodiversity reduces reliance on chemical

pesticides and enhances overall environmental quality. Pesticides are implicated in
widespread species decline and are associated with health issues in people, particularly
children. The city’s IPM program improves the health of the community and the surrounding
lands and waterways by reducing chemical inputs, utilizing ecologically-focused
management, and restoring and protecting healthy ecosystems.
• Social: A healthy and safe environment encourages the public to go outdoors and participate
in recreational and athletic activities, interact with nature and improves overall well-being.
BACKGROUND
Boulder has a long history of environmental stewardship and a legacy of protecting its land and
resources for future generations by forward-thinking, scientifically-based and cutting-edge
approaches. The city’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program has exemplified these
principles since its inception in the late 1980’s, when open space employees began exploring
methods for non-chemical management of weeds due to concerns about the overuse of
herbicides. This led to a citywide IPM program with an ecologically-based approach as its
foundation.
History of IPM
IPM was first developed in response to the problems that arose from the post-World War II use
of pesticides. The insecticide, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), was a game-changer
during the war and prevented the deaths of soldiers from insect-borne diseases like typhus and
malaria. DDT was extremely toxic to insects and seemingly safe for people. This led to
widespread use after the war in every sector of society, including agricultural and urban areas, in
home gardens, inside houses and on people. However, the downsides became apparent when
DDT lost its effectiveness as mosquitoes became resistant to it and agricultural pest populations
exploded from resistance or from the removal of pest predators that were susceptible to DDT.
From Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” the public and the government became aware of how
DDT was contaminating the entire food chain, resulting in catastrophic environmental problems
and threatening birds and other animals with extinction.
The IPM methods developed in the late 1950’s sought to reverse the damage caused by the
widespread use of DDT and other pesticides, and focused on restoring the natural function of the
food web by rebalancing biodiversity, and applying pesticides only after pests reached a
“threshold,” where natural factors weren’t sufficient to keep pests in check and pest damage
caused economic loss. When preventive principles are used, such as crop rotation, building
healthy soils, and providing floral resources for pollinators and natural predators, pesticide
intervention is often unnecessary.
IPM in Boulder
Boulder’s IPM program is based on the principles that were developed by the scientists who
pioneered IPM in the 1950’s. IPM is a dynamic, decision-making process that is based on the
best available science, and relies on observation and knowledge of the target organism and the
ecosystem where it lives. This fact sheet summarizes the city’s approach to IPM. The city
defines IPM as:
A decision-making process that selects, integrates, and implements a combination of suitable

and compatible strategies to prevent, deter, or manage pest populations within established
thresholds. IPM uses a "whole systems approach,” viewing the target species as it relates to
the entire ecosystem. Management strategies are chosen that minimize impacts to human
health, the environment, and non-target organisms, and protect overall biodiversity and
ecosystem health.
Relevance of IPM Today

When the unintended consequences of DDT became evident, it was banned in 1972. DDT is
highly persistent and it and its breakdown products are still found today in the environment and
in our bodies. New pesticides were developed to replace DDT, and as problems arose with those
products, new families of pesticides were developed. At the time, each of these types of
pesticides were considered a big improvement over the previous generation of products. But each
new group of insecticides—the organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and more recently,
the neonicotinoids—have created their own ecosystem-wide issues that are contributing to global
declines in pollinators and all other animals. Pesticide contamination is found throughout the
earth from the artic to the oceans. These chemical stressors in combination with habitat loss from
expanding agriculture, urbanization, mineral and fossil fuel extraction, other human-based
activities, and climate change have led to extensive losses of biodiversity. The 2016 Living Plant
Report from the World Wildlife Federation shows that between 1970 and 2012, 58 percent of
mammals, birds and fish populations were lost, with the biggest decline in freshwater species,
which dropped by 81 percent.
In addition to the precipitous decline of pollinators, all other insects around the world are in steep
decline. The current rate that species are undergoing extinction is altering the planet, the
consequences of which are not yet understood. A diversity of organisms is crucial for
functioning ecosystems. All life on the planet is sustained by the “ecosystem services” that
healthy ecosystems provide, such as food and fiber, clean air and water, and climate regulation.
(©Peter Burgess, True Value Metrics)
Ecosystem Services and Climate Change

With changing climate, there are winners and losers among the different species that make up
our ecosystems. Some will adapt and remain, some will migrate to new locations and some will
go locally extinct. The invasion of exotic and invasive species compromises these already
stressed systems, altering or degrading ecosystem services, and requires a thoughtful and
cautious approach for managing invasive species without inadvertently causing more harm to
desirable organisms and their interactions with other species of the ecosystem community.
City Programs
Staff across city departments are working together to develop programs and practices that protect
and maintain ecosystem function in open space, agricultural and urban areas. The role of urban
ecosystems is often overlooked. Urban ecosystem habitats within cities are now recognized to be
increasingly important in supporting populations of plants and wildlife, as well as providing
corridors for migrating species. Ecosystems also sequester carbon and are a critical element in
efforts to mitigate and lower greenhouse gases. A recent study suggests that the world’s
wetlands, forests and grasslands could provide up to a third of the carbon sequestration required
to keep global temperature rise within 2°C by 2030. But equally important is the role that
diverse, highly-functioning ecosystems serve in providing resilience from the unpredictable
conditions of extreme weather and natural disasters that are expected to increase as a result of
global warming. Therefore, protection of ecosystems and the creation of high-quality habitat is
crucial for a comprehensive and successful climate action plan.
In 2018, a cross-departmental team of environmental planners are working on the development
of an integrated ecosystems management strategy that can address increasing environmental
threats and build on opportunities to enhance ecosystems and ecosystem services in and around
the city. IPM is a crucial part of this strategy, since all city properties from streets, parks and
bikeway landscaping to restoration and protection of natural properties and agriculture are
managed using IPM. The following section will provide information about IPM programs and
current work within this context. A major update is underway for the city’s mosquito
management program, and detailed information is included as preparation for this project.
ANALYSIS
I. IPM
1. IPM Policy
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the city’s IPM policy. The city first adopted a formal
IPM policy in 1993 and updated the policy in 2002. The IPM policy is currently being revised to
incorporate program improvements and council direction since the 2002 update. The impetus for
the developing the original IPM policy in 1993 was reducing, and where possible, eliminating
pesticides, and requiring an ecologically-based approach for managing target species. That
language was retained in the 2002 policy, and is also kept in the 2018 revision.
The IPM policy provides guidance for the management of all city properties, including
landscape, natural area, agricultural and facilities. It also directs staff to provide education and
outreach to the public regarding best practices that protect ecosystems, such as IPM, pesticide
reduction strategies, and pollinator protection. A proposed revision of the IPM policy is attached,
including strike-out and clean versions, along with the rationale for changes (Attachment A). The
major changes that occurred in 2002 and are proposed for 2018 are listed below.
Past and Current Changes to IPM Policy:

2002 IPM Policy Revisions:
• IPM coordinator role added;
• Reporting responsibilities specified;
• Contractor requirements strengthened;
• Department head approvals required for most toxic EPA pesticide categories; and
• Departmental IPM plan deadlines incorporated.
2018 IPM Policy Proposed Revisions:

• A comprehensive, citywide IPM operations manual replaces individual department or work
group IPM plans;
• Incorporate pesticide assessment and approval process; and
• Language is strengthened to emphasize ecosystems/biodiversity protections.
2. IPM Program Improvements
IPM Operations Manual

The 1993 and 2002 IPM policies required each department or division to develop an IPM plan.
This requirement was never fully achieved and also has the potential to lead to silos among
workgroups that manage properties/facilities with similar practices. A comprehensive IPM
operations manual incorporates the information contained in individual IPM plans and will
encourage collaboration, problem-solving and innovation. This document will provide the
background, information and direction for all city IPM strategies and procedures. It will serve as
a guide for IPM staff, contractors and lessees. It will also provide information and links for other
environmental programs and master plans.
The IPM operations manual is currently being developed by staff. The first phase will be posted
on the city’s website by the end of 2018. It will be a living and dynamic document that will be
updated regularly with new information and procedures.
Pesticide Assessment Process

The pesticide assessment process will be included in the IPM operations manual. Staff only
considers the use of a pesticide as a last resort after following the IPM process. If a pesticide is
used, it must be on the approved pesticide list or undergo a screening process that complies with
the IPM policy. Pesticides are assessed using regulatory data from the U.S. and other countries,
as well as relevant studies in the academic literature. Pesticides are evaluated for potential
impacts to human health, non-target organisms and environmental fate (e.g. persistence in soil
and water, ability to leach, breakdown products of concern, etc.). Products are then ranked with
criteria that places them in a “hazard tier” from least toxic to most toxic. In addition, usage
guidelines are developed to minimize the impact of any chemical application.
II. Pollinator Programs
Approximately 80-95 percent of the plants in natural areas require pollination. These plants are
the foundation of food webs and pollination is an essential ecosystem service. Colorado is home
to over 950 species of wild bees and more than 550 species live in Boulder County. Native bees
come in all shapes and sizes and live in a range of environments from grassland to alpine forests.
Most are solitary ground-nesting species and others live in hollow twigs, logs and snags. Little is
known about the fate of the majority of these species, but experts who study population trends
are seeing steep declines in the majority of bee species. Bees need safe, pesticide-free flowers of
different types that bloom all season long.
The city officially banned the use of neonicotinoids on public properties in 2015 due to the
comprehensive body of scientific literature that conclusively shows harm to pollinators, aquatic
insects and other animals from their use. Staff across departments are creating pollinator gardens,
collecting native plant seed, restoring habitat, offering workshops and providing education to the
public about pollinator protection.
1. Pollinator Appreciation Month

The city has declared September as Pollinator Appreciation Month annually since 2015 to
celebrate the importance of pollinators and provide information to the public. The city partners
with the University of Colorado, local NGOs and volunteers to offer a variety of events,
culminating in the Bee Boulder Family Festival, which is attended by hundreds of children, who
learn about the importance of pollinators with fun and creative activities.
2. Boulder Pollinator Garden Project
The Boulder Pollinator Garden Project is a new program to encourage the creation of high
quality pollinator habitat throughout Boulder, both on public and private properties. The city will
be mapping pollinator habitat in parks, open space and other city-owned properties and reaching
out to other public entities to share and map their habitat. Home and business owners and other
residents are encouraged to map their yards and gardens. The long-term goal for this program is
to coordinate the efforts of local organizations and individuals to create pollinator pathways and
connections to open space that will establish Boulder as a pollinator haven that supports bees,
butterflies, beetles, hummingbirds and other pollinators and native wildlife.
III. Mosquito Management Program

This section contains more information than the other sections in this memo to prepare staff,
advisory boards, council and the public for the update to the city’s mosquito management
program. The city’s mosquito management program was progressive, innovative and cutting
edge at the time it was developed. It changed mosquito industry practices and risk estimates for
West Nile virus (WNv). Therefore, when evaluating the program and determining the next steps,
a review of the history of the program is important for understanding the initial objectives and
how the program can be improved in alignment with current city goals and policies.
A. Current Program
West Nile Virus

Prior to 2002 when West Nile virus (WNv) first arrived in Colorado, the city didn’t have a
mosquito control program. WNv was first reported in New York in 1999 and then quickly spread
across the country, arriving in Colorado in 2002. By 2003, Colorado had the highest number of
human WNv cases and deaths in the county. Since that time, WNv human cases have decreased
significantly, but the disease is now endemic across the country and present at some level every
year.
When the city created its first mosquito management plan to address WNv, the mosquito
industry standards were not compatible with the city’s IPM policy and ecologically-based
principles for management of natural lands, where the majority of mosquito larval sites on city-
owned land occur. Instead of a mosquito control contractor, the city hired an ecological
consultant with expertise in aquatic entomology and wetlands ecology to develop a plan that
would protect public health and address the risk from WNv, while protecting the city’s
ecosystems and wetlands as much as possible.
Industry vs. City’s Approach

The mosquito control industry uses a wide range of pesticides to attack every stage of the
mosquito lifecycle – the larva, pupa and adult. Adulticides target the adult mosquito and are
broad-spectrum insecticides that are applied to vegetation where adult mosquitoes rest, by truck
through city and neighborhood streets or by airplane or helicopter. Studies show that very little
of the product actually reaches the target mosquito, and only reduces a portion of the mosquito
population, which can quickly rebound. These products, however, harm non-target insects such
as pollinators and other animals, and are associated with human health problems.
City’s Program Changed Industry Standards
In 2002, CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the mosquito control industry standards
recommended spraying adulticides if mosquito traps caught a certain number of mosquitoes
regardless of whether the species of mosquito could transit disease or if they were infected with
WNv. While the city was under pressure from the CDC, state and county authorities to spray city
streets during the peak of the WNv epidemic, the grid of adult mosquito traps located throughout
the city indicated that there were not enough mosquitoes infected with WNv to warrant fogging
city streets. The city chose not to spray, based on data and risk analysis. The industry and the
CDC eventually adopted the city’s approach of using the appropriate mosquito species and
disease infection rate before making recommendations to spray for WNv.
During the design of the city’s WNv management plan, the consultant created the Vector Index,
which was developed from 2003 City of Boulder data. The Vector Index provides an early
warning tool for estimating elevated risk of WNv transmission to people. The Vector Index has
since been adopted around the country as the standard method for assessing WNv risk to the
public. The city manager and staff used fact-based information to inform decisions that protected
the public from needless pesticide exposure.
Focus on Larval Control

The city also developed a more environmentally-sound approach for controlling mosquito larvae.
Accurate mapping of mosquito breeding sites—where the female mosquitoes lay their eggs and
the larvae develop—is an important component of large-scale mosquito management programs.
There are a number of larvacides—products that are targeted towards the larval stage of the
mosquito life cycle. They range from nonselective oils that affect all aquatic organisms, to
growth regulators that affect all insects, to products that are specific to mosquito larvae and
closely-related species. Even the most targeted product, which the city uses, Bacillus
thuringiensis israelensis or Bti, is not benign. It will kill all species of mosquitoes, whether or
not they are disease carriers or human pests. Bti also kills non-target midges and blackflies, all of
which are important members of wetland ecosystems. During the larval stage, mosquitos are
filter feeders with an important ecological niche in wetlands. They eat decaying organic matter,
bacteria, fungi, and other microorganisms. They are also important food sources for predatory
insects, fish, amphibians and other animals. Greatly reducing a major wetland food source, can
have cascading impacts to other organisms in the wetland community.
Adult mosquitoes are food sources for bats, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Mosquitoes feed on
flower nectar and some act as pollinators. Disturbances, alterations to naturally-occurring
biodiversity from insecticides and other inputs into wetlands harm ecosystem health. Fully-
functioning wetland ecosystems naturally lower mosquito populations, and can lower the risk for
disease. Highly-functioning wetlands provide important ecosystem services that sequester carbon
and help to buffer the impacts from flooding and extreme weather events.
To limit the impacts of Bti to city wetlands, the city developed a monitoring protocol for the
2006 WNv mosquito management plan where mosquito larvae are examined in the field, and the
site is only treated with Bti if vector species are present— species that can potentially transmit
disease. By targeting only vector species, it decreases the amount of Bti applied to city wetlands.
The Role of the Public in Reducing West Nile Virus Risk
The species of mosquitoes that can potentially transmit WNv commonly breed in urban areas and
peoples’ yards—often in non-natural areas, like clogged gutters, containers, bird baths, over-
watered areas in yards, old tires and poorly-drained depressions. The city, county and state
authorities provide education about the crucial role that the public plays in reducing WNv risk by
removing breeding sites from their own properties. Education also emphasizes the importance
and personal responsibility for avoiding mosquito bites by using mosquito repellents.
B. Reviewing and Updating the City’s Mosquito Program

1. Mosquitoes that Potentially Transmit Disease
The city’s West Nile virus (WNv) management plan was created in 2006 when WNv was new to
the area. The objectives for the 2006 plan were to reduce the risk for WNv to the public, while
protecting wetlands and ecosystem health as much as possible. Since 2006, the public health risk
from WNv is better understood and multiple studies have been published by independent
scientists that examine a range of issues that pertain to mosquito management, human health and
the impacts of mosquito treatments on ecosystem health. This literature will be reviewed to
determine the pros and cons of different approaches to mosquito control.
2. Nuisance or Non-Disease Carrying Mosquitoes

