Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/17/2002CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE July 17, 2002 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Michelle Pawar, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Reagan Waskom, Linda Knowlton, Phil Murphy, Arvind Panjabi, Randy Fischer Board Members Absent Don Rodriguez, Nate Donovan, Steve Ryder, Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, Michelle Pawar Advance Plannine: Pete Wray Guests Jerry Kaltenhauser Agenda Review Update on recycling issues East Mulberry Corridor, Pete Wray Wray said that City and County staff has pushed forward the schedule for adoption, from August to September. In terms of changes to natural resource issues there have been a few minor adjustments. Trail alignments along streams and ditches, and along the Cooper Slough have been adjusted. We've identified limitations to development along the 300' Poudre River buffer, and the City and County floodplain boundaries. We wanted to resolve the limitations, but that was put on the future action plan to work for a more consistent standard. Ohlson: We need to positively acknowledge to Pete's supervisors that fact that he's come back again and again, listened to us, and addressed our concerns. Wray: We've been working on Weiker Drive issues. It was brought to our attention that a proposed future 18" pipe facility has been intended to go under or along the Weiker Drive extension. Instead of a new line across the middle of the slough, perhaps they could come down the frontage road. Ohlson: We need to avoid any enabling. Natural Resources A1sory Board • July 17, 2002 Page 2 of 7 • Wray: They probably don't know that we're not supporting Weiker Drive going through. This is a good time to get ahead of that. • Panjabi: You've gone to a lot of trouble to protect the slough. How was the 300' buffer established? Is there any evidence that 300' is enough? • Ohlson: It came out of City Plan. It was pulled out of the air, the science is way beyond that on flushing distances. What I'm reading is they're getting bigger and bigger. • Pawar: The character of the slough has been challenged. Essentially the DOW and the City are trending toward the decision that it's still a warn water slough. We have more enforceability if we classify the slough as a wetland, or a high level wetland. • Fischer: If we can get this plan through the County with a 300' buffer at Cooper Slough we have won a major victory. There's a lot of pressure to back off the protection of the slough. • Wray: This plan is at the policy level. It's our intent to support a more stringent buffer. • Ohlson: Be careful with words like "stringent". These aren't tough buffers. • Pawar: We're going to push really hard that the buffers aren't minimized. • Fischer: I'm concerned about the City/County differences in the flood plains. It's still an area that needs to be worked out. • Knowlton: On page 7.4, under Cooper Slough, there's a sentence fragment. • Ohlson: Please make sure the City doesn't give to the point where there are folks who get the advantages of the City without having to abide by the regulations. • Fischer: Has any County advisory board reviewed the plan, and what were their reactions? • Wray: The EAB and the Agricultural Board have seen it. They're supportive of the plan. Wray will return to the August 21s` meeting for a formal recommendation. Fischer will write a memo to Council prior to the Study Session. Fossil Creek Reservoir, Mark Sears Rea an Waskom made the following motion: As authorized by City Code Section 2-31 (a)(3), I move to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing Fossil Creek Reservoir land purchase. The motion was seconded by Phil Murphy and unanimously approved. Land Use Conservation Plan Update, Michelle Pawar This is a group of twelve folks who represent most entities in the region that have an interest in preserving open space in some capacity. As follow up to the natural areas long term funding study that was brought forward to Council, we had direction to revisit the land plan, and update it. A big question is "how big can the box be". We'll be bringing a draft version of the plan to the NRAB on August 7`". The Council Study Session is August 27. There will be a follow-up meeting with the task force on August 13, from Natural Resources Adsory Board • July 17, 2002 Page 3 of 7 7:30 to 10:00 am. This process took place in a time frame that only allowed for a certain level of depth. Our intent is to update the NAPP. To do it well it will take 18 months to two years. It has not been updated since 1992. • Ohlson: There will have to be a narrative written out on the maps and graphics and presented to Council in a written form. The bubbles only tell part of the story. There could be opportunities that aren't in the bubbles. • Pawar: At the last meeting there was a compilation of all of the different maps, but the bubbles are pretty much matching up. We might have some interesting dialogue over what folks consider to be a land type priority. We've asked members to think in terms that are most representative of the community. What do the citizens really want? How big should the box be? • Fischer: One of the biggest policy decisions in the last decade was the I-25 Corridor Plan. It went through without any cost estimates, so I wouldn't feel obliged to go in with cost estimates. If you do have them, make sure they're very carefully done. • Pawar: We haven't asked for prioritized bubbles. We've asked for land types. We've heard from Council that a long term stewardship fund may not be required. We've heard the number of 22 million. • Ohlson: Twenty-two million doesn't go very far. Don't error on the low side, in acreage, or the price per acre. • Pawar: The approximations are in today's dollars. How do you make this real to the decision makers? If there's a way to come up with a contingency formula that really makes sense, to justify this and give it credibility, we'd love to have your input. • Ohlson: The numbers will be big. • Murphy: Are those of you on the group feeling relatively comfortable with how this thing is going. • Ohlson: The process is flawed, and rushed. But, staff is responding to their directions. The outcome so far is very positive. I'm shocked and surprised to see where we've gotten. I hope it doesn't get morphed into something that it isn't. • Fischer: Do you see any major pitfalls looming ahead? • Pawar: I have two major points of concern, 1) we haven't had the value of ag maps, or ag representation, and 2) concerns about putting in dollar amounts. • Waskom: I had hoped to open the box up, and I think we've gotten toward that. That's what I'd like to see at the final meeting. • Panjabi: If you could put dollar amounts on what it would cost versus what it would cost in twenty years you might get more impetus and support. • Pawar: I would love to come up with some reasonable formula. It's all based on willing sellers. • Murphy: Might there be any value in putting what the land would have cost ten years ago versus what it would cost today? That's a known entity. • Waskom: We could take the lowest annual appreciation, and still be shocked. • Ohlson: The money thing doesn't tell the whole picture. Open space saves a fortune in tax dollars. There are many studies that show how it saves money. Natural Resources Alsory Board • July 17, 2002 Page 4 of 7 • Pawar: We believe in the greater public good. We're trying to emphasize that the box can and should be greater than the GMA, period. • Ohlson: Staff has to be saying that we've already blown way past the GMA. • Pawar: We'll make that clear. • Ohlson: My real concern isn't with the group, it's how it gets translated. I feel violated with regard to the work done on recycling. I'm concerned abut what questions are asked, and how it gets worded. My concern is what might get distorted between the work done, and the green sheets for the Council packet. Status of Update to Development Review, Michelle Pawar Pawar said she has been asked to sponsor a project to review the development review process. We're trying to look at opportunities for maximizing existing and internal resources. Our initial plan is that Doug Moore, our existing FTE will be appointed as the resident expert in Current Planning. He is initiating a training process of the Current Planners of Section 3 in the Code. Simultaneously, Tom Vosburg, Cameron Gloss, and Doug are working on ways to augment the DMS system. They're designing a piece that throws up red flags to baseline natural resource issues. We're trying to identify people in Natural Resources that can participate. With so many of our people in the field they can flag things mid -construction. Tara Williams will be unofficially dedicated to Doug. She'll be paid out of the Current Planning budget, but primarily work on natural resource issues. We'll be able to get further along the review process without having Doug's approval. Each project that gets to final approval will be reviewed by Cameron in great detail. He has a deep level of knowledge of the issues. It's a pilot, we'll see how it works. • Ohlson: How will you judge if it's working? • Pawar: There will be a piece you can quantify, are our priorities being identified and asserted. I'll be shadowing Doug a lot, he's extremely nervous about this, about letting go. He'll be a good set of eyes. I'm embracing this, but if it doesn't work I don't want to do it for two years. If it doesn't work, we'll probably pursue additional staffing. • Ohlson: This appears to be a valid and legitimate attempt. I don't care how many old or new bodies there are, as long as it's getting done the way it's supposed to be getting done. • Pawar: We spent a lot of time fighting and defending our positions. In many ways we weren't successful. The planners may not be on our side, but they're informed. We're giving them a responsibility and they have to comply. There are some quality control mechanisms. They will be held responsible. • Ohlson: Are the planners kicking and screaming? • Pawar: They're reconciled to the fact that it's happening. • Fischer: I have a concern about this. When I talk to natural areas staff they say they cant get the work done they have right now. We're planning to pull them off what they do day to day. That bothers me. I don't know if I'm comfortable with them being able to do two jobs. Natural Resources Avsory Board • July 17, 2002 Page 5 of 7 • Pawar: I don't want to give the impression it will be part of their daily responsibility. I would like for them to have the training. If Doug sees something and needs a set of eyes we can call them up on the radio. I don't want to give the impression this comes part of their daily responsibility. I really think it's a positive step for us to become more integrated. • Ohlson: If this is a legitimate effort, it's systemic change. It's the way to go. I still want NRD involvement but the systemic change is plugging in the current planners as well. If this approach is real, it's right on the money. • Pawar: The training of the Current Planning staff starts on August 121h. I will give updates as we have them. • Fischer: You've sort of convinced me there is some value to the cross training. • Pawar: Let's see how we utilize them. It's a big culture change. Solid Waste, Michelle Pawar You'll see, in this memo dated today, that out of the nine initiatives only five are detailed here. Susie has been working on flushing these out. We're not limiting ourselves. Council has requested a cost/benefit analysis, which will be submitted in writing. These five are estimating diversion rates and cost estimates. I'm nervous about the cost estimates. Right now we're going through the exception process, and having seen the cost of overhead and everything that goes with hiring a person, $50,000 isn't enough. • Ohlson: What do you think you heard from Council? • Pawar: We were generally pleased. We could safely go in the direction of the top five. Numbers 1 & 5 show the greatest potential. We as staff are under the assumption that we'll get funding for at least one initiative. • Ohlson: I thought we'd get support and funding for all nine. • Pawar: I'll be excited if we get one. I will be very satisfied if all of the top five are approved. If nine were approved of course we would do them, and do them well. But, I'd be concerned with nine unless we get a huge boost in staffing. We've got 1.5 people dedicated to the program. To do nine would change the staffing of the program area. If they say you get the top five, it doesn't mean the remaining four disappear. We're raising the bar on our solid waste presence. It hasn't been out there enough. • Fischer: To me it's critical that you and Susie go into the exception process and say to Council, you gave us direction to do five things and we cant do it without additional funding. • Ohlson: They'll be told to go in with funding for one. Upper management is reading the work session different from what was said and filtering down. I confused why a minimum of five shouldn't be going through the exception process. I've never seen another department that tries to go out of it's way to make sure that nothing gets approved. They don't put their best foot forward. • Pawar: The date of this memo is today, and it should have been labeled as a draft. • Fischer: I'm very supportive of the department, and we want to be on the same page. I do get the impression there is an upper management thing over this department. The Natural Resources Apsory Board • July 17, 2002 Page 6 of 7 Natural Resources Department is walking around with shackles on. That was brought home in the last version of the green sheets we reviewed, versus the one in the packet. Not only was there prejudicial language intended to influence Council not to ask for additional funding, it stated the departments approach was to stay the course. Council members got the idea we could get there with one item. We have no idea what yard waste will divert. I was really flabbergasted when I saw it. That's why the memo said what it did. We have to call a spade a spade. There are forces that don't want the department to succeed. • Pawar: I disagree with you as far as upper management sitting on this department. hi my time here I've received tremendous support • Ohlson: It should have been made clear in the green sheets that this was a collaborative effort, and that there was complete agreement that this was a short list, and by no means a laundry list. That was not explained in those sheets. It's so absolutely understated and non-assertive. • Pawar: No one had their thumb on us. We have work to do internally. If we weren't listening before, we are now. • Ohlson: I'm never suggesting anything but the truth. Be completely honest, but put your best foot forward. • Fischer: What can we do to help ensure that we move forward with this during the exception process. • Pawar: We're putting together a cost/benefit analysis that will be submitted to Council. Input on that would be terrific. Staff will keep you apprised of what we're doing. • Fischer: Maybe we should have a Budget Committee meeting. The Budget Committee will meet Monday, July 22, 7:30a.m. at Starry Night. Monthly Feedback No comments. Action Log Remove: Fossil Creek Park Rolland Moore Loveland Land Swap City Plan Update Future Agenda Items: August 7, 2002: August 21, 20021 September 1, 2002: Land Conservation Update/Community Separators Solid Waste Sustainability Update Water supply Smoking Update (memo only) E. Mulberry Corridor Land Conservation Update Electric Issue Natural Resources Apsory Board • July 17, 2002 Page 7 of 7 Approval of Minutes: June 5, 2002: 1" page, NRD Staff Intros, change "City employees" to "City Classifications" June 19, 2002: No changes. The minutes of the June 5, and June 19, 2002 meetings were unanimously approved. Committee Reports No report Announcements Phil Murphy would still like to discuss the possibility of a board retreat. The Natural Areas and Trails Rangers have offered ride -a -longs for any interested board members. Review Council Six Month Planning Calendar • September 24: Electric Supply Policy New Business None Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:35.