Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/18/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE February 18, 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, Glen Colton, Ryan Staychock, Clint Skutchan, Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton Board Members Absent Arvind Panjabi, Joann Thomas, Gerry Hart Staff Present Natural Resources Deot: Edith Felchle, Terry Klahn, John Stokes, Bobby Brannock, Lucinda Smith City Attorney's Office: Carrie Daggett Guests Eric Hamrick, Councilmember Several CSU students The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Runnine Deer Natural Area Easement. Edith Felchle Felchle said the NRAB approved the conservation easement and ordinance to get the $203,000 GOCO grant a couple weeks ago. We're bringing this back again because there is one wording issue required by GOCO that Carrie (Daggett) thought she would be able to get changed, but it has become evident that the GOCO Board has given direction on that wording. Either we accept this wording, or we don't get the grant. The concern would be if the City ever sells Running Deer to a buyer who is not eligible to get GOCO funding. This comes from a couple different things, GOCO's interest in public access, and a bad experience GOCO had in another county. If the City sold the portion of Running Deer the GOCO grant is on, the conservation easement would go with the property. But, if we sell to an entity that is not eligible for GOCO funds we could be required to pay them the percent of that sale equal to the percent of their grant on the property. We would also pay interest on the money from the date we got the money. The longer it would go, the more risk there is. If we don't agree to the language we don't get the grant. The natural areas staff position is that our intent isn't short term protection. Our intent is to protect the area for a long time. It's our recommendation to accept the $203,000 grant. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 18, 2004 Page 2 of 5 • Stokes: It's rather convoluted, but we continue to recommend that we proceed with this project. We wanted you to be aware of this requirement. The likelihood of this happening is very small. • Knowlton: This doesn't change anything. If the time came we considered selling it, and the fine would be great, we'd just not sell it. • Stokes: The conservation easement stays with the property. The issue is a private owner who would forbid the public from accessing the land. We are on the leading edge of this language. This will be an issue that will unfold over the next couple years. • Skutchan: Once the provision is in place could it be amended? • Stokes: It would be hard to amend. • Donovan: I believe they're over reaching. The City is in a position to exert some leadership by taking the possibility of refusing the grant and working with other organizations to put pressure on GOCO to come to some other resolution. This is punitive. I understand the purpose, but I don't think it's a good idea. • Knowlton: Are you recommending that we refuse the grant? • Donovan: I am. Open space programs need to exert some leadership to have better balance. • Daggett: The conservation easement stays in place. GOCO continues to get reimbursed further in the future. Theoretically it could result in GOCO being paid many times back for the grant they've made. My sense of the situation is that GOCO staff understands this is probably over reaching. They were directed by their board. They don't have the ability to deviate from that. The sense is there will have to be a change that comes from the GOCO board. There might be usefulness to give this discussion a little more time. The trick is coming up with a way to convince GOCO there's a way to get GOCO paid down the road if public access is denied. • Donovan: I don't see why GOCO would want to be more reasonable if every open space program goes along with this. • Fischer: I appreciate your interest in making a point, but they won't be influenced. I sometimes wonder if those people are interested in land conservation. They don't seem to be. Look at how they've stonewalled the bonding amendment. Meanwhile, we're losing opportunities to conserve land. The board will not be swayed by us losing $200,000. The way to approach this is to try to change the makeup of the GOCO board. • Stokes: This may be a question of picking your battles. We could battle this for a very long time to effect a change, and it might not change. If this was a big project, and GOCO was putting in $5 million I'd have a serious problem, and we would pick that battle. For my part, I'm not sure this is the right battle to choose. • Staychock: If we accept this language shouldn't we assume this will be part of every document. • Stokes: These are living breathing documents. GOCO has done this before. I don't think it sets a precedent. • Staychock: If we choose not to take the $200,000 does it put the project in jeopardy? • Felchle: It means we give up the money. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 18, 2004 Page 3 of 5 • Donovan: It's a reimbursement. • Stokes: We're counting on that $200,000. We've budgeted for it. • Daggett: As an alternative to flat out recommending or denying the project, you could recommend that the 2nd reading of the ordinance be continued, and try to negotiate with GOCO on alternative language. • Felchle: We already got a 90 day extension. That probably is the absolute last extension we can get. • Donovan: I like that idea, but would it really help? • Daggett: The way it would work is we'd continue the 2"a reading. You'd have one more meeting left. • Knowlton: I think it would be a waste of city taxpayer money for you to do that. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board reaffirm our support for this conservation easement. The motion was seconded by Randy Fischer. • Skutchan: Could we delay a couple weeks without jeopardizing the $200,000? • Felchle: We could delay a couple weeks if we thought it would get us anything. I know how hard Carrie has worked with GOCO staff. I have worked with them myself. I know staff to be very reasonable people. They're doing their jobs. • Knowlton: Let's keep the interests of the taxpayers in mind here. I'm sure you both have better things to do. • Staychock: I'm concerned about the taxpayers ninety years from now. • Knowlton: They have the option to not create the condition. The City never has to sell it. • Fischer: To me it's a non -issue. I can't imagine wanting to sell the property. It's a benign sort of thing. If we have issues with GOCO we should take them up with the powers that be, and not forfeit $200,000 for something that wouldn't gain us anything anyway. That's my reaction. • Skutchan: Can we attach a statement of our concern? • Fischer: Then you have the board voting to approve the easement, and then Council reads that we're uncomfortable with the easement language. • Staychock: Is there anything in the charter regarding selling property? • Stokes: If we want to sell we have to get the board's recommendation and then approval from Council. We're talking about a problem that might occur in 100 years. We have zero plans to sell, this whole scenario is hypothetical. The motion passed with five votes in favor, and one vote (Nate Donovan) opposed. Carpenter Road, Randy Fischer Fischer said the State and County are undertaking an agreement where the County would relinquish control of County Road 392. The state highway ends at the interstate. The City and County have invested a lot of money, over $5 million, preserving property. This is going on in the background of the Transportation Master Plan that Council is supposed Natural Resources Advisory Board February 18, 2004 Page 4 of 5 to be deciding. We previously made a recommendation on the Transportation Master Plan. It's not clear what the alignment would be if the state decided to improve it. It swings around Duck Lake. From an engineering standpoint it would be easier to plow through Duck Lake. There are lots of unknowns and uncertainties. Essentially our investment in the natural areas there is in jeopardy. If the state is calling the shots we relinquish any control over the future of that roadway. There's a lot going on we don't know about. Maybe there's a perfectly good reason the state should take control. It's clear this is on a fast track. The City Manager has given his blessing. The County would take responsibility for another road somewhere in exchange for the state taking this. I would like to suggest that we make a motion to reiterate our previous recommendation on Carpenter Road, and add that unless we get further information that we're opposed to the swap between the County and the State. Randy Fischer made the following motion: Move that the NRAB reiterate our previous opposition to Carpenter Road becoming a six -lane arterial, and add that we have real concerns about the State and County exchange of responsibilities on Carpenter Road. The motion was seconded by Glen Colton. • Stokes: I had a brief conversation with Mark Jackson. Yes, the County and CDOT have had ongoing conversations. That's all Mark knew about the situation, and that's been happening for quite some time. • Knowlton: What is the City's role in this? • Stokes: It's not our road. • Knowlton: Can the City have any influence? • Fischer: The City will have to approve an IGA, it's in the GMA boundary. My understanding is Council would have to approve an IGA. • Colton: I have big concerns. Years ago there was talk about if the road would go west from Shields and Taft, across Longview Farm, and other natural areas. At the same time in City Plan we talked about if we should expand the GMA to include Fossil Creek. It's premature for the City to do anything. This needs to be slowed down, and taken before boards. It's a ploy to get the state to fund road improvements. The impact on natural resources could be tremendous. • Fischer: Staff still wants it declared as a six -lane arterial. The other thing I'm concerned about is purely economical. Why would we want a 6-lane arterial feeding traffic to McWhinney's? • Donovan: There is benefit if we reaffirm our previous recommendation. I'd also recommend that the Transportation Board take a look at this. • Colton: Maybe the motion needs to go further. • Skutchan: I have concerns. I'm uncomfortable with the addition to the reaffirmation. I haven't seen anything from the City. I need more information. • Fischer: This deal with the County and the State is taking place behind closed doors. I'm not comfortable with the direction this thing is going. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 18, 2004 Page 5 of 5 • Skutchan: I don't have any knowledge. I don't want to vote off of assumptions. • Knowlton: Do you know the timing? • Fischer: It appears to be on a fast track. • Knowlton: It seems like there would have to be public input. • Staychock: John mentioned that Mark Jackson said this conversation has been going on for a long time. I'm disappointed Mark didn't bring that up. I would have appreciated Mark bringing that up, but I agree with Clint. What's the whole situation? • Knowlton: I don't recall any mention of this at the public input session. • Donovan: How about if we try to find out more information about the status of this, and consider it at our first March meeting. • Colton: I would recommend that there be no formal action by Council or the City Manager until the relevant boards and commissions have had an opportunity to get the facts and make recommendations. • Donovan: I don't know that it behooves us to make a recommendation based on what we've heard might be coming forward. I'm comfortable making a recommendation if we know what the status is. • Fischer: Eric (Hamrick), do you know anything about the timing of this? Can you verify the fact that the City Manager has had discussions with CDOT and given his blessing on the exchange? • Hamrick: This was mentioned at the study session on the Transportation Master Plan. Ron Phillips mentioned that they were having these discussions. I can't remember when it was, maybe four (4) weeks ago. I don't know much about it. I don't know if it has to be brought to Council. I'm operating in the dark as well. • Fischer: I think we should reiterate our previous opposition to the 6 lane arterial. I would rely on Nate to write a memo. • Staychock: Clint brings up good points. all hearsay. We don't know what's been happening, it's • Skutchan: We've already made our concerns known on the master plan. We voiced our concerns on the actual master plan. • Ryan: It adds to my frustration that we weren't informed. If Mark knew of these discussions.... • Fischer: This board would be remiss by not reiterating its position at this point and time, and voicing our concerns over these huge unknowns. The exchange between the County and State could negate what's decided on the Transportation Plan, coupled with the fact this could have huge impacts on our investments in natural areas. The motion passed with 5 votes in favor, and one vote (Clint Skutchan) opposed. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor