Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/01/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE October 1, 2003 Joint Meeting with Parks & Recreation Board For Reference: NRAB: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Parks&Rec: Paul Van Valkenburg, Chair - 493-2717 Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison: - Marty Heffernan, Staff Liaison - 224-6064 NRAB Board Members Present Nate Donovan, Arvind Panjabi, Kelly Ohlson„ Linda Knowlton, Randy Fischer, Clint Skutchan, Ryan Staychock P&R Board Members Present Ann Hunt, Greg Miller, Paul Van Valkenburg, Jessica Macmillan, Dean Hoag, Lance Freeman NRAB Board Members Absent Phil Murphy, Sam Otero P&R Board Members Absent Mary Carlson, Del Price Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Stokes, Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, Susie Gordon, James Birchler CLRS: Jackie Rael, Craig Foreman, Marty Heffernan Guests Steve Maddon, CSU student Tim Johnson, Transportation Board Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 2 of 12 Agenda Review No Changes Citizen Participation Tim Johnson said it's interesting how culture changes over time. When the NRAB met with the P&R Board the first time, the question was how many acres of developed park lands we should have. Open lands was an alien concept. I'm gratified that the idea has come so far, and that the public has supported it so enthusiastically. The tax extension last year was a great thing, now we can have a regional focus. We have to do as we do with other resources. With water, we don't just look at water within in the City. This also fulfills the expectations of the voters. I would like to urge both boards, especially the NRAB and staff, to consider a strong emphasis on water shed protection. There are the obvious ideas of riparian habitat and water quality. It's real important to the community. I would like to have people look at Spring Creek for land close to the flood plain. If you travel the trail and go Stover to the east, there are oxbows that come in close to where they will be pinching off the stream. They should be put in public ownership. We don't want to armor our watersheds through the community. That's what flood plain regulations are about. I would also like to look at trails. Two thumbs up for the trail from Drake to Horsetooth. One begins to get a feeling of what it will be like to have Mason Street, only one street to cross. It's family oriented. In the future I would like to be sure that P&R pushes for underpasses at Drake, Horsetooth and Harmony. We have to get into those long term plans. With regard to Spring Creek, I have one negative thing. At the trail by Taft Hill there are problems with wildlife getting caught. In addition, the double fence prevents wildlife from using the creek as they need to. We need to find additional right-of-way. Where we have enough space, we should not always run the trail so close to the stream. They need to get pushed back a bit. The trail could be pulled back a bit, maybe 10 yards, and let the wildlife use the creek. Natural Areas Policy Plan Update Mark Sears thanked the boards for allowing him to make the presentation. He said the natural areas staff is in the process of updating the Natural Areas Policy Plan. It's currently ten years out of date. The program has evolved greatly. What we're seeking input on is the framework plan for future land conservation, that natural areas staff has developed over the last six months. It's a flexible planning document that will serve as a guide for land conservation over the next ten years. It's just one chapter of the NAPP, which we're renaming the Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan. Land conservation is the focus. We're seeking public input, and making presentations to Boards and Commissions. We plan to present it to City Council at a worksession on December 9. The rest of the master plan document will be completed in draft form during November and December, and be ready for public review in January and February, and hopefully going to a Council worksession in March. • MacMillan: In the Meadow Springs Area, and the two areas up north, are there specific properties that you are aware that there are willing sellers? Is that why you've targeted those areas up to Wyoming? Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 3 of 12 • Sears: Last summer we came up with the focus areas from a task force of local resource managers and land conservationists. There were about twelve people involved. We took a variety of resource maps, from the DOW, Heritage Program, US Fish and Wildlife, agricultural maps, Community Separators, floodplains, and water sheds, and went in and circled the areas with the highest density of conservation values. That doesn't mean there aren't other properties we're interested in. We felt this is an area the City of Fort Collins should have an influence on. Yes, we're aware of property owners in both of the bubble areas. • Ohlson: Those big blurbs are based on science. We know we won't acquire all of the land. But it's not a political call, it's based on science. • Hunt: How do you interface with the other agencies? You don't want to be fighting each other. • Sears: Larimer County staff and I meet every two weeks. We also meet with The Nature Conservancy fairly frequently. We interact with the Legacy Land Trust. As we get opportunities in those areas, we'll work with all of those partners to see what combination makes sense. • Freeman: Do you have a percentage of the $23 million designated in the next ten years that will be spent regionally. How much do you project being spent north as opposed to west and surrounding areas? • Sears: We're looking at a large natural area in the southwest portion. We've already partnered with Larimer County on the Indian Creek property. • Freeman: Do the closer ones have a higher priority than the ones in the north? • Sears: We feel they are. There's a higher development threat. Indian Creek had already been subdivided. There are other parcels that will be under threat of development in the next few years. There are opportunities in the Laramie foothills and Meadow Springs Ranch. This allows us to be a partner with agencies who will take the lead. • Freeman: What is the County's projection of purchasing land up north, conservation easements, or fee simple? • Sears: Both. The Nature Conservancy is active, as well as the County. We may just piggyback and help them with some of their deals. Over the second five years we see ourselves purchasing a natural area in one or both of those bubbles for regional recreation opportunities. Think how far you travel to recreate. A trip to RMNP is a day trip. It's nothing for people to drive two to three hours for recreation. Those two bubbles are less than 45 minutes from town. The scenic views along 287 are something we all value. They are incredible scenic vistas, soon to be gone if they're not conserved. • Donovan: So you're not focusing on local properties to the exclusion of the regional properties. • Stokes: What we're trying to do is be proactive and reactive. We may have opportunities unexpectedly. We want to be flexible. Partnerships are important to us, especially in the regional area. • Hunt: When you mention recreational opportunities in bubbles to the north, are you looking at fee simple? Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 4 of 12 • Sears: Yes, we have to in order to have the access. • Stokes: Apiece of property next to Fort Collis might sell for $10,000 to $20,000 an acre. We're trying to leverage our dollars through conservation easements. We'd get a lot more conservation bang for our buck. • Freeman: I find the conservation easements problematic. There's no access to them. My concern is we're not putting so much money into conservation easements, in lieu of putting money into closer properties. Even if it's $50,000 per acre, there's more value for the citizens. Don't put so much into conservation easements that we can't buy the expensive tracts. You don't have to drive to them, you can walk, or ride a bike. There's value in that. I know there is value in the ones that are 60 miles away, but to me, anything we can preserve closer in has a higher priority. • Sears: That's the kind of information we're looking for tonight. One of the things we're running into locally is the limited land available. We've worked hard over the last 11 years. We've contacted all of the property owners of land we're wanting to purchase. • Ohlson: I agree with Lance. I tend toward the fee simple for lots of reasons. I know it will be a mix. Sometimes people wont sell. • Sears: One benefit of a conservation easement is that it doesn't preclude a fee simple purchase in the future. If a land owner is willing to sell a conservation easement, we're wise to take it, in hope that in future years it can be fee simple purchased. • MacMillan: When the citizens voted for the extension of the natural areas tax they were not thinking of land so far away. The people want close in access. If they want to walk their dog they don't want to have to drive that far. If folks want to steal an hour just to get away it means it has to be closer to home. Citizens are looking at surrounding themselves with areas of beauty and peace and quite that they can recreate in, passively or actively, as well as be in. • Stokes: Right now we've got four projects that are really hot. Two of the four are right in town, and the two others are a little further out. It's going to be dynamic. Sometimes we have to respond to opportunity. What we're trying to do is add structure to guide us. It's a hard thing to do, create that balance. We've struggled to understand what regional meant in the context of the ballot. • Van Valkenburg: In general we're in agreement. When this presentation was made to City Council by your predecessor, none of the things she said represented anything to do with any recreational values in any of these lands. Recreation is on the list of criteria, but there's no representation. How do you take that value and put it in the purchase mix. How do you get the recreation piece? • Stokes: It's a huge factor. In the property we're looking at, that's one of the key questions on the table. How are we going to provide access and manage recreation? One driving reason is that it offers tremendous recreation benefits. It's very much a part of what we do on a day to day basis. The property I mentioned a few minutes ago is an estate. One of the reasons to acquire it is for a trail in the future. It's speculative because we don't own the land next to it. Recreation considerations are very much a part of our thinking. Freeman: Who in the process is providing the input to you on recreation Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 5 of 12 • Sears: Our own staff. • Freeman: Would it be appropriate to involve recreation, and say, "hey, here's a property, let's go look"? There is certainly a different perspective between NRD staff and Recreation staff. Certainly you can decide what ever value would be a good process to involve recreation. • Stokes: Sometimes that might be helpful. Sometimes if we're in the heat of negotiations we're pretty close to the vest. Often times we have to protect privacy • Sears: It's no different than in the past when we've developed sites that are open to the public. • Freeman: I'm looking more pre -deal. Recreation could weigh in and say this is a 11 911 , on a scale of 10. • Fischer: We do have a form that we use to analyze every property. People are coming to us. We're perceived as a major player. We run these properties through this spread sheet that we've developed. We do have a process. There are evaluation criteria in looking at lands. To address your concern, this new land conservation section of the new master plan is fairly riddled with recreational emphasis. We know through working with the County and Parks & Recreation staff that we're pretty much in sync with what each other are doing. When staff goes up and looks at a property, the recreational values are known. We know what properties we need to get to connect trails. • Ohlson: The people who did these ballot issues have no intention of closing lands off. We want to recreate, and we're not stupid. You wont have support if you're not going to be able to recreate, or have appropriate access. I honestly think we're on the same page 97% of the time. All of the areas are different. We probably wont have motorcycle rallies, but I see sledding, plains parks, mountain parks, picnic shelters. • Sears: Of the 7700 acres we currently manage, we have 1100 acres of conservation easements. The other 7600 acres are intended to have public access at some point. • Donovan: It might help if P&R Board members went to the Fossil Creek Community Park management plan. It's heavily weighted toward recreation in terms of what the management plan addresses. That's a good example of how recreation was incorporated. • Ohlson: Staff has heard my criticism that we have to get these areas opened to the public as fast as possible. But, we have to do it right • Staychock: This is interesting and very difficult personally. I voted for the open space. I would like to see areas preserved 50 years down the line. And, I'm pro - recreation. I'd like to speak on behalf of the vegetation and the critters. Recreation is an interesting issue. It does degrade some of the natural environment. I would like a trail going by all native vegetation, but if it's an important wildlife corridor, we will have conflicts. I'm thinking mostly regional. Maybe it's appropriate to have limited recreation. But with trails, come cars, leaks, trash, maintenance issues. I'm not anti - recreation, but it's a good decision to not have recreation on some areas. Studies show that people displace wildlife. It's stressful on the habitat, we have to take that into consideration. That's why it's a sensitive issue. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 6of12 • Sears: That's what we see as the vision in the large bubbles. They have found big horn sheep scat on ship rock in the last year. • Panjabi: The main focus of natural areas is to protect the resource for future generations. While developing recreation we have to consider the impacts and develop it appropriately. • Sears: We're also trying to protect the experience. Maybe instead of ten miles of trail you only have five, but the quality of the experience may be much better. If we don't manage it closely, the very thing they go to see and enjoy may not be there. • Ohlson: Clearly we're wanting to protect the resources. • Staychock: Sometimes we may not be able to provide that human involvement. • Ohlson: Most people would agree. It's all specific. We have seasonal closings built in, and trails closed in sensitive seasons. It's because it makes sense scientifically. • Sears: What I didn't hear is if there's any real concern about the balance. I hear that local land should be a high priority. I think we're there, and that we've balanced it. • Sears: It's up to the P&R Board if you'd like to take any action, or if you want to make a recommendation. We'll gather your input from tonight, and we'll encapsulate it as best we can and give it to Council for review. • Donovan: It would be good for the P&R Board to have a copy of the chapter. • Stokes: We can provide that, give us a couple weeks. We're getting input now so we can edit the chapter. It's in relatively decent shape right now. • Van Valkenburg: We will have a regular meeting on the 4`h . We can have this on the agenda then. City Plan Update • Van Valkenburg: This plans seems interrelated to the NAPP. It seems that we're going from dealing with natural areas to a system of open lands of which natural areas are a part. What struck in me looking at City Plan things was that they're using the natural areas umbrella for all of that, rather than starting to break it out. The plan Mark presented tonight starts not talking as just natural areas, but bigger connotations. I'd like to know how the NRAB sees that evolution, and how it relates to City Plan. • Fischer: We agree, the update of City Plan will incorporate a much broader scope of land conservation than was in the previous versions. NRD staff made extensive comments. I've heard from several people who think City Plan is a mess now, with references to open lands, parks, natural areas. I think there does appear to be a need for clearer definition of the terms. It would be helpful. When you talk about land conservation people aren't talking about parks in the traditional sense. Most people agree with that, but then people say parks are open lands. How do you distinguish? There are some kinds of semantic issues that need to be dealt with. I'm not sure how to do that. Someone needs to go through City Plan again and clean it up. Natural areas are one of many kinds of open lands. We need good definitions of natural areas and community separators too. • MacMillan: We might want to talk about regional open lands. They are not close to the community. In my mind they're regional and they're open lands. What does that imply? What is appropriate recreation? When you define what open land is, do you Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 7 of 12 define recreational access for each area? For natural areas it implies not much access at all. They want to leave natural areas untouched. It's a visual recreation more than a walk through recreation. Open lands present opportunities. What percent of open lands might be able to be accessed? • Ohlson: I've tried to drive a stake through the phrase "passive recreation. We should strike passive out of all reference to open lands. It's silly to have a word in there we can't define. Every single management plan and open space property would have a different variety and amount of recreation. It's not possible to define an appropriate percentage of land, or miles of trails. Some areas have more resource values for recreation. I don't want to tear apart your definition, but it's not working for me. It's impossible to define. There are some specific ballot languages that do guide this. • Knowlton: I agree with Kelly. "Appropriate" is appropriate to a specific situation. There's no hard and fast definition of what is appropriate.. I have a problem with the words undue harm. "Undue" certainly opens up a door. How do you define that? And, "human impact activity should be generally protected". That's wishy-washy. Each situation must be looked at separately. • Ohlson: I would ask you to consider not focusing on definitions, but rather on concepts that we agree on. I see no limits to recreation if its appropriate, and agreeing on it piece by piece, based on what's appropriate. • Van Valkenburg: Would you think its appropriate for there to be more interaction on the purchase and development of management plans. We've been out of that loop. I'd like to see staff and our board involved in the recreational parts of the management plans. • Ohlson: There are people sitting around and pounding it out. I don't think we have to technically do it. • Fischer: I cant recall a management plan that's been completed in the last three or four years. The County Master Plan was all done by the County. We didn't have much input, they made it real clear the County was doing it. That's the last management plan we've seen. I agree with Kelly. It comes down to the fact that we haven't made any major purchases we've written management plans for. I'm perfectly comfortable with working with different boards and appropriate staff developing management plans. But, I do think trying to develop a real hard and fast definition of appropriate recreation is full of pit falls. • Donovan: Both boards can be involved in management plans. But, on the acquisition end, the more people we get involved is problematic. There's logistics and it could jeopardize the confidentiality and acquisition process. • Freeman: The definitions are insignificant. I want to get back to the process think. Until Randy and Kelly and I started doing the trails committee, there was no dialogue. There needs to be dialogue. I'm not concerned about the document, there's a process to go through regarding management plans. We're not trying to make your management plans, but we probably have a perspective that might help, and at the same time we can better understand your perspective. • MacMillan: I've enjoyed listening to everyone's perspective, and appreciate Kelly's comments. I think we're very parallel. We have to plan for generations to come. Our part of that planning is to look at population growth. Along with that comes the need Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 8 of 12 to provide recreation. You just flat run out of space to accommodate everything. We're not a little town, we're becoming regionally oriented. My biggest concern is down the road, are we going to have the ability to provide for the next 10-20 years the kind of recreational needs the public demands? How do those needs fit into the acquisition of land while at the same time being respectful of the preservation of what we have as a natural resource around us. We as two boards need to be good in our communication. It's going to take a spirit of cooperation and communication going forward. Pay As You Throw, Susie Gordon & James Birchler Gordon said Bircher has been assigned to amend the ordinance that's been in place since 1996. If you live in the City of Fort Collins, and you're not an apartment dweller you have curb side recycling. It's surprising how much participation there is. The citizens are always looking for opportunities to recycle and reduce their waste. • Stokes: Are the reduction goals per capita, or total volume? • Gordon: Total volume. • Stokes: What is the progress? • Gordon: If you ask me right now I'd say it stands at about 26%. Our data is squishy. In the State of Colorado Fort Collins is the only community with any data, maybe Boulder. It's a chronic situation. Loveland runs their own trash service so they have reports. • Skutchan: How much extra waste has been generated because of the loopholes? • Birchler: It's related to how many residences are actually covered. The low end of the estimate is 12,500 residences are not feeling the effect of PAYT. • Skutchan: Out of how many? • Gordon: Advance Planning will say about 55,000 residences. • Birchler: It's a huge percentage. • Gordon: New subdivisions have HOA's governing their structure. It's a significant number of people. • Skutchan: Is this the biggest contributor to not reducing by 35%? • Gordon: It's not true that they're not recycling if you ask me. Will that number get us another 5%? That might be the high end. • Birchler: It's hard to quantify, but it will have an affect. • Donovan: Do you have an idea of the number of consolidated accounts. • Gordon: That's not stipulated in the language of the ordinance. • Donovan: So you have no idea of the consolidated accounts? • Gordon: When we talked to Council about districting the haulers begged them not to do it, but to leave it to the market. • Donovan: Do you have the ordinance language? • Ohlson: I'm glad you brought out the environmental stuff and recycling. There's another issue here. It's fairness and equity, the cost to the planet. It affects all of us. There are direct economic costs of land fill. You must come up with a system that's Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 9 of 12 fair and just. It's not just about recycling. Everyone should pay the same amount per bag, unit, gallon. There's where we need to get to. • Donovan: This says haulers must ensure people are informed, but it doesn't say haulers are prohibited from contracting with the HOA for a 96 gallon can. • Birchler: They're not prohibited from doing that. A HOA is a legal entity. Residents sign up to be under control in some way. • Donovan: That's a cop out. That doesn't accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. • Gordon: This is a free market. We can not tell the haulers what to charge. We're not telling them what the price is. They know the cost of providing service. They know the rock bottom price. • Donovan: Can a resident in an HOA have the ability to pay $6 for a 96 gallon can? The City isn't accomplishing what it's trying to get at. • Gordon: If you bought a house and you agree to the covenants, then you've got to go through your internal process to make changes. • Donovan: We've done it with previous covenants. The City Council said the prior contracts are void. • Fischer: The problem is you're making a policy decision to go against an adopted City policy by allowing these HOA's to break the law. If they get together and say we're going to let dogs run off leash, you would say you can't do that because there is a City-wide ordinance. You're standing there and saying you're not going to require the HOA's to comply with adopted City policy. You cannot pass a resolution that effectively breaks the law of the City of Fort Collins. That's simple logic. I don't see the problem. I don't see why the City attorney is reluctant to do this. Your prerogative is to implement adopted City polices. If you're worried about upsetting the HOA's, that's too bad. It's adopted City policy, and you're an employee of the City. • Ohslon: I have never been more disappointed in a recommendation. The NRD has been the biggest obstacle in every single process related to PAYT, trash hauling and recycling. It is so tentative, scared and unwilling and to move. It is frustrating. The directive from Council was to close the loophole. This does not close the loophole • Ohlson: We didn't have problem when the City overruled the HOA's on xeriscaping„ clothes lines, solar panels and compost bins. This is even more valid. If the City is sued the City will win. It's an existing City policy. This literally doesn't go with Council direction. It's disingenuous and shameful. It would be more honest to scrap the program. I'm very disappointed in the players, as well as the recommendation. • Gordon: This is all going back to where this is imbedded in the code. It in the trash haulers licensing, all of the issues that apply to how they structure their rates we have defined. Now we say we're broadening this to include HOA's. It's not a license kind of condition. • Donovan: We could say that haulers, as a condition of their license, may not enter into contracts where they only provide one level of service. • Gordon: I think we can write that. We didn't come with our minds set against what you guys have to suggest. The question is, what kind of appetite does Council have to go against the HOA's? Their points can be interpreted as being valid. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 10 of 12 • Skutchan: In your meeting with the attorneys today, what is it about it that concerns them from a legal perspective? • Gordon: They have a covenant. The City is not party to that. It's construed that the City is interfering with the contract the HOA has with the residents. • Donovan: If the HOA says we want 96 gallon cans, and the hauler provides it, it's not clear that's a violation of the ordinance as its written. • Panjabi: You cant determine rates, but you can determine structure. Why cant we affect this on the other end. Why aren't the haulers required to PAYT at the landfills? • Gordon: Larimer County is in competition with other landfills around the area. • Knowlton: I want to make sure that I'm paying the same rate as everyone in the City. It's an equity issue. • Gordon: Its rate fixing. • Staychock: I live in a HOA. I pay $110 a month for water, garbage, etc. I don't know if all o four many goes into a fund, and they pay trash out of it. Maybe the HOA's need to the members know of the situation. • Stokes: If this thing was codified, wouldn't it force haulers to offer a true unit based cost. It would require those people to pay more. They would pay a penalty for throwing away more. • Donovan: We haven't seen the language. It requires them to say we'll offer two or more levels. • Stokes: Because they're going to be required to offer a bid from low to high, they cant do the low bid anymore. They're going to have to elevate the whole price structure. The risk the hauler takes is to get a contract he cant make money on. That's the theory behind the unitized process. • Ohlson: Council direction was not to play around with this. The Council directive was to close the loophole. • Gordon: The reason they're offering these low rates is their competition is playing hard ball. The only way they can retain the contracts is to offer the deal of the century. • Fischer: The thing about this, everyone will be on a level playing field if we make the right choices. No one will have a competitive disadvantage. The other thing I really disagree with, it should not be inclement upon individual members of the HOA to get them to follow City policy. That's why we have elected officials and a representative form of government. I cant stress the fact too strongly, we are dealing with an adopted City policy. That trumps anything the HOA's have to go on. • Birchler: We did ask the City attorney if we could keep the HOA's from negotiating group rates. We can go back again and ask the question in a couple different ways. • Skutchan: We don't want to throw out the idea of consolidation. There are a number of benefactors. I can understand offering better deals for that. • Stokes: It's ok to have consolidated accounts as long as individuals in that HOA have the right to chose an option, and pay the same rates as their neighbors. Nate had a good idea, how to make it part of the licensing thing. The hauler must contract for "x" level of service with every customer, the contract must include a choice. • Ohlson: There's no way the haulers wont love this. They'll be paid more per unit. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 11 of 12 • Gordon: Let's not assume they're consolidated. • Ohlson: It was never the HOA's The haulers have fought every single change we have ever done. I'm tired of hearing that. You serve the general public. • Stokes: I would be surprised if they moved away from consolidated accounts. It doesn't make sense to change peoples bills. They want one number, if they were being honest they could say we saved $5000 on trash bills because of the unitized system, and guess what, we'll distribute those saving back to the people, or we'll change everyone's bill, because as a group we're saving money. How do you resolve that issue? • Donovan: That's where the HOA and neighbors resolve that issue. • Skutchan: We're not taking care of the HOA's, we're taking care of the larger citizenry. • Gordon: What Carrie told us is if the HOA says you have 3 levels of service, they charge you like your neighbors. Your HOA or property manager is sending out three types of bills. They don't want to do it. • Donovan: The City shouldn't tell the HOA's what they can charge to get the incentive of throwing less trash out. It's going to work itself out. • Skutchan: The more people become aware the more incentive there is to cut back. • Fischer: It's the fairness and equity issues. There should be three levels of service at what ever price. That's fine. I don't think consolidated accounts will go away because of that. If you have an account with 300 people, there are efficiencies. They would be legitimate. • Ohlson: The board thinks you can do better on this. • Gordon: We're on Council agenda for October 21. We'll push this back at least four weeks. Approval of Minutes With the following change the September 3, 2003 minutes were approved with 6 votes in favor, and one member (Kelly Ohlson) abstaining. Page 2, 18`h bullet: Change "I was doubting if there was a need" to "I did not believe there was a need". Monthly Feedback • Kelly Ohlson said the new board members bring good ideas to the table • Linda Knowlton would like to know what's going to happen with the Sustainability Inventory. Stokes said he'd ask Margit to come and make a presentation Announcements The RMBO is hosting a workshop at Weaver Ranch on October 11. It's to show people the value of ranches from a cultural and economic, as well as wildlife conservation, perspective. Skutchan asked what role the NRAB play in addressing transportation issues. Fischer said the NRAB has really gotten into transportation issues unless they have a direct environmental impact. Natural Resources Advisory Board October 1, 2003 Page 12 of 12 Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Terry Mahn Admin Support Supervisor