In 2007, a pilot nuisance control mosquito program was launched due to complaints of patrons at
city recreational facilities. Neighborhoods with high mosquito activity requested to be included
and some areas were added to the program. Due to concerns from additional Bti application to
wetlands, a threshold was established for non-disease carrying/nuisance mosquito species to
reduce the number of treatments and impacts to wetlands. Council directed staff to continue the
nuisance program in 2011, using an adaptive management strategy.
Nuisance mosquitoes were not initially included in the city’s program, because they pose no
public health threat, are integral components of the food chain, and it allowed some portion of
the city’s wetlands to be left undisturbed from larvicide impacts. Many nuisance mosquito larvae
were already controlled through the WNv program when they live in the same larval breeding
sites as vector larvae.
The objectives for initiating a program for the treatment of nuisance mosquitoes were:
1. Reduce complaints from patrons at recreational facilities, including the ball fields, golf
course and the reservoir;
2. Address concerns of specific neighborhoods that experience high mosquito activity; and
3. Reduce insecticide fogging by Boulder County in neighborhoods adjacent to city-owned
natural properties with mosquito breeding sits
When the nuisance program began, there were concerns at the time about potential revenue loss
from fewer patrons using city facilities due to high mosquito activity. Another concern was the
health and environmental impacts from Boulder County’s mosquito control program that applies
adulticides for nuisance mosquitoes in unincorporated neighborhoods that are adjacent to city
open space properties. The county agreed to raise the threshold for spraying from 100
mosquitoes in a trap to 250 in certain areas if the city would agree to treat nearby larval sites for
nuisance mosquito larvae. Besides the exposure of the public to adulticides, the city had concerns
about insecticide drift onto open space properties that could contaminate water and harm non-
target species.
C. Mosquito Program Evaluation, Analysis and Timeline

The city has a rich dataset stretching back to 2003, which includes larval density at all mapped
larval breeding sites for two categories of mosquito larva - vector (species that can potentially
carry and transmit WNv) or non-vector or nuisance/floodwater species. The city also has adult
mosquito trap data, WNv mosquito infection data and a large number of ecological studies
conducted on Open Space and Mountain Parks and Parks and Recreation natural areas.
A staff team of ecologists, wetland biologists, entomologists and wildlife experts from Open
Space and Mountain Parks, Parks and Recreation, and Planning, Housing and Sustainability, and
an ecological consultant, OtterTail Environmental, will work together to over the next year to
evaluate the current mosquito management program.
The team will:

• Review and analyze the city’s larval and adult mosquito data;
• Collect data from the county and state for mosquito population and WNv patterns;
• Conduct literature reviews;
• Consult with expert scientists;
• Assess the efficiency and efficacy of both the WNv and nuisance mosquito control programs;
• Assess the environmental impacts of the programs, particularly in light of the city’s climate
action and resilience goals;
• Determine if original program objectives have been met; and
• Provide recommendations for updates to field protocols and program objectives.
The work will be conducted in two phases. Phase I will address items that need to be in place
before the 2018 field season begins. Phase II will complete the analyses and recommendations
for updating the program.
PROJECT TIMELINES
I. IPM Policy and Program

Feedback from advisory boards, relevant city working groups and public input will be gathered
through the end of March. The final IPM policy revisions will be included in the April 3 council
memo and then provided to the city manager for approval by April 15.
Staff will post the first phase of IPM Operations Manual, including the pesticide approval
process, by the end of 2018. Work will continue on individual program areas during 2019.
II. Pollinator Programs

The Boulder Pollinator Garden Project is being promoted through Earth Week events in April.
Staff are coordinating with the University of Colorado and NGOs to develop outreach and
neighborhood organizing efforts to create and map pollinator gardens on private property, and
map city and other public land pollinator habitat.
City inter-departmental staff, partners and volunteers are planning Pollinator Appreciation
Month events, including the Bee Boulder Family Festival, which will take place on September
29, 2018 in Central Park.
III. Mosquito Program Update

The mosquito management program will be reviewed in two phases with the following items:
Phase I (January – April 2018):

• Describe the process for monitoring and treatment of mosquito larval breeding sites in
wildlife closures;
• Evaluation of the threshold and treatment protocols for non-vector (nuisance) mosquitoes for
the 2018 season; and
• Develop a WNv outbreak emergency response plan
Phase II (April 2018 – April 2019):

• Data analysis for WNv and non-vector mosquito management programs for efficacy and
ecological impacts;
• Review and options for larval site management procedures and review of current site
categories for monitoring and treatment;
• Adaptive management approach to address challenges from climate change;
• Implementation of communications and public engagement plan;
• Options and staff recommendation for changes to mosquito management plan; and
• Report and presentation to city council in April 2019 to provide results of program
assessment and determine direction for the city’s mosquito management program.
NEXT STEPS
• The team reviewing the city’s mosquito management plan will complete Phase I
components and provide this information to council on April 3, 2018.
• The Open Space Board of Trustees (Feb. 14, 2018), Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board (Feb. 26, 2018), and Environmental Advisory Board (March 7, 2018) will be
provided with the information included in this memo and board feedback will be included
in the April 3 memo to council.
• Staff will solicit feedback on the proposed IPM policy revisions and the final revisions
will be included in the April 3 memo.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions
Attachment A - Proposed Integrated Pest Management Policy Revisions
Attachment A: 2018 Integrated Pest Management Policy Revision
A draft of the proposed revisions to the IPM policy with the changes incorporated is included. A
version with track changes is also attached, which includes comments with an explanation for
substantive changes.
Major revisions include:
1. Since 2002, the city has implemented a pesticide approval process (IPM Task Force and
more recent council direction to implement hazard tier list). This direction is incorporated
into relevant sections and obsolete language is removed.
2. The word, “control” is replaced with “management” in most instances throughout the
document to better represent the city’s holistic ecosystem management approach and IPM
practices vs a pest-centric approach.
3. Departmental IPM plans are replaced with a citywide IPM Operations Manual. The
Operations Manual provides a framework for entire IPM Program. Specific IPM practices of
city departments will be incorporated.
4. Some sections are clarified by simplifying or re-organizing wording.
5. “Short and long-term” is added to emphasize importance of considering full impacts of
decisions.
6. The “interdepartmental IPM Review Group” is changed to “Interdepartmental IPM Team”
since this describes more accurately how the city IPM team functions.
CITY OF BOULDER
***
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 2018
_________________________
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
I. SCOPE AND APPLICATION
This Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy applies to all pest management activities conducted
by all city staff, contractors and lessees, which includes all monitoring, non-chemical pest
management practices and any pesticide use in buildings and related facilities; grounds and open
space; and other property owned or managed by the City of Boulder.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for implementation of the most environmentally-
sound approaches for landscape, natural area, agricultural and facilities management and to reduce
and eliminate, where possible, the volume and toxicity of chemical pest control treatments. The
overarching goal is for all city IPM practices to be carefully assessed for the potential impacts to
human health, water quality, non-target organisms, and the preservation and/or enhancement of
biodiversity, particularly federal endangered and threatened species, and state, county and local
species of concern. As a result, ecologically-based IPM approaches will be developed that promote
the stability of desirable species and discourage pest populations, while sustaining the natural
balances within the ecosystem.
Integrated Pest Management Policy PAGE 1

III. DEFINITIONS
A. Integrated Pest Management (IPM): a decision-making process that selects, integrates, and
implements a combination of suitable and compatible strategies to prevent, deter, or manage pest
populations within established thresholds. IPM uses a "whole systems approach," viewing the target
species as it relates to the entire ecosystem. Management strategies are chosen that minimize impacts
to human health, the environment, and non-target organisms, and protect overall biodiversity and
ecosystem health.
B. Pest: broadly, a pest is an organism that interferes with or reduces the availability or quality
of desirable plants and other resources; impacts human or animal health; damages structures; or
harms some component of the ecosystem. Whether or not an organism is considered a pest can
depend on the setting, rather than the particular species. A pest may be an insect, rodent, nematode,
fungus, weed, or any other form of terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal life or virus, bacteria, or
other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria, or other micro-organisms on or in living man or other
living animals).
C. Pesticide: any substance or mixture of substances intended for killing or repelling any pest.
This includes without limitation fungicides, insecticides, nematicides, herbicides, and rodenticides
and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or
desiccant. In addition to applications of pesticides, products that have been pre-treated with
pesticides are subject to this policy. Plants that have been genetically modified to incorporate
pesticides or are resistant to pesticides are prohibited unless an exception has been granted by the city
manager.
The following products are not pesticides:

1. Deodorizers, bleaching agents, disinfectants and substances for which no pesticidal claim is
made in the sale or distribution thereof, and
2. Fertilizers and plant nutrients.
D. Reasonable Alternative: a feasible option for pest management, which takes into account
the short and long-term economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the proposed
choices.
IV. CITY IPM COORDINATOR
The city manager has determined that a central staff person will coordinate the IPM efforts of city
departments. The IPM coordinator’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to the following:
• Coordination with city departments on weed and pest management issues and integrating
IPM principles with other environmental policies and plans;
• Publication of IPM reports;
• Coordination of an interdepartmental IPM team;
• Development of a city weed management plan, in accordance with state law;

• Development and maintenance of pesticide approval process(es) and pesticide reduction

guidelines;
• Coordination of the development and update of an IPM operations manual;
• Research and recommendations for IPM strategies;
• Development and administration of the city’s mosquito management policy and program;
• Assistance to city departments with staff training needs; and
• Outreach to residents regarding IPM, pollution prevention and pesticide reduction strategies,
pollinator protection and natural lawn and gardening practices.
A. IPM Reports. The city IPM coordinator will compile the data from all participating city
departments from the information listed in Section V, Departmental/Divisional Obligations. This
information will be provided in reports and/or posted on the city’s website. Comprehensive reports
will be submitted to the city manager and city council and will include IPM-related data, a
review of new IPM strategies, arising challenges, IPM program or departmental
accomplishments, and IPM program coordination with other city programs and initiatives.
B. Interdepartmental IPM Team. This team will be coordinated by the city IPM coordinator
and will include department IPM coordinators, managers and other key city staff. The team will meet
at least quarterly and meetings will include development of city IPM goals and strategies, review and
evaluation of the IPM operations manual, as well as opportunities for information exchange,
education and collaboration. This team will also review interdepartmental issues, and make policy
recommendations that advance the objectives of the IPM policy and reduce reliance on chemical pest
control.
V. DEPARTMENTAL/DIVISIONAL OBLIGATIONS
All departments/divisions that conduct pest management operations and/or use or potentially use
pesticides are required to fulfill the obligations of this section.
A. IPM Operations Manual. The IPM operations manual (manual) will serve as a guide for all
pest management operations and will provide rationale and procedural guidelines for the
implementation of the IPM policy. All persons conducting pest management within the scope of this
policy are required to follow the manual. Departments or divisions will provide information to the
city IPM coordinator and the IPM interdepartmental team to contribute towards the creation, review
and update of the manual. The manual will be reviewed annually and a record kept of any revisions.
Departments will designate at least one staff member as the departmental/divisional representative
who will be responsible for providing information and input concerning the manual.

B. Record-keeping and Evaluation. Each department, division or work group must keep accurate
records and results of all IPM treatments. Information on all treatments (including non-chemical) will
include how, when, where and why the treatment was applied and the name of the applicator. This
information will be compiled for IPM reports. The city IPM coordinator will review pest
management strategies with city departments and the IPM interdepartmental team to evaluate results,
share information with other staff and improve the IPM program.
Application records will be made available to the public upon request in accordance with all
applicable state laws governing public access to information.
C. Contractor Notification. Every department bidding out contractual work for pest
management must inform all bidders about the requirements of the IPM policy and incorporate its
guidelines in bid specifics.
If pesticides are applied, only those products may be used that are part of the approved pesticide list
and adhere to its use guidelines
OR
are in accordance with a pesticide assessment and selection process approved by the city manager in
compliance with the protocols and guidance of the IPM operations manual and/or are reviewed and
have prior approval by the department and its division representative and the city’s IPM coordinator.
The city will inform pest management contractors of the city’s IPM Policy and operations manual
and provide a written copy of this policy and other relevant documents as appropriate. Project
managers, departmental IPM representatives, or the city IPM coordinator must approve all pest
management treatments.
VI. IPM PROCEDURE
The city assumes that all pesticides are potentially hazardous to human and environmental health and
will take measures to avoid any non-essential use. Therefore, reasonable non-pesticide alternatives
will be given preference over chemical application by following the IPM procedure. City staff will
evaluate alternatives to chemical treatments, including the cost-effectiveness of the treatments. For
all pest control activities, the IPM procedure outlined below must be followed.
A. Initial Data Collection, Mapping and Monitoring. Each department or division

considering management of a target species should first collect baseline data on the pest ecosystem(s)
to determine if the organism is truly a pest that warrants treatment. This data includes the pest
population(s) occurrence, size, density and presence of any natural enemy population(s); gather
information on pest biology and site ecology, and different control techniques available; and
document sensitive areas and conditions that may limit control options. Data should be collected in a
standardized manner that is repeatable.

For structural pests, inspection and monitoring should be conducted to determine and eliminate route
of entry, potential food and water sources, and nesting sites. This information should be logged.
Ranking, inventory, mapping, monitoring and evaluation are methods used for determining pest
management priorities. Maps and inventories depict infestations in terms of pest species, size,
location and threats to resources. Departments/divisions must monitor infestations or pest
populations and evaluate treatments over time to assess the effectiveness of various treatment
strategies and their effects on target and non-target organisms, the overall biodiversity of each site
and the desired management objectives. These objectives should be reevaluated over time as the
range and distribution of different species is altered from climate change and other anthropogenic
factors
All monitoring methods and data must be specified in departmental or divisional IPM procedures and
included in the IPM operations manual, systematically recorded, and available for review.
Departments should coordinate and utilize standardized mapping and data recording protocols, if
possible.
B. Establishing Threshold Levels. To determine if treatment is warranted, an acceptable

threshold level of treatment for each target species and site should be established based on the
ecology of the pest and either its density that creates environmental, aesthetic or economic damage or
based on a measurement of the damage resulting from the pest. Departmental IPM procedures will
include the threshold levels for common pests, determined by individual work groups, and may be
developed in consultation with the city IPM coordinator and interdepartmental team. In some cases, a
threshold, such as eradication, suppression, or containment may be required by federal or state law.
C. Management Selection Criteria. Upon determining that management for an undesirable

species is necessary, the following criteria should be used to help select the appropriate IPM
treatment strategy:
1. Least-disruptive of naturally occurring controls;
2. Least-hazardous to human health;
3. Least-toxic to non-target organisms;
4. Least-damaging to the general environment, surface and ground water, and overall ecosystem
function and stability;
5. Most likely to produce a permanent reduction in the environment's ability to support target
pests; and
6. Economic and environmental cost-effectiveness in the short- and long-term.

D. Management Strategies and the IPM Hierarchy. Each department or division, in

consultation with the city IPM coordinator, IPM team and/or guidelines of the operations manual,
will make its own determination about appropriate and effective management approaches, based on
site-specific requirements and condition. Commitment to the most environmentally-sound approach
is expected, relying primarily on non-chemical methods.
Prevention, cultural control, mechanical control, biological control and chemical control are the
techniques used in the hierarchy of integrated pest management. In general, a combination of
compatible treatments is more effective than a single approach. Department and division staff are
encouraged to seek out and experiment with innovative IPM treatments (and combinations of
treatments) and share this information at the interdepartmental IPM team meetings. The following
treatments are listed in the order in which they should be executed:
1. Prevention. This is the most effective and important pest management strategy and is the
foundation of IPM. By reducing the capacity of the ecosystem to support target pest
populations through design and appropriate management, the opportunities for pest
establishment can be reduced to tolerable thresholds or eliminated. Some examples are:
a) Strategies that reduce the preferred harborage, food, water or other essential
requirements of pests;
b) Promoting healthy soils and ecosystems to withstand pest infestations;
c) Weed-free materials and equipment for road and trail construction and maintenance.
d) Landscape and structural design that is appropriate to the specific habitat, climate and
maintenance the area will receive; and
e) Project design that considers the potential impacts of pests and mitigates through the
use of appropriate landscape design (plant choice, soil preparation, water
requirements, weed barriers, etc.).
2. Cultural. Cultural control is the use of management activities that can prevent pests from
developing or keep them below tolerable levels by enhancement of desired conditions.
Examples include:
a) Selection and placement of materials that provide life support
mechanisms for pest enemies and competitors;
b) Modification of pest habitat by reducing pest harborage, food
supply and other life support requirements;
c) Vegetation management including irrigation, mulching,
fertilization, aeration, mowing height, seeding, pruning and
thinning;
d) Waste management and proper food storage;
e) Barriers and traps;
f) Heat, cold, humidity, desiccation or light applied to affected
regions; and
g) Prescribed burning or grazing.

3. Mechanical. Mechanical control is accomplished by using physical methods or

mechanical equipment to control pest infestations, such as:
a) Mowing or weed-whipping;
b) Prescribed burning;
c) Hand-pulling of weeds;
d) Hand-removal of pests (e.g. insect or invasive amphibian egg masses).
4. Biological. Biological controls include the introduction or enhancement of natural enemy

populations to target pests. Introduction of non-indigenous organisms has an associated risk
factor and should be thoroughly evaluated prior to implementation in consultation with the
city IPM coordinator and the interdepartmental IPM team. Biological methods include
a) Conservation and augmentation of the pest's natural enemies; and
b) Introduction of host-specific enemy organisms
5. Chemical. Chemical control of pests is accomplished by using chemical compounds

registered as pesticides. All pesticides shall be assumed to be potentially hazardous to human
and/or environmental health.
The type, methods and timing of any chemical treatment will be determined after
consideration has been given to protection of non-target organisms (including threatened or
endangered species), the impact on biodiversity, protection of water quality, pest biology, soil
types, anticipated adverse weather (winds, precipitation, etc.) and temperature. Only those
pesticides that have been evaluated and approved for use on city properties by a process
approved by the city manager may be applied. Application of any pesticide must follow the
guidelines for that particular product, which will be provided to staff, contractors or lessees
and include information pertaining to target pests, application methods and any other
restrictions.
All pesticides must be applied in conformance with label specifications and all applicable
federal, state and municipal laws, regulations and ordinances, as well as any additional
restrictions provided in city guidance documents.
All pesticide applications must comply with the appropriate pre and post-notification
requirements, according to the City of Boulder’s Pesticide Ordinance (Section 6-10-1
B.R.C. 1981). For all city pesticide applications, notification will be posted at the site at
least 24 hours in advance, remain on site for at least 24 hours, and posted on the city’s
hotline. This includes soil and trunk injections, spot spraying, hand-wicking and
broadcast spraying on all city lands or property.
E. Education. Education is a critical component of an IPM program. The city IPM

coordinator will include IPM information on the city’s website. Information will include IPM
reports, the IPM operations manual and pesticide assessment processes, recommendations for the
most ecologically-sound pest management for residents, and IPM-related events and educational
opportunities across the city.

VII. CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS
The City periodically enters into contracts that authorize pest management, such as for building
maintenance, project construction and maintenance, and weed and insect control. When the city signs
a new contract or extends the term of an existing contract with a contractor that conducts IPM-related
work, including the application of pesticides, the department must ensure that the work is in
compliance with existing IPM guidelines or consult with the city IPM coordinator to develop
procedures that comply with the IPM policy.
The contractors must comply with appropriate pre and post-notification requirements, according to
the City of Boulder’s Pesticide Ordinance (Section 6-10-1 B.R.C. 1981) and relevant internal city
protocols, such as providing timely information to post the application on the city’s pesticide hotline.
VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
Employees who have questions concerning possible conflict between their interests and those of the
city, or the interpretation and application of any of these rules, should direct their inquiries to their
department director. The department director may refer the matter to the city manager for final
resolution.
IX. EXCEPTIONS/CHANGE
This policy supersedes all previous policies covering the same or similar topics. Any exception to
this policy may be granted only by the city manager. This policy may be reviewed and changed at
any time.
Adopted 1993, updated April 2018.

CITY OF BOULDER
***
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 15, 2018 April 24, 2002
_________________________
Ronald A. SecristJane S. Brautigam, City Manager
I. SCOPE AND APPLICATION Commented [AR1]: Simplify and make more succinct.
This Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy shall applyapplies to all pest management control Commented [AR2]: Remove the word “control” in most
instances to emphasize ecological approach of managing
activities conducted by all city staff, contractors and lessees, which includes all monitoring, non- ecosystems.
chemical pest management practices and any pesticide use in buildings and related facilities;
grounds and open space; and other property owned or managed by the City of Boulder.
and conducted by city staff or contractors. City officers, employees, and contractors are required to
follow this policy. Departments that have employees monitoring or treating pest problems or
managing any contractors who monitor and/or treat pest problems will receive a copy of the
Integrated Pest Management policy. All pest control contractors will receive a copy of this policy.
II. PURPOSE Commented [AR3]: Re-ordered to simplify and emphasize

ecosystem protections.
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for implementation of the most environmentally-
sound approaches for landscape, natural area, agricultural and facilities management and to reduce
and eliminate, where possible, the volume and toxicity of chemical pest control treatments. The
overarching goal is for all city IPM practices to be carefully assessed for the potential impacts to
human health, water quality, non-target organisms, and the preservation and/or enhancement of
biodiversity, particularly federal endangered and threatened species, and state, county and local
species of concern. As a result, ecologically-based IPM approaches will be developed that promote
the stability of desirable species and discourage pest populations, while sustaining the natural
balances within the ecosystem.

The policy is intended to provide a basis for pest and vegetation management that will protect public
health, as well as water quality, federal endangered and threatened species, and state, county and
local species of concern. The goal of the city’s IPM policy is to utilize the most environmentally
sound approaches to pest management, and to reduce and eliminate, where possible, the volume and
toxicity of chemical pest control treatments.
The objectives of this policy are to
• require planning and development of an IPM program for all departments and
• provide procedural guidelines for implementation.
•

III. DEFINITIONS
A. Integrated Pest Management (IPM): a decision decision-making process which that Commented [AR4]: Key aspects of IPM included in
definition – combination of strategies, establishing
selects, integrates, and implements a combination of suitable and compatible strategies pest control thresholds and additional language for ecosystem and
strategies to prevent, deter, or manage control pest populations within established thresholds. biodiversity protections.
Integrated Pest ManagementIPM uses a "whole systems approach", viewing looking at the target
species as it relates to the entire ecosystem. In choosing control Management strategies are chosen
that minimize , minimal impacts to human health, the environment, and non-target organisms, and
protect overall biodiversity and ecosystem health are considered.
B. Pest: broadly, a pest is an organism that interferes with or reduces the availability or quality
of desirable plants and other resources; impacts human or animal health; damages structures; or
harms some component of the ecosystem. Whether or not an organism is considered a pest can
depend on the setting, rather than the particular species. .A pest may be an any insect, rodent, Commented [AR5]: The purpose of this sentence is to
convey that all organisms fit into the natural world and
nematode, fungus, weed, or any other form of terrestrial or aquatic plant or animal life or virus, whether or not it’s considered a pest depends on context –
bacteria, or other micro-organism (except viruses, bacteria, or other micro-organisms on or in living e.g. native range, whether it’s interfering and competing with
man or other living animals) which the Administrator of the EPA declares to be pest under section a human need or desire (perfect yard, nuisance mosquitoes,
unblemished produce), etc. The “pest” needs to be
25(c)(1) [7 USCA 136w(c)(1)]. considered within the ecological/broader context.
C. Pesticide: any substance or mixture of substances intended for destroying or repelling any
pest. This includes without limitation fungicides, insecticides, nematicides, herbicides, and
rodenticides and any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator,
defoliant, or desiccant. In addition to applications of pesticides, products that have been pre-treated
with pesticides are subject to this policy. Plants that have been genetically modified to incorporate
pesticides or are resistant to pesticides are prohibited unless an exception has been granted by the city
manager. Commented [AR6]: This would include insecticide-coated
seeds and pre-treated plants, as well as organisms that have
been genetically modified to incorporate pesticides into the
The following products are not pesticides: plant or plants engineered with traits to resist pesticides.
1. Deodorizers, bleaching agents, disinfectants and substances for which no pesticidal claim is
made in the sale or distribution thereof, and
2. Fertilizers and plant nutrients.
D. Reasonable Alternative: a feasible option for pest control management, which takes into
account the short and long-term economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the
proposed choices.
IV. CITY IPM COORDINATOR
The city manager City Manager has determined that there should be a central staff person will to
coordinate the Integrated Pest ManagementIPM efforts of city departments. The IPM cCoordinator’s
shall be in the Office of Environmental Affairs in the City Manager’s Office and responsibilities shall
include, but are not limited to, the following items:
• Coordination with city departments on weed and pest control management issues and

integrating IPM principles with other environmental policies and plans;

• Publication of the annual IPM reports;
• Coordination of the an iInterdepartmental IPM team; Review Group
• Development of a city weed management plan, in accordance with state law;
• Development and maintenance of pesticide approval process(es) and pesticide reduction
guidelines;
• Coordination of the development and update of an IPM operations manual;
departmental IPM plans
• Research and recommendations foron IPM strategies;
• Development and administration of the city’s mosquito management policy and program;
• Assistance to city departments with staff training needs; and
• Outreach to citizens residents regarding IPM, pollution prevention and pesticide reduction
strategies, pollinator protection and natural lawn and gardening practices.
A. IPM Reports. The city IPM coordinator will compile the data from all participating city Commented [AR7]: Staff is working on a process to
gather IPM data consistently across departments for annual
departments from the information listed in Section V, Departmental/Divisional Obligations. This reporting. Staff is also assessing new formats to provide a
information will be provided in reports and/or posted on the city’s website. Comprehensive reports digital living document that can replace a formal paper report
will be submitted to the city manager and city council and will include IPM-related data, a and be more accessible to the public.
review of new IPM strategies, arising challenges, IPM program or departmental

accomplishments, and IPM program coordination with other city programs and initiatives.
A. Annual IPM Report. The City IPM Coordinator will compile data from all participating city
departments and submit an annual report to City Council and the City Manager. The report will detail
the previous year’s IPM efforts and shall contain information listed in Section V,
Departmental/Divisional Obligations. Each department using pest control methods shall submit their
information through their department IPM coordinator to the City IPM Coordinator. The report will
include a review of new IPM strategies as well as trends in IPM techniques over time.
B. Interdepartmental IPM Team Review Group. This group team will be coordinated by the
cCity IPM cCoordinator and will include department IPM coordinators, managers and other key
interested city staff. The teamGroup shall will meet at least quarterly and meetings will include
development of annual Ccity IPM goals and strategies, review and evaluation of the IPM operations
manualof each department or division plan, as well as opportunities for information exchange,
education and cooperationcollaboration. The This Interdepartmental IPM Review Group shallteam
will also review interdepartmental issues and make policy recommendations that advance the
objectives of the IPM policy and reduce reliance on chemical pest control.
V. DEPARTMENTAL/DIVISIONAL OBLIGATIONS
The followingAll departments/divisions that conduct pest control management operations and/or that
use or potentially use pesticides are required to fulfill the obligations of this section.:
• Downtown and University Hill Management Division (including Parking Services)
• Fire
• Housing and Human Services

• Open Space/Mountain Parks

• Parks and Recreation (including Athletics, Boulder Reservoir, Environmental Resources,
Flatirons Golf Course, Forestry, Recreation Centers and Urban Parks)
• Public Works (including Airport, Facilities and Asset Management (FAM), Greenways,
Transportation & Utilities Maintenance and Water & Waste Water Treatment Plants) Commented [AR8]: Department names and divisions
change and a list could imply that those not listed don’t have
to comply with the policy when the policy applies to the
A. IPM Operations Manual. The IPM operations manual (manual) will serve as a guide for all entire city.
pest management operations and will provide rationale and procedural guidelines for the
implementation of the IPM policy. All persons conducting pest management within the scope of this
policy are required to follow the manual, Departments or divisions will provide information to the
city IPM coordinator and the IPM interdepartmental team to contribute towards the creation, review
and update of the manual. The manual will be reviewed annually and a record kept of any revisions.
Departments will designate at least one staff member as the departmental/divisional representative
who will be responsible for providing information and input concerning the manual.
A. Integrated Pest Management Plan. Each of these departments or divisions, and any others
using pest control methods in the future, shall use the procedures outlined in this policy to develop a
departmental or divisional Integrated Pest Management Plan. This plan shall be submitted to the City
IPM Coordinator by January 15, 2003. Plans will be reviewed annually and updated at least every
five years. Departments shall designate at least one staff member as the departmental/divisional IPM
coordinator or representative to the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group.

B. Record-keeping and Evaluation. Each department, division or work group shall must keep
accurate records and results of all Integrated Pest ManagementIPM treatments used and the results.
Information on all treatments (including non-chemical ones) shall will include how, when, where and
why the treatment was applied and the name of the applicator. This information will be compiled
submitted to the City IPM Coordinator yearly, as the basis for the Annual IPM ReportIPM reports. It
should also be available for review at the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group meetings. The cCity
IPM cCoordinator will review pest management treatments strategies with city departments and the
IPM interdepartmental team to evaluate results, share information with other staff and improve the
IPM program. the successes and failures of the IPM program, and to plan more efficient and effective
pest management strategies.
The following information shall be maintained:

1. Target pest
2. Pest population levels or injury thresholds for treatment
3. Treatment selection criteria with final treatment decision (IPM hierarchy checklist)
4. Area treated (including type of location and size of area)
5. Pesticide (including product trade name, active ingredient and EPA toxicity category)
6. Quantity of product used
7. Treatment method used (i.e. bait, injection)
8. Location of application
9. Time and date of pesticide application
10. Name(s) and license number(s) of Pesticide Applicator(s)
11. Name of the department contact authorizing work
12. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and labels for all pesticides used Commented [AR9]: The paragraph/narrative provides
policy direction. The details in the bullet list will be included
in the IPM Operations Manual.
Application records shall will be made available to the public upon request in accordance with all
applicable state laws governing public access to information.
C. Contractor Notification. Every department bidding out contractual work for pest
management must inform all bidders that the City has an Integrated Pest Management Policyabout
the requirements of the IPM policy and include incorporate its guidelines in bid specifics.
Contractors are encouraged to submit bids that include non-chemical pest control methods. Bids with
non-chemical approaches may be given preference. Commented [AR10]: It’s the responsibility of staff to
ensure that RFPs are clear about IPM guidelines and
procedures so that that contractors know what’s expected.
If pesticides are applied, only those products may be used that are part of the approved pesticide list
and adhere to its use guidelines
OR
are in accordance with a pesticide assessment and selection process approved by the city manager in
compliance with the protocols and guidance of the IPM operations manual and/or are reviewed and
have prior approval by the department and its division representative and the city’s IPM coordinator.
The cCity will inform pest management contractors of the cCity’s IPM Policy and operations manual
plans and provide a written copy of this policy and other relevant documents as appropriate. (i.e.

departmental plans or Best Management Practices). Project managers, departmental IPM

coordinators or contactsrepresentatives, or the cCity IPM cCoordinator shall must approve all pest
management treatments.
VI. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM)IPM PROCEDURE

The cCity assumes that all pesticides are potentially hazardous to human and environmental health
and will take measures to avoid any non-essential use. Therefore, reasonable non-pesticide
alternatives willshall be given preference over chemical application controls by following the IPM
procedure. City staff will evaluate alternatives to chemical treatments, including the cost-
effectiveness of the treatments. For all pest control activities, the IPM procedure outlined below
mustshall be followed.
A. Initial Data Collection, Mapping and Monitoring. Each department or division considering pest
control measures management of a target species shall should first collect baseline data on the pest
ecosystem(s) to determine if the organism is truly a pest that warrants treatmentThis data includes the
pest population(s) occurrence, size, density and presence of any natural enemy population(s); gather
information on pest biology and site ecology, and different control techniques available; and
document sensitive areas and conditions that may limit control options. Data shall should be
collected in a standardized manner that is repeatable. This information may be included in
departmental or divisional IPM plans. Commented [AR11]: Redundant. Stated at end of section.
For structural pests, inspection and monitoring should be conducted to determine and eliminate route
of entry, potential food and water sources, and nesting sites. This information should be logged.
Ranking, inventory, mapping, monitoring and evaluation are methods used for determining pest
management priorities. Maps and inventories depict infestations in terms of pest species, size,
location and threats to resources. Departments/divisions shall must monitor infestations or pest
populations and evaluate treatments over time to assess the effectiveness of various treatment
strategies and their effects on target and non-target organisms the overall biodiversity of each site and
the desired management objectives. These objectives should be reevaluated over time as the range
and distribution of different species is altered from climate change and other anthropogenic factors. Commented [AR12]: Important to acknowledge that
climate change will impact ecosystems and that monitoring
is crucial for adaptive management and protection of
ecosystem services.
All monitoring methods and data must shall be specified in the departmental or divisional IPM
planprocedures and included in the IPM operations manual, systematically recorded, and available
for review. at the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group meetings. Departments should shall
coordinate and utilize standardized pest mapping and data recording protocols, if possible.
B. Establishing Threshold Levels. To determine if treatment is warranted, an acceptable threshold

level of treatment for each target pest and site should be established based on the ecology of the pest
and either its density that creates environmental, aesthetic or economic damage or based on a
measurement of the damage resulting from the pest.. Departmental IPM procedures plans will Commented [AR13]: This is a simplification of the
original language.

contain include the threshold levels for common pests, determined by individual work groups, and
may be developed in conjunction consultation with the cCity IPM cCoordinator and
interdepartmental team. In some instancescases, treatment a threshold, such as eradication,
suppression, or containment may be required by federal or state law.
The assessment will be based on the following:

The tolerable level of environmental, aesthetic and economic damage as a result of the pest
population(s) and the tolerable level of risk to human health as a result of the pest population(s);
OR
The size or density of the pest population that must be present to cause unacceptable environmental,
aesthetic and/or economic damage; and the size, density and type of pest population that must be
present to create a human health risk.
C. ManagementTreatment Selection Criteria. Upon determining that management for an

undesirable species treatment is necessary, the following criteria should be used to help select the
appropriate IPM treatment strategy:
1. Least-disruptive of naturally occurring controls;
2. Least-hazardous to human health;
3. Least-toxic to non-target organisms;
4. Least-damaging to the general environment, surface and ground water, and overall ecosystem
function and stability;
5. Most likely to produce a permanent reduction in the environment's ability to support target
pests;
6. Economic and environmental Ccost-effectiveness in the short- and long-term.

D. Treatment Management Strategies and the IPM Hierarchy. Each department or division,
in consultation with the cCity IPM cCoordinator, IPM team and/or guidelines of the operations
manual, shall will make its own determination about appropriate and effective
treatmentsmanagement approaches, based on site-specific requirements and condition. Commitment
to the most environmentally- sound approach is expected, with relying primarily on non-chemical
methods considered first.
Prevention, cultural control, mechanical control, biological control and chemical control are the
techniques used in the hierarchy of integrated pest management. In general, a combination of
compatible treatments is more effective than a single approach. Departments and divisions staff are
encouraged to seek out and experiment with innovative IPM treatments (and combinations of
treatments) and share this information at the iInterdepartmental IPM Review Groupteam meetings.
The following treatments are listed in the order in which they should be executed:
1. Prevention. This is the most effective and important pest management strategy and is the
foundation of IPM. By reducing the capacity of the ecosystem to support target pest
populations through design and appropriate management, the opportunities for pest
establishment can be reduced to tolerable thresholds or eliminated. Some examples are:
a) Use sStrategies that reduce the preferred harborage, food, water or other essential
requirements of pests;.
a)b) Promoting healthy soils and ecosystems to withstand pest infestations;
b)c) Use wWeed-free materials for road and trail construction and maintenance.
c)d) Use lLandscape and structural design that is appropriate to the specific habitat,
climate and maintenance the area will receive;. and
d)e) When designing projects, Project design that considers the potential impacts of pests
and mitigates through the use of appropriate landscape design (plant choice, soil
preparation, water requirements, weed barriers, etc).
2. Cultural. Cultural control is the use of management activities that can prevent pests from
developing or keep them below tolerable levels due toby enhancement of desired conditions.
Examples include:Specific examples are the following:
a) Selection and placement of materials that provide life support
mechanisms for pest enemies and competitors;.
b) Modification of pest habitat by reducing pest harborage, food
supply and other life support requirements;.
c) Vegetation management including irrigation, mulching,
fertilization, aeration, mowing height, seeding, pruning and
thinning;.
d) Waste management and proper food storage;.
e) Barriers and traps.;
f) Heat, cold, humidity, desiccation or light applied to affected
regions; and.
g) Prescribed burning or grazing.

3. Mechanical. Mechanical control is accomplished by using physical methods or

mechanical equipment to control pest infestations, such as:.
a) Mowing or weed-whipping;
b) Prescribed Bburning;
c) Hand-pulling of weeds;
d) Hand-removal of insect egg massespests (e.g. insect or invasive amphibian egg
masses).
4. Biological. Biological controls include the introduction or enhancement of natural enemy

populations to target pests. Introduction of non-indigenous organisms has an associated risk
factor and should be thoroughly evaluated prior to implementation in consultation with the
city IPM coordinator and the interdepartmental IPM team. Biological methods include
a) Conservation and augmentation of the pest's natural enemies; and
b) Introduction of host-specific enemy organisms
5. Chemical. Chemical control of pests is accomplished by using chemical compounds Commented [AR14]: Most of this section is removed,
registered as pesticides. All pesticides shall be assumed to be potentially hazardous to human since it predates the approved pesticide list process.
and/or environmental health.
The type, methods and timing of any chemical treatment shall will be determined after
consideration has been given to protection of non-target organisms (including threatened or
endangered species), the impact on biodiversity, protection of water quality, pest biology, soil
types, anticipated adverse weather (winds, precipitation, etc) and temperature. Only those
pesticides that have been evaluated and approved for use on city properties by a process
approved by the city manager may be applied. Application of any pesticide must follow the
guidelines for that particular product, which will be provided to staff, contractors or lessees
and include information pertaining to target pests, application methods and any other
restrictions.
a)
b) Initial review of potential chemicals shall begin with the least toxic compounds,
i.e. chemicals in EPA Toxicity Categories III and IV. The use of compounds in
EPA Toxicity Categories I and II shall be avoided if possible or used in
situations where exposure to the active ingredient is limited (i.e. baits or
soil/trunk injections).
c) If, after a thorough evaluation of alternatives, the only effective or practical
chemical control is an EPA Toxicity Category I or II compound, the department
or division IPM coordinator shall confer with the City IPM Coordinator, and, if
practical, the Interdepartmental IPM Review Group, to review the decision-
making process and make a recommendation to the department head for
approval. This may be done on a yearly basis for specific pest treatments. The
decision-making process and lack of alternatives shall be documented.
d) Staff will review the information available on potential chemicals for

persistence in the soil and the potential impacts from persistence. These factors
will be considered along with the potential for more frequent application of
chemicals that do not persist in the environment.
e) If chemical treatment is warranted in a riparian area, applications will generally
be plant specific and limited to wick applications. If broader applications are
needed, the department or division IPM coordinator shall confer with the City
IPM Coordinator, and, if practical, the Interdepartmental IPM Review
Group, to review the decision-making process and make a recommendation
to the department head for approval. This may be done on a yearly basis.
f) Potential chemical approaches
(1) pheromones and other attractants to confuse pests and/or act as bait
(2) insecticidal soaps
(3) juvenile hormones that arrest pest development
(4) repellants
(5) allelopathins
(6) sterilants or contraceptives to reduce breeding
(7) contact, stomach or other poisons
(8) fumigants
(9) combinations of above (baits with poisons)
(10) herbicides, insecticides
All pesticides shall must be applied in conformance with label specifications and all applicable
federal, state and municipal laws, regulations and ordinances, as well as any additional
restrictions provided in city guidance documents.
All pesticide applications shall must comply with the appropriate pre and post- notification
requirements, according to the City of Boulder’s Pesticide Ordinance (Section 6-10-1 B.R.C.
1981). For all city pesticide applications, notification will be posted at the site at least 24 hours in
advance, remain on site for at least 24 hours, and posted on the city’s hotline. This includes soil
and trunk injections, spot spraying, hand-wicking and broadcast spraying on all city lands or
property. open to the public Commented [AR15]: Employees have a right to know
when pesticides have been applied, so all pesticide
applications should be posted.
E. Education. Education is a critical component of an IPM program. The cCity IPM
cCoordinator will include IPM information on the city’s Office of Environmental Affairs’
website. Information will include the Annual IPM rReports, departmental IPM plans and other
pertinent material. the IPM operations manual and pesticide assessment processes,
recommendations for the most ecologically-sound pest management for residents, and IPM-
related events and educational opportunities across the city.Individual departments, divisions and
work groups may conduct additional specific educational activities.
VII. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES & REQUIREMENTS Commented [AR16]: Section simplified, since it’s up to
the hiring department to oversee that contractors comply
All contractors working for the City are required to abide by the City’s IPM Policy. The contractor with the IPM requirements.
will return a signed statement to the IPM Coordinator or departmental contact certifying they have
read and understand the policy prior to any work being done for the City. The contractor shall

maintain records as listed in Section V, B.
The City periodically enters into contracts that authorize pest management, such as for building
maintenance, project construction and maintenance, and weed and insect control. When the city signs
a new contract or extends the term of an existing contract with a contractor that conducts IPM-related
work, including may include or authorize the application of pesticides, the department must ensure
that the work is in compliance with existing IPM guidelines or consult with the city IPM coordinator
to develop procedures that comply with the IPM policy.
the department shall review its IPM plan with the City IPM Coordinator and update the plan to
include the pesticide usage of the contractor.
Contractors who apply pesticides on City owned or managed property shall submit a plan to the
contracting city department and the City IPM Coordinator if the department has not provided a plan.
Their plan shall include the following:
• Information addressing all the elements listed in Section VI, Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) Procedure
• Types and estimated rates, to the extent possible, of the pesticides that the contractor may
need to apply to City property during its contract
• An outline of the actions the contractor will take to meet the City IPM policy
• The primary IPM contact for the contractor
Contractors will provide background information on the decision-making process for treatment
methods to the city upon request. The City department and City IPM Coordinator shall approve the
plan before any chemical applications are made. Contractors shall notify their departmental contact
when any biological or chemical treatments are conducted. The contractors mustshall comply with
appropriate pre and post- notification requirements, according to the City of Boulder’s Pesticide
Ordinance (Section 6-10-1 B.R.C. 1981) and relevant internal city protocols, such as providing
timely information to post the application on the city’s pesticide hotline.
VIII. CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION
Employees who have questions concerning possible conflict between their interests and those of the
cCity, or the interpretation and application of any of these rules, should direct their inquiries to their
dDepartment dDirector. The dDepartment dDirector may refer the matter to the cCity mManager for
final resolution.
IX. EXCEPTIONS/CHANGE
This policy supersedes all previous policies covering the same or similar topics. Any exception to
this policy may be granted only by the cCity mManager. This policy may be reviewed and changed
at any time.
Adopted 1993, updated April 2018April 2002.


CITY OF BOULDER
AGENDA TITLE: 2017 Master Plan Progress Report/Overview of 2018 Priorities
PRESENTERS:
Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation
Ali Rhodes, Deputy Director
Jeff Haley, Manager, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager
Brenda Richey, Manager, Business Services
Callie Hayden, Manager, Urban Park Operations
Dean Rummel, Manager, Recreation Programs & Partnerships
Bryan Beary, Manager, District Services
Kevin Williams, Manager, Regional Facilities
Margo Josephs, Manager, Philanthropy and Community Partnerships
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In February 2014, City Council accepted the Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan
(master plan). With acceptance of the plan, the Parks and Recreation Department
(department) committed to a new mission and vision, as well as initiatives outlined in the
fiscally constrained plan.
The purpose of this item is to update the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB)
on master plan progress in 2017 and share 2018-2019 plans to continue implementation.
In celebrating four years since the master plan’s acceptance, the department is pleased to
share progress in implementing community priorities as expressed in the master plan.
The PRAB’s understanding of work completed to date and support of future work efforts
is critical to ensuring that the community’s needs for its parks and recreation system are
being met.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Approach
Boulder has a strong history of implementing a planning approach to ensure services are
allocated equitably and in a manner that aligns with community values and goals. The
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) provides overall policy direction to all city
AGENDA ITEM # __VI-D___ PAGE 1

planning. The city of Boulder and Boulder County are currently in the process of
updating the BVCP.
The department’s master plan is a key implementation strategy under the BVCP,
reflecting that Boulder’s parks and recreating services are tangible ways to shape
neighborhoods and to move the community towards the vision of becoming one of the
most sustainable and livable communities in the world. The master plan includes policies,
long-range goals, initiatives and a plan to ensure that the department is delivering
services in line with the community’s expectations and values for its parks and recreation
system.
Various other plans then inform the implementation of the BVCP and master plans,
through providing more specific actions and outcomes related to capital investment and
operations. Attachment A, the Boulder Parks and Recreation Planning Approach,
illustrates the various level of detail provided by sub-plans and also demonstrates the
breadth of planning efforts completed in an effort to accomplish master plan goals
Impacts of Completed Planning and Studies

The department’s investment in planning is fulfilled through its ability to develop a
Capital Investment Strategy that is data-driven and also guided by community input. For
example, because of the Aquatics Feasibility Plan the department has completed
refurbishments to the pools at the North Boulder Recreation Center and is planning for
replacement of the past its life-cycle Scott Carpenter Pool.
The department’s planning efforts have also impacted operations in tangible and valuable
ways. Because of completed studies, the department can make more data-driven
decisions about day to day operations. For the recreation division, the completion and
recent update of the Recreation Priority Index illustrate the distribution of subsidy use
among recreation programs and has informed cost-based pricing as well as program life-
cycle management.
This work all coordinates to ensure the department is fulfilling the following key policies
outlined in the master plan:
• The department shall provide for the health and wellness of the Boulder
community through deliberate and thoughtful design of programs, facilities, parks
and services.
• The department shall use a life-cycle management approach in recreation
programming and facility asset management to ensure service provision remains
aligned with community interests.
Finally, the department continues to develop a highly effective workforce that can
positively impact the community’s health and quality of life. By including staff in the
development and implementation of planning efforts, employees learn to be results-
oriented, collaborative and innovative. This is achieved through enabling Matrix Teams
(teams involving staff from various levels and divisions of the department) to lead key
AGENDA ITEM # __VI-D___ PAGE __2_

initiatives each year. Through investments in learning and growth, the department
ensures the organization is results-oriented, collaborative, creative, innovative, and
capable of measured risk-taking, all of which contributes to Boulder’s ability to be a
modern parks and recreation agency.
Master Plan implementation progress to date is summarized in Attachment A. Key

accomplishments in 2017 include the continuing implementation of the department's
programs to use a life-cycle management approach for both recreation services and asset
management. Efforts in 2017 set the stage for implementation of asset management
software in 2018 as well as continued efforts to align subsidy use with community values.
For example, and as highlighted at the January PRAB meeting, the Service Delivery
model is ensuring that programs are thoughtfully designed and delivered to achieve
health outcomes.
2017 highlights also include the completion of construction of Boulder's new Civic Area,
to be formally celebrated in the spring. The replacements of the past their life-cycle Scott
Carpenter Pool and Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center are being designed with
construction to begin in the third quarter of 2018. Community building and partnerships
experienced tremendous growth in the past year, with staff efforts stewarding a strategic
framework for developing and managing community partnerships.
2018 BPR Priorities

In November, staff delegates from across the department gathered for the third annual
Action Planning Summit. Attendees reviewed master plan progress, 2017 action plan
accomplishments and learned about community priorities through a panel discussion
including City Manager, Jane Brautigam, CU Senior Associate Athletic Director, Ceal
Barry, and Galvanize Education Program Director Tara McLauchlan. These priorities are
founded in the master plan and framed by current community context.
• We will continue our efforts to know our customer and increase access and
service reach to underserved members of our community. We will do this
through continued enhancements to our Financial Aid program, intentional
outreach with users of the recreation centers, and evaluation of the department's
Sugary Sweetened Beverage Tax funded programs.
• To ensure Financial Sustainability, we will continue to grow the business
acumen of our team so that we can be effective stewards of public assets and
funds. We will focus on the long-term viability of our funds, ensuring that
revenues and expenses are aligned.
• To improve Internal Process, we will begin use of a new Asset Management
Software, Beehive, and continue enhancements to the recreation software,
Active. Both will enable improved service analysis data-driven decision making.
• Finally, and most importantly, we will continue investments in Learning and
Growth so that we can ensure we are promoting an engaged and motivated
workforce and also developing highly skilled professionals.

The above priorities will be implemented through the department’s annual Action Plan
and team work plans. The PRAB was instrumental in shaping the policy and direction of
the master plan. The board’s ongoing support of efforts to achieve the community’s
vision is critical to ensuring the department is able to provide for the health and well-
being of the community while also providing oversight of public assets
Questions for PRAB:

Does the Board have questions regarding the department’s completed planning efforts?
Does the Board have questions regarding the 2018 priorities?
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Overview of the Planning Approach (Graphic)
Attachment B 2018 Master Plan Progress Report

02.26.18 PRAB Packet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02.26.18 PRAB Packet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD

City Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303

II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (6:03) Marty Gorce

B. A Discussion of the Need to Provide an Easement Through Part of

VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (7:50)

IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: April 2, 2018

100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018

January 22 February 26 April 2

• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • New Member Orientation (mb)

April 23 May 28 June 25

July 23 August 27 September 24

• PLAY Foundation Update (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)

• PRAB Community Engagement (mb)

100 Years of Excellence

Future Board Items 2018 - continued

October 22 November 26 December 17

100 Years of Excellence

100 Years of Excellence

100 Years of Excellence

Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update

Agenda Item 6: Discussion/Information Item

B. Provision of Public Restrooms in City of Boulder Urban Parks

A. Boulder County Farmers Market Update

Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Letter to Counci Update

Approved by: Attested:

Tom Klenow Sarah DeSouza

Board Chair Board Secretary

Date _____________________ Date ____________________

FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department

SUBJECT: Consent Agenda

DATE: February 26, 2018

A. Approval of Minutes from January 22, 2017

B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update

Planning and Design

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Planning Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the following

o Beehive Asset Management Software Implementation;

• Construction Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

o 2017 Neighborhood Park Renovations (Arapahoe Ridge ‘Rock’ Park, Howard

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

The full report includes known disturbances or

 Burrowing Owl – Boulder County Isolated and Restricted

• Regulations and Seasonal Wildlife Closures

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

• Natural Lands Projects Underway: Staff or contractors continue to work on the

Volunteer Program Update

For full list of volunteer events and activities, visit BPRVolunteer.org.

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200

MEETING DATE: February 26, 2018

AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve a License

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_____PAGE___1____

COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS

Suggested Motion Language:

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_____PAGE___2____

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A_____PAGE___3____

MEETING DATE: February 26, 2018

AGENDA TITLE: A discussion of the need to provide an easement through part of

AGENDA ITEM VI-C_ PAGE 1__

BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS:

AGENDA ITEM VI-C_ PAGE 2__

AGENDA ITEM VI-C_ PAGE 3__

Date _ Date

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A___PAGE_1____

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A___PAGE_2____

AGENDA ITEM #_VI-A___PAGE_3____