Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/01/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE September 1, 2004 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Joann Thomas, Linda Knowlton, Glen Colton, Nate Donovan, Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock, Rob Petterson, Gerry Hart, Board Members Absent Clint Skutchan Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Terry Klahn, John Stokes, Mark Sears, Sherry Bartmann, Sandy Hicks, David Canter, Doug Moore Guests CSU students Anne Hutchinson, Chamber of Commerce Agenda Review Nate Donovan is wondering about the changes in the development review process. John Stokes would like to talk about scheduling some field trips. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the August 4, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as written. Land Use Code Changes: Recycling Enclosures for Commercial and Multi -family Recycling, Sherri Bartmann Bartmann provided background information related to the project. • Donovan: If someone says "what are my requirements for trash and recycling", will they have to go to three different places in the code? • Bartmann: No, they are all incorporated in 3.2.5. It would also be easy to change in the future. • Fischer: How is the public outreach going? • Bartmann: Pretty good. We sent out approximately 50 packets to architectural firms, real estate developers, agents, attorneys, and other affected parties. We are currently receiving comments back. We've developed a listening log. All of the staff has access to the comments so we know the comments and concerns. We're getting mixed Natural Resources Advisory Board September 1, 2004 Page 2 of 9 feedback. Real estate agents who represent developers are against any regulations. The waste haulers are in agreement. It's a mixed bag, it's all on the web site. • Fischer: Has this always included commercial? • Bartmann: Yes, from the start. • Knowlton: You're going to P&Z next month? When do you expect to go to Council? • Bartmann: At the end of October. • Donovan: Are provisions C3 and C4 contradictory? • Bartmann: No. (Bartmann passed around pictures showing what could work.) • Donovan: Do you have examples in Fort Collins where this has worked well? • Bartmann: There are some great examples of what's being done out there. • Moore: There are some problems with banking and medical care facilities. • Stokes: Now that we have a new contract at the County, we can go to single stream. The land fill will accept co -mingled recyclables, everything in one box. They'll haul and sort at the dump. • Bartmann: That could potentially eliminate the need for one of the 95 gallon containers. We hope in five years that we'll see a 50150 split. As the idea grows we hope to see more recycling than trash. • Donovan: Without prescriptive requirements, do the suggestions allow for machine pickup, trucks and etc.? • Bartmann: Yes, We've suggested accessibility guidelines. • Fischer: Have you done an economic analysis? • Bartmann: Yes, between $600 and $1000 is a safe bet for the options we've included. • Knowlton: This is excellent. I've found myself looking at trash enclosures when I'm out shopping. • Bartmann: We feel the language should be easy for the developer to meet. • Donovan: Should we make a recommendation on this? Move that we recommend to Council the adoption of the proposed Land Use Code changes related to trash and recycling enclosures. Rob Petterson seconded the motion. • Hart: Council needs to understand the costs are minimal and the benefits are large. The recycling bins are free, versus garbage cans. They pay less on a monthly basis, and they can cut down their trash bill by what they divert. • Donovan: Do volume based rates apply to commercial and multi -family? • Stokes: I think volume based rates apply to residential only. • Petterson: In any case, adopting this is key to moving toward the objectives that Council has set. If we don't do this I'm not sure how we will meet those objectives. The motion passed unanimously. Budget Update, John Stokes Stokes said that in the Exceptions Process the City goes through the process of identifying needs for the upcoming year that are yet not budged for. For 2005 we already have an approved budget. If we have a need we can throw it in the mix of exception Natural Resources Advisory Board September 1, 2004 Page 3 of 9 requests. Council decides what will be funded. We made two requests. One is $12,000 for Rivendell, and the other is $17,000 for a financial coordinator. They are ongoing, small requests. There's a large request from PFA. Our probability of success is pretty low. I think the likelihood of us getting any money is little to none. The PFA request is $1.4 million. There's an empty firehouse. They want to put people in that firehouse. That's probably where the money will go. • Petterson: What's the $12,000 for Rivendell? • Stokes: We're subsidizing Rivendell. We do get a kickback from the hauler, but its not worth a lot. It doesn't cover our costs over the course of a year for maintenance and operations. We can absorb it, but we wanted to make a point that there is no operating money for Rivendell. It's been an enormous success. The numbers keep going up. We don't have a solid source or revenue to subsidize it. • Stokes: Our financial controller left us. That position is vacant. We're thinking about recalibrating that job description and will probably hire a half time person devoted to Natural Areas. The general fund is relatively simple. We think we can take of the general fund. The money we get for Natural Areas is much more complicated. • Donovan: Have you asked for or been granted authority to fill that? • Stokes: I visit with Darin tomorrow. Stokes briefly reviewed the budget summary. • Donovan: Should we make a recommendation for the budget exception process? And, if so, on one or both of the department requests? • Fischer: I was expecting