Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/06/2000P MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE September 6, 2000 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 491-6303 Bill Bertschy, Council Liaison - 484-0181 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Don Rodriguez, Phil Murphy, Reagan Waskom, Bill Miller, Nate Donovan, Linda Knowlton Board Members Absent Randy Fischer Staff Present Natural Resources DgRt.L. Tom Shoemaker, Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, Karen Manci CPES: Greg Byrne Guests Sally Craig, Planning and Zoning Board Meegan Flennigan Mark Easter, Sierra Club Janna Six, Sierra Club Bonnie L. Pierce, Citizen Will Raatz, Citizen John Bartholow, Citizen Scott Mason, Councilmember Agenda Review — Kelly Ohlson suggested moving the McMurray land transfer item to the beginning of the agenda. — Update on the Fossil Creek Wetlands easement — Letter regarding funding for the Climate Wise Project — Add Population Projections (Timothy Wilder) to the Sept. 20 agenda Tom Shoemaker reported that there has been an agreement reached with the owners of Duck Lake to purchase the entire Duck Lake, as well as an additional seven acres to the west for 2.1 million dollars. There will be no reserved home sites, other than the existing residence. 0 Natural Resources kdvisory Board September 6, 2000 Page 3 Mark Easter said there have been a number of criticisms and questions about the bill. One of the most common questions is why must this be a constitutional amendment. The answer is the legislature and governor have not shown any leadership. The consequences of sprawl are so important that immediate action is demanded. As you have seen in other cases where the citizens have voted, if it's not an amendment the legislature will make it worthless. The issue has also been raised that this will circumvent the planning process. That's not true, what it mandates is that the City and County must plan for growth. You will have to decide how you're going to grow and how it will be paid for. It will not circumvent the current planning process. If a developer decided they wanted to develop outside the growth areas there would have to be a vote of the people. This is being pegged as an anti -growth bill, but it's actually an anti -sprawl bill. The communities can decide how large they want to grow and plan accordingly. Special districts and thirty-five acre parcels are exempt because if we had tried to deal with these in this amendment it likely would not have passed the single issue rule for constitutional amendments. Some question the unintended consequences of a constitutional amendment. What about the unintended consequences of growth? The types of impacts we're seeing growth have on water, demands, etc., demands immediate action on this issue. This is the most effective solution in the last decade. This is about empowering the voters to address growth. The voters will be well informed to assess how the community will grow. Discussion • Donovan: In Section 1 it states; "This article shall pre-empt any inconsistent provision of this constitution...." Do you have a list of those inconsistent provisions? No, we can get a list for you. • Donovan: Which cities and counties won't be included? Most of the counties on the front range would be included. Kiowa would be excepted, and most of the counties on the eastern plains would be excepted. The county that includes Sterling would be included. • Donovan: Does the Department of Local Affairs do yearly projections? The City tends to keep more accurate records. The hope is the City would work with the Dept. of Local Affairs to make sure they are providing the most accurate assessment. • Donovan: Will there be assumptions of what population goes with what type of development? If you look at development currently in Fort Collins, there are basic assumptions of how many people are in each unit. The populous of a community are in a position to monitor those sorts of decisions. If they're inaccurate or questionable, they would be in a position to call that into question. Cities and counties need to plan for themselves and develop maps. • Donovan: This will cost money as well. Are there state or federal funds available, or will they be on their own? There is federal money available for planning. When we look at the cost of planning compared to there not being any planning, it's a small price to pay. Natural Resources A_ Asory Board September 6, 2000 Page 4 Donovan: Is there some range of cost of each of these elections? It would be conducted with the regular election that takes place. I don't see much impact on the cost of the voting process. It's one more thing that goes into the general election. I don't see this as a substantial impact. Greg Byrne said City staff is limited about what they can do. We are able to respond to Council direction to give them a resolution. Council has asked for a staff report and recommendation. I'm not here to support or oppose the initiative as an individual or organization. Our job is to give factual pro/cons, and give a recommendation to Council based on our best judgement for the City. We can't prepare speaking points for the mayor, we're limited as an organization to spending $50.00. I wouldn't characterize the Sierra Club and the City as being on opposite points. The City did support the Sullivan bill. Mayor Pro-Tem Wanner testified in committee in favor of the bill. There are many good things in the initiative that the City has supported before. The City has supported a mandatory state-wide plan that was clearly an erosion of home rule power. Byrne listed the following "cons" regarding the initiative. — No dispute resolution process is provided, even though coordination among jurisdictions is required. — The consideration of the fiscal impacts of growth. The planning process in the Amendment takes ten years of capital spending as it's foundation. This ten-year horizon is less than the 20-year planning period in City Plan. As a planner it turns the process up -side -down. • Miller: It's all a crap shoot anyway. We've already found the VMT projections and population growth projections were way out of whack. I think we still come back to the idea you need to be able to pay for growth when it happens. • Ohlson: No one will go to jail if they have a 20-year plan to go with the 10-year plan. Until tonight, 99% of what I've heard from the opponents of the initiative is false. I have no confidence in the City projection of numbers. • Miller: That's the point I'm trying to make. The 10-year time frame is probably more realistic. The 20-year plan won't address the issues. We're already facing a disparity of fees, versus what it costs to service new residents. • Easter: One of the greatest strengths of this plan is it's emphasis on shifting how we finance growth. It identifies what the real costs of growth are. • Ohlson: The public has a right to know what the growth is costing. • Byrne: I agree with what Kelly said. But, special districts and other entities specified are not brought under this initiative and do no have to comply. The single issue limitation on the initiative could not have brought in the other issues. • Byrne: In Section 6, it says development shall be in accordance with the growth area map, but if you look at the definition of development in Section 2, development shall not include public utilities. All a special district does is utilities. • Byrne: We think the Department of Local Affairs has overstated the cost. We have good baseline data. We've estimated the cost at about a half -million dollars. 0 0 Natural Resources Board • September 6, 2000 Page 5 • Ohlson: I love the "unintended consequences" the opponents are throwing around. At the current rate of growth the consequences are we'll double our population in ten years. Ninety-nine percent of the people will have a more expensive, lower quality of life. The government is getting further behind in their level of service. If you want to know what causes affordable housing issues, it's supply and demand and profit margins. Cost doesn't equal price, price is what you can get in the market. Population growth is causing the affordable housing problems. It's a very modest proposal, it doesn't do much to limit and stop growth. It requires planning, the communities could all say we're going to grow at 20 percent a year. This plan would allow for that. I wish the City organization would show as much fire to recover the fees that are obvious to growth. I've never seen such fire. I would hope that his body would give a strong simple statement to Council, about rejecting this resolution and have a resolution in support. Any of the little glitches are insignificant to the consequences we are facing. • Waskom: Obviously there is tremendous pressure for growth. If this passes where will that pressure for growth bulge out? • Byrne: I don't think the initiative's passage will have an affect on growth pressures. One concern is that communities, unlike Fort Collins, that have not yet experienced the negative impacts of growth, may be much more accommodating. • Ohlson: There may be short term pain for long term gain. The City has no obligation to be stupid. What happens is you force the other government entities to begin planning. We have no obligation to bail out the rest of the world. • Easter: We need to remember, as Fort Collins begins planning, so will Windsor, Loveland and Wellington. All of those communities will be planning. One of the most important things is the regional planning. This is a very strong step in that direction. • Six: If you want to see what land use changes have occurred in Colorado, see John Fielder's program. • Mason: Regarding the special improvement districts, if the water districts will not be impacted or regulated they could choose to provide service anywhere they want. It seems to me that a special improvement district would want to provide services that were in the plan. • Byme: To quote, "Where you have sewers and roads you have development. It worries me to have rogue special districts unchecked constitutionally. Kelly Ohlson made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board urge the Fort Collins City Council to pass a resolution in support of the Responsible Growth Initiative. The motion was seconded by Phil Murphy. Donovan: I have serious concems about this being a constitutional amendment. If this passes I'm very concerned about how it will work and how it will be changed so Natural Resources A . isory Board September 6, 2000 Page 6 it works. I hope the proponents of this amendment are going to be able to raise major bucks. The opponents to are going to be able to raise serious dollars. What ever happens at the election will be challenged. When you put glitches into the constitution it costs a lot of money to get them out of there. • Ohlson: There has been no legislative movement on any level to do any responsible growth management. It's not going to be perfect, but the path we're on, the end result will be disastrous. If there are glitches that are unintended I see no reason those things can't be cleaned up. The world will not end in one year. The path we're on is insane. • Waskom: I agree that the growth we have is insane, but I don't see this as being good government. We can do better than this. • Ohlson: Following that line of thinking you wouldn't have supported the open space initiative. There are citizen initiatives because government wouldn't act. The citizens took it upon themselves to work on these kinds of things. • Donovan: Is there not a difference between proposing and voting on a sales tax and this? You can see how much it's going to cost. Looking at a plan for growth, that's a planning function. I don't have the expertise to figure out what will happen. • Ohlson: It's going to cost a few million in planning. We've spent hundreds of millions on the unintended consequences of growth and bad planning. • Knowlton: The legislature will see that we've been right all along. • Ohlson: I think when it's done the vote will be 50 to 1. The average citizen can't come up with their dollars. I think it will get squashed like a gnat. If their polling shows it's close, all they have to do is make phone calls. • Rodriguez: I agree with Greg that it's flawed, but we don't know how flawed. But, it elevates the discussions about cost and the idea of a conduit for regional planning. That needs to be voiced. Even if it goes down in flames there will be visibility and higher profile. • Knowlton: I agree with Kelly that it's a very modest proposal. I don't think we should let our fears about it being defeated affect our recommendation. • Miller: I'd echo what Don (Rodriguez) says. It can't be fixed unless it's out in the open and on the table. The motion passed with six votes in favor and one member (Reagan Waskom) abstaining. Water Rental Policy Recommendation, John Bartholow Bartholow said the object of this recommendation is to have the City of Fort Collins, who regularly rents water for agricultural use, give preferential rental to people who have withdrawn their land from development. This has been to the Water Board a couple times, some members have serious issues with this idea. The three main problems are: 1. If the City of Fort Collins preferentially leases water to individuals who have given up their right to develop land, will they encourage individuals to see those rights off the land, now or in the future? Natural Resource•dvisory Board • September 6, 2000 Page 7 • 2. The Agriculture Advisory Board feels the farmers and ranchers are reluctant to see that far into the future. They see themselves as going out of business, and can't think about what will happen in fifteen years. 3. It might be too complicated. The existing lottery system is simple. They're happy with the way things are. 0 • Miller: I thought the issue of the lottery system was a concern. There's no guarantee of water. There's no guarantee with this system either. • Ohlson: The concept sounds good. You must be clear as to what development is. It has to be clearly defined. • Ohlson: On the bottom of the second page it says that eligibility will consist of all of the following. You might want to break that out. TDR's are pretty close to permanent. They aren't for five years. I'm not usually prone to short term subsidies. Originally I would have only been for the long term. As long as we have criteria that are fair and balanced, I'm not opposed to short term subsidies. • Bartholow: That's what the Agricultural Board said too. That's the kind of discussion the Water Board needs to hear. • Miller: If a person backs out of a TDR before the time period expires there are some repayment requirements. Does there need to be anything in this that addresses this issue? • Shoemaker: TDR is not an all or nothing thing. It's possible for someone to transfer 10 or 20 percent and develop the rest. It needs to be defined. • Bartholow: What's the best way to do this? • Shoemaker: My suggestion is board input. The Ag Advisory Board came to this board, and was invited to a staff meeting. As a result we're sending a staff member to their meetings. We see this as important in terms of community separators. There hasn't been any direction from Council. Perhaps a recommendation to Council to encourage staff to review the water rental policies would be a good idea, or perhaps joint meetings with representatives from this board and the Water Board. • Ohlson: I don't see a deal buster in the unanswered issues. Once you get down to details, be careful of what development means. The extent of, as well as what types of development. These things have to be defined. • Miller: There has been discussion about the price that the City of Fort Collins charges for a share of the water. • Bartholow: The annual lease price is set based on local demand. It's not based on the long term equivalent price of purchasing water. There's a correlation between rental and purchase price, but it's not a strong correlation. • Waskom: I don't have a sense of how many people are entering the lottery. • Bartholow: It's in the one -hundred range, but it varies from year to year. There are three main ditches. Reagan Waskom made the following motion: The Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council give direction to Staff to pursue formulation of a policy related to preferential rental of surplus raw water for certain agricultural land. Natural Resources A. Asory Board September 6, 2000 Page 8 The motion was seconded by Bill Miller and passed unanimously (7/0). Shoemaker volunteered to write a short memo to Council with more explanation. Budget Exception Process Recommendation, Nate Donovan After board discussion the following items were set as priorities for the 2001 budget exception and productivity savings process: 1. Business Outreach/ Pollution Prevention Programs 2. Air Quality Improvements — Additional monitoring sites 3. Fort Collins/Wellington Separator Study 4. Code Compliance/Natural Resource Development Review 5. Solid Waste Issues 6. Code Compliance/Development Review of Stormwater and Engineering conditions. 7. Water Quality Monitoring New Business — Ohlson: Would like to get photo documents of the easements that are coming forward. Would like to have before, during and after (maybe over a period of five years) pictures. — Ohlson: Board recruitment — appears to be going well. — Ohlson: Solid Waste — Didn't know that we're not recycling glass, but that we're using it to cover the land fill, because the market is low. We need to be more honest than that. There should be subsidies, development doesn't pay it's fair share, why should recycling. Shoemaker said he would get an update, Susie Gordon thinks there may be a breakthrough on that. — Miller: Fossil Creek Wetlands easement — Shoemaker provided an update. There are no sewer lines in Trilby or Timberline Road. The proposal is sized for all of the remaining development in the area. He was able to verify that criteria are met relating to board concerns. Ohlson said he found out that easement policies will be on the City Council Growth Management meeting agenda. That has changed and it will not be on the agenda. Shoemaker said he asked for it to be on the agenda to let them know we're working on it. Ohlson feels Board views should be heard before it goes to City Council. Randy Fischer has done a remarkable amount of work on this. Shoemaker said his intent was to get early feedback. Committee Reports Trails Committee: This committee is still looking for a chairperson. The committee met with representatives from the Parks and Recreation Board, as well as staff from both departments. Started out looking at the overall map, and then zoomed in on hot spots. It was an outstanding meeting. Instead of waiting till it's too late, we can work on issues now. A paved trail near Pineridge was the hottest spot. The good news is the joint committee will have discussions in advance about trail placement and size. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 6, 2000 Page 9 Natural Areas Committee: Don Rodriguez would like to change the day of these meetings from Wednesday, to Tuesday or Thursday. Solid Waste Committee: This committee will meet on Monday, September 18. There is a standing meeting scheduled for the 1'` Monday of each month. Futures Committee: This committee will meet at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 20. Kelly Ohlson would like some kind of follow-up on board suggestions. Review Action/Tickler Log Shoemaker will try to get this updated for the Futures Committee meeting. Review Future Agenda Items September 20: Fossil Creek Res. Resource Mgmt Plan Warren Lake Conservation Easement Proposal Natural Area Easement Policy October 4, 2000: Ranger Program Update Canal Importation Master Drainage Way Martinez Park Management Plan Review of Minutes: The minutes of the August 2, 2000 meeting were unanimously approved with the following changes: Page 4, 2"d bullet, 2"d line: change to "reduce electrical power consumption". Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Natural Resources A_ . isory Board September 6, 2000 Page 2 County Transfer of McMurray Natural Area to City, Karen Manci Manci said the County has successfully completed all of the conditions that were required for the City to take over management of McMurray Natural Area. • Ohlson: Is this something we've seen before? No, it's an inter -governmental agreement. That's why it has to go to Council. The Board was not involved in setting the criteria and conditions for which we would take over management of the area. • Ohlson: If we're going to be asked to give a recommendation to Council, at the very least the Natural Areas committee should have been in involved in the decisions. • Rodriguez: It's been discussed informally for a couple years. My concern is there's a lot of problems with the management. There are a lot of transients. Are we planning to have a larger presence in the first year or so? We're already patrolling the area regularly. Having this area will make enforcement of the regulations easier. • Ohlson: I hope my process questions are taken into consideration in the future. As far as the issue itself, this is exactly what government should be doing. This makes sense to me. Kelly Ohlson made the following motion: Move the Natural Resources Advisory Board support the transfer of McMurray Natural Area from the County to the City. The motion was seconded by Reagan Waskom and passed unanimously (7/0). Bill Miller introduced new board member Linda Knowlton. Knowlton is retired from the U. S. Department of Agriculture, where she worked for the Forest Service for twenty years. She has been on the Library Board, and active in other community organizations. Responsible Growth Initiative, Mark Easter and Janna Six, Sierra Club; Greg Byrne, CPES Janna Six said the Sierra Club has been focusing on urban sprawl, which is a major cause of environmental decline. The Responsible Growth Initiative (Amendment 24) was created by a diverse coalition of individuals and organizations who realize that growth in the front range is putting tremendous pressure on resources. Over the last five years the legislature has failed to produce a good bill. There have been good bills introduced, but they failed to pass. Six listed the following four major points of the bill: 1. The initiative would give voters approval over new growth areas. 2. This initiative would provide the public with information about the impacts of growth. 3. This initiative would promote responsible, affordable growth. 4. This initiative would require regional cooperation and planning between governments.