Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 06/01/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Special Meeting 281 N. COLLEGE June 1, 2005 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison - 217-1932 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Joann Thomas, Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart, Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock, Clint Skutchan Board Members Absent Rob Petterson, Nate Donovan, Glen Colton Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, John Stokes, Susie Gordon, Lucinda Smith, Doug Moore Guests Anne Hutchinson Matt Evans Rick Price Agenda Review Randy Fischer would like to make comments under "New Business" Public Comments Rick Price: Thank you for your time and efforts as volunteers on this board. I admire your commitment and dedication. Thanks, also, to the staff in the Natural Resources Department for all their work and foresight in doing what they do to preserve open space and natural areas for us. As a consumer I'm finding the bureaucracy a maze and not very responsive when I have an issue or question about bicycle or pedestrian issues, polices or problems in Fort Collins. So, I'd like to ask you two questions, and then make a recommendation. First the questions. How do you gather input from the bicycling and walking public for natural resource programs and policies? And, whom should I call when I have a question about these issues? • Stokes: Rick has done some great photography for the natural area's program. These are good and complicated questions. There are different entities in the City Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 2 of 11 organization that deal with pedestrian issues. For example, the natural areas program, in terms of trails, we manage and build trails on land we own and manage. That land is interspersed with park land. Parks also is in charge of building the big, connected trails system in the City. They are the lead. We tend to acquire the right-of-way, and they tend to build the paved trails. There are about 25 miles of paved trails, and about 5 miles of that we have paid for. If you look at the ballot language, we can spend money on trails that connect parks and open lands. We've been giving money to Parks to build the connective sections between open lands and parks. That's why it gets tricky when trying to figure out who is in charge. With paved trails, Parks is in the driver's seat. There is a master plan, implemented year by year. The Transportation Master Plan talks about the bike/trail system. There is a joint committee between this board and the P&R Board that looks at trail issues. • Price: That's the process I'm interested in. From most of what I've seen if there's money to be spent there's a call for public input. If there are any problems the public shows up. About five years ago there were four or five active cyclists on the Transportation Board that brought a voice to that committee. There's one left. • Knowlton: The cycling committee should be concerned about trying to have people on the board, getting people on the board, and being appointed to the board. In terms of the make up of our agenda there are a combination of things board members are concerned about, and things staff brings to us. It's a combination of those two things. We don't represent the citizens of Fort Collins. We are appointed and we use our knowledge and expertise to advise Council. I can't represent your interests, because I'm not an elected person. • Fischer: We get input from people like you all of the time. Some of us on the board are cyclists and have contacts with the cycling community. • Price: You are probably aware that the City has frozen the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator's position at Smart Trips. You also know that the City is currently going through a complete budget review process that may result in major shifts in priorities for how funds are spent. I'd like to ask that this Board and the Natural Resources Department raise their voices in support of a new and improved Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Coordinator's position. That position should not be in Smart Trips, but rather in Transportation Planning. And, it should be linked to Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation, Air Quality, Public Safety, the Senior Center, Smart Trips, and the new EVSAG. As the name suggests the coordinator should advise and coordinate. Each department should step forward and offer to help pay for this position. There should be a significant outreach functions to educate and inform the public about the benefits of bicycling and walking. Finally, the Coordinator should have a citizens' task force to help it prioritize responsibilities as this new position begins. I'd like you to pass this advice on up the line this evening if you would. • Skutchan: What have you heard about the reduction of bike month? • Price: There was no coordinator. • Skutchan: What are people talking about? • Price: There were twenty events last year, most of the bike shops participated. I haven't heard any complaints. The bike community is biking regardless. What has Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 3 of 11 happened is there is a big gap all of a sudden. The outreach has ground to a halt. There is a temporary coordinator, she came on three or four weeks ago. Skutchan: If you really want to enact change, you should continually show up at Council and make public comments. A presentation to us is great, but all we do is make recommendations. Gather your group and be committed to speaking for your three to five minutes. Price: This is my 6ch public meeting in twelve days. I've been talking with Tom Frazier, and there is in the works an effort on their part to recreate the job. Council will hear from the bike community. We have been so lucky in the past decade with the funding referendum, and the staff in this community. The bike/ped community has become complacent. We have the budget in Fort Collins, with the grocery tax, and we have a new prioritization of the budget. I see some hope. My hope is to raise awareness. Skutchan: A good opportunity is "Bike to Work Month", and "Bike to Work Day". Price: Lee's Cyclery and the Fort Collins Cycler Club met and brainstormed action items. There was no hot button, no crisis. That meeting will be repeated on June 9. There will be a task force coming out of it, and a calendar of events on the blog. We're trying to mobilize the troops and get them out. There is an opportunity, and a possible crisis. We're at a turning point. There's the opportunity to renew the positions in a positive, proactive sense. We need more outreach and education of the public. Review and Approval of Minutes: April 6, 2005: The minutes of the April 6, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as written. April 20, 2005: The minutes of the April 20, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as written. Downtown Kayak Park on the Poudre, Matt Evans Evans said he is president of Friends of the Poudre, and is here tonight to try to dispel some rumors, shed some light, and solidify some facts. Several years back Council adopted the Downtown River Project. There was extreme disrepair. Natural Resources has done a good job getting problems taken of. With our project, the project coordinator is a citizen of Fort Collins. We're working with the Park's Department and other city staff. Funding is short in the City, there's no impetus to spend money. That's where I come in. I raise funds and awareness. I got started in Advance Planning with Timothy Wilder and others. It was identified as a need in our city. Evans said this project would add additional rock deflectors and rework the chute to make it appear more natural. Everything would happen upstream of the Burlington railroad. There's plenty of infrastructure. More than paddlers would benefit. People love to gather along the river and enjoy the activities. It creates a focal point and more understanding of a treasured resource. Hopefully it creates some better fishing and better riparian life. There could be some improvement, with deeper pools of water. We hope to Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 4ofII create a more meandering appearance to the river, a more natural look. Hopefully the park will keep people from driving up the canyon all of the time. Perhaps some people will not jump in their car. It will add economic vitality to our City. Some studies show these parks can generate $1.5 to $2 million a year to a city. It draws a focus from the community to see the river as a resource we need to protect. We have raise over $68,000, the project will cost a little over $100,000 to complete. The DDA has stepped up with a $30,000 pledge. Poudre Paddler's has been involved. The YCC has agreed to donate time and resources to the project. The key date is June 15. We will find out if GOCO will grant the $70,000 for the project. If we find that GOCO will grant the money we'll proceed to design and outreach with the City staff. We have to visit Stormwater, they have to sign off on the project. There are lots of things to do. There would be interpretive signage. We've spoken to people in the environmental community. John Sanderson put together the EIS for the grant application. One important consideration is that with any recreational projects in the river you can apply for additional in -stream flow. • Staychock: Wasn't there a bill passed that allowed for more recreational in -stream use? • Evans: Two bills, it's a little confusing. One did, but Senate Bill 62 was designed to undermine them. Right now, it's fairly status quo. • Stokes: There was a court case, Golden or Gunnison. The locality wanted to assert its right to keep water in the river for recreation. The Colo Water Conservation Board had denied it. The supreme court said, yes, they can use the water for recreation. It's a really big deal. It gave municipalities the right to dedicate water to recreation use. • Knowlton: Some legislators have said it cries out for clarification. • Evans: They'll come back with something. • Fischer: If ever any new water rights are allocated they will be very junior rights. You have to be realistic, in a dry year senior rights trump anything. • Fischer: You mentioned a trail, which side of the river? • Evans: The south bank. • Fischer: Where would you put in and take out? • Evans: Put in near the College Ave bridge, and take out near the railroad bridge. • Evans: Any water right is a good thing, even if its junior. • Fischer: When people put in and take out, how are people going to know where? And, one of my concerns about paddling in general on the Poudre through town is, people put in and take out any where they want to. If you're paddling down the river you won't know if there is a sensitive area. How do you propose to manage people's use of the area? • Evans: Interpretive signage. And, the landscape itself will allow itself to proper put in and take out. • Fischer: There's nothing to discourage anyone from continuing to paddle downstream? Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 5 of 11 • Evans: There's nothing to discourage it, but there would be no reason for a whitewater kayaker to go anywhere there isn't whitewater. • Staychock: What about parking? • Evans: There's already a parking area. • Staychock: Any vision of what will happen on the other side of College? • Evans: Nothing right now. • Staychock: Is it canoe friendly? • Evans: Yes, my brother does a lot of canoeing on the Poudre. It's quite friendly if you put in at Shields and go to Prospect. • Evans: This run is a boat chute for an advanced paddler. • Skutchan: What is the plan if the $70,000 doesn't come through? • Evans: We'd re -file in the fall. • Skutchan: So, this doesn't go forward without the grant? • Evans: Not necessarily. We could do additional fund raisers in the coming year. You'd be amazed at the people who have written checks. They just love the river and want to help it. We all want good amenities in our town. I really think this project would be a good thing. • Evans: If we get the funding we think we could have it constructed before next season's flow. There's a lot of work to do. • Skutchan: What do you see as potential concerns? • Evans: One of the concerns would be toilets. We'd need a port -a -let during the season. There would be some cleaning. There may be some re -vegetation that may have to occur from time to time. • Skutchan: What kind of questions/concerns are you getting from Stormwater? • Evans: Stormwater would like to see a no -rise. It shouldn't be a problem. Other than that, there are no concerns. • Fischer: How will you know? Is someone going to do hydrologic modeling to see how it changes the flood plain? • Evans: Gary Lace has done 80-90% of the parks around the country. The modeling will be done by Ayres and Lindstone. It should be fairly painless. • Fischer: If you get the grant, then you'll go through the City approval process? • Evans: I suppose so. I don't know the entire process • Fischer: This board has a long history of being concerned about what goes on, and the development along the river. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the river plan. A strong component of that is geared toward protecting the natural value. That's my big concern. There are concerns. When you bring in a crowd of people to an area like this there may be conflicts with sensitive things. • Evans: The benefits outweigh the concerns. Environmental studies are a part of this project, and they will be done. • Skutchan: It's not a super -high value, is it? • Evans: That's the reason we picked it, it's highly impacted. • Skutchan: If you can limit the people in the canyon, and people can learn the sport and learn a love of river, it might better things in the big picture. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 6 of 11 • Sears: Matt has heard my concerns several times. Matt paints a different picture of the project than I do. These parks do attract fairly large crowds. The impact will not be contained to this 200 feet. The north bank is the Gustav Swanson Natural Area. Downstream, is the natural area that is being, and has been restored, and upstream is Lee Martinez Park. That's the second highest concentration of wildlife in our natural areas, second only to Riverbend Ponds. Use will be during migration. The use couldn't be at a worse time, and the use won't be concentrated there. People won't contain themselves to that little area. People will go downstream, and people will come into the area from the north. They will park and come through Gustav Swanson to spectate and sit on the banks on the north side. They did a beautiful job of restoring Boulder Creek, just to destroy it with human use. As a community we need to decide what we want the river corridor to be. Up until now it has been a natural area. This will deter from that. I have nothing against kayaking, and 30 miles upstream there is plenty of access. It's a relatively short distance from Fort Collins. The community needs to decide what we want to do with this stretch of the river. • Evans: I whole heartedly disagree with the issues Mark raises. I think it's a good thing, and I totally disagree with the fact that people will come from the north side of the property. There's too much vegetation, and there's no parking. In Boulder, as an example, there's a highway and walking paths on both sides of the highway. There's no reason for people to go over there. We can use signage to deter that. My outreach shows that people think this is a wonderful idea. We have to go beyond some of the impacts to the wildlife, there may be a few. But, the benefits far outweigh that. • Skutchan: If this project does go forward, are there things you can do. I wouldn't want to fence it. What would be the focal point of signage? • Evans: People are going to do what they want to do. You can't keep people off the river. The river is a public area. There's nothing to draw them to that area. I think that if there's nothing there to draw them they won't go there. They'll go upstream and downstream. There's already a rope swing in a natural area. • Skutchan: Would your group be willing, during high impact times of year, to patrol? • Evans: It there becomes a problem then that's when we need to deal with it. I don't think its going to be a problem. It's the casual user we have to address, the inner tubers and the swimmers. • Skutchan: Would there be something to dissuade dogs? • Evans: The leash law would take care of that. Water Rates, Mike Smith, Utilities • Fischer: I think it's too bad we're back discussing water rates. This board has always been pro -conservation. • Smith: There are three or four members of Council who are interested in staff putting together a proposal to go back to flat rates. They want information comparing flat with tiered, and are looking at trying to implement that change as soon as possible. Our recommendation was to not go back to the flat rate. But, if Council feels the need, staff recommends leaving the tiered rates in effect till January and revisit the water budget rate. At the May 24 study session, Council brought this issue up again. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 7 of 11 They made it clear to staff that, except for one or two Council members, they're not interested in the water budget, and want staff to bring back an ordinance on June 7. One council member wanted to ask for a flat rate with no fixed charges. We put a memo together. Its in the City Manager's Office now. If he signs and approves it, it will go to Council. This thing is on a fast track. Last week we had a Water Board meeting. The Council had not even talked about seeking the Water Board, or any other board's, input. At the Water Board I brought it up. Council will deal with this on June 7 and that this looks like their one and only shot. We discussed and reviewed the information, and in the little time they had, they felt going back to the old rate was not a good thing to do. It's going backwards. They're somewhat sensitive to the tiered rate, equity issues. Some liked the water budget. They decided to go with staff s recommendation. So, here we are, on the fast track, AIS, ordinance, staff recommendation saying we don't support the ordinance. Yesterday, the mayor called and asked some questions. He asked if the Water Board had had an opportunity to review it. He was told it was pretty rushed, they talked about it for a half hour or so. Council made the decision to pull it off the agenda and put it on the July 5 agenda. They want the Water Board to have a full hearing. I told them we were going to the NRAB, and would probably have input from them also. Council wants an ordinance presented July 5. The direction is to change back to a uniform or flat rate. Staff is still opposed, and our recommendation will be to not do that. The Coloradoan got a hold of the memo, and concurred somewhat with staff. They encouraged council to listen to staff, somewhat unusual for the Coloradoan. I'm not sure if they endorse the water budget. The other option is the seasonal rate. It sends a strong message in the summer. It's a fairly common conservation rate. The water budget is fairly complex until you learn how it works. It's quite an effort to educate consumers. It gives the option of indoor/outdoor allocations based on lot size and ET rate. If we get into another drought we can easily adjust the percentage. We don't have to go to developing new rates, we can just adjust that rate. A number of communities are going to the water budget. Fischer: Since we have a lot of new members can you explain the water budget? Smith: Each residential customer will have their own budget, an amount of water they're allowed to use. The budget is determined by two components. There's indoor use, calculated by using indoor water consumption during the winter quarter. We looked around and wondered, should we use that number purely, or multiply against a factor? People leave, or have company during the holidays. There's lots of fluctuation. We decided to multiply by 1.2, or add 20%. That factor is an issue for discussion. We're not sold on that factor. The outdoor water use is based on each month. The percentage is set right now. 70% may be too high, we may need to look at 60% or 65% of the lot being landscaped. We did a study of old versus new houses. Even in the old part of town, it came to 68%. In the new areas, some were like 52%. Smith: Most of the Water Board does not want to go back to the old rate. Fischer: What is the average household use? I've heard it's 190 gallons per person per day. Smith: Last year, a very wet year, we dropped to 160 or 155 gallons per person per day. System wide our goal is 185, but with the tiered rate, and the wet year we Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 8 of 11 pushed the number down. We know what our new limits are in a wet year. That was the lowest we ever hit. It will probably migrate up as people get further away from the restrictions. • Staychock: Where are the HOA's? • Smith: A lot of HOA's have irrigation meters. They get hit with the seasonal rate. • Staychock: Will the new rates affect business? • Smith: Council is talking about modifying the single/duplex rate. Basically, no one has complained about the seasonal rates. • Skutchan: Do you have a percentage of households affected by the change that would be enacted? Just a rough sketch of what percentage of households you're talking about? • Smith: I don't have that information with me? • Skutchan: Greater than or less than 50%. • Smith: When we changed from flat to tiered we figured about 50% would up, and about 50% would go down. • Staychock: It seems that prices will go up for people who don't use as much water. • Fischer: For people who conserve, rates will go up. • Staychock: It seems like rates for the poorer will go up. • Fischer: The people who live large will pay less, the people who live small will pay more. • Smith: When we went to tiered rates, part of the attraction was that the rates for the smaller lots would go down, and they did. There were a few that went up, but that was the result of individual water habits. If you change back, the people on the low side will go up, and the people on the high side will decre4se. • Hart: I don't get it. We live in a semi -arid climate. Water is a resource. We should be conserving this resource. What's driving Council to go back and make this anti - conservation flip-flop? • Knowlton: Complaints from the large lot folks. • Fischer: There were people on council who hated this idea when it first came up. • Fischer: I'm concerned about the water budgeting thing. If the budget is based on winter time use, there is no incentive to conserve during the winter. • Smith: That's one of the downsides of people playing the system. But, if you increase your winter use, you'll pay higher sewer bills. It's based on the winter quarter water use. • Staychock: In your expert opinion, if we wanted to conserve water, what do you recommend? • Smith: We were not going to recommend any changes in the water rates. The 4-tiered rate does a great job of conserving water. We did take a lot of calls from people with large lots who were upset. • Staychock: What's a lot of calls? • Smith: We probably got a couple hundred, but lots of repeats. We recommended the water budget last time. We think it's a better tool, but more complex. We said we'd like to try that. Then, there were 3 council members leaning in that direction. To me, Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 9of11 between the water budget, and the 4-tiered rate, I like the water budget better. But, I'm fine with the 4-tiered plan. It's much better than going back to the flat rate. Skutchan: Could there be a consideration, within the current 4-tiered system, for a large lot exemption. You shouldn't choke off someone who is legitimately using water for correct reasons. Is there a possibility of that? Randy Fischer made the following motion: The Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends there be no changes to the tiered water rate structure. The motion was seconded by Jerry Hart. Fischer: Regarding the water budget, is the idea that each lot have the correct percentage. I live on a three acre lot that was annexed into the City. If my budget were based on my lot size, I'd have no incentive for conservation at al. My wife and I use less than 3000 gallons a month. Obviously we don't irrigate 3 acres. We planted over 600 trees and shrubs. We use the water to get them started, but we never water after that. There are things you can with large lots. The problem is they're all in Kentucky bluegrass and other water intensive landscaping. That just isn't appropriate. Frankly, my neighbor wastes water like there's no tomorrow. Fischer: I think its unfair that now they want to change the rates. You don't have use thousands of gallons a month to live comfortably. I'm incensed that someone dedicated to conservation is going to be penalized by reversing a decision made by Council. It's not a true flat rate, it's a base rate. The base rate is regressive. It's based on an average of 5000-7000 gallons per month. We don't use half that in our household. The tiered rates make economic sense. If you have a commodity and you want to get rid of it you lower the price and you sell more of it. If you have a scarce commodity you raise the price. It makes economic sense to maintain the current rates. • Hart: This board doesn't have a choice. This is a natural resource that Council is going to encourage people to waste. • Skutchan: The problem I have is water budgeting is something that is legitimate. It should be acknowledged as a way to try to get people to conserve. I would say putting more alternatives on the table is beneficial to conservation. I do like the water budgeting concept, trying to cut down on waste. We shouldn't cast dispersions on a system. We should look at the systemic value of a certain systems. We should leave all options on the table. I don't support going back to the flat rate, but I don't think it's as simple as just one way. I would support an addendum. • Fischer: I see too many problems with water budgeting. • Skutchan: But would you agree it's better than the flat rate? • Fischer: No, not necessarily. To me, water budgeting just has too many variables. I would prefer to have this board stay consistent with the recommendation that we worked hard on. • Skutchan: Do you think we should amend it to state that while the board supports keeping the system in place, that if you are to bring back discussions, a budget management system is preferred to the flat rate. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 10 of 11 Clint Skutchan amemded the motion as follows: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board supports keeping the system in place, but that if you are to bring back discussions, a budget management system is preferred to the flat rate Ryan Staychock seconded the motion. The amended motion failed with two members (Ryan Staychock and Clint Skutchan) supporting the motion and 4 members (Randy Fischer, Jerry Hart, Joann Thomas, Linda Knowlton) opposing. • Staychock: When you look at the pragmatic values of Council, they're going to shrug this off. • Knowlton: We need to recommend what we believe to be the best thing, regardless of that. • Staychock: There are other ways we can conserve. • Hart: Our recommendation to council lets them know the current system is the best we have at the moment. They may chose to or not. The original motion passed with 5 votes in favor (Randy Fischer, Jerry Hart, Joann Thomas, Linda Knowlton, Ryan Staychock), and one vote opposed (Clint Skutchan). Budget Discussion, John Stokes John Stokes provided a brief update on the Budgeting for Outcome process. • Fischer: Are any of the items in the Clean Air package new? Are all of the ones we're doing now included? • Smith: We're making some efficiency improvements. One thing that's new is the diesel emissions reductions The newest things are the Master Home Environmentalist and Free Market Solutions for Traffic Problems. • Staychock: My concern with this process is we're competing against each other. • Stokes: We're supposed to be looking at it genuinely of what its worth. We don't look at past budgets, we don't favor or disfavor because of budgets in the past. • Stokes: The results teams have really clear instructions. We're supposed to put on our citizen hats, and do our best job to be unbiased and use language citizens can understand. We've taken a lot of time and lots of effort into writing results that we think people can understand. The people on my results team are taking it very seriously. Staff will always bring bias to the process. Council will be the gut check. They will have to decide. • Staychock: When did this happen? Natural Resources Advisory Board June 1, 2005 Page 11 of 11 • Stokes: It came from the City Manager's Office. It's Darin's job to create the budget. We usually start in late April, or early May. Darin said this is the process he wants, and Council is behind it. They like it. They're interested and passed a resolution supporting it. • Knowlton: I can't help but think that someone is making a lot of money selling this product. We can't keep using the same process. Someone needs to make money reinventing it. But, based on the state of the City and its finances, this is a fair thing to do. When making cuts, basing them on last year's budget isn't fair. It doesn't get to the heart of what's really important. • Fischer: I'm not that interested in the process. I just want to be assured that a lot of the programs that this board has been a champion of will be fully funded, like Climate Wise. I've always felt it is chronically under -funded. Is it going to continue that way, or will we have an opportunity to hire the people and have permanent employees. • Smith: Perhaps there will be more funding than before. We'll also use existing resources in Utilities, there is overlap. It will better strengthen the budget in the general fund. We may not see personnel funding grow a lot. We may or may not. It depends on the outcomes of the results teams. Overall, they'll look for cuts. We'll just have to see what happens. • Gordon: Part of it, that is a little scary, is the impermanence. In two years we'll be back making pitches again. • Stokes: Hopefully we don't end up thinking in two year modes. • Fischer: One big concern, will they try to make up the cuts by making due with contractual employees? • Stokes: In our offers we haven't adopted that approach. In two years, when the pure model kicks in, the private sector and non -profits are encouraged to bid on results. • Skutchan: There's nothing for maintenance. • Sears: Last year, in 2004, we changed the names, and the way we do field operations. Now we have Public Improvements and Resource Management. • Fischer: I appreciate all of the staff being here at this late hour. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor