Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 03/03/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE March 3, 2004 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Nate Donovan, Arvind Panjabi, Joann Thomas, Randy Fischer, Clint Skutchan, Ryan Staychock, Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart Board Members Absent Glen Colton Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, John Stokes, Rick Bachand City Attorney: Carrie Daggett Guests Several CSU students Jerry Koltenhauser Review and Approval of Minutes The minutes of the February 4, 2004 and February 18, 2004, meetings were unanimously approved as written. NRAB Bylaws and Charter, Carrie Daggett, John Stokes Daggett said there has been discussion about this board's role in annexations. What happened concerns a change to the code that would change the board's role in development review. Council will make the change if they recognize a role for this. An issue of changing a board function is sometimes a consent item. Development review is one that has prompted more discussion. The last I knew the P&Z Board had considered the issue, and since then it has gone into a hold mode. Stokes said Council was going to discuss it, but they kept putting it off. One of the problems for us, as staff, is we don't have any time to put into thinking this through. Cameron would be the lead staff person. The recommendation for more board involvement grew out of the Zucker report, and a lot of other changes to the development review process. There were lots of recommendations they didn't act on. This is one of Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 2 of 12 those that has been put off for a while. I've been exchanging emails with Cameron and Greg Byrne. Right now Current Planning is slammed, we may put this off for a while. • Knowlton: So, you're saying it may not happen at the Study Session on May I I? • Stokes: We haven't had the conversation yet. I need to talk with Greg. If we continue in that vein we'll go to the City Manager and Council. You can still have a discussion around that issue. It would occur without the benefit of guidance from staff. • Skutchan: I need background information to get to the point where I can dissect and really understand it. • Stokes: Maybe we should give you a copy of the report. There's not much more than what was in the report. It was a recommendation to think about and flesh out ideas. We haven't done that yet. • Daggett: There is a memo that I think I can provide a copy of. It's a good explanation of the rationale of making the change to the code. Part of what's specifically stated is the board's function, which is to advise Council. It's very broadly stated. A lot of development review matters never go to Council. • Fischer: To advise Council is only one of five functions. To me, the bylaws give us pretty broad latitude to do a lot of things that are environmentally related in some way. I'm not sure we would need to change the bylaws or the functions. • Daggett. The most basic set of governing principals are in the City's charter. City Council is the sole policy making body. • Donovan: Is the P&Z Board included in that charter? There are boards that have quasi-judicial authority. That's a pretty important distinction. • Staychock: Is there more than the Water and P&Z Boards that have quasi-judicial authority? • Daggett: Police and Personnel? • Fischer: One of things we've discussed in the LUC changes is this board reviewing projects in six months, to see how the buffer standards are working. Would it be appropriate to give this board a review function? Maybe this where it might fit. Add that this board would perform yearly or annual reviews of projects with respect to natural areas buffer standards to evaluate how they're working. • Daggett: The AQAB does have specific language that they bi-annually review indicators. It would not be a first to have something like that. • Donovan: It would be helpful to get the new members up to speed on how the discussion started in the first place, what was said. • Daggett: I have the draft ordinance language. • Donovan: Maybe the minutes too. • Stokes: Steve gave the board a thorough background on the legal issues. We'll set something up. • Staychock: You mentioned that the bylaws dictate what we can and cant do. • Knowlton: There's a course the City gives that you'll be invited to attend. When you apply to the board you receive the City code related to the board, and a one page summary. • Daggett: The City Clerks Office manages the process. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 3 of 12 • Donovan: They provide the B&C Manual. • Skutchan: I have a question about special meetings, and what all that entails. • Daggett: From a legal standpoint the meeting had to be public. The board did convene a meeting to take action. There needed to minutes, and posting 24 hours prior, and the basics of the agenda. One comment I have is if the board doesn't feel like it has enough information to act it's the board's prerogative to not act. The board isn't forced to take action unless it chooses to. • Skutchan: The issue of a special meeting came up that afternoon. Can you have a special meeting posted and deal with an issue that isn't on the agenda? • Daggett? Council sometimes takes up items on the "Other Business". • Donovan: We will have Carrie come back to talk about real estate. Certificates of Participation, John Stokes Stokes said that a couple weeks ago we talked to the board about different financing mechanisms for acquiring open space. This fiscal year we have allocated all of our acquisition money. Some members are happy we spent all of our money. We're out there conserving land and spending money as fast as we can. This year we're projecting a balance of zero. We think we've allocated all of our money. We've got other projects whizzing toward us. One of our options is rolling contracts. It's a contract that is executed on an annual basis. We're not obligated to close, but have the right close. The reason we do that is we cannot obligate future City Councils. There are some projects when we can't use the rolling option because of various business circumstances. We'd like to use the BCC dollars now. They're earning 1 % interest, and land is going up five to six percent. We're losing money. In addition we'd like to consider Certificates of Participation (COPS). Essentially COPS are used for municipal purposes. Recently Colorado Springs did it for open space. Someone provides the resources to buy a property, and we pay them back over time. We have to pay them interest, and the collateral is the land. The reason I'm bringing this at the last minute is that Alan Krcmarik, the City's finance director, is pursuing COPS on other projects, and would like to roll them up in one resolution. Once we have a resolution from Council we don't have to use the COP, it just means that it's available to us. I would like to do one to the tune of $15 million. It would be helpful to have a motion from the board. This would have little or no effect on the City's ability to borrow money. • Daggett: What the resolution does is start the tape rolling. Expenses incurred after this resolution can be charged toward the financing. The next step would be that Council has to adopt an ordinance. The Bond counsel would have to review it. The resolution is a way to start being able to charge expenses to the COP. • Fischer: What are we talking about in terms of cost? How significant are the costs? How is this different than bonding? • Daggett: Bond counsel expenses area big ticket item. Typically they just wait and get paid at the time the financing is completed. There are potentially other City projects that are being considered for a financing like this. It's possible that the expenses would be smaller relatively speaking because of the ability to prepare a set of documents to be used for a number of pieces. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 4of12 • Daggett: For this transaction there's already a set of form documents that would be the starting point. The Bond counsel would go through and basically make changes to the type of project, and type of land. • Stokes: Over a 15 year period for a $15 million COP, if you used every COP on day 1, it would cost $19.9 million, about a $5 million payback. • Daggett: We did one deal for the office building and parking structure together. I recall that was about a $20 mill financing. I'm thinking the costs were about $700,000 at that time. • Stokes: Alan was hoping about $150,000 for these COPS's. The other thing to keep in mind is interest rates are low. We're projecting they will creep up in the next year. This is the year to do COPS. • Fischer: I'm getting slightly uncomfortable. I've heard of lease in/lease out deals. It sounds like a way for investors to avoid paying taxes. • Daggett: Clear tax provisions apply. The interest on the financing is considered tax exempt. There are constraints on the way the project is set up that are driven by tax laws. This mechanism is very widely used. There isn't anything out there that would raise that question in terms of this deal. It's becoming standard fare. I don't think we have any reason to be concerned about the City doing this type of transaction. It's very common place and wide spread. • Staychock: I don't like the bonding idea for natural areas. • Daggett: The City does have the ability to identify a revenue stream. It's possible to bond and has been done in other situations. Bonding requires voter approval. • Staychock: If we have a twenty year agreement with someone, can we pay it off asap? • Stokes: Yes, if we write it into the agreement. Keep in mind though that the funders probably want a term of at least 7 plus years so they can make some return. • Staychock: Who could we borrow from, other public agencies, private, non-profit? • Daggett: There are usually two models. The City issued a public offering, subject to all federal securities laws. There have been a few times when the deal has been done as a private placement. • Staychock: So we could solicit any investor? • Daggett: That probably needs to be done through the Finance Department. There may be ways to identify particular parties who are interested and try to manage that. • Skutchan: If we get ahead of ourselves we could devalue the property. You're talking about your open space program. • Stokes: There is little likelihood that we would default on a COPS. • Daggett: The City has never defaulted. The bond rating is really important. The City does a lot of lease purchase financing. • Stokes: A simple analogy is this. You can get a 30-year loan to buy a house. People leverage their money into something they might not otherwise be able to afford. Fifteen million dollars sounds like a lot of money, but over the life span of the tax we expect to receive in the vicinity of $150 million. • Daggett: We'd have to structure the deal so that we have some clear ability to protect the property. The City will have rights remaining in the property. • Skutchan: What's Colorado Springs' funding stream? Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 5 of 12 • Stokes: I don't know. I believe that it's much smaller than ours. I can find out. • Panjabi: Will $15 million cover the purchases you are wanting? • Stokes: I think so ... we may use it all, or we might not use any of it. It depends on a lot of things happening in parallel. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the NRAB advise Council to adopt this resolution, and that we express our support for the use of Certificates of Participation. The motion was seconded by Gerry Hart. • Knowlton: I am strongly in favor of this. I hate to see opportunities go by us for the lack of funding to get the land. Every year there's less and less opportunity, and every year it costs more. I didn't know there was anything like this. • Panjabi: I second Linda's comment. This is a historic opportunity for Fort Collins, and Northern Colorado to protect a great piece land that everyone will be able to enjoy. I see the benefit of what this will bring to all walks of life as tremendous. • Fischer: Why does this have to be done by March 12? • Stokes: Alan would like to package it with other COPS. It will have its own resolution. • Fischer: I'm uncomfortable with this because of my own ignorance. We need to firmly go to Council first and ask for the overage before we do anything else. It's very important. Is there a way we can do the overage first and see if we need the COPS later. That's the prudent way to go. • Stokes: It's earning 1 % interest, and we absolutely need to ask for the overage. One of my motivations for proposing COPS is that I'm pretty sure that $4 million won't cut it. There's a chance that we would still be pretty short of what we'd like to do over the next year. I wouldn't have brought this forward if I thought the $4 million would be adequate. • Hart: I was little concerned, but we have to trust the finance people to know their business. Any land we can get, as soon as we can get it, and the people of Fort Collins will be better off. • Thomas: How long is the line of credit open? • Daggett: The actual term of financing is something the City sets up at the beginning when the financing is being set up. • Thomas: When you open do you have to have specific things in mind, or is it just a line of credit? • Stokes: We have to have ideas but it's pretty flexible. • Thomas: Do you anticipate using this in one year, and doing it again next year? • Stokes: I don't anticipate using this again. This is the important first step. Maybe in ten years, after the dust has settled, we would decide to do another one. • Skutchan: What are you looking at? Is it an absolute necessity that we get in on those other projects. We have a lot more on the line. If we're interested in finding out Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 6 of 12 more, how can we continue to pursue this? What's the timing of the resolution and ordinance? On face value, this sounds great, but I still have a lot of questions. • Daggett: The Council does have to issue an ordinance to do anything. If they do adopt this resolution and the deal is set up, people can say they don't like the deal, and not go forward and adopt the ordinance. • Stokes: This resolution would allow us to pay $50,000 for due diligence. We can always ask for an ordinance later. • Fischer: Do you have a specific project in mind? • Stokes: A couple. The way these are set up we would do what you suggested. We'd go to Council and for the BCC money. If we thought we needed more money we would ask for an ordinance. The resolution allows us to fold these expenses into a future COP if there was one. • Fischer: I still believe that it's very important to first use the overage as much as possible. • Skutchan: I will support this moving forward. I do have a huge number of reservations. I assume this will come back before it becomes an ordinance. • Stokes: Yes. In the past the boards haven't seen specific ordinances with COPS, but given the complexities I don't see why we wouldn't fold that into a conversation. • Skutchan: It could affect how I vote. I want to know I'm not giving a blank check. I very much respect TABOR, and why it was put into place. I like pursuing the idea, but I'm not signing off on the usage of this tool. • Stokes: In the event we were going to use COP for a specific land transaction we would bring that back to the board. Typically we do that. We don't need Council approval to buy properties, but in effect COPS will require Council approving our land transaction. That's a reasonable request, and I'm willing to do that. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 8/0. Arvind Panjabi made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend to Council to support staffs request to appropriate the BCC overage money, and Council to approve the BCC funds for land acquisition purchases. The motion was seconded by Randy Fischer. • Hart: Like the others, would these expenditures come back to us? • Stokes: Yes. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 8/0. City Plan Update, John Stokes • Staychock: I've noticed that it seems we've taken the terms natural areas and gone to calling them open lands. Is open land the generic term? • Stokes: It's an umbrella term to sweep in all of the categories. There was confusion, we used terms interchangeably. In the end of the document there's a definition for open lands. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 7 of 12 • Staychock: I have a serious issue calling parks open lands. It's frustrating. They talk about City Park, pools, pottery studios. • Stokes: We execute the NAPP. We don't create parks. This thing has been wordsmithed to death by many people, including this board. It's very close to being over. It's been to Council, Council hasn't pulled this stuff. There were things pulled and changed. All of this has been vetted by Council. Staff is loathe to go back with changes. It will confuse them. If this board does, then the Parks Board will. • Staychock: When I read these policies, preserve and conserve, I'm overjoyed. But, I'm concerned about "appropriate recreation". • Stokes: The Parks Board recommended a change to that. Be aware, there's already been a discussion, it's a compromise. The previous version was not as good. • Knowlton: Ryan, I would urge you, and anyone else to go to Council and say how you feel. They can say, "ok, we're still going to vote", but they should know how you feel about it. • Fischer: This has been an 18 month process, the CAC was convened 2 years ago September. • Hart: On page 53 we dropped "the City will provide", but if you go back to page 190 it back on. Did you drop one from 53 because it was redundant? • Fischer: One of the tenants of recreational areas is public access. We want public access to manage the human impacts. There's some great habitat along some water courses and they may not be appropriate for human access. In general we want to promote access to areas, but there has to be some sensitivity. • Fischer: Why did we eliminate "where environmentally appropriate"? • Stokes: That was recommended by Parks. • Fischer: My biggest complaint is that Parks got this last. There were several instances where I thought P&R and us were on the same page when we'd have a joint meeting. Then they tried to eliminate wording we wanted to see in. There are several examples. I don't see why its necessary to delete "where environmentally appropriate". We put it in, they took it out. • Stokes: There was protective language in other policies. My sense is if the board wanted to make a recommendation to change that back, the P&R Board will want to be involved. It becomes a board to board discussion. It would be important for the Board representatives to get together and hash it out, and let staff get out of the way. • Fischer: How do you feel about a meeting with Marty? Pound it out with staff. I don't want to give them the last word. • Stokes: If I have specific examples where the board felt uncomfortable. • Fischer: I can give you my comments. We're not looking at making a recommendation to Council. • Donovan: Maybe there could be some kind of trade. Where it talks about the Poudre River it says "recreational values be maintained". That's in there, and it's ok, but I don't know what that means. A kayak course, or maybe fishing, I don't know. • Stokes: The Poudre River corridor is Parks centric. There are other policies that are much more natural resources centric. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 8 of 12 • Stokes: I marked down changes that the board and staff recommended that were protective. Almost all were embedded and accepted. If there are issues you want me to take up with Parks, I need to know what they are. • Knowlton: The argument could be made that "may" is better than "where environmentally appropriate". This leaves it open. But, what is "environmentally appropriate". • Fischer: On page 54, the right hand column. That paragraph was stricken. Was it moved someplace else. I don't remember why it was removed. • Stokes: I don't know why. I don't have a note. I'll have to ask Ken Waido. It wasn't a Parks deal, and it wasn't our deal. • Fischer: Page 137, policy 10.4 regarding recycling. That language is unacceptable. That isn't what we want to accomplish. The sentence that was stricken says it much better. It's something we've advocated for as a board. I don't know why it was stricken. • Stokes: A councilmember wanted it deleted, staff recommended the sentence be rewritten. • Hart: I'd be interested in reduced consumption. We want to encourage reduction and consumption, and increase recycling. • Donovan: Maybe after packaging we could add reuse, recovery and recycling. • Fischer: Above that, Principle ENV-10, I don't know why "cost effective" was put in there. It irritates me. Nowhere in this document do we say "cost effective roads", or anything else. The only time cost effective is added is when it comes to environmental issues. Why not say "the Cities applies pollution prevention and zero waste strategies"? • Stokes: The last two issues were Council changes. You'd have to negotiate with Council on this stuff. • Fischer: Are recreational areas defined anywhere? • Stokes: That was carried over from the policy in the old City Plan. • Fischer: What we had in there before was natural areas, agricultural areas, and areas for appropriate recreation. Stick with the language that in there before. • Fischer: To me environmentally appropriate is good wording. • Donovan: I like Linda's comment, may is broader. • Fischer: It's up to you guys. • Fischer: Page 246, policy 2.3 . I wondered what is meant by new recreational facilities in the Poudre River corridor. • Stokes: That's a Parks deal. • Donovan: It would be good to find out. It states that the policy plan included new recreational facilities. • Stokes: I will ask Marty and bring that back to the Board. • Fischer: The reason it concerns me is that we've had major battles before. • Fischer: I thought that when we met with you John, and Bruce, Ken and Joe Frank, that I was trying to make the point that parks are different than open lands, and shouldn't be included in the definition of open lands. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 9 of 12 • Stokes: The only thing I remember is talking to Tom Keith about it. He said he thought parks should be included. I'd have to go back and ask that group again. • Stokes: I'll go back and get with Marty and Ken and get some questions answered. I'll write a follow up memo for the next meeting. • Stokes: If there are any red flags, going to Council is one of the last remaining viable options. New Business Correction • Stokes: This goes back to the conversation about BCC dollars. I might have misspoken. Gerry asked if this will be the same as land projects we do with COP's. It wouldn't be the same. The COP's are unique, we need Council action. Typically for the funding from BCC, or Open Space Yes, when we're buying land we don't always bring it to the board. When we are disposing of land we are required to go through the board and get a council recommendation. Almost all land transactions we do bring to the board. There might be a community separator project, or easement. We have an approved land conservation framework and map. If we're buying land that's not in a focus area, or if its out of the ordinary we would talk about it. Having said all of that, typically when we do a big project you guys know about it. • Hart: Is there a threshold? • Stokes: There really isn't. We've tried to preserve our autonomy to do land transactions. Sometimes if we had to go to Council or the board we'd be in an awkward negotiating position, and it makes it more difficult. • Donovan: That surprises me. It's a departure from past practice. • Hart: I understand you'll bring the significant ones to us. Timnath Community Separators • Stokes: There are easements in Timnath that are appraised at $6000 per acre. That's lot of money for a fairly modest conservation. Most of it is subdivided, and most has, or will have, a building on it. But, it's also land that's potentially highly dividable. We're working actively on that separator. We made an offer, not quite at the appraised value, and it was rejected by the land owner. • Fischer: The Community Separators are adopted City policy. It's a big part of the conservation framework. You cant go back on that. • Stokes: We're trying to execute them. It's a pretty major expense. Soapstone • Skutchan: I'd like an overview of what I read in the paper. • Stokes: The article was confusing. The City has a contract on the Soapstone ranch. We did this in association with partners, TNC and Larimer County. We took the plunge. We're still working with them on that ranch, and we're working on the adjoining ranch. We're in the middle of extremely complicated business negotiations. Where it will go, I don't know. We're doing everything in our power to make sure those ranches are conserved. The total size of those ranches is about 27,000 acres of deeded land. It's in the heart of the Laramie foothills, and it's beautiful. • Stokes: If you want more transactional details we'll need to go into executive session. Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 10 of 12 • Skutchan: I would like to follow up on that, the article was confusing. • Stokes: We're hoping to bring GOCO money to the table. We can go into executive session at the next meeting • Skutchan: I'd like to get Steve Roy here at the next meeting to talk about this development review process. • Stokes: We're not going to be ready. • Fischer: I have been anticipating this for a long time, over a year now. I'm getting impatient that it has already been this long. I would like to see the board move forward. If staff isn't ready, then maybe the board should do their own recommendation and take the initiative. • Stokes: I would feel bad. Normally we'd do staff work to provide options. It's a big issue. It won't be figured out in one night. The board can do what they want. We're just not feeling like we have anything substantive for you. • Fischer: The approach would be that we would put something together for you to react to. The initial step is background and history. We need to get Steve Roy here. I don't want to see it languish for another year. • Fischer: It doesn't have to add complexity. I don't know that our role needs to be quasi-judicial. There may be some way this board can weigh in on projects that have potential impacts on ... whatever the natural feature might be. One of the main reasons why we may need to look at a code change is we were informed several years ago by the City attorney that if we comment on specific design projects we would then be outside the perview of the board and if the applicant didn't like what we said the City would not be obligated to defend us. It was a personal liability issue. I just want to be able to review some projects and comment on them. I want to do that where it's appropriate. We're getting some bad development that is impacting natural resources. • Hart: On the P&Z board in Glenwood, we had comments from DOW, the Parks Board, and three or four different boards. They came in as part of the packet that you would get and read. Our attorneys never questioned if it was quasi-judicial. • Fischer: We could become just another referral agency. • Donovan: We can discuss this at our next meeting, or later on • Stokes: If we can get the history, and Steve and Cameron. We'll see if we can pull it together by then. Prospect Road • Fischer: Ron Phillips made the statement that the Prospect Road project is in final design. I want our board to be involved before our comments are meaningless. • Stokes: The trail recommendation that we made, not building the sidewalks but building the trails, that has been reviewed and I believe accepted by Transportation. I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure, that's been through the review process and that people are ok with that. Stokes will follow up with Transportation. PAYT • Fischer: Met with Susie Gordon, there's yet another draft with revisions to PAYT. Staff took it to Council, and Council said go back and put more responsibility on the people hiring the hauler. We talked about not making another specific Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 11 of 12 recommendation. This will go to the March 16 Council meeting. I didn't see an opportunity to do another recommendation. We were thinking it would be appropriate for staff to say the board still supports the revisions to PAYT. Donovan: HOA's have to ensure they give their member residents the options of volume based rates. Kingfisher Point Restoration, Rick Bachand Bachand provided background information regarding the ACOE proposed project for the restoration of Kingfisher Point. • Staychock: I support this 100%, its great. • Thomas: So you eliminated the goal of removing the lime waste? • Bachand: It's being considered for use for fill of the ponds. Another consideration is to use it in some of the landscaping. • Panjabi: This is a great leverage of money. It would be also very beneficial and educational if somehow the City could let it be known what the costs of ecological restoration are. That it will cost $4 million to restore this property, and how much pristine land you could buy. Try to incorporate an educational campaign. • Stokes: It's a great learning, outreach, interpretation and education opportunity. • Knowlton: There should be interpretative signs. Transportation Master Plan Randy Fischer said that Council adopted the Transportation Master Plan. County Road 32 is being updated to a six land arterial. That would impact Fossil Creek, Pelican Marsh, and Duck Lake. It was unfortunate there was no one from Natural Resources there last night. Council asked a lot of questions about natural resource values. Transportation staff answered the way you would think they would. Council didn't get good information. The Master Street Plan can always be revisited. With enough interest we can get that un-done somehow. Panjabi: I wasn't at our last meeting. This merits getting on our agenda for more discussion about what we want to do here. I don't want to see that. If the people of Fort Collins knew they wouldn't want to see it go through either. Why do they want to convert it to a major highway? That will do a lot for spurring development in that area. There's a lot of land with natural resources values, and it will affect our natural areas. We need to think about what we do at this point. Future Agenda Items: March 17: Northern Integrated Supply Project, NoColoWater Conservancy District NRAB & AQAB Role in Development Review Land Conservation & Stewardship Master Plan April 7, 2004: Air Quality Plan Changes to LUC Section 3.4.1 Unscheduled: Real Estate Training (?) Natural Resources Advisory Board March 3, 2004 Page 12 of 12 Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor Approved at the regular meeting of the Natural Resources Advisory Board May 5, 2004.