This was posted on the Save Cheyenne Facebook Page last night. Emailing Council and copying the media for transparency matters. Please know this is your work and keep it up! They cannot respond to what they do not know. Several people have been very frustrated by the non-responsiveness of Parks. Special kudos to Michael Chaussee (if you haven't read his emails asking for questions, you should - they were posted previously), Kathy Meinig, Kent Obee, Rachel Rocks, Lara Rowell, Dana Duggan and Richard Skorman and John and Sue Spengler whose tours of Strawberry Fields have been so informative. And, especially, thank Councilman Murray for asking for answers and making such cogent comments. Email him! Keep up the pressure. Your voice matters. It's your land. You own it! Reprinted from Save Cheyenne Facebook Page: For the public's view and comments. Thanks in advance! Ms. Paulus, CPRP, CYSA April 1, 2016 Director of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services City of Colorado Springs 1401 Recreation Way Colorado Springs, CO 80905 “Community values and priorities formulate the framework of the plan.” Park System Master Plan Sept 2014……. Thank you for the opportunity to attend last night’s Broadmoor/Strawberry Hills presentation and listened to both your presentation and the public’s concerns in this matter. Being an at-large member of the City Council it is my responsibility to make a determination in the best interests of the entire city and not just a single district. Value is not only measured in dollars but also in functional utility. Functional utility can be defined as how much of our general population can use, will use and can benefit, from this trade. Attendant and future costs are also of concern. For basics, I believe that the value of anything is what someone is willing to pay for it. The properties being offered have limited value, because we are not willing to pay for them. So, this transaction is presented as a trade. The trade is being characterized as a win-win because it gives us more property than we currently have, both in acreage and dollar value, it helps build out our trail system and the Broadmoor will be good stewards and let us use ‘most’ of what we have traded to them. Let us start with the obvious. The property components of this trade do not have the same value nor functional utility. The easements do not connect, accessibility to the traded properties is problematic and the appraisals are suspect. In addition, you treat property adjacent to Bear Creek Park as if it will be a Colorado Springs Park asset. In fact, after this trade, this property will be deeded to the county. Therefore, it should not be counted in any determination of value for this trade. So how did you determine value? First we need to look at accessibility. How much of our population can actually drive and walk the properties? Second, community input. A simple democratic process that illustrates for and against. How many signatures have you received in support of this process? Third, what is the cost of operations and maintenance of additional property and infrastructure if the trade is completed? A strange argument, in that it has been the Parks stated position they are having difficulty maintaining our current inventory. This would suggest we should not expand it. Worth noting is that nothing within this trade will affect our current access. While we would like to complete the trail system, there are no significant impediments that would restrict our development over time of these trails. Also, there are no significant issues that will affect our use of the Incline without this trade. Finally, the trading of a communities’ park for property and easements in another location is also of great concern. This concept of robbing Peter to pay Paul is not conducive to our elected requirement of finding the most beneficial solution to community issues. Trust is an important issue and there are concerns I have with your concept, its unveiling and its implementation. To better inform my fellow Councilmembers and myself, please provide complete responses to the following questions. 1. Over 80% of the city’s population cannot reach either area involved in the trade. What additional accommodations are you making at each location to improve access? 2. Do we have an IGA with Manitou on the development of the incline? 3. Where are you putting the new parking facilities that these developed areas will require? 4. Who is paying for the road improvements into these areas? 5. How many additional resources will be required to manage both areas and the new trails? 6. Where is the cost-benefit analysis on the Manitou Incline? This analysis will have a direct effect on the overall value of this property. (Manitou mayor said it was not cost effective) 7. Will the county reimburse us for the $1.7 mil when we give them the property to be included in the County’s Bear Creek Park? 8. The petition ‘not to trade’ has over 3,500 signatures. How many signatures have you received in support of this trade? 9. Are any other parks at risk from our inability to maintain them properly? 10. At no time have you demonstrated a need, want or even use of this offered property. Why then does it have value at this time? 11. Most of the easements the city has acquired have been a one on one. There are still gaps in the trail system, even after the trade that will require one on one agreements. Why not eliminate the property trade and negotiate each one? A longer process but one that would not involve the park as a bartered object. Also, specifically how many gaps will still remain after the trade? 12. Am I to understand that all enforcement will be done by Manitou? And, that all fines will be kept by Manitou? 13. How much additional upkeep will each offered area require (manpower, fire mitigation, etc)? Do you have enough in your budget to cover all these increased expenses? 14. If the grant money dries up, what will the costs be of maintaining the Incline and its surrounding areas? 15. Your appraisals require further clarification. The Bear Creek parcel was clearly appraised differently (by lot) and this process resulted in more questions than answers. Please realign the appraisals so they reflect the value to the City and not a developer. 16. The lack of specifics on exactly how this property will be utilized will grind this process to a halt. I am surprised by the lack of details forthcoming from the Broadmoor. They also have seemed to take the position that this is a done deal and here is how they will let us use our property. This will not resonate comfortably with anyone. Please provide specific details of the Broadmoor plan. 17. I’ve listed the top 10 issues that the Master Plan needed to address at the end of this letter. Please specify the issues this trade will address. A trade of this magnitude requires a magnitude of assurances and answers. To trade away 126 years of park history requires a compelling and well ‘thought’ out case. Our mission as Council members is to ‘protect and preserve’ that which we were given. To trade, barter or sell is always the easy way out. To reach beneficially constructive solutions takes time and considerable effort. Remember that the Broadmoor is a neighbor but our responsibility is to our neighbors. Yes, that’s plural. Please try and find another way to achieve our end states without having to draw communities into repetitious argument and debate. “Community values and priorities formulate the framework of the plan.” Top 10 Issues for the Master Plan to Address 1. Insufficient and uncertain funding, 2. Park structures and facilities in poor condition, 3. Natural and historic resource conservation, restoration and management needs, 4. Gaps in the trail system, 5. Some parks are loved to death (over used), 6. Flood, fire and drought impacts, 7. Lack of public awareness about the contributions and benefits of parks, trails and open space, 8. High cost of water for park maintenance, 9. Safety concerns and the need for park rule enforcement, and 10. Priorities and values of community members need to be determined. Respectfully yours “original signed” William ‘Bill’ Murray City of Colorado Springs, Councilmember At-Large (O) 719-3855-485 (C) 719-426-0572 (Fax) 719-385-5495