to see a budget projection for 2005. I thought we'd see where we stand, and what our shortfalls will look like. This doesn't tell us much. My understanding last year was that we'll be losing significant amounts of budget because of various grants running out, and funds from other sources not being renewed. • Stokes: That's a good point, it was an oversight not to bring the 2005 projections for the general fund. I've got one for the natural area program. It's not that different than the 2004 budget. We're still going to be lean and mean. We've got the same FTE, that's not going to change. Grants are running out. The grant environment is very tough. It's difficult to get grants. The money's just not there. • Fischer: My big concern is I'm not sure if the 2005 projections will do it. This masks the gravity of the situation of the department outside of the natural areas program. The department general fund budget gets lost in the rounding error. Those programs are equally important to some of us. There's been a steady decline in the ability to do simple recycling and pollution prevention outreach. If you recall in the last budget process the department took heat because of the combining of the two budgets. People made hay out of the fact that we had 35 FTE, and an enormous budget. The general fund portion of budget is so small it wouldn't register on the page. The way you're setting this up is a recipe for failure if you want to get any exceptions money. • Stokes: It's not the only way we report out money. The general fund budget is about $1 million. You're right, it gets lost. The tricky thing is that the City budget isn't very good. If the sales tax initiative passes there wont be an across the board cut. There will be selective cutting of services and positions. That's the only way you'll make up Natural Resources Advisory Board September 1, 2004 Page 4 of 9 the difference. Every department is at some risk of losing staff or providing services. The City is managing it's budget very conservatively. • Fischer: In addition to that, again, I would strongly suggest we also show a graph or chart showing how the general fund portion of our budget has gone downward over the last 2 % budget cycles. It's going down at an alarming rate, fast than other departments. Some are actually going up. P&R did take a little dip, but they were projected to go back up at a fairly steep rate. The NRD is the only one in the whole budget document that keeps going down and down. I don't know how much further we can go down. It would be helpful for Council to have a graph. • Stokes: I would be happy to do a graph. • Fischer: You need to be more aggressive in saving positions. Sandy does an incredible service for the community that few people know about. It's nothing for Parks to say we need another half million for our o/m. The department can't get pocket change. Something is way out of whack. Maybe we should move the department to Utilities. • Donovan: Some of the things that have been priorities, like the Sustainable Management System I view as having a longer term saving for the City. It takes an investment. It's tough to do in the exceptions process. Maybe the issue should be planning for the next bi-annual budget process. • Petterson: There are two elements. First we need to get everyone on the same page about what the story is. In terms of providing the graph, with that it would be desirable to have a sense of staffing. With that kind of narrative to look at we can begin to understand it better. Perhaps the best thing to do is preparation for the upcoming budget cycle. But, the first step is to get everyone on the same page. • Stokes: Those are good ideas. I'm glad to do it. • Knowlton: We need to accentuate the difference between the natural areas program and its funding source, and all of the other programs and their funding source. We need to show the increase and decline in the general fund budget, and that the increases in the natural area program are funded from an entirely different source. • Donovan: Maybe we should talk more about this in October. I think it would be good to make a recommendation to Council on exceptions. • Stokes: The financial coordinator position is a moot point. • Fischer: This is almost embarrassing. I feel like we should make a recommendation to Council for an extra half million dollars. We've moved FTE's to the natural areas program. We gave up a $100,000 a year contribution to natural areas from the general fund. Stuff is being picked up by the natural areas program. • Petterson: Hopefully we'll get educated in the process. John, do you feel we shouldn't offer an expression of support. • Hart: This is a little item. The whole question is what's happening. • Stokes: The budget process will crank up next spring. • Petterson: Let's get educated and get behind what can be of the most benefit. Move that the board recommend that Council approve the $12,000 requested for Rivendell, and include something in the memo about the overall department project. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 1, 2004 Page 5 of 9 • Petterson: I'm supportive of the general directions. But, what are we going to say about the 2"a point? Generally it seems there needs to be a distinction between the natural areas and general fund budgets. • Knowlton: Haven't we said something like this in previous letters to Council? • Donovan: Yes, we have. • Petterson: It's not a substitute of the action plan we're talking about. • Hart: I agree it's good to bring to Council's attention that we're concerned about this, and working to try to reverse the trend. The motion passed with 7 members in favor, and one member (Glen Colton) abstaining because he is on the Budget Committee. SW Community Park: Possible Board Recommendation to Council, Nate Donovan • Fischer: I have filed a disclosure for a potential conflict of interest. It was recommended by the city attorney that I conflict out of the discussion because I live adjacent to the park site. It's uncertain if I have a personal conflict. I don't want to taint the board recommendation. I will sit back in the bleachers and observe if that's ok. I wont participate in the discussion or the vote. I want to make sure a board recommendation isn't affected at all. • Donovan: I forwarded an email about our recommendation last time. We discussed if we wanted to make a recommendation, and who it should be made to. We had made a decision to make a recommendation to staff that they come up with an additional design with fewer facilities in the park. Concepts 4 and 5 were not done at the time. In concepts 4 and 5 some of the facilities were pushed to the west, the access points and parking lots were changed. • Petterson: There are more program elements in these, right? More ball parks in particular. • Moore: Since concepts 4 and 5 were produced the Park's Board gave clear direction for only 2 ball fields. • Donovan: I got mixed comments about if there was any direction. I didn't get the impression that there was clear direction. I guess the idea is to move toward one option to show the public in September. • Petterson: It seems there are two sets of issues. One is the number of program elements and the characteristics and where those elements are situated. It looks like there is an east/west issue. We had requested in our earlier discussions that we were looking for a lesser set of options. I'm getting a sense that there's no support for that. • Donovan: There's no support from P&R Planning staff. If we make a recommendation it needs to go to Council. • Hart: Concepts four and five bring a couple hundred vehicles down Overland Trail. That may elicit concern from folks at Quail Hollow. The original design was more intense, parks staff feel they have pulled back enough. This board needs to discuss where we can be more effective. • Donovan: One of the things you may have noticed in Marty's reply to the email is they have an obligation to design something that qualifies as a youth sports complex. I Natural Resources Advisory Board September 1, 2004 Page 6 of 9 think it's important for Council to get a legal opinion form the City Attorney about the nature of the obligations. • Knowlton: I agree. • Donovan: We also have the issue of the differing philosophy of the definition of what a developed park should be, or has been. • Knowlton: Our interest is the proximity of this park to the natural area. If its in the middle of a school zone, or housing zone we're not that concerned. Our interest is in Pineridge and preserving Pineridge. I don't want the park to destroy the values of the natural area. • Donovan: And the Spring Creek corridor. • Staychock: My fight is for the buffer spaces, and my fight is for the natural areas, and not for parks. • Colton: I'm concerned about the natural elements, but I'm also concerned about the public process. Planning staff says, "we're working in a box this size". I'm concerned that citizens don't have say outside that box. Citizens get frustrated when they give input and its ignored. That's not good governance. • Hart: What do we as a board have a responsibility to do? As citizens we have unlimited possibilities. • Petterson: We do have an advocacy role to make sure the public is involved. • Hart: I think that's P&R role. • Staychock: I become very defensive when P&R people want to have a big say in natural areas stuff. I feel uncomfortable dictating what should be going on in the park. • Petterson: Can we say we want to protect Pineridge without mentioning the four ball fields? • Staychock: There's a fine line. Regionally speaking I'm glad there's a park going in. There's no question that what they put there will affect the surrounding area. I don't know what the requirements for parks in Fort Collins are. I would like to see the City of Fort Collins respect the buffers. • Hart: I'm concerned about lighted ball fields. • Petterson: We don't want to micromanage, but it's appropriate to say we want the number of program elements and the number of cars to be as limited as possible to protect the Spring Creek corridor and Pineridge. It's reasonable to make a recommendation that says we should have a design that respects those areas. And, that what we think that means is less development on the west side of the park, respect of the buffers, and perhaps limited car access on the west side. • Knowlton: There was an excellent soap box. The P&R Board is listening to 20% of the people and are not listening to the other 80% of the people who don't use these facilities. We and the neighbors seem to be on the same page. But, people pushing organized sports seem to be driving the process. P&R came to us with 3 ball fields, we asked for less, and then they came back with four or five. • Hart: I don't want to get into park design. • Donovan: There are two things that are inappropriate. The access over Overland Trail, and a parking lot and vehicles between the natural area and Spring Creek Corridor. There are some transportation dreamers who are convinced that Overland will be Natural Resources Advisory Board September 1, 2004 Page 7 of 9 extended from Drake to Horsetooth. The second thing is the future recreation site. Having it on the west side seems to be inappropriate. • Petterson: It seems that we have some conceptual concerns that are clearly within our bailiwick. Process concerns have been expressed about if this gives real choices to the community. How are we going to bring all of this together? • Donovan: If we can agree on the concepts we can take a vote to make a recommendation. The chair could draft a memo and everyone would have an opportunity to provide input. • Donovan: I think its appropriate to ask for an opinion on the youth sports obligation. • Moore: These concepts are moving along. Four and five aren't going to happen. Now they're working on six. The Park Planning folks feel like they've been given clear direction. • Colton: Its inappropriate to have the rec center on the west side. There should be no program usage to the west of the Spring Creek area. And, there should be no lighted ball fields. • Moore: Lighting will occur on the basketball and tennis courts, and in line hockey. We can deal with that, technology has improved a lot. • Staychock: It looks like each of the alternatives has the maintenance facility off the south end of Overland. They've got the maintenance building the furthest away from where they have most of their work. • Donovan: I don't mind the maintenance facility. We'll talk generally about the number of program elements. • Hart: There should be some process comments too. • Petterson: Yes, but they should be related to natural areas. • Donovan: There are two schools of thought regarding the process of this board. Some say the function of a board member is to represent the constituency of the people, and another school of thought is that we are consultants appointed by Council to provide advice. I'm struggling with the role we play with helping impact how parks are designed. • Colton: I'd put this is a concern of the desire of the overall community. And, those people who may want a more natural park in this location. • Petterson: Here's the vision of what we think our constituency is. And we want to make sure they have a voice. We'd like to see more opportunity for our constituency to voice that. The process should be more open. • Knowlton: We represent the interest of natural areas. We also represent the opinions of people who use natural areas. Our interest is not in the people who use the park, it's in the people who have used the natural area for many years. • Petterson: We don't have to say represent. It could be framed as a segment of the population. • Donovan: One of the issues is how this park will affect the natural area. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 1, 2004 Page 8 of 9 Gerry Hart made the following motion: Move that we advise Council to direct staff to consider these elements that we've talked about. Rob Petterson seconded the motion. • Moore: The Parks Planning department asked if we could get the minutes to them so they could work from your comments. • Stokes: Nate should comment directly with Parks if they're requesting that kind of feedback. • Donovan: I will copy them on any recommendation to Council. • Stokes: It makes me uncomfortable to interpret the boards comments back to another staff. It would be more powerful coming from the board itself. • Petterson: Are those things mutually exclusive? Call them up and share the input, and write the letter. • Donovan: I'm not comfortable with calling. It was pretty clear to me they think we should be advising Council. • Staychock: Do we want add definition of open spaces and parks. • Stokes: We have those. • Knowlton: What is not in City Plan is that all parks must have three lighted ball fields. • Donovan: It's worth putting in the recommendation that we don't think the definition of a park has to follow a canned approach. It could allow for a more natural park. • Knowlton: We must point out the significance of the natural area. A park like this in a different location might not even be on our radar. • Colton: Fossil Creek wasn't on our radar. Natural areas and open spaces come in all shapes and sizes. I would think a park could have a range of uses and definitions just like natural areas and open spaces. • Donovan: Should I say it makes sense for this to be outside the box because of the natural area. People in favor of programmed recreations are asserting themselves on what kinds of recreation are allowed in natural areas. There's a concerted effort by recreation to have more and more opportunities in natural areas. The motion passed unanimously. • Colton: We should have a joint meeting with the P&R Board. Future Agenda Items - Sept 15 — NO ITEMS - Oct 6 — General Management Guidelines review Add: Development Review Process, either September 15, or October 6. Add: Flood Plain regulation revisions — October 6 Add: Stormwater issues, Bobcat Ridge NA Mgmt Plan — October 20 Other Business • John Stokes is setting up a joint field trip the P&R Board, and the NRAB to tour Bobcat Ridge Natural area. There will be an open house for both boards to review the Natural Resources Advisory Board September 1, 2004 Page 9 of 9 management plans for Fossil Creek and Bobcat Ridge on October 20 from 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm. • Stokes said he'll review the General Management Guidelines with the P&R board. We'll put something in their packet for the 9/22/04 meeting. We will also get the material to you and review it with you this fall. Then we make a report to Council. • Stokes: Good News — we closed on the Andrijeski property today. We've been working on that for a long time. • Fischer: I've been to the last four P&R meetings. They start with public comments. This board should try something like that. We don't have a mechanism for taking public comments. • Knowlton: I would not want that period to be open ended. We could say ten minutes. • Petterson: We can put a ten minute agenda item on. • Colton: Then a lot of times people wont see the presentation. • Donovan: If we allow people to pipe in at any point that would be a departure from what is usually allowed. • Petterson: We have to be careful allowing people to comment during agenda items. Then you're expanding the membership of the board to include anyone who shows up. It has pluses and minuses to it. • Petterson: When should we expect to see the budget on our agenda? • Stokes: Not in two weeks. It's likely to be the October 6 meeting. • Petterson: We need to dialogue around that and what the next steps will be. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned to a work session at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor