HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 0515 OSTB Retreat minutes_S MINUTES
OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD
ANNUAL RETREAT
May 15, 2014
Windstar RMI Conference Room, 2317 Snowmass Creek Road, Snowmass
OSTB Present:
Graeme Means Howie Mallory Hawk Greenway Tim McFlynn, Tai Jacober,
Dist. 1 Dist. 2 Dist. 3 Dist. 4 Dist. 5
Chair
Staff Present: Dale Will, Gary Tennenbaum, Lindsey Utter, Paul Holsinger, John Armstrong,
Matt Adeletti, Jon Peacock, Tom Oken, Connie Garofalo, Fran Soroka
Others Present: Kerri Rollins, Zac Wiebe (Larimer County Open Lands Department)
Tai Jacober called the retreat to order at approximately 9:05 a.m.
BOARD ACTION:
Annual OSTB Chair Rotation
Hawk Greenway moved for the OSTB to select Graeme Means (District 1) as OSTB
Chair and Howie Mallory (District 2) as Vice Chair. Howie Mallory seconded. Motion
passed all in favor. (5-0)
Board members decided Graeme would start as chair next OSTB meeting and Tai Jacober would
chair the retreat.
Moore River Parcel
Tim McFlynn moved to approve and recommend to the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners the acquisition of the Moore River Parcel pursuant to the terms of the
contract. Howie Mallory seconded. Motion passed all in favor. (5-0)
OSTB Retreat
Organizational Consultant Final Review Update
County Manager, Jon Peacock presented organizational consultant, Ann Poole's final OST
Program review.
Consultants Final Recommendations
For the Board:
o The structural changes in the program seem to have had an overall very positive
impact. No further recommendations here.
o The Board should do a formal review of the Working Agreements once or twice a
year to make sure they are continuing to provide guidance and support alignment
on how to work together effectively.
o The Working Agreements should also guide the Chair in how they focus the
meeting.
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 1 of 9
o They should also be used when onboarding new Board members.
For OST Staff
o Staff feedback on the new structure and ways of working with the Board seems
very positive, as well. No further recommendations.
o Some internal issues with management structure still need further exploration and
will be addressed in follow up meetings. Consultant suggested continued support
from County Managers Office to ensure sustainability of staff level changes.
The Board asked if other Pitkin departments or public boards have gone through similar
organization process. Other Pitkin departments have gone through similar process to reorganize
and adapt to the fast pace of change.
Kerni Rollins and Zac Wiebe entered the meeting at approximately 9:20 a.m.
Matt Adeletti entered the meeting at approximately 9:45 a.m.
Pitkin County 2014 Survey Results
Jon Peacock presented survey results pertinent to the OST program as part of OST's re-
authorization planning. In addition, Jon provided OST program insights from quest speakers that
presented at the 2014 BOCC retreat. Those insights were that the OST's program provides open
space natural environments and recreational opportunities that attract worldwide interest in our
community. The last Pitkin County survey was in 2004.
Selections from the `Pitkin County 2014 Community Survey' presented to the
Board are attached hereto and made part of this record as "Exhibit A". Pages
referenced hereto are from"Exhibit A".
Executive Summary— Other Findings (p.6)
53% of those surveyed use the County trail system at least once per week. More than
one-fourth (28%) use the trail system 2 to 5 times per week.
75% of those surveyed indicated they receive either some benefit (26%) or great benefit
(49%) for the open space and trails portion of their property tax dollar.
Interpreting the matrix graphs (p. 7-9) in relationship to perceptions of the OST program was
explained. Lower right quadrant(Opportunities for Improvement) results reflect areas that would
offer the best return on program dollars invested. Upper right quadrant results (Continued
Emphasis) reflect areas viewed as highly important with high public satisfaction. Upper left
quadrant results (Exceeded Expectations)reflects high public satisfaction but viewed as lower
importance.
County Services and Initiatives (p.7)
Continued Emphasis: `Parks, trails and open spaces; water quality and quantity'; and
`efforts to protect the environment' and `natural resources' all placed in this quadrant.
Show these aspects of the program are valued and doing well and to continue to
emphasis.
Exceeded Expectations: `Wildlife protection' is placed in this quadrant. Being located in
this quadrant shows the public is satisfied with efforts to protect wildlife.
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 2 of 9
Opportunities for Improvement: 'How well the County is managing growth' falls in this
quadrant. OST program does effect development growth and shows the community
wants continued emphasis to manage growth.
For further analysis results refer to (p.10 and 11). Future authorization continue
emphasis on managing growth through protecting environment/natural resources; trails
and open space; and protecting wildlife.
Sense of Personal Safety (p. 8)
Exceeded Expectations: `Parks,trails and open spaces' and `special events' are in this
quadrant reflecting the community feels very safe on OST assets and are satisfied with
community special events and increased levels of service are not needed.
Transportation (p.9)
Opportunities for Improvement: `Availability of parking' falls within this quadrant.
OST investments in parking would be dollars well spent.
Continued Emphasis: 'Ease of traveling by bicycle' falls within this quadrant and
reflects continued consideration by the OST program.
Exceeded Expectations: `Availability of shared use trails' appears in this quadrant and
demonstrates the community is pleased with the existing level of shared trails.
Q5. Level of benefit received for Open Space and Trails Portion of Property Tax Dollar (p. 12):
When building authorization renewal messaging strategies consider how to capture 'some
benefit' citizens to `great benefit' citizens.
Q6 and Q7(p. 13): Water Resource Question results:
Board comments; County looks toward OST protecting water. Work authorization narrative to
include keeping water here in our community and the role OST plays in achieving this.
Q14 and Q15 (p.15): Illustrates the role OST program plays in partnership with Community
Development managing growth. It was noted that 33% of the Emma Caucus area has been
conserved.
Q 16(p. 16): Staff commented trail head parking and parking in general are County and OST
issues that can be improved through planning efforts with other County Departments.
Tom Oken and Connie Garofalo entered at approximately 10:15 a.m.
Jon Peacock exited the retreat at approximately 11:00 a.m.
Larimer County Open Lands Program's Preparations for Reauthorization Presentation by
Kerri Rollins, Open Lands Program Manager and Zac Wiebe, Fund Development& Special
Projects Coordinator
Dale Will briefly described Pitkin County's OST program's present condition drawing attention
to the retreat packet graph' Pitkin County OST Maintenance costs compared to Revenue' which
illustrates OST's maintenance costs are climbing at a steep trend in comparison to revenue. As
1 Page 14—5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Memo and Attachments
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 3 of 9
earlier discussed the recent Pitkin County survey demonstrates OST program continues to enjoy
public support,but the program needs to be mindful and skilled at anticipating& forecasting
stewardship maintenance costs into perpetuity and communicate this message to our voters.
Additionally, other Pitkin County departments are pursuing OST support in endeavors like
roadside parking and recreation management. Chronically underfunded federal agencies are
seeking partnerships with OST to help fund management initiatives like the Hunter Smuggler
Cooperative Plan. Before OST keeps partnering to do great things that by their nature contribute
to stewardship costs it is important to start figuring out how to predict and calculate these
economic impacts to the fund. The dynamic political component to these decisions also makes it
difficult to know how large a stewardship fund our constituents would support. Currently the
program's stewardship/maintenance portion is at its maximum 15% cap with no possible
increase unless the Charter is amended and reauthorized. Assuming we go to the voters in 2016,
the OST program has 16 months to decide our re-authorization strategy; pursue a simplified 10
year extension while raising the stewardship/maintenance fund cap another 10%to 15%with the
same current mil levy, or seek a longer authorization for stewardship, which will require more
analysis of long range voter desires.
Dale introduced guest presenters Kerri Rollins and Zac Wiebe. Larimer County Open Lands
department has been preparing for their fund re-authorization ballot initiative over the past
couple years. Larimer County faces similar challenges in how to develop strategies and tools to
fund stewardship into perpetuity and how to convey the Open Lands program benefits/purpose to
their voters. Their internal and community outreach process became the backbone analysis work
they needed to launch a new master plan. The process culminated October 2013 with a final
report 'Our Lands Our Future—Recreation& Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado'2 and
the Open Lands program is preparing to go to their voters this November.
The guest speakers' power point presentation 'Our Lands Our Future—Regional
Land Conservation, Stewardship & Recreation Study' is attached hereto and made
part of this record as "Exhibit B".
Larimer County encompasses approximately 2,600 square miles with a population of around
300,000. Almost 70% of the County is Federal Lands with the bulk of those acres in Forest
Service lands and predominately in the western 2/3`d of the County. Trail capacity issues are
developing on popular County trails. In 2013 the sale tax revenue generated $11.3 million from
that amount Larimer County Open Lands depai intent received $4.7 million with the rest
distributed to the incorporated cities. The County's revenue distribution range is between 35-
45% and has been collecting 42% for some time. The program sunsets in 2018 and the program
is planning a 2014 ballot question. Historically Larimer County has received better tax ballot
questions outcomes in non-presidential election years.
The 'Our Lands Our Future' (OLOF)process facilitated collaboration and focus on common
goals amongst the three large open space programs within the County (Loveland, Fort Collins
and Larimer County) and the various incorporated cities that receive the sales tax distribution.
The reference to `choices for Northern Colorado' refers to the fact that several Larimer
2 'Our Lands Our Future'—Recreation&Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado;Final Report,October 2013.
Larimer County Open Lands
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 4 of 9
incorporated cities straddle other counties. Logan Simpson Design was the consultant used for
this study. The study's cost was approximately $155 thousand with a GOCO grant covering
50%,with Larimer County covering approximately $34 thousand and the other incorporated
cities contributing based on their distribution percentage.
A video, 'Our Open Space Story', was produced to educate the public about the history and how
sales tax revenue is collected/distributed among the various communities and the county and
how these funds are utilized for the public benefit as it exists now. The video continues to be a
successful outreach tool at community meetings and is posted on their website. The video also
prompted an info-graphic brochure that is passed out at public meeting. The video was partially
contracted(ConverSketch.com) and produced in house. The cost came to approximately four
thousand dollar to produce. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S899H6exUsw
GOCO awarded a grant for a community outreach study 'Plug into Nature' to the Open Lands
program. It was a yearlong process that started the community visibility effort to ramp up Open
Lands program's profile by reaching out to and involving many diverse community segments.
Larimer County Process Findings:
Survey information found the public prefers to receive information by email. Initially surveys
were mailed,but subsequent surveys were available online. Results between mailed and online
surveys were very similar.
The citizen survey information was used to build a couple analytical tools, an online interactive
mapping site and a financial model. Mapping site allows the user to rank their recreation
priorities by land type, but the option proved difficult for the average user and was the most
expensive component of the OLOF study. The mapping site was modeled after Trust for Public
Lands' tool `green printing' which is an excellent report producing resource tool for internal staff
use. The survey data was instrumental in developing a financial economic model tool. Different
variables can be plugged into the model to predict fund financial outcomes. REVENUE (sales
tax)minus COSTS (acquisitions/management costs/capital improvements)plus/minus
INFLATION(at .2%) equals predicted outcome. The financial analysis model has been useful
projecting two scenarios; (1) extension of existing sales tax through 2018 sunset and(2)
extension of existing sales tax through 2013.
Comparison of program surveys from 2001 and 2013 produced the same answer; public wants an
equal balance between protecting/preserving natural resources and outdoor recreation in natural
settings. The 2013 survey questions added a public educational component by phasing i.e.
would you support acquiring recreational lands knowing the costs per acre is increased by the
cost per acre to maintain into perpetuity or would you support acquiring conservation easements
that would protect wildlife, natural resources or agricultural lands for the most part without
public access at a lower cost per acre and minimal maintenance costs into perpetuity. The 2013
survey did reflect a slight trend toward natural resource protection. In the survey the public
continued to demonstrate an interest to acquire/preserve more lands even though 70% of the
County's lands are Federal Lands. In general the public wants public recreational access within a
5-10 minute radius from their homes.
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 5 of 9
The OLOF study demonstrated the public's availability to access public open space lands can
drive economic benefits to communities through recreation &tourism; increased property values
(lands adjacent to public open space 5-20% increase); economic development through employer
attraction and employee retention; public health benefits; and ecosystem services. OLOF study
found that property values increased at a higher rate due to Open Space Purchases than the loss
of property tax revenues from public ownership.3
Future sale tax revenue consideration; sale tax amount, duration and sales tax revenue split.
Currently the program is 70% acquisitions; 15%maintenance (operations)with a 15% flex
capacity for either part of the program. The surveys reflected the public supports an extension of
the existing sales tax vs. an increase. Overall message has been the public wants more of the
same. Also the voters are not overly concerned how the fund is split between acquisition and
stewardship; they just want the program to continue. High percentage of surveyed supported 'not
to' end the program's sales tax revenue and to end the program would require a vote. The ballot
language will be condensed and may look something like the following: "we are a maturing
program, we will be able to continue acquiring, continue managing what we have, and we want
to do it for 25 more years." The ballot will include language demonstrating the incorporated
cities support the ballot question.
When determining financial choices the department has defined 3 land types with associated
levels of service 1)regional open space; 2) urban open space; and 3) conservation easement.
For annual budget projections these assets are assigned a level of service with an associated cost
per acre. Four levels of service are defined with conservation easement at the lowest level of
service. The financial model comes in handy when determining whether to go forward with a
acquisition. Upfront property cost plus projected associated management costs can be plugged
into the model to analysis the fund's bottom-line. The OSTB questioned how overhead(cost of
doing business) is calculated. Open Lands fund is not mandated to any percentage for overhead.
As part the annual budget process staff salaries are examined and costs are split. Using herself as
an example Kerri explained; 60% of time is spent on acquisition projects, 30% on long term
management issues, and 10% on overseeing grant projects. Open Lands has a total staff
equivalent of 15 FTE's. Open Lands has a vigorous volunteer program comprised of trail ranger
assistance,park ranger assistance, foot ranger assistance, and soon parking lot assistance with
one dedicated staff coordinating the program. Additionally, Friends of Larimer County is a
volunteer advocacy group with an Open Lands staff liaison as support. OSTB asked if Open
Lands had considered splitting the ballot question to one about funding operations/maintenance
and the other about funding acquisitions. Open Lands determined management/maintenance is
the unsexy cousin to acquisitions and unless they are grouped together management would most
likely not pass.
The Trust for Public Lands (TPL) offered valuable support with the only cost to the Open Lands
program from services contracted out. Larimer's contact was David Weinstein in the Denver
office. TPL's database demonstrated that Colorado's Front Range voters are more likely to
support sales tax initiatives vs. property tax initiatives. Colorado mountain communities are the
opposite. TPL offered tools: feasibility research;public option survey polling (process took
3 Section 4.6—Our Lands Our Future;Enhanced Property Value
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 6 of 9
about a month-required outside consultant @ 20-25K); helped design ballot language (otherwise
written by County Attorney or consultant); and for newer open space programs TPL will design
and evaluate their program. To bring TPL to the county requires an official BOCC invitation
letter. TPL will be recommending an extension of the existing sales tax. Larimer also has a land
trust partner, Legacy Land Trust that has been assisting with the re-authorization process.
Open Lands staff plus a sub-committee from their Board(sub-committee has taken on the
analysis of the program's financial situation)plus representatives from the program's originating
citizen group have meet together over ten months hashing out all the re-authorization strategies.
As a whole the group has not reached a final direction agreement. When Larimer County
Commissioners pass the ballot question, then staff/citizen meetings will cease. County staff can
discuss current sales tax structure after this point and discuss factual options.
Communication has been big part of the process by keeping interest groups informed:
Commissioners, citizen committees, all the various city staffs and their OS Boards, and non-
profit group Friends of Larimer County.
Other elements of Open Lands strategy:
o Larimer average maintenance cost/acre is $110/acre/year
o Their program is on a maturing curve.
o Rates of interest are historically around 7%.
o Stewardship cost increases target annual limits at 5%.
o Salary increase at 3% averaged.
o Revenue (sales tax) historical average annual increase 5%.
Additional assumptions:
o Additional revenue streams like grazing leases were added to revenue scenarios.
o Conservative approach in projections, any addition considered a bonus.
o Bonding calculations include debt service plus retain 1/2 bonding debt as a safety
precaution.
o Keeping cities whole by being conscious of tax revenue splits.
o Bottom line - can the program continue to meet the citizens expectations?
Additional discussion off topic:
OSTB asked if Larimer acquires water rights. Open Lands is allowed but has not consistently
tied water rights to the land. Larimer staff does not currently have water rights expertise and the
concept is politically controversial in the County. Every public poll reflects the public wants the
protection of rivers, lakes, streams and watersheds. Open Lands has partnered with the City of
Loveland and is doing a study in the Big Thompson canyon about water and recreation. In their
updated master plan effort Open Lands is working with Larimer's agricultural board about water
considerations that would reflect a commitment to active agriculture.
OST Reauthorization Strategies
A contracted multi jurisdictional economic benefit study was discussed, but the majority felt
such a contract as un-necessary and chose to utilize existing literature to substantiate the
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 7 of 9
economic benefit of open space to communities. Also the possibility of obtaining endorsement
letters from entities such as Trust for Public Lands, etc.
Tom Oken reviewed and discussed `OST's Multi-year Projection' work sheet(Attached and
made part of this record as `Exhibit C'). Tom confirmed Larimer County's financial modeling
tool can be adapted to suit OST. The presented OST projections incorporate additional minor
maintenance project costs, but did not produce significant outcome changes to our end balances
in 2020 since the last time OSTB reviewed the multi-year projections. The multi-year projections
show within the fund ranges that percentages can vary and how much is available for
acquisitions, for trails, and that dedicating the maintenance maximum 15%barely cover
projected maintenance costs through 2020. Worksheet estimates are based on current known
project and these projections will change as new acquisitions occur. Tom is suggesting
increasing maintenance cap to 25% at reauthorization and for more fund flexibility to potentially
increase this amount in the out years of the next authorization. Operations/maintenance costs
continue to rise and inflation is factored into the projections. Only acquisitions and capital
improvements can utilize bonding to increase fund capacity.
Tai Jacober noted that the OSTB has an acquisition project "wish list"to accomplish by 2020;
the Board discussed whether to try to review these and put a price tag on each and seek to
earmark capacity for priority projects. The Board also noted the difficulty in predicting which
landowners may ultimately agree to terms that are acceptable to the County. Dale added he
wants to develop better tools for presenting potential maintenance cost projections at the time of
acquisition to better portray the long range trade-offs on the program capacity.
Dale summarized OSTB direction:
o Update OST's financial modeling to include maintenance projections on existing assets
and anticipated acquisitions.
o Determine what the discretionary ranges for maintenance, acquisition, and trails should
be under the assumption the program will extend to 2030.
o An economic benefit report will be composed through a bibliography from existing
pertinent literature.
o Return to the OSTB in about sixty days with the above elements.
All agreed the fund's range percentages need to change.
OSTB message needs to be skillfully composed. The program is going strong and there is a lot
more work to be accomplished.
Tom Oken exited the retreat at approximately 2:45 p.m.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The OSTB moved to enter executive session in accordance with CRS 24-6-402(4) (a)(e) and (b)
for the purpose of discussing acquisitions, negotiations and attorney conference at 2:45 p.m. The
OSTB adjourned executive session at 3:35 p.m.
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 8 of 9
The Board returned to open Retreat meeting at approximately 3:45
Board present: Tai Jacober, Graeme Means, Tim McFlynn, Hawk Greenway, Howie Mallory
was absent.
Staff present: Dale Will, Gary Tennenbaum, Lindsey Utter, Paul Holsinger, John Armstrong,
Matt Adeletti,Fran Soroka, John Ely
25th Anniversary Re-authorization Planning
Tim McFlynn led discussion:
Since 1989-1990 and again in 2006 citizens formed small groups to work on strategies to
energize the community and campaigns for re-authorizing the fund.
By next meeting June 5th have in the meeting materials a list of 'to do tasks' to prepare for
setting the stage for the 25th anniversary and re-authorization planning.
o Consider utilizing Trust for Public Lands as a consultant or is the latest Pitkin County
Survey enough to proceed.
o Consider a 2015 calendar content discussion. Consider the calendar content as a OST
program story telling opportunity. Not just the properties, but the landowners. All the
volunteers and past board members.
o Content of the ballot referendum.
o Discuss the public process piece i.e. involving the cities, Nordic,etc. Gearing toward
having work sessions with the BOCC by January/February 2016 .
o Review past campaign materials.
Dale asked the County Attorney to clarify staffs' responsibilities as County employees. Once the
BOCC makes the decision to place a referendum on the ballot, county staff on county time
cannot actively campaign or advocate passage. Up until the BOCC decides to pass is when
county staff on county time can work on preparatory materials disseminating information about
the program such as; the accomplishments, the costs, implications of different funding levels for
the future, etc.
ADJOURN
The OSTB meetings of were adjourned at approximately 3:55 p.m.
Approved: Att t:
0- 7
Tai Jacober, air ran Soroka
Pitkin Coun y Open Space &Trails Board Pitkin County Open Space &Trails
Administrator
05/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
Page 9 of 9
ETA2014 Pitkin County Community Survey
rn
x
rD
r)
Pitkin County 2014 Community Survey _•
Executive Summary Report rD
3
3
Overview and Methodology
ETC Institute administered a community survey for Pitkin County during February 2014. The <
survey was administered as part of the County's on-going effort to assess satisfaction with 70
county services and to gather input from the public about priorities for improvement. m
This main report contains:
0
• an executive summary of the methodology for administering the survey and major -,
findings rF
• charts showing the overall results of the survey
• Importance-satisfaction analysis that can help the County set priorities for improvement
• tabular data that shows the overall results for each question on the survey
• a copy of the survey instrument
GIS maps that show the results of selected questions on the survey and benchmarking data that
show how the results for Pitkin County compare to other communities are published in
separate appendices.
Methodology. A seven-page survey was mailed to a random sample of households in Pitkin
County. The mailed version of the survey included a postage-paid return envelope, a cover
letter explaining the purpose of the survey and a link to the online version of the survey
(www.pitkincountysurvey.com).
Approximately seven days after the surveys were mailed, residents who received the survey
were contacted by phone. Those who indicated that they had not returned the survey or
completed it online were given the option of completing it by phone. Of the households that
received a survey, 525 completed it. The results for the random sample of 525 households have
a 95% level of confidence with a precision of at least +/-4.3%.
ETC Institute (2014)
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 1 of 20
;,,ETC
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey
rn
Location of Respondents. To better understand how well services are being delivered in X
rD
different parts of the County, the home address of respondents to the survey were geocoded. n
The dots on the map below show the distribution of survey respondents based on the location C
of their home. r"F
CD
•6. , ..y• V •
.
i• •13
4 .
•
70
0
Don't Knows. The percentage of "don't know" responses has been excluded from many of the
graphs in this report to assess satisfaction with residents who had used County services and to
facilitate valid comparisons with other communities in the benchmarking analysis (to be
added). Since the number of "don't know" responses often reflects the utilization and
awareness of County services, the percentage of "don't know" responses has been included in
the tabular data in Section 3 of this report. When the "don't know" responses have been
excluded, the text of this report will indicate that the responses have been excluded with the
phrase "who had an opinion."
Major Findings
Residents Gave High Ratings to the County as a Place to Live
• Nearly all (96%) of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, rated the County as
either "excellent" or "good" in regards to the County as a place to live.
• When asked about the overall quality of life, ninety-five percent (95%) of the residents
surveyed, who had an opinion, rated the county as either "excellent" or "good".
ETC Institute (2014) ii
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 2 of 20
ETA2014 Pitkin County Community Survey
rn
X
CD
Pitkin County is Setting the Standard for the Overall Quality of County n
Services
More than three-fourths (76%) of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, rated the <
County as either "excellent" or "good" in regards to the quality of services provided. Only 6% CD
rated the overall quality of services as "below average or poor". Overall satisfaction with v)
county services rated significantly above the national average (76% in Pitkin County vs. 57% U.S. C
Average) 3
Pitkin County is Setting the Standard for the Value Residents Receive
for the Taxes and Fees They Pay for County Services
Sixty-three (63%) of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, rated the value they receive
for their county taxes and fees as either "excellent" or "good". Only 13% rated the value as CD
"below average or poor". Overall satisfaction with the value residents receive for the county
taxes and fees rated significantly above the national average (63% in Pitkin County vs. 45% U.S. O
Average)
rF
Satisfaction with Most County Services Has Increased Since 2004
Satisfaction ratings increased in 20 of the 22 areas that were assessed in both 2004 and 2014,
and none of the decreases were statistically significant. The most notable increases in
satisfaction from 2004 to 2014 are listed below.
• Quality of local Sheriff's Office protection (+36%)
• Availability of parking (+35%)
• Overall satisfaction with Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (+29%)
• Economic sustainability (+24%)
• Ease of finding information on www.aspenpitkin.com (+23%)
• Ease of access to information about County operations (+19%)
• Health & Human Services provided by local non-profits (+15%)
• Senior Services (+15%)
• Overall sense of community (+21%)
• Availability of mass transit (+11%)
• As a County that is moving in the right direction (+8%)
• Wildlife protection (+7%)
ETC Institute (2014) iii
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 3 of 20
;,,ETA
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey
rn
Satisfaction with Specific County Services and Initiatives X
• Landfill and Recycling Services. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the residents surveyed, who e)
C')
had an opinion, were "very satisfied" and "satisfied" with the quality of recycling drop
off centers; 65% of the residents surveyed, who had an opinion, were "very satisfied" rF
and "satisfied" with compost products for sale, 65% were satisfied with Use-It-Again Lot <�
at the Landfill and 65%were satisfied with yard waste disposal. (D
• Personal Safety. The highest levels of satisfaction with personal safety issues, based
upon the combined percentage of "very satisfied" and "satisfied" responses among
residents who had an opinion, were: ambulance/emergency medical services in the
county, (95%), walking in the neighborhood (94%), in parks, open spaces and trails 3
(94%), and in commercial/business areas (91%).
• Public Safety. The highest levels of satisfaction with public safety services, based upon <
the combined percentage of "very satisfied" and "satisfied" responses among residents xi
who had an opinion, were: Quality of Mountain Rescue Services, (94%), professionalism (D
of Sheriff's Office employees (89%), quality of local Sheriff's Office protection (87%), -0
how quickly Deputy Sheriff's Office responds to 911 emergencies (81%), and the quality O
of Pitkin Alert System (80%). -
rF
• Transportation. The highest levels of satisfaction with transportation in Pitkin County,
based upon the combined percentage of "very satisfied" and "satisfied" responses
among residents, who had an opinion, were: availability of mass transit (84%), ease of
traveling by bicycle in Pitkin County (82%), and satisfaction with the RFTA/BRT bus
system (80%).
• Public Communication and Outreach. The highest levels of satisfaction with the
county's communication and outreach services, based upon the combined percentage
of "very satisfied" and "satisfied" responses among residents, who had an opinion,
were: opportunities to participate in local government (64%), and ease of finding
information on www.aspenpitkin.com (63%).
• Health in the Community. The highest levels of satisfaction with maintenance and
public works in Pitkin County, based upon the combined percentage of "very satisfied"
and "satisfied" responses among residents who had an opinion, were: air quality (79%),
Health & Human services provided by local non-profits (75%), and Community Health
Services (74%).
• Living in Pitkin County. The highest levels of satisfaction with various aspects of living in
Pitkin County, based upon the combined percentage of "very satisfied" and "satisfied"
responses among residents who had an opinion, were: availability of employment
(44%), and availability of affordable housing for purchase (37%).
ETC Institute (2014) iv
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 4 of 20
ETA2014 Pitkin County Community Survey
rn
X
CD
• Clerk and Recorder Services. The highest levels of satisfaction with clerk and recorder C')
services, based upon the combined percentage of "very satisfied" and "satisfied" C
responses among residents, who had an opinion, were: the voting process (89%), and rF
the vehicle registration process (85%).
CD
• Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. The highest levels of satisfaction with the Aspen/Pitkin (/)
County Airport, based upon the combined percentage of "very satisfied" and "satisfied" C
responses among residents who had an opinion, were: cleanliness of facilities (80%), 3
Overall satisfaction with airport (79%), and Aspen Airport terminal (78%).
• Special Events. The highest levels of satisfaction with the various aspects of Special Q)
Events in Pitkin County, based upon the combined percentage of "very satisfied" and
"satisfied" responses among residents who had an opinion, were: organization and
coordination of X Games (78%), number of large scale, televised events (76%), and 70
economic benefits of the X Games (72%). CD
0
Opportunities for Improvement
In order to help the County identify investment priorities for the next two years, ETC Institute
conducted an Importance-Satisfaction (I-S) analysis. This analysis examined the importance
that residents placed on each County service and the level of satisfaction with each service. By
identifying services of high importance and low satisfaction, the analysis identified which
services will have the most impact on overall satisfaction with County services over the next
two years. If the County wants to improve its overall satisfaction rating, the County should
prioritize investments in services with the highest Importance Satisfaction (I-S) ratings. Based
on the results of the Importance-Satisfaction (I-S) Analysis, ETC Institute recommends that the
County emphasize the following areas over the next two year. Each of these areas listed below
were identified as a "high priority" or "very high priority" (see Section 2 of this report):
o The process for obtaining permits for construction or renovation
o Economic sustainability
o How well the county is managing growth
o The condition of County roadways
o Availability of parking
o Electronic recycling
o Recycling drop-off centers
o Disposal of household hazardous waste
o The County's protection of families from domestic violence
o The County's response to mental health issues
ETC Institute (2014) v
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 5 of 20
,,...
;,,ETA
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey
rn
X
Other Findings CD
n
Some of the other major findings from the survey are listed below: C
rF
• 53% of those surveyed use the County trail system at least once per week. More than <•
one-fourth (28%) use the trail system 2 to 5 times per week. CD
• 75% of those surveyed indicated they receive either some benefit (26%) or great benefit c
(49%) for the open space and trails portion of their property tax dollar.
3
3
cu
70
CD
0
rF
ETC Institute (2014) vi
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 6 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
2014 Pitkin County DirectionFinder
Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix
-County Services and Initiatives-
(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)
mean importance
Exceeded Expectations Continued Emphasis
lower importance/higher satisfaction higher importance/higher satisfaction
•Parks, trails and open spaces
Animal safety. •Water quality and quantity
Wildlife protection•
c
0
Ce
Management of stormwater runoff/flood control Efforts to protect the environment and natural resources
.
C \ 'County road snow removalas
0 n
•Renewable efficient energy 7.
C.) ca
Ri 'Economic sustainability N
C
E
CU Process for conducting inspections How well the Coun y is managing growth
Cl) for construction or renovation
Code and ordinance response to,
code development violations Process for obtaining permits for
'construction or renovation
Less Important Opportunities for Improvement
lower importance/lower satisfaction higher importance/lower satisfaction
Lower Importance �i�ra�5�n•z•�r�a�r�:�
���220p Importance Rating
SourcI�C �}Stteu( (T'f4�4� Page 41
B I ' 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 7 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
2014 Pitkin County DirectionFinder
Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix
-Sense of Personal Safety-
(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)
mean importance
Exceeded Expectations Continued Emphasis
lower importance/higher satisfaction higher importance/higher satisfaction
In parks, open space and trails
C Walking in your neighborhood
471 •Ambulance/emergency medical services
co c
C/ In commercial/business areas. o
C 'At special events co
O - cn
},
v.—
Cl)co
CCI 44—
co
N County's protection of children from abuse/neglect co
471 E
co •County's protection of adults from abuse/neglect
coj
County's protection of families from domestic violence
Less Important Opportunities for Improvement
lower importance/lower satisfaction higher importance/lower satisfaction
Lower Importance Importance Rating Higher Importance
Sourc _X MilI�C f}Stte (T'f4 u( 04) Page 43
B I ' 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 8 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
2014 Pitkin County DirectionFinder
Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix
-Transportation-
(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)
mean importance
Exceeded Expectations Continued Emphasis
lower importance/higher satisfaction higher importance/higher satisfaction
C Availability of mass transit.
471
Satisfaction with the RFTA/BRT bus system 'Ease of traveling by bicycle in Pitkin County
co C
C/ Availability of shared use trails'
v
C co
O _
•Ease of driving in the County in the winter n
Ease of traveling from Pitkin County' i='
co
to other cities in Colorado N
lU *Traffic safety on major County roads c
44—N a)
471
•Condition of County roadways E
CO
•Availability of parking
Less Important Opportunities for Improvement
lower importance/lower satisfaction higher importance/lower satisfaction
Lower Importance Importance Rating Hi.her Importance
Sourc _rF,I�Cf}Stteu( (T'f404) Page 45
E,CMIB114
I ' 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 9 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
Q2. Satisfaction With County Services and Initiatives
by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding"don't know")
Parks,trails and open spaces 52% 11' 6% 9%I
Water quality and quantity 37% 46% 14% I
Animal safety 37% 44% 4 17% 44
Wildlife protection 30% 47% 16% 7%
Efforts to protect environment/natural resources 27% _ / 50% / 15% 8%
County road snow removal 26% 40% /"' 19% 715%
Management of stormwater runoff/flood control 20% 25% 9%
Renewable efficient energy 15°/ , i 426" 30% 13%
How well the County is managing growth 10%1 �44% �� 29% 17%
Economic sustainability 11% ' ///40% , / 34% 16%
Process for conducting inspections 7% 27% ,-J 40% 1 27%
Code and ordinance response to code violations 6°/ 24% 45% I 25%
Process for obtaining permits 6% 1V 33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
•Very Satisfied(5) ®Satisfied(4) EINeutral(3) •Dissatisfied(1/2)
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
Satisfaction With County Services and Initiatives
2004 vs 2014
by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding"don't know")
88%
Parks,trails and open spaces
91%
83%
Water quality and quantity
/81%
77%
Wildlife protection
/70%
51°/
Economic sustainability
27%
Process for conducting inspections 34'
A 38%
30%
Code and ordinance response to code violations rei
26%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
M2014 02004 Trends
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
EXggI-itiWte (2014) Page 3
5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 10 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
Q3. County Services and Initiatives That Should
Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices
How well the County is managing growth '9%
Economic sustainability 27'
Efforts to protect environment/natural resources 26%
Process for obtaining permits 24%
Renewable efficient energy 23%
Parks,trails and open spaces 17 °
Water quality and quantity 17%
County road snow removal 17°A
Wildlife protection 13%
Process for conducting inspections 11%
Code and ordinance response to code violations 110%
Management of stormwater runoff/flood control 7%
Animal safety 3%
0% 10% 20% 30%
•Sum of Choices
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
Q4. How often do you use the County trail system?
by percentage of respondents(excluding"don't know")
2-5 times a week
28%
Once j��
% More than 5 times/wk.
8/o
Have never used
13%
Occasionally
34%
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
EXgIBI-itiWte (2014) Page 4
5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 11 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
Q4a. Types of Activity for Which the Trails Are Used
by percentage of respondents who indicated in Question 4 that they use trails
(multiple selections could be made)
Walking/hiking 85%
Road biking 47%
Mountain biking 41%
Walking dog on leash 39%
Cross-country/Nordic skiing 35%
Running 25%
Commuting 19%
Snowshoeing 13'Yo
Baby strollers/jogging strollers 5%
Equestrian 5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
Q5. Level of Benefit Received for Open Space and
Trails Portion of Property Tax Dollar
by percentage of residents(excluding"don't know")
Great benefit
49%
G, No benefit
6%
Little benefit
Some benefit 7%
26%
Neutral
12%
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
EgiNi-1tiWte (2014) Page 5
5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 12 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
Q6. Level of Benefit Received for Various
Water Resources
by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding"don't know")
Keeping rivers/streams free of pollutants • 69% 8%�
1
Maintaining healthy streamflows 65% 24% 8%T
Resisting water development 62% 12%4i
I
Resisting expanded trans-mountain diversions 63% 11%5i
Maintaining good streamflows for agricultural use 47% 37°Io 15% 7%
Maintaining water resources to support agricultural productivity 43% 18% 6%
Development/acquisition of associated water rights Ille4% 1, 24% 31%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
•Great Benefit(5) Some Benefit(4) ONeutral(3) •Little/No Benefit(1/2)
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
Q7. Water Resource Issues That Should Receive
the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices
Maintaining healthy streamflowsr49%
Keeping rivers/streams free of pollutants
Resisting expanded trans-mountain diversions
Resisting water developmentMaintaining good streamflows for agricultural useMaintaining water resources to support agricultural productivityDevelopment/acquisition of associated water rights
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
•Sum of Choices
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
EXggI-1tiWte (2014) Page 6
5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 13 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
Q10. Satisfaction with Personal Safety Issues
by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding"don't know")
Ambulance/emergency medical services in the County
Walking in your neighborhood
Ippp,4r�
In parks,open spaces and trails
l`
In commercial/business areas
At special events %
%�/
Protection of children from abuse/neglect 32% OOD� 19%
Protection of adults from abuse/neglect IE. a 23%
Protection of families from domestic violence 30% , 23%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
•Very Satisfied(5) ®Satisfied(4) DNeutral(3) •Dissatisfied(1/2)
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
Q11 . Personal Safety Issues That Should Receive the
Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices
Protection of children from abuse/neglect 37'o
Protection of families from domestic violence 35%
Protection of adults from abuse/neglect 23%
Ambulance/emergency medical services in the County 22%
In parks,open spaces and trails 14%
Walking in your neighborhood 13%
In commercial/business areas 11%
At special events 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
•Sum of Choices
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
E r(giNi 1tiWte (2014) Page 8
5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 14 of 20
Q14. Level of Benefit Received for Zoning Limitations
by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding"don't know")
Maintaining the County's rural character 49% 28% 15'o I ax
Restrictions on development in back country areasIiim. .:_r__
,50% 25% 15% D%
T
Limitations on density 4i➢!L 27% 15% 12%
Restrictions on Iocation,type o`development 43% 25% 1 yo:a us
Air
1-'__.__ 1____.. I
Required preservation of the historic character 32% 17°'a 17%
r
Limitations on house size 23% i 16% lit 20%
. I
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I•Great Benefit(5) OSome Benefit(4) ONeutral(3) Millie/No Benefit(12)
Source: ETCInstimte DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin Como',co
Q15. Zoning Issues That Should Receive the Most
Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices
Restrictions on location,type of development 34%
Restrictions on development in back country areas 33%
Maintaining the County's rural character 31%
Limitations on density 30%
Limitations on house size 30%
i
Required preservation of the historic character 21% i
0% 10% 20% 30%
•Sum of Choices
Source: ETC Insritute DirecrionFinder 12014-Pirkin Couno,COI
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 15 of 20
Q16. Satisfaction with Current Transportation Issues
percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding"don't know'
Availability of mass transit . 44% - _40% 11`o C%
Ease of traveling by bicycle in Pitkin Couny 38% 44% 14°c 4`•'
L
Satisfaction with the RFTA.BRT bus system 43% 37% 12°a s%
ci.m.iu r'
Availability of shared use trails 34% I 44% 17°0 5%
Ease of driving in the County in he win:er 25% 49% 17% 11%
Ease o`traveling from Pitkin Co.to other cities in Colorado 20°1 .
51°/0 '
1 22%
j %
111
Tra`ic safe:y on major County roads 14% 53% 1 23% 11.
Condi:ion of County roadways 15% 48% 26% 11%
Availabili:y of parking(Intercept lo:.AABC.etci 15°/41 36% l 25% m%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
(•Very Satisfied(5) 'Satisfied(4) DNeutral(3) •Dissatisfied(1/2)
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin Couno',CO)
Q18. Satisfaction \. ith Public Communication
and Outreach
by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale;excluding'don't know")
Opportunities to participate in local government a 46% 28°c ids
1!-- r I I i
Ease of finding information on www.aspenpitkin.com 18% 45% 27°a 1e%
I I I
Ease of access to info about County operations 15% 44% 33°0 0%
Effectiveness of communication with the public lini 40% 35% [us
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
•Very Satisfied(5) fZiSedisfied(4) UNeutral(3) 17Dissatisfied(1/2)
=.ource: ETC Insnture Dn ecrionFinder(2014-Pirkin County,CO,
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 16 of 20
Q20b. Are you aware of your caucus area Master Plan?
oy percentage of respondents(excluaing'not provided')
020c.If yes,are you pleased with
the direction of the Master Plan?
Yes
fl Yes _alai Don't Know
56"0 44°%0 7%
No
23°0
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO,
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 17 of 20
2014 Pitkin County Community Survey: Final Report
Q31 . Satisfaction With Various Aspects of
Special Events in Pitkin County
by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding"don't know")
Organization and coordination of X Games 41% jj 37°jj 18% 4%
Number of large scale,televised events 357 41% 16% 8%
Economic benefits of the X Games 38°o 'fF/ 4% r 21% 7%
Communication about X Games/impact to community 28% r— 41% 25% 6%
Promotional value of large scale,televised the events 33% 35% 25% 7%
Organization and coordination of US Pro Challenge 28% 35% 25% IIC3
Communication about USA Pro Challenge/mpact to community 26% 35% 26% 13%
Economic benefits of the US Pro Challenge 26% 31% 28% 15%
Impact of the X Games on daily activity 23% 34°/ / 31% 12%
Impact of the X Games on conducting business 23% % P �� 36% 9%
Impact of USA Pro Challenge on daily activity 22% / �� 29% r 19%
Impact of USA Pro Challenge on conducting business 20% �� 34% 18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
•Very Satisfied(5) ®Satisfied(4) El Neutral(3) =Dissatisfied(1/2)
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
Q32. Overall Opinion of the County: Part 2
by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale(excluding"don't know")
Quality of services provided by Pitkin County 23°0 / 18% 6%
I � i
Quality of customer service from County employees 27% 19% 7%
Value received for Pitkin Co.portion of taxes 20% 25% 13%
Effectiveness of Board of County Commissioners 11% 38%
11.6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
•Excellent(5) ®Good(4) ONeutral(3) •Below Average/Poor(2,1)
Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder(2014-Pitkin County,CO)
EXggI-itiWte (2014) Page 22
5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 18 of 20
034_ Are you a second homeowner in Pitkin County?
by percer:age o'-espancents
No
93%
YAPS
7%
v._.. 6i:-:nrnts r.(tlr:.m:.nFm.kp . 1J-.1LCn I-r.untl i4
034a_ Which of the following most accurately reflects
your intended future use of your second home?
by percentage o'resporier:s who aeed yes to Qjestlor Z:;rnulble selections cou10 be maOel
Iiease personal use orres•oerce 46
htalTalr are r.i.se 41%
i1c ease r se by`nerds anc fare rj 30%
Bear*it l W me'eslOeit tklr CO. 2 r%
use 3s-etrerv_nt resnerce In tkIr Co. 14%
Se!r?e erce 11'h
JSe re9iec 3$fu W me-ernal urn 1 1'k
Use resclence as par.-time-eTal unit 1 1'h
Reeov3te'le rein fierce 5%
10 20°: ?De. 40°°
huntyrei Nr::rt. ,''I J.l,.t.1I
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 19 of 20
Q39. In which of these areas do you live or own property?
by percentage of respondents(multiple selections could be made)
Aspen 41;"
Unincorporated Pitkin County 33%
I I I I
I I I I
I I I
Basalt 8 /o I I I
� I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
Town of Snowmass Village 4°%%a I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Source: ETC In.:rirure DirectionFinder r 2014-Pitkin County. CO,
EXHIBIT A 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat-Pitkin County Survey Review
Page 20 of 20
EXHIBIT B -5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 1 of 32
OUR LANDS
OUR FUTURE
Recreation & Conservation
Choices for Northern Colorado
Regional Land Conservation ,
Stewardship & Recreation Study
L L+IF Lari mer C ou ntYHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 2 of 32
tiFICFIIFN`F
Fortbouins City of Fort Collins
FIM City of Loveland
CRy of Loveland
A Town of Estes Park
i[P
Town of Berthoud
Town of Wellington
10"14
0f`""tatiki Town of Windsor
NoilTown of Johnstown
Town of Timnath
OUR LAN DgxbBU 14- L,-6114
V t'CC etinl,t Je 3 of 32
Our Lands, Our Future is organized into four phases with a series of public events and activities
Planningleading to the final study report:
PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV
Process
0 .
Z u Should We What Values How Should Regional
= tt Conserve? Should We We Manage& Conservation.
Where&How? Conserve and Steward the Land? Stewardship,and
ie a. Why? Recreation Study
0
K Meeting$2
Meeting$1 Regional Open Meeting$3 Meeting><4
m f Public Review
Space Board Test Strategies.
¢ Engagement Economic Study
Summit Financial Analysis
St
a &Gap Public Savoy Resorts &Greenprinting &Results
> W Analysis a Review Greeopr.nt;rig Results
Scenarios
O tn Regional Interactive Regional Commission
-J Z Regional Kick-Ott Presentation
CO w GIS Scenarios and and Board
a W Event at New Belgium Blitzes Strategies Presentations
• Survey Part Local Survey Part II Local
o Presentations ii ii:esentations
z
OUR LANDS li
� ;
R▪ ` I
OUR FUTURE o Website Launch Workbook I Local
Z
m Presentations&
II Workbook II
Recreation & Conservation Conservation.
p Trends. Public Values Stewardship, Executive Summary
Choices for Northern Colorado
O Strengths+ and Priorities and Recreation and Final Study
g Challenges Summary Strategies
(Draft Study)
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColoraldo
PLANNING PROC E) E B 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 4 of 32
RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL MASTER PLANS
Our Lands, Our Future: Recreation &
Conservation Choices for Northern Colorado
INVENTORY VISION & VALUES ANALYSIS TOOLS
• Collective Missions • Branding /Project Website • Economic Benefits of • Financial Acquisition
• GIS Data Collection • Public Involvement Program Land Conservation and & Stewardship Model
• Create Regional • Public Preference Survey Recreation • Survey of Funding
Property Database • Follow Up Survey • GIS Open Space Models Sources
• Local Presentations and • Protected Land Report • Mapping Website
Outreach Card with Feedback Tools
• Regional Events • Needs Assessment
Local Parks, Recreation, Open Space &
Trails Master Plans
ALTERNATIVES GOALS & IMPLEMENTATION DRAFT & FINAL
POLICIES STRATEGIES MASTER PLANS
• Local Mission • Land Conservation • Local Financial • Public Review of Draft
• Local Opportunities/ • Stewardship Stewardship Analysis Plan
Constraints • Passive Recreation • Funding Tools • Local Adoption of
• Priority Areas: Agriculture, . Education • Partnerships Final Plan
Natural Resource Areas, Level of Service • Project Prioritization
Urban/Regional Areas, Program Or anization
Trail Corridors • Definitions and 9 9
• Levels of Service
Standards and Procedures
I
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northe nnColorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 5 of 32
Planning
De c id e
Educ a te
Announce
Defend
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 6 of 32
Planning
D
A
Values
D
Visio n
Go a ls
Strategies
Pe rfo rm a nc e Me a sure s
•
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 7 of 32
How to Engage a Region ?
• In person ? (high touch )
• Online , media , print? (high tech )
• Who are the target audiences?
• Defensible results?
• Costandeffortperoutreachmethod ?
• When is enough enough ?
I
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices forNorthern Colorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 8 of 32
How Do You
Percent Responding Currently Receive
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
At the natural area or program location 8% Open Land
Local newspapers 40% Information?
Internet/websites 36 °
Flyers/posters/banners 2 %
Other El 16% Percent Responding
Email 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Library is Email I 30%
Naturalist&educational programs,... ;;%
Local newspapers 9%
City or County local television networks 7.0
Internet/websites 16°
Mobile devices/smart phones 7.0
E-newsletter 5% At the natural area or program location
Public meetings 4% Flyers/posters/banners :%
Facebook pages • 2% E-newsletter 5%
Twitter % Other 5%
Mobile devices/smart phones 3%
City or County local television networks 2%
What is the
• RANDOM SAMPLE (MAIL AND
Library ■ 1% INVITATION WEB)
Best Way to Facebook pages • 1%
Reach You? Naturalist &educational programs, such as hiking tours
Public meetings %
Twitter %
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 9 of 32
Public Involvement Activities
Community Outreach Events and Tools
People Reached
Mapping Website 508
Small Group/ Local Presentations =I 523
Regional Public Meeting at The Fountains I 70
Local Advisory Board Presentations 86
Regional Advisory Board Summit - Feb 2012 17
Regional Advisory Board Summit - Nov... 60
2nd Prioritization Survey- Online 344
2nd Prioritization Survey- Invitation 324
1st Values Survey- Online 1,248
1st Values Survey- Random Invitation 1922
Regional Kick-off Event at New Belgium 120
4,225 participants to date
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 10 of 32
Public Involvement - What Works ?
Small Group
Presentations Boards and
523 Commissions,
12% 163, 4%
Public Meeting
190, 5%
Mapping vie/'
Website, 508,
12% Surveys and
Questionaires,
2838, 67%
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColoraldo
ActivitySatisfaction , Rated Low I(1 )
15tooS 'treat n
T g ( ) 0f32
"Overall, how satisfying has your experience been throughout La rimer County with this activity?"
Percent Responding
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Walking/hiking/running on natural surfaces, n=436 88%1
Biking on paved trails, n=424 ' 9°4 88%
Walking/hiking/running on pavement, n=458 rk 86%
Horseback riding, n=55 1121°1' 85%
Rock climbing/bouldering, n=70 n°' 85%
Camping-backpacking or backcountry, n= 163 � 85%
Picnicking, n=203 • 83%
Photography/drawing/painting, n=156 — 4°h 83%
Geocaching, n=38 9°" 81%
Education programming, n=72 3°A 79%
Watching wildlife/birding, n=166 `51 78%
Community gardening, n=30 11'/ °
78/
Large group picnicking, n=42 77%
Biking on unpaved trails, n=189 — 5% 77%
Camping, n=305 — 4% , 76%
Winter activities (snowshoeing, skiing, ice skating, etc), n=221 - 2°4 174%
Boating, non-motorized (canoe, kayak, etc), n=111 — S% 73%
Boating, motorized,n=116 1 1'/^ -- 69%
Recreating with dog(s), n=256 — 7°� 69%
Fishing, n=241 14% lime 67%
Shooting/archery, n=103 63%
Biking on roads, n=336 1 % 63%
Hunting, n=82 9qc, 40% ■ Low Satisfaction (1 or 2) I
Snowmobiling, n=14 I 2904 49%
■High Satisfaction (4 or 5)
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northe nnColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 12 of 32
For which activities would you most like to see more land or facilities provided?
Percent Responding
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Walking/hiking/running on natural surfaces: roads or... ■ 33%
Biking on paved trails 32%
Walking/hiking/running on pavement: roads or trails 17%
Camping 16°
Fishing 15%
Shooting/archery 14%
Recreating with dog(s) 13%
Biking on roads 12%
Watching wildlife/birding 12%
Winter activities (snowshoeing, skiing, ice skating, etc) 9%
Hunting 9%
Biking on unpaved trails :% ■ RANDOM SAMPLE
Graph doesnotreflect
Camping-backpacking or backcountry 7
°, (MAIL AND INVITATION WEB) activities that received a
response from five percent
Community gardening 7°. orlessofsample: Education
programming,rock
Picnicking 7% climbing/ b ould e ring,
photography, large group
Boating, motorized 7% picnicking, geocaching,
Boating, non-motorized (canoe, kayak, etc) 6% snowmobiling
Horseback riding 6%
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northe nnColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 13 of 32
Model
Mapping
OUR LANDS
OUR FUTURE
Recreation & Conservation
Choices for Northern Colorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 14 of 32
Average Rating of Land Conservation Options
3.1
Regional Open Space & Trails
3.0
Natural Resource & Wildlife i 2.7
Areas
2.7
Invitation
2.3 Open Link
Urban Open Space & Trails _
2.2
NOTE: [4.0 = Rank 1;
3.0 = Rank 2
2.0 = Rank 3
Working Farms & Ranches - 2•0 1.0 = Rank 4]
Conservation Easements 2.1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Average Rating
Emphasis on Preservation/rrotectionISr eorutes Page 15 of 32
Recreation : By Town
60%
1=Strong Emphasis(Natural resource —
r
5=Strong Emphasis(Outdoor
preservation/protection) recreation in natural setting)
50% -
w) 40% / ‘c if - \
15
o
O.
cc 30%
c
u /
it; filliN \\11111AMPP%--- -
20%
10% - -- /� - - -
0% ,
1=Strong Emphasis 5=Strong Emphasis
3=Equal Balance
(Natural resource (Outdoor recreation in
preservation/protection) natural setting)
City of Fort Collins --City of Loveland (Town of Estes Park
—X—Town of Berthoud Town of Wellington Town of Windsor
— Town of Timnath Unincorporated Larimer County
1 EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 16 of 32
ommiNI I Our Lands-Our Future L+_ • Irk • • •=1:1•I:1Our Lands-Our Future • •_• !f •
h H tplgnorg C+d tPlgis.org/Owl nos-ourt orate;
Ia most Visited..Getting Started.-Logan Simpson Design....-LSD Helpdesk Home Pa..._.ISO Vision__LSD Web Mail Suggested Saes. Welcome to Logan Sim... a Most Visited Getting Stated..i Logan Simpson Design_0 LSD Helpdesk Home Pa...' LSD Vision Li LSO Web Mail :Suggested Sites L Wekdme to Logan Sim...
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE
_ Ou aom. gwa=aam_ a=aam =aam r
LEGEND 7 - ' .S I ez _f 1 LEGEND
ital•arrraow 1� SP77.: tlptr.
stigma Boundary :tf_ * — snrq urea:Map i
■a ri1
.rcouneow,aary ` t �� coun„lao�mmra �I., °_ al
II
Parts dgpmpaan,naall n»pa. . '' ' �►�re ndOpen BP�t..ld."Pd< ' �..
•
MOW
�a.a.MdLand and Pass 5y •' �, • �ana.rd ad and Parks
..��
uture Sively
w Suture
Ow Lands.pr Tv
snace anaa aae,i•a 0 ... t,"•;.-', � 41 )r:
.r er r..�r ..� 0.rw�ove.soaca Toro 5n.x.. 6 NI
Regional Open
r . '' `w S ednanandeuecoruaprs E® y
>RaniI\
11\"
Slopes andMasRange Landmarw �e• y j _
■ 7. �3� l ^b �n� _ 0..Vy ■ Soh uocePa nc
►,l F L Es t.. ✓F 1111
o normnosh
r
ilk e!
�1 . _ Q� iTin �• - Nom _ w. V -
�. , get!.... H°I 2..n ur>. s. U g r. , le.. . '-1 ..r. cos. >.
•
,i. ,, .' iliiiii .. .
�'!aaLaed,Our Future 1.1 — • r- •- _ Dun Law.-a,r Future 1+._ • r'• •• no. — - -
4 1 tolgisorg r)urLands-0ur4uture/ u' E 1 11.1lgis.org C
•Most Visited::_Getting Started._'.Logan Simpson Design......LSD Helpdesk Home Pa._ LSD Vision__LSD Web Mail__Suggested Sites Welcome to Logan Sim... a Most Visited Getting Started Logan Simpson Design... LSD Helpdesk Home Pa...__LSD Vision ISD Web Mail Suggested Sites Welcome to Logan Sim...
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE
►Fu:... ./...
g•�=aam. •
nanrl„
: ...
i
DAM=°am ;
Zr
= m
LEGEND , .
f-1 1 e\ , LEGEND
k mc.aBo nden !I , _irz.
ism.nnw Std,a.aSoundry I-.1
_Sandler El rOpen sdarameld n...wn< ..
i 1 b +f 7
.' .. e 1 ro - 'al Correa Lana an*Pam sanaery d aaBa a � .
' ,,..,\ a — —
OW ...S
.
'� � ..n, : �` = '''
° Study Peso.
• , , 7r
n° ao.nspa<,anaal> ; ; Working mdA j • a.
-
andn n a wa.reaa.. ,Wetlandsr
_ _ l. ' ! '
\ •
' soda.PoM44, 16
goa.r a.P a n F
•
• r Se 1., 1 ..a. cos. re iii iv,n e. .. r ■B 1 :eke co.» -
•
.� • _ t �, L
. .
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 17 of 32
04 Working Farm & Ranch Opportunities
DO? ,.. , ,
IL.,
�� Rig tt Jr .r
OUR LANDS -,lJiii � ; —
OUR FUTURE r� � r Nik_
`
Recreation 8 Conservation `s -� ..p los ,ti w
Choices for Northern Colorado •� ,.4.9f�liiii A.
a.
The following criteria were considered \ • ®_�f • 7/ , '
when creating this map: -1 k ir �. -
• Outside of City Limits / �I '#
•
• Prime Farmland �\ - till
; ,- • r- ,y it-• .g} la. ,, a
• Development Pressure , ' •- r@ ::•�'<:-•, '�'• t :� •�J F-, }M
• Large Parcels - r - •^ • * • � LI
• Centennial Farms ' •b':-ems • • '� �] I�
• Connected Value to Public Open ® - ••E,. 1}' r
Space and Other Protected Land , - /y.-"fzR'.„ 7 ' ' ., r tt r I r
•
t
st ...R�. - - r Qt
^ l 4T T ft
WorkingFarms&Ranches ..
Wil
Area Opportunities ,` 1 r 1 � `r 'c' , ,
i .....�b.,,p6% m
.., ifir7 ,} S
CityBoundaries `s . ,
All Conserved , r ;t•
Lands and Parks If'-
j t,ate ` '' L .. pa,
Water Bodies i - a .•r i �.+r' }` �d ' 41
sj . . - "f-�:! f}• r• Loveland r!
Moderate ! *P.
� r r
;ar cst { i7 rr,= • r
ti Moderate to High , ®Estes Park . •� - .6 111011 �'�•r
,� i0 — '( 1.' ; �I r
(, r
14101 High ,� '•.�•p!E '`� r.,- ; �.1
titi T !loa r . IRS iJ
This map is based on existing public information and is not intended for use in a regulatory context. Rather it identifies opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. *"
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 18 of 32
i Natural Resource & Wildlife Area Opportunities
O
#4 "11,41-41\ 6 • r Ile;
a mu
— �#Mit a rr fiCe ay. ir. _ , '-'
" ;Ti+ ill f`
OUR LANDS �` ' � ��!� �' • . i- — 716-
..,/ , ••
OUR FUTURE
art *Ii
di*1� �'► tee . .IyRecreation & Conservation : ',-
Choices for Northern Colorado • ► -
`I, _. O ', `� _ _
The following criteria were considered 1k1 y �,
when creating this map: i - i , it �s�_ _
• Critical Wildlife Habitat Areas •!c� 1-N a
• Riparian Areas.Rivers,Water Bodies.and Wetlands \• 'n; yv i - 's'r 1 (r .c�w 1 A
• Potential Conservation Areas . • �.• lr r ;
• Vacant Parcels rtOq '.. .gait,
• Adjacency to Public Open Space and •� •l• - 'tt� - •‘'•• • -
Other Protected Land f� y_ 1' • al 0�,t o• Y r ,- '^il •
c7i
. Via, ` , ''- t�
'� 1' _. yam+ S1
•
n,-
a.. J
et, - 1!I.11 !
Natural Resources&Wildlife "- , - t - - yj r
Area Opportunities 1 ••• a jL 4i a 1'� O� o .nsMO '
r
All Conserved v -'\ . _ _ 7�revyc '•„'�- ( .t
Lands and Parks s
Water bodies 1 _ y ,, r . IWundso .
S > t "fit ,• v Y ' t ,i�i-1
Moderate 1 i• •. •er' • 4 _)g
���JJJ ILL
r i. `'713• s
`. ,
Moderate to High ,; �'�, '�►' �. ,. ', Lovelan�
de .• - •
k
High �, rat 4.Park ...i+.--
.x r
-;�4 , ti r,i, I
• - 1- j. �vt I1, 0 2.5 5 10
••� ... ..� ?. 7A .._w N Miles
This map is based on existing public information and is not intended for use in a regulatory context. Rather it identifies opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. *"
I
isf OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northe nnColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 19 of 32
A Regional Open Space & Trails Opportunities
*jiaNNIW)
I/,, ,' .ga. acte;51 ..ir, .t' • ' •
OUR LANDS i
OUR FUTURElili /71
Recreation & ConservationA,
Choices for Northern Colorado 144sr•-� lip
The following criteria were considered 'IR
when creating this map: +
• Outside of Growth Management Areas !s a l II �
• Potential Conservation Areas \• til
? ~�
• Adjacency to Public Open Space and Other Protected Land t -r- ` ,s r w' (• t • d�
• Planned Trail and Bike Corridors t} - - A • �i
• Front Range Foothills Backdrop,Steep Slopes,and Major w, • c
Landmarks VS
�, 4. ® f. i •�''
• Riparian Areas.Rivers,Water Bodies,and Wetlands • -
• Large Parcels I -'
E . ✓ ""�
• Heritage Sites and Overland Trail corridor •i i M • �_-.
.tefre... i k .. - - --- --- a
Regional Open Space `s ^ r a'� r _�� 1�'Area Opportunities , •wc • -F• �' '
11-1 Growth Management Area ., ':-
4 All Conserved •',„ 1 �, y--- WP11't?
Lands and Parks 1 _ •= - — r `•`�+/
Y
Water Bodies ss - Xi - - _ ' N ` 3 2 . ._
..
Moderate s, , I•}� -:
�� Moderate to High ,• �` ��,, ,a,. --
�' �.. Perk"�• 'rz ` "'�• --_��
all 11
High ' .. 1 f: .i •
_
b' 0 2.5 5 10
mites
This map Is based on existing public information and is not intended for use in a regulatory context. Rather it identifies opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. *T*
isf OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northe nnColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 20 of 32
I Urban Open Space & Trails Opportunities
�' L--... \-- 1
a' Lill.P. III .
`�
OUR LANDS -f _ ' • 'fi, ' "• �,� _ �— Ir—
OUR FUTURE ���, pia, - > I.
ChoicRecreetions
& Conservation ado .. ]y- d` �'� �.L(1fir,/ S� ./F
Choices for Northern Colorado I.IjL_�. y"«11- i r •.�4,'fl .-_.__--_
The following criteria were considered 9, �1� `� .. •
when creating this map: r i�/ 01 d -41 8
• Inside of Growth Management Areas j '' - 1 Y
• Riparian Areas.Rivers.Water Bodies,and Wetlands t' -.:Mf !, ,68. i 1---
• Planned Trail and Bike Corridors ' r� -4
• Adjacency to Public Open Space and Other Protected �f S/' - • }',
Land Vr r' ,
• Underserved Areas j _ � r
• Natural Landcover(unpaved areas) t.aA 7 - .. -
.AIi
r. _ T — ��
® lII
Urban Open Space f�•"� /Ii' - ^!� ,"--
Area Opportunities .•• I
'NMI r 4
r r �- • ys
Growth Management Area f• r+l;e' /� _
SP - '1\ .
All Conserved •- "•
•
t'-(S �Y :� .-- A02
Lands and Parks :ara ,;f' +
Water Bodies •'66: - , "t'r. (r.r ' i •1 U
-- Esi s Park r { ,
�_I• J Moderate it • 10 1� .��2, -
h.
I 1 Moderate to High ' r fl r•. a •
-1 High - t. r." ':,. T.
0 1.2s 2.5 .
-- a 3 -- i.\ iii MIIe,
This map is based on existing public information and is not intended for use in a regulatory context. Rather it identifies opportunities for project partners to work with willing landowners on voluntary land conservation. V T
isfm
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northe nnColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 21 of 32
Show Me The Money
OUR LANDS
OUR FUTURE
Recreation & Conservation
Choices for Northern Colorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 22 of 32
Economic Analysis Methodologies
Analyses can consider. . . y`, `;.4+
'fit
• Property Values
{
• Direct Recreation & Tourism
A riculture Indust• , � ~
• g ry �. . �, ��
• Economic Development " 1;4 I WM I I 10
(Employer Attra ction / _ � . , - -
r
Employee Retention )
• Health Benefits
• Ecosystem Services
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern Colorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 23 of 32
Economic Value
BusinessWeek Western Livestock Journal
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS February 1.2010.2:48PM ET The National Livestock Weekly
Report: Conservation easements good investment March 21
By JUDITH KOHLER
DENVER Easements pay benefits
Coloradans reap roughly$6 in benefits for every$1 invested in efforts to keep agricultural land and other open Easements return $6 for every $1 invested ,
spaces from being developed,a report released Monday suggests.
The land trust's report is a welcome first attempt to estimate the worth of conserving Colorado's natural
heritage, something that doesn't fit neatly in the marketplace, said Andrew Seidl, associate professor at
Colorado State University's Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
"This study makes explicit what all Coloradans know implicitly — what is good for Colorado's native landscapes is
good for Colorado," Seidl said.
Tim GO
liERALD
This land is our land
C4Insen ation-easement tax credits offer benefits made for you and me
by Katharine Roser
Article Last Updated; Sunday,April 04,2010 12 OOAM
i
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choicest for Northe nnColorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 24 of 32
Economic Development
• Air and water quality and overall ` livability' is the
second most important consideration for loc ating
a business
• Survey ofhigh -tech workers showed that a job ' s
attractiveness increases by 33 percent in a
community with a high quality of life
• CBSNews: Top 10best
p la c e s to retire (2012) �/,NG ; q
f •.
11
!� * ` Y' * . - - �.
21 Fo rtu n e 500 95
• fit y ;
companiesWPM 4
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 25 of 32
Enhanced PropertyValue
• The proximate principle states that the market
values ofproperties located within 500 feet of
conserved lands generally are higherthan those of
comparable properties located elsewhere .
• Increase in property values results in increased
p ro p e rty to x re ve nu e s (+5 %) _,t. - ..,a — , _r _ - it+, ..
.S g jg. 7�..' , : _
1 — , . :is i,i
. 4.4.0 ., :. , . • . • ' _ .
1.____L
. .-
:. „.: ,
. t_____ _ . k I
• Recent studyfound +30% � :• ' : #�; - ----
•
..,� tip I • ,� ' , ."- . .�4
11� `--.
f am — , .4
m
r
w'
_. _ .,„ ,____,
..
... . ,,, . -,-Ma .
i
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColorado
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 26 of 32
Financial Model
[ Revenues } Costs ■ [ Inflation
•Open Space Sales Tax 'Acquisition • 2 %
'Management
'Capital Improvements
Predicted --
Outcomes -- - --
J -
**Example**
2013 — 2018 (tax sunset)
Scenarios
2013 — 2023
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 27 of 32
Future Tax - Amount, Duration , Split
• Initiative vs. Re fe re ndum ?
• Increase , stay same , decrease ?
• Sunsetorperpetuity?
• Should Shareback be changed ?
• Splitbetween Acquisition/ Conservation vs Long -term
Management vs Disc re do na ry/ Parks? (70/ 15/ 15 is
e xistin g )
• Timing ?
— Time to prepare , Time to go backifit doesn 't pass
— Presidentialyearornon
— Othercompeting measures
— Packaging options
of OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northe nnColora'do
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 28 of 32
How would you allocate $ 100 dollars in
public funds?
Money to spend
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 $100
Buy new land or acquire rightsElt _1111 $67
Invest in existing land $33
3%
97%
•Funds SHOULD NOT be spent on land
conservation/acquisition
Funds SHOULD be spent on land
conservation/acquisition
ot- OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northe nnColoraldo
How would you allocate $100 dol I I ITftroticuitimid g 29 of 32
Money to spend
$0 $5 $10 $15
I
Buy land or acquire rights to protect lakes, rivers,
streams,and preserve water quality $15
Buy land or acquire rights to protect wildlife habitat and
rare species $11
Buy land or acquire rights for more outdoor recreation
opportunities(hiking, walking, biking, horse riding,... $10
Buy land or acquire rights to create greenways or trail
corridors that connect communities and parks $
Invest in management and maintenance of current
Ai
natural areas and facilities $8
Buy land or acquire rights to preserve working farms and
111.
ranches $8
Invest in more paved trails(usually 10 feet wide and 1
concrete) ' $6
Invest in more natural surface trails (usually 2-4 feet
wide,dirt-surface trails) $6
Buy land or acquire rights to protect scenic views $5
Buy land or acquire rights to protect in-stream water
flows ME $5
Invest in additional or upgraded trailheads, parking, $5
restrooms,shelters and information signs
Invest in restoration and rehabilitation, such as weed '$, RANDOM SAMPLE(MAIL
management,or grassland habitat enhancement
AND INVITATION WEB)
Buy land or acquire rights to preserve historic and 1M$4
archaeological sites in natural areas
Other $3
Buy new land or acquire rights
Invest in renovation of historic structures that allow for $2 Invest in existing lands
public benefit
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 30 of 32
Level of Support for HPOS Tax
I support the extension of the Larimer County HPOS 1/4 cent sales
tax, to primarily allow for ongoing management of the lands 62%
already conserved&allow for some new land conservation &
59%
management of those new lands& recreation opportunities.
I support an extension and an increase of the Larimer County HPOS
1/4 centtax, which would allow for ongoing land conservation & 32%
allow for management of current& new lands & recreation
opportunities. 30%
I don't support the extension or increase of the Larimer County
HPOS 1/4 cent sales tax, which will mean that open spaces currently 4%
available to the public for recreation may be reduced& new land
5%
conservation/recreation opportunities would not be funded.
■ Invitation
I support the extension of the Larimer County HPOS 1/4 cent sales 2% Open Link
tax solely to fund the management of lands already conserved,with '
no new land conservation or additional recreation opportunities
provided. 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percent Responding
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices'for Northern nColora'do
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 31 of 32
HPOS Tax Time Frame Preferences
No ending date for the tax, voter approval required to 52%
end the tax. 49%
12%
25 years
9%
10%
15 years
14%
23%
10 years
24%
• Invitation
Open Link
I don't support an extension or increase to the ■ 3%
existing tax 4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent Responding
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choices lfor Northern nColoraldo
EXHIBIT B - 5/15/14 OSTB Retreat Minutes Page 32 of 32
Level of support for future HPOS tax
Both surve ys indicate but don 't conclude . . . .
• Generalsupport forextension ofexisting 1/4 -cent
salestax
• Less support foran increase
• Support forextension from 10 years to perpetuity
• More scientifically valid research and / orpolling is
needed
OUR LANDS OUR FUTURE Choiceslfor Northern Coloraldo
Open Space and Trails Multi-year Projection
2009 -2014 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2014
assessed value 2,777,168,530 3,667,491,080 3,683,830,340 2,768,117,000 2,761,028,490 2,599,004,220
percentage change in assessed value 2% 32% 0% -24.9% -0.3% -5.9%
Open Space Acquisition&Improvement(65-85%) 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%
Beginning balance (1,332,023) (2,580,028) (13,041,704) (2,535,114) 3,088,361 3,914,668
Annual revenue 8,846,606 9,661,152 10,563,355 6,590,114 6,319,745 5,920,111
Bond proceeds - - - - - -
Available for projects 7,514,582 7,081,123 (2,478,349) 4,055,000 9,408,106 9,834,779
less projects: (10,094,611) (20,122,827) (56,765) (966,638) (5,493,438) (695,680)
Projected Year-end Open Space Balance (2,580,028) (13,041,704) (2,535,114) 3,088,361 3,914,668 9,139,099
Trails Acquisition and Construction(10-30%) 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Beginning Balance 1,575,702 1,080,737 660,235 1,293,289 1,672,887 1,528,980
Annual revenue 990,766 2,148,876 972,240 812,015 782,633 729,348
Available for projects 2,566,468 3,229,613 1,632,475 2,105,304 2,455,520 2,258,328
less projects: (1,485,730) (2,569,379) (339,186) (432,417) (926,540) (1,614,256)
Projected Year-end Trails Balance 1,080,737 660,235 1,293,289 1,672,887 1,528,980 644,072
Maintenance(5-15%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Beginning balance 484,891 861,189 1,533,875 2,084,933 2,378,117 2,221,531
Net annual revenue 925,295 949,406 946,704 643,205 480,810 363,945
Available for projects 1,410,186 1,810,595 2,480,579 2,728,138 2,858,928 2,585,476
less projects: (548,997) (276,720) (395,646) (350,021) (637,397) (746,583)
Projected Year-end Maintenance Balance 861,189 1,533,875 2,084,933 2,378,117 2,221,531 1,838,893
2015 -2020 2015 I 2016 I 2017 I 2018 I 2019 I 2020
assessed value 2,624,994,260 2,782,493,920 2,810,318,860 2,978,937,990 3,008,727,370 3,189,251,010
percentage change in assessed value 1% 6% 1% 6% 1% 6%
Open Space Acquisition&Improvement(65-85%) 65% 65% 65% 65% 65% 65%
Beginning balance 9,139,099 13,673,363 19,192,200 24,927,533 30,540,425 36,193,955
Annual revenue 4,919,264 5,573,837 5,735,333 5,612,892 5,653,530 6,058,814
Bond proceeds - - - - - -
Available for projects 14,058,363 19,247,200 24,927,533 30,540,425 36,193,955 42,252,769
less projects: (385,000) (55,000) - - - -
Projected Year-end Open Space Balance 13,673,363 19,192,200 24,927,533 30,540,425 36,193,955 42,252,769
approximate ending range: 37.1 million at 65%to 42.3 million at 75%(retroactive to 2009)
Trails Acquisition and Construction(10-30%) 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Beginning Balance 644,072 2,096,153 3,607,334 5,218,205 6,945,249 8,684,797
Annual revenue 1,452,081 1,561,180 1,610,871 1,727,044 1,739,548 1,864,250
Available for projects 2,096,153 3,657,334 5,218,205 6,945,249 8,684,797 10,549,047
less projects: - (50,000) - - - -
Projected Year-end Trails Balance 2,096,153 3,607,334 5,218,205 6,945,249 8,684,797 10,549,047
approximate ending range: 10.5 million at 10%-15.6 million at 20%(retroactive to 2009)
Maintenance(5-15%) 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Beginning balance 1,838,893 1,038,079 737,030 602,857 385,059 385,222
Net annual revenue 406,752 455,733 458,132 508,770 479,956 533,509
Available for projects 2,245,645 1,493,811 1,195,162 1,111,627 865,015 918,731
less projects: (1,207,566) (756,781) (592,305) (726,568) (479,793) (552,067)
Projected Year-end Maintenance Balance 1,038,079 737,030 602,857 385,059 385,222 366,664
23,170,000 also remains in debt authoriztion;however,debt issuance will reduce the ending amounts
shown above by the amount of additional debt service payments through 2020
Exhibit C - 5/15/2014 OSTB Retreat Minutes
5/8/2014 C:\Users\tomo\Documents\Book4 multi-yr plan