Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/03/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting 281 N. COLLEGE August 3, 2005 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison - 217-1932 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Linda Knowlton, Jerry Hart, Glen Colton, Clint Skutchan Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock, Rob Petterson, Joann Thomas Board Members Absent Nate Donovan Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Stokes, Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, John Armstrong Transportation Planning: Mark Jackson Guests Laura Sebastian, citizen Jerry Coltenhouser, citizen CDOT staff Alan Brown, PBS&J Agenda Review No change Public Comments Comments from Laura Sebastian: It was suggested that I come talk to you about the prairie dog issue in Fort Collins. I've noticed some trapping at Overland Trail. The Natural Resources Department is doing the trapping. I stopped and talked to Donna Dees, and to Bill Sears. The idea I wanted to pitch is to do a trap/neuter/release program. I did a similar program in Miami with feral cats. I was told that giving these animals birth control compromises the predators, and can mess them up. I think that risk is alleviated by doing a spay program with a portion of the female population. Donna said she has a small group she might consider letting us try this on. I have a vet who will do it, on site in the field. There are volunteers from the vet school. The cost to the City is nothing. It will cost the Natural Resources Department nothing. I would like it to be a catalyst for good publicity for Fort Collins. I'd like to see a story in the Coloradoan educating people about prairie dogs. A lot of people see them as vermin. This could help change public perception. It would save you guys a ton of money. That's my idea. We Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 2 of 10 have the people to do it. It would help the City and the Natural Resources Department get some good publicity. Discussion • Knowlton: Is this a one time thing, or would it continue? • Sebastian: I believe it would work. You wouldn't have to spend money on other options. If we did a sweep and did spaying of the partial population there would be no harm to the animals, and no stress on the population. Right now they're trapping 80 animals for food for the black footed ferrets. In the long run it would cost less money, it's a humane solution, it's cheaper, easier and less work. • Knowlton: Will the vet continue to do the neutering free of charge? • Sebastian: Forever? • Knowlton: For the first colony. • Sebastian: I would commit as an individual to help raise money to continue the program if it works. Also, the money the department would be saving could eventually go towards it once its proven to work. • Knowlton: This is really an issue for NRD. • Stokes: Mark and I talked briefly about this. There's a permitting issue. We'd like to get into the research on the program to sterilize prairie dogs and see if field work has been done before. • Sebastian: I have other contacts, and people who have done research. • Stokes: We're interested in looking at the data. If it seems reasonably interesting and potentially valuable we're willing to consider it. We need to go through some process. We have people conduct research on our properties for various reasons. We've just begun this process. We'll work with you to see what we can do. • Sebastian: What is my next step? • Sears: Work with Donna and Karen Manci. • Stokes: Thanks for coming in. • Hart: It sounds like an interesting idea. Review and Approval of Minutes: July 6, 2005 —The minutes of the July 6, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as written. July 20, 2005 - The minutes of the July 20, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved as written. SH 392 EOS, Mark Jackson, Staff & Alan Brown, PBS&J • Pearson: We were here the middle of March with Glen Freeler. He's been promoted and moved on. I'd like to welcome Robin Stoneman to the group and our project. • Brown: Thanks for having us. We want to reiterate that this team, even with the change in management, is still committed to all of the goals and solutions from the last time we met. We're committed to working with you, and collaboratively coming up with solutions. We're now in the middle of Phase 2 of screening. We're working Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 3 of 10 toward an open house at the end of August, August 24. Its at Windsor Town Hall from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. The second open house will be mid to late January. • Skutchan: The MPO model was two years. Is there a concern about Severance and the fact that there will be more pressure from Weld County? • Brown: We've done some checking, and feel that generally, its up to date. We believe its as accurate as we need to be. • Colton: Does this study suggest that people may still be in single car occupancy. Does this include scenarios that people will live closer? Does it assume the same level of mobility? • Brown: That may be beyond my knowledge. • Jackson: The North Front Range model isn't as robust as the Fort Collins' model. It doesn't measure mode choice. • Brown: Over the next 25 years we do expect the volume to increase. We believe a four land section is probably adequate, remembering that we're only in the 2"a level of screening. Each level goes into more detail. • Hart: From College to east of Windsor? • Brown: Speaking broadly. We have one section with a depressed median. • Hart: Have you coordinated this with the expansion of the airport? • Brown: We've gone to their meetings. They looked at extending to the north, but now they've eliminated that alternative. They're actually going south. • Hart: Have you looked at improving other accesses to Fort Collins? • Brown: In a way, but the purpose of this study is to focus on 392. We need to consider the effect traffic on Harmony would have on 392. As Harmony takes on traffic it could take traffic off 392. The Crossroads/O Street connection could alleviate some traffic. The purpose of this study is not to evaluate what needs to be done on Harmony Road. • Hart: Will it be addressed in the study? • Brown: Its referred to in the traffic volumes. The volumes consider the fact that Harmony and Crossroad could take some traffic. • Hart: So you have no intention of saying we'll improve Prospect, Crossroads and Harmoney. • Brown: It could be. If we find the connection in the model makes a significant difference it might be a recommendation. • Hart: I would suggest you do that. • Petterson: Maybe the focus is too narrow. • Hart: It does seem the scope is not broad enough. • Petterson: The concern is the study or considerations are too narrowly focused to consider alternatives. • Brown: I think we will achieve those objectives. We do have a no action alternative. • Skutchan: You guys are looking at this from a Fort Collins oriented perspective. The project is taking into consideration people from Weld County too. Prospect is not a viable alternative, Mulberry is not either. Give some consideration to the fact this is a regional project. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 4 of 10 • Petterson: I'm saying take Mulberry and Prospect and expand it, and substitute the appropriate roads on the east side. Then it would be a truly regional plan. Don't focus on just one road, focus on the regional network. • Skutchan: Doesn't the plan look at other corridors? The numbers from the MPO are the grander scheme. • Petterson: No one is looking at those numbers and coming with recommendations for the whole set of things at the same time. • Jackson: The regional model they're running takes into consideration the planned improvements. It looks at the ultimate facility type designation. • Hart: It only takes in existing scheduled improvements. I want to make sure you look at all of the tradeoffs. • Jackson: There's no reason you can't. The regional model assumes that Mulberry will be six (6) lanes, and Prospect four (4) lanes. • Staychock: It seems that every time I drive out there, its beautiful till you get to the overpass. That's the true tragedy. When is that scheduled to be re -done? • Brown: Its not part of this study, per se. We're looking at the through movement. • Skutchan: Isn't there interest in a special improvement district again? • Jackson: There is development interest on both sides of the interchange. The talks are preliminary. • Fischer: Would the road remain in addition to new roadways. • Brown: The concept would be to obliterate the road, relocate as much as possible, but still maintain access to the facilities. Those would be converted to private access, not open to through traffic. • Colton: Have you looked at the existing and planned uses of the land that goes across, so you know the environmental impacts, and other impacts? • Brown: We've taken a cursory look. And looked at the possible effects of each. That information will be shared at the open house. • Colton: Some of the alternatives may help Duck Lake, but may go through other open spaces. • Brown: There are conservation easements east and southeast of Duck Lake. We'd have to make sure those easements would allow us to go through there. • Skutchan: How long before you determine that, and where are you in the planning process. • Brown: That will be determined in the next level of screening. It's a critical question that needs to be answered. • Petterson: How much of the traffic along 392 winds up wanting to get onto I-25? • Hart: Is it possible to exchange interchanges? • Stoneman: That idea passed an initial screening, it did have some merit. We've done some investigation and talked to the I-25 people to see what the possibilities might be. It is becoming less desirable. • Petteson: If they don't upgrade the overpass none of this will matter. It's a huge traffic jam. • Fischer: There was an open house a while back. What was the outcome, and what did you have to show at it? Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 5 of 10 Brown: We showed, in addition to the study goals and objectives, all of the alternatives that were considered. We heard about the access at I-25, and concern about Windsor. There's not a whole lot of opposition to the bypasses. They're willing to consider all of the alternatives. It was a real positive meeting. Colton: Financing is a big deal. There's not money anywhere for interchanges. If people want to live in Eaton and Severance they should be paying. The costs of things should be apportioned. Windsor got a free ride. They didn't do anything. Hart: You wont get a lot of support to bridge Duck Lake. Resource Recovery Farm, John Armstrong Armstrong briefly reviewed the process, timelines and plans of the project. Glen Colton made the following motion: Move that the NRAB recommend either Option 2 or Option 3 to Council. The motion was seconded by Jerry Hart. • Skutchan: I hope there's a heavy emphasis on education and a showpiece of how economically viable the natural resources program can be. I'd like to see you pursue economic vitality programs that fit in the context of Option 3. • Fischer: There's been talk of selling part of it. If Council decides to go that way, am I correct in understanding the money would go into the natural areas program, and it would not go to traffic infrastructure. • Stokes: Yes, it would go back into the natural areas fund. • Fischer: I'm also wondering. We were asked to consider commercial zoning. Why weren't we asked to look at other zoning types, like recreational? • Stokes: It's zoned POL. It can be used for a variety of recreation activities. I haven't read the zoning ordinance. • Armstrong: There could be developed recreation with some level of an activity center. It could also be agriculture, but not outbuildings associated with agriculture. The motion passed unanimously. Possible Advisory Board Reorganization, Stokes Stokes said he talked to the AQAB and shared the perspectives from the NRAB. The AQAB is unanimously opposed to the 3`d option combining the NRAB and AQAB. They had good reasons. They've done a lot of work on radon, smoking, West Nile Virus and climate protection programs. The felt strongly the AQAB deserves their own stand-alone board. They will have a recommendation that is opposed to alternative 3, but beyond that they wont make a recommendation. This board has a different feeling, but if I were put on the spot I'd say it kind of felt like this board liked Option 1, designating the NRAB as a board that deals with open space issues. When I met with Council initially I thought Option 3 was best. I don't believe that right now. A better alternative would be Option 1 Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 6 of 10 or Option 2. I actually prefer Option 2. I feel strongly about that. The Latimer County model has worked well. I continue to prefer having a new board. Linda (Knowlton) suggested that up to four members of this board be appointed to the new board. It would provide continuity. If I was put on the spot, I'd say any of the three options could work. I prefer an option that includes the creation of a new board. I don't feel anymore that 3 is the best option. Discussion • Hart: Is the intent that you don't think this board can give the focus to the open space issues that you need, or do you want different people? • Stokes: It's an identity thing, a board that deals exclusively with land conservation and stewardship. There would be more time, natural areas staff would service that board. It would be funded separately from the general fund. It would allow the NRAB to focus on other natural resource issues. There are a whole bunch of things they could take an interest in and have a real focus on. • Knowlton: When this was first discussed it was kind of a given that people whose interest was primarily or solely natural areas would be able to be on any new board that was created. Some of us worked very hard to get OSY passed. I, at least, feel some ownership. My interests on this board are on the natural areas. Its not I don't think the other things we do are important, it's just those aren't my interests. If that wasn't part of the NRAB I wouldn't have applied. I do understand John's feelings about getting other people involved. • Hart: Maybe we could go with Option 1, and add two people to this board. • Petterson: It feels funny to me to be talking about the way the board would be structured on the basis of our personal interest. The more I think about it, the more odd it seems to me. What we should do is look at what makes sense going forward in terms of making the fundamental decision of if we should have more than one board. I feel like I should look at it in the abstract, not what I'm personally interested in. • Knowlton: I feel like keeping the existing board structure would allow that to happen. • Petterson: We can finesse the personal issues. • Colton: Regardless of the personal things there is merit to the community to keep the existing structure. Nine (9) new people would not be familiar with what's going on. • Knowlton: It would start off with staggered terms. • Hart: The bottom lines is what best serves the City of Fort Collins. I don't see how the City is better served by creating a new board. This group of people reflects that kind of background and interest. I don't see where starting a new board serves the needs. I've heard John talk about people from different elements. We've got those people here now. I don't see the need. • Petterson: I guess it's hard to pin down the benefits of another board. It sounds like a PR element. You mentioned having a council member. Maybe we could get the person who is supposed to be here to come more regularly. Are there benefits you're envisioning that cannot be attached to the existing board? • Stokes: I don't think I've been able to articulate as well as I would like, the benefits of having a 3`d board. I still believe that any one of the three models could work. The first model could work and could be the cheapest and least painful. I think there is a Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 7 of 10 PR element to having a stand alone board. There is a lot of attention paid to the Natural Areas program. The program will have a profound influence on Fort Collins and the region around Fort Collins. I believe having a forum dedicated to those issues would be good. • Stokes: I've asked K-Lynn what she thought about the County's model. She thought it was one of the best things they've done. • Petterson: What about changing the name to the Land Conservation and Natural Resources Advisory Board? • Stokes: But we still don't have a stand alone board. In terms of value I think that could work. I don't see a fatal flaw. We're going to be having the same dialogue with Council. I have no clue what Council will want to do. • Colton: Either option could work. My biggest concern with the new one is a board that supports open space. Not people who throw up barriers. I don't mind good, tough questions. My concern is with the make up of Council. I want people who think it's a good use of money, and want to see it spent right. • Skutchan: Transferring four people from this board would create a myopic board. A board should have a full context. I sit here in the minority on a weekly basis. It's almost offensive that you wouldn't want me on that board. Basically, you want nine of you. That's not representative of the community. Just because they don't approach open space... • Colton: I'm just trying to be honest. I appreciate you and your viewpoint. • Stokes: When the County appointed the Open Space board they appointed members who were very skeptical of the program. Some of those people became big fans of those programs. We have a program to implement. What I hope for is good dialogue about the programs we're implementing, and advice to Council. The ballot language is the driving force, it's telling us what to do with the money. That's our job, to implement the language. • Fischer: I have the same concerns as Glen. Let's be honest. There's one new council member who campaigned against open space. He didn't make any bones about it. My main concern is if you have 2/3 of the people supporting the program. And if you get a nine (9) member board, and five or six members are appointed by the new council and have completely opposite viewpoints of the rest of the community, it's a potential bad thing. Some staunch and vocal opponents could get ownership by participating in a board. But, one of the reasons I support the idea of a new board is it could have a mollifying effect. There are huge caveats and a lot of uncertainty. The opposite could happen. It could be the worse disaster ever for the program if people are appointed that will become complete obstacles to the program. It does have to be reflective of the community. • Hart: I don't see that as good, bad or indifferent. They have the right to elect anyone they see fit to the board. • Stokes: The boards are advisory to Council. I've usually felt like this board has been fairly supportive of what we're trying to do. That's been great. If we had a board that was very negative about our program we'd deal with that. Staff would continue to do their work. We don't go to Council that much with open space issues. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 8 of 10 • Knowlton: All the more reason we don't need a new boad. • Staychock. Our precious resources are air, water and soil. I support the first option. In reference to the council member, my understanding is that council members don't want to be at these meetings because they don't want to influence our decisions. • Petterson: Do we want to take a vote for a single alternative? • Knowlton: I think a consensus or majority would carry more weight. • Fischer: I'll go with whatever the board wants to do. It's not that big of a deal to me. • Skutchan: Do we want to vote on Option 3, similar to what the AQAB and then look at the other two? • Fischer: My gut feeling is council will go for Option 2. Do we want to make a motion, recommendation to Council that if they do go for Option 2 to incorporate Linda's recommendation? • Stokes: I like that option, I like the continuity. And the point about starting with staggered terms. Clint Skutchan made the following motion: Move that the NRAB recommend that Council not pursue Option 3. The motion was seconded by Glen Colton. The motion passed with seven votes in favor and one vote (Jerry Hart) opposed. Jerry Hart made the following motion: Move that the NRAB recommend that Council adopt Option 1, and after a year of implementation review it and see if its workine. The motion was seconded by Glen Colton. Skutchan: If we structure the board like we talked about, breaking things out to different meetings. I don't have a concern about workload. I understand the PR aspect, but I don't think from a practical aspect that there is any problem. Petterson: I wonder if the financial symbolism of creating another board is something council wants to do. • Hart: Council should review it at the end of year and see if its working. The motion passed unanimously. Randy Fischer made the following motion: Move that NRAB recommend that Council adopt Option 2, and that at least four members of the current NRAB be appointed as members of a new Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. The motion was seconded by Glen Colton, Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 9 of 10 Skutchan: I have a few issues about that, nepotism. Quite often we see the same faces repeatedly. For those who might want to become civically involved, four could be excessive. It has to be a true mix of the community, there should be a true cross section with a board like that. The motion passed with five votes in favor and 2 votes (Ryan Staychock and Clint Skutchan) opposed. The strongest NRAB support is for Option 1. New Business None Announcements Randy Fischer went on the ferret field trip. There are no live animals there yet. They'll probably start next January. Committee Meetings Solid Waste Reduction: The City Manager said would put cardboard and paperboard on the list of mandatory recyclables. Staff met with the haulers, and now the City Manager says he needs to wait and get feedback from the haulers. The haulers complained about the mandatory cardboard. Staff and the City Manager will meet privately with the haulers. I think we should send a memo to the City Manager expressing our concern. If he's going to meet privately with the haulers he should meet with the environmental community and advocates of recycling. We should be reaffirming our support for adding cardboard and paperboard to the list of recyclables. • Petterson: I would be supportive of a statement reaffirming our support of cardboard and paperboard in mandatory recyclables. Rob Petterson made the following motion: Move that NRAB send a letter to Council expressing our support of adding paperboard and cardboard to the list of mandatory recyclables this year. The motion was seconded by Jerry Hart. • Colton: I support the motion. If they come back and say they wont do we need to call Darin and ask why. Jerry Hart will draft a memo to send to the City Manager. The motion passed unanimously. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 3, 2005 Page 10 of 10 Six Month Planning Calendar Randy Fischer requested that when the agenda is emailed to members the Six Month Planning Calendar be included. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor