Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2023 - Natural Resources Advisory Board - Agenda - Regular Meeting Natural Resources Advisory Board REGULAR MEETING – May 17, 2023 Location: 222 Laporte, Colorado Room & Zoom: https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/94115567733 6:00 CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL 1. AGENDA REVIEW 2. COMMUNITY MEMBER PARTICIPATION 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – FEBRUARY & MARCH 4. NEW BUSINESS 6:10 – 6:30 Council Liaison Discussion Councilmember Julie Pignataro (liaison to NRAB) will join the board for introductions and general discussion of NRAB work plan and Council/community priorities. (Discussion) 6:30 – 7:30 Regional Water Update Jason Graham, Utilities Water Director, will share about the water supply and storage challenges faced by the Fort Collins community, as discussed by City Council at a May 9th work session. The discussion will provide an overview of the Fort Collins Utility’s water system; water supply challenges including drought, growth, and the Colorado River Compact; current water storage projects; and the City’s role as a regional partner with other water service providers in Northern Colorado. (Discussion) 5. OTHER BUSINESS / UPDATES • Board Member Reports • Six Month Calendar Review https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-calendar.php • Revisit action items from previous meetings & preview of next meeting City Websites with Updates: • Natural Resources Advisory Board webpage: https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/natural-resources.php • Our Climate Future: https://ourcity.fcgov.com/ourclimatefuture 6. ADJOURN Page 1 04/19/2023 – MINUTES Natural Resources Advisory Board REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, April 19, 2023 – 6:00 PM 222 Laporte Ave. Colorado Room 1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:07 PM 2. ROLL CALL a. Board Members Present – • Lisa Andrews • Danielle Buttke • Bryan David • Kevin Krause • Dawson Metcalf (Chair) • Kelly Stewart (Vice Chair) • Matt Zoccali b. Board Members Absent – • Drew Derderian • Barry Noon c. Staff Members Present – • Honoré Depew, Staff Liaison • Noah Beals, Development Review Manager • Ginny Sawyer, Sr. Policy and Project Manager d. Guest(s) – • None 3. AGENDA REVIEW 4. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Dawson motioned and Matt seconded to approve the NRAB February minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 7-0 b. Lisa motioned and Matt seconded to approve the NRAB March minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 7-0 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Land Use Code - Noah Beals (Development Review Manager) shared an update on the Land Use Code Phase 1 Update. The update focused on the Page 2 04/19/2023 – MINUTES input from 04.11.23 Council Work Session and gave an overview of what we are hearing from the community. Staff was there to listen to new topics and receive comments on the Land Use Code update. Multiple upcoming Council Work Sessions on this topic are scheduled. (Discussion) • Discussion | Q + A • Kevin – Q – Just on engagement I am curious, I saw the numbers for example on that previous slide with those who have reached out via email and so forth. I know this is probably an imperfect question but especially knowing the postcards went out. I guess in my world, I don’t see a lot of the folks who are in the middle who are likely supportive of some of the directions of the changes that were put out there originally still engaging with this stuff. So, I have some reservations. A lot of the inquiries are those who may have strongly opposed and felt left out, where others are like, yeah , my brother lives in Seattle and they have ADU and it’s great. You know just the folks that are expecting that this is the way it is going and may not, with two kids running around, go to other things. I know that’s a problem with anything but just directionally and the importance of all this from the collective goals, I don’t know how to think about that. How do you think about them, the true significant/public perception, and preferences when it is just so hard to get some people who in this case, my guess is more likely to support. Noah – A – I will say the way this presentation is outlined focuses on the concerns and I think that’s something we should try to figure out how to document better to support as well and try to quantify that as what we are doing here with concerns as well. I don’t have a good answer for you right now. Kevin – Comment – That is a good way to put it, like the way you did was showing that you know these concerns are some portion of the feedback but there is a lot of folks who are either happy and minimally engaged or unengaged but not opposed because there’s definitely our group and some others that have supported and directionally its great but I know from working in other areas, its hard to engage busy families. So are we hearing from all the busy families in these emails or are we hearing from other people who have that time. Again it’s a common theme problem. Noah – A – I will say especially during the signature process we got a lot of emails on both sides. When I say we, I’m including Council who received emails as well stating, we are strongly supportive or we’re strongly against this. Again, it is probably something we should highlight like out of all these emails we did get some support in that and trying to document that and present it as well. • Lisa – Q – I have a question, how is it determined which project undergoes which type of review? Noah – A – The way it’s determined is there is this land use table in the code that tells you what your level of review is. Lisa – Q – So it is predetermined? Noah – A – Yes, it is outlined. Nobody has to make a decision here. You bring your project here and then we look up to see which review you are going to do. • Dawson – Q – Thinking about the need of housing and then thinking of the amount, if you have these numbers I really appreciate it but if you don’t I totally understand, but how many people come into Fort Collins to work on the daily and reside in another external community. I am thinking of the environmental impact from cars, transportation and all these pieces that are coming in and out of Fort Collins. I am Page 3 04/19/2023 – MINUTES just curious if you can give us some numbers. Do you have any numbers around that? Noah – A – I would love to give you numbers but I can’t. I can tell you something I heard from Josh Birks in our Economic Health Department mention in a work session the other day. We still have right now, more people that during the day come and work in the city than we have people who leave to work outside the city. So if we have a population of about 170,000 right now and growing, that population increases every day for work. Honoré – A – Pretty sure the number I have heard is about 30,000 car trips a day coming into Fort Collins. Dawson – Q – Just coming in? Honoré – A – Yes. • Kevin – Comment – Dawson, I think that is a really good point because much of this stuff just gets down into the weeds. So, I guess a question related to that would be in these engagement sessions are they starting with this is why we care about density. For example because right now you are concerned about more traffic on your neighborhood street but the bigger issues is all the traffic on all of our streets including those that have higher speeds, more issues from collision etc. Potential standpoint on top of all the environmental stuff but if you are not starting with that in these conversations, then everyone is just going to go why are you messing with my stuff and it’s like people are going to commute, they are going to work here, whoever that I, or have a need here on a daily basis. Starting with that then you say this is why but if it’s just we think this is what we have to do, then everyone is like I don’t like all this change. The change is going to hit you one way or another, so how do you frame that in a way that is not just talking details. What’s missing is what’s going to happen as the alternative to that. Noah – Comment – I think we try to start with that, even this presentation or the presentation to Council is like, hey these are adopted plans, this is what’s talked about, why are we doing these changes but I think it’s turning the crank on that a little more to this is why they adopted plan census. Kevin – Comment – Because the engagement wasn’t necessarily there on the adopted plans. Noah – Comment – Yeah, I think that was a thing that has been hard to convey to our community, that what we are doing is an implementation. All that public outreach we did for this does count and I think there has been a perception of we should have started from square one but that would not validate the plans our Council has adopted. Kevin – Comment – I would just say something tangible to me, if you can tell that without having to go read the plan is more traffic on all our streets and the highway is going to be increasing one thing that people can be like “oh”. Just some way to do that. I don’t know, maybe that’s too simplistic but that makes me understand it faster than anything. I feel like you are trying to really quickly get to your point and get everyone up to speed on all these things that a lot of us have been aware of, involved with, and seeing the process on but it is a hard ask. Honoré – Comment – I am happy to share a couple of the slides that our Environmental Services Director shared last week at an event that was hosted on this topic over at Wolverine Public House to try and bring in that environmental perspective. • Danielle – Comment – I want to echo a lot of Kevin and Dawson’s comments. There are some phenomenal studies that have show that Page 4 04/19/2023 – MINUTES there is a disproportionate correlation between xenophobia, racial resentment, and denial of climate change and being more vocal and more willing, more listened to and also being more likely to be in a position of leadership. There are excellent stud ies from the Yale Center for Climate Communication. So, Kevin’s earlier comment about the vocal minority being heard and having their voice carry more weight is a really common problem with a lot of the engagement. I want to highlight that the City of Fort Collins and the CSU Center for Public Engagement and Public Deliberation have won awards for their work. I take this personally because I am so proud of the work the City has done and does in these engagement actions. When this public backlash to the Land Use Code was going forward I spoke to every neighbor I could speak to and every person having a table in front of a store, market, or corner trying to get signatures to try and understand what their concerns were. The most common talking point that people voiced was that there would be no review. That developers would be able to come in a raise a historic house and put in a six-unit apartment building with no public review whatsoever. There is a process, there is a review. It is a different public review but it also as Kevin said, people are weighing the status quo versus these changes when in reality the status quo is going away. What the tradeoff is, is more congestion, more traffic, more pollution, and higher housing costs. I think it is important to be clear we are not comparing the status quo to these Land Use Code changes. We are comparing a future that is more congestion, more expensive, less equitable, higher pollution. I think that’s an important point. Then again, I think that review process was a talking point that came up and a lot of those people that were hosting tables that I spoke with this summer. I just want to commend you. I really feel like the City is doing a phenomenal job on this. It is going to be hard not to talk this personally, but I hope that’s not the case because I just really commend you all for your work and such a difficult contentious issue. If we aren’t sticking our necks out there sometimes, we are not moving the needle in the direction we want it to but it still has to be a difficult process. I am excited to hear about these engagement events and we will support them in every way possible. I also totally agree that prior engagement should absolutely count because it is still meaningful and those voices are not void because it happened after this backlash. • Honoré – Q – Would it be helpful perhaps if I just shared a couple of these slides. Int thinking about the angle that this board has taken, and it’s been echoed or been demonstrated in Danielle’s and Kevin’s comments, it ties to those ideas of ‘how can we tell a story that includes environmental impacts?’. I think a lot of the people who spent time gathering signatures would consider themselves environmentalists and yet there was a disconnect in some of their minds around the idea of conservation or preserving Fort Collins and what the future might hold. *Honoré shared slides* • Lisa – Q – I have a question about that urban infill on the previous slide. Is that increase density? Is that another way of saying that? Noah – A – Yes, we are recognizing there is not a lot of open land left in the City so for density to increase we are going to have to infill what is already developed. Page 5 04/19/2023 – MINUTES • Kevin – Q – Could you go back a couple of slides and I might be over indexing on this so take it for what it is worth, but I think maybe to what I was saying earlier like consideration for language. So , say that the population increases is sort of a less tangible thing, but to be like 28-30% of our congestion is caused by in commuters. It’s like why is there so much back up at this light? The more that those everyday experiences of I’m trying to get to school or work or whatever those everyday things will resonate more. I’d be like on this Board, in our context and your department we’re at the tip of the sphere so that’s there’s a recognition of these connections but not everyone else has the exposure and its connecting those dots as clearly as possible to tell them a story that resonates but still builds up to the fact that its going t help emissions and air quality and so forth. That framing to me is just so important because climate change is going to hit everyone in one way or another but from an everyday perspective, that is what is going to hit us all in a different way. Honoré – Comment – Personal experiences. Kevin – Yes like the population increases, okay. This stuff to try and catch people if that is our goal. • Kevin – Q – Is there anything we can do now to express support for any component of this? Noah – A – No, I think today I just want to kind of give you guys an update and where we’re at, what we’re doing and really if you let your neighbors know invite people to get engaged in our processes or events that would be wonderful. I like what Danielle said, we need to better frame the support that we are getting with publicizing the concerns too. • Lisa – Q – What is the best way to know about these neighborhood walks and stuff like that? Noah – A – Going to our website, fcgov.com/housing and even if you get to the City’s front page, it is spotlighted right now and has a link. All the events are advertised there. • Honoré – Q – In terms of timing for a return visit and discussion with this Board in advance of Council action, should we think about late summer or when would a memo or other sort of input from this Board for Council consideration be most helpful? Noah – A – I think that you’d probably want to see the alternatives and what is being proposed first and so that would be late summer, maybe early September. We will be going to Council hopefully late September. Honoré – Comment – They meet the third week of the month so probably that third week in August would be good. b. Sustainable Revenue - Ginny Sawyer (Sr. Policy and Project Manager) shared information and discussions about options for funding mechanisms for review gaps, including Parks, Transit, Housing, and Climate. Ginny was seeking feedback and board member input prior to an April 25 City Council Work Session. (Discussion) • Discussion | Q + A • Bryan – Q – I had a question on the sales tax, does the 10 million incorporate anticipated visitor spending and then the 145 -231 increase per household, is that just the 10 mil lion divided by 78. How is the cost being distributed? Ginny – A – I need to ask because I see what you are saying. We did an estimate based on our residents and yet we are saying it’s going to be subsidized by visitors. So, what percentage of the visitors play into that. I don’t know. Honoré – Page 6 04/19/2023 – MINUTES Comment – I am sure to be prepared to answer for Council. • Kevin – Q – Why was substance in 2024 again? Ginny – A – I think just trying to be judicious and not put how much tolerance do you have when you’re working to your ballot and PSD wants some money, and the County wants some money, and we want money, and we want money again. I think we are just trying to be cognizant of that. Honoré – Comment – And these scenarios are just things for Council and the public to react to. There are so many variables and this is why it has been such a long process with the Council Finance Committee, because we are trying to mix and match all these different things and trying to funnel it down but they’ve left it really pretty open. It’s going to be a complicated conversation with Council next Tuesday. Our wizards over in finance have built a pretty cool tool that allows Council to look in real time what it would be like if they chose this from column A and this from column B and attached this to that and so it could quickly demonstrate the impacts. • Lisa – Q – Do you know roughly how long people have foreseen this $40 million deficit? Ginny – A – So if we go back on that slide that has the four plans. Parks tries to compete every year in our budget cycle with the general fund and we give some amount for an irrigation system, or we give some amount for the lights at Rolland Moore, but it is never enough to really make great strides. Two steps forward, one step back kind of thing. That is one I think we could say we have seen. The others – transit, climate, housing, these are sort of our aspirational goals and I call them aspiration even though I think we all want them, and they are needed. They are foundational but it is not a deficit necessarily. These are things we want to achieve and so to achieve those this is what it is going to cost. Honoré – Comment – Definitely gets into a bit of political and philosophical territory around how you define deferred maintenance. That’s what we talk about in the park system and people have also talked about that and these other elements, these other realms as well. Ginny – Comment – Yeah, parks are hard. We have dedicated funding to build them and no dedicated funding to maintain them. • Kevin – Comment – I guess spoken back to the substance, I love the fact, if that could be, I think you mentioned it was previously tied to Parks and Rec feels like more of a complimentary and unique way to the activities we want to promote. Not that we want to detract from others but it’s great. It just feels like a great counterpoint to some of that stuff. Even though many of us enjoy both sides of it. It feels like it’s more of an instant on like the property tax to take a couple of years. It is not insignificant. Ginny – Comment – and Parks can probably hang on for another year because the budget we are in is 2023/2024. Kevin – Comment – Even with the sales tax, something that jumped out to me more recently than ever is I have noticed it. If you end up shopping at Scheels or Costco take a look at the receipt because its crazy what we are paying in terms of sales tax, additive sales taxes for investment zones for those towns. Ginny – Comment – PIFs. Kevin – Comment – Yeah. It is high. You end up paying if forgot but I did the math and I want to say we got something from Scheels and it was over 10% tax because they tack on 3.5 or 4.5%. It was high. I think there are some other unique areas to pull from to be like quarter cent sales tax. You go over there and pay 3% extra and Page 7 04/19/2023 – MINUTES funding the growth there versus funding here. If you don’t really look you just move on with your day until your like could I do better. • Danielle – Q – I know that other unnamed park systems in the United States often run into budget short balls in part because the creation of parks and maintenance of parks are two separate budget line items and quite often it’s really politically viable to create new parks and not politically viable to include the funding that’s required for the maintenance and upkeep. This is something I know that we struggle with quite a bit in the organization I work with and there’s been efforts to try and require new parks to have maintenance dollars added in or tacked on and I am just wondering how the City is dealing with these similar issues. Ginny – A – A few different ways. One certainly we recognize the two different funding sources. One is dedicated and one is not. That adds to the problem. The dedicated source is through our capital expansion fee so anytime new development goes in. I think this year we have a fee study and one thing we are looking at is expanding that definition of capital expansion fee because ultimately, we’re going to build out to and then obviously parks are done being built but they won’t be done being maintained. Is there a way with infill or other types of development to use those expansion fees for operation and maintenance. We are going to be looking at that as one possibility to do that. You certainly see across the county parks and/or recreation districts like the library became a district for that exact reason. We try to not do that. You create yet another governing body by doing that and we’d like to keep our parks and recreation within our organization system but what you’ve described is exactly right. Honoré – Comment – I have pulled the slide back up because it’s pretty drastic. Ginny – Comment – Things are just expensive. I look at that and I am like really, $1 million parking lot but yeah. Danielle – Comment – Also struck by the irrigation systems too and you know this is something we touch on quite a often and that’s the number one priority here and Kentucky bluegrass. There are big beautiful old trees there but it’s unfortunate to sometimes see these decisions and values completely dissected and separated from the other City values and plans. Where this is an opportunity to not just improve a more water wise irrigation system but potentially convert to more appropriate turf based on our climate here in Fort Collins. Ginny – Comment – There are activities that are well loved that require turf and we will always require turf and irrigation. Honoré – Comment – I think turf conversion is a big priority at the same time, in appropriate areas while maintaining fields. Ginny – Comment – We are going to have baseball fields and flag football fields • Honoré – Comment – City Council is meeting next Tuesday to talk about this. That is the April 25th work session. Then they have another work session tentatively planned for June 13th which is where I think staff was hoping to get final direction on if and what to bring forward as ballot language. Then they have a July 25th meeting planned to finalize the ballot language before an August regular meeting to adopt ballot language. Then at that point if any tax is going to be put on the ballot it goes through a TABOR Review (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) in Colorado to meet the deadlines to be on a ballot by November. So, I think if NRAB wanted to weigh in, take action, or offer any advice probably that June work session might be best for Page 8 04/19/2023 – MINUTES between now and then based on what you hear from Council next week. • Matt – Q – Does staff have a recommended approach yet? Ginny – A – Not yet, other than I believe staff would say we don’t think the large emitter fee is a great idea. I think we would recommend being judicious in number of measures to put on a ballot and I think we would prefer a sales tax over the occupation tax, but I don’t know. Matt – Q – In terms of what is a little bit easier to digest for the voters or is acceptable. Ginny – A – Yeah, and again spreading out that sales tax around. • Matt – Q – Has the large emitter situation been put on the table in front of Broadcom? Honoré – A – Yes, that has been part of the conversation since fall of 2021 when this conversation began with Council Finance and actually started as a large emitter fee. Then because of the difficulty of demonstrating a direct benefit to the fee payer, it was recognized that it needed to go away. Then a suggestion from a community group pushed it forward again on to Council Finance and said what if it was a tax because it gives you more flexibility and usage. So, it came back again. This time staff has done a lot of due diligence and research. There are a lot of variables including what you could charge right now, that’s $51 per ton based on the federal social cost of carbon. That could increase under the Biden Administration but that’s a very political decision. Unde r the Trump Administration it was like $1 or $5 per carbon metric ton and the Biden Administration has floated a $191. There’s also question on whether you should charge it on the entire inventory of emission per entity or only on the net emissions above the 25,000 metric reporting threshold because anyone underneath that reporting threshold essentially gets a free pass. There’s a lot of various considerations and there are some legal dimensions that Council is wading through with their legal counsel. That Is a tricky one and Broadcom and Anheuser-Busch are not excited about it. • Lisa – Q – Is there any threat from them of moving out of our area if it got imposed? Honoré – A – I haven’t heard that but what we do know is that they are making strides and we’ve got some graphs in the full slide deck that show the rapid decline of their emissions overtime and their public commitments to be under that reporting threshold. Broadcom’s is in the next five years and Anheuser-Busch by 2030. They have said that additional taxes could impact their ability to put funds into emission abatement technology. Anheuser-Busch gave us a number that said if they were taxed that $2 million a year which is what this is projected to cost them if you charge them the full admission portfolio, that $2 million equates to between 15-20 jobs at their factory. Not that they were threatening to lay off people but that is what it equates to and then what do we do as an organization with that tax revenue? Do we put it in the e-bike rebates. Kevin – Q – Is that better than them just reducing more? Honoré – Comment – Sorry to keep going on this one but there have been some questions raised in the Council Finance Committee at least which is just a subset of the full Council around the credibility of their commitments and correctly reporting. So, there’s some reflection of community mistrust of large multinationals that we’ve heard as well. • Kevin – Comment – I was going to say on the sales tax, I do like that Page 9 04/19/2023 – MINUTES because of the visitor subsidy opportunity there. Not only because great they will also pay but because there are more emissions when people come and visit. Not to say we don’t want to promote that and its minimal difference over the course of a general stay, I would imagine, but they are from a pure mission and carbon standpoint. That’s just the reality and so I feel like there’s a reasonable tie in there. Ginny – Comment – And if they were dedicated, which I think it would be, I would just reiterate that it doesn’t apply to groceries. We try to maintain some equity in that space as well. • Lisa – Q – Does anyone know what the sales tax rate is not in Fort Collins for just buying a sweater or something? Ginny – A – Your city portion would be 3.85 but you are going to see more because the County also has some in there as well, but our collection is 3.8 5. • Kevin – Q – On big move number four the Active Modes Plan, that $1.5 million, do you know the source of that and what it represents. It seems low to me. Honoré – A – I asked FC Moves folks and that is still sort of preliminary. We are trying to put forward some specificity that Council and community have asked for so that they can get an idea of what funds could be used for but not tying in new revenue directly to exact activities in a way that would limit flexibility. So, what FC moves provided was some sort of near-term investment in stuff like new bike facilities and e-bike rebates and all sorts of things at a scale that would be about accelerating existing programs. Then on the transformation call, that’s when you see the full active modes investments and that number is over 100 million, around 116 million. We are not slapping $116 million on the screen. Just saying here are some investments that could be done in the short term that would help. Kevin – Q – That is short term manual for like 2024 or something like that. Honoré – A – Yes, Cortney Geary said that $1.5 Million a year could help scale and accelerate existing strategies and that at the transformational level, that is where you get into much higher investments needed. Kevin – Q – When and how does that transformational level get articulated because I think of the things in the plan that was adopted is the language around funding the plan equivalent ot the goal and if I look at the $1.5 million compared to the overall streets budget, I don’t think we are funding the plan towards the goal without doing transformational stuff. It’s just blinking down there as a tiny thing still and I feel like that was the idea with the plan. Honore – A – This whole conversation around sustainable reven ue for deferred maintenance started around parks deficit as laid out in the Parks and Rec Master Plan that was developed a couple of years ago, based on the deficits identified in the Housing Strategic Plan and in the Transit Master plan. Those were a big glaring light that have been on the radar for years. The Active Modes Plan came up a little more recently and so it hasn’t been featured in the conversations at the same degree. Where we pulled it in is through that lens of the climate umbrella and saying okay if you look at climate its not just about emissions free buildings. That is a huge part of it but we’ve looked t the whole array and so that’s why I’m personally excited we’ve been able to use that big moves framing to talk more about it. Kevin – Comment – I agree with that but I’ll keep calling it out. I just feel like we can’t achieve that goal if we don’t start spending bigger to make a different experience to use active modes in the community. Page 10 04/19/2023 – MINUTES $1.5 million gets you a couple more separated bike lanes on a couple streets and that is great but its going to affect a very small number of people and how they behave and experience that. • Honoré – Comment – So what Denver has done with their quarter cent sales tax is have some really clear allowable uses, six specific buckets with a focus on equity and that allows enough flexibility and specificity that voters are like yes these are our priorities. Transportation and active modes is one of those. To Ginny’s point earlier that maybe years where whatever sustainable revenue is coming in underneath that umbrella needs to all go towards transit in order to get some big matching dollars from some big federal grants and in another year maybe there’s a really great opportunity around active modes. It could take a larger chunk of it. It is not perfectly defined ahead of time. • Ginny – Comment – The other thing I would throw out is this timeframe. I said this last time is that it’s a very short window for what we typically do so it’s great to be able to come and talk to you about it because you know we’re talking about it but we don’t know what it is yet and by the time we know what it is, we’re not going to be able to talk about it. So, it’s good to shar the knowledge as much as possible when and if it comes forward so I appreciate it. c. 1041 Regulations Update – Barry Noon (NRAB Representative to the 1041 Regulations Committee) provided an update memo for NRAB in the April meeting packet. The memo includes information on the state of the Draft 1041 Regulations, upcoming timeline for City Council, and perspectives from the 1041 Regulations Committee. Barry requested NRAB input, comment, and decision about whether a memo to the Mayor and City Council is appropriate. (Discussion with possible Action) • Discussion | Q + A • Lisa – Q – Is the Northern Integrated Supply Project the Thornton Water Project? Bryan – A – No it is instructing the Glade reservoir, which would be Northwest of town that would flip part of 287. Matt – Comment – But it will deliver water down to that area through the pipeline. Lisa – Q – So it is related to the Thornton project? Matt – The pipeline delivery system will head to the South that way. Thornton is one of the participants but there are several including the Cities of Mead and Erie. Bryan – Comment – But Thornton has its own system that they are also trying to construct right now. Honoré – Comment – Larimer County denied them the privilege. • Dawson – Q – I have a procedural question timeline wise. County and I were chatting and know that the first reading of 1041 regulations is May 2nd . So, I am just thinking from a purpose of Barry reaching out and thinking about this potentially putting in point of action for a memo would be created by this Board regarding 1041 regulations and this here. Is it significant and important for that memo, if the Board decides to do so, to happen before the first reading? Honoré – A – From a procedural standpoint, if this Board wanted to submit something in time to be include in the packets that go out, they are published next Thursday, the 27th. So, the deadline would probably be Wednesday the 26th by noon. Then If that was too tight of a timeframe or you wanted to wait and see what happened after the first reading, what I have heard is it is going to be a longer Page 11 04/19/2023 – MINUTES than the typical two week period between 1st and 2nd reading. I don’t want to say 100% but I don’t think 2nd reading will be May 18th and it will be a longer timeframe. It is possible that if that is the case, then the next possible regular meeting for a 2nd reading is two weeks out from there, which would be the beginning of June. You could revisit this at your May meeting and decide if you wanted to submit something prior to the second reading. Dawson – Comment – The reason I do bridge that is simply because I know there is a lot of information here and I also know there are newer folks to the Board that maybe, whatever familiarity exists and this, which is a lot. I by no means am an expert on it and could do research myself but I just wanted to understand timeline wise what we’re looking at and let that also bridge the conversation. • Kevin – Q – So what is the action again? Maybe I am less up to speed on the actual, with regards to the context of the first reading as related to the content here. A couple of upper points regarding state interest and Honoré would you mind scrolling up to those two major bulleted points. Are these points not being taken into account with regards to the 1041 construct that would be what is expected in that 1st reading. Is this the deficiency? Matt – Comment – Because it lies beyond city limits. Kevin – Comment – and so they are not exercising those powers thus far. Bryan – A – The way they were being proposed is it would be within the growth management area or whatever Kirk Longstein said. Kelly – A – There was one with geographic limitations and one without. Kirk and the team moved forward with the one with limitations. I think Barry is a huge proponent of without. Kevin – Comment – So Barry is basically saying space it. Kelly – Comment – I thought Barry wanted to write a memo and I don’t know if he is talking about this specifically but I don’t know if the memo he is suggesting for us is to just advocate for no geographical limits in general which would then impact this. I don’t know if we need to be that specific. I guess that is the question. • Dawson – Comment – I think this is where I am at and I am no legal expert. I think Kirk and I am going to an email that was shared, and we can share this email out but this happened right at the beginning of this meeting that Kirk had some points for us to consider for instance what is being proposed in this document. Lisa – Q – And this one is from Barry? Dawson – A – Yes. *Dawson pulled up email from Kirk* • Matt – Comment – Just jumping back to the memo while he is pulling up the email, that final mic drop sentence of the memo, we strongly suggest the City invokes its 1041 powers and deny approval of NISP. I understand what’s behind that for Barry and I wish he was here to discuss. I don’t know what that creates in terms of legal issues. Does that mean the town of Mead and Thornton and all these people say we are going to now sue the City of Fort Collins. I don’t know what the consequences are of that and maybe some would say down the torpedoes that’s coming though. Dawson – Comment – I think some of this is speaking to what you are saying. • Honoré – Comment – I was going to highlight this one. At this point City leadership is not intending to regulate activities outside of City limits. However, if Council wishes to direct staff to re -evaluate that position a future work session is suggested for the parameters, how Page 12 04/19/2023 – MINUTES this policy should be applied to code. So, to your point, Kevin, where are things now and what is the potential influence? I would say if this Board wanted to strongly align with Barry’s position and suggest that they take up this, I think that could potentially have impact there. I think some of the other things that Kirk shared are also important to consider. I think one thing you said he said here is after the code is adopted that 1st reading that is coming up May 2nd and then the 2nd reading which likely wont be until June, there is still opportunity for groups that want a different angle to lobby and do so during phase II of the code. This one I get out of my depth because he has slides that we have seen a few times. I just don’t have them memorized. Then here's the earlier part that I think you were also going to speak to. • Dawson – Q – What is CAO? Honoré – A – City Attorney’s Office. • Lisa – Q – So that memo that we were just looking at, whoever wrote this (email) is sort of assuming that came from this Board? Honoré – A – Kirk knows Barry very well because Barry is the one who is liaising to that group. Kirk knows this board is considering Barry’s proposal and he has reviewed it. • Kevin – Q – So do we have the background, or do any of us recall if we have it as to why Council has decided to direct them to not pursue the avenue of evaluating areas outside the City limits as part of the regulations that are ultimately adopted at that point? Dawson – A – Again I am not a legal expert here but the reference point to the very top of how, what we are proposing here has not been tested in court. I was under the impression from my meetings and the 1041 Regulations that it is in the municipalities that have utilized this within that in term so if internally looked at and have been able to control regulations legislation towards that. It is that external look of going outside the scope of authority. That is really the question here but again this is me. Kevin – I don’t think we have talked about this in the past. I don’t feel like we need to be the legal expert. It is more if we bounce something back to Council and say we urge Council to re- evaluate the opportunity to regulate things outside the City that will clearly affect the City based on this potential. We are not putting ourselves or the City at legal risk because that’s everybody else’s role in either deciding to do that or not, then when to do it, and how the City Attorney’s looks at it. I don’t feel like any of us need to think that’s more. Do we think there is a potential gap here, where they are missing the board and we, as the sustainability environmentally focused forward need to push on that just to make sure that is being looked at right. I don’t want us to get bogged down. At least personally, I don’t want us to because we are not going know it. There is no way we are ever going to be the legal person. It is hard to keep track of just the basics of this one. Without Barry here, I don’t know what he called out as far as the items that seem to be in place to say we do the City have that ability. I guess from my standpoint based on knowing this, what would be the downside of asking Council to re-evaluate that based on the potential effect to try to somehow stop the missed piece straight at 1041 and say we know things that happen outside or impact our important facilities , infrastructure, wildlife, whatever. So just asking. Matt – Comment – Like a cost benefit analysis of what that would look like. Kevin – Comment – yes ask please evaluate that and they can say we got Page 13 04/19/2023 – MINUTES this memo, we are going to do something with it, we are not, or Kirk help us through what is going on. I don’t know, that is my two cents. It is easy to get lost in the details. It is way past us in some ways but I feel like just being that back stop. • Honoré – Comment – I wanted to point out this is one of the attachments he sent along. This is a public memo from last week to City Council related to 1041 Regulation decision points. I’ll just skip down to decision point three which seems to be the one that is the focus of this memo. Update review standards to account for construction activities outside the jurisdiction. So, this is on the table for discussion that Council could redirect. Add a common review standard that analyzes activities causing an adverse impact on Fort Collins Property regardless of where the construction takes place. Kevin – Comment – One thing we could do is express, we support evaluating those review standards based on potential impacts to some of the areas. We don’t have to get that specific but some general areas that we know could and that just reiterates. They get all this stuff, and they get a memo and then say okay I have to look back at this now. • Matt – Q – Could we have a copy of this to review in case there is anything besides decision point three we might also say this Board supports that as well. Honoré – A – Yes, it is a public memo. • Matt – Q – Who was it sent to and from whom? Honoré – A – Sent to City Council from Kirk Longstein. Matt – Q – So staff to Council but based on feedback that staff received thought these engagement processes. Honoré – A – That is what it seems to be and then also reflecting a response from a previous work session in February. • *Dawson will forward email from Kirk to Board along with its attachments* • Matt – Comment – If we were to act it would have to be by next Wednesday. Honoré – Comment – Not necessarily. If you wanted to get a memorandum in the full packet that goes out in advance of the regular meeting it would need to be in by next Wednesday. You can always send something after that date and then ask for that to get in front of Council that they will read before in a packet that goes out on Tuesdays. It doesn’t necessarily have as much impact as something that’s considered alongside all the other materials that come from that item. Then as I mentioned there is probably going to be m ore than a typical two-week period between 1st and 2nd reading. So, there could be an opportunity to influence after the May 2 nd meeting but before the 2nd reading, which I am assuming will happen in June. Kelly – Q – So we could draft a memo and review it next meeting potentially as a group and approve it in May? Honoré – A – with the caveat that it is possible they would rush forward and do the 2nd reading back-to- back. • Kevin – Comment – I like having the earlier. It feels tou gh to get in between for a second reading and feel like there’s an impact opportunity to the same degree. So even if we don’t have the full scale of maybe there are more things in there. There is the one call out from an existing memo they’ve received that w e can reiterate on short and sweet to be like we believe this will be valuable now to take action based on that item they have already seen. It’s just sort of re - emphasizing. I guess that is where I a m at as far as I don’t like Page 14 04/19/2023 – MINUTES waiting and being in between readings. It feels less impactful. Kelly – Q – So you are saying you want it done by next week to get into the packet? Kevin – A – That is kind of what I am exploring as a motion. Just not trying to be comprehensive and perfect with every piece of this but just pick one bullet item they’ve already been exposed to and reiterate what we believe is the importance for evaluating that opportunity. Nothing more, just generically reiterate that. Kelly – Q – Is it less impact though if we don’t make that initial packet of information and wait. Would we be better off waiting? Kevin – A – The earlier we get it in, then we are part of the packet with the content itself for this specific item. If we wait then we are sort of an add on, like by the way look over here. It is a big of a disjointed piece together. Honoré – Comment – Staff puts together these materials that attend to the item for Council consideration and so when Dawson sends that to City Council members and CC’s Kirk, it allows him to make sure he includes that in the packet in the right spot so that it can be considered as part of the discussion. • Matt – Q – Can you scroll up to decision point two really quick. I hear what you are saying Kevin I just want to do a quick scan. Kevin – Comment – Good call. • Matt – Q – So just again to say what I think you are saying Kevin. If we were to say as a Board we, NRAB support decision point three. Which supports City Council advising staff to re-evaluate decision point three in this memo or we could not even call out the memo. Just re-emphasize that point common review standard that analyzes activities. Is that what you are suggesting as a motion? Kevin – A – Yes and I am just looking at the language here too. So, add a common review standard that analyzes activities causing adverse impact on Fort Collins property regardless of where the construction takes place. So, at this point, based on this language this is just like the other ones. It is in there; it is not light language. It is in there unless I am missing that. • Lisa – Comment – I think if our memo references decision point three it reinforces that notion. I like the idea of using that as a reference point. Kevin – Comment – Or we say we applaud the inclusion of this point. Not like it is in there I guess and that was something that this Board has discussed in the past and found it important for all these reasons. But that does not mean it’s a sure thing in their mind. It is being presented to them. It gives one more push to not let this go away kind of thing or do due diligence with regards to those levels that we don’t understand. I think it’s important. • Kelly – Q – What did Kirk say, did he reference decision point three in his email as well? Kevin – A – Yes but he didn’t know. • Danielle – Comment – I think it’s a difficult situation and we wouldn’t be in this situation if there hadn’t been other key interventions that had been missed given other political environments and so I think that’s an important thing to factor into. This is not the most sensible way to deal with this issue, however give the other circumstances and lack of climate factors being considered in other decision making processes, it may be the best option. • Kelly – Q – So that both there, it seems like they want to discuss it but its not their intent so we should back up that decision? Kevin – Yes Page 15 04/19/2023 – MINUTES • Bryan – Q – What are the standards with that link 6.7? Honoré – A – That links to the Land Use Code. It is a 50-page document. Bryan – Comment – I am not saying we pull it up now but to review those standards in a week seems hard to do. Kevin – Comment – I think Barry and Dawson have been involved and been able to filter some of this stuff for us to say what we think is either not covered or not adequately covered. I think Barry is bubbling up the things he thinks are substantial. I am sure we would applaud many of the details in the Land Use Code but not miss the bigger items. I remember reviewing some of this stuff and having been part of some of those early discussions and there is some good stuff. • Matt – Q – Does it have to be a memo. Couldn’t we reinstate from the email from Kirk a few nuances for the Board to consider and then that one decision point three however if Council wishes to direct staff to re-evaluate that position a future work session is suggested to exploit parameters. Could we not say the NRAB encourages Council to direct staff to re-evaluate this position as stated in decision point three of the attached memo and suggest a future work session be dedicated to explore the parameters on this policy or something like that. Would it have to be a memo? Honoré – A – So two ways it typically goes through Council is either an abstract from minutes of this conversation you are having right now or a memo. I say abstract but an extraction. Like pulling a section of the discussion here tonight and sending that along. Lisa – Comment – I think a memo would be more focused. Kevin – Comment – I think a memo could be what you just said a not longer. Honoré – Comment – A third option is a public comment. So, one of you could appear at the Council meeting on May 2nd and say I am representing NRAB and wanted to bring this into conversation. • Kelly – Q – So even if we drafted a memo we are not in the legality of public visibility. Are we not able to? Dawson – Q – We would have to do it right now right? Honoré – A – So this is a public meeting and so you would have to act by vote saying you want to submit a memo, make a motion, a match is shared and then that would allow the creation of that memo to send off in the packets. Kevin – Comment – Without further review, especially if it is short and concise. Kelly – Q – So we wouldn’t be able to do the Google Doc thing again where we make edits? Kevin – A – I am saying we can get it done without having to have another meeting to record. • Matt – Comment – I just want to go down on record with you all that I feel much more comfortable with that approach. I am supportive of it. I am not at least at this time supportive of the last sentence in the memo that says we believe we should deny. That is where I am standing. Bryan – Comment – I agree. Kevin – Comment – If you were able to restate what you just stated as a motion as content of the memo to some degree, I would help support that. • Matt motioned and Kelly seconded a motion to prepare a memo that encourages Council to direct staff to re -evaluate the position as presented in decision point three of Kirk Longstein’ s memo on April 13th for a future work session to explore the parameters on how the policy should be applied to the code. Motion unanimously passes. 7- 0. Dawson will draft the memo and get it sent to City Council before next Wednesday at noon. Page 16 04/19/2023 – MINUTES 8. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS a. Bryan will be moving to California in June for work and will have to resign in May. Kevin asked about his own resignation and quorum. Honoré stated they have to have 5 members for quorum. 9. STAFF REPORTS 10. OTHER BUSINESS a. Six Month Calendar Review • May • Julie P will be visiting • ESD Background Overview • Regional Water Update • Advancing Transit Initiatives Update • Kevin – Comment – I was exposed to a Council meeting about a month and a half ago where a number of community groups came in and testified related to those potential oil and gas standards. For example, there was a mention of the lack of commitment to ongoing monitoring and so forth. I was surprised to hear that. They were advocating at that time that hos things were not part of the possible standards. I guess it seemed like based on Council’s comments b ack to those folks in the discussion or you know separated feedback as they discussed it that there was more stuff going on than I feel like I have been exposed to here. I think if everyone is interested just making sure we are in the loop both from where they are at and what the public feedback has been. Honoré – Comment – Oil and gas standards have been led out jointly between Planning and Development, Transportation, the Environmental Planning team led by Kirk Longstein, Cassie Archuleta, our Air Quality Program Manager, and then my department director Lindsay Ex. I can check with them and see what might be good timing to bring you up to speed on those conversations. • Other possible topics mentioned, discussed, or coming up for Council: Land Use Code, sustainable revenue, oil and gas standards, Economic Health Strategic Plan, Regional Water Update, and Homelessness. Council will be taking a recess in June/July. NRAB also discussed canceling a summer meeting for a social gathering. • Dawson – Q – In reference to a point Noah brough up, the water adequacy update. I saw that part of the Land Use Code. Could you just inform my lack of knowledge on what that is. Honoré – I can follow up on it. Matt – A – From listening to Noah it sounded like if someone is thinking about building 100 new homes, they have to show there is adequate water supply. That is the way I took it but maybe more information would be helpful. Kelly – Comment – Or even an accessory dwelling unit on the property. It can tie into your house and I think that was part of it too, making it part of that consideration. Bryan – Comment – He mentioned tab fees which are part of that process that are typically some of the funding that developers will pay to provide more water supplies, etc. Tab fees also supply that stuff so if you are only budling an ADU onto a house, there is already sort of existing infrastructure and theoretically you could already search service that home but is that really true or not? Is that adequate or not? I think that’s the question and they need to Page 17 04/19/2023 – MINUTES model that out a little more. Do they have enough water supplies to the infill kind of fill the demand? • 11. ADJOURNMENT a. (8:39pm) Minutes approved by a vote of the Board/Commission on XX/XX/XX Fort Collins Water Storage Overview 5-9-2023 Kendall Minor –Utilities Executive Director Jason Graham –Utilities Water Director Current Halligan Dam and Reservoir Page 343 Item 4. 2Purpose 1.Provide information and facilitate a discussion on current and future water storage challenges for the Fort Collins community. 2.Seeking feedback on the level of engagement with Northern Water on the Northern Integrated Water Supply Project (NISP). We will present two options detailing next steps and how to proceed. Looking for feedback, guidance and discussion from Council. Page 344 Item 4. 3StrategicObjectives 3.1 Collaborate with local and regional partners to achieve economic resilience in Northern Colorado. 3.5 Invest in and maintain utility infrastructure and services while ensuring predictable utility rates. 4.4 Provide a resilient, reliable and high-quality water supply 4.6 Sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River and all watersheds within Fort Collins 5.5 Provide and maintain reliable utility services and infrastructure that directly preserve and improve public health and community safety Page 345 Item 4. 4Overview Fort Collins Water System Overview Water Supply and Challenges Regional Partnerships Water Storage Projects Discussion and Questions Cache la PoudreRiverPage346 Item 4. Water System Overview Michigan Ditch Cache la Poudre River Joe Wright Reservoir Halligan Reservoir Colorado-Big Thompson Project via Horsetooth Reservoir Intake fcgov.com/water101Page 347 Item 4. 6WaterSupplyChallenges Growth of Fort Collins and the Front Range Fort Collins population is expected to grow by 24% by 2065. Annual storage needs to increase ~7400 acre-feet to meet growth projections. Colorado River Compact CO River divided between 7 states and Mexico 15 million acre-feet split between upper and lower states –far exceeds water in the system Impacts the amount and management of water in the C-BT system (Horsetooth) Page 348 Item 4. Growth Management Area (GMA) Fort Collins Utilities –Cache la Poudre and C-BT water 50/50 ELCO Water District –Cache la Poudre and C-BT water 30/70 Fort Collins N Fort Collins-Loveland Water District – Cache la Poudre and C-BT 10/90 West Fort Collins Water District –C-BT Unknown ratios Water Supply Challenges 7 24,000 Fort Collins Residents 11,000 Fort Collins Residents 137,000 Fort Collins Residents Page 349 Item 4. Water Supply Challenges 8 With Halligan Page 350 Item 4. 9RegionalPartnerships Water Rights Management Water Supply / Storage Emergency Response Urban Development & Water Quality Water Conservation Northern Water and the C-BT system and quota North Poudre Irrigation Company –Halligan Reservoir COWARN, Fire Response Poudre River Coalition, NCWA Water Efficiency Plan Page 351 Item 4. 10RegionalPartnerships Northern Colorado Water Alliance Northern Colorado water service providers Collaboration team started in 2014, Alliance formalized in 2019-2020 Regional leadership (City Manager’s office and Water Executives) Build relationships, understand challenges, collaboratively identify solutions Provides the opportunity to advocate regionally and preserve water rights in Northern Colorado Draft Mission: Collaborating and education for the protection of resilient communities and water systems for the future of Northern Colorado. Page 352 Item 4. 11WaterStorageProjects Halligan Water Supply Project Halligan Water Supply Project would enlarge Halligan Reservoir by approximately 8,200 acre-feet to provide storage for City of Fort Collins-owned water to serve City water customers. Halligan 8,200 acre-feet Need 1) Growth 2) Resiliency / Drought 3) Water Rights Page 353 Item 4. 12RegionalWaterSupplyProjectsUnitCostofWaterThroughTime The Halligan Project remains the most environmentally responsible and cost-effective solution for our water customers. Page 354 Item 4. Water Storage Projects Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Northern Water) is pursuing NISP. It will serve various northern Front Range communities, including many in the Northern Colorado Water Alliance such as Fort Collins – Loveland Water District (FCLWD), which serves south Fort Collins and the GMA. NISP received all required federal, state, and county approvals and will be moving forward. NISP provides greater water security for water providers with Cache la Poudre River water rights, like FCLWD. Critical resiliency for those who rely on C-BT water due to future uncertainty of the Colorado River. 13 Northern Integrated Water Supply Project Aerial view of proposed Glade Reservoir location (courtesy of Northern Water) Page 355 Item 4. Option 1 Do Councilmembers agree with City staff further engaging with Northern Water on NISP and its mitigation projects to continue alignment with City environmental and river goals? 14 Nokhu Crags -Cache la Poudre River Watershed Page 356 Item 4. Option 1 Engagement with Northern in the necessary elements of NISP going forward. City of Fort Collins has been invited to be part of the process. The process will proceed with or without the City of Fort Collins. NISP Adaptive Management Plan – Scope -Diversion to South Platte confluence Stream Channel and Habitat Improvement Plan / Process –SCHIPP CPW, Riverwide Master Plan Water Quality Aspects –E.Coli and Nutrient mitigation CDPHE Potentially CPW, Windsor, Greeley and others Option 1 Page 357 Item 4. Option 2 Do Councilmembers agree with City staff negotiating with Northern Water on potential collaborative agreement related to NISP, the City’s water storage issues, and the City’s environmental and river goals? 16 Cache la Poudre River Page 358 Item 4. 17Option2 Option 2 includes everything in Option 1 and potentially the following): Pursue if-and-when available water storage options to store water in Glade Reservoir. If storage is available in Glade after the participants –the City would be permitted to store CLPR water rights in Glade. Better utilization of all CLPR water rights, providing more resiliency. Explore additional ideas to mitigate NISP impacts to Natural Areas including evaluating the long-term operations of the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF). Explore opportunities to run water further down the CLPR. MWRF is a key variable in this conversation. Continue to develop watershed and flow improvements in addition to what is required through the NISP Adaptive Management Plan. Page 359 Item 4. 18Discussion 1.Do Councilmembers have any questions or comments on the City’s water storage situation? 2.What level of staff engagement is expected as NISP progresses? Option 1 –Do Councilmembers agree with City staff further engaging with Northern Water on NISP and its mitigation projects to continue alignment on City river and environmental goals? Option 2 –Do Councilmembers agree with City staff negotiation with Northern on potential collaborative agreement related to NISP, the City’s water storage issues, and the City river and environmental goals? Page 360 Item 4. THANK YOU! Page 361 Item 4.