Thread by @shayshinecastle

Council moving through business. Now onto the Shanahan Ranch open space purchase. $8M, 179 acres at 1019 S Foothills Highway

Includes buildings, mineral and water rights, 1.25 shares of South Boulder and Bear Creek Ditch (water rights dating back to 1862)

Established in 1863; three siblings now own great-grandfather’s property. One of BoCo’s oldest ranches

“Protection has been city priority for decades” memo says
In fact, it was ID’d as a priority in original open space plan in 1967

Two development rights agreements were put in place in 1985 for $1.986M. To prevent a golf course and housing project planned at that time

City bought 315 adjacent acres to stop that development (Dover-Blacker, Boulder Greens Venture Open Space)

Development rights agreements are similar to conservation easement, but weaker protections and doesn’t allow Boulder to require certain management practice - Doesn’t require ag use of land, allows for oil & gas rights development, further subdivision and more homes

Boulder tried to buy Shanahan Ranch in 2008 for $6.609M but financial crisis hit

City was actually under contract but had to back out.

OSBT unanimously approved this purchase on Nov. 13 of this year

"This is the city's final opportunity to purchase and protect this property," open space staff says.

Shanahan Ranch will be added to Colorado Tallgrass Prairie State Natural Area, once acquired.

It serves as habitat for many songbirds and “at least two very large” northern leopard frogs, according to the memo

Here's a picture of the property:

Q from Young: The $6.6M price tag in 2008, did that include mineral and water rights?
Yes, staff says.

Mineral rights on the property do NOT include some rights on the eastern side that are owned by the state land board. State is not willing to sell.

Brockett: Is that the eastern half?
Yes, basically the eastern half of the property where the state owns mineral rights.

City is developing a 5-yr lease with the Shanahans to allow them to continue to steward the land. Brockett asks if we would wait 5 yrs to pursue recreational opportunities?
Staff: Our intention is to continue ag uses on that land

Dan Burke, interim director: The 5-yr lease will allow us to do planning, inventory and evaluation to develop a management plan for that property.

There are a few properties in line ahead of Shanahan for that property, so we'll need the full 5 yrs to get that work done, Burke says.

Wallach: We previously purchased rights for $1.9M, so our all-in is $10M. Is that price supported by an appraisal or anything else?

Staff: A number of appraisals were completed. The purchase price is based on info in those as well as our real estate staff's expertise and valuation of water rights.

There are water rights on the property dating back to 1862

Wallach: Am I reading this right... You're going to spend more on this acquisition than you planned to spend for the next six years combined?

Burke: This is the last year of our acquisition plan. "Moving away from acquisitions and into land management, we're going to be considerably decreasing our acquisition funds."

Our 2020 acquisition budget is $700,000, versus $5.4M in 2018, Burke says.

Friend asks what the budgeting looks like for CU South lands, and how that might impact the overall budget.
Burke: We're going to be using 2020 acquisition funds. We'll have $4.2M in our acquisition fund moving forward.

Burke: Every year we can put more $$ in that fund if we know we have acquisitions upcoming. Or we have bonding ability, which voters OK'd.

"There's a number of creative ways you still can create a high priority acquisition."

Friend: Going back to the threats to the property you name.. My understanding is it's only zoned for 2 homes, so how is subdivision a threat?

Staff: Our current agreements allow for development of undeveloped land. Basically, if you were to have subdivision, the likely scenario is the SE corner would be subdivided and you'd be left with a second parcel with existing residence.

I *think* he's saying yes, only one more house could go there. But it could be subdivided into three parcels, only 2 of which could have houses....?

The concern is that having that additional development, potentially 3 Dif owners, they would have Dif goals and practices for stewardship and management. They could put up fences, etc.

Friend: Current agreement doesn't prevent that?
Staff: No. "The current pressures lands like these are under weren't anticipated back in 1985, particularly residential development of ag land."

Friend: Any limits on how big buildings could be there? Could they cover the whole area with buildings?
Staff: A significant portion could be covered with ag-related buildings: equestrian stables, greenhouses, etc.

The max size of residences would be dictated by Boulder County land use codes.

Friend: Last threat I was confused by was discussion over oil & gas rights. We don't have any ability to prevent that?
Staff: East half of the property, we don't have any control over that bc mineral rights are state-owned. West half, we are acquiring those oil and gas rights.

But right now, under existing development agreements, there's nothing to prevent owners from developing those.

City attorney Tom Carr: City does have a moratorium on oil and gas development in city limits, but this is outside (unless we buy it). Open space has mechanisms in its policies to prevent drilling, but courts have routinely struck down moratoriums like these.

Another staff member, whose name I missed, is saying bc of the land conditions, it's unfeasible and unlikely an o&g co. would develop the rights there.

Only one resident here for the public hearing: Linda Parks

"I'm looking forward" to seeing this land added to open space. It's important that it remains agriculture, with maybe "passive recreational land" — with no possible relocation of prairie dogs to the property, Parks says.

Parks: So many of our other lands have been destroyed by prairie dogs, even though we have spent millions to preserve them. Council should have made a more "scientific" decision to allow lethal control, rather than an "emotional" one.

She also pronounced "decade" as "decayed" so there's that.

Really going in on Boulder's prairie dog management policies. Boulder Valley Ranch (where she boards horses) is decimated; "Is this the future of Shanahan Ranch?"

"We've watched once-productive grasslands become wastelands. I hope OSMP is prepared to keep this acreage from the same fate."

OK, end of public hearing.

Yates thanks the Shanahan family for selling Boulder the land.

Weaver: We've wanted this land forever. "This is the last hoorah" for our acquisition plan, given limited funding.

Council unanimously votes for acquisition.

Young invites the Shanahans up to make a comment. Cowboy hat and Carhart dude ambles up to the podium. "Been a long time" going through this. "I should be happy but I'm not, but my brother and sister put it up for sale. I hope they can work it out."

He did not give his name; one of the Shanahan siblings.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!