Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 11/15/2000MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD SPECIAL MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE November 15, 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, Reagan Waskom, Nate Donovan, Don Rodriguez, Phil Murphy Board Members Absent Randy Fischer, Linda Knowlton, Bill Miller Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: Terry Klahn, Mark Sears, Karen Manci Utilities: Kevin McBride, Susan Hayes Guests Kyle Granbley, CSU student Matthew Schuler, CSU student Agenda Review No changes. Canal Importation Project, Susan Hayes Hayes said this is the P time this project has been presented to the board. Tonight she will be looking for a recommendation to Council for the January work session. This is not an easy plan due to the complexity of the basin, and the area is highly urbanized. It's fairly obvious that when the development took place decades ago there was not much thought about drainage. The three primary purposes of the plan are to: 1. Identify flooding problems within the basin. 2. Identify existing habitat areas within the basin. 3. Prepare a cost effective plan of drainage improvements for the basin. Flood damage: For the Canal Importation Basin, a 100-year event would result in over 700 structures being flooded with total damages estimated at almost $25 million in property damage. Natural Resources A sory Board November 15, 2000 Page 2 Murphy: Am I reading this chart correctly, on a two-year event there's $4.6 million in damage? Yes. If it looks like there's any water on a structure that has a basement we assume some sort of basement damage. This is a sensitivity analysis. Some people argue the numbers are way too high. We take the average value of a home, and when we look at the final benefit cost ratio you could cut the damages in half and still have a positive benefit cost ratio. Donovan: It's important to justify the investment. Alternatives: 1. Do nothing: The 1997 flood eliminated this option 2. Provide floodproofing for all impacted homes and buildings: This option doesn't address intersections and street flooding. 3. Maximum regional detention: Using all suitably located open space to provide regional detention. This is the selected alternative. • Ohlson: This is millions more than the entire Natural Areas Program. Results of the work: 1. 100-year protection of the majority of the basin. 2. In a 100-year event the number of structures damaged will be reduced from 700 to 64. 3. Flood damage will be reduced from $26 million to $2.4 million. 4. Opportunity to create additional wetlands 5. Channels can incorporate features to promote movement of fish and other aquatic species 6. Impact of New Mercer is limited to south of Elizabeth 7. Larimer County Canal Number 2 can remain untouched. Summary of costs: 1. Total estimated cost — $49.3 million 2. Cost of previously planned improvements - $22.3 million 3. Stormwater fees will either be raised or the construction schedule extended. • Donovan: Will the construction be paid by fees? Yes. • Ohlson: What's the math on 700 structures and the $49 million? How much per structure? Don't do it. This is $49 million to protect 700 structures so they don't get water in the basement. It boggles the mind. Where are the affordable housing people on this one? I wouldn't characterize this jsut as basements, there are businesses and those types of things. • Ohlson: I'm not saying don't spend $10 million. In the document when you talk about habitat it's all about "may". There's eight words similar to "may", but it never says "will". When you talk about other things it says "will". Nothing could ever get me to yes on this, but you do either have to say "it's not going to happen", or "it's going to happen". Every single environmental thing has qualifiers. People need to be honest. Natural Resource*dvisory Board • November 15, 2000 Page 3 • McBride: The water quality treatments are not included in these estimates. The regulations are in draft form and going to the Water Quality Control Commission. It will include the requirement that new development and re -development have water quality treatment devices, sediment ponds that hold it up for a couple of days. The sediments fall out. Our treatment program is really integrated in the development review side. The treatment has not been included in the master plan. The plan has focused more on trying to protect habitat. • Ohlson: Do the new regulations go to the State in December? Are we going to have new regulations? • McBride: I wouldn't bet on that. Fort Collins is already seen as doing much more than what other cities do. The overall plan for water quality is to rely on development and redevelopment. • Ohlson: So in all of these projects there's no opportunity to do the right thing? • McBride: That still exists, it's a matter of volume. Susan was never tasked with evaluating that. • Hayes: When we get to the final design we'll look at that. We'll argue for it and fight for it. • McBride: We should treat the water before it gets to the habitat. In the Master Plan habitat is what we're going for. If we can create habitat, that's good. In this basin there's not a lot of opportunity for stream habitat. Wetlands will enhance the water quality. • Ohlson: If it's not in the master plan it won't happen. Watch the wording, change "may" to "will". • Waksom: Do you need a recommendation tonight? • Ohlson: We don't have to tonight. We could still do some work in committee and bring it back to the December meeting. • Waskom: I lived five houses away from Avery Pond. 1997 was the only year the basement was damaged. Have you talked to specific people to see how they feel about the structural changes? This looks like overkill to me. We've had a couple open houses. There are safety concerns too. • Donovan: What's your time frame? We need the boards feedback by the first week of January. • Murphy: Are these today's dollars? Yes. • Ohlson: Do the consultants get more money the higher the cost of the project? They get more money the more alternatives we ask them to look at. They're not guaranteed the follow up. This won't happen over the next f ve years, who knows who the consultants will be. • Ohlson: So does the $49 million become $200 million? • Murphy: It's at least going to double. • Ohlson: Shouldn't that be said, the real cost isn't $49 million? We always say it's in today's dollars. We try to make that clear. It's a chicken and egg situation. Need an exact schedule of when we will spend what. It's a revolving assumption mill that tends to confuse more than it enhances the discussion. We try to make it clear that construction costs will go up. Natural Resources A sory Board November 15, 2000 Page 4 • Murphy: What happens to the people who are paying for this? What happens to our fees, are they going to start increasing at 15% to 18% per year. • Olson: The other night at council they said we've got an adjustment. Stormwater fees went up 9.8%. What are you going to say if you're signing off at $49 million? One of them will ask. We have a range of answers depending on buildout. We were told in 1998 that they wanted a buildout of fifteen years. • Ohlson: I'd suggest a chart. This is getting whacky. Ninety percent of what you guys recommend gets adopted. We don't want stormwater rates going up twenty percent a year. The Water Board hasn't set a limit yet. You guys will have to prioritize the master plans. They need to see the whole thing. • Rodriguez: This does seem rather excessive. • Hayes: If you had to make a tradeoff, what would you cut out? • Ohlson: "Flood protection" needs to be defined. I'm interested in reasonable limits. Is that $30 million? • Ohlson: I bet you could do a $10 or $15 million thing that would make me happy. It just seems like overkill beyond belief. The City's criteria is a 100-year event. We strive for that, but we don't always get it. The benefits outweigh the costs. • Ohlson: You're socializing the cost and privatizing the benefits. If you said to most of them, "here's a check for $10,000", I'll bet 85 to 90 percent of them people would take the money. • Rodriguez: How many are single family? There are some gas stations, but the vast bulk are residential. • Ohlson: This is the wackiest thing, the amount of money for the benefit. This, so a futon in the basement doesn't get wet. We have to sweat bullets to get $20,000. It's absurd to me. It's not your fault, but it's wacky. • McBride: It's the expense of doing things in a developed basin. • Hayes: We will see something different on Fossil Creek. There aren't too many structures in the flood plains. This is the most expensive basin. It'll be a good example, we don't want to end up with another one of these. • Donovan: I believe we need to prepare for a 100-year event, whether it's overkiill or not. It's reasonable infrastructure to plan to 100-years. • Donovan: I live a half block from Pleasant Valley. I asked the person who did the inspection to prove there wasn't ever water in the basement. I made that condition. There has to be some personal responsibility. I knew the flood in 1997 happened and I still bought a house there. The price of my house was reflected in that risk. It's risk and benefits as well as costs and benefits. • Hayes: This will be adopted as a regulatory flood plain in the City of Fort Collins. It wasn't mapped. We're not going to allow people to continue to build and create a problem that others will have to pay for. It's not a FEMA flood plain, so people are not required to get insurance. It's up to the lender. • Ohlson: Where are we with wildlife issues. How far will they go up. • McBride: I would say we're making a step in the right direction. This is not a basin that has much. 0 Ohlson: No net loss? No. Natural ResourcefAdvisory Board November 15, 2000 Page 5 • Ohlson: I would suggest we set up a working meeting. You folks are welcome to attend. Natural Areas Maintenance Center, Mark Sears Sears said they have looked at eight different scenarios for a maintenance center. This includes buying a site and developing to buying some kind of existing facility and renovating. All scenarios were about the same cost. The pickle factory was the lowest, but most of the site and the building is within the 300' buffer of the river. It's hard for us to do something we wouldn't allow someone else to do. The Nix Farm and the others are about the same price. The bad thing about the Resource Recovery farm is the location. It's a long ways out, the cost of the additional travel time was about $40,000 a year. A lot of our needs could not be met, we'd never move the rangers out there. • Donovan: So you quantified the travel time? Yes. • Donovan: As far as access at Nix, is getting out by the medical building going to be a problem? There will be certain times of day we'll be limited to a right turn out. • Waskom: Is our point to discuss or are we going to talk about the final plans of Nix? We're hoping for a green light to go full speed ahead and complete the plans for submitting to development review. If we get the green light, then we'll proceed with the design of the structures. Hopefully we'll start construction by next June, and by the end of next December be finished. • Waskom: Will we have another chance to discuss the details? • Donovan: We can do Nix versus other alternatives tonight. • Sears: I'd ask you to do whatever it takes to go full speed ahead. We have spent five or six months putting this together. In the next few weeks we need to have final comments. That doesn't mean it wont get tweaked. • Waskom: Is there any point to discuss the alternatives, or is it a done deal? • Ohlson: They may go forward, but they're nervous. If this boards not for it, it will get interesting. Did you do your very best analysis, and you're 100% sure this is the site? Yes, definitely, this is strongly the best site. The only other site that came close was the Wood Street Center. But, there's no room at that site. • Ohlson: Have any of the numbers changed since we first talked? No. • Ohlson: Has anything of what we talked about been taken into the design. The cop thing needs to be scaled back. They will be as small and close together as possible. • Waskom: The benefit is getting them out of Bignall. We've got a bad situation on Bignall. This is a huge win. • Ohlson: Will you take the board's things into account? We had ideas about the road, concern about the buses parked there. Are you going to factor that in? Will we pay for the renovation of the smaller house? There isn't any money in the $1.76 million to renovate that house. We're hoping for a state grant to update that house, it needs a new roof. We will only pay what we would have to pay whether the police were there or not. • Donovan: What would be it's uses if they were not there? We might be able to rent it back out. Natural Resources A sory Board November 15, 2000 Page 6 Ohlson: It becomes real money, fairness comes into play. If they want water and sewer they would have to pay the tap fees. Rodriguez: Are the police interested in making this move? The benefit for them is they don't have any water/sewer in that house. They use the house as a shell for the dogs going into train. That's all they plan to use this house for. We plan to restore the exterior. If we could get a green light to tear the house down we would. We haven't got to the nitty-gritty. They've got white wooden boxes, ,we would like to have them painted green. We don't want the bus, there is some storage by the barn. Rodriguez: In terms of liability, my son's friend was attacked by a police dog. The officer told the guy to shoot the dog. Ohlson: So there's nothing to trim out of the 1.7 million? We've recommend not trimming anything, there are things that will be done in the future. The $1.76 million is for construction of our immediate needs over the next couple of years. We're using the barn now for storage. The shed's in pretty bad shape, but could be restored in the future. Donovan: My concern is about utility versus "doing it to the nines". This could be the next Lee Martinez Park. For a maintenance operation we don't need to spend a lot of money making it look really nice. That's kind of where I was having heart burn. It could be presentable for a relatively little amount of money. I'm concerned about this being a money pit. If you compare this with a similar facility this is bare bone. There are no frills. Ohlson: Would you buy something and drop $280,000 to remodel it? That's a lot of money to remodel it into an office. I don't get it. I really have trouble with paying an architect $45,000. We have expertise within the City that I trust to do a better job. We don't have anyone that can do that kind of work. Ohlson: I think it might be overkill. Why is it that natural areas is the only thing that general fund doesn't pay for? I know you have this frustration, but from a managers view we could not have it any better than capital funds. Ohlson: We should argue for general fund dollars on top of it. Ron Phillips and Mike Powers are at the table every year. You guys aren't at the table. Too much time is spent on this stuff. You were hired to free up time, all I see is time spent on the maintenance facility and conservation easements. You're wrong. I would have this under construction had we been able to make a decision. The board is largely the reason we've not moved forward with this. I feel like I've wasted a lot of time. I had a great comfort level in May. We need to get moving on this. The crew has had no facilities for three years. We've got equipment in a vacant field, materials at Nix, and a wood shop at Coyote Ridge. We have a storage unit for the hand tools. It takes an hour or two to prepare for work. The crew is frustrated with the inefficiency. Rodriguez: This project is part of the maturation process. It doesn't need bells and whistles. Do a nice job. It'll give the program some visibility if it's done well and sensitively. I think we need it. If I had my druthers on the house I'd tear it down and start from scratch. We'd still spend $300,000. But, we don't have a choice. Natural Resource*dvisory Board • November 15, 2000 Page 7 • Ohlson: We let the private sector tear down buildings more historical. They tore it down without permission. Beyond that, that farmstead look will be more pleasing. We've tried to make our metal building look agricultural so it will blend in. • Murphy: I have no problems with what you're trying to do. We're fiddling around with this. This organization needs this. • Donovan: I say we approve the Nix site and go forward. • Ohlson: We had a lot of concerns when we took the field trip. I don't see any of those in the memo. • Ohlson: The resolution should clearly state it's the location, but we're not signing off on the cost and design. • Donovan: You want the leverage of the cost and design? • Ohlson: I probably won't get there on the cost and design. • Donovan: We don't have to sign off on the cost and design. We can say we think the concept is good. • Rodriguez: My only concern is inviting another department in and losing some control in terms of the size of their facility. I see that escalating. • Waskom: The details needs to be worked on. • Rodriguez: Any possibility of a visitor area, with literature? It could develop that way over time. If targeting for a visitor center we would have to expand the parking. Reagan Waskom made the following motion: Move that the Natural Resources Advisory Board endorse the choice of the Nix site for the Natural Areas facility. The motion was seconded by Phil Murphy. The motion passed with four votes in favor and one vote (Kelly Ohlson) opposed. This motion is to be reflected in the minutes. There is no separate document going to Council. Sears: There was a gross misconception earlier. This will be the biggest land acquisition year that natural areas has ever had. This is due largely because of the years and years of negotiation , and by putting together deals on some difficult to get properties. We put a huge amount of work into this. There is all kind of land acquisition going on. Yes, the funding is in direct conflict the acquisitions. That is a concern of all of us. This year we have $8.5 million for acquisitions. We'll spend all of that plus. Next year we'll have $4.2 million, the net to be reduced by $685,000 for the Nix site. In 2002 we would have 3.8 million, now we'll only have 2.9 million. In 2003 we'll have 4.6 and in 2004 we'll be back up to 6.9. When BCC ends council needs to be aware we need to be in line for more capital funds. Sears: I will be glad to visit further with anyone who still has concerns abut the site or the costs. Natural Resources P isory Board November 15, 2000 Page 8 Committee Reports Trails Committee: There is a meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 12, 2000 to discuss the re -doing of the trails along the Poudre River. Meet in the parking lot by the tennis courts. Solid Waste: There will be a meeting Monday, December 4, 2000. I-25 Corridor: Murphy said there was a meeting last spring, and then a call about two weeks ago about another meeting. A lot of interesting information, possible develoment projects by the interchanges. There were many items discussed, riparian areas, Poudre River, Big and Little Thompson rivers, view sheds. There are some major issues. Ohlson said they added two people to the formal working group, Bob Blanchard and Larry Kendall. Sears said Karen Manci has been attending those meetings as well. Six Month Planning Calendar November 28 Legislative Agenda for 2001 December 12 Taft Hill Update 10-Year Capital Improvement Fund Add a Taft Hill Update to the December 6 agenda. Nate Donovan asked if he could receive updates on Easement Policy as they become available, by email if possible. Kelly Ohlson would like to see what the NRD submitted to the 10-Year Capital Improvement fund. Acton Log Is there any time frame urgency on the recommendation to Council on the water policy? Review Future Agenda Items December 6, 2000: I-25 Plan, Joe Frank Easement Policy Discussion Add Taft Hill Update Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.