Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 133

PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD

East Boulder Recreation Center, 660 Sioux Drive, Boulder, CO 80303


6:00 p.m., June 4, 2018

AGENDA Boulder Parks & Recreation


All agenda times are approximate Advisory Board Members 2018

Tom Klenow (Chair)


A TOUR OF THE FOOTHILLS PARKWAY BICYCLE UNDERPASS PROJECT WILL
Tyler Romero (Vice-Chair)
OCCUR AT 5 PM WITH BOARD MEMBERS MEETING AT THE SOUTHERN
Jennifer Kovarik
ENTRANCE TO PARK EAST PARK Mary Scott
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (6:00) Raj Seymour
Valerie Yates
II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (6:01) Pamela Yugar
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (6:03)
This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or concerns Mission Statement
to the Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is not scheduled BPRD will promote the health and well-­
later in the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is encouraged to comment on being of the entire Boulder community
the need for parks and recreation programs and facilities as they perceive them. All speakers by collaboratively providing high-­quality
are limited to 3 minutes. Depending on the nature of your matter, you may or may not receive parks, facilities and programs.
a response from the Board after you deliver your comments. The Board is always listening to
and appreciative of community feedback.
Vision Statement
IV. CONSENT AGENDA (6:15) We envision a community where every
A. Approval of minutes from April 23, 2018 member’s health and well-­being is
founded on unparalleled parks, facilities
B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update and programs.
V. ITEMS FOR ACTION (6:25)
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve the Goals of the Master Plan
Boulder Parks and Recreation 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan 1. Community Health and Wellness
2. Taking Care of What We Have
VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION (6:55) 3. Financial Sustainability
4. Building Community
A. 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 5. Youth Engagement
6. Organizational Readiness
VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT (7:15)
A. Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project Update
B. Asset Management Program (AMP) Team Overview For more information on BPRD Master
C. Budget Update (verbal) Plan visit the City of Boulder web site
at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/pages/
VIII. MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS (7:45) parks-recreation-master-plan

A. PRAB Community Engagement Updates (verbal)


IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: June 25, 2018
X. ADJOURN

100 Years of Excellence


PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD

Future Board Items 2018

January 22 February 26 April 2 (rescheduled March meeting)


• Service Delivery Update (d/i) • Boulder County Farmers Market • Boulder County Farmers Market
License (a) License (a)
• Public Restrooms in Parks (d/i)
• Boulder County Farmers Market • Agreement with BVSD Regarding
• Boulder County Farmers Market
Update (d/i) Collaborative Efforts for Summer
(md)
• Scott Carpenter McCarty Ditch Learning and YSI (d/i)
• PRAB Letter to Council Update (mb)
Easement (d/i) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (d/i)
• Board Recruitment (mb)
• Updates to the Integrated Pest • Xcel Energy Property Rights
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) Management Policy (d/i) Agreement (md)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • Universal Design Project (md)
• PLAY Foundation Update (mb)
• New Member Orientation (mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
• Outgoing Member Comments (mb)

April 23 June 4 (rescheduled May meeting) June 25


• Board appointments (p) • Urban Forest Strategic Plan (a) • 2019-24 CIP (3rd touch) (a)
• Election of officers (p) • 2019-24 CIP (2nd touch) (d/i) • Operating Budget and Fees (d/i)
• First meeting for new Board • Foothills Parkeway Bicycle and • Alpine/Balsam - East Bookend
members (p) Pedestrian Underpass (md) Planning (md)
• Agreement with BVSD Regarding • Asset Management Program • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
Collaborative Efforts for Summer (AMP) Team Overview (md)
Learning and YSI (a) • Budget Update (md)
• Contract for Concession Services • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
at Flatirons Golf Course (a)
• 2019-2024 CIP (1st touch) (d/i)
• Amendment to the Contract for
Concessions Services at Flatirons
Golf Course (d/i)
• Board Liaison Discussion (mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
July 23 August 27 September 24
• Boulder Creek Festival Update (c) • CIP 2019-2024 Update (c) • PRAB Retreat Agenda Review
• Recreation Activity Fund (RAF) (mb)
• Commercial Use (c or d/i)
Sustainability and Fees (d/i) • PRAB New Member Application
• Scott Carpenter Follow Up (md)
• PRAB Retreat (mb) Review (mb)
• PRAB Community Engagement (mb)
• PLAY Foundation Update (mb) • EAB Board Follow Up (mb)

• PRAB Community Engagement (mb) • PRAB Community Engagement (mb)

100 Years of Excellence


PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD

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)
• PRAB Community Engagement (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

100 Years of Excellence


PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD

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.

100 Years of Excellence


PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD

100 Years of Excellence


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: June 4, 2018 (May Business Meeting)

A. Approval of Minutes from April 23, 2018

B. Parks and Recreation Development 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.

• Harbeck-Bergheim House: The best resource for information about the process and next
steps is the project website https://bouldercolorado.gov/parks-rec/harbeck-bergheim-
house. This website includes an attachment of the memorandum (in the upper right-hand
corner of the webpage) that was sent to City Council last month as well as a full overview
of the process outlined. Also, the website provides an opportunity to sign up to be on the
email list and receive all the correspondence that is sent out related to the project. Most
recently, on April 30 city staff provided information and answered questions about the
project and process at a community-wide open house called “What’s Up Boulder.”

The key next steps include:


o Online Outreach and Feedback (Starting in June and continuing through mid-
July)’
o Stakeholder Outreach Meeting (Mid-June); and
o Community Open House (Mid to late June).

• North Boulder Pump Track Schematic: At the May business meeting, the board
requested schematic of the proposed North Boulder Pump Track. This information will
be provided at the June 25th meeting.

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


• Asset Management Program (AMP): The department’s Asset Management Matrix
Team has issued its Phase 1 AMP Document. This document outlines asset management
policies and procedures across five chapters including an Introduction to Asset
Management, Asset Inventory, Condition Assessments, Asset Criticality and Asset Cost
discussions with the goal of presenting a user-friendly, linear process for department
asset management and decision making. Additional detail is provided in the Matters from
the Department section of this month’s PRAB packet and staff will be presenting a short
overview of the AMP document at the June 4, 2018 PRAB meeting.

• Beehive Asset Management Software Implementation: The department has finalized a


contract with Beehive Industries to configure and implement Beehive asset management
software. Beehive software will help the department organize its vast inventory of assets,
provide critical work tracking and reporting functions and inform decision making
including capital investment decisions. Staff will initiate work on this project in June
2018 beginning a 12 to18 month implementation period across all work groups.

• Boulder Reservoir South Shore Site Management Plan: After a brief pause to
prioritize work on the Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center, staff will continue to
work on the South Shore Site Management Plan (SSMP) including the development of
SSMP concept alternatives, public open houses, outreach sessions and stakeholder
engagement work aimed at the delivery of a final SSMP document in fall 2018.

• Design Standards Manual: Staff will be issuing an RFP for consultant services to
develop the department’s first Design Standards Manual in late May 2018. The Design
Standards Manual will document the parks planning and development processes, identify
standard asset types and construction methodologies and develop standard unit costs that
support both Beehive asset management software and the Asset Management Program.
Development of the manual is anticipated to be completed in summer 2019.

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


projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Engagement Coordination Committee;
o Urban Forest Strategic Plan (see Items for Action).

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


Construction
The following projects are scheduled for construction, under construction or have been recently
completed. For additional details please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.

• Park Renovations Celebrations: A large number of community members attended


department park renovation celebrations held in early May.

Tantra Park, May 4 Civic Area, May 6

Howard Heuston Park, May 12 Arapahoe Ridge ‘Rock’ Park, May 16

• Boulder Reservoir Visitor Services Center: Staff continues to work with Farnsworth
Group to prepare construction documents and bid packages for the Boulder Reservoir
Visitor Services Center (VSC). The VSC is currently in the City approvals process and
construction timeframes will be dependent upon completion of these processes. Staff will
update the PRAB as construction schedules are finalized.

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


following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Elks Park Arbor;
o Lighting Ordinance Compliance; and
o Scott Carpenter Outdoor Pool.

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


Natural Lands
The following projects, focused on habitat and wildlife management in an urban environment,
are currently being managed by the Urban Resources staff:

• Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Restoration: The department is once again
partnering with the Colorado Department of Agriculture to address state mandated
eradication of A-list weed species. These species include Dyer’s Woad, Myrtle Spurge,
and Mediterranean Sage and are found on nearly 600 acres of the department’s natural
lands system.

• Regulations and Seasonal Wildlife Closures: Closures to protect sensitive nesting


species went back into effect on March 15 for the western side of Boulder Reservoir and
the Coot Lake Wetland area. Multiple closure violations have been noted by staff and
volunteers. Staff has responded with new environmental education material at the
trailheads and are planning for the installation of new signage emphasizing closure areas
and regulations.

Staff has seen a decrease in species nesting at the Reservoir. Whether this is a direct
result of the disturbances is difficult to determine, but disturbances are likely a factor.
Burrowing owls returned to the same nesting area as last year but then moved on. One
harrier nesting area is inactive and another is trying out a previously failed area. The loss
of these species of concern is concerning to staff.

• Urban Wildlife Management: Staff continues to participate on the city-wide Prairie


Dog Working Group (PDWG). The final report of group findings and recommendations
is expected to be presented to the City Manager in late second quarter 2018. Meeting
notes, next steps and updated information can be found at
https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/prairie-dog-working-group.

In accordance with the city’s Urban Wildlife Management Plan, lethal control has
resumed in the buffer areas at the Boulder Reservoir including the dam. City staff also
met recently to discuss the city’s collective need for relocation on various properties.
Valmont City Park continues to be the department’s highest priority for relocation and
staff is working to determine receiving site potential.

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


following projects and will update the PRAB as major milestones are achieved:
o Natural Lands Volunteer Recruitment and Training.

C. Operations Update
• Earth Day Celebrations: Despite the cold, snowy weather on April 21st, Boulder
Reservoir and tree lovers alike came out to support two Earth Day events hosted by the
department. The third annual Prep the Rez Volunteer Day rallied over 75 volunteers to
help plant trees and beautify the property. Comcast, Target and CU all partnered on the
event, contributing volunteers, financial support, food and tools. Later in the day, over
3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200
200 community members received a free tree at the Tree Recovery Program, sponsored
by the Arbor Day Foundation, TruGreen, McGuckins, and the PLAY Boulder
Foundation. The goal of the tree give-away program is to encourage residents to replant
and diversify the urban canopy in the wake of the Emerald Ash Borer epidemic. Both
events provided an opportunity for passionate community members to actively participate
in environmental stewardship in Boulder.

• Cyclocross in Urban Parks: The growing sport of cyclocross is resulting in tension in


some communities across the country. USA cycling has acknowledged these challenges
and provided great tips, including advice and stories, in this guide. Some cities have
chosen to ban cyclocross in their parks to protect assets and minimize conflict.

Recognizing that this sport can align with the department’s mission to promote health and
well-being, cyclocross is currently allowed in certain urban parks as part of the
department’s Commercial Use or Special Event permitting. This use (both permitted and
not) still results in some issues, such as damage in parks and concerns/complaints from
neighbors and other park visitors. As such, staff are developing Guidelines for Cyclocross
in Urban Parks.

Working with user groups and event promoters, the goal is to collaboratively develop a
framework that balances several competing interests:
• Supports cyclocross on a variety of terrain and topography;
• Ensures safety for all park users;
• Minimizes damage to park infrastructure and assets (e.g. turf, trees, and irrigation);
and
• Minimizes concerns and complaints from other park users and park neighbors.

Staff is meeting with user groups and event promoters in May and will gather input from
neighbors and the Board at the June business meeting.

• PRAB Summer Meeting Dates and Locations


o The June 25th PRAB meeting will be held at Council Chambers
o The July 23rd PRAB meeting will be held in the North Boulder Library go
accommodate the Summer Concert Series event that will occur in the Civic Area
the same evening.
o The August 27th PRAB meeting will be held in Council Chambers

• YSI Art Show


The Youth Services Initiative Art Show is an annual celebration that recognizes the
culture, art and collaboration with community partners through youth art. Youth are
provided with opportunities to learn art education, engage their critical thinking skills and
use creative outlets to express their talent. Youth from undeserved communities within
Boulder work with local community partners including Boulder Housing Partners,
Pottery Lab, PoshSplat Art Studio and Boulder Parks and Recreation.

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


The YSI art exhibit is available for viewing at the North Boulder Recreation Center
through May 31. Community members are free to enjoy the next generation of Boulder
artists expressing their culture, creativity and perspective of through this unique exhibit.

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


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: April 23, 2018
Contact Information Preparing Summary: Sarah DeSouza, 303-413-7223
Board Members Present: Tom Klenow, Jennifer Kovarik, Valerie Yates, Tyler Romero, Mary Scott,
Pamela Yugar
Board Members Absent: Raj Seymour
Staff Present: Yvette Bowden, Ali Rhodes, Jeff Haley, Sarah DeSouza, Dean Rummel, Brenda Richey,
Alexis Moreno, Matt Kamhi, Bryan Beary
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. The agenda was modified per motion to address the
Concession Services License discussion item prior to action item. These two items were moved to
immediately follow the consent agenda.
Agenda Item 2: Election of Officers
Tyler Romero was nominated for the position of Vice Chair and was elected (5-0; one abstention and one
absence); Tom Klenow was nominated for the position of Chair and was elected (5-0; one abstention and
one absence).
Agenda Item 3: Future Board Items and Tours
Bowden reviewed upcoming community touch opportunities. These events can be found at
www.BoulderParks-Rec.org
Agenda Item 4: Public Participation
Steve Filmer, City of Boulder resident and league director of the Boulder Paddle League, spoke about their
group’s efforts to raise private funds to support lighting upgrades at the North Boulder Recreation Center.
Jill Isenhart, City of Boulder resident and member of the Boulder Platform League, spoke about their
group's partnership fundraising efforts to have improved lighting installed at the North Boulder Recreation
Center.
Agenda Item 5: Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes from April 2, 2018 (rescheduled March meeting)
Minutes from April 2, 2018 were approved as written.

B. Parks and Recreation Development and Operations Update


PRAB members made the following comments about this item:
• Has the private donation for the mini pump track at the North Boulder Park been approved?
• How was this project able to progress more quickly as compared to other partnership proposals that
have been brought forward to the department?
• Are the neighbors and other park users supportive of this project?
• Could the PRAB be provided with a diagram where this project will be located at the park?
• Appreciate the information about the Universal Access Design project provided in the packet.

Agenda Item 6: Action Item

A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve a License Agreement with the
Boulder Valley School District Regarding Collaborative Efforts for Summer Learning
and the Youth Services Initiative Program

Moreno presented this item to the Board.

Public participation was opened.

No one spoke.

The Board made the following comments about this item:


• Are there any opportunities for Summer Learning Program participants to intermingle
with other children?
• Other children would greatly benefit from participating in this program.
• Pleased with how lessons learned from the pilot project have been incorporated into
this license agreement.
• How does the language in the motion that allows the City Manager to, “make minor
amendments…” get applied?

Yugar made the following motion:

To approve the memorandum of understanding for operations and coordination of BVSD’s


Summer Learning Aftercare Programming between the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation
and the Boulder Valley School District and authorize the City Manager to make minor
amendments prior to or during the term of this agreement in order to ensure that programming
is provided in a manner that is consistent with applicable lawas and the policies and
regulations of the City of Boulder.

The motion was seconded by Klenow.

The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Seymour absent.

B. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve an Amendment to the


Contract for Concession Services at Flatirons Golf Course

Bowden and Williams presented this item to the Board.

Public participation was opened.

No one spoke.

The Board had no comments about this item.


Scott made the following motion:

To approve the amendment to the contract for concession services at Flatirons Golf Course
dated March 6th, 2016 and authorize the City Manager to make minor amendments prior to or
during the term of this agreement in order to ensure that the concession is managed in a
manner that is consistent with applicable laws and the policies and regulations of the City of
Boulder.

The motion was seconded by Kovarik.

The motion passed unanimously (6-0) with Seymour absent.

Agenda Item 7: Discussion/Information Item

A. 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program

Haley presented this item to the Board

PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:
• Where in this process are the needs of new neighborhoods such as Boulder Junction considered?
• How are new residential and commercial properties contributing financially to the development of
future parks’ infrastructure?
• How does the Comprehensive Plan inform the department’s CIP decisions?
• How do all of the other city boards and departments “talk” to each other about capital and
infrastructure needs?
• How will the city’s current budget affect the CIP?
• Are the department’s CIP projects scalable if the city’s revenue collections increase?
• Is there public feedback sessions scheduled for the South Shore Reservoir plan?
• Is there a mechanism for the public to bring new CIP ideas to the table?
• Interested to hear more about EAB and how the city will reach out to private home owners to
inform them about the importance of this issue.
• Is the city considering solar technologies such as solar parking lots in upcoming CIP projects?

B. Amendment to the Contract for Concession Services at Flatirons Golf Course

Bowden presented this item to the Board

PRAB members shared the following questions and comments about this item:

• Is $500 a reasonable contribution for the licensee for the payment of utilities?
• Appreciate the early season rates at the Flatirons Golf Course and the partnerships that have been
formed with the golf program.

Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Department


None this month

Agenda Item 9: Matters from the Board

A. Board Liaison Discussion


• Yates is interested in continuing as the board liaison to the Greenways Advisory Board but is
willing to step aside if any other PRAB member is interested in assuming this role.
• Yugar, Klenow and Scott are interested in attending the joint EAB meeting on behalf of the PRAB.
• A monthly PLAY Foundation update will be provided by either Yugar or Romero.

B. PRAB Community Engagement Updates


• Board members attended the following activities/meetings/tours: PLAY Foundation tree giveaway
event; maker space class; dance performance with Kinesis Dance; Lunch and Learn with Boulder
County Public Health and the City of Boulder (Parks and Recreation on the topic of health equity);
regular park visits; attended a public health lecture at Boulder Community Hospital addressing
health care.
Next Board Meeting: June 4, 2018 (rescheduled May meeting)
Adjourn: There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned
at 7:40 p.m.

Approved by: Attested:

_________________________ ________________________

Tom Klenow Sarah DeSouza

Board Chair Board Secretary

Date _____________________ Date ____________________


CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM

MEETING DATE: June 4, 2018

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


Boulder Parks and Recreation 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan.

PRESENTERS:
Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
Ali Rhodes, Deputy Director
Jeff Haley, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager
Kathleen Alexander, City Forester

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The purpose of this item is for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) to conduct a
public hearing on the 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan (UFSP) and consider a motion to approve
the document. The plan will guide the department’s Forestry workgroup over the next 20 years
and shape the management of the city’s urban forest in a manner that is: a) consistent with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), b) the department’s master plan and c) meets the
community’s goals and priorities for a thriving urban forest canopy.

The Parks and Recreation Department manages Boulder’s urban forest through the forestry
workgroup and extensive coordination with the community to ensure the long-term sustainability
of the urban canopy. While Boulder has one of the most successful forestry programs along the
Front Range, many threats exist with Boulder’s trees that require careful management strategies
and effective long-term planning including managing for invasive pests such as the Emerald Ash
Borer (EAB), climate change and individual severe weather events and development.

To be prepared and plan for future threats and resource impacts, the plan provides long-term
management goals for increasing community safety and preserving and improving the health,
value, and environmental benefits of this natural resource. The plan includes an overview of
“what do we have” in terms of our forestry program, resources and characteristics of the urban
forest and “what do we want” in terms of the community’s desires, expectations and priorities for
the urban forest. The plan also includes information related to “how do we get there” to achieve
the goals of the plan and “how are we doing” which outlines ongoing monitoring to ensure plan
objectives are met. This structure, referred to as adaptive management, is commonly used for
resource planning and management and provides a good conceptual framework for urban forest
programming.

AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___1____


The plan is intended to be a living document and staff must identify timeframes for reviewing
accomplishments and updating target dates for implementation items. Based upon the outcomes
of the plan, the department will need to focus on the following priorities and begin to shift
resources to focus on the highest action items.

1. Urban forestry is an important part of Boulder’s resilience strategy. Increasing the


resilience and sustainability of the urban forest directly supports the resilience of the
community. The priorities include; establishing a no-net-loss canopy goal, developing a
planting initiative that increases trees on public and private property, increasing species
diversity, development of specific resiliency plans (climate, emergency, drought, pests
etc.), and integrating urban forestry goals with other city guiding documents.

2. Boulder has an exceptional Forestry program and already implements many industry
BMPs. Management priorities for the UFSP explore; the consolidation of urban forestry
responsibilities, increasing staff resources and funding, providing a more consistent
contracting operating procedure, improvements to the tree inventory database, further
development and integration of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program, and
periodic review and alignment of UFSP priorities.

3. The urban forest represents an asset, one which must be nurtured and protected. This is
accomplished through municipal code, policies, and design and construction standards
that support tree planting and longevity. The priorities include; revision of tree protection
codes and policies, improved standards for tree maintenance, expanding options for tree
mitigation payback, streamlining pesticide permitting, and improvements to the Tree
Safety Inspection Program (TSIP).

4. The Boulder community places a high value on environmental stewardship. Engaging


with and educating the community with the most current information on the urban forest
will mobilize activists and facilitate policy implementation. In the development of the
UFSP, many stakeholders expressed a desire for a community-based urban forest
advocacy group to promote, protect, and enhance Boulder’s urban forest. Priorities to
engage the community are; communicating plan goals, diversifying funding sources and
partners, facilitating private property tree plantings and maintenance, and the
establishment of a partner non-profit urban forest foundation.

BACKGROUND:
Since 2016, a staff team has been working with two consultants, Davey Resource Group
(technical) and Two Forks Collective (outreach) on the comprehensive plan that will outline a
long-term approach to ensuring the sustainability of Boulder’s urban tree canopy.

Steps to develop the Urban Forest Strategic Plan include:


1. Community Engagement: The complete list of engagement activities to date includes:
a) Stakeholder Long Form Survey;
b) Interviews with stakeholders, forestry experts and city officials;
c) Tree story stations;

AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___2____


d) Community Short Form Survey;
e) Public Open House (2);
f) Technical Working Group Meetings (3)
g) Feedback from the Youth Opportunities Advisory Board (YOAB); and
h) Young children tree preferences from Growing up Boulder, Boulder County Head
Start and Boulder Journey School.
2. Public Tree Inventory
3. Emerald Ash Borer long term strategy (implementation on-going)
4. Urban Forest Resource Analysis
5. Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
6. Consultant On-Boarding and Background Review
7. Plan Development (See Attachment B for Draft Final Plan)

Developing the Plan


Upon review of the current forestry program and input from the community and other
stakeholders, the UFSP team established an overarching goal to maintain a sixteen percent urban
tree canopy within Boulder. Four themes of sustainable urban forestry including Plan, Manage,
Protect and Engage were developed to communicate this goal to the public. Detailed goals and
objectives were developed within this structure to guide the future management of Boulder’s
urban forest. The public open house in March 2018 provided a chronology of the research,
community outreach and milestones that occurred throughout the process. Additionally, this
meeting presented a comprehensive summary of the strategic goals and actions to meet the needs
of Boulder’s urban forest as well as community stated desires for the future of their urban forest.

Details about the four identified sustainable urban forestry themes are as follows:

Plan
Urban forestry is an important part of Boulder’s resilience strategy. Increasing the resilience and
sustainability of the urban forest directly supports the resilience of the community.
1. Develop and implement a 20-year Planting Plan for public trees to support the 16 percent
urban tree canopy cover by 2037.
2. Participate in inter-departmental Urban Ecosystems Management Strategic planning process
to integrate ecosystem protection and monitoring across urban, agricultural and wildland
systems
3. Create an Urban Forest Emergency Response Plan for city-wide coordination to ensure
appropriate coverage and minimize risk to the public.

Manage
Boulder has an exceptional Forestry program and already implements many industry best
management practices. Further refinements and increased funding is needed however to match
community expectations.
1. Establish a dedicated, sustained funding source beyond the departmental budget for Boulder
Forestry operations to increase the level of service to meet the community’s high standards.
2. Shift management responsibility for all trees in public street rights-of-way and around public
buildings under Boulder Forestry to maximize advantages in expertise and scale.

AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___3____


3. Expand the Public Tree Planting program to support efforts toward the goal of sixteen
percent canopy by 2037.
4. Increase investment in proactive, preventative maintenance by exploring options to increase
the frequency of pruning events for public street trees.
5. Refine the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program to improve tree health while
minimizing cost and negative impacts to ecosystems and the public.
6. Explore the expansion of the Commercial Tree Program beyond the immediate downtown
area to maintain urban tree canopy, protect property and better manage public safety issues.
7. Continue to explore all wood utilization options to improve resiliency to increased cost or
disappearance of any single waste stream.
8. Transition to a new Asset Management System to allow efficient forestry business processes
across city workgroups and provide essential baseline data for strategic forest management.
9. Streamline the Tree Safety Inspection Program to manage risk and minimize City exposure
to claims but reduce the financial and logistical costs on forestry operations.
10. Continue implementation of the Emerald Ash Borer response strategy to maintain public
safety, ecosystem services and forest function in the face of unprecedented canopy loss.
11. Develop a staff succession plan within Forestry to encourage continual professional
development and facilitate transitions in leadership to minimize disruption to operations,
forrest stakeholders and the public.

