Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 06/02/2004MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE June 2, 2004 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Preent Joann Thomas, Clint Skutchan, Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart, Nate Donovan, Randy Fischer, Rob Petterson Board Members Absent Ryan Staychock, Glen colton Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Terry Klahn, John Stokes, Mark Sears, Lucinda Smith Guests Dale Adamy Agenda Review • Clint Skutchan asked how he responds to comments made at a meeting that he didn't attend. • Randy Fischer wants to talk about the LUC buffer standard changes and the results of last night's council meeting. Approval of Minutes: April 21, 2004: The minutes of the April 21, 2004 meeting were unanimously approved as written. May 5, 2004: The minutes of the May 5, 2004 meeting were approved with the following change. Add the amendment to the motion into the text box. Certificates of Participation John Stokes said we're gearing up to do a Certificate of Participation (COP). COP's are a method that municipalities use to finance open space, as well as infrastructure. The COP we're proposing is two fold, financing for the new police building and open space. If we do the package together we can probably get a better rate. We could seek authorization to do a COP of up to $15 million. We've identified $12 million we'd like to use. We would use $6.3 million for Soapstone, $1.7 million for Andrijeski, and $4 million for Bobcat Ridge. We had stretched the Bobcat Ridge project out, but we'd like to get closed on it. The memo indicates that a $15 million COP would have an interest rate of around 4% - 5%. It would cost about $1.4 million a year to repay. We will have Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 2 of 15 income in excess of that. We would plan to do more land conservation, buy the land now while it's cheaper and leverage our access to capital funds. I'd like to see a recommendation from the board to Council. It's an ordinance so it would be read on the 15'h, and the 29'. • Skutchan: If 20% of the open space dollars are for O&M, if we continue to front load projects, how does that break down? • Stokes: We don't have a clear answer right now. Because of the split in Open Space Yes!, up to 5% of the tax can be allocated for transportation projects, it's 20% of the life of the tax. We don't know the answer. We've had preliminary discussions. We won't hit 20% every year, but we'll hit it every few years. The other thing to keep in mind is we're using County funds to finance the majority of our O&M, and the percentage of O&M will increase over time. • Sears: That's the way it will work till 2018. Between 2013 and 2018 we get to a tight squeeze if for any reason the County sales tax isn't extended. • Skutchan: Do you have any concerns that you could get too front loaded? • Stokes: No, it doesn't compete. It's only coming out of the 20%. • Sears: Will we get so much land we wont be able to maintain it? We'll address that in the long range plan in 2005. But, of the vast majority of the money coming in off the COP, half will be on conservation easements and community separators. There won't be additional maintenance. • Stokes: We'll finance the projects we know we'll close on. This year we've got plenty of things to do, it would be helpful to have access to the cash. We don't have to spend it. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the NRAB recommend to City Council that the City proceed with an issuance of a Certificate of Participation not to exceed $15 million. The motion was seconded by Gerry Hart. Fischer: I have real concerns. I'm not sure we need this. We'll be getting about $10 million a year for the next fifteen years. That's quite a lot of money on an annualized basis. It will keep going up too. I'm wondering if we need to this at this time. We never did address the issue of bonding in the ballot language. I'm not sure how paying interest fits into the ballot language. Stokes: The City Attorney's office looked at this very carefully. We pay interest all of the time, they're fine with it. We could actually have a COP much larger but we try to strike a balance. It gives us a lot of leverage to do transactions in the near term. In Soapstone we were very lucky. If we didn't have carry over cash we could not have completed the transaction. In my perspective this is a creative and intelligent business decision, and it's a fairly conservative decision. Knowlton: It's an insurance policy that we're not going to miss out on something that comes up. The news already gives the impression that Soapstone cleaned us out, and Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 3 of 15 that we won't be able to take advantage of anything. This does have the potential of being misunderstood by the public. If this passes we need to sit down with the Coloradoan. This is not bonding, there's no violation here. • Petterson: Is there an expectation this might be repeated in future years? The same argument could be used year after year. • Stokes: I don't anticipate it. It will probably be another 10 (ten) years before we think about it again. hiterest rates are pretty darn low right now. • Sears: The thing that helps the overall management of the program is that by the end of the year we will have spent $16 million. Some of these purchases we didn't intend to make in year one of the framework, but they became available. If we can spread $12 million of it over ten to fifteen years that will free up some cash. Ten years from now the community separators won't be there. We're working pretty hard on some of those areas. This is really justified because we bought a lot of regional properties right up front. • Donovan: Explain the difference between Certificates of Participation and bonding. • Stokes: COPS are a lease back agreement. There is a City corporation that would take possession of the Soapstone Ranch, and we would pay them a lease back. The collateral of the purchase is the value. If we foreclosed the financier would inherit the lease, not the land. It's a pretty fantastic deal for the City. • Skutchan: Was there some kind of quirk regarding the usage of the land during the time it was being leased back? • Stokes: There's no conflict. If we wanted to lease out those lands there would be more paperwork. • Fischer: Do you think there's a better than even chance we'll be needing the money? • Stokes: The three projects we've identified are very solid, they're locked in. • Donovan: I'm comfortable with it. But I'll state again, I'm concerned we don't get into what the County got into with bonding. • Stokes: We wont even be close to their situation. The motion passed with six votes in favor (Thomas, Knowlton, Hart, Donovan, Fischer, Petterson), and one vote opposed (Skutchan). Air Quality Plan, Lucinda Smith Smith provided a powerpoint presentation outlining the changes in the plan. • Donovan: Can you elaborate on the discussion at Council about vmt? • Smith: We chose population as a comparison to vmt, instead of things like job growth. They are concerned, at least in the near term that we're not going to make that goal. Staff did try to make case but we weren't successful. • Donovan: Were any other factors brought up? • Smith: The department is looking at this issue. Of if vmt related to population should be a trigger. Council has questioned if this was appropriate for the Air Quality Plan, and that it's a transportation issue. If tail pipe emissions are going down, and net mobile sources will go down, then why is vmt and population such an issue? I don't Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 4 of 15 feel they were absolutely opposed to looking at vmt, but they didn't think it was appropriate in the Air Quality Plan. • Skutchan: Are there other models? It seems to me a number of other qualities would have to go into that. Are there any examples? • Smith: There are other metrics that could be used. Many of the other principals and policies relate to air quality • Skutchan: Is there an equation that would look at time spent driving? Is that a factor as well? • Smith: It is. There are models that model the net mobile source and do account for overall mobility. They do look at delay. • Skutchan: Under Policy 1.5 the word "price mechanisms" is used. Can you give me an example? • Smith: Previously we just talked about education, incentives, and regulation. Price mechanisms are economic factors that can be positive or negative, so they are different than "incentives". A positive mechanism is Smart Bucks, acknowledging people who use alternative modes. Charging more for parking would be a negative price mechanism. The Lawnmower Rebate Program was a price mechanism that Council has renewed. There is some willingness to look at price mechanisms. • Fischer: I congratulate you, this is a good plan. I'm pretty supportive of it. The question I have is there being no mention of budget, is that intentional? Especially since the NRD budget is downward, and we'll lose most of our staffing because of grants running out. • Smith: It was intentional. At the biennial budget process we will have to present more rigorous information about our budget requests. In the past we've gotten one line item for air quality projects. From this point on we'll need to lay out the program and provide more information. We felt it was better not to get into the budget. • Fischer: If we're serious about implementing these strategies we need to make a recommendation that the program be adequately funded, and that the budget is everything. If we don't have the money none of this will be accomplished. • Smith: Council won't adopt the strategies, they'll adopt the policies. That issue will come up at budget time. • Knowlton: It could come up as Council considers the plan. They could ask how much something will cost. • Smith: They expressed a preference to see if we could set goals and tie the strategies to them. There are a lot of challenges with that approach. Air Quality is not only controlled by the City, there are a lot of decisions controlled by the State. Also, it's difficult to quantify the benefit of education programs. • Knowlton: I think it's a good idea not to have budget estimates in there. You want them to approve the plan. When you go back with budget requests you can say, "you approved the plan, and it has these elements". • Smith: They will not adopt the whole plan, just the policy chapters. In a technical sense Council sets the policies and we implement the policies. • Fischer: Do you think you have the budget to do this? Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 5 of 15 • Smith: I think we can do the strategies listed in the plan now, assuming we retain the same level of program funding. We're set to lose two half-time contractual people. We've been fortunate to figure out ways to get the positions funded, but right now I can't say for sure we've figured out a way to retain them. • Fischer: To me one of the biggest things we can do is implement the Sustainability Action Plan. I'm very frustrated, I've asked for updates but I keep getting stonewalled. • Stokes: I asked Margit to come to the Board. She suggested she not do that until August. We're having five internal meetings, we've finished two. Margit didn't feel comfortable coming back till August so she would have something tangible to report. • Fischer: Its taking way too long for my comfort zone. I don't see the need for this long drawn out process. It's the answer I always get, "we're not quite ready". I want to know what's going on. What's the problem? • Stokes: Would it help if we put the minutes from the first two meetings in the packets? I'll ask Margit if she feels like that's appropriate. • Fischer: I want to make sure we're engaged in a serious process to get that accomplished. Budget monies were devoted. I can't account for the money, where it's gone, or what's been happening. It's a big priority for me. It's approaching ten years since Council appropriated monies, the Framework for Environmental Action. I'm getting a little testy. It seems like we get the run-around. I'm a little disturbed. • Donovan: I would like us to get the minutes. • Skutchan: The document refers to the "Fort Collins area". In policy 14.1 it does include comments about the GMA. • Smith: The former policies talked about the GMA. I guess I need to change that. That would be Council's intent, that any discussion about the GMA should refer to the Fort Collins area instead. • Skutchan: Under 1.9, Local Authority, why would you go beyond the minimum? • Smith: There are areas where the state legislature has tried to restrict local authority. We might have difficulty implementing an emissions testing program at the local level. • Fischer: There was a bill introduced that would have taken the City's authority away for recycling programs, like PAYT. We as a community need to have policies. • Skutchan: Does a policy statement like this help that standing? • Smith: I think it does. It enables Council to adopt a legislative policy. • Stokes: Mark Radtke, the City's legislative liaison, said half or more of the bills were designed to strip local control away. • Sktuchan: The City of Loveland is looking at turning to Transfort. How could that affect a policy like this, and could it be a good thing? • Smith: If the Foxtrot went under that would be a loss and vmt would go up. • Jackson: Loveland has the COLT system, it's band -aided together. It's understaffed, and ridership is down. With the level of service that Transport puts on the road we would take regional dollars and put more service on. • Donovan: I want to take another run at this vmt thing. I wonder if there's any support on this board. I still think it should be in there. Maybe we could get it back in if the Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 6 of 15 words "to the population growth rate" were taken out. I understand as technology gets better the grams per mile may be reduced, but in the mean time, the vmt growth rate does have an impact. • Smith: Even if many of the tail pipe pollutants go down, the CO2 will not go down. There's no emission standard for carbon dioxide. But, my sense is that most of the council members are opposed, and the remaining weren't vocally supportive. • Stokes: Every council member spoke on this, and they agreed they wanted it out. It was pretty clear direction and came across pretty strong. • Petterson: Is it the tying to population growth, or the reduction of vmt? • Smith: There are other policies in City Plan that say reduce vmt. It's the comparison to population they were concerned about. • Donovan: I understand there are other factors that impact vmt. You got Council direction, but is there any motivation by this board to try to recommend it be put in the Air Quality Plan. It seems an important factor. • Smith: It is a transportation principal. • Petterson: Reinforcing it as an air quality policy is a good idea also. • Smith: Council will be asked to adopt a resolution where they will adopt Chapter 3. hi doing so, that will replace the 1993 AQAP. They're going to address policies via a resolution. They've adopted some of the policies in chapter 3 already. Linda Knowlton made the followin motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend Council adoption of Chapter 3, of the Air Quality Plan. The motion was seconded by C'rerry Hart • Fischer: I request that we convey our recommendation to Council through a written memo to Council to be included in their packet materials. • Hart: Do we want to discuss budget and financing? • Knowlton: The time to fight the budget battle is when you go for your budget. • Fischer: I think what Linda said previously made sense. The motion passed unanimously. Mason Corridor Trail — BNRR — Fence Issue Mark Sears said this issue was discussed at a joint P&R and NRAB Trails committee meeting. • Knowlton: I think its great, especially since these boards have agreed on it. • Fischer: I appreciate you bringing this forward. I thought it was dead. I'm pleased you're bringing it back. I would make it stronger. The City Manager probably needs to make contact with the railroad, because negotiations that have occurred so far haven't worked. • Sears: This change will not occur at the staff level would be my guess. • Fischer: Should we add something that says, "we recommend that City staff'? • Sears: Say the City Manager and/or Mayor. • Donovan: I wonder if protocol wise it makes sense. Usually we recommend that Council direct staff. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 7of15 • Fischer: We're not recommending anything they'll take action on. I doubt if they'll have an agenda item. • Sears: I'll visit with Marty. Maybe there's another approach. I'll try to talk to Darin Atteberry and get his suggestions. By the time this reaches the top it will be Darin dealing with this. • Donovan: We can go ahead and send it if we have enough members agree, and leave it up to Mark as far as what the phrase is. • Sears: In the second paragraph where it says City staff is willing to help I would like it to say "City staff will identify areas where wildlife is likely to cross in areas where pedestrians are unlikely to cross the fence. We can find areas where we wont compromise the integrity of the fence. • Thomas: How close is the trail to the tracks? • Sears: In some areas 25' • Fischer: Where the real habitat is its probably further from the tracks. From an aesthetic point of view the fences are an abomination. South of Harmony Road there's some decent wildlife habitat. I don't think it has to be universal. If we could have a few places where wildlife can cross. The deer in my neighborhood are all injured from jumping over fences. • Sears: The other issue is forcing the deer to try to cross at arterial streets. • Petterson: Then there's a danger to people, as well as animals. • Donovan: You might add a sentence that failure to do this may have other consequences such as more wildlife crossing roadways, thereby endangering motorists and pedestrians. • Skutchan: Is this unprecedented, how do they do this in other communities? Is there some other compromise as to how they handle that? • Donovan: I've checked with Rails To Trails. I thought there might be a good examples, but their response was not helpful. Rob Petterson made the following motion: Move that the NRAB adopt the letter as amended in today's meeting. The motion was seconded by Randy Fischer and unanimously approved. Carpenter Road MOU, Mark Jackson • Knowlton: Nate, did you have any feedback from Councilmembers on the previous memo? • Donovan: No, I didn't speak at the meeting. • Knowlton: Didn't we make the point that this shouldn't happen until a corridor analysis had been done? • Donovan: Bill Bertschy said he thought there should be a fatal flaw analysis before it was done. David and Eric said they couldn't support it. • Jackson: Bill was different than David and Eric. David and Eric were interested in what the advisory boards had to say. • Donovan: Tim Johnson was there. I gave him a copy of the MOU. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 8 of 15 • Fischer: There was Council adoption that they can move forward with the transfer, but listed some conditions. • Jackson: We tried to roll those into what went to Council. Tonight's has a lot more in there. • Donovan: One thing about our recommendation is that the preliminary analysis should be done beforehand. I question if CDOT might say they don't have the money to do this. If they decide not to do it, we don't have any recourse. • Jackson: They have a decent track record of doing preliminary corridor analysis. They have a good environmental group up here. • Donovan: In paragraph one, the quit claim to them. How would that be done? And if that's the current right of way, would they have to negotiate to obtain additional right of way? • Jackson: We're deeding over the right of way we control. If additional right of way is needed in the future, CDOT would have to go through negotiations. • Fischer: This only applies to the parts in the city limits. • Jackson: I think four lanes is the foreseeable future, six lanes could be twenty to thirty years out in the future. In this section we may not want to go to urban standards. We've added language about context sensitive design. • Fischer: Can anything in this agreement give them any sorts of rights, flood control? By signing this agreement would we be unwittingly giving them any rights? Are we setting the stage for them to condemn land in natural areas? • Jackson: I don't think so. We've not leaving them that much flexibility. They have to fall back on the NEPA analysis. • Fischer: I'm not talking about road way design, I'm talking about maintenance. I'm feeling like we got burned on the land swap on the rest area. We gave them what they wanted, and this board agreed. We didn't see any problems. Then, we learn last week they want to come in and straighten out the river, put in bank stabilization things and take down a bunch of trees. Its funny that nothing like that was ever mentioned. All of a sudden its become a high priority issue, and now they want to move on this. They came to us with alternatives already evaluated and selected. I'm not real happy. This doesn't leave a high level of trust with me that they acted in good faith. • Jackson: The only control afforded CDOT in this agreement is the row that is ceded to them, everything else will go through an acquisition process. Anything that affects this corridor will be subject to NEPA. • Hart: NEPA requires you to go through a process. It doesn't say you'll have good results. It doesn't give the environmental protections you think it does. • Jackson: The NEPA elements I've worked in have bent over backward for avoidance and mitigation. • Donovan: Do you know the current situation with respect to CDOT and local entities? Can they condemn right of way if they want or need to? • Jackson: Can I ask the City Attorney and get back to you? • Fischer: When we've dealt with easement requests from other jurisdictions they've had condemnation rights. I would be willing to bet CDOT will have condemnation powers over the City. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 9 of 15 • Hart: The bottom line is if we want to give up authority or control of this land before we do the corridor analysis. • Knowlton: It's backwards if we don't, its too late then. • Fischer: I have a concern that by conveying this right of way it doesn't preclude other alignments that might be more environmentally correct. It locks us into the existing alignment and stops right before Duck Lake. That's a big concern, it's a heavily used lake, water fowl are really attracted to that little pond. We probably paid more than we should have for that pond, it's a big concern. • Petterson: Where are we on this? The sense I'm hearing is people would rather not convey ownership to CDOT at all. Based on what I've heard I agree with that. Is there anything we can do, or are we just venting? What are our options? • Donovan: Our options are to do nothing, or send another memo and see if that gets one more vote. Right now it looks like the agreement will be adopted, or agreed to. • Petterson: If our position is that the analysis should be done before, we should restate that. Is there any risk in that? • Donovan: I don't think it hurts to remind them. Randy Fischer made the following motion: Move that we reiterate our previous recommendation by sending an updated version of the memo, to be included in Council packets before the appropriate deadline. And, that the memo include points from the discussion we had here this evening. Rob Pettterson seconded the motion. • Knowlton: It's important to get the memo into the packets. • Skutchan: I won't be supporting this. I've been pleased with the Transportation Department being readily available. I think they've done the best they can with the MOU. I have confidence in those who are dealing with this. I'm happy to see the context sensitive design, and I back the idea of a NEPA study. It's a great way to go about it. It's a great way to get public input. I don't see anyway the environmental community won't get its voice heard. The infrastructure needs to be dealt with, without hurting the environment. • Petterson: All of that may be true, but I don't see that is any reason not to reiterate the boards initial recommendation. • Skutchan: I didn't vote for it the first time. The motion passed with 6 votes in favor (Thomas, Knowlton, Hart, Donovan, Fischer, Petterson), and one vote opposed (Skutchan). NRAB Bylaws, Nate Donovan Donovan reviewed the proposed minor amendments to the NRAB Bylaws. • Skutchan: Do we need to include anything about incorporating the development review process? • Donovan: No, it hasn't happened yet. I'll put something into the draft of what we'll send to the City Clerk as a board review. It might be appropriate to put something in that an Open Lands Board might be created. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 10 of 15 Uerry Hart made the following motion: Move that we accept the amended bylaws. The motion was seconded by Joann Thomas and passed unanimously. Land Conservation & Stewardship Master Plan, Mark Sears John Stokes said there's nothing new in this stewardship plan. The only thing Council has not seen is the stewardship chapter. Sears said that everyone the plan has been presented to has been comfortable with it. We took it to the Parks Board, and there was very little concern over the document. They wanted a friendly dialogue about things like Soapstone and Bobcat Ridge. They asked a lot of good questions. They did not vote one way or the other. They'll make a recommendation in June. • Sears: We would like generic feedback, or hear about any aspect you might take exception to. We're getting pretty close to having it polished. • Knowlton: We don't need to make a recommendation to Council tonight. • Sears: We'd like you to. • Stokes: We've worked on this a long time, and been through it with a fine tooth comb. We're getting pretty close. The only new chapter is stewardship. The policies are polices contained in City Plan. The map was approved along with the revision to the natural areas acquisition policy. We're considering putting this on consent. Everyone is comfortable with all aspects of the program Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the board recommend that Council adopt the Land Conservation & Stewardship Master Plan. The motion was seconded by Clint Skutchan. • Skutchan: I would suggest that it might be wise to go over the fact that what you're presenting is composition of City Plan, and what the tax payers voted for. It's just a suggestion. You did a good job, and I'm eager to see where we're at in five years. It's a vision and goal, and an appropriate one. • Stokes: We heard from every single member of Council. I'm glad that Council went on the record that way. • Knowlton: I recommend putting it on consent. The elements have already been seen. • Thomas: Would we find a description of accessibility under the stewardship section? • Sears: Those types of details are in the management guidelines and the individual site management plans. • Thomas: You do address small issues, but no where do you mention accessibility. • Sears: Are you suggesting we should? • Fischer: I'm a big supporter of accessibility, but that could open a Pandora's box if we had to make every trail accessible. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 11 of 15 • Thomas: There are areas that are accessible. Coyote Ridge is the only one. It would be nice if we had one or two more. The motion passed unanimously. Committee reports No reports. New Business/Announcements • Skutchan: What's happening regarding the development review process? • Stokes: Cameron will be here in August • Donovan: Can we get the minutes from when this was discussed earlier? • Fischer: I would like to add to a future agenda the CDOT Project at the Poudre River Bridge • Fischer: The City is beginning design of the Spring Canyon Community Park. It used to be Southwest Community Park. It's immediate adjacent to Pineridge. We need to be involved. There are potential impacts from a park development next to a premier natural area. I would like to get this on an agenda. They're starting the public process right now. We should weigh in early on the process to make sure our vision has some chance of getting incorporated into the design. If we wait too long it won't. I suggest that we get Craig and Marty to come soon, maybe the next meeting. • Stokes: Maybe there will be something to react to in mid -July or mid -August. • Fischer: They're starting with a visioning process. One of the concerns I have is they have a big plan for the park already drafted. It was voted on and defeated. It was essentially a huge mega sports facility. We have an opportunity if we weigh in early to help staff design a reward winning park by incorporating the features of a really great natural area, with a park that shares the uniqueness of that site, and is compatible with that. • Stokes: Council considered changes to the Land Use Code and it passed 6/0 after lots of discussion. There was not a single change. It did provoke a lot of angst by certain members of Council. Kurt has been keen on the idea of digging into natural area buffer standards. Last night he wanted to get a resolution from Council to request that staff do a in-depth review of our buffer standards. He wants to bring that back to Council. Staff will bring back a proposed resolution and let them have their discussion. It's been bumped to September 21. It might be something the board would like to have a discussion about and make a recommendation. • Knowlton: You have no doubt that what they passed last night will pass on 2" a reading? • Stokes: It will be on consent. Fischer: I think you're being an optimist. I think this is a real serious threat to the buffers. They're directing staff to look at it. His email talked about whether or not we should have buffers. And, if we do, who should pay for them. That if we do keep the Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 12 of 15 standards that natural areas should buy them all. There were very unfortunate and inappropriate comments by staff supporting policy changes that went way over the top for my level of comfort and it got very uncomfortable. Senior staff turned a positive evening into something that was gut wrenching. We need to pay serious attention. I don't know how staff will respond to the request. Basically Kurt, and two other members are asking for staff to put together a resolution that will open things up for a complete overhaul and revision. It's really major, it's a huge policy shift. This goes way deep into City Plan as far as the policy basis for the buffers. Stokes: I think Kurt is asking for some foundational discussion, and he wants to have a policy level discussion with Council. From my perspective we're in pretty good shape. There's a firm policy for buffer standards. The buffer standards table works pretty well. The one area where it didn't work well was for raptors, and it was approved last night. I feel confident we'll be able to review the legislative history and do it in a way that makes it clear. I worked with Randy and others for a long time and owe them a debt of gratitude. It was difficult and a lot of hard work. We'll see what happens. • Stokes: There have been a lot of questions regarding the land acquisition program. We're putting together a fact sheet, will distribute it the master naturalists and board members. We have a press tour scheduled on June 18 to Soapstone. Everyone in the press will be invited. John Fischbach asked me to draft a letter to the Coloradoan, factual in nature. An attachment is the land conservation map. They have been mis- reporting. We need to get good accurate information to the public about the program, and our plan. • Skutchan: Please let me know, I would work with you. Skutchan: I have some questions about what happened at the April 21 meeting. It says in here I should have went through Nate, and I specifically remember asking Nate if I could follow up with Council regarding my own thoughts in addition to what was in the memo. I would like to think that regardless if I'm in agreement with the majority of this board, I have the ability to directly communicate to the Council members, as a member of the board, why I was the single vote against it. I don't think that's out of my realm. Many of the members of this board have more than intimate contact with Council members. You have testified before Council stating you're board members. I didn't think anything I did was out of the ordinary. I really resent the fact that I wasn't here to defend myself as I start reading about the things I did wrong. I will disagree with the board on a lot of things, and you've already seen that. But, I'd like to think that my opinions are respected just like yours. I didn't feel good about having to read that discussion in the minutes when I wasn't here to defend myself. Donovan: We put it on the agenda to talk about that issue. I do regret you weren't here. About your email, I totally agree it's appropriate for any individual to talk with Council about any subject. The distinction in the minutes and the distinction I tried to make in the email is, if it's about process, that can be something Council hears about from an individual. I didn't feel you vetted the process issues with me or the board Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 13 of 15 before the email to council. If it's substantive about the issue that's a different matter. I saw mischaracterizations in your accounting of what went on. Skutchan: I saw mischaracterizations of what was told to me. It's clearly mischaracterizing me, if you're sitting here making statements about me at a meeting I'm not in attendance of. I don't agree with that. One the reasons I objected to it was because of the process. I explained that. I elaborated that during the meeting. I basically got poo-poo'd. That was my opinion and I didn't feel it was appropriate. Skutchan: I still stand behind what I said. I stated my opinion on why I didn't support it. I don't like the fact that that I shouldn't be referencing myself as a board member. If you can go and stand before Council. I'm a member of this board Donovan: I appreciate the input. I totally think that's ok. One of the other things on board process that we needed to talk about, and a concern that some of us had, when you got appointed to the board, was the fact that....we all have lives outside this board, but I don't want, as an individual and as a board member, to feel like I have to temper my comments because what I say, or what topics come up in a board meeting might be on the radio the next morning. I was made aware of a broadcast that you did, the day after an executive session. It was told to me there were topics brought up that were not brought up in an open session. Skutchan: You were told that, or you heard that? Donovan: I was told that. I hope there is a tape available, I think that needs to be looked at. Anyone is free to do what they want to outside this meeting. But, you have a special responsibility to be careful about what you broadcast in the media, especially if you are privy to information in an executive session. It's a violation of the law to talk about what was discussed in executive session. I'm not saying that I know for sure there were things discussed in executive session. There needs to be more discussion about that. It's a very serious matter. You know, as most of us do, there was a serious issue with the City Council that happened over that issue. We're just as responsible as Council to abide by the law as it relates to executive sessions and confidentiality. I intend to follow up on that. There are two things, there's what we're all bound to in terms of executive session, and your unique status of a member of the media. That really concerns me. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt from the time you started on the board. Skutchan: I would like to know your sources. You're questioning my professionalism. You're questioning my honesty, you're questioning a lot. I'll tell you that I've said nothing on the radio. I do not talk about statements made in this room. I'm professional enough to separate what is going on as a board member and as a member of the media. I've sensed since I've been here there is talk about executive sessions that is directed at me. I'm really troubled about that fact. I'm not an idiot and moron. I'm offended that my professionalism is questioned. I never did that. If there were illusions that someone wants to read into it, then so be it, but this he said/she said, questioning my professionalism, I really resent that. If those charges are going to be drawn then whoever heard it should come to me and tell me what I said. I'm really offended. Knowlton: So you'd be willing to provide the tape of that program? Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 14 of 15 • Skutchan: Tell me what day it is and if it's still around. I don't tape every program. I'm glad you're all questioning my ability and my trustworthiness. That makes me feel even better as member of this, what is supposed to be a diverse board, and clearly isn't. I'm really offended. • Donovan: I've told you before, we value your input. You provide a valuable perspective. But to talk about who it was, and hearsay and all of that. That smacks of what you said about Carpenter Road. Why do we deal with an issue that is not brought to us by staff? Every issue we deal with doesn't have to come from staff. The fact an issue is brought by someone else doesn't make it suspect. • Skutchan: I want credentials. If it's something someone heard from a friend. Randy didn't want to reveal who it was. • Fischer: I was provided with an email from the City Manager he had with another council member. The issue to me is not so much if you disagree. What I standby is that it was inappropriate for you to go to Council and complain about actions taken by this board. You have the right and responsibility to go to Council and give your opinion. What you need to say is I'm here speaking for myself and not as a member of the board. It's highly inappropriate to complain about actions by board members. • Skutchan: All I did was send an email. • Fischer: It's the equivalent. It was highly inappropriate to go to Council and complain about actions taken by members of this board. You were complaining about perceived actions taken by this board. You didn't give me the right to be at the council meeting. • Skutchan: There was no Council meeting involved, all I did was send an email, so again you're mischaracterizing what I did and what I didn't do. I never stood in front of Council. • Fischer: Sending an email is essentially the same. It was inappropriate. You should have aired those concerns here • Fischer: If you have serious complaints we need to hear about it, serious enough to warrant going to Council. • Skutchan: I did. • Stokes: This is a difficult conversation, and if it needs to continue, and in order for it to be productive, we need to get the Council liaison here, and/or a facilitator from Community Services. • Skutchan: I would be more comfortable with that. • Stokes: I'm concerned we're not making a lot of progress, and it could be handled better by someone with some conflict resolution training. • Skutchan: I want you to understand. It's pretty hard when you have the whole board complaining about you and questioning your professionalism, which I stand on quite heavily. And, not telling me who it is. I have board members telling me what I've done wrong. Understand the position you're putting me in. • Stokes: That's why I'm suggesting it might be helpful to have someone facilitate that conversation. I don't feel comfortable having this conversation. • Skutchan: I will not sit down with Eric though. • Donovan: That's productive. Natural Resources Advisory Board June 2, 2004 Page 15 of 15 • Skutchan: Well, Nate, you have to give consideration that he testified that he didn't want me on this board. • Stokes: I think that's a reasonable comment. If there's a product from a facilitated conversation it could be shared with the liaison. • Skutchan: I don't want to be sitting here and be doubted, and I don't want to make people feel uncomfortable. What is said here, stays here. I may jokingly say stuff on the radio about it, that I'm the lone man on the board. • Knowlton: Clint, just saying something like that characterizes the rest of the board as a bunch of wacko's in your view, and in the view of your listeners. And, I am really offended if you ever said anything like that on the radio. • Skutchan: Then you should talk to my wife, it's a part of it. • Knowlton: It's not appropriate to say on the radio. • Skutchan: The thing I need to know is who heard me say what they think I said. I can't defend myself if I don't know what I said and where it came from. My professionalism is called to question. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. These minutes were approved at the NRAB Special meeting held on Wednesday, July 21, 2004. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor