[BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Comments on Open Space master plan
Burke, Dan
BurkeD at bouldercolorado.gov
Fri Jun 22 13:55:02 MDT 2018
Dear Council Member Morzel.
Lisa, I am following up to a series of questions on June 12th that you asked prior to a joint study session with City Council and the Open Space Board of Trustees. Some of the questions below are questions originally asked by community member, Rebecca Trafton, through a Hotline Post in which you too are interested in responses from OSMP. The following are responses to all the questions in your June 12th correspondence. As always, if you have any further questions or seek more information, please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you for your interest in the work of OSMP.
Sincerely,
Dan Burke
Interim Director
Question 1) (OSMP Note: This question originally came from Rebecca Trafton) There is a projected focus on agriculture that is huge and costly. According to the Daily Camera, the city will acquire a property and lease for $1 per year to BOSC, the new Boulder Open Space Conservancy, to create an Agricultural Center. Where will these city funds come from? Is agriculture an identified focus of public concern?
OSMP Response: To address the question ‘if agriculture is a public concern’: Agriculture is a specific city Open Space Charter Purpose: “Preservation of agricultural uses and land suitable for agricultural production.” About one-third (~15,000 acres) of city open space is currently associated with agricultural use.
Regarding the new non-profit organization, Boulder Open Space Conservancy (BOSC): BOSC and OSMP have been actively discussing ways we can partner in identifying and working on issues of mutual interest facing our agricultural community. As part of this effort, BOSC and OSMP recently held three listening sessions to hear what issues relating to local agriculture are of most interest to our community. OSMP staff is currently reviewing the comments and feedback that came out of these listening sessions.
This feedback will help OSMP determine what components of the 2017 council-approved Agricultural Resource Management Plan are priorities for implementation and to also help identify ways that BOSC can leverage community resources in carrying out these priorities. While the concept of establishing an agricultural center has been part of the dialogue between our two organizations, these discussions have not advanced beyond the discussion phase. There is no agreement in place that is committing the City to acquire property and lease for $1/year to BOSC. If you would like more information on partnership efforts with BOSC, please feel free to contact Mark Davison, OSMP’s community connections and partnerships manager, at 303-441-4415.
Question 2) I know Open Space staff have been negotiating with agricultural land lessees for several years and I have heard recently that many of them are choosing not to renew their leases with the city due to a variety of reasons but also in part due to lease rates. When I asked about this previously I was assured everything was OK yet all these lessees have chosen to leave the system. Why is that and what does staff anticipate doing?
OSMP Response: OSMP is currently working with 29 lessees. In the past two years, two lessees have voluntarily chosen to not renew leases with the city. Based on exit interviews with those two tenants, we understand that the primary motivators have been the difficulty of operating in a rapidly growing urban region and city prairie dog management policies and not lease rates although rents may have been a secondary consideration together with the pesticide and environmental regulations the city places on tenant operations.
Lease rates have been under discussion for the past year or so, following the direction provided in the Agricultural Resource Management Plan. Due to past practices, lease rates for city properties have been both inconsistent from tenant-to-tenant and somewhat lower than region-wide rates for similar agricultural lands.
OSMP staff held work sessions with the tenants earlier this year to arrive at agreement around establishment of a range of lease rates. Staff are now negotiating with each tenant to establish how the proposed rates will apply to their situation, taking into account the intensity of use of the land and city restrictions for things like not being able to control prairie dog expansions, not cutting hayfields to protect bobolink nests, and so forth.
Question 3) The city has recently acquired the Poor Farm, a major expense that will require significant expenditure in restoration and ongoing maintenance. To date, no information has been made public about the projected use of this facility. Will this be another lengthy and costly process like that at Alpine-Balsam, a process to determine the best use of a facility? Does it not make sense that a facility be procured after a need has been identified?
OSMP Response: The purchase of the 110-acre Poor Farm (Fort Chamber/Wells property) was executed at the end of May. For the next couple of years, OSMP will address immediate property needs and go through its "Property Integration" process for the entire Poor Farm property. During that process, the near-term management needs of the property will be outlined as well as plans for the buildings and structures that are located on the property, including the historic Queen Anne residence. To help guide long term decisions for this historic residence, OSMP is currently initiating a Historic Structures Assessment. Once completed, this assessment will provide the department with a much better sense of the historic characteristics and attributes of the home as well as recommended maintenance and restoration activities. Decisions regarding any future restoration activities will not be made until the completion of this assessment. The Property Integration process will inform staff as to if/how the buildings and structures on the property fulfill open space charter purposes, such as supporting agricultural uses associated with the property, and if the department should consider disposition of any of the buildings that are determined to not have an open space purpose.
Question 4) (OSMP Note: This question came from Rebecca Trafton) Former director Winfree convinced the city to allocate $8 over 5 years for an aggregated campus. Should this be a top priority when the city is in a budget shortfall? I have heard from more than 4 staff that the multi-stage and temporary move and renovation have been wasteful of time and money. Lisa added: I too have heard about these expenditures and I’m very concerned why we are spending these kinds of funds for Open Space.
OSMP Response: OSMP initiated two studies in 2015 and 2016 to help determine the best path forward to address numerous issues facing exiting OSMP administration and operation buildings. Those include:
* Health and safety issues
* Major upgrades and major remodeling needs, some that cannot take place with staff occupying the buildings
* Significant space limitations associated with our existing buildings
* Considerable inefficiencies of having OSMP staff spread out over five separate campus locations and seven buildings throughout the Boulder area.
It was determined through these studies that an “interim” office location should be identified where staff can reside for the next four to five years until a permanent campus location is determined and/or until upgrades and remodeling at current buildings can be completed. Therefore, the health and safety issues, needed upgrades, and the inefficiencies facing our current buildings will be addressed during this interim period – with hopes that OSMP’s Cherryvale location will become our permanent hub after a host of remodeling and upgrades are completed there. In the meantime, the majority of OSMP staff will finally be housed under one roof at office space located at 2520 N. 55th street. Move-in date is expected to occur in early August. Because planning of the permanent campus has just begun, no cost estimates have yet been determined for establishing a permanent campus location. If you have additional questions regarding this, you can contact Jim Reeder, OSMP’s trails and facilities manager, at 303-859-1555.
Question 5) In the past few years Open Space department has hired several very expensive high-level employees when we have excellent long-term employees and really wonder do we need additional staff at this level.
OSMP Response: Most OSMP hires over the past couple of years have been of operations or field staff and work group supervisors, including the hiring of several OSMP rangers. Your question may be in regards to a few hires in 2015-2016 – at a time when the department had many unfilled vacant positions, including several vacant Service Area Manager positions, and when department decisions around what vacant positions to fill were guided by the results from a Reorganizational Assessment (“Reorg”) that was completed for the department. Filling these needed vacancies did not result in replacing any of our excellent long-term employees but, rather, fulfilling the recommendations of the department’s Reorg has helped put the department in a better position to manage and steward our 45,000-acre system and has created a vibrant mix of staff, some with many years of OSMP experience together with seasoned professionals who have joined the department after years of work with other land conservation organizations.
Question 6) I also am concerned about the amount of funds Open Space is being required to provide the city through cost allocations. Exactly what is the percentage or the amount of money open space and mountain Parks is being asked to contribute to the overall city budget each year? How does that compare to other departments such as planning human services housing transportation Parks and Recreation? Please provide a matrix showing how much each department contribute to these cost allocations annually and with that money is spent on.
OSMP Response: With respect to providing you with a timely response to the questions you asked in this email, including the cost allocation-related questions, I am not able to provide you with a matrix showing how much each department contributed to cost allocation. But, I will put this request into City Budget and Finance staff and see if I can track this down for you. What I can report is that, while OSMP makes up about 11 percent of city budget, the department was last allocated 6.67 percent of total citywide allocated costs. Cost allocation makes up 5 to 7 percent of OSMP’s annual budget.
Question 7) Last year, after approving the North Sky trail where council was assured the environment along the trail would be protected and fine. After that the city bought a better easement for the trail for over $600k. While I’m glad the easement was bought, I feel council was misled. $600k is no small amount.
OSMP Response. The objective and concept of trying to secure a public trail easement across a private property encumbered by a city-held conservation easement was called out In the North Trail Study Area Plan: “Use best efforts to locate connector trail (the North Sky Trail) through the conservation easement”; “Minimize the footprint of the North Sky Trail and find an alignment that minimizes natural resource impacts.” After council approved the plan, staff began talks and negotiations with the owners of the conservation easement property and was able to successfully secure a public trail easement across that property which will result in a better alignment and reduced natural resource impacts. The cost of this trail easement purchase was the appraised value of $376,000.
Question 8) I also am interested in open spaces water portfolio and how that is being managed and what future expectations for water use. Is there a connection between the agricultural lessees leaving open space agricultural land and water allocations? What type of cooperation or partnership is there between the various ditch companies and open space. I came across when did Junior working on cleaning out his ditch who complained somewhat about lack of cooperation with Open Space staff and opening up the ditches efficiently especially after storms at this time of year when water is critical for our agricultural land leases.
OSMP Response: To our knowledge, and based on exit interviews, there is no connection between any changes in water allocations and the decisions by the two agricultural tenants who have chosen not to renew their leases. Tenants have noted that infrastructure conditions have limited the ability to deliver water to certain properties, but staff has been working to correct these types of maintenance deficits system-wide. The open space water portfolio is almost entirely dedicated to supporting agricultural uses on open space lands, with the exception of a few water rights for wildlife habitat. The use of the water portfolio primarily for agricultural purposes is confirmed by the Agricultural Resource Management Plan accepted by council in July 2017. There are no plans to change any water allocations or rights to anything other than these open space uses.
Open space staff routinely cooperates with approximately 30 ditch companies and holds leadership positions on eleven ditch boards. There are often detailed arrangements around who is responsible for maintenance of ditches. Limited open space staff (two in the water resource program) must prioritize ditch maintenance efforts because there are more maintenance needs than can be met in any given year. This is the first complaint we have heard regarding our staff efforts and would appreciate the opportunity to address any specific situation by having additional information about the complaint.
Question 9) As I wrote a couple weeks ago, I was appalled to find an open space and mountain parks employee broadly spraying diluted glyphosate indiscriminately along the north side of the Open Space part of Four Mile Canyon Creek Greenway. It was explained to me that actually what she had been doing was spot spraying tall oat grass which is an aggressive invasive species but as I read the master plan this species is being addressed through grazing and weed whacking. It was also explained to me that the Glyphosate open space was applying was not round up which was banned in 2012 but actually a glyphosate called rodeo which has less toxic activators. My questions: Why are we using any kind of glyphosate? Why are we not noticing the application of herbicide in all cases whether it be broad spraying or spot spraying? I recognize a legal loophole in the spot spraying clause and that we are not required to notify the public but this is a betrayal of the public’s trust in government especially if someone is chemically sensitive? I’d like to see this loophole closed so that anytime spray is applied, the public is notified before, during, and for some appropriate time afterwards.
OSMP Response: OSMP staff use the safest, least toxic aquatic formulation of glyphosate (Rodeo) in limited amounts as a control method of last resort when mechanical control methods or a less toxic alternative has not yet been identified. With respect to the May 24, 2018 treatment at Palo Park Trail West (Four Mile Canyon Creek Greenway) that you observed, OSMP staff responded to an emergent spread of tall oatgrass populations from the Wonderland Lake area southeast along the Four Mile Creek Canyon drainage. Staff determined that a spot treatment of these emergent populations could limit the spread of this potentially damaging, non-native plant. A total of approximately 1,300 square feet of tall oatgrass at pre-flagged patches were treated with a total of 1.25 ounces of Rodeo mixed with approximately one gallon of water and applied across the extent of tall oatgrass patches during the project.
When chemical treatment is utilized, OSMP staff provide public notice of every pesticide application on the Herbicide Hotline each week. As noted, this is not a requirement for spot spraying, but staff go above and beyond the ordinance by noticing every spot treatment anyways. This has been the practice for many years. OSMP staff also publicly post all pesticide treatments at trailheads. Staff are currently reviewing and updating the procedures to do additional postings in the future at all trail entrances near a treatment site. Through this current review, we identified that additional posting should be done at the Four Mile Canyon Creek Greenway.
Many hours of staff and volunteer time are spent each year on mechanical control of potentially damaging plants. For example, at the Boulder Creek restoration sites from the start of the season in 2018 through the end of May, staff completed 315 hours of hand pulling, clipping, or cutting weeds. This extensive hand pulling effort was only possible because Ready-to-Work crews were available and funded to work alongside OSMP’s restoration crew. Capacity for expansion of hand pulling weeds as a control method is limited due to lack of staff resources to develop project plans, line up staff and contractors/volunteers, and train and oversee staff and contractors/volunteers. There is also limited and/or inconsistent interest by volunteers for participating in additional weed control activities as well as limited funding for contractors.
Although OSMP’s use of Rodeo is limited and is used as a control method of last resort when mechanical control methods or a less toxic alternative has not yet been identified, OSMP staff believe that the total elimination of glyphosate use would result in more rapid spread of potentially damaging, non-native plants unless significant resource substitutions were made, beyond current budget capacity. The spread of these types of plants threatens OSMP ability to fully implement the city’s Grassland Ecosystem Management Plan and Forest Ecosystem Management Plan, as well as meet the city charter purposes for open space. Tallgrass prairies, for example, are considered imperiled globally and one of the most endangered vegetation types in the world. These habitats support a wide variety of plant and wildlife species, along with numerous non-vascular plants and invertebrate species. Prairies on Boulder OSMP lands are important habitat for a wide variety of butterfly and ground-nesting bird species. Several butterfly and butterfly-like skipper species require bluestem grassland communities for host plants and nectar resources. Of the bluestem dependent skipper species, a few are globally imperiled because of their dependence for xeric tallgrass areas. Invasive plants such as tall oatgrass can overtop many native grass and forb species, making it difficult for butterfly and skipper species to find and access them as nectar or for reproductive purposes. OSMP staff has begun various treatment options in a response to the expanding populations of this potentially damaging plant. The primary control methods have been cattle grazing, weed whipping, and some use of glyphosate and other chemicals. Glyphosate has so far proven most effective at eliminating small, emergent populations. The primary reasons that staff recommend continued control of this plant are to:
* Reduce the loss of native plant species such as xeric tallgrass and mixed grass prairie;
* Reduce the buildup of plant litter that prevents native seed germination and can pose a wildfire risk;
* Reduce the loss of ground nesting bird and butterfly habitat; and
* Mitigate impacts to scenic quality from loss of native plants.
Question 10) In general I find this Open Space master plan to be a little bit on the fluffy side and very light on the science side. I’d appreciate seeing more rigorous scientific input with respect to our precious resources Boulder is a very smart community with many scientists so our science an open space should reflect that. Finally, the focus should also be on education and how we can best protect our Open Space resources so that people can also enjoy these resources says for generations to come.
OSMP Response: Thanks for this perspective. We value the importance of a data-informed process as well and are in the early stages of developing the master plan itself. A draft and final plan will not be developed until 2019.
In February this year, per the city’s new engagement framework, we released a 200+ page System Overview Report<https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/osmp-master-plan-system-overview-report-full-1-201802211007.pdf?_ga=2.200999022.1747055830.1529680666-2006855057.1461252049> to kick off the planning process and create a strong foundation of information and inquiry. We also created simple graphic summaries<https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/osmp-master-plan-system-overview-report-snapshots-1-201802211012.pdf?_ga=2.129516876.1747055830.1529680666-2006855057.1461252049> of key findings that we distributed throughout the community as we engaged 2,000 people in a diversity of settings. We also compiled and referenced a set of other background reports and resources<https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/osmp-master-plan-report> that should and will inform the development of strategic policies in upcoming phases of the process. As we move into early strategy development this fall, we intend to share these and other scientific findings with the public to facilitate deeper understanding of how conditions and trends should inform the ways we manage OSMP into the future. We will continue to work with the Process Committee<https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/osmp-master-plan-process-committee> to find the most effective ways of doing so.
We also deeply appreciate your suggestion about elevating education in our focus areas. That sentiment was shared by many other OSBT and Council members, and on Wednesday, June 13, the OSBT discussed revising one focus area to become “Community Connection, Education and Inclusion”. We will advance that suggestion forward for final approval from Council on July 17. This focus area will help guide management strategies that advance education as a way of building deeper connection and commitment to OSMP lands long into the future.
Dan Burke
Interim Director
Open Space and Mountain Parks
[OSMP_lockup_COBLogo]
O: 720-564-2000
C: 303-817-3143
burked at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:burked at bouldercolorado.gov>
66 S. Cherryvale Road | Boulder, CO 80303
Bouldercolorado.gov<http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/>
From: Lisa <lisamorzel at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:16 PM
To: Burke, Dan <BurkeD at bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Morzel, Lisa <MorzelL at bouldercolorado.gov>; Council <council at bouldercolorado.gov>; HOTLINE <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>; Armstead, Steve <ArmsteadS at bouldercolorado.gov>; Yates, Phillip <YatesP at bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Re: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Comments on Open Space master plan
Thanks, Dan
I was also sorry to miss the study session but had a work commitment that could not be avoided.
I appreciate your acknowledgment of my email. I apologize for the rushed dictation which came out pretty garbled but hope my revisions were adequate so that you understand my concerns.
I look forward to your responses
Thanks
Lisa
720-530-4080
> On Jun 14, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Burke, Dan <BurkeD at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:BurkeD at bouldercolorado.gov>> wrote:
>
> Good morning Lisa.
>
> Sorry you were unable to attend the OSBT-Council Study Session Tuesday night regarding the establishment of Focus Areas for OSMP's Master Plan. You were missed! We had great discussions and we walked out of the Study Session with a really good sense of where folks are at in terms of their comfort level with the Draft Focus Areas as well as suggestions and thoughts for improvements; we look forward to bringing the Focus Areas to council for your consideration later in July.
>
> I just want to acknowledge that we received your email from Tuesday and that staff will be responding to the questions you raised. We hope to have responses back to you next week.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Morzel, Lisa <MorzelL at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:MorzelL at bouldercolorado.gov>>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:46 AM
> To: Council <council at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:council at bouldercolorado.gov>>; HOTLINE <HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:HOTLINE at bouldercolorado.gov>>
> Subject: [BoulderCouncilHotline] Re: Comments on Open Space master plan
>
>
>
> Lisa
>
> Lisa Morzel
> Boulder City Council Member
>
> 303-815-6723 c
> 303-938-8520 h
>
>> On Jun 12, 2018, at 9:44 AM, Morzel, Lisa <MorzelL at bouldercolorado.gov<mailto:MorzelL at bouldercolorado.gov>> wrote:
>>
>> Council members and OSBT
>>
>> I am unable to attend tonight‘s meeting but would like to share a few thoughts regarding topics discussed tonight.
>>
>> With respect to Open Space, I appreciate the comments and questions we got from a Ms. Trafton regarding some of our expenditures:
>>
>> “1) There is a projected focus on agriculture that is huge and costly. According to the Daily Camera, the city will acquire a property and lease for $1 per year to BOSC, the new Boulder Open Space Conservancy, to create an Agricultural Center. Where will these city funds come from? Is agriculture an identified focus of public concern?”
>>
>> I am hoping staff will come prepared tonight to respond to these questions. I know Open Space staff have been negotiating with agricultural land leasees for several years and I have heard recently that many of them are Choosing not to renew their leases with the city due to a variety of reasons but also in part due to lease rates. When I asked about this previously I was assured everything was OK yet all these leasees have chosen to leave the system. Why is that and what does staff anticipate doing?2) The city has recently acquired the Poor Farm, a major expense that will require significant expenditure in restoration and ongoing maintenance. To date, no information has been made public about the projected use of this facility. Will this be another lengthy and costly process like that at Alpine-Balsam, a process to determine the best use of a facility? Does it not make sense that a facility be procured after a need has been identified?
>> “3) Former director Winfree convinced the city to allocate $8 over 5 years for an aggregated campus. Should this be a top priority when the city is in a budget shortfall?
>> I have heard from more than 4 staff that the multi-stage and temporary
>> move and renovation have been wasteful of time and money. “ I too have heard about these expenditures and I’m very concerned why we are spending these kinds of funds for Open Space.
>>
>> Additional comments that I have include:
>>
>> In the past few years Open Space department has hired several very expensive high level employees when we have excellent long term employees and really wonder do we need additional staff at this level.
>>
>> I also am concerned about the amount of funds Open Space is being required to provide the city through cost allocations. Exactly what is the percentage or the amount of money open space and mountain Parks is being asked to contribute to the overall city budget each year? How does that compare to other departments such as planning human services housing transportation Parks and Recreation? Please provide a matrix showing how much each department contribute to these cost allocations annually and with that money is spent on.
>>
>> I also am interested in open spaces water portfolio and how that is
>> being managed and what future expectations for water use. Is there a
>> connection between the agricultural leasees leaving open space
>> agricultural land and water allocations? What type of cooperation or
>> partnership is there between the various ditch companies and open
>> space. I came across when did Junior working on cleaning out his
>> stitch who complained somewhat about lack of cooperation with Open
>> Space staff and opening up the ditches efficiently especially after
>> storms at this time of year when water is critical for our
>> agricultural land leasees
>>
>> Yes I stayed a couple weeks ago I was a palled to find an open space and mountain parks employee broadly spraying deluded glyphosate indiscriminately along the north side of the Open Space part of 4 mile Canyon Creek Greenway. It was explained to me that actually which she had been doing was spot spraying tall grass which is an aggressive invasive species but as I read the master plan this species is being addressed through grazing and weed whacking. It was also explained to me that the Gleich the seat open space was applying was not round up which was banned in 2012 but actually a good life seat called rodeo which has less toxic activators. My questions:
>> Why are we using any kind of glyphosate?
>>
>> Why are we not noticing the application of herbicide in all cases whether it be broad spraying or spot spraying? I recognize a legal loophole in the spot spraying clause and that we are not required to notify the public but this is a betrayal of the public’s trust in government especially if someone is chemically sensitive?
>>
>> In general I find this Open Space master plan to be a little bit on the fluffy side and very light on the science side. I’d appreciate seeing more rigorous scientific input with respect to our precious resources Boulder is a very smart community with many scientists so our science an open space should reflect that.
>>
>> Finally the focus should also be on education and how we can best protect our Open Space resources so that people can also enjoy these resources says for generations to come.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Lisa
>>
>> Lisa Morzel
>> Member, Boulder City Council
>> 303-815-6723 c
>> 303-938-8520 h
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bouldercouncilhotline mailing list
> bouldercouncilhotline at list.ci.boulder.co.us<mailto:bouldercouncilhotline at list.ci.boulder.co.us>
> https://webappsprod.bouldercolorado.gov/mailing-lists/mailman-archive/bouldercouncilhotline<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/n8W3CmZNWXijGKgguB_MmV?domain=list.ci.boulder.co.us>
> Do not reply to this message with unsubscription requests.
> To unsubscribe from this list or subscribe to other City of Boulder lists:
> https://bouldercolorado.gov/newsroom/city-of-boulder-email-lists<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/JA2gCn56WJF7QqPPFZy1ce?domain=bouldercolorado.gov>
> _______________________________________________
> bouldercouncilhotline mailing list
> bouldercouncilhotline at list.ci.boulder.co.us<mailto:bouldercouncilhotline at list.ci.boulder.co.us>
> https://webappsprod.bouldercolorado.gov/mailing-lists/mailman-archive/bouldercouncilhotline<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/n8W3CmZNWXijGKgguB_MmV?domain=list.ci.boulder.co.us>
> Do not reply to this message with unsubscription requests.
> To unsubscribe from this list or subscribe to other City of Boulder lists:
> https://bouldercolorado.gov/newsroom/city-of-boulder-email-lists<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/JA2gCn56WJF7QqPPFZy1ce?domain=bouldercolorado.gov>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180622/ea069bcf/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5567 bytes
Desc: image002.png
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20180622/ea069bcf/attachment.png
More information about the bouldercouncilhotline
mailing list