Protect
The urban forest represents an asset, one which must be nurtured and protected. This is
accomplished through municipal code, policies, and design and construction standards that support
tree planting and longevity.
1. Strengthen Boulder Forestry’s role in all city CIP projects to minimize damage to tree assets
and canopy loss.
2. Strengthen existing city requirements for trees on Public Property to increase tree protection,
improve site preparation and strengthen tree species diversity requirements to maintain the
urban tree canopy and increase forest resiliency.
3. Strengthen existing and develop new city requirements for Private Property to increase tree
protection, improve site preparation and strengthen tree species diversity requirements to
maintain the urban tree canopy and increase forest resiliency.
4. Revise licensing requirements for all tree care companies performing tree work in Boulder to
improve public safety and tree health.

Engage
The Boulder community places a high value on environmental stewardship. Connecting with and
educating the community with the most current information on the urban forest will mobilize
activists and facilitate policy implementation. In the development of the UFSP, many stakeholders
also expressed a desire for a community-based urban forest advocacy group to promote, protect,
and enhance Boulder’s urban forest.
1. Provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in
understanding the problems, alternatives and options to achieve the Boulder urban tree
canopy goal.
2. Partner with the community on projects to broaden knowledge, support and funding for the
Boulder urban tree canopy goal.

AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___4____


3. Develop and expand opportunities for community involvement in the commitment to achieve
the UTC goal.
4. Involve the public on the analysis, alternatives and recommendations for further urban
forestry related planning processes and potential code changes.

ANALYSIS:

Staffing and Operations


Boulder is aware of the importance of trees to the health and sustainability of the community.
Forestry staff exhibit a high level of expertise and dedication to managing the community’s
urban forest assets and they are supported in their education and professional development. Staff
have assembled a strong foundation for managing urban forest resources and operations using a
robust asset management system to track the condition and history of every public tree, plan
work, conduct threat analysis, and develop informed management strategies. A GIS-based land
cover map provides information about the location and extent of existing canopy and a platform
for development of a comprehensive planting plan. A current resource analysis details the
structure, condition, value and environmental and socio-economic services provided by the
public tree resource. This information provides a basis for long-term planning and establishes
benchmarks for measuring the success of management strategies.

Boulder Forestry is also recognized nationally for demonstrating leadership and best
management practices. The existing forestry program is very progressive, with a diverse range
and depth of services, including annual tree inspections, tree risk evaluations, maintenance and
safety pruning, integrated pest management and community outreach.

The planning process for the UFSP revealed few inefficiencies in Boulder’s urban forestry
program and those that were identified are generally beyond the control of staff, including
budget shortfalls and external threats from severe weather and invasive pests. EAB, severe
weather, and climate change are important considerations when planning for a healthy and
resilient urban forest. Mortality estimates for the combined assumptions of standard tree
mortality and mortality from pests is a 25% reduction in canopy within the next decade if
proactive measures are not taken.
• A comprehensive tree planting initiative to meet the community’s goal of no-net-loss
of tree canopy is a high priority for the UFSP.
• Ongoing adaptive management and monitoring success are cornerstones to building
an even more resilient urban forest for future generations.
• Increasing species diversity and protecting existing healthy trees are crucial to
preserving Boulder’s urban forest and the contribution of trees and canopy to quality
of life and sustainability of the community.

Industry BMPs recommend routine tree pruning be conducted every five to seven years. Since
2012, due to safety pruning and removals necessitated by unusual weather events, pest invasions,
and increasing costs for contact services, the routine pruning cycle has increased to 11 years for
park trees and fifteen years for public street trees. This has created a backlog of deferred
maintenance and an increased number of annual service requests from the public. Deferred
maintenance is far more critical than simply responding to more service requests. More than 67%

AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___5____


(13,034) of young trees (<6” DBH) are medium and large-maturing trees that still have a lot of
growing to do before they reach maturity. Structural pruning is critical at this stage to prevent
costly issues and branch failures as these young trees mature into their final size in the landscape.
Deferring maintenance affects the health and safety of trees, results in additional failures during
severe weather events, reduces the lifespan of trees, and increases risk to people and property.

In the past, staff were conducting safety inspections on approximately 100 trees per year. Due to
the advanced age and size of trees in older neighborhoods, that number is now 200 to 250 trees
per year. This presents another challenge concerning evaluation and monitoring, especially for
the TSIP and newly established trees. The scope of the program represents a significant logistical
burden on Forestry operations and may need to be scaled back to keep up with demand.

Collaboration
Staff have a proven track record of interagency collaboration, as demonstrated by the
interdepartmental EAB response. Two key challenges exist for coordination and collaboration
efforts among Boulder departments.
• The first challenge is clarifying the expectations of workgroup roles and department
jurisdictions when facing an emergency response event. There are multiple workgroups
within and between departments who play a key role in emergency response protocols
and decision making. Furthermore, the characteristics of an emergency event will differ
dramatically and will sometimes change which group takes on the role between these
varying emergency scenarios. While there are a few emergency plans in place,
disaggregating which workgroup does what throughout all potential emergency scenarios
that Boulder might face will continue to be an ongoing challenge. It is important to
continue collaborating with departments to define and plan for varying emergency events
that will impact the urban canopy. This is especially true with Public Works, as this has
been identified as a critical department to work with in the face of emergency response
planning.
• The second challenge is synchronizing software and database management tools to be
congruent. Currently, there are several different tools employed among different teams
which increase technological miscommunication.

Outreach and Education


Community outreach and public perception are high priorities for Boulder Forestry. Nationally-
lauded workshops and presentations, combined with an informative and easy to navigate website,
provide the community with ample opportunity for education. Possible communication
improvements with private property owners are through increased transparency and information
exchange. There needs to be further communication with those who have ash which are not
being treated. It is vital to communicate to these property owners that their ash is not being
treated and will be removed as it declines due to EAB. Boulder has created an online resource for
these homeowners to log this information electronically.

Service Delivery and Resources

In recent years, cost of living increases, mounting public expectation for service delivery, and
stagnant organizational budgets have created some gaps between public expectations and service

AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___6____


capacity. Emerging urban forest threats, changes in climate, and community growth are obstacles
to maintaining the high level of service expected by Boulder residents. In many cases, challenges
can be viewed as opportunities for development and increased efficiency. To provide the
recommended level of care for the community's urban forest resources, Boulder Forestry will
require additional funding. Specifically, current funding levels are inadequate to support:
• Pruning and maintenance cycles: The industry recommendation is a seven-year rotation.
• EAB management: The costs for treatment and removal will continue to rise over the
next several years.
• Traffic control and towing costs are increasing: for some trees, the traffic control costs
exceed the removal cost.
• A tree planting initiative to preserve Boulder’s current level of tree canopy cover (16%):
The initiative requires increasing public tree planting to 600 trees per year and facilitating
2,025 new trees on private property. Planting initiatives should include an increased level
of young tree care because proper watering and structural pruning are required to ensure
young trees live to their fullest.
• Public engagement, education and programming.

Implementation and Monitoring


The plan is an active tool that will guide management and planning decisions over the next 20
years. The goals, priorities, and actions will be reviewed annually for progress and integration
into annual work plans and presents a long-range vision with timeframes that are intended to be
flexible. This will allow management to adapt in response to emerging opportunities, available
resources, and changes in community expectations. Each year, specific areas of focus should be
identified, which will inform budget and time requirements for urban forest managers.

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 Boulder Parks and Recreation 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan.

NEXT STEPS:

Upon the PRAB’s approval of the plan, staff will provide a comprehensive information
packet (IP) to City Council outlining the full process and outcomes of the UFSP and include
the final plan pending any recommendations or revisions from PRAB. Staff will begin
implementing key aspects of the plan starting with public involvement and education. Staff
are already working closely with the Boulder Play Foundation and the Tree Trust related to
the EAB initiative and staff will continue this relationship while expanding outreach
significantly to private property owners within the community. Staff have developed an
engagement plan that will serve as the guide to the department’s internal and external
communication and marketing goals, strategies and tactics.

AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___7____


The success of this plan requires extensive and coordinated communication to ensure public
education and inspire individual activism in support of Boulder's trees and the UFSP. The
UFSP Communications strategy consists of four primary objectives:
• Public education and awareness of UFSP activities, progress, milestones and
accomplishments;
• Instill a sense of urgency and social responsibility (how can I help?) that will lead to
sustained public participation and support for Boulder’s urban forest;
• Inspire public stewardship, positive public action to protect current urban canopy, plant
and nurture Boulder’s future urban canopy;
• Collaborate with and support our community partners such as the PLAY Boulder
Foundation Tree Trust to engage and inspire the community to support the UFSP’s
sixteen percent canopy cover goal, including development of a broad palette of “brand”
strategies, action ideas, key messages and tools to achieve this goal.

Throughout the implementation of this community engagement plan, our efforts will be
guided by the following principles:
• Goal and results oriented: We are motivated by a commitment to be great advocates
and stewards of Boulder’s urban canopy; therefore, our work will be driven by the
attainment of the goals established in this plan in support of the UFSP.
• Respectful and Collaborative: We will be transparent, respectful and inclusive of our
USFP partners to build trust and foster effective collaboration in support of this plan.
• Communicate the Vision: Messages should be consistent and tailored to the targeted
audiences as well as sent multiple times through a variety of channels.
• Timely, Flexible and Appropriate: Information must be available when it is needed, the
right information must be given, using the right methods and to the right people, avoiding
duplication and overload.
• Clear, Direct and Two-Way: We will be clear on what we need input from partners and
the community on and what is not negotiable. Feedback will be listened to and carefully
considered.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: 2018 Urban Forest Strategic Plan

AGENDA ITEM #___VI-A___PAGE___8____


CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM

MEETING DATE: June 4, 2018

AGENDA TITLE: 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

PRESENTERS:
Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation
Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation
Jeff Haley, Planning, Design and Community Engagement Manager
Brenda Richey, Business Services Manager, Parks and Recreation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The April Capital Improvement Program (CIP) “First Touch” memo included a variety of
information related to the background, process, methodology and guiding principles
associated with the annual CIP development and specifically PRAB’s role in reviewing
and approving the CIP. The memo also outlined the current year’s approved CIP projects
that are in progress. The purpose of this agenda item is the “Second Touch” to provide a
formal discussion item for the Parks and Recreation Department (department) to
communicate its proposed 2019-2024 CIP projects and consider questions and feedback
from the PRAB to inform the final projects that will be proposed in June for
consideration of approval. This memo outlines the project types, funding amounts and
current funding status to achieve the goals of the CIP. At this time, the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) will have an opportunity to ask questions and
provide comments on the draft CIP. The PRAB’s input is essential throughout the capital
budget process, as PRAB’s role is to provide a formal recommendation of the CIP,
including the appropriation of the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (Fund 230). All
capital projects are included for information, regardless of funding source, to ensure the
PRAB understands the department’s comprehensive capital investment plan.

IMPACTS
Fiscal: $5.25 million recommended for 2019 with the 2019-2024 CIP projecting an
investment of $29.7M throughout the six-year program. This equates to average annual
CIP funding just under $5M and reflects the total uses of funds projected for 2019 in the
Lottery (Fund 2100), .25 Cent Sales Tax (Fund 2180) and Permanent Parks and
Recreation (Fund 3300).

PUBLIC FEEDBACK
With the adoption of the BPR Master Plan in 2014, the department has completed
rigorous public involvement over the past few years to complete multiple plans and

1
studies outlining capital needs. The project needs have directly informed the department’s
CIP and continue to be discussed with the community as projects are developed.
Additionally, a PRAB public hearing is scheduled June 25, 2018. At that time, the public
will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2019- 2024 CIP. The public will
also have an opportunity to comment during the Planning Board’s CIP review in July and
City Council’s discussions and review of the 2019 recommended budget during future
public hearings.

BACKGROUND
Capital Projects
As outlined in the April memo, CIP projects are defined as any major project with a cost
greater than $50,000 for purchase or construction, or major replacement of physical
assets. Once approved for funding, CIP projects are potentially subject to a public
planning and review process or Community and Environmental Assessment Process
(CEAP) review that evaluates consistency with applicable policies and any potential
impacts to a variety of review criteria. This process includes review and approval by
PRAB. The five primary CIP categories include the following:

• Capital Maintenance
o Renovate, repair, or replace an existing asset
o Enhancement results in a durable, long lasting asset, with an extended
useful life of at least five years
• Capital Enhancement
o Expansion or significant improvement of an existing asset
o Repair damage to existing infrastructure
o Enhancement results in a durable, long lasting asset, with a useful life of at
least 15 years
• Capital Planning Studies
• Land and Asset Acquisition
• New Capital Project
o Construction or acquisition of a new asset
o Expanded square footage of an existing asset with associated new use
o Project results in a durable, long lasting asset, with a useful life of at least
15 years

Capital Funding
The department’s CIP is funded primarily from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund
(Fund 3300), .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund (Fund 2180) and Lottery Fund (Fund 2110).
Additional sources of funding that have limitations on the type of capital investment that
funding can be spent on and are not managed exclusively by the department include the
Capital Development Fund (Fund 2100), Boulder Junction Improvement Fund (Fund
3500) and past Capital Improvement Bond or Tax Funding.

As indicated in the April PRAB CIP item, 2018 sales tax revenues to the city have not
increased compared to previous years, creating a projected General Fund shortfall of $4M
in ongoing expenses versus ongoing revenues. The shortfall applies to 2018 and has a

2
compounding effect on future years. The Parks and Recreation .25 cent sales tax is also
impacted in this revenue situation as its sole source of revenue is sales tax.

The Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (Perm Parks Fund) is funded specially from
property and development excise taxes. By city charter, this fund is dedicated to the
purposes of acquiring land and renovating or improving existing park and recreation
assets. It may not be used to fund daily operations or routine maintenance. Due to
increasing assessed property values, the outlook on this fund is currently positive (while
still sensitive to economic conditions).

Equitable Distribution
In planning and developing the CIP, the department strives to provide equitable
distribution of improvements throughout the city, both geographically and socio-
economically. In planning projects and identifying needs, the department reviews all
asset management information to prioritize the critical deficiencies and engages staff as
well as the PRAB to understand the capital priorities that exist throughout the
community. The planned six-year CIP for 2019-2024 includes a variety of projects
throughout Boulder’s many subcommunities and even emphasizes development of assets
within areas not currently serviced as park amenities. Attachment A – 2019-2024 CIP
Project Map, provides a visual representation of the many project locations to understand
the service reach of the planned improvements.

ANALYSIS
The current budget (and the department’s planning) reflects a conservative economic
reality not predicted to shift anytime soon. With maintenance backlog estimated at over
$16 million on approximately $215 million in assets, the department faces difficult trade-
off decisions in managing and operating its facilities and in the provision of its programs.
City guidelines regarding capital improvement prioritize the maintenance of current
assets over the development of new facilities, and through the Master Planning process,
the community has indicated strong support for this concept. The department must focus
on maintaining and improving all deteriorating assets. Simultaneously the department
must respond to the community’s shifting values related to new facilities by providing
adequate facilities to meet those needs and by making them accessible to the entire
community.

To mitigate the impacts of limited funding, staff is:


• Evaluating service levels to identify opportunities for efficiencies.
• Working collaboratively with Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) to prioritize
funding for deferred, major and ongoing facility maintenance.
• Deferring low priority improvements and new capital projects that cannot be
sustainably maintained by the operation.
• Completing projects to achieve energy and operational efficiencies at recreation
facilities and in park infrastructure.
• Developing long-term partnerships and non-traditional funding sources to support
desired new facilities and enhancements to existing facilities.

3
In alignment with the master plan and Capital Investment Strategy, (Attachment B –
Capital Investment Strategy) and considering the fiscally constrained scenario, the
department’s 2019-2023 CIP is primarily focused on “Taking Care of What We Have”
and prioritizes majority of funding within the capital maintenance category (see Figure
1).

Figure 1: 2019 Capital Project Categories

Staff have identified options for reducing spending strategically as a standard practice for
this fiscal environment and especially as it applies to the CIP. As indicated in Figures 2
and 3, for both 2019 as well as the full 6-year CIP staff have performed careful analysis
and projections for all funds that make up the department CIP and adjusted the spending
accordingly to remain within funding projections while still maintaining a healthy fund
balance for reserves. Over half of the CIP is now funded exclusively out of the Permanent
Parks and Recreation fund while the remaining is funded appropriately out of the .25

4
Cent Sales Tax and Lottery Fund. Staff will continue to monitor and adjust spending as
necessary with new fund projections and revenue information are available

Figure 2: 2019 BPR CIP Funding Sources

The
Figure 3: 2019-2023 BPR CIP Funding Sources

department’s capital projects are outlined in Attachment C - 2019-2024 Draft CIP. In


the six-year plan, the department continues to focus primarily on taking care of existing
assets that provide core services to the community, while partnering as possible to
leverage capital funding, to achieve master plan goals including:

5
• Community Health and Wellness – Parks and facilities are being improved with
capital maintenance and enhancements to the three recreation centers and many
outdoor facilities such as courts, playgrounds and ballfields. The amenities are
critical to the department’s core services and investments are outlined in recent
plans and studies.
• Taking Care of Existing Facilities - through implementation of the Asset
Management Software, improvements to Chautauqua Park, Boulder Reservoir
South Shore and Columbia Cemetery along with smaller renovation and
refurbishment (R&R) projects across the system will extend the useful life of
priority facilities and increase the condition of many assets.
• Building Community Relationships – The department continues to address the
Emerald Ash Borer epidemic in Boulder and maintain as much tree canopy as
possible. With help from the Tree Trust, developed by the PLAY Boulder
Foundation, staff are making progress in fighting the pest and planting
replacement trees through capital funding.
• Youth Activity and Engagement - Many youth sports facilities and play areas
will be enhanced and renovated through the 2019 projects that will continue to
allow the department to focus on youth and provide opportunities for children in
the community.

2019 Capital Project Priorities (described in greater detail in Attachment B)


• East Boulder Community Center Facility and Aquatics Enhancements
• Columbia Cemetery Capital Maintenance
• Urban Forestry Management
• Flatirons Golf Course Enhancements
• Chautauqua Park Playground Renovation
• Parking Lot Maintenance and Renovation
• Valmont City Park Phase 2 Design

Operating and Maintenance Impacts


The department prioritizes capital projects based upon maintaining existing assets and
decreasing the maintenance backlog of the department’s portfolio of parks and facilities.
Therefore, most projects included in the department’s Capital Improvement Program will
not have an impact on maintenance costs due to replacement of aging infrastructure and
efficiencies associated with new and improved facilities and systems. However, as the
department fulfills commitments relative to long-term planning needs such as the future
phases of Valmont City Park, Boulder Junction Park or Violet Neighborhood Park in the
future, the department will need to carefully design enhancements in sensitivity to the
department’s O&M funding and not overburden funds with maintenance of these new
facilities.

Unfunded Projects and Emerging Needs


In the long-term, additional funding will need to be secured to develop any new major
facilities as well as improve service standards for maintenance operations and to fund
deferred maintenance. The master plan includes a list of priority items to complete based
on various funding levels Staff continues to evaluate deferred maintenance needs,

6
including park sites and recreation facility needs and have implemented an Asset
Management Plan (AMP) to assist in capital planning and day-to-day operations. The
current maintenance and facility improvements backlog, including major repairs and
replacements, is significant. The department anticipates that this backlog will continue
until funding levels reach appropriate amounts to accommodate life-cycle projections for
the department’s assets.

Key Unfunded Projects Include:


• Boulder Reservoir South Shore enhancements to accommodate increased use and
visitation as well as basic amenities to support the regional destination as outlined in
the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan and currently evaluated through the Site and
Management Plan.
• The Recreation Facility Strategic Plan projected a total of $4.5 million in deferred
maintenance and an additional $3 million over the next ten years in the three
recreation centers.
• Meeting energy compliance required by the Building Performance Ordinance.
• Increased capacity and additional facilities for youth and adult sports fields.
• Expansion and enhancement of recreation centers and aquatics facilities that
accommodate increased demand for lap swimming, fitness equipment and multi-use
classroom space that could be expanded.

QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD


• Does the PRAB have questions or comments related to the current funding status
and/or sources of funding for the department’s draft CIP?

• Does the PRAB have questions regarding the selection and determination of projects
for the draft 2019-2024 CIP project list?

• Does the PRAB have questions regarding the location and equitable distribution of
projects for the draft 2019-2024 CIP project list?

NEXT STEPS
Important milestones for the CIP process are included below.

2019-2024 CIP Process Time Line (Projected)


Item Date
PRAB Draft CIP Discussion Item June 4
PRAB Approval/Recommendation of CIP (Action) June 25
Planning Board / City Council CIP Tour July 16
Planning Board Hearing July 19
Council Study Session Aug 14

Attachments:
A. 2019-2024 CIP Project Map
B. Capital Investment Strategy
C. 2019-2024 Draft CIP

7
City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Project Category

2019-2024 Capital Improvement Projects


Capital Enhancement

´
Capital Maintenance
New Infrastructure
0 0.5 1 2
Miles Planning Study

Boulder Reservoir South Shore


Construction: 2019

Eaton Neighborhood Park Improvements


Design: 2022
Construction: 2023
Violet Park Improvements
Design: 2022
Construction: 2023

Wonderland Lake Park


Irrigation Renovation
Construction: 2019

Parkside Park
Playground Renovation
Construction: 2024

Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr Park


Plaform & Tennis Court Maintenance
Construction: 2019

Valmont City Park Phase 2


Design: 2019
Construction: 2021
Boulder Junction Park
Design: 2019

North Boulder Park


Playground Renovation
Construction: 2022

Flatirons Golf Course


Enhancements
Design: 2019
Columbia Cemetery Construction: 2020
Capital Maintenance Scott Carpenter Pool
Construction: 2019 Renovation
Construction: 2019

Beach Park
Irrigation Renovation
Chautauqua Park Construction: 2018
Playground Renovation
Construction: 2019

Parking Lot
Capital Maintenance
Construction: 2019

Martin Park
Playground Renovation
Construction: 2023 East Boulder Community Park
Playground Renovation
Construction: 2020

East Boulder Community Ctr.


City-wide Projects Leisure Pool Renovation &
Operations Facilities Enhancements Facility Repairs
Planning: 2018 Design: 2019
Construction: 2024 Construction: 2020

Athletic Field Improvements


Construction: 2021
Harlow Platts Community Park
Disc Golf Renovation
Urban Forest Management Construction: 2018
Construction: 2019-2024

Forestry Emergency Response Plan Harlow Platts Community Park


Planning: 2019 Playground Renovation
Construction: 2021
BPR Master Plan Update
Planning: 2020 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN,
GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),
swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Boulder Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program 2019-2024
Run Date: 5/15/2018 9:59:12 AM

Estimated Total 2019 2020 Projected 2021 Projected 2022 Projected 2023 Projected 2024 Projected Unfunded
Cost Recommended Amount
PARKS & RECREATION Department Total $ 5,255,000 $ 6,378,000 $ 5,030,000 $ 3,760,000 $ 4,450,000 $ 4,912,000 $ -
CIP-CAPITAL ENHANCEMENT Subtotal $ 1,427,000 $ 2,528,000 $ 3,928,000 $ 1,098,000 $ 2,428,000 $ 2,428,000 $ -
Aquatic Facility Enhancements $ 150,000 $ 2,100,000 $ - $ 510,000 $ - $ - $ -
(5152185510)
Based on recommendations of the 2015 Boulder Aquatics Feasibility Plan, this project provides implementation of priority indoor and outdoor pool enhancements for Boulder's aquatics
programs. In 2018, all of the indoor hot tubs will be repaired to meet lifecycle preventative maintenance. The East Boulder Community Center pools will be improved in partnership with
Facilities and Asset Management funding necessary repairs in 2020. In 2022, improvements will be made to the outdoor Spruce Pool and the indoor South Boulder Recreation Center pool to
provide water play features for children and youth.
Capital Infrastructure $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ -
Enhancements (515218CINF)
This project will provide capital funding to implement enhancements at parks and facilites throughout the system. Currently undeveloped park sites such as Violet Park in north Boulder and
Eaton Park in Gunbarrel have planned amenities that need to be implemented to meet service levels of surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, this project will provide implementation of
planned amenities at developed park sites that haven't been constructed such as restrooms, ballfields, additional sport courts and play areas. The Recreation Facilty Needs Assessment
completed in 2019 will also outline future priorities that will be funded through this project that will enhance the existing recreation facilities.

Capital Infrastructure $ 575,000 $ - $ - $ 80,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ -


Enhancements (515330CINF)
This project will provide capital funding to implement enhancements at parks and facilites throughout the system. Currently undeveloped park sites such as Violet Park in north Boulder and
Eaton Park in Gunbarrel have planned amenities that need to be implemented to meet service levels of surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, this project will provide implementation of
planned amenities at developed park sites that haven't been constructed such as restrooms, ballfields, additional sport courts and play areas. The Recreation Facilty Needs Assessment
completed in 2019 will also outline future priorities that will be funded through this project that will enhance the existing recreation facilities.

General Park Improvements $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ 428,000 $ -


(5152112110)
Boulder's park system is foundational to the mission of the Parks and Recreation Department. Upon completion of the department's master plan in 2014, the department committed to ongoing
park system renovations/repairs based on priority needs and asset management for all outdoor facilities. This combines individual funding for playgrounds, parking lots, shelters, courts and
ADA. The specific system that will be renovated will be decided on an annual basis through an asset management program and communicated to the public. Projects are necessary to comply
with goals and commitments identified in the department’s master plan. The department evaluates and prioritizes needs based on criteria including safety and code compliance, age of the
equipment, location in the city, and opportunities for efficiencies, collaboration or partnerships with other departments or the surrounding neighborhood.

Operations Facilities Capital Enhac $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000 $ -


(515330OPFA)
This project will provide funding to implement key recommendations of the operations facility assessment to improve existing facilities as well as increasing facilities for space needs related to
production areas, material storage, office space and equipment staging.

Valmont City Park - Phase 2 $ 274,000 $ - $ 3,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -


(5153303500)
This project provides for the development of the next major phase of Valmont City Park, primarily south of Valmont Road. The Concept Plan for the park was updated in 2015 with community
support and outlining all the major amenities and phases to be built in the future. The next phase will likely include an adventure playground, small water feature for children, community
garden, skateboard elements and shelter pavilions. Additional parking and opportunities for enhancement to the existing disc golf course will also be explored as part of Phase 2. Final plans
will be completed in 2019 to determine amenities for development as well as available funding. This project also allows for increased park service to the surrounding areas of east Boulder as
well as the entire Boulder community.

CIP-CAPITAL MAINTENANCE Subtotal $ 3,778,000 $ 3,570,000 $ 1,102,000 $ 2,662,000 $ 2,022,000 $ 2,484,000 $ -


Athletic Field Improvements $ - $ - $ 130,000 $ - $ - $ 130,000 $ -
(5153302060)
Boulder Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program 2019-2024
Run Date: 5/15/2018 9:59:12 AM

As recommended in the department's master plan and the subsequent Athletic Field Study, staff will improve existing athletic fields and sports complexes through annual capital maintenance
and renovations. Most of the improvements relate to irrigation and turf renovation, replacement of sports field amenities and improving fields. The department conducted feasibility studies and
intends to design and construct priority field improvements at locations determined through the athletic field study. Specific park sites could include Stazio Complex, Foothills Community Park,
Pleasantview Sports Complex, East Boulder Community Park or Harlow Platts Park.
This project allows the department to focus on youth engagement and activity as indicated in the department's master plan and Athletic Field Study by providing appropriate facilities and
opportunities for youth sports. Additionally, this project will provide efficiency and improvement in maintenance and operations in order to allow the department more flexibility in maintenance
of athletic fields throughout the community.

Boulder Reservoir South Shore $ 1,100,000 $ - $ - $ 650,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ -


(5153305020)
Implementing the 2012 Master Plan and recent facility assessments, this project will continue the implementation of key improvements to the south shore recreation area and redevelopment of
the visitor services center to provide restrooms, administrative offices, concessions area and various visitor amenities to the beach area. Funding is planned through 2023 to continue key
enhancement priorities that will be determined through a site management plan that is currently underway and will be complete in 2019. Potential projects include trail connections, pavilions,
docks, facility upgrades and parking lot renovations.

Columbia Cemetery Capital $ 106,000 $ 32,000 $ - $ 40,000 $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $ -


Maintenan (515330CCCM)
The cemetery is a designated landmark and requires ongoing maintenance to meet the preservation requirements associated with all the infrastructure ranging from headstones, markers,
ornamental fencing and grounds maintenance. This project will provide necessary funding to complete projects as well as local match for leveraging state grant funds.

Flatiron Golf Course Repairs $ 260,000 $ 2,300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000 $ -


(5153304150)
The Flatirons Golf Course is the only public course in Boulder and provides a highly desired recreation amenity while also contributing to funding sources through revenue generation. The golf
course has many planned enhancements to ensure playability and provide necessary visitor amenities. This project will provide dredging of existing irrigation ponds within the course in 2019
and 2024 and design and construction of a new pro shop, clubhouse and staff office to replace the former events center that was demolished as a result of the 2013 flood.

Neighborhood and Com Park Cap $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ 472,000 $ -
Maint (515330NHCP)
This annual funding provides the annual asset maintenance throughout the system as well as a complete renovation of one neighborhood park annually to meet the goals outlined wihtin the
BPR Master Plan and Capital Investment Strategy. The renovations typically include playground replacement, irrigation renovation, forestry maintenance, ADA compliance and shelter repairs.

Parking Lot Capital Maintenance $ 840,000 $ 266,000 $ - $ - $ 318,000 $ 350,000 $ -


(515218PKLT)
BPR manages approximately 20 different parking lots across the system with a current replacement value of $5.5M. Current backlog of maintenance is estimated at $2M which increases
annually due to the deterioration of asphalt in poor condition. This project provides critical funding to renovate and renew existing parking lots to ensure safety of visitors and access to a variety
of parks and recreation facilities. Individual parking lot repairs are prioritized through the department's asset management system and identified for construction efficiencies based on locations.

Play Court Capital Maintenance $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 $ - $ -


(515218PLCT)
BPR owns and manages a variety of play courts ranging from basketball, tennis, platform tennis and handball. The department asset management system outlines which courts are in need of
repairs and the department uses this funding to provide capital maintenance each year to the highest priority courts including crack filling, striping, painting and replacement of hardware and
infrastructure associated with the courts.

Recreation Facility Repairs $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ -


(5152186150)
Boulder Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program 2019-2024
Run Date: 5/15/2018 9:59:12 AM

The department's master plan indicates several key themes that relate to health and wellness, youth activity, community engagement and asset management. To continue supporting these key
themes, the department will be providing repairs, renovations and upgrades to recreation centers. In 2016, the department completed a strategic plan for all recreation centers that illustrates
implementation priority for critical projects. Based upon the outcomes and strategies of the Recreation Facility Strategic Plan, this project will fund the initial implementation projects outlined
within the plan. This project is combined with funding from the Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) Division of Public Works that partners in the management of the facilities.

Urban Forest Management $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ -


(5152183100)
Trees are important assets to the community and provide many benefits to Boulder. In September 2013, Forestry staff discovered an Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) infestation within the city. The
subsequent delimitation survey showed that EAB was well established within a corridor in central Boulder. Over the next 15 years, EAB management, including tree removal, tree replacement,
wood disposal and pesticide treatments will have a significant direct budgetary impact to the city and private residents. The loss of tree canopy will have considerable economic, social, and
environmental impacts for decades. In September of 2015, an Information Item detailing the Emerald Ash Borer management plan was presented to City Council.
As a result of the recent discovery of the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), a response plan has been developed to slow the spread of the pest and maintain a safe community from the potential
hazards of multiple dead and dying trees within the urban core of the community. This project will provide funding to educate the community on safe EAB treatment, hire contractors for
removal and replacement of the trees affected by the EAB to re-establish streetscapes and park areas that contribute to many of the sustainability goals of the city. This project will include
renovation of parking areas, streetscapes, park areas and other sites to remove and replace the trees. The recent Urban Forest Strategic Plan outlined the need to increase annual tree
plantings from 400 to 600 to maintain the existing canopy given the decline from EAB. This project provides plantings across the city on locations throughout Parks and Recreation properties.

CIP-CAPITAL PLANNING STUDIES Subtotal $ 50,000 $ 280,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Forestry Emergency Response Plan $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -


(515330UFPP)
A key implementation priority in the Urban Forest Strategic Plan, this will provide funding for a comprehensive plan that identifies planting priorities for the urban forest annual planting initiatives
as well as specific response protocol for emergency related events including drought, wind storms, major precipitation events and other threats to the forest canopy. The city manages over 50K
trees with an assessed value of $110M annually in benefits to Boulder. This plan will ensure the maintenance and protection of the canopy and priorities for the replacement plantings. Boulder
is susceptible to a variety of weather events that impact the forest including flood, fire, wind and snow. Each of these events require quick response to ensure public safety as well as limiting
disturbance to trees.

Master Plan Update $ - $ 280,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -


(515218MPUP)
This project will provide funding for consultants and staff to complete a 5-year update to the department's master plan to ensure alignment of departmental programs, services and facilities to
meet the needs and goals of the community. This project will likely include an updated community survey and outreach to all members of the community to analyze the mission and offerings of
the department. A comprehensive historic and cultural plan will be completed in conjunction with this master plan update to provide for goals and recommendations to ensure the sustainability
of the departments' historic and cultural assets over time.

Total $ 5,255,000 $ 6,378,000 $ 5,030,000 $ 3,760,000 $ 4,450,000 $ 4,912,000 $ -


Attachment C

Boulder P&R 100+ Years of Excellence BPR Planning Process & Results
In 2014 the City Council adopted the Boulder Parks and Recreation Master
A B C D E Plan and guiding principles. This plan reflected over two years of public
Monarch Rd
input as to the future of the urban park system. The master plan identified a
clear vision, mission and six core themes to implement the community
1
16 Mineral Rd
1
vision. In addition to the BPRD Master Plan the department has undertaken
a number of site plan studies that were identified in the master planning

71st St
10
process required to meet future park and recreation needs or address
current deficiencies. These plans have been summarized in the Capital
Olde Stage Rd
Investment Strategic Plan.
Lookout Rd
1
NT
TME 6
I N VES 16-202
L 0
2 2 C A PITA PLAN 2
Lee BPR TEGIC
A

wy
STR
Hil

H
lD
r

al
on
ag

Spine Rd
28

Di
th
S
Yarmouth Ave t 43

8 23
24
a
Violet Ave

55th St

63rd St
Jay Rd

The 1910 Plan for Boulder by

47th St
Linde

57th St
the Olmsted Brothers above
19th St
n Dr

established parks and open 7 Tea


m

Legend
ent
4-Mile Creek estm 201
6
W l Inv
3 on 3 e Ca
pita Jan
uary

space as community priority. Kalmia Ave derl


c an
d
Independence Rd
Pre
pared
for th

The 2016 Capital Strategy Map b Cr


ee Map ID L O CA T IO N

75th St
k
d
Iris Ave 1 Boulder Reser v oir
20
Folsom St

to the right builds on this 100

61st St
Foothills Pkwy
30th St
28th St

2 F latir ons G olf Cour se


3
t Rd V almont City P ar k
Valmon
year legacy to invest capital in 13
h 4 P ear l Str eet Mall
Broadway
9th St

e f Valmont Rd
5 Civ ic Ar ea P ar k

close to home parks, greenways ood D


r 6 6 Staz io Ath letic F ields

Capital Investment Strategy

63rd St
Edgew 7 P leasant V iew F ileds
8 Balsam Ave
and major attraction sites for 3 8 Satelitte Ath letic F ields
g
CIS Three Top Projects
Sunshi Goose Creek
ne Cany
on Dr 9 25 9 Map leton Sp or ts P ar k
y
future generations. Pine
12
St
Pea
rl Pkw 10
11
Tom W atson P ar k
Sc ott Car p enter P ool

55th St
Mapleton Ave Spru ce St 12 Sp r uc e P ool

4 4 Waln
ut St
13
14
Nor th Boulder Rec Center
South Boulder Rec Center
4 The Capital Investment Strategy provides a
Scott Carpenter Pool $8M
Canyon Blvd
The department has $75 million i Pearl
S t
15 East Boulder Rec Center
development framework plan with specific,
17th St

16 Coot L ak e Av
Arapahoe
to invest over the next 10 years 21 5 18 17 Columb ia Cemeter y
implementable urban park design and
Boulder Creek
2
18 Andr ew s Ar b or etum The project calls for a new 50-meter
in capital projects. This includes State Hwy
119 University Ave 11 19 Har b ec k House
20 Haw th or n Com G ar dens development recommendations for the 10-lane pool would be built for $8 million
$8.9 million for the Civic Area,
Colorado Av
17 College Ave e 21 Haer ting Sc ulp tur e G ar den
Fo

enhancement of Boulder’s urban park system. The and an outdoor water park to the site for
o

j
22 Hic k or y Community G ar den
thi

$3.3 million for Boulder Junction 8


30th St
28th St

lls

19 23 Ar ea I I I
9th St

$5.3 million.
Pk

24 V iolet P ar k
strategy addresses the need to invest up to $40
wy

that is committed. In addition d


22 25 Boulder J unc tion Rail P laz a

k
25 Boulder J uncBaseline
tion P arRdk
million in existing assets as well as $24 million in
R Baseline Rd Baseline Rd
aff
the department is projecting an Fla
gst

addition of $50 million from backlog or enhancements and the desire to invest

76th St
55th St

5 5 Boulder Reservoir $3M


ek

Park Assets an additional $60 million in new facilities as


re

Cherryvale Rd

dedicated park funding and


kC

Bro

8
un

15 (over 20 years)
The project calls for a new bathhouse and
ad
Sk

approximately $3-5 million from identified in the department’s Master Plan over the
wa

8
y

Major Capital administration building, upgrades to


DET funding. 1
Table Mesa Dr
South Boulder Rd
Investments next ten years.
south shore amenities and repairs to boat
.
8 Viele Channel
Nature Areas within house and maintenance building.
This strategy includes three areas of focus that
Gil
las

10 minute walk of
pie

ek

builds on the vision and values set by the master


er Cre
D

Parks (1/2 mile)


r

Bear
Bould

Cree
14
k
Parks
plan desired to be achieved over the next 10 years
South

6 US 6
8 Hw
y3
6 through strategic investments in the CIP process.
r

Community Areas Maintained by Parks


nbria

Natural Lands The plan includes a long-term investment strategy Valmont City Park South $4M
Gree

a YSI /Housing Partner Sites


Schools
all Rd
Marshand
as well as an action-oriented implementation Phase one includes completion of disc
Open Space Mountain Parks
A B C D
County Open Space strategy that includes both public and private golf course, nature playground, picnic
Main Creeks
City Limit sector investment and partnership opportunities. area and shelters.
Bike and Ped Trails

Capital Investment Strategy Map Designated Bike Route


February 2016 On Street Bike Lane
Paved Shoulder

Prepared by the Capital Investment Team


BPR CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN 2016-2026
March 2016
Financial Background Farnsworth 10-Year Investment Strategy
In 2011 the community voted to extend the .25 Sales Tax that funded urban
park and recreation facilities and programs. This extension provides an
additional $2.2 million in funding available in 2016. In 2011 the community Major Facility CRV FCI 90% Standard 80% Standard Savings Backlog
also passed a 3-year bond that provided approximately $9 million in urban EBRC $18,907,343 0.10 $3,079,892 $3,146,599 $66,707 $1,962,118
park upgrades to existing facilities. In 2014 citizens approved ballot NBRC $21,337,047 0.06 $5,166,970 $5,428,246 $261,276 $1,377,900
proposition 2-A that included $8.7 million for the Civic Area improvements, SBRC $9,376,617 0.13 $1,642,329 $1,876,919 $234,590 $1,181,104
Res-Admin $1,500,000 0.31 $837,779 $1,062,297 $224,518 $471,729
$5 million for Boulder Creek Path improvements and $1 for Chautauqua
Res-Boat House $800,000 0.14 $129,476 $135,551 $6,075 $109,738
Park improvements. The department’s 6-year Capital Investment Plan
Res-Maint $750,000 0.19 $258,080 $305,886 $47,806 $144,623
(2017-2022 CIP) proposes a total of $40 million in investment in assets. In Totals $52,671,007 0.10 $11,114,526 $11,955,498 $840,972 $5,247,212
addition Facility and Asset Management (FAM) proposes to invest $2.7
million in major recreation facilities repairs during the same time period. Difference between maintaining facility at 90% over 80% condition saves
This represents an annual investment in assets of approximately $7.1 $840,972 and provides higher quality facilities with higher customer satisfaction.
million or $2 million more than outlined in the fiscally constrained budget
of the master plan. This level of investment will maintain existing facilities
as well as begin to make the level of investments in key aging facilities
required to maintain public service levels. It does not address the full action Why Have High Standards?
or vision strategies desired by the community.
One of the principles of asset management is establishing
benchmark standards for each asset to achieve community
desired conditions. The city has hired Farnsworth Ltd. to
Asset Management Systems (AMS) evaluate current condition of major buldings including the
The facilities portfolio is typically the most valuable asset that public park and recreation organizations manage and often are three recreation centers and to develop a 10-year
considered critical to the execution of the organization’s mission. Updating facilities management practices to reflect sustainability preventative maintenance work plan for each building. The
and asset management principles for these facilities requires the application of complex, interconnected, and comprehensive chart at the right illustrates the life cycle curve on building
facility management practices to the asset portfolio. This includes ;
maintenance to extend the overall life of a facility. The table
1. Determining the total cost of ownership for the asset portfolio.
above illustrates the investment required over 10-years to
2. Developing systems and staff knowledge to support agency implementation of life cycle management.
3. Approval of a capital investment strategy for the agency that focuses on the organization’s mission and is financially sustainable. maintain facilities at 80 percent versus 90 percent condition.
This effort will take time and resources; it will require the department to prioritize asset management initiatives as a primary By maintaining facilities at a higher standard the city can
responsibility of our staff, park board, and community. This commitment to the asset management practices uses the simple increase customer satisfaction while spending less over
process below, combined with long range capital investment planning. time.

Taking Care of Aging Assets


Work Completed Next Steps
While the majority of Boulder Park and Recreation assets are
in good to excellent condition approximatively 10 percent
of existing assets have a poor or worse rating greater with
The department has already begun to address the first three questions an FCI of .30 or greater. Many of these assets have not been
above. It has inventoried all major assets department wide, calculated a upgraded for a number of years with some aging
portfolio and established a baseline Facility Condition Index (FCI) from
infrastructure over 60 years old. Investments in these aging
which to measure the condition of our portfolio:
assets is a high priority of the department and includes
Current Replacement Value = $215 Million
renovations of the Civic Area with 2-A funding that will be
Facility Condition Index = .11
Operation & Maintenance - 4% annually of CRV estimated at constructed in 2016-2018. In addition the department has
$8.9 Million prioritized Scott Carpenter Pool and the Boulder Reservoir
Preventative Maintenance (PM) plus Regular & Recurring for complete renovations in the next few years. While these
Maintenance (RR) –2% per year of CRV estimated at $4.4 Million improvements and enhancements will dramatically lower
Deferred Maintenance (DM) - items that have not been repaired our overall FCI there still remains a number of historic assets
or replaced based on industry standards estimated at $24 in need of ongoing repair or replacement.
Million.

Mission Statement Community Health & Wellness Goals Building Community


BPRD will promote the health and well-being of the entire Boulder communi- Taking Care of What We Have Youth Engagement
ty by collaboratively providing high-quality parks, facilities and programs. Financial Sustainability Organizational Readiness
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board

FROM: Yvette Bowden, Director, Parks and Recreation Department


Alison Rhodes, Deputy Director

SUBJECT: Matters from the Department

DATE: June 4, 2018

A. Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project Update (Attached


Document)

B. Asset Management Program (AMP) Team Overview

The department’s Master Plan, accepted by City Council, outlines six primary themes intended
to shape strategies for future action and decision making. Two themes, “Taking Care of What
We Have” and “Financial Sustainability,” informed the vision for an Asset Management
Program (AMP) represented by a living document that memorializes the department’s
commitment to maximizing the enjoyment and value of the city’s parks and recreation system for
its residents.

The AMP planning process began in late 2016 with the creation of an Asset Management
Program Matrix Team (AMP Team) consisting of subject matter experts in parks planning, park
operations, business services and GIS/technology and assisted by mentors established in
department management. The AMP Team began its work by building on existing department
research on asset management methodologies and best practices. Existing research was melded
with extensive study of industry best practices as well as a thorough review of actual department
decision-making processes and investment strategies. The initial document delivery includes a
step-by-step approach to asset management policies, procedures and processes outlined in a
linear system across five chapters including an AMP Introduction, Asset Inventory, Condition
Assessments, Asset Criticality, and Asset Cost discussions. A sixth chapter will be developed
outlining processes for department decision making.

The goal of the AMP to foster proactive, versus reactive, approaches to asset management while
improving the quality of the department’s offerings by informing department budget processes,
aligning work to level of service requirements, and providing an objective and transparent
decision-making process that is guided by data about department assets.

At the June 4th PRAB meeting, the AMP Matrix team will present an overview of the draft AMP
document (Attachment B) that outlines the linear system proposed for department asset
management including recent 2018 case studies of CIP requests that have been evaluated using
the policies and procedures defined by the AMP.
3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200
Questions for PRAB

1. Does the PRAB have any questions about the AMP process overview presented at the meeting
or about the AMP document provided at the link above?

2. Does the PRAB have any feedback or recommendations regarding the AMP process or about
future asset management decision making processes?

C. Budget Update (verbal)

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


CITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM

MEETING DATE: June 4, 2018

AGENDA TITLE: Staff briefing and PRAB feedback regarding the Foothills Parkway
Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass project

PRESENTER/S:
Brian Wiltshire, Project Manager
Noreen Walsh, Senior Transportation Planner

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND:

The proposed Foothills Parkway bicycle and pedestrian underpass, with a design life of 75 years,
will replace the existing overpass bridge with a grade separated crossing south of Colorado
Avenue designed for all ages and abilities with less steep grades. The existing bridge, carrying
approximately 485 bicyclists and pedestrians daily, is nearing the end of its design life requiring
increasing capital maintenance, has steep ramp slopes (up to 10% in some locations) and is not
meeting ADA and other bicycle facility guidelines. This project supports the Transportation
Master Plan (TMP) goal of providing transportation options for all ages and abilities as well as
supports the highest transportation budgeting priority to invest in maintaining the transportation
infrastructure in good condition.

The bridge is located within and adjacent to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
right-of-way, Park East Park, private residential properties, Wellman Ditch, Bear Canyon Creek
Greenway, City of Boulder open space and University of Colorado property. It is an important
connection between neighborhoods, CU, area schools, Park East Park and Central Boulder.
A recent transportation data collection effort in April 2017 counted a total of 440 bicyclists and
45 pedestrians in the AM (7-9am), Noon (11:30am-1pm) and PM (4-6pm) peak hours. The
underpass is used for both east-west and north-south travel patterns.

This $4.4 million project received a federal transportation grant through the 2016-2021
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process which is managed by the Denver Regional
Council of Governments. The City of Boulder is providing the $1.2 million local match from
city transportation funds for the $3.2 million grant. In addition to the bridge removal and
underpass construction, the project will include connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, wayfinding and other signage features, bicycle parking and landscaping.

1
The project was recommended by the Transportation Advisory Board and City Council for TIP
grant application submittal and was awarded funds in 2016. Planning and design began in mid-
2017 with an interdepartmental staff team including Parks and Recreation Department staff.
Construction is anticipated to begin in early 2019 and take one year to complete.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

A community engagement plan was developed for this project and has Involve and Consult goals
as defined by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). Those levels of
public participation have goals of providing the public with information about the project
problem, alternatives, opportunities and solutions and obtaining public feedback on alternatives,
analysis and project decisions. There were several tools used to engage the community including
three public meetings, online project information and comment forms and in-person meetings
with Center for People with Disabilities, Community Cycles and the Wellman Ditch. The
community was notified in several ways including postal mailings, emails and on-site signage.
Growing Up Boulder (GUB) implemented an outreach event with youth living at the City of
Boulder Madison housing property at 35th and Colorado to gain their insights on user needs,
alignment preferences and ideas for aesthetics.

Input provided to date included preferences on alignment and reasons for preference including
travel needs and directness of travel, cost and construction duration and abilities to access the
adjacent natural environment. There were suggestions for the design including lighting, public
art and landscaping and questions about need and ability to be open during flooding events.

UNDERPASS ALTERNATIVES:

The project team reviewed five underpass alignment alternatives in its conceptual design phase
and Community and Environmental Assessment Program (CEAP) process. All alternatives
would provide a 16 foot-wide, grade-separated path crossing of Foothills Parkway, south of
Colorado Avenue. The alignments offer different options for meeting the bicycling and walking
travel patterns, multiple master plan goals, floodplain designations and minimizing adjacent
property impacts including Park East Park. Each alternative will result in tree removals in the
Foothills Parkway medians and along the east and west sides of Foothills Parkway. A total of 18
median trees will be removed in any of the alternatives and the project team is working with
Parks and Recreation staff to find locations for transplanting as they are suitable due to their age,
size and condition. The medians are being temporarily removed during construction to
continuously maintain the four vehicle lanes which carry 44,000 vehicles per day along this
section of state highway. The project will plant new trees in the restored medians at the
completion of the project as well as new trees in the project area to replace the other trees being
removed on the east and west sides of the underpass project area. The number of trees to be
removed in addition to the median trees ranges from 3-22 trees depending on the alternative.
The alternatives include:

2
Alternative 1a/1b – Box Underpass at Existing Alignment

1a 1b
This alternative locates the underpass in a box culvert structure within the existing -alignment of
the overpass bridge and would be approximately 145 feet long. There would be no change to the
existing travel patterns. The “a” entry ramp is a connection to the Foothills Path by a loop ramp.
The “b” connection is through a new bridge/path over Wellman Ditch. The Park East Park will
be adjacent to the construction; permanent changes include the ADA compliant route along the
south side of the park, terraced walls and a railing between the basketball court and the west side
approach ramp. This alternative is estimated to be within the project budget and the construction
duration is 12 months.

Alternative 2a/2b – Bridge Underpass shared with Wellman Ditch at Existing Alignment

2a 2b

This alternative locates the underpass within a shared bridge with Wellman Ditch which is near
the alignment of the existing overpass bridge so there would be no changes to the general east-
west and north-south travel patterns. The underpass would be approximately 160 feet in length.
Within this alignment alternative there are the same two options for the entry/exit paths on the
east side as in Alternative 1a/1b. The Park East Park will be adjacent to the construction;
permanent changes include the ADA compliant route along the south side of the park, wall
terraces and a railing between the basketball court and the west side approach ramp. This
alternative is over the project budget and is anticipated to take 18 months to construct.

3
Alternative 3 – Bridge Underpass shared with Bear Canyon Creek
This alternative would provide a bridge
underpass shared with Bear Canyon Creek
which runs diagonally underneath Foothills
Parkway, north of the existing overpass bridge.
This underpass would be approximately 145
feet in length and would have additional travel
time for the bicyclists and pedestrians that are
using the current overpass bridge for east-west
travel. There are no anticipated impacts to Park
East Park with this alternative but there would be a change to the CU property as the path would
run along the bank of Bear Canyon Creek which diagonally bisects the CU property and impacts
to the median trees and on the east and west sides of the project area. This alternative is over the
project budget and is anticipated to take 18 months to construct.

Alternative 4 – Box Underpass north of Bear Canyon Creek


This alternative would provide a box culvert
underpass just south of Colorado Avenue. The
length of the underpass would be
approximately 150 feet long. This alternative
would have additional travel time for the
bicyclists and pedestrians that are using the
current overpass bridge for east-west travel.
There are no anticipated impacts to Park East
Park with this alternative but there would be a
change to the CU property as the path would run along the bank of Bear Canyon Creek which
diagonally bisects the CU property. This alternative is within the project budget and is
anticipated to take 12 months to construct.

Alternative 5
This alternative would provide a box culvert
underpass south of Bear Canyon Creek and
would be approximately 115 feet long. This
alternative would have additional travel time
for the bicyclists and pedestrians that are using
the current overpass bridge for east-west travel.
There are no anticipated impacts to Park East
Park. This alternative is within the project
budget and is anticipated to take 12 months to
construct.
4
Additional information for each of the options is included in the CEAP document in Attachment
A.

CEAP REVIEW and RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE:

The Community and Environmental Assessment Process assesses potential impacts to inform the
selection and refinement of a preferred project alternative. Of the 14 total categories of impacts,
most of the objectives were not getting affected by the project alternatives. Positive impacts
identified included improved transportation mobility for such special populations as persons with
disabilities, seniors, youth, neighbors and other sensitive populations by providing a design that
is useable people of all ages and abilities which may also lead to an increased usage of pedestrian
and bicycling travel. Another positive impact from this project and any alternative is an
improvement to the aesthetics of the site open and scenic vistas open to public view by removing
the existing bridge. The new underpass is anticipated to require less capital maintenance and
ongoing snow and ice removal maintenance compared to the existing bridge.

Negative impacts include impacts to the trees in the Foothills Parkway median and on the east
and west sides of the underpass. The project team is working with Parks and Recreation staff to
find locations for transplanting and will be planting new trees in the medians and the project area
to mitigate the effects of the tree removals of the total 34 trees being removed with the
recommended alternative 1b.

The project team reviewed community feedback and looked at a set of special considerations
including user experience, impacts to Park East Park, trees, and properties, cost and construction
duration when determining the alternative to proceed with design and construction. Alternative
1b is being recommended because it improves mobility for all ages and abilities, maintains the
neighborhood access for the various bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns and provides a more
direct crossing connections than those with the ramp loops. Alternative 1b is within the project
budget and has a shorter construction duration in comparison to those with longer durations.
This alternative also will provide access to the Wellman Ditch company to maintain its ditch
which is also an improvement from existing conditions. This alternative supports public input
which preferred this option as well as the reasons participants indicated for choosing a preferred
option support including costs, shorter construction period, directness of travel and connections
to natural features.

The graphic below has been included to show a more close-up view of the underpass alternative
and the adjacent Park East Park and what the changes will look like. The project team will
continue to work with Parks and Recreation Department staff through final design and
construction to ensure that the design complements and supports the adjacent park.

5
Rendering of proposed Foothills Underpass Alternative 1b, looking east from existing multi-use path
adjacent to Park East Park.

CONSTRUCTION:

The project is expected to begin in early 2019 and take one year to complete. Park East Park
will remain open during construction as well as access to the park. It is anticipated that the
existing overpass bridge will be removed during the construction period due to its proximity to
the new underpass and a bicycle and pedestrian crossing detour will be in place. The project
team can provide on-site information signage about the project construction timeline and the
pedestrian and bicycle detour.

BOARD FEEDBACK:

The project team would appreciate PRAB feedback on the project related to the following
questions:

x Does the recommended project alternative balances all the needs of the selection factors?
x Are there questions about project impacts to the park during construction?

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project CEAP

6
City of Boulder
Community and Environmental Assessment Process

May 2018
Table of Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3
Description and location of project ............................................................................................. 3
Background purpose and need ................................................................................................... 4
Description of project alternatives .............................................................................................. 5
Preferred project alternative ..................................................................................................... 17
Public input to date .................................................................................................................... 17
Project Contacts ......................................................................................................................... 17
Goals Assessment ................................................................................................................ 18
Impact Assessment .............................................................................................................. 21
Checklist Table ........................................................................................................................... 22
Checklist Questions .................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix A ......................................................................................................................... 36
City of Boulder
Community and Environmental Assessment Process
1. Description and location of the project:

There is an existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass bridge on Foothills Parkway/SH 157, just


south of Colorado Avenue, that is an important connection between neighborhoods, CU,
area schools, Park East park and Central Boulder. The bridge is located within and
adjacent to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way, Park East
park, private residential properties, Wellman Ditch, Bear Canyon Creek Greenway, City
of Boulder open space and University of Colorado property.

This project would remove the existing overpass bridge and construct a
bicycle/pedestrian underpass, providing a grade separated crossing of Foothills Parkway
meeting current transportation and ADA guidelines and standards. The project will also
include connections to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, wayfinding and other
signage features, bicycle parking and public art.

2. Background, purpose and need for the project:


The existing overpass bridge on Foothills Parkway/SH 157 was constructed in 1978 and
is nearing the end of its 50-year design life. The bridge deck surface condition continues
to deteriorate, and the bridge superstructure is also aging which is contributing to
increasing maintenance costs. The bridge has steep approach grades (up to 10% at
locations) and does not meet Americans with Disabilities (ADA) design guidelines and
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bicycle
design guidelines.

Existing in-pavement bicycle counters show an average of 478 daily users at the existing
overpass in 2014, although there is a range of daily counts as ridership varies as it relates
to factors such as weather. As shown below, a recent transportation data collection effort
in April 2017 counted a total of 440 bicyclists and 45 pedestrians in the AM (7-9am),
Noon (11:30am-1pm) and PM (4-6pm) peak hours. The underpass is used for both east-
west and north-south travel patterns and a predominant movement pattern was not
observed in the data collection.
In 2014, the city submitted an application for, and was awarded, federal transportation
grant funds, to replace the existing overpass bridge with an underpass. The underpass is
a more cost effective solution than a new overpass bridge due to height clearance
requirements. An overpass bridge typically requires a 25-foot clearance to allow trucks
and buses to safely pass beneath it, where an underpass typically requires lowering an
average of 15-feet to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. The ADA design
guidelines require the steepness of the approaches of either option to have a grade of 5
percent or less. Given the height difference between the overpass bridge and the
underpass, both approach ramps would be 400 feet longer for the overpass bridge than
the underpass, which would have undesirable cost and aesthetic impacts.

The proposed underpass, with a design life of 75 years, will provide a grade separated
crossing of Foothills Parkway connecting the Bear Canyon Creek Greenway, Foothills
Parkway and Centennial Trail multi-use paths and will be designed to meet current
bicycling, walking and ADA design guidelines.

The highest budgeting priority, identified in the City’s Transportation Master Plan
(TMP), is to invest in maintaining the transportation infrastructure in good condition.
The project will provide a grade separated crossing of Foothills Parkway for pedestrians
and bicyclists that is consistent with existing predominant and expected future travel
patterns as well as provide a crossing designed for all ages and abilities with less steep
grades and other ADA design guideline conditions.

3. Description of project alternatives:

The project team has reviewed five underpass alignment alternatives in its conceptual
planning and design phase and alternative description page and perspective images are
included following this section. All alternatives would provide a 16 foot-wide, grade-
separated path crossing of Foothills Parkway, south of Colorado Avenue. Constraints
and challenges being addressed as part of the project design include the proximity to Park
East Park, Wellman Ditch and its location within three different floodplains. The
alignments offer different options for meeting the bicycling and walking travel patterns,
multiple master plan goals, floodplain designations and minimizing adjacent property
impacts including Park East Park. Each alternative will result in tree removals in the
Foothills Parkway medians and along the east and west sides of Foothills Parkway. A
total of 18 median trees will be removed in any of the alternatives and the project team is
working with Parks and Recreation staff to find locations for transplanting as they are
suitable due to their size and condition. The medians are being removed during
construction to maintain the four vehicle lanes which carry 44,000 vehicles along this
section of state highway. The Alternatives include:

Alternative 1a/1b – Box Underpass at Existing Alignment


This alternative would locate the underpass in a box culvert structure within the existing
alignment of the overpass bridge so there would be no change to the general east-west
and north-south travel patterns. The 1a underpass would be approximately 145 feet long
and the 1b underpass would be approximately 120 feet long. Within this alignment
alternative there are two options for the entry/exit paths on the east side. The “a” entry
ramps the connection to the Foothills Path by a loop ramp. The “b” connection is
through a new bridge/path over Wellman Ditch. The west side approach is a straight
alignment with walls on both sides of the approach path and a longer ADA compliant
route provided to the south. The Park East Park will be adjacent to the construction;
permanent changes include the ADA compliant route along the south side of the park,
wall terraces and a railing between the basketball court and the west side approach ramp.
It is anticipated that between 34 and 40 trees would need to be removed for these
alternatives. Of that total, 18 trees are in the Foothills Parkway medians and these will be
relocated to other locations in the city, possibly along Foothills Parkway. For Alternative
1a there are 22 trees on the west and east sides of the project area. For Alternative 1b
there are 16 trees on the west and east sides of the project area. Additional information
regarding the type, size and health condition of these trees can be found in the CEAP
Appendix A. This alternative is estimated to be within the project budget and the
construction duration is 12 months. This alternative will require a bicycle and pedestrian
detour during the time the underpass is under construction and the existing overpass
bridge is removed, which is anticipated to be 9 months.

Alternative 2a/2b – Bridge Underpass shared with Wellman Ditch at Existing Alignment
This alternative would locate the underpass within a shared bridge with Wellman Ditch
which is near the alignment of the existing overpass bridge so there would be no changes
to the general east-west and north-south travel patterns. The underpass length for 2a and
2b would be approximately 160 feet long. Within this alignment alternative there are the
same two options for the entry/exit paths on the east side as in Alternative 1. The “a”
entry ramps the connection to the Foothills Path by a loop ramp. The “b” connection is
through a new bridge/path over Wellman Ditch. The west side approach is a straight
alignment with walls on both sides of the approach path and a longer ADA compliant
route provided to the south. The Park East Park will be adjacent to the construction;
permanent changes include the ADA compliant route along the south side of the park,
wall terraces and a railing between the basketball court and the west side approach ramp.
It is anticipated that between 38 and 41 trees would need to be removed for this
alternative. Of that total, 18 trees are in the Foothills Parkway medians and these will be
relocated to other locations in the city, possibly along Foothills Parkway. For alternative
2a there are 23 trees on the west and east sides of the project. For alternative 2b, there
are 20 trees on the east side of the project. Additional information regarding the species,
size and health condition of these trees can be found in the CEAP Appendix A. This
alternative is estimated to be more than the project budget and is anticipated to take 18
months to construct with a similar impact to bicyclists and pedestrians as Alternative
1a/1b described above.

Alternative 3 – Bridge Underpass shared with Bear Canyon Creek


This alternative would provide a bridge underpass shared with Bear Canyon Creek which
runs diagonally underneath Foothills Parkway, north of the existing overpass bridge.
This underpass would be approximately 145 feet in length and would run along the bank
of the Bear Canyon Creek to the southeast. This alternative would have additional travel
time for the bicyclists and pedestrians that are using the current overpass bridge for east-
west travel. There are no anticipated impacts to Park East Park with this alternative but
there would be a change to the CU property as the path would run along the bank of Bear
Canyon Creek which diagonally bisects the CU property. It is anticipated that this
alignment has a total of 21 trees that would need to be removed. Of that total, 18 trees
are in the Foothills Parkway medians and these will be relocated to other locations in the
city, possibly along Foothills Parkway. There are 3 trees on the west and east sides of the
project area that are anticipated to be removed. Additional information regarding the
species, size and health condition of these trees can be found in the CEAP Appendix A.
The estimated cost of this alternative is more than the project budget and is anticipated to
take 18 months to construct. The existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass bridge can remain
until after the underpass is completed so there would not be a detour for bicyclists and
pedestrians.

Alternative 4 – Box Underpass north of Bear Canyon Creek would provide a box culvert
underpass just south of Colorado Avenue. The length of the underpass would be
approximately 150 feet long. This alternative would have additional travel time for the
bicyclists and pedestrians that are using the current overpass bridge for east-west travel.
There are no anticipated impacts to Park East Park with this alternative but there would
be a change to the CU property as the path would run along the bank of Bear Canyon
Creek which diagonally bisects the CU property. It is anticipated that this alignment has
a total of 21 trees that would need to be removed. Of that total, 18 trees are in the
Foothills Parkway medians and these will be relocated to other locations in the city,
possibly along Foothills Parkway. There are 3 trees on the west and east sides of the
project area that are anticipated to be removed. Additional information regarding the
species, size and health condition of these trees can be found in the CEAP Appendix A.
The estimated cost of this alternative is within the project budget and is anticipated to
take 12 months to construct. The existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass bridge can remain
until after the underpass is completed so there would not be a detour for bicyclists and
pedestrians.

Alternative 5 would provide a box culvert underpass south of Bear Canyon Creek.
The underpass length would be approximately 115 feet long. This alternative would have
additional travel time for the bicyclists and pedestrians that are using the current overpass
bridge for east-west travel and more circuitous accesses. There are no anticipated
impacts to Park East Park or other adjacent properties. It is anticipated that this
alignment has a total of 21 trees that would need to be removed. Of that total, 18 trees
are in the Foothills Parkway medians and these will be relocated to other locations in the
city, possibly along Foothills Parkway. There are 3 trees on the west and east sides of the
project area that are anticipated to be removed. Additional information regarding the
species, size and health condition of these trees can be found in the CEAP Appendix A.
This alternative is within the project budget and is anticipated to take 12 months to
construct. The existing bicycle/pedestrian overpass bridge can remain until after the
underpass is completed so there would not be a detour for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Each alternative was reviewed through the CEAP factors but most of the factors did not
show a differentiation between the alternatives. A summary of the project issues in Table
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project, south of Colorado Avenue Community Meeting
May 3, 2018
Alternative 1a & 1b

Alternative 1a & 1b - Box Underpass at Existing


Alignment
This alternative includes a box culvert underpass under Foothills Parkway near
the alignment of the existing overpass. There are two options for the east side
connection: a loop ramp or a bridge over the Wellman Ditch.

Co
University of
lor
ad Colorado Option 1a
oA West side approach:
ve • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path
• Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route also provided

East side approach:


• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial Path
• Foothills Path connection via loop ramp

Underpass
• 6LPLODUOHQJWKWRPRVWRIWKHDOWHUQDWLYHV · DERXWWKHOHQJWKRIKDOIRIDIRRWEDOOÀHOG
• Walls on both sides of path
k wy
hills P 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWVRQORRSUDPSDQGDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK&HQWHQQLDO3DWK
Park East Foot - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West
Park - Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction.
User experience Travel time of 1.8 minutes for bicyclists and 8.8 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
OSMP
Option 1b
West side approach:
• Same as 1a

East side approach:


• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial Path
• Foothills Path connection from Centennial over new bridge/path

Underpass:
• Shorter length than most of the alternatives (120’)
• Walls on both sides of path
1a
- Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction.
Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.

The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining walls
N Park East Park for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run through the park
impacts south of the basketball court.

Floodplain 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ

Option 1a has potential impacts to private property on SE corner. Either an easement or


property acquisition may be needed on private property.
Property impacts Option 1b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be installed
along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be impacted
permanently.

Option 1a impacts 16 trees on the west side of the project within Park East Park that would
need to be removed and are comprised of cottonwood, Siberian elm, blue spruce,
American linden, western catalpa, bur oak and accolade elm. Impacts on the east side
are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry, silver maple and Russian olive. 17 trees
ZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KHLPSDFWHGWUHHVZLOO
be relocated at various locations along Foothills Parkway.
Tree impacts Option 1b impacts 10 trees on the west of the project within Park East Park that would
need to be removed and are comprised of Siberian elm, blue spruce, elm, cottonwood,
1a goldenrain, western catalpa and crack willow. Impacts on the east side are 6 trees,
comprised of green ash, chokecherry, silver maple and Russian olive. Impacts 1 tree on the
west side which is CU property which is a ponderosa pine. 17 trees will be impacted due to
WKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KHLPSDFWHGWUHHVZLOOEHUHORFDWHGDWYDULRXV
locations along Foothills Parkway.

Construction • 12 months
duration and • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3 months
• Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street level
impacts
Example of what the east side of the underpass approach could look like
Cost estimation $$
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project, south of Colorado Avenue Community Meeting
May 3, 2018
Alternative 2a & 2b

Alternative 2a & 2b - Bridge Underpass shared with


Wellman Ditch at Existing Alignment
This alternative includes a bridge underpass on Foothills Parkway near the
alignment of the existing overpass. There are two options for the East side
connection: a loop ramp or a bridge over the Wellman Ditch.

Co
University of
lor Colorado
ad
oA Option 2a
ve West side approach:
• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path
• Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route also provided

East side approach:


• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial
Path
• Foothills Path connection via loop ramp

Underpass:
Pkwy • Longer length than most of the alternatives (160’)
Park East hills • Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other
Foot
Park 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWRQORRSUDPSDQGDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK&HQWHQQLDO
OSMP Path
- Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W
User experience direction. Travel time of 1.8 minutes for bicyclists and 8.8 minutes for pedestrians
in the N-S direction.

Option 2b
West side approach:
• Same as 2a

East side approach:


• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial
Path
• Foothills Path connection from Centennial over new bridge/path

Bridge:
2a • Longer length than most of the alternatives (160’)
• Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other

N - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path


- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W
direction. Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians
in the N-S direction.

The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining
Park East Park walls for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run
impacts through the park south of the basketball court.

:LOOKDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWVGXULQJDÁRRGHYHQWZKLFKZRXOGUHTXLUHFORVLQJWKH
Floodplain underpass 1-3 days in an average year

Option 2a has potential impacts to private property on SE corner. Either an


easement or property acquisition may be needed on private property.
Property impacts Option 2b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be
installed along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be
impacted permanently.
Option 2a impacts 17 trees on the west side of the project within Park East Park
that would need to be removed and are comprised of cottonwood, Siberian
2a elm, blue spruce, American linden, western catalpa, bur oak and accolade
elm. Impacts on the east side are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry,
Tree impacts VLOYHUPDSOHDQG5XVVLDQROLYHWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXU
along Foothills Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at various locations
along Foothills Parkway.

Option 2b impacts are similar to Option 2a.


• 18 months
Construction • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3
duration and months
• Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street
impacts level

Example of what the east side of the underpass approach could look like Cost estimation $$$$
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project, south of Colorado Avenue Community Meeting
May 3, 2018
Alternative 3

Alternative 3 - Bridge Underpass Shared with


Bear Canyon Creek
This alternative includes a bridge underpass on Foothills Parkway just
south of Colorado Avenue. The alignment runs along the bank of the
Co
University of Bear Canyon Creek to the southeast.
lor Colorado
ad
oA West side approach:
ve • Bridge and straight alignment with wall on one wide of path
• Connection to Colorado Avenue

East side approach:


• Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at Colorado Avenue
• Foothills Path connects south over underpass path

Bridge:
User experience
• Similar length to most of the alternatives (145’)—about the length of
kwy KDOIDIRRWEDOOÀHOG
Park East hills P • Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other
Foot
Park 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK)RRWKLOOV3DWK
OSMP - Out of direction for east-west travel

- Travel time of 1.9 minutes for bicyclists and 9.7 minutes for
pedestrians in the E-W direction. Travel time of 0.9 minutes for
bicyclists and 4.5 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.

Park East Park


No Impacts
impacts
:LOOKDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWVGXULQJDÁRRGHYHQWZKLFKZRXOGUHTXLUH
closing the underpass 1-3 days in an average year. Alternative
Floodplain KDVWKHSRWHQWLDOWRLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQZKHQXSVWUHDP
improvements are made which isn’t currently planned in the next 10-
20 years

CU property impacts may include an easement for the path that runs
Property impacts along the bank of Bear Canyon Creek.

N Alternative 3 impacts 2 trees on the west side which is CU property,


both are ponderosa pine trees. On the east side impacts 1 tree,
Tree impacts which is a native cottonwood tree. 17 trees will be impacted due to
WKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KHLPSDFWHGWUHHVZLOOEH
relocated at various locations along Foothills Parkway.

Construction • 18 months
• Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane
duration and closures for 2-3 months
impacts • Existing overpass will remain open during construction

Cost estimation $$$$

Example of what the east side of the underpass approach could look like
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project, south of Colorado Avenue Community Meeting
May 3, 2018
Alternative 4

Alternative 4 - Box Underpass North of Bear


Canyon Creek
This alternative includes a box culvert underpass under Foothills
Parkway just south of Colorado Avenue. The alignment runs along
Co
University of the bank of the Bear Canyon Creek to the southeast.
lor Colorado
ad
oA West side approach:
ve • Bridge and straight alignment
• Connection to Colorado Avenue

East side approach:


• Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at Colorado Avenue
• Foothills Path connects south over underpass path

Underpass:
User experience
• Similar length to most of the alternatives (150’)—about the length of
kwy KDOIRIDIRRWEDOOÀHOG
Park East hills P • Walls on both sides of path
Foot
Park 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK)RRWKLOOV3DWK
OSMP - Out of direction for east-west travel

- Travel time of 1.9 minutes for bicyclists and 9.7 minutes for
pedestrians in the E-W direction. Travel time of 0.8 minutes for
bicyclists and 4.1 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction
Park East Park
No impacts
impacts
Floodplain 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ

CU property impacts may include an easement for the path that runs
Property impacts along the bank of Bear Canyon Creek

Alternative 4 impacts 2 trees on the west side which is CU property,


both are ponderosa pine trees. On the east side impacts 1 tree,
Tree impacts which is a native cottonwood tree. 17 trees will be impacted due to
WKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KHLPSDFWHGWUHHVZLOOEH
N relocated at various locations along Foothills Parkway.

Construction • 12 months
• Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane
duration and closures for 2-3 months
impacts • Existing overpass will remain open during construction

Cost estimation $$

Example of what the both sides of the underpass could look like
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project, south of Colorado Avenue Community Meeting
May 3, 2018
Alternative 5

Alternative 5 - Box Underpass South of Bear


Canyon Creek
This alternative includes a box culvert underpass under Foothills
Parkway just south of the existing Bear Canyon Creek culvert.

Co
University of West side approach:
lor
ad Colorado • Bridge and straight alignment
oA
ve • Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route
also provided

East side approach:


• Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at Colorado Avenue
• Foothills Path connects south over underpass path
User experience
Underpass:
• Shorter length than most of the alternatives (115’)
• Walls on both sides of path
hills Pkwy
Park East Foot 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK)RRWKLOOV3DWK
Park - Out of direction for east-west travel
OSMP
- Travel time of 1.3 minutes for bicyclists and 7.3 minutes for
pedestrians in the E-W direction. Travel time of 1.4 minutes for
bicyclists and 7.6 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.

Park East Park


No Impacts
impacts

Floodplain 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ

Property impacts All on city owned property.

Alternative 5 impacts 2 trees on the east side, a Russian olive and


willow. Impacts on the west side are 2 cracked willow trees. 17 trees
Tree impacts ZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\
The impacted trees will be relocated at various locations along
Foothills Parkway.

N Construction •12 months


• Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane
duration and closures for 2-3 months
impacts • Existing overpass will remain open during construction

Cost estimation $$

Example of what the west side of the underpass approach could look like
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project, south of Colorado Avenue Community Meeting
May 3, 2018
Characteristics of Conceptual Alternatives
Alternative 3 - Bridge Alternative 4 - Box Alternative 5 - Box
Alternative 1a & 1b - Box Underpass at Existing Alternative 2a & 2b - Bridge Underpass shared
Underpass Shared with Bear Underpass North of Bear Underpass South of Bear
Alignment with Wellman Ditch at Existing Alignment
Canyon Creek Canyon Creek Canyon Creek
This alternative includes a box culvert This alternative includes a This alternative includes This alternative includes a This alternative includes
underpass under Foothills Parkway bridge underpass on Foothills a bridge underpass on box culvert underpass under a box culvert underpass
near the alignment of the existing Parkway near the alignment of Foothills Parkway just south Foothills Parkway just south under Foothills Parkway
overpass. There are two options for the existing overpass. There are of Colorado Avenue. The of Colorado Avenue. The just south of the existing
the east side connection: a loop two options for the East side alignment runs along the alignment runs along the Bear Canyon Creek
ramp or a bridge over the Wellman connection: a loop ramp or a bank of the Bear Canyon bank of the Bear Canyon culvert.
Ditch. bridge over the Wellman Ditch. Creek to the southeast. Creek to the southeast.

Option 1a Option 2a West side approach: West side approach: West side approach:
West side approach: West side approach: • Bridge and straight alignment with wall on one • Bridge and straight alignment • Bridge and straight alignment
Project • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path wide of path • Connection to Colorado Avenue • Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-
Factors • Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route also provided • Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route also provided • Connection to Colorado Avenue compliant route also provided
East side approach:
East side approach: East side approach: East side approach: • Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at East side approach:
• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial Path • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial • Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at Colorado Colorado Avenue • Connecting ramp to Foothills Path at Colorado
• Foothills Path connection via loop ramp Path Avenue • Foothills Path connects south over underpass Avenue
• Foothills Path connection via loop ramp • Foothills Path connects south over underpass path • Foothills Path connects south over underpass
Underpass path path
• Similar length to most of the alternatives (145’) - about the length of half of a Underpass: Underpass:
IRRWEDOOÀHOG • Longer length than most of the alternatives (160’) Bridge: • Similar length to most of the alternatives Underpass:
• Walls on both sides of path • Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other • Similar length to most of the alternatives (145’)— (150’)—about the length of half of a football • Shorter length than most of the alternatives
DERXWWKHOHQJWKRIKDOIDIRRWEDOOÀHOG ÀHOG (115’)
3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWVRQORRSUDPSDQGDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK&HQWHQQLDO 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWRQORRSUDPSDQGDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPSZLWK&HQWHQQLDO • Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the • Walls on both sides of path • Walls on both sides of path
Path Path other
- Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPS 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPS
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W - Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W 3RWHQWLDOFRQÁLFWSRLQWDWFRQQHFWLRQRIUDPS with Foothills Path with Foothills Path
direction. Travel time of 1.8 minutes for bicyclists and 8.8 minutes for pedestrians in direction. Travel time of 1.8 minutes for bicyclists and 8.8 minutes for pedestrians with Foothills Path - Out of direction for east-west travel - Out of direction for east-west travel
the N-S direction. in the N-S direction. - Out of direction for east-west travel
- Travel time of 1.9 minutes for bicyclists and 9.7 - Travel time of 1.3 minutes for bicyclists and 7.3
Option 1b Option 2b - Travel time of 1.9 minutes for bicyclists and 9.7 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction. minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction.
West side approach: West side approach: minutes for pedestrians in the E-W direction. Travel time of 0.8 minutes for bicyclists and 4.1 Travel time of 1.4 minutes for bicyclists and 7.6
• Same as 1a • Same as 2a Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.5 minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
minutes for pedestrians in the N-S direction.
East side approach: East side approach:
• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial Path • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial
• Foothills Path connection from Centennial over new bridge/path Path
• Foothills Path connection from Centennial over new bridge/path
User Underpass:
• Shorter length than most of the alternatives (120’) Bridge:
experience • Walls on both sides of path • Longer length than most of the alternatives (160’)
• Wall on one side of path, ditch/creek on the other
- Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path
direction. Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians in - Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W
the N-S direction. direction. Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians
in the N-S direction.

Park East The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining
walls for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run through walls for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run No Impacts No impacts No Impacts
Park impacts the park south of the basketball court. through the park south of the basketball court.

:LOOKDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWVGXULQJDÁRRGHYHQW
which would require closing the underpass
:LOOKDYHJUHDWHULPSDFWVGXULQJDÁRRGHYHQWZKLFKZRXOGUHTXLUHFORVLQJWKH 1-3 days in an average year. Alternative 3 has
Floodplain 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ
underpass 1-3 days in an average year WKHSRWHQWLDOWRLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQZKHQ
upstream improvements are made which isn’t
currently planned in the next 10-20 years

Option 1a has potential impacts to private property on SE corner. Either an easement Option 2a has potential impacts to private property on SE corner. Either an
or property acquisition may be needed on private property. easement or property acquisition may be needed on private property.
Property CU property impacts may include an easement CU property impacts may include an easement
for the path that runs along the bank of Bear for the path that runs along the bank of Bear All on city owned property.
Option 1b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be Option 2b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be
impacts Canyon Creek. Canyon Creek
installed along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be installed along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be
impacted permanently. impacted permanently.

Option 1a impacts 16 trees on the west side of the project within Park East Park that Option 2a impacts 17 trees on the west side of the project within Park East Park Alternative 3 impacts 2 trees on the west side Alternative 4 impacts 2 trees on the west side Alternative 5 impacts 2 trees on the east side,
would need to be removed and are comprised of cottonwood, Siberian elm, blue that would need to be removed and are comprised of cottonwood, Siberian which is CU property, both are ponderosa pine which is CU property, both are ponderosa a Russian olive and willow. Impacts on the west
spruce, American linden, western catalpa, bur oak and accolade elm. Impacts elm, blue spruce, American linden, western catalpa, bur oak and accolade trees. On the east side impacts 1 tree, which is a pine trees. On the east side impacts 1 tree, side are 2 cracked willow trees. 17 trees will be
on the east side are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry, silver maple elm. Impacts on the east side are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry, native cottonwood tree. 17 trees will be impacted which is a native cottonwood tree. 17 trees will LPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV
DQG5XVVLDQROLYHWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV VLOYHUPDSOHDQG5XVVLDQROLYHWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀF GXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\ EHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at
Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at various locations along Foothills detour along Foothills Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at various The impacted trees will be relocated at various Foothills Parkway. The impacted trees will be various locations along Foothills Parkway.
Parkway. locations along Foothills Parkway. locations along Foothills Parkway. relocated at various locations along Foothills
Tree impacts Parkway.
Option 1b impacts 10 trees on the west of the project within Park East Park that Option 2b impacts are similar to Option 2a.
would need to be removed and are comprised of Siberian elm, blue spruce, elm,
cottonwood, goldenrain, western catalpa and crack willow. Impacts on the east
side are 6 trees, comprised of green ash, chokecherry, silver maple and Russian
olive. Impacts 1 tree on the west side which is CU property which is a ponderosa
SLQHWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV3DUNZD\7KH
impacted trees will be relocated at various locations along Foothills Parkway.

• 12 months
• 12 months • 18 months • 18 months •12 months
Construction • Foothills Parkway remains open with
• Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3 • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3 • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional
occasional night time lane closures for 2-3
duration and months months night time lane closures for 2-3 months night time lane closures for 2-3 months
months
• Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street • Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street • Existing overpass will remain open during • Existing overpass will remain open during
impacts • Existing overpass will remain open during
level level construction construction
construction

Cost $$
estimation
$$$$ $$$$ $$ $$
1 are the special considerations that were used when determining the recommended
project alternative. They include:
o User experience;
o Floodplain impacts;
o Property impacts;
o Park East park impacts
o Tree impacts
o Construction duration and impacts
o Cost Estimation
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass Project, south of Colorado Avenue Community Meeting
May 3, 2018
Recommended Alternative -1b

Following the consideration of community feedback and technical evaluation of the alternatives’ characteristics, the
recommended alternative is 1b. This alternative will: Alternative 1b - Box Underpass at Existing Alignment
• Improve mobility for all ages and abilities This alternative includes a box culvert underpass under Foothills Parkway near
• Reduce the crossing time (compared to existing bridge and the other alternatives) the alignment of the existing overpass. There are two options for the east side
connection: a loop ramp or a bridge over the Wellman Ditch.
• Provide a more direct crossing connection compared to other alternatives (does not require entry ramp loops
and steep grades), Option 1b
West side approach:
• Maintain the neighborhood access for the various bicycle and pedestrian travel patterns • Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path
• Steeper slopes on main approach; longer ADA-compliant route also provided
• Provide access to the Wellman Ditch company for maintenance, which is also an improvement from existing
conditions East side approach:
• Straight alignment with walls on both sides of path connecting to Centennial Path
• Be constructed within the project budget and with a shorter construction duration compared to the other User experience • Foothills Path connection from Centennial over new bridge/path

alternatives. Underpass:
• Shorter length than most of the alternatives (120’)
Participants in the public process generally favored alternative 1b, and its features of being within the project budget, • Walls on both sides of path

shorter construction period, directness of travel and connections to natural features. - Potential sight distance concern at connection with Foothills Path to the West
- Travel time of 0.9 minutes for bicyclists and 4.3 minutes for pedestrians in the E-W
direction. Travel time of 2.0 minutes for bicyclists and 9.8 minutes for pedestrians in the
N-S direction.

The path will run adjacent to the Park. There will be railing on top of the retaining walls
University of Park East Park
for safety, protecting them from the path. A pedestrian sidewalk will run through the
Colorado impacts park south of the basketball court.
Co
lor 'RHVQRWLPSURYHWKHÁRRGSODLQ
ad Floodplain
oA
ve
Option 1b has temporary impacts to OSMP land. New chain link fence would be
Property impacts installed along the southern boundary of OSMP but OSMP property would not be
impacted permanently.

Option 1b would require the removal of approximately 20 trees on the east side of
the project and are largely undesirable tree species including crack willow, Siberian
Tree impacts HOPDQGJUHHQDVKWUHHVZLOOEHLPSDFWHGGXHWRWKHWUDIÀFGHWRXUDORQJ)RRWKLOOV
Parkway. The impacted trees will be relocated at various locations along Foothills
Parkway.
k wy
Park East hills P • 12 months
Foot Construction
Park • Foothills Parkway remains open with occasional night time lane closures for 2-3
duration and months
OSMP impacts • Trail will be detoured to Colorado Ave. and will cross Foothills Parkway at street level

Cost estimation $$

1b

N
4. Preferred project alternative:
The project team recommends Alternative 1b because it improves mobility for all ages
and abilities and maintains the neighborhood access for the various bicycle and
pedestrian travel patterns. Alternative 1b provides a more direct crossing connection as it
does not require the entry ramp loops and steep grades of Alternative 5. Alternative 1b is
within the project budget and has a shorter construction duration in comparison to the
other alternatives. This alternative also will provide access to the Wellman Ditch
company to maintain its ditch which is also an improvement from existing conditions.
This alternative supports public input which preferred this option as well as supports
other factors such as within project budget, shorter construction period, directness of
travel and connections to natural features.

5. Public input to date:


A community engagement plan was developed for this project and has Involve and
Consult goals as defined by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2).
Those levels of public participation have goals of providing the public with information
about the project problem, alternatives, opportunities and solutions and obtaining public
feedback on alternatives, analysis and project decisions. There were several tools used to
engage the community including three public meetings and online project information
and comment forms. The community was notified in several ways including postal
mailings, emails and on-site signage. Growing Up Boulder (GUB) implemented an
outreach event with youth living at the City of Boulder Madison housing property at 35th
and Colorado to gain their insights on user needs, alignment preferences and ideas for
aesthetics.
Input provided to date included preferences on alignment and reasons for preference
including travel needs and directness of travel, cost and construction duration and
abilities to access the adjacent natural environment. There were suggestions for the
design including lighting, public art and landscaping and questions about need and ability
to be open during flooding events.

6. Project Contacts:
Staff project manager:
Brian Wiltshire, Public Works-Transportation Division, 303-441-4162
wiltshireb@bouldercolorado.gov
Project Planner
Noreen Walsh, Public Works-Transportation Division, 303-441-4301
walshn@bouldercolorado.gov

Other consultants or relevant contacts:


Civil Engineering and Design
Project Manager
Chau Nguyen, HDR
Chau.Nguyen@hdrinc.com
Goals Assessment:
1. Using the BVCP and department master plans, describe the primary city goals and benefits that the
project will help to achieve:
a. Community Sustainability Goals – How does the project improve the quality of economic,
environmental and social health with future generations in mind?

This project works to achieve the city’s environmental sustainability goals by providing a universal
design for a grade separated pedestrian and bicyclist crossing of Foothills Parkway meeting current
bicycle and pedestrian facility and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) design guidelines. The BVCP
and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) call for a multimodal transportation system with accessible and
safe travel options and connections. By improving this crossing location for pedestrians and bicyclists
of all ages and abilities there may be an increase in overall usage and movement towards modal shift
goals identified in the TMP. The environmental sustainability goal is also implemented by reviewing
the project alternatives through the city’s CEAP process and identifying impacts on identified
environmental, economic and community sustainability factors and how they can be mitigated.

This project helps to achieve economic sustainability goals by providing a safe crossing for all ages and
abilities of persons walking and bicycling by helping them to get to and from their homes, employment
and other activities. CU is a key stakeholder in this process as an adjacent property owner to the
project and some of the specific alternatives being considered.

This project helps to achieve its social sustainability goals by improving the transportation options for
all members of the community walking and bicycling with a grade separated crossing of Foothills
Parkway designed to meet current guidelines and standards.

b. BVCP Goals related to:


Intergovernmental Cooperation and Growth Management:
BVCP Policy 1.05 “Coordination with University of Colorado” has been practiced during the project’s
conceptual planning and design and will continue through construction as needed.

Community Design/Built Environment - Boulder’s compact, interconnected urban form helps ensure
the community’s environmental health, social equity and economic vitality. It also supports cost-
effective infrastructure and facility investments, a high level of multimodal mobility and easy access to
employment, recreation, shopping and other amenities, as well as a strong image of Boulder as a
distinct community. The Built Environment policies help shape the form and quality of future growth in
addition to protecting historic and environmental resources and preserving established neighborhood
character.
The project improvements are in support of this goal. It is replacing an overpass bicycle and
pedestrian bridge that is nearing the end of its 50-year design life which has increasing annual
maintenance needs. The underpass will continue to provide a connection to the adjacent bicycle and
pedestrian facility network meeting current design standards resulting in a facility for all ages and
abilities of community members walking and bicycling. The alternatives being considered take into
account the existing surrounding uses and will have urban treatments and landscaping elements to
complement and enhance the facility and surrounding area. The city’s Arts and Cultural Resources staff
are implementing a process to select an artist to design urban design and art/aesthetic improvements
which will contribute to the character area.

Natural Setting - Boulder’s natural setting defines its size and shape -The two most important factors
that shape the City of Boulder are its mountain backdrop and surrounding open space and rural lands.
These natural features form a clearly defined edge that separates the urban area from the open
countryside. Creeks and constructed irrigation ditches have also shaped the layout of the city. Irrigation
ditches are an important link between natural features and Boulder’s rural and agricultural areas
This project removes the overpass bridge which will allow more open views of the mountain backdrop
and surrounding area.

Public Realm - The public realm provides key functions and strongly influences character and aesthetics.
The design of the public realm plays a major role in defining the character, identity and aesthetic quality
of the city overall and individual neighborhoods. This project is supporting mobility functions connecting
residents and visitors to the adjacent or nearby destinations. The alternatives being considered take into
account the existing surrounding uses and will have urban design treatments and landscaping elements
to complement and enhance the facility and surrounding area.
To view this section of the BVCP, please go to: https://www-
static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/BVCP_2015_Update_12.6.2017_FOR_WEB-1-201712061956.pdf

Natural Environment; Energy, Climate and Waste – The policies in this section of the BVCP support
goals related to the conservation and preservation of land, water, air resources and pollution
prevention and climate change and resilience including “Protecting native ecosystems and biodiversity;
enhancing urban environmental quality; protecting geologic resources & reducing risks from natural
hazards; and, sustaining & improving water and air quality”.
The project improvements of an underpass and multi-use path connections designed for all ages and
abilities of pedestrians and bicyclists can shift the modal choice from single occupant trips to walking
and bicycling thereby reducing vehicle miles of travel and associated greenhouse gas emissions. This
shift can reduce mobile source emissions of pollutants supporting air quality and energy and climate
goals. Each of the alternatives were reviewed for anticipated impacts to existing trees and this
information as well as proposed mitigation is included A2 of the checklist.

Economy The policies in this section of the BVCP support the following goals related to maintaining a
sustainable and resilient economy: Strategic redevelopment & sustainable employment; Diverse
economic base; Quality of life; Sustainable & resilient business practices; and Job opportunities,
education & training. This project supports the quality of life that is important to its residents,
employees, businesses and visitors including a complete multimodal transportation system and
connection to nearby schools, University of Colorado and other employment opportunities nearby in
central and east boulder.

Transportation the BVCP policies and TMP support the maintenance and development of a balanced
transportation system that supports all modes of travel, making the system more efficient in carrying
travelers while maintaining its infrastructure in good condition and continuing to shift trips away from
the single-occupant vehicle. This project fulfills these goals by replacing an existing bicycle and
pedestrian bridge at the end of its service life and not meeting current design standards with a grade
separated crossing meeting current design standards and open to use by all members of the community.

Housing The project will provide a safe crossing of Foothills Parkway designed for all ages and
abilities of users that will connect nearby residents to their employment and other destinations which
potentially leads to a decrease in overall housing costs. The outreach event implemented by Growing
Up Boulder did identify that some of the existing residents who do not currently use bridge would be
more inclined to use the future underpass.
For more information on this BVCP policy go to this link.

Social Concerns and Human Services/Community Well-Being & Safety


The project will be designed for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities following the ADA
design guidelines and AASHTO bicycle facility guidelines documents. Urban design, landscaping and
lighting treatments intend to support the comfort, safety and experience of the users.
For more information on this BVCP policy go to this link

Agriculture and Food


Section 9.01 Support for Agriculture discusses the protection of ditches as a way to support sustainable
water usage. Two of the alternatives are adjacent or within the Wellman Ditch and there have been
discussions with the Wellman Ditch company to preserve their existing water conveyance levels and to
consider improvements to their ability to access the ditch for maintenance.
For more information on this BVCP policy go to this link

Local Governance & Community Engagement


These policies reflect the Boulder community’s strong values in maintaining a high level of awareness,
communication and public participation in local government and building civic and community
capacity.
The community engagement plan developed for this project has Involve and Consult commitments as
defined by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2). Those levels of public
participation have goals of providing the public with information about the project problem,
alternatives, opportunities and solutions and obtaining public feedback on alternatives, analysis and
project decisions. The project team has utilized multiple engagement tools including community
meetings, on-site meetings with targeted audiences such as the Center for People with Disabilities,
online comment forms, email, youth organization events (through Growing Up Boulder), and signage.
The project team is following the recently accepted Public Participation Framework for the City of
Boulder which includes the 9 steps to community engagement to ensure that the engagement is
addressing those milestones.
For more information on this BVCP policy go to this link.

c. Describe any regional goals (potential benefits or impacts to regional systems or plans?)
The nearby University of Colorado east campus is located north and west of this project. The CU
Boulder East Campus Master Plan and East Campus connections plan envisions that area as a well-
connected and useable area by pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. This project helps to fulfill
their vision of mobility and accessibility for all CU Boulder faculty, staff, and visitors with an improved
grade separated crossing and a multi-use path connecting the underpass with Colorado Avenue on the
west side of Foothills Parkway.
2. Is this project referenced in a master plan, subcommunity or area plan? If so, what is the context in
terms of goals, objectives, larger system plans, etc.? If not, why not?
This project supports the TMP’s goal of options for all Boulder residents and employees, including
older adults and people with disabilities, and budget priority of maintaining its infrastructure in good
condition by replacing a functionally substandard bridge at the end of its service life and a grade
separated crossing meeting current design standards for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and
abilities.

3. Will this project be in conflict with the goals or policies in any departmental master plan and what are
the trade-offs among city policies and goals in the proposed project alternative? (e.g. higher financial
investment to gain better long-term services or fewer environmental impacts)

This project will not be in conflict with the goals and policies of other city department master plans and
goals.

4. List other city projects in the project area that are listed in a departmental master plan or the CIP.
There are not any other city projects identified in the CIP that are in the project area.

5. What are the major city, state, and federal standards that will apply to the proposed project? How will
the project exceed city, state, or federal standards and regulations (e.g. environmental, health, safety, or
transportation standards)?
The project will comply with all required city, state and federal permits and meet the city and national
standards (ADA and AASHTO) for the development of pedestrian and bikeway facilities.

6. Are there cumulative impacts to any resources from this and other projects that need to be recognized
and mitigated?
There are none identified at this time.

Impact Assessment:
1. Using the attached checklist, identify the potential short or long-term impacts of the project alternatives.

Use +, - or 0 in the checklist table to indicate impacts, benefits and no changes for each alternative.
+ indicates a positive effect or improved condition
- indicates a negative effect or impact
0 indicates no effect

Categories on the Checklist Table indicating positive or negative impacts (+ or –) should answer the Checklist
Questions following the table in full.
Checklist
+ Positive effect
- Negative effect
0 No effect
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass, south of

underpass with Wellman Canal


underpass at Current Location

Alter. 3-Bridge underpass with

underpass near Colorado Ave


Colorado Avenue

Alter. 5 – Box culvert near


Alter. 1a/1b– Box culvert

Alter. 4 – Box culvert


Alter. 2a/2b – Bridge

Bear Canyon Creek

Bear Canyon Creek


A. Natural Areas or Features
1. Disturbance to species, communities, habitat, or ecosystems due to:
- - - - -
a. Construction activities
0/- 0/- - - -
b. Native vegetation removal
0 0 0 0 0
c. Human or domestic animal encroachment
0 0 0 0 0
d. Chemicals (including petroleum products, fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides)
0 0 - 0 0
e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise
from use activities)
0/- 0/- - - -
f. Habitat removal
0 0 0 0 0
g. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site
landscaping
0 0 0 0 0
h. Changes to groundwater or surface runoff
0 0 0 0 0
i. Wind erosion
- - - - -
2. Loss of mature trees or significant plants?

B. Riparian Areas/Floodplains
0 0 0 0 0
1. Encroachment upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard flood
zones?
0/- 0/- - - -
2. Disturbance to or fragmentation of a riparian corridor?

C. Wetlands
0 0 0 0 0
1. Disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site?
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass, south of

underpass with Wellman Canal


underpass at Current Location

Alter. 3-Bridge underpass with

underpass near Colorado Ave


Colorado Avenue

Alter. 5 – Box culvert near


Alter. 1a/1b– Box culvert

Alter. 4 – Box culvert


Alter. 2a/2b – Bridge

Bear Canyon Creek

Bear Canyon Creek


D. Geology and Soils
0 0 0 0 0
1. a. Impacts to unique geologic or physical features?
0 0 0 0 0
b. Geologic development constraints?
0 0 0 0 0
c. Substantial changes in topography?
+ + + + +
d. Changes in soil or fill material on the site?
0 0 0 0 0
e. Phasing of earth work?

E. Water Quality

1. Impacts to water quality from any of the following?


0 0 0 0 0
a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction
activities
0 0 0 0 0
b. Change in hardscape
0 0 0 0 0
c. Change in site ground features
+ + + + +
d. Change in storm drainage
0 0 0 0 0
e. Change in vegetation
- - - 0 -
f. Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic
0 0 0 0 0
g. Pollutants
0 0 0 0 0
2. Exposure of groundwater contamination from excavation or
pumping?

F. Air Quality
+ + + + +
1. Short or long term impacts to air quality (CO2 emissions,
pollutants)?
+ + + + +
a. From mobile sources?
0 0 0 0 0
b. From stationary sources?

G. Resource Conservation
0 0 0 0 0
1. Changes in water use?
+ + + + +
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass, south of

underpass with Wellman Canal


underpass at Current Location

Alter. 3-Bridge underpass with

underpass near Colorado Ave


Colorado Avenue

Alter. 5 – Box culvert near


Alter. 1a/1b– Box culvert

Alter. 4 – Box culvert


Alter. 2a/2b – Bridge

Bear Canyon Creek

Bear Canyon Creek


2. Increases or decreases in energy use?
0 0 0 0 0
3. Generation of excess waste?

H. Cultural/Historic Resources
0 0 0 0 0
1. a. Impacts to a prehistoric or archaeological site?
0 0 0 0 0
b. Impacts to a building or structure over fifty years of age?

c. Impacts to a historic feature of the site? 0 0 0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0
d. Impacts to significant agricultural land?

I. Visual Quality
+ + + + +
1. a. Effects on scenic vistas or public views?
+ + + + +
b. Effects on the aesthetics of a site open to public view?
0 0 0 0 0
c. Effects on views to unique geologic or physical features?
0 0 0 0 0
d. Changes in lighting?

J. Safety
0 0 0 0 0
1. Health hazards, odors, or radon?
0 0 0 0 0
2. Disposal of hazardous materials?
0 0 0 0 0
3. Site hazards?

K. Physiological Well-being
+ + + + +
1. Exposure to excessive noise?
0 0 0 0 0
2. Excessive light or glare?
0 0 0 0 0
3. Increase in vibrations?

L. Services

1. Additional need for:


0 0 0 0 0
a. Water or sanitary sewer services?
- - - - -
b. Storm sewer/Flood control features?
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass, south of

underpass with Wellman Canal


underpass at Current Location

Alter. 3-Bridge underpass with

underpass near Colorado Ave


Colorado Avenue

Alter. 5 – Box culvert near


Alter. 1a/1b– Box culvert

Alter. 4 – Box culvert


Alter. 2a/2b – Bridge

Bear Canyon Creek

Bear Canyon Creek


0 0 0 0 0
c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes?
0 0 0 0 0
d. Police services?
0 0 0 0 0
e. Fire protection services?
0 0 0 0 0
f. Recreation or parks facilities?
0 0 0 0 0
g. Library services?
0 0 0 0 0
h. Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation?
0 0 0 0 0
i. Parking?
0 0 0 0 0
j. Affordable housing?
0 0 0 0 0
k. Open space/urban open land?
0 0 0 0 0
l. Power or energy use?
0 0 0 0 0
m. Telecommunications?
0 0 0 0 0
n. Health care/social services?
0 0 0 0 0
o. Trash removal or recycling services?

M. Special Populations

1. Effects on:
+ + + + +
a. Persons with disabilities?
+ + + + +
b. Senior population?
+ + + + +
c. Children or youth?
+ + + + +
d. Restricted income persons?
+ + + + +
e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other
immigrants)?
+ + + + +
f Neighborhoods
+ + + + +
g. Sensitive populations located near the project (e.g. schools,
hospitals, nursing homes)?
Foothills Parkway Bicycle and Pedestrian Underpass, south of

underpass with Wellman Canal


underpass at Current Location

Alter. 3-Bridge underpass with

underpass near Colorado Ave


Colorado Avenue

Alter. 5 – Box culvert near


Alter. 1a/1b– Box culvert

Alter. 4 – Box culvert


Alter. 2a/2b – Bridge

Bear Canyon Creek

Bear Canyon Creek


N. Economy
0 0 0 0 0
1. Utilization of existing infrastructure?
+ + + + +
2. Effect on operating expenses?
+ + + + +
3. Effect on economic activity?
0 0 0 0 0
4. Impacts to businesses, employment, retail sales or city revenue?
Checklist Questions
Note: The following questions are a supplement to the CEAP checklist. Only those questions indicated on the
checklist are to be answered in full.

A. Natural Areas and Features


1. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of significant: species, plant communities, wildlife
habitats, or ecosystems via any of the activities listed below. (Significant species include any
species listed or proposed to be listed as rare, threatened or endangered on federal, state, county
lists.)

a. Construction activities

Work that may impact Bear Canyon Creek or Wellman Canal and the associated
floodplains, high hazard zone and/or conveyance zone would require authorization under
the Army Corps of Engineers 404 wetlands permit, a City of Boulder wetland permit and a
Floodplain Development permit. We are not anticipating species or habitat impacts based
upon the initial site environmental assessment that has been conducted.

b. Native Vegetation removal

Alternatives 1b and 2b result in vegetation removal along the north side of the Wellman
Ditch and impacts ornamental trees and grasses in the park. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 result in
vegetation removal within the COB open space parcel as well as impacting grasses in the
CU owned parcel.
Alternatives 1a and 2a are anticipated to not have an impact on native vegetation removal.
The project will look to replant any landscaping that would be temporarily impacted.

c. Human or domestic animal encroachment

d. Chemicals to be stored or used on the site (including petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides)

e. Behavioral displacement of wildlife species (due to noise from use activities)

Noise impacts from the operation of the underpass are not anticipated, but human
presence could deter wildlife. Since Alternative 3 would place users adjacent to Bear
Canyon Creek where it crosses beneath Foothills Parkway, there could be deer and small
mammal animals deterred from crossing here, or at a minimum alter their behavior to be
active when human presence is low. This alternative is not being recommended so it has
not been further studied for mitigation opportunities.

f. Introduction of non-native plant species in the site landscaping


All alternatives result in some habitat removal. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 remove habitat that
is part of an undeveloped open space parcel. Alts 1b and 2b remove riparian vegetation
along the Wellman Ditch, which may affect animals moving along this corridor.
The project anticipates mitigating this impact by replacing the habitat with new plantings.

g. Changes to groundwater (including installation of sump pumps) or surface runoff (storm


drainage, natural stream) on the site
h. Potential for discharge of sediment to any body of water either short term (construction-related)
or long term
i. Potential for wind erosion and transport of dust and sediment from the site

2. Describe the potential for disturbance to or loss of mature trees or significant plants.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that
is relevant to the project:
x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts.
x A habitat assessment of the site, including: 1. a list of plant and animal species and plant
communities of special concern found on the site; 2. a wildlife habitat evaluation of the site.
x Maps of the site showing the location of any Boulder Valley Natural Ecosystem, Boulder County
Environmental Conservation Area, or critical wildlife habitat.

All alternatives will result in the removal of 18 trees which are in the Foothills Parkway
medians. The medians are being removed during construction to maintain the four vehicle
lanes which carry 44,000 vehicles along this section of state highway. The project team is
working with Parks and Recreation staff to find locations for transplanting as they are
suitable for this due to their size and condition. The project will plant new trees in the
medians and the project area to mitigate the effects of the tree removals and will follow city
guidelines and coordinate with forestry and landscape architect staff on tree species
selection.
The total number of additional trees vary between the 5 alternatives. For Alternative 1a there
are 22 trees on the west and east sides of the project area. For Alternative 1b there are 16
trees on the west and east sides of the project area. For Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 there are 3
additional trees on the west and east sides of the project area.
Additional information regarding the species type, size and condition of these trees can be
found in the CEAP Appendix A.
B. Riparian Areas and Floodplains

1. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon the 100-year, conveyance or high hazard
flood zones.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are within one or more 100-year flood zones.


A City of Boulder Floodplain Development Permit will be obtained for any of the options
prior to construction and the result will not create a negative effect on the existing
floodplains.

2. Describe the extent to which the project will encroach upon, disturb, or fragment a riparian corridor:
(This includes impacts to the existing channel of flow, streambanks, adjacent riparian zone extending
50 ft. out from each bank, and any existing drainage from the site to a creek or stream.)
The map below shows the location of the alternatives and adjacent Wellman Ditch and Bear Canyon
Creek.
Alternatives 1b and 2b remove riparian vegetation along the Wellman Ditch. Alternatives 3,
4 and 5 will have impacts to the Bear Canyon Creek corridor.
The project will mitigate this impact with new plantings.

C. Wetlands
1. Describe any disturbance to or loss of a wetland on site that may result from the project.

If potential impacts have been identified, please provide any of the following information that
is relevant to the project:

x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts.
Below is a map showing the location of any wetlands on or near the site. Identify both those
wetlands and buffer areas which are jurisdictional under city code (on the wetlands map in our
ordinance) and other wetlands pursuant to federal criteria (definitional).

Alternatives 1, 2 and 5 will not be impacting identified wetlands or inner wetland buffer
areas.
Alternatives 3 and 4 may result in permanent impacts to wetland vegetation. No permanent
impacts are anticipated because these wetlands are under jurisdiction of the City of Boulder
and the project will restore impacted areas to pre-existing or better conditions as required by
any permitting.

D. Geology and Soils


1. Describe any:
a. impacts to unique geologic or physical features;
b. geologic development constraints or effects to earth conditions or landslide, erosion, or
subsidence;
c. substantial changes in topography; or
d. changes in soil or fill material on the site
that may result from the project.
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:
x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts.
x A map showing the location of any unique geologic or physical features, or hazardous soil or
geologic conditions on the site.

All alternatives will reduce the above ground topography due to the bridge removal. All
alternatives will have changes to the below ground topography which changes the surface
topography with the addition of retaining walls. Some of the retaining walls will be terraced to
reduce the height effect. The overall facility footprint will be reduced.
E. Water Quality
1. Describe any impacts to water quality that may result from any of the following:
a. Clearing, excavation, grading or other construction activities that will be involved with the
project;
b. Changes in the amount of hardscape (paving, cement, brick, or buildings) in the project area;
c. Permanent changes in site ground features such as paved areas or changes in topography;
d. Changes in the storm drainage from the site after project completion;

All alternatives will add water quality features to treat runoff from the roadway. This is to
meet a ditch company requirement for storm drainage water quality for roadway drainage
entering the ditch.

e. Change in vegetation; - See below


f. Change in pedestrian and vehicle traffic; - See below
g. Potential pollution sources during and after construction (may include temporary or permanent
use or storage of petroleum products, fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides).

2. Describe any pumping of groundwater that may be anticipated either during construction or as a
result of the project. If excavation or pumping is planned, what is known about groundwater
contamination in the surrounding area (1/4 mile in all directions from the project) and the direction
of groundwater flow?

Project construction will require clearing, excavation, and grading work. During construction
the surface water runoff will be treated by installing Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
according to the Colorado Stormwater Discharge Permit. The project will provide water
quality improvements that reach beyond the project limits by adding a water quality device to
the Foothills Parkway stormwater pipe which captures stormwater along Foothills Parkway.
Project improvements will cause an increase in the amount of impervious surface material due
to the additional concrete for underpass, access ramps, and path connections. Project final
design will seek to minimize the amount of contiguous hardscape in the project area and will
seek opportunities to incorporate native/drought resistant xeriscape landscaping to allow for
water filtration.

F. Air Quality

1. Describe potential short or long term impacts to air quality resulting from this project. Distinguish
between impacts from mobile sources (VMT/trips) and stationary sources (APEN, HAPS).

Emissions from construction equipment would have a short term effect on air quality during
construction. The effects of the emissions would be negligible because of the small number of
short term emission sources.
There may also be some long-term improvements to air quality from mobile sources if the
underpass project leads to increased use of walking and bicycling.
G. Resource Conservation
1. Describe potential changes in water use that may result from the project.

a. Estimate the indoor, outdoor (irrigation) and total daily water use for the facility.
b. Describe plans for minimizing water use on the site (Xeriscape landscaping, efficient irrigation
system).

2. Describe potential increases or decreases in energy use that may result from the project.

a. Describe plans for minimizing energy use on the project or how energy conservation measures
will be incorporated into the building design.
b. Describe plans for using renewable energy sources on the project or how renewable energy
sources will be incorporated into the building design?
c. Describe how the project will be built to LEED standards.

All Alternatives would install some landscaping that would require some irrigation. The
project will look to minimize the impacts with selection of low water landscaping.
All alternatives will provide lighting within the underpass which will have a slight increase in
energy use. The project will look to minimize the impact with use of high efficiency lighting.

H. Cultural/Historic Resources
1. Describe any impacts to:
a. a prehistoric or historic archaeological site;
b. a building or structure over fifty years of age;
c. a historic feature of the site such as an irrigation ditch; or
d. significant agricultural lands
that may result from the project.

I. Visual Quality

1. Describe any effects on:


a. scenic vistas or views open to the public;

All alternatives will remove the existing overpass which would open the view of the Flatirons
and mountains to the west to drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and park users at or near the
project area. Some community members who use the existing bridge have expressed
disappointment that their view of the mountains from the bridge will be eliminated.
The project will include urban design and possibly public art which will enhance the aesthetics
and experience for underpass users which may mitigate some of the impact that some of the
community members expressed from the bridge removal.
b. the aesthetics of a site open to public view; or

All alternatives will remove the existing overpass which would open the view of the Flatirons
and mountains to the west to drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists and park users at or near the
project area.
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would add a new path in undeveloped land.
Alternatives 1a/b and 2a/b will change the views and aesthetics of Park East Park with walls,
railing, fences. The project will include landscaping and design that is complementary to the
park and will work with Parks Project Management staff on the landscaping design plans
including walls, railing and fence details.

c. view corridors from the site to unique geologic or physical features


that may result from the project

J. Safety
1. Describe any additional health hazards, odors, or exposure of people to radon that may result from
the project.
2. Describe measures for the disposal of hazardous materials.
3. Describe any additional hazards that may result from the project. (Including risk of explosion or the
release of hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:

x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts
during or after site construction through management of hazardous materials or application of safety
precautions.

K. Physiological Well-being
1. Describe the potential for exposure of people to excessive noise, light or glare caused by any phase
of the project (construction or operations).

All alternatives eliminate the overpass, reducing exposure to traffic noise for trail users.

2. Describe any increase in vibrations or odor that may result from the project.

If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:

x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impacts.
L. Services

1. Describe any increased need for the following services as a result of the project:

a. Water or sanitary sewer services


b. Storm sewer / Flood control features
c. Maintenance of pipes, culverts and manholes

This project will add storm sewer infrastructure and a sump pump which will require some
ongoing maintenance that is not required today. The net impact is a decrease in ongoing
maintenance because this underpass will have less snow and ice removal when compared to
the existing overpass bridge.

d. Police services
e. Fire protection
f. Recreation or parks facilities
g. Libraries
h. Transportation improvements/traffic mitigation
i. Parking
j. Affordable housing
k. Open space/urban open land
l. Power or energy use
m. Telecommunications
n. Health care/social services
o. Trash removal or recycling services

2. Describe any impacts to any of the above existing or planned city services or department master
plans as a result of this project. (e.g. budget, available parking, planned use of the site, public
access, automobile/pedestrian conflicts, views)

M. Special Populations
1. Describe any effects the project may have on the following special populations:

a. Persons with disabilities


b. Senior population
c. Children or Youth
d. Restricted income persons
e. People of diverse backgrounds (including Latino and other immigrants)
f. Sensitive Populations located near the project (e.g. adjacent neighborhoods or property owners,
schools, hospitals, nursing homes)

If potential impacts have been identified, please provide the following:


x A description of how the proposed project would avoid, minimize, or mitigate identified impact.
x A description of how the proposed project would benefit special populations.

All Alternatives will be designed to serve people of all ages and abilities. Access to the bicycle
and pedestrian system will be improved for all because the facility will be open to all users at no
cost. The project design will meet all current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) design
guidelines.

N. Economic Vitality
1. Describe how the project will enhance economic activity in the city or region or generate economic
opportunities?
2. Describe any potential impacts to:
a. businesses in the vicinity of the project (ROW, access or parking),
b. employment,
c. retail sales or city revenue
and how they might be mitigated.

All Alternatives would result in a path system that would be easier to maintain versus the
existing conditions.
Appendix A
Tree information
"MUFSOBUJWFB
BOUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT
9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϭĂdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂLJhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŶĐŚĞƐͿ ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϳϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ 'ƌĞĞŶƐŚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŚŽŬĞĐŚĞƌƌLJ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϵϮϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϲ &Ăŝƌ ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌƵŶĞ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϰϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϮϯϵ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϱϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϯϭϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϱϮϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϳϱϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϴϱϰ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϵ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϳϭϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϯϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϱϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϮϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϰϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϲϬϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϳϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϬ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ƵƌKĂŬ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϭϱϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϭ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWFC
BOUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT

9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϭďdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂLJhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŶĐŚĞƐͿŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŚŽŬĞĐŚĞƌƌLJ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϵϮϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϲ &Ăŝƌ ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌƵŶĞ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϰϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϯϰϬ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϮϯϵ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϬ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϱϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϯϭϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϱϮϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϭϱϯ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϳ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϯϰϭ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϯϵϮϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯϬ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ƌĂĐŬtŝůůŽǁ
ϭ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϭϱϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϭ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϭ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWFB
"OUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT

9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϮĂdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂLJhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϳϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ 'ƌĞĞŶƐŚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŚŽŬĞĐŚĞƌƌLJ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϵϮϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϲ &Ăŝƌ ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌƵŶĞ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϰϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϱϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϰϭϮϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ >ŝƚƚůĞůĞĂĨ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϰϯϬϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ >ŝƚƚůĞůĞĂĨ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϯϭϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϱϮϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϳϱϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϴϱϰ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϵ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϳϭϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϵϮϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϯϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϱϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϮϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϰϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϲϬϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϳϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϬ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ƵƌKĂŬ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWFC
"OUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT

9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϮďdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂLJhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϱϱϵϮϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϲ &Ăŝƌ ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞWƌƵŶĞ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϬϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝůǀĞƌDĂƉůĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϯϰϱϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϰϭϮϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ >ŝƚƚůĞůĞĂĨ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϭϬϵϰϯϬϳ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϲ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ >ŝƚƚůĞůĞĂĨ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϯϭϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϱϮϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϳϱϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϮϯϴϱϰ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϵ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŵĞƌŝĐĂŶ>ŝŶĚĞŶ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϯϳϭϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϰ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ tĞƐƚĞƌŶĂƚĂůƉĂ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϯϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϭϱϳ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϮϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϮϰϱ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ůƵĞ^ƉƌƵĐĞ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϲϬϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ĐĐŽůĂĚĞůŵ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϳϭϯϰϳϭϬ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϬ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ƵƌKĂŬ
Ϯ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϭϱϮ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϭ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ^ŝďĞƌŝĂŶůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWF
"OUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT

9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϯdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂLJhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϯϰϬ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϯ :^ϮϬϭϱϬϯϮϬϭϭϱϲϯϴ ϭϰϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯϱ 'ŽŽĚ ^ĂĨĞƚLJWƌƵŶĞ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϯ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWF
"OUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT

9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϰdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂLJhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϯϰϬ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϴ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϱϮϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϭ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϮ &Ăŝƌ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ WŽŶĚĞƌŽƐĂWŝŶĞ
ϰ :^ϮϬϭϱϬϯϮϬϭϭϱϲϯϴ ϭϰϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯϱ 'ŽŽĚ ^ĂĨĞƚLJWƌƵŶĞ EĂƚŝǀĞŽƚƚŽŶǁŽŽĚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϰ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
"MUFSOBUJWF
"OUJDJQBUFEUSFFSFNPWBMT

9USFFUPCFSFNPWFE
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞϱdƌĞĞƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͲ&ŽŽƚŚŝůůƐWĂƌŬǁĂLJhŶĚĞƌƉĂƐƐ͕ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚϱͬϭͬϭϴ
ůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞ dƌĞĞη Z^^ ^dZd ŝĂŵĞƚĞƌ;/ŶĐŚĞƐͿ ŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶ DĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEŽƚĞƐ ^ƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϭϭ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ZƵƐƐŝĂŶͲŽůŝǀĞ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϲϭϲϬϯϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϵ WŽŽƌ ^ĂĨĞƚLJWƌƵŶĞ tŝůůŽǁƐƉĞĐŝĞƐ
ϱ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϯϮϲ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ Ϯϴ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ ƌĂĐŬtŝůůŽǁ
ϱ ϮϬϭϰϭϮϭϴϭϮϰϰϰϴ ϵϵϵ DKZ'EZ ϭϴ &Ăŝƌ ^ĂĨĞƚLJWƌƵŶĞ ƌĂĐŬtŝůůŽǁ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϭϯϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϬϰ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϮϯϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϭϭ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ džĐĞůůĞŶƚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϯϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϭϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϰϰϯ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ŽŵŵŽŶ,ŽŶĞLJůŽĐƵƐƚ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϬϬ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϱϰϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϮϮ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϲϱϳ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϮϴ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϳϰϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϰ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϭϱ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz ϯ 'ŽŽĚ EŽ^ƉĞĐŝĨŝĐDĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞEĞĞĚ ,LJďƌŝĚůŵ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϴϰϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ ĞĂĚ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϬϵϮϵ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
ϱ EZϮϬϭϱϬϯϭϬϭϳϭϬϬϲ ϭϭϬϬ &KKd,/>>^Wz Ϯ sĞƌLJWŽŽƌ ZĞŵŽǀĞ 'ŽůĚĞŶƌĂŝŶdƌĞĞ
Asset Management Program

City of Boulder
Parks and Recreation Department

May 15, 2018

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 What Is an Asset Management Program?
1.2 Why Create an Asset Management Program?
1.3 Key Principles of BPRD Asset Management
1.4 AMP Planning and Development Process
1.5 Living Document

Chapter 2: Asset Inventory


2.1 Overview
2.2 What Is an Asset?
2.3 Asset Category vs Feature Class– What’s the difference?
2.4 Asset Inventory Fields of Information
2.5 Park System Asset Classification
2.6 Specialized Facilities Asset Classification – Coming in 2019

Chapter 3: Condition Assessment


3.1 Overview
3.2 What Is a Condition Assessment?
3.3 Why Conduct a Condition Assessment?
3.4 When and How?
3.5 Condition Assessment Scoring
3.6 Condition Assessment Case Study #1: Park East Basketball Court
3.7 Condition Assessment Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf
3.8 Condition Assessment Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter

Chapter 4: Criticality Assessment Process


4.1 Overview
4.2 Asset Criticality Score:
4.3 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #1: Park East Park Basketball Court
4.4 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf
4.5 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
4.6 Criticality and Condition Comparison Chart
4.7 Criticality Logistics

Chapter 5: Asset Costs


5.1 Overview

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 2
5.2 Asset Cost Structure
5.3 Asset Cost Case Study #1: Park East Park Basketball Court
5.4 Asset Cost Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf
5.5 Asset Cost Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
5.6 Asset Cost Logistics

Chapter 6: Data-Driven Decision Making


Coming First Quarter 2018

Appendices:
A.1 Annual Report – Coming 2018
A.2 Financial Reporting Protocol – Coming 2018
A.3 Asset and Feature Class Process & Data Guides – In Progress
A.5.Art
A.5.Buildings
A.5.Cemetery
A.5.Courts READY for review
A.5.Equipment
A.5.Fences & Barriers
A.5.Furniture
A.5.Horticulture READY for review
A.5.Irrigation
A.5.Lighting Fixtures
A.5.Natural Lands
A.5.Park Sites
A.5.Park Structures
A.5.Parking Lots
A.5.Paths & Plazas – aka Bike and Pedestrian Off Street Network
A.5.Playgrounds READY for review
A.5.Pools
A.5.Signs
A.5.Trees
A.5.Turf & Athletic Fields
A.5.Waste

Figures, Tables and Diagrams


Figure 1.3.1: Asset Life Cycle
Figure 1.4.1: Chapters of the AMP
Figure 2.3.1: Asset Types as they relate to GIS Feature Classes
Figure 2.5.1: Park System Asset Classification – Diagram View

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 3
Figure 2.5.2: Park System Asset Classification – Sample Park Layout
Table 3.5.1: Condition Rating Examples
Table 3.6.1: Park East Basketball Court Condition Assessment Example
Table 3.7.1: Tom Watson Park Turf Condition Assessment Example
Table 3.8.1: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter Condition Assessment Example
Figure 4.1.1: Asset Criticality Score Composition
Table 4.3.1: Park East Park Basketball Court Criticality Scoring
Table 4.4.1: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf Criticality Scoring
Table 4.5.1: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter Criticality Scoring
Figure 4.6.1: Criticality and Condition Chart
Table 5.2.1: Conceptual Asset Cost Structure
Table 5.3.1: Park East Basketball Court
Table 5.4.1: Tom Watson Turf
Table 5.5.1: Eben G. Fine Shelter

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 4
Executive Summary
The Boulder Parks and Recreation Department (BPRD) manages a park system of over 1,800 acres of
parkland comprising approximately 100 individual park properties with a combined value of roughly
$215 million in park facilities. This inventory includes a wide array of recreation facilities, park types and
park features including 3 recreation centers, 2 outdoor pools, the Flatirons Golf Course, the Boulder
Reservoir, the Valmont Bike Park, over 350 acres of managed turf and irrigated park lands, 15 miles of
multi-use greenway paths, 50,000 urban trees, 43 athletic fields, 40 playgrounds, 36 park shelters, 40
tennis courts and 47 courts used for other types of play, a significant inventory of land managed as
“natural lands, and the Pearl Street Mall.

The 2014 BPRD Master Plan, adopted by city council, uses six primary themes intended to shape
strategies for future action and decision making. Two themes, “Taking Care of What We Have” and
“Financial Sustainability,” informed the vision for an Asset Management Program (AMP) represented by
this living document that memorializes the department’s commitment to maximizing the enjoyment and
value of the city’s parks and recreation system for its residents.

The primary purpose of the AMP is to promote effective use of financial and physical resources by
developing a proactive and systematic approach to managing BPRD’s inventory of assets. Such assets
include primary park-related infrastructure such as courts, playgrounds and picnic/shade structures, as
well as secondary assets such as park furniture, lighting, trails and trees. Similarly, BPRD also tracks a
large inventory of building and facility-related assets for properties like recreation centers and aquatic
facilities. It is important to note that at this time, the AMP addresses only assets directly operated or
managed by BPRD. In many cases, BPRD has a close working relationship with the city’s Facilities and
Asset Management Division (FAM) regarding buildings or facilities, such as recreation centers, where
building systems are maintained by FAM, but where BPRD operates internal components such as pools,
courts, etc. In such cases, the AMP addresses these BPRD-operated assets but does not address assets
under FAM’s jurisdiction. BPRD will be working with FAM in future years to better clarify roles between
departments and to determine possibilities for a more closely coordinated asset management program
for assets with split operational responsibilities.

The following document presents an overview of BPRD’s AMP in a format intended for implementation
across all staff levels while also being suitable for public and decision-maker review. Goals of this
document include:

• Establishing an accurate inventory framework for capturing information about park assets
maintained by BPRD;
• Defining the process for conducting Condition Assessments on park assets;
• Identifying benchmarks for industry accepted cyclical maintenance needs with the goal of
maximizing the useful life of assets;
• Understanding the various levels of asset and property use to better manage the lifecycle of an
asset and prioritize maintenance and replacement actions;
• Forecasting operating and capital budgeting processes for assets including renovation and
replacement needs;
• Establishing levels of work needed to maintain adequate levels of service by individual asset and
by property;

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 5
• Understanding the probability and consequence of failure of each asset so the City can manage
high risk assets before failure and minimize the City’s overall risk profile;
• Establishing procedures to update the AMP to ensure that the program and its processes remain
functional and relevant to the evolving needs of the department; and
• Establishing transparency in BPRD decision making.

Critical to the success of the AMP is the mindset that the AMP represents a “living document” that will
be reviewed on a three-year cycle for relevance and accuracy. Additional reviews of the AMP should be
considered with future implementation of asset management software or department strategy updates
(i.e. master plan or budget policy). The three-year cyclical reviews will be conducted based on industry
standards for asset management, condition assessments, costs, and system wide changes. Likewise, the
AMP is meant to inform, and be informed by, asset management software selected for use by BPRD.
Though the AMP and software technology should function independently of one another, the AMP will
seek to work seamlessly with the technological resources available to maximize the relevance and
effectiveness of both the guiding AMP document and the technical systems used by BPRD to manage
information.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 6
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 What is an Asset Management Program?
An Asset Management Program is summarized by a long-range planning document that provides a
framework for understanding the assets an organization owns, services it provides, risks it assumes, and
financial investments it requires. An AMP can help an organization move from reactive to proactive
management of its physical and financial resources. This transition requires answers to the following
questions:

• What is an asset? What is not an asset?


• Which assets need to be managed?
• What is the condition of each asset?
• What maintenance and capital work is required? When and how much?
• When should an asset be retired or taken out of service?
• Which assets are critical to the organization’s operation?
• What levels of service must be provided?
• Are the current maintenance practices sufficient to sustain an adequate level of service?
• How should the assets be managed to provide services in the most efficient way?
• How much funding is necessary to sustain the desired level of service?
• Are there adequate resources to provide the services?
• How can the asset data and maintenance system be updated to better facilitate maintenance
practices?
• How can the organization make data-driven decisions for the future?

1.2 Why create an Asset Management Program?


An AMP is a tool that assists in the provision of safe and reliable public infrastructure. It also improves
the quality of an organization’s offerings by informing department budget processes, aligning work to
level of service requirements, and providing an objective and transparent decision-making process that
is guided by data about the BPRD assets. Specific to BPRD, the purposes of the AMP are to:
• Provide an overview of asset management principals along with an easily understood set of
policies and procedures aimed at implementation of these principals;
• Document the department’s commitment to asset management;
• Document the department’s wide array of asset types and associated decision-making
considerations;
• Provide a baseline guide for asset management that will be modified over time to adapt to the
changing needs of the department.

BPRD recognizes that a lack of a comprehensive asset management program leads to inherent risks
including:

• Failure to invest in safe and reliable infrastructure at the most optimal times in the asset’s
lifecycle, thereby potentially compromising the safety and service delivery of the asset;
• Less than optimal planning for growth, maintenance and replacement of existing assets and the
development of new assets, impacting BPRD’s ability to meet expected levels of service;

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 7
• Conflicting work group investment priorities, issues with delivery of service coordination, and
inter-departmental inefficiencies; and
• Inconsistency of capital plans with the need identified in asset management plans, leading to
confusing and inconsistent decision-making processes.

1.3 Key Principles of BPRD Asset Management


To attain the goals of an asset management program, BPRD should ensure a complete lifecycle approach
to thinking about the department manages its assets. This perspective requires consideration of all
stages of an asset’s life cycle to understand the full scope of the work and costs associated with
management of the asset.

Figure 1.3.1: Asset Life Cycle

Plan / Acquire / Operate /


Recapitalize Dispose
Design Construct Maintain

In addition, the following principles are applied within the BPRD asset management system:

• Holistic – take a comprehensive approach that looks at the “big picture” of asset management
across the entire department. This includes exploring the functional interdependencies and
contributions of assets and understanding how each asset contributes to the success of the
department’s program.
• Systematic – take a methodical approach (i.e. formal, repeatable and consistent) to the
management of assets.
• Risk-based – manage risk associated with desired levels of asset service and balance priorities
based on risk and associated cost/benefit.
• Optimal – make asset investment decisions based on trade-offs between the competing factors
of service level (including asset performance), risk and cost.
• Sustainable – take a long-term, lifecycle-based approach to estimating asset investment and
activities.
• Aligned – ensure that the asset management program complements the strategic
objectives of BPRD, as well as other key business systems, policies and regulation.

1.4 AMP Planning and Development Process


Responsibility for managing the City’s parks and recreation system is spread across several work groups
within the Parks and Recreation Department including Planning, Operations and Maintenance,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Information Technology (IT), Forestry and Budget and
Finance. In late 2016, an Asset Management Matrix Team was formed consisting of experts in each
work group assisted by mentors established in upper management, as well as by the expert knowledge
of field, maintenance and operations staff.

The AMP Matrix Team was tasked with the preparation of a comprehensive framework for BPRD asset
management within a user-friendly document that can be easily implemented across all staff levels. The
AMP Matrix Team met with BPRD management monthly to provide updates on the AMP progress and

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 8
deliverables. Findings of the AMP were reviewed by BPRD management and provided to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) for review and comment.

The BPRD AMP only applies to the assets tracked, maintained, and purchased by BPRD. Assets that are
tracked and maintained by other department assets frameworks are excluded, even in the cases where
BPRD purchases those assets, i.e. computers, vehicles, etc.

This document includes a step-by-step approach to asset management, clearly defining key principles of
asset management and outlining a linear system for evaluation of an asset. Future chapters of the AMP
will provide an overview of BPRD decision making processes that will guide implementation and
investment plans.

Figure 1.4.1: Chapters of the AMP

Chapter 6:
Chap. 2: Asset Inventory = Categorizing Facts
Data-Driven
Chap. 3: Condition Assessments = Identifying Risk
Decision
Chap. 4: Asset Criticality = Priority to BPRD Making
Chap. 5: Asset Costs
(Coming in
2018)

1.5 Living Document


The findings of the team are included in the following document. This is a living document that
memorializes the AMP planning process and is intended to be updated to adapt to the evolving needs of
the department, to new advances in technology and asset management processes, and to represent the
goals and directives of the department.

This document should be updated every three years to ensure the viability of the Asset Management
Program. Unit costs should be updated to reflect market conditions and asset conditions should be
reevaluated to account for asset deterioration, replacement needs or when new construction results in
altered or new assets. BPRD must commit to continuous implementation of this program and continual
updates to the underlying data and information that is critical to the AMP’s on-going success.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 9
Chapter 2: Asset Inventory
2.1 Overview
BPRD has an extensive inventory of assets across 100 developed parks and facilities accounting for over
1,800 acres of land. It is critical to the success of the AMP that information is collected that defines the
characteristics of each asset, of each park location, and of the parks and recreation system. This chapter
focuses on the collection of information defining what an asset is, what information is critical to collect
about an asset, how assets are grouped in categories, and how this vast amount of data is organized in a
GIS relational database. This information is the foundation of the AMP and is critical to the success of
the program.

2.2 What is an Asset?


Assets are physical features in the BPRD system that are owned and/or managed by BPRD. Assets are
critical to the function of parks and facilities with respect to department mission, safety, and desired
level of service requirements and have a value that requires the asset to be capitalized. Anything of
value that provides service potential or future economic benefits over a period greater than one year
and that has a cost which is not “immaterial” (typically defined as greater than $1,000) is considered an
asset and is thus tracked in the Asset Management database and software. Assets are typically fixed-in-
place infrastructure in parks or recreation facilities, but assets may also be equipment and park-specific
vehicles with significant value and life cycles such as mowers or treadmills. There are additional types of
assets that are maintained by other city departments within different asset management frameworks,
including technology, equipment, complex buildings and facilities, and vehicles; see Appendix A.5 for a
comprehensive list of assets that are tracked and maintained by BPRD.

Examples of assets are:


• Playground equipment
• Sheds and park shelters
• Tennis courts including all necessary components to make a functioning court
• Paths and plazas
• Irrigation systems
• Horticultural beds
• Components of recreation centers or aquatic facilities such as pool equipment, exercise
equipment and specialized sports or workout equipment

Assets are not:


• Individual components making up a larger piece of equipment or asset such as hardware,
fasteners and accessories
• Equipment that costs less than $1000 and/or has a life cycle of less than 1 year

2.3 Assets and Feature Classes – What’s the difference?


Throughout this document, the term ‘asset’ is used to describe individual physical features of a park,
property or facility. The sheer number of assets across the BPRD system requires a complex

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 10
organizational system, typically utilizing a GIS database in combination with asset management
software. In such systems, assets with similar characteristics are grouped together in GIS ‘feature
classes’ to simplify organization and management processes. ‘Feature classes’ are a database
classification for physical objects or ‘assets’. An individual feature class includes assets of different but
similar types. For example, the ‘Furniture’ feature class includes benches, tables, grills, and other park
infrastructure that are represented by points in GIS demarking their physical location. Similar assets
within a feature class all require tracking of similar characteristic information such as location,
manufacturer, model, install dates, etc. The following diagram illustrates how the court feature class
contains a variety of recreation areas that are designed for the play of specific sports.

Figure 2.3.1: Asset as they relate to GIS Feature Classes

Sand Volleyball
Courts

Basketball
Horsehoe Pits
Courts

"Court" Roller Sport


Tennis Courts
Rinks
Feature Class

2.4 Asset Inventory - Fields of Information


The asset inventory includes key characteristics about each individual asset such as location, materials,
dimensions, current replacement costs, age, lifecycle, and criticality to BPRD’s mission. These
characteristics inform decisions regarding asset maintenance and department-wide investment and help
set priorities according to the values outlined in the BPRD Master Plan. This information is typically
stored in the department’s GIS database and asset management software. The asset inventory is not a
static database but rather reflects BPRD’s best understanding of all the assets it maintains at any given
time. The BPRD asset inventory is continually being updated as information is gathered, as assets are
fixed or replaced, and as park redevelopment occurs.

Asset Inventory Information Stored in Feature Class Tables


The asset inventory tracks detailed information about an asset that further describes the asset’s
characteristics. When properly managed through GIS databases and asset management software, this

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 11
basic information can be queried or compiled through various reporting functions to allow for analysis of
an asset or comparison among asset types and locations. In general, the following information is
recorded for all assets in the inventory:

• A 10-digit identifier code unique for each asset


• Asset location
• Installation date
• Renovation or recapitalization date
• Ownership information
• Condition Score – see Chapter 3
• Criticality Score - see Chapter 4
• Current replacement cost

Where appropriate, additional information that identifies certain other key asset characteristics, such as
historical significance and revenue generation, is also included in the inventory. These important
characteristics are highlighted in the decision-making process to ensure consideration.

Feature Class Process and Data Guides


In addition to storage of information in GIS and asset management software, critical asset information is
provided in user friendly summaries in the Feature Class Process and Data Guides (feature class guides)
located in Appendix 5 of this AMP document. The feature class guides include a subject matter
overviews, discussions of specific asset types within the feature classes, condition assessment guides
specific to each feature class, work summaries and listings of common work tasks and events, a data
dictionary that discusses data and GIS protocol for the feature class, and a list of frequently asked
questions relevant to the feature class. The feature class guides can be used together as an overarching
guide for the department or they can be used independently as “how to” guides for staff specializing in
the management of specific types of assets and feature classes.

Inventory Organization
Asset inventory information is organized into two distinct categories: one for fixed assets in the park
system and one for assets maintained by BPRD in specialized facilities such as recreation and aquatic
centers.

Parks system assets are distinct components of the parks and natural lands system that are located
within clearly defined park or natural land properties and managed and/or operated primarily by BPRD.
It is important to note that in some cases, an asset exists within a location that is jointly managed by
BPRD and other entities, such as right of way areas managed in collaboration with Transportation or
athletic fields that are owned by the Boulder Valley School District but managed by BPRD. In these
cases, asset boundaries correspond to the areas managed and maintained by Parks and Recreation and
not to legal parcel ownership boundaries.

Specialized facilities assets include the department’s three recreation centers and two aquatic facilities.
The structures that house these facilities are largely maintained by the city’s Facilities and Asset

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 12
Management Division (FAM), though some fixed and non-fixed assets within the facilities, such as
workout equipment and pool mechanical systems, are owned and operated solely by BPRD. The AMP
focuses on the assets that are the responsibility of BPRD to manage. In addition to this document,
detailed information on BPRD-owned or operated buildings and facilities can be found in the 2015
Boulder Aquatic Feasibility Plan and the 2016 Facilities Strategic Plan. As noted, BPRD will be working
with FAM in future years to better clarify roles between departments and to determine possibilities for a
more closely coordinated asset management program for assets with split operational responsibilities.

2.5 Park System Asset Classification


A hierarchy of assets and distinct management areas has been created to establish relationships
between assets (i.e. parent-child) and to provide a framework for summarizing data in reports. This
hierarchy applies only to the organizational structure of asset information and has no basis on criticality,
or importance, of an asset. Asset criticality is further discussed in Chapter 4.

A Group of Related Assets refers to a collection of assets that are part of a larger park facility. For
example, a baseball field includes a Group of Related Assets such as athletic turf, concession stands,
dugouts as well as many secondary assets such as bleachers and athletic field lighting. For Playgrounds,
the playground boundary includes all play surfaces as well as equipment features.

Asset Areas refer to assets that are mapped in GIS by their perimeter area and that, when combined,
make up 100% of the managed park site. In the case of playgrounds, unique surfacing types such as
poured-in-place rubber or sand are mapped by their perimeter polygon as unique asset areas. These
areas may include other related assets that are represented as point or line features (see below) within
the surrounding asset area. For example, a playground area may include swings, slides and spring
rockers. Every playground is made up of unique features and thus each major feature must be
inventoried for an understanding of each playground and what work must be done to take care of it.

Asset Lines and Points are mapped in GIS as point or linear features that may occur anywhere within the
park system. Sometimes these features are directly related to a specific asset area, such as baseball
diamond fencing or tennis court lights, and sometimes they are simply part of the general park
infrastructure, such as a bench or perimeter fence.

The following figures illustrate how assets are classified in a diagram view and in a conceptual park
layout view.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 13
Figure 2.5.1: Park System Asset Classification – Diagram View

Figure 2.5.2: Park System Asset Classification – Sample Park Layout

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 14
2.6 Specialized Facilities Asset Classification – Coming in 2019
BPRD recognizes the need to develop a system of inventorying and classifying assets within and related
to specialized facilities such as recreation centers and aquatic facilities. Such a system requires in depth
coordination with the city’s Facilities and Asset Management Division due to the split responsibilities for
management and operation of these facilities. At the time of issuance of this AMP document, such
discussions are underway. Results of these discussions as well as processes for addressing assets within
specialized facilities will be included in later amendments to the AMP document.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 15
Chapter 3: Condition Assessment
3.1 Overview
BPRD manages assets in various physical conditions and in various stages of the asset life cycle.
Responsible budgeting requires a throrough understanding of asset condition over time, including
budgeting for maintenance, repairs, upgrades and eventual asset replacement or removal. In turn, this
requires a rigorous and replicable process for asset inspection, determining asset condition and for
tracking changes in asset condition over time.

3.2 What Is a Condition Assessment?


A Condition Assesment is a detailed record and snapshot in time of the physical condition of an asset. It
is used to determine the maintenance needs of an asset and to evaluate the remaining useful life of the
asset. A Condition Assessment should not be confused with routine asset inspection. Condition
assessments conducted as part of the AMP process are used to determine overall asset condition on a
recurring basis, generally every one to three years. Routine asset inspections are conducted more
frequently to identify and address immediate safety issues and repair needs.

3.3 Why Conduct a Condition Assessment?


One of the key themes of the 2014 Parks and Recreation Master Plan was “Taking Care of What We
Have.” This AMP document supports that theme by providing a process for inventorying BPRD managed
assets, documenting their condition and planning for their life cycle.

An important part of the AMP process, a condition assessment documents the condition of an asset,
evaluates the asset’s predicted life expectancy, identifies short-term repair or maintenance work
needed to maintain asset functionality, and indentifies major recapitalization or repair work needed to
extend the useful life of an asset. It is important to note that manufacturer-determined asset life cycles
can be significantly impacted by asset use, environmental conditions, and adherence to maintenance
requirements. These factors in turn have a direct impact on department maintenance and asset
replacement budgets and can help to predict when major expenditures will be necessary.

As an example, an annual condition assessment of a recently installed tennis court might identify minor
cracking due to the seasonal freeze and thaw cycles of Colorado winters. The condition assessment
would note such cracking and inform a related work order to fill the cracks, protecting the court surface
from degradation and extending the life of the court. Funding for such work should come from annual
operating and maintenance budgets.

By comparison, a similar condition assessment on a court installed 15 years ago might note significant
wear on the court surface, poor condition of surrounding fencing and court nets, and significant
degradation of the court surface. This combination of poor condition and asset age might help to inform
a determination to recapitalize or replace the asset, funding for either of which would likely come from
capital budget requests instead of annual operating or maintenance budgets.

In either case, a funding determination would be made only after consideration the asset’s condition
against its criticality, or importance, to the BPRD system. In general, highly critical assets are prioritized

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 16
for funding, while a low criticality asset would likely not take funding precendent, or in some cases
should be decommissioned instead of funded for additional work. In depth information regarding
criticality can be found in Chapter 4 – Asset Criticality.

3.4 When and How?


Condition Assessments should be conducted on a regular basis and recurrance may vary between one to
three years based upon criticality and usage of an asset or of an overall park location. For instance, a
heavily visited park or frequently used asset, such as playground equipment, would require annual
inspection. On the contrary, a park with low visitor numbers or assets with minimal use or risk of failure
might only be inspected every few years. Regardless of the determined inspection interval, condition
assessments should be conducted on a regularly recurring basis to inform an accurate inventory and
condition summary from one inspection period to the next.

The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning process begins in November of each year.
Therefore, any large project needs, such as playground replacement or parking lot repaving, need to be
identified in advance to the asset manager time to develop work budget and to incorporate any
significant funding requests into the CIP process.

Specific asset condition assessment frequencies and details are described in the Feature Class Process
and Data Guides in Appendix 5. In general, the following properties should have annual condition
assessments completed for all assets because each locations high criticality and high visitor use:

• Pearl Street Mall


• East Boulder Community Park
• Foothills Community Park
• Harlow Platts Community Park
• Boulder Reservoir Regional Park
• Scott Carpenter Park
• Valmont Bike Park

The following asset categories should also be subject to annual condition assessments based upon heavy
use, criticality and consequences of failure of an asset:

• Playgrounds and other play equipment


• Courts – tennis courts, basketball courts
• Parking lots

All other condition assessments should be conducted on a 2-3 year schedule as outlined in the Feature
Class Process and Data Guides.

3.5 Condition Assessment Scoring


In general, condition assessment scoring follows a very similar process across most assets. The scoring
process utilizes a pre-determined asset scorecard which simplifies asset inspections by providing a user-
friendly visual rating scale for each inspection topic. This approach also provides a level of consistency
among users and encourages objectivity in results. Visual evaulations correspond with a rating scale
ranging from serious to good condition. Findings of the condition assesment are entered into the

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 17
department’s asset management software where condition assessment ratings are translated into a
numeric score. Though the scoring process for each asset varies by the needs and components of the
asset, each results in an overall asset condition score that allows for comparison of assets across the
BPRD system.

For example, following the condition assessment methodology found in the feature class guides, a
basketball court would be inspected on a recurring basis for surface condition, condition of functional
components such as the basketball hoops/back boards, and paint and markings. The inspector would
assign a condition rating to each assessment category and enter the scores into the asset management
software. Per the figure below, low scores represent assets or components in serious or poor condition,
often with missing or broken pieces, evident safety concerns or conditions below the department’s
desired service level. On the other end of the scale, a high score represents an asset or component in
good or excellent condition. Each component score represents a given condition and component scores
are automatically weighted and tallied by the software to provide an overall asset condition score.

Condition ratings and visual descriptions of each rating are provided below:

Table 3.5.1: Condition Rating Examples

Condition Rating Description

Serious Very poor condition = missing components, immediate safety concern and must
be removed from public use until repaired.

Poor Fair condition = no safety concerns but condition is below our expectation or is
showing rapid deterioration.

Fair Decent condition = asset’s condition is what we would expect but requires
regular assessments to ensure proper maintenance.

Good Good condition = asset’s condition is better than our expectation.

Excellent Excellent condition = new asset.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 18
Serious Condition - This play structure has
been vandalized and is missing parts. Exits
were boarded up to prevent falls but still
pose a safety concern. A ‘serious’ rating
would automatically trigger work orders
and may result in the closure of the asset
until repairs are made.

Poor Condition - The swing structure


needs to be completely painted. The
structure also exhibits significant
movement, indicating that it may be
reaching the end of its useful life.

Fair Condition - This climber requires


painting and replacement of some bars but
is otherwise functional and safe.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 19
Good Condition - The structure is a few
years old but does not show significant
wear and poses no safety hazards.

Excellent Condition – This playground


equipment was recently installed and is in
like-new condition.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 20
3.6 Condition Assessment Case Study #1: Park East Park Basketball
Court
The Park East Park basketball court
was installed in 1974 and was fully
resurfaced and repainted in 2011.
Key components of the basketball
court requiring condition
assessment inspections and
documentation on a recurring basis
include the court surface, its
functional components including
the basketball hoops and
backboards, as well as the court’s
paint and markings.

As detailed in the Courts Feature


Class Process and Data Guide found
in the Appendix 5, a condition
assessment for such a court should be completed every three years. During the condition assessment
inspection, an inspector would review all aspects of the court, assigning a value rating ranging from
Serious to Excellent condition based upon the rating classification detailed in the feature class
document.

In the case of Park East Park’s basketball court, its recent renovation yeilds high ratings for all three
components. These ratings are translated by the asset management software into scores that are
weighted based upon their importance to the overall function of the asset. These scores total a
maximum of 100 points, or 100 percent, for each asset. The total asset score, in this case a score of 100,
the maximum possible, indicates that this asset is in good repair, is fully functional, and is at the highest
condition rating possible for an asset due to its recent renovation.

Table 3.6.1: Park East Basketball Court Condition Assessment Example

Feature or Characteristic Assessed Maximum Category Score


Score Rating

Surface 50 Excellent 1 50

Functional Components = basketball hoop & backboard 30 Excellent 2 30

Paint Markings 20 Excellent 3 20

Total Score 100 100

1
Excellent = 50, Good = 37.5, Fair = 25, Poor = 12.5, Serious = 0
2
Excellent = 30, Good = 22.5, Fair = 15, Poor = 7.5, Serious = 0
3
Excellent = 20, Good = 15, Fair = 10, Poor = 5, Serious = 0

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 21
3.7 Condition Assessment Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive
Turf
Tom Watson Park was originally
constructed in the early 1970’s and
includes both active and passive turf
areas requiring recurring condition
assessments and responsive
maintenance work. As detailed in the
Turf Feature Class Process and Data
Guide found in Appendix 5, condition
assessments for turf areas should be
completed annually, or more frequently
for heavily used locations. Passive turf
areas are only inspected for general
coverage and turf health, while active
turf areas are also inspected for their
functional components as well as their
Clegg Score, a measure of hardness
used to determine proper surface density for sports applications as well as for safety.

In this example, the passive turf area at Tom Watson Park has not seen a major replacement since the
park’s construction. While the passive turf area is functional for passive recreation, it also includes a
number of bare spots, several areas of high soil compaction, and significant weed infestations including
dandelions and thistles. Per the Turf feature class guide, a visual inspection of the turf yields a rating of
“Fair”, or a score of 25 points. Because the passive turf areas are not inspected for functional
componenets or Clegg Score, the passive turf score is adjusted by a multiplier of two to ensure the
ability to compare all turf areas equally when additional points for functional compoments and Clegg
Score are factored in for active turf areas.

Table 3.7.1: Tom Watson Park Turf Condition Assessment Example

Feature or Characteristic Assessed Maximum Category Score


Score Rating

% Coverage = without bare spots and/or weeds 50 Fair 4 25

Active Turf Functional Components = Lines, Features Not Not Applicable Not
Applicable Applicable

Active Turf Clegg Score Not Not Applicable Not


Applicable Applicable

Total Score, for Passive Turf multiply by 2 100 50

4
Excellent = 50, Good = 37.5, Fair = 25, Poor = 12.5, Serious = 0

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 22
3.8 Condition Assessment Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
The Eben G. Fine Park shelter was
constructed circa 1930 and is one
of BPRD’s most popular rental
shelters. In addition to its
potential for revenue generation,
the shelter is also a City of Boulder
historic landmark and has been
repaired and restored utilizing
grant funding. Each of these
factors should be noted in asset
management software to alert
users and staff that this particular
asset requires additional
consideration when making
decisions about work, maintenance
and its future.

Due to its frequent use and local importance, the individual components of the structure, including its
roof, walls, infrastructure such as electric and plumbing, and flooring surfaces are in varying conditions.
As outlined in the Shelters Feature Class Guide in Appendix 5, the shelters primary components are each
inspected and given a condition score. These scores are tallied against a total of 100 points to yield a
composite score for the asset.

Table 3.8.1: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter Condition Assessment Example

Feature or Characteristic Assessed Maximum Category Score


Score Rating

Roof 30 Good5 22.5

Walls 30 Excellent5 30

Functional Infrastructure = Electric or Plumbing 24 Good6 18

Flooring and/or Surface 16 Good7 12

Total Score 100 82.5

In this case, a total score of 82.5 is an indication that the asset is in good overall condition, but that
routine maintenance work is likely needed to ensure its continued service and to maintain its condition
level.

5
Excellent = 30, Good = 22.5, Fair = 15, Poor = 7.5, Serious = 0
6
Excellent = 24, Good = 18, Fair = 12, Poor = 6, Serious = 0
7
Excellent = 16, Good = 12, Fair = 8, Poor = 4, Serious = 0

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 23
Chapter 4: Asset Criticality
4.1 Overview:
Boulder Parks and Recreation’s mission statement is to “promote the health and well-being of the entire
community by collaboratively providing high-quality parks, facilities and programs.” To provide such a
high-quality portfolio of recreation properties and programs in a financially sustainable manner, it is vital
to understand the value of the different properties and their assets to the community. Asset criticality
attempts to establish a numeric score representative of an asset or facility’s criticality, or importance, to
the community and to the overall parks and recreation system.

This chapter explains BPRD’s process for prioritizing assets to make data-driven decisions using asset
criticality scoring. Criticality scores are used by BPRD to evaluate assets and facilities against one
another, helping to objectively develop investment strategies that incorporate preventative
maintenance, repairs, and replacement of assets within annual and long-term budgets and resource
constraints. The score must evolve with community and department priorities over time but should
only be modified under thorough review to support a level of stability within the asset scores for
effective long-term financial planning. 8

The intent behind the following scoring design is to ensure a well-maintained BPRD system that
embodies the priorities of the department and community. This chapter will address the asset criticality
structure, provide examples of the asset criticality structure using current BPRD assets, and the explore
the logistics around asset criticality development and tracking.

4.2 Asset Criticality Score:


The asset criticality score is based on a scale of 0 to 100 and is the average of two distinct sub-scores
that are vital to determining an asset’s value to the BPRD mission and Boulder community. The first
sub-score, called the “Property Score,” determines the importance of the property where the asset is
installed. The second sub-score, called the “Asset Score,” determines the value of the specific asset to
the property's operations. Each sub-score is comprised of individual attributes that are further
described below:

1. Property Score
Comprised of:

8
Asset Criticality will evolve over time as the department and community change, but in the immediate future
with the implementation BPR’s new asset management software, Beehive®, there could be immediate and more
systematic changes to occur in 2018.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 24
a. Master Plan Designation Score: scored based on the property’s BPRD master plan category

Master Plan
Definition 9 Score
Designation Example Properties
City/Regional Parks Developed parks between 100 and 300 acres in size
and Recreation and generally a draw for both community members 30
Facilities and non-community members. Chautauqua Park
Properties that are uniquely different than
prototypical parks and include places like Pearl
Street Mall, Harbeck House, and the Columbia
Civic Space and
Cemetery. Additionally, this category contains 22.5
Natural Lands
properties that are designated natural lands that
provide eco-system services to the whole
community. Civic Park
Properties between 20 and 100 acres in size.
Community Park Generally a mix of natural and developed space for East Boulder 15
recreation. Community Park
Neighborhood Properties up to 20 acres in size, usually accessed
7.5
Parks by foot traffic. Martin Park

b. Property Usage Score: scored based on observed use as compared to property capacity

Property
Definition Score
Usage 10 Example Properties
Extremely High Over capacity 11 Eben G. Fine Park 40
Harlow Platts
High 68%-100% (top third of capacity) 32
Community Park
Medium 34-67% (middle third of capacity) Tantra Park 24
Washington School
Low 0-33% of capacity (bottom third of capacity) 16
Park
No Recreation Used for other purposes like transportation, natural
8
Usage lands, or greenspace without recreation design Area III

c. Audience Score: scored based on observed user groups who interact with the property

Example
Audience Definition Score
Properties
Everyone Everyone Pearl Street Mall 30

9
Reference pages 26-28 of BPR 2013 Master Plan for full definitions, text in this table was developed for
conceptual understanding.
10
Usage is defined as the property’s average number of users during peak season (June-August)
11
Capacity is defined as 50 users per acre and is collected by field technician observation

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 25
Large
Geographic Over 50% of users come from further than 1/2 Mile
24
and User- Radius and the property can support 3+ user groups Foothills
Group Reach Community Park
User Group Specific user group property that can support 1-2 user
18
Specific groups Flatirons Golf
Small
Over 50% of users come from less than 1/2 mile radius
Geographic 12
and the property supports less than 2 user groups
Reach Arrowood Park
The property is not designed or used for recreation, it
Maintenance
is likely a corridor for transportation or greenspace 6
Only
that isn’t for recreation. Whittier Row

2. Asset Score
Comprised of:
a. Asset Utility Score: scored based on the level of impact an asset has on the property’s
ability to function
Asset Utility Definition Example Assets Score
Property cannot operate without this asset in safe Pool at Scott
Essential 50
working condition (0-30% operable) Carpenter Park
Bleachers at
Property is severely limited without this asset in safe
High-Value Mapleton 40
working condition (31-60% operable)
Ballfields
Property is not operating at an ideal level without this Turf at Arrowood
Mid-Value 30
asset in safe working condition (61-90% Park
Property can operate for an extended period of time Tire Swing at Elks
Low-Value 20
without this asset in safe working condition (90% plus) Park
Property can operate without this asset (no impact on Bench at Parkside
No Value 10
operations) Park

b. Asset Usage Score: scored based on observed use of an asset


Asset Usage Definition Example Assets Score
Rocketship at
high volume, primarily active use with some passive
High Scott Carpenter 50
use
Park
Shelter at Palo
Medium moderate volume, passive and some active use 33.33
East Park
Bench at
Low Low volume, passive use 16.66
Arrowood Park

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 26
Diagram 4.1.1 shows how all the attributes and sub-scores work together to produce an asset criticality
score.

Figure 4.1.1: Asset Criticality Score Composition

Asset Criticality
Average of Property and Asset Scores, Max. 100 pts

Property Score Asset Score


Max. 100 pts Max. 100 pts

Master Plan Property


Audience Asset Usage Asset Utility
Designation Usage
Max. 30 pts Max. 40 pts Max. 30 pts Max. 50 pts Max. 50 pts

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 27
4.3 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #1: Park East Park Basketball
Court
The first case study is the basketball court at Park East. Though not a large regional park, Park East Park
still draws users from a large geographic area. It is designated in the 2014 BPRD Master Plan as a
Neighborhood Park, larger and more heavily used than smaller parks but not as frequently utilized as
more popular community and regional parks. Within the park, the park’s basketball court is one of its
key features and is heavily used compared to the park’s other assets. Looking holistically at the entire
BPRD system, the scoring below demonstrates that the basketball court is popular and important to the
function of Park East Park, but in comparison to other parks, Park East, and therefore its basketball
court, is not as vital to the BPRD system, mission, and community as others. The resulting scoring still
highlights the basketball court as a relatively important asset in the system but might also indicate that
the department should consider funding of other priorities before considering this asset, especially
when considered along with the court’s high condition score detailed in Chapter 3.

Table 4.3.1: Park East Park Basketball Court Criticality Scoring

Attribute Categories Attributes of Park East Park Score


Audience Large Geographic 24
Master Plan Designation Neighborhood Park 7.5
Usage Medium 24
Property Score: Park East Park 55.5

Attribute Categories Attributes of Basketball Court Score


Asset Utility High-Value 40
Asset Usage High 50
Asset Score: Basketball Court 90

Asset Criticality Score: Basketball Court at Park East = (Property Score + Asset Score)/2 72.75

4.4 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #2: Tom Watson Park Passive
Turf
The next example reviews passive turf at Tom Watson Park. Of the AMP’s three case study examples,
this asset’s criticality scores the lowest because the asset and property are both used less by the
community as compared to other assets and locations. This asset will be important to track due to its
deteriorating condition as highlighted in Chapter 3. Prior to allocating limited department funding
and/or staff resources for Tom Watson Park’s turf areas, the department should to take into
consideration this asset’s criticality compared to the broader BPRD system to determine if this asset
should be a priority for such allocation.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 28
Table 4.4.1: Tom Watson Park Passive Turf Criticality Scoring

Attribute Categories Attributes of Tom Watson Park Score


Audience Large Geographic 24
Master Plan Designation Neighborhood Park 7.5
Usage Medium 24
Property Score: Tom Watson Park 55.5

Attribute Categories Attributes of Passive Turf Score


Asset Utility High-Value 40
Asset Usage Medium 33.33
Asset Score: Passive Turf 73.33

Asset Criticality Score: Passive Turf at Tom Watson = (Property Score + Asset Score)/2 63.415

4.5 Asset Criticality Score Case Study #3: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
The last example reviews the shelter at Eben G. Fine Park. The score for this asset is significantly higher
than previous examples (approximately 11 points) because the asset is not only deemed critical to the
park itself, but also because Eben G. Fine Park is a more critical property to the overall BPRD system,
mission, and community than Park East Park and Tom Watson Park. If these three case study example
assets were competing for the same dollars, considering the fiscal constraints and other system needs,
the Eben G. Fine shelter should be considered a higher priority for funding based on this model.

Table 4.5.1: Eben G. Fine Park Shelter Criticality Scoring

Attribute Categories Attributes of Eben G. Fine Score


Audience Everyone 30
Master Plan Designation Neighborhood Park 7.5
Usage Extremely High 40
Property Score: Park East 77.5

Attribute Categories Attributes of Shelter Score


Asset Utility High-Value 40
Asset Usage High 50
Asset Score: Shelter 90

Asset Criticality Score: Shelter at Eben G. Fine = (Property Score + Asset Score)/2 83.75

In addition, it is important to note that the Eben G. Fine Park shelter is also a historic and revenue
generating asset, meaning that extra consideration should be given to the importance of this asset to
the department and city.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 29
4.6 Criticality and Condition Comparison Chart
Objective, data driven asset management decision making can only be made after comparing an asset’s
condition against an asset’s criticality. In general, funding priorities should focus on highly critical assets
in less than ideal condition to bring the department’s overall asset inventory to a desired level of service.

For illustrative purposes, the graph below shows the comparison of an asset’s condition to its criticality
to the BPRD system and community. On this graph, criticality scoring is shown on the vertical “Y” axis
with low criticality at the bottom of the chart and a high score of “100” at the top of the chart. On the
“X” axis, condition scores range from 0, or poor, on the left side of the chart to 100, or excellent, on the
right side of the chart.

In general, the chart should be interpreted in quadrants. The top right quadrant, shown in green, as well
as the bottom right column in yellow, illustrate assets of various criticality to the department that are
also in relatively good condition, not likely requiring prioritization for immediate resource allocation.
Conversely, the bottom left quadrant of this chart, in red, represents assets in poor condition that are
not comparatively critical to the BPRD mission. This also means that assets in this quadrant likely should
not be prioritized and perhaps should be considered for removal or decommissioning. Focus should be
directed to assets falling in the top left quadrant of the graph. Such assets are highly critical to the
department, but are also in comparatively lesser condition. Funding and resource allocation should be
prioritized for these assets to prevent a disruption in service.

This tool will be further used and explained in Chapter 6 – Data Driven Decision Making, to understand
how all the information collected and maintained through chapters 1-5 of the AMP can be used
systematically to make resource decisions.

Figure 4.6.1 – Criticality and Condition Chart

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 30
4.7 Criticality Logistics:
The criticality scoring dataset will be maintained in the BPRD asset management software 12 and will be a
“living” dataset that can and should evolve over time. To date, the criticality scores have been
established either through official documentation, like the General Maintenance and Management Plan
(GMMP) and BPRD Master Plan, or through surveys of technical staff who routinely work at the different
properties. It is anticipated that criticality scoring will improve in consistency as properties and assets
are reviewed objectively following the procedures set forth in the AMP document.

12
BPR is scheduled to implement Beehive® in 2018 as BPR’s asset management software. While the software
could change in the future, the intent of the AMP is to be software agnostic.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 31
Chapter 5: Asset Costs
5.1 Overview
This chapter addresses tracking, understanding, and utilizing asset cost data to develop, maintain,
operate, renew, and replace assets in a fiscally responsible manner. The major costs that BPRD tracks
will support the development of a Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) for each asset. The elements
that go into the TCFO include, planning and design, installation (labor & materials), operations,
maintenance, recapitalization 13, and removal costs. Additionally, key to this process is maximizing
automation of the tracking and projection of future cost components while maintaining a responsible
level of precision.

This chapter outlines a cost projection model that includes a mix of actual costs and predictive
assumptions. While some of the predictive assumptions will change overtime due to experience and
data collection, the goal is to keep the cost projection structure virtually untouched to support
consistency over the long term. BPRD will use tools like the asset management software or
manufacturer costing sheets to track true costs and help to annually review and update the predictive
assumptions in the cost model described below. The remainder of this chapter will address the asset
cost structure, review examples of the cost structure applied to a current BPRD assets and outline the
logistics around maintaining the cost estimating and tracking process. Like other chapters, this chapter
will provide an overview of the AMP cost structure while Appendix 2 provides in-depth specifics
including a chart of cost assumptions by feature class.

5.2 Asset Cost Structure:


The assumptions 14 supporting the asset cost structure for BPRD will be continually refined over time as
the department collects detailed cost information and analyzes it by specific feature classes. The goal is
for projected costs developed and maintained by BPRD to require minimal resources to maintain while
keeping the projections within an acceptable level of precision 15. With this goal in mind, the structure of
cost estimating is essentially a model that develops costs based on assumptions applied to confirmed
data like install costs (IC) 16 and current replacement costs (CRC) 17.

Each element of the TCFO is a specific assumption applied to a confirmed IC or CRC. For example, the
cost for maintenance of turf is assumed to be 5% of install cost adjusted for inflation over the life of the
turf. The assumption in this example is the 5% of install cost, which overtime will be refined as needed
based on true costs collected. Based on the asset-specific details provided in the feature class guides, all
or a select group of TCFO cost elements will be relevant depending on asset type, making it critical to
tailor the cost model by feature class and in some cases by specific asset. Additionally, some elements

13
Recapitalization efforts are major asset renewals, pending the size, complexity, special features, and cost of an
asset, it can have no recapitalization efforts in the case of a bench or an endless number in terms of historic assets.
14
Assumption are the factors BPR uses to establish different elements of asset costs
15
Precision of +/- of 10% in 2018; +/- of 8% by 2021; +/- of 6% by 2023; +/- of 5% or less by 2024 and beyond
16
Install Costs: Costs associated with an asset at the time of install, including labor and materials
17
Current Replacement Costs: Current cost estimate to replace an asset that include labor and materials. These
cost estimates are the result of either compounding Inflation of 3.22% since install or based on current year cost
estimations—source will be noted but goal is to have low data maintenance costs.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 32
will be used differently depending on the feature class. For instance, recapitalization for historic registry
assets will be on-going instead of finite to ensure continued preservation of the asset. Likewise, assets
like a playground will incur maintenance costs but not operational costs.

Table 5.2.1, below, displays the concept behind the BPRD asset cost structure highlighting possible types
of assumptions that could be developed for an asset. The table is a hypothetical asset with a simple cost
to help show how the cost projections model works. Some basic example details were used including an
example installation cost from 2015, which means 3 years of inflation were used to develop the current
replacement cost (based on the 2018 publishing of this AMP document). Likewise, this example asset is
assumed to have a 10-year lifecycle—pertinent to costs like maintenance and operations. Note that all
costs in the AMP framework are rounded, but data collected in the asset management software will not
be rounded.

Table 5.2.1: Conceptual Asset Cost Structure

Example Asset Assumption Cost


$ 100
Install Cost (IC) (Labor + Materials) Most recent install financial data
(2015 cost)
Planning and Design 8% of Current Replacement Cost $ 8
Operations 5% of Install Cost * Lifecycle w/inflation $ 75
Maintenance 3% of Install Cost * Lifecycle w/inflation $ 45
Recapitalization 15% of Current Replacement Cost $ 17
Removal 30% of Current Replacement Cost $ 33
Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) Total of all cost elements $ 279
Annual TCFO TFCO/Lifecycle of Asset $ 28
$ 110
Current Replacement Cost (CRC) IC adjusted for inflation
(2018 cost)

The following three tables demonstrate how the cost structure above translates into projected cost
estimates for the three assets used throughout this document to provide real-world examples of AMP
implementation. It is important to note throughout these examples how assumptions change between
feature class, and how some of the changing assumptions are based on specific asset characteristics like
historic registry designation.

In the first example, the Park East Park Basketball Court does not have operational or recapitalization
costs because the court doesn’t have lights and because BPRD doesn’t utilize referees or offer
programming at the court. This type of asset doesn’t typically undergo renewal efforts, but rather total
replacement. Because of these characteristics, the cost table below is basketball court-specific within
the comprehensive cost projection model. For reference, the Install Cost is based on actual cost
estimates developed in 2015.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 33
5.3 Asset Cost Case Study #1 – Park East Park Basketball Court
Table 5.3.1: Park East Basketball Court
Lifecycle: 30yrs

Basketball Court Assumption Cost


$ 38,000
Install Cost (Labor + Materials) Most recent install financial data
(2015 cost)
Planning and Design 8% of CRC $ 3,840
Operations N/A $ -
Maintenance 3% of IC * 30 years w/inflation $ 59,161
Recapitalization N/A $ -
Removal 30% of CRC $ 14,400
Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) Total of all cost elements $ 115,401
Annual TCFO TFCO/Lifecycle of Asset $ 3,847
$ 48,000
Current Replacement Cost (CRC) IC adjusted for inflation
(2018 cost)

5.4 Asset Cost Case Study #2 – Tom Watson Park – Passive Turf
In the second case study, Tom Watson Park’s passive turf costs show similar characteristics to the Park
East Basketball Court example in that there are no operating and recapitalization costs. The key
comparison here is the relatively high cost required to take care of an asset that is lower in criticality
score and in an increasingly degrading condition. Further exploration of investment decision making
processes will be explored in chapter 6, though as a rule, deteriorating assets with low criticality, or in
low criticality locations, should be carefully considered as low priorities for investment, including
possible decommissioning or removal.

Table 5.4.1: Tom Watson Turf


Lifecycle: 50yrs
Turf (611,459 sq. ft.) Assumption Cost 2018
Install Cost (Labor + Materials) .50 * Square Foot $ 305,730
Planning and Design 8% of CRC $ 25,926
Operations N/A -
Maintenance 5% of IC * 50 years w/inflation $ 475,979
Recapitalization N/A -
Removal 30% of CRC $ 97,222
Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) Total of all cost elements $ 904,857
Annual TCFO TFCO/Lifecycle of Asset $ 18,097.13
$ 324,073
Current Replacement Cost (CRC) IC adjusted for inflation (.53/Sq.Ft.)
(2018 cost)

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 34
5.5 Asset Cost Case Study #3 – Eben G. Fine Park Shelter
The last example exhibits a cost model for Eben G. Fine Park’s shelter, a locally landmarked historic
asset. This example shows how certain characteristics can and should modify the assumptions within
the cost projection model. Note that because of its historic designation, the shelter requires more
maintenance than a standard, modern shelter because of requirements to maintain its historic
aesthetic. Furthermore, if BPRD had to replace the shelter, the design and installation costs for a
comparable structure would be higher than those of a standard park shelter. The Install Cost below is
from 1930 documentation on the shelter.

Table 5.5.1: Eben G. Fine Shelter


Lifecycle: Projected - 30yrs/ Current - 87
years

Shelter Assumption Cost 2018


$ 12,736
Install Cost (Labor + Materials) Most recent install financial data
(1930 cost)
Planning and Design 8% of CRC+ 2% Historic Adder $ 20,067
Operations 5% of IC * 87 years w/inflation $ 291,827
3% of IC * 87 years w/inflation + 2%
Maintenance $ 291,827
Additional Historic Cost
Recapitalization 45% of CRC (3 x of recap over life) $ 90,303
Removal 30% of CRC $ 60,202
Total Cost of Facility Ownership (TCFO) Total of all cost elements $ 766,962
Annual TCFO TFCO/Lifecycle of Asset $ 8,816
$ 200,673
Current Replacement Cost (CRC) IC adjusted for inflation
(2018 cost)

5.6 Asset Cost Logistics:


Over the next five years, the cost projection model should undergo an annual review and assumptions,
installation costs, and current replacement costs should be modified based on best available
information collected through the asset management and financial tracking software. In addition to
these data collection tools, the cost projections should also be reviewed and supported by BPRD design
standards as they are developed. 18

In addition to using these sources to improve the assumptions in the cost projections model, BPRD will
also do analysis of costs when an asset is installed, review year-end maintenance and operations costs
per asset type, and review actual recapitalization/removal costs to understand the precision of the
model. Like the criticality process, this is a framework from which implementation plans will be further
developed and appended to this document in 2018.

18
BPRD design standards manual to contract in 2018 standardizing material types and costs for common
construction elements in the BPRD system such as furnishings, lights, paths, etc.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 35
Chapter 6: Investment Strategy
(Coming in 2018/2019)
The first five chapters of the AMP outline processes and procedures for inventorying and evaluating
BPRD’s collection of assets with the goal of providing a foundation for objective, data-driven decision
making. These chapters will be issued in 2018 on a “testing” basis that both informs BPRD’s upcoming
2018 implementation of asset management software, as well as allowing time to test the AMP’s
recommended processes against actual 2018 CIP budget requests and real world department and user
needs.

As a follow-up to issuance of the first five chapters, the AMP Matrix Team is embarking on the
development of Chapter 6 – Investment Strategy with the aim of documenting existing BPRD resource
allocation decision making processes, and aligning those processes with this AMP document. Likewise,
the AMP Matrix Team will work to incorporate new information gathered or business processes
acquired from the asset management software implementation into the entire AMP document. A
revised version of the AMP document, including Chapter 6, is anticipated for issuance in early 2019.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 36
Appendices
A.1 Annual Report – Coming 2018
Summary

The Annual Report appendix will provide a template for compilation of critical BPRD information related
to asset management including annual status updates of the condition and criticality of BPRD’s asset
inventory as well as overviews of resource allocation strategies. The annual report will seek to illustrate
long-term trends tracking the department’s progress related to asset condition and overall service level.

A.2 Financial Reporting – Coming 2018


Summary

Financial reports will evolve as the as the asset management software is deployed, but at minimum will
consist of annual spending that supports BPRD assets. Spending will be categorized into the following
actions: plan development, maintenance, operations, repairs, replacements, and new construction. This
reporting will enable the department to better plan for future costs, identify potential efficiency
opportunities, and support long-term strategic decisions for the funding of BPRD assets.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 37
A.3 Asset and Feature Class Process & Data Guides
An overview of how information about different assets is captured and used can be found in the Asset
and Feature Class Process & Data Guides. Each data guide includes the following sections:

1. Definition and Asset Types included in each category


2. Frequently Asked Questions
3. Condition Assessment Process
4. Work Processes
5. Data Dictionary

Below is a list of the guides and a summary of the asset types and feature classes described in more
detail in each guide. The names are hyperlinks to the documents themselves.

Guide Name Description of Assets & Feature Classes Included Status

Curated and permanent or semi-permanent art installations


Art – with Arts & that are managed by Arts and Cultural Services. In Progress
Cultural Services
PARKS.Art point data in Boulder’s GIS system.

Structures housing Parks and Recreation uses and facilities as


Buildings – with FAM Template Only
managed by FAM and FAM’s asset management system

Cemetery Columbia Cemetery information In Progress

Areas of court assets that are used and designed for specific
activities such as tennis courts, sand volleyball courts, and
horseshoe pits. Features that are an integral part of the Ready for
Courts
function of the asset are recorded as part of the court asset. Review

PARKS.Courts polygon data in Boulder GIS system.

Non-fixed, high value assets located within parks and


Equipment Template Only
specialized facilities

Lines representing barriers of any type and including prairie


Fence & Barriers Template Only
dog barriers, boundary fencing, and retaining walls.

Points representing park infrastructure such as benches,


Furniture In Progress
tables, grills, fountains, etc.

Managed plant beds or planned rock beds that are not


intended to be paths and that include annual and/or
perennial plants, shrubs, trees, or a mixture of plant types Ready for
Horticulture
not including irrigated turf. Small pockets of natural areas Review
may be included where those pockets have limited value as a
natural ecosystem.

Irrigation Irrigation systems and sub-systems In Progress

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 38
Lighting Fixtures – Exterior lighting assets owned by Parks and Recreation and
In Progress
with FAM verified with FAM to prevent duplication

Areas within Parks and Recreation Park Sites that are


managed by the Natural Lands Team. Multiple GIS features
exist that help the in the management of these natural areas
Ready for
Natural Lands but that don’t directly represent “assets” to the department
Review
in the traditional sense. These include areas of invasive weed
species, wildlife and native plant observations, tree plantings,
and data related to prairie dog communities.

FOR REFERENCE ONLY. Areas that are managed by the


Department of Parks and Recreation. Park site polygons are
Park Sites In Progress
drawn according to the entire management area and not
based on parcel boundary.

Building footprint areas for structures that usually have a


roof and includes occupied buildings, park shelters, and
sheds. Other significant structures are included that may not
Park Structures In Progress
have a roof or walls but that do have complex plumbing or
electrical systems such as fuel stations or the splash pad on
the Pearl Street Mall.

Areas that are intended primarily for vehicles including


Parking Lots – with
access roads or driveways, boat parking, maintenance Template Only
Transportation
storage yards as well as traditional parking lots.

Areas that are intended primarily for people to walk or bike


Paths & Plazas – with on including traditional sidewalks but also stairs, ramps,
In Progress
Transportation docks, piers, bridges, etc. Path Features are divided when
surfacing material changes and/or path width changes.

FOR REFERENCE ONLY. Group of Playground sub-areas that


make up a planned playground area. Areas of playground
surfacing, and collection of features designed for play. Areas
are divided by type of surfacing. Points of specific and Ready for
Playgrounds
discrete features within a playground or playground type Review
assets outside of the playground. Includes traditional
playground features but also disc golf features, bike park
features, dog park features, etc.

Recreation Centers
Non-FAM managed assets located within recreation centers,
and Specialized Template Only
aquatic facilities or other specialized facilities
Facilities

Signs Points Template Only

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 39
FOR REFERENCE ONLY. Districts that assist in developing
management plans and communication of data regarding
Trees In Progress
Tree related issues that somewhat represents
‘neighborhoods’ within the city of Boulder.

Areas of regularly irrigated and mowed turf that includes


areas for both active and passive recreation and divided
according to design intentions and use. Actual field layouts
are mapped in an Athletic Field Feature Class for display
Turf & Athletic Fields purposes. In Progress
Athletic Fields - REFERENCE DATA ONLY - actual athletic field
layout to facilitate the field reservation process. These assets
are layered on top of Turf assets that represent the actual
extent of turf that is managed for active recreation.

Points representing waste collection features for all types of


Waste Template Only
waste – trash, recycling, and compost.

April 25, 2018 Parks and Recreation – Asset Management Program Page 40