Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/03/1993t • MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. - CONFERENCE ROOM FEBRUARY 3, 1993 For Reference: Will Smith, NRAB Chair - 221-0425 Chris Kneeland, Council liaison - 221-2950 Tom Shoemaker, Staff liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Will Smith, Hal Swope, Steve Erthal, Craig McGee, Bill Miller, Deni LaRue, Tim Johnson Board Members Absent (excused) Terri Knudsen, Phil Friedman Staff Present Tom Shoemaker, Julie Bothwell Guest Present John Bartholow, interested citizen Approval of Minutes It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of the January 6, 1993 NRAB meeting be accepted as written. Old Business Report on Water Treatment Plant 1 (WTP1) The Board reviewed the attendance sheet of people who were present for the first tour and the September 16 meeting on WTP1. Smith recommended that in addition to sending the letter and information to Council and those who attended the tour and/or meeting, to also send the packet to Bob McCluskey, Chair of Parks and Recreation Board; John McFarland, Director of Larimer County Parks and Recreation; and Randy Balok, Parks and Recreation Department. At the January 6 meeting Miller presented a draft letter of the Board's activities regarding WTP1 and asked for any comments or additions. Shoemaker took the comments and additions and presented the Board a letter with the changes for review. LaRue commented that the first sentence in the second paragraph should read, "We recognize that returning WTP1 to public use will require a lengthy process." LaRue moved and Erthal seconded that the letter be sent to the current Council, the new Council, people who attended the tours and the September 16 meeting, and all interested parties. Smith stated that the letter read well. LaRue stated that on page two, paragraph five it states that Gary 1 Buffington said that Sta:__ Parks is interested in ma._.ging the area. She asked if that was for information or does the NRAB agree. Miller answered that it was for information. Miller stated along with presenting the letter to Council there will also be a small packet that will include previous minutes, letters, and other documents. Johnson stated that on page two, paragraph four he would like the following sentences to be added: "The Optimist Club received the show enthusiastically. They are very interested in picking up their voluntary efforts that resulted in building their club house in the 1970s." The letter was unanimously approved with the corrections and additions. Smith asked if Council was still strongly urged to give written feedback on items they received. Shoemaker answered that there was a "big push" on it for awhile and it has seemed to slack off a little bit. Smith stated that he feels there is enough time before the March 3 meeting for some Councilmembers to discuss this issue and it would be nice to have some feedback. Shoemaker stated that Chris Kneeland will be NRAB's Council liaison and plans on attending the March 3 meeting. Smith commented that if she has any feedback around the Board's discussion on the WTP1 it would be appreciated when she comes. NOW Business "Should We Narrow Our Focus?" Smith stated that he wanted to discuss this issue because during 1992 the Board had a heavy agenda. Many items come about because of the large purview of the Board and many come up because of the interest of individual Boardmembers. He wanted to hear discussion from the Board to see if the purview of the Board is too large and overlapping with other Boards and is keeping their schedule cluttered. Johnson commented that perhaps the Board should decide early on how an issue relates to the Board's activities. Swope stated that he felt there are times when the Board spends time on items that are not related to the NRAB and could better spend their time. LaRue stated that when other Boards and Departments are looking for input from the NRAB she feels that it is appropriate to maybe facilitate it by designating up front whose territory the issue falls in. With respect to issues of personal interest, she recommended that they be presented to the Chair to decide the relevance to the Board and state if it gets on the agenda. Erthal stated that he thought part of the problem with the Board is that it gets more bogged down with administrative issues than proactive issues. He said that he thought the issue on cedar shake shingles was a great opportunity for the Board to take a proactive stance and felt the Board "wimped out" so he is pursuing it through other avenues. He is in favor of the areas that the Board can really impact and take an aggressive approach on, as opposed to areas where it cannot. 2 Miller stated thaOhe hates to limit the BoaOto just highlight ' natural areas. He feels that the Board should be aware of other issues and if the Board decides to take a position, then they can proceed with it. It is really hard to draw the line as to where you would say these items are not going to be considered or discussed. Natural areas does overlap a lot of things. Shoemaker stated that it would be valuable for the Board to spend time looking ahead and to see what the emerging issues are that need to be dealt with. The Board needs to look out ahead far enough to get issues on the Council's agenda. Shoemaker said people are recognizing environmental issues so they want to come before the Board because they value the Board's input. He suggested that one way to deal with some of this is to pay a little more attention to the agenda. Another suggestion he made was not to spend two meetings on scripting a letter. Have the discussion at the meeting and present the minutes to Council. Shoemaker stated that it would be more satisfying sometimes to the Board and helpful to Council and Staff if we worked more closely together on some of the key emerging projects and spend some time up front saying what each group's role is. Erthal stated that he sees so many issues in the City that are not getting addressed. For example, he feels that we have a building code that is centuries behind, an energy policy that is almost non-existent, a water use policy that is lagging behind other states as far as how we use and conserve our water, and we do not have a real aggressive recycling program. He hopes to see the Board take an aggressive position on what he considers issues and not on procedures. LaRue stated that she thought the Board was never ignored. Demands have become so much greater because the interest has been heightened. She stated that she understood what Shoemaker was saying and that if something does not get on the Council's work plan there will not be resources put to work on that issue. LaRue stated that WTP1 was a good example; the Board did all the seed work, got it going, got people interested and now the Board is asking Council to put it on their work plan. The Board has done enough background work that there are a lot of answers already. LaRue stated that she really likes the "watchdog" role, she feels that if the Board is going to work on issues over the years, she thinks that it should go back and see how things are doing. You need to use process, she said, she wants to be proactive too and wants to work on important issues, but if you don't work within the process you will run into a lot of roadblocks. Miller asked if this would be'a good topic for a retreat. Smith answered that he is focusing on a tour instead of a retreat. Erthal stated that he does not like the tour idea because if the Board has any kind of initiative, members can do that on their own time. He likes the idea of a retreat better so members can really discuss the issues. Johnson stated that there are some places that the Board needs to see together with someone who knows the area. 3 Smith explained that chat he was hearing was th, the Board was doing okay. There are a lot of issues out there and the Board could do a little better job by trying to winnow out some of the things that are coming to the table. He stated that the Board could also pay more attention to what its horizon looks like, maybe focus on the work plan approach as opposed to individual issues and then be proactive; reaching into the future for items, but also being the "watchdog" on the things that the Board might have moved past to make sure those items are happening appropriately. Natural Areas Implementation Shoemaker presented a draft document regarding the implementation of the Natural Areas Tax for the Board to review. He discussed some of the key issues of the document and asked for feedback from the Board. Summary Shoemaker said that the Board was very effective in helping Put together a plan that was adopted by Council as policy and that the community embraced and funded a tax that will generate $13 million over five years. He explained that he feels the Board has a key role in helping staff from various departments to make sure this program continues and does what it has the potential to do. Shoemaker stated that since the November 3, election staff has been doing a couple of things to make sure that they are getting off to a good start in spending the money. Some of that has been talking with otheandthe communities - Jefferson County, Boulder County, Y of City of Westminster to see how they are doing things. The other has been talking with the initiators of the tax initiative to resolve any concerns. The document will be presented to Council at their Fidelinesbriiary 9as worksession. Staff plans to revise the implementation guidelines necessary and bring them before Council for formal action on March 2. Board Shoemaker stated that Natural Resources Division has the lead for implementation and is working with an interdepartmental team to assure coordination. other programs emphasized the importance of a citizen advisory board to provide ongoing citizen input and oversight. Both the NRAB and the Parks and Recreation Board may have advisory roles based on their respective charters. Shoemaker recommended to have both Boards perspectives. The tplan hey bdoes have ring etwo tor morel se and different objectives Shoemaker stated that he suggested the following key areas for involvement: (1) help establish and review acquisition priorities on a periodic basis, (2) review each individual acquisition proposal, (3) develop guidelines for resource conservation, public access, and site management and maintenance, (4) help develop educational and interpretive programs, and (5) periodic program review. McGee stated that he agrees with one and three. He is not sure if the Board should be involved in evaluating each individual acquisition proposal. He feels that there will be some key ones that come up, but part of staff's responsibility would be calling out the ones that do not need to be looked at and the ones that are a little bit more sensitive, or in the gray area. 4 Erthal stated th0he is assuming that there 0e going to be major parcels that are going to be acquired, as opposed to smaller ones, and asked if there was a problem with evaluating the land development. Shoemaker answered that it is going to vary and explained that the way he sees it is, annually staff will present a report to review. He stated that as most of the acquisitions occur, staff will go back to the Board and say, "Here is what we worked out, are you still with us?" Shoemaker stated that staff is not expecting the Board to get involved in the negotiations. Comments on prices will be accepted, but it is pretty straightforward since staff works from appraisals, and will not pay more than market value. Shoemaker stated that yes, staff is going for the bigger, better parcels, but is also looking into filling the gaps between existing parcels. Swope asked if natural areas have been defined. Shoemaker stated that the way natural areas have been defined in policy is a functional definition not a category of land use. LaRue asked Shoemaker what he meant by that. Shoemaker answered that it is not a land category such as a "park." There are portions of City - owned Parks that have wonderful natural area functions. When you see signs they will probably be labeled "open space" because it is undeveloped land, but then there will be something on the sign, "purchased with natural areas monies" and a logo that states, "This is managed for its natural area functions for wildlife habitat." Smith stated that as the City continues to grow, it will begin to surround several of the properties. One of the problems gets into just how the boundaries will interact. He asked if criterion three picks up that issue. Shoemaker answered that it needs to be part of the consideration. He explained that he is working through some specific issues that relate to implementation of the tax measure and these are other policies in the Plan and actions to be taken to address those issues. Erthal stated that natural areas to him means "natural areas." He would like to see the emphasis on returning anything they get to its original state. Erthal stated that he gets concerned with the terms, "management" and "maintenance" and what they mean to a site. Smith asked Shoemaker for clarification if what he was trying to do was find out how the Board feels about how the document is stated in terms of a policy consideration. And was something missing in it in terms of interaction of the Boards and input to the process. Shoemaker responded "yes." The Board already has the purview of advising Council on all matters of environmental concern. Shoemaker said that the policy stated in the Natural Areas Plan sets direction and there is a long section on strategy as to how Staff is going to implement it. There are two points: (1) Management can mean NOT doing things that are currently done in some areas. It also means dealing with the conflicts that come up in terms of human use, but it is taking a proactive approach in dealing with the situation. (2) There is an existing Trails Master Plan and the Natural Areas Plan recognized that the two would interact. Bartholow stated he would like it made explicit that number one be, "Establishing acquisition criteria in selecting priorities," voicing that 5 the NRAB would have a goa,_ role in establishing what Jaose criteria are. Shoemaker agreed, with the exception that the NRAB and Council have already adopted policies to establish the purposes for acquisitions. Allocation of Tax Funds Shoemaker stated that the citizen -initiated tax ordinance identifies several uses for the Natural Areas Tax, but it does not specify any particular allocations among the uses. Shoemaker also stated that the sales tax money is not the only money that can or will be spent for natural areas purposes. Staff had to propose at least a preliminary allocation of those funds and considered developing a set formula. Staff recommended not doing that because it can really decrease the flexibility needed to implement the plan. Staff is recommending that revenue allocation be considered each year during the normal budget review process. Shoemaker stated that staff would develop the annual budget recommendation based on the Action Plan contained in the Natural Areas Policy Plan. In addition the recommendation is that the following relative priorities would be followed: (1) land and water acquisition, (2) long- term maintenance, (3) recreation, interpretation, and education, (4) restoration and enhancement (5) public/private programs and public information/research. These priorities are based on relative timing of activities as well as on relative cost as estimated in the Action Plan. Shoemaker stated that staff is proposing funding an endowment to fund long-term maintenance of the lands acquired with these funds. He said that the projections assume acquisition of both high and moderate priority natural areas which is approximately 3,000 acres. If the City is successful in acquiring 3,000 acres, and we assume $50 per acre for maintenance, then there is a need for an ongoing $150,000 a year. Shoemaker asked the Board how it felt about the endowment for long term care. The Board all agreed that it was great. Smith asked if maintenance currently comes out of operating revenues for the City. Shoemaker answered that most of it comes out of the general fund, some of it comes from the lottery proceeds. Smith stated that the thinking behind the endowment is that the City will not continue to fund properties it acquires that are put into the natural areas space; therefore, there is a need to set aside money. Shoemaker explained that other sources would still be funding those lands that are in the system at the present time. Smith asked if what that is saying is that in the future open space lands will pay their own way. Shoemaker stated that he talked with Marty Zeller, a consultant to many municipalities on open space. Zeller said that people always focus on acquisition and neglect stewardship and they end up with abused lands without the money to take care of them. Shoemaker stated that if in early 1996 people say that this is working and they want to continue it then it would be possible to build an endowment more slowly. McGee stated that if we put the money there and lock it up then the City has built in a nice safety mechanism for ongoing continued maintenance. He asked if it can be locked up. 2 Smith asked if th0endowment does well one yJ*, who else gets the funds. Shoemaker stated that this is something done by ordinance. If people accept the concept, then the attorneys and financial people will figure out how to do it. LaRue stated that the ordinance was to acquire lands, but not to increase the maintenance budget that is there now to take care of lands. So if there is an increase in land area how will the normal maintenance people be spread. Smith stated that it represents good stewardship by setting up an endowment and removing the issue from the annual politics of "do we do maintenance or not." Shoemaker stated that classes of land are automatically created because sales tax money can only be spent with the purposes stated in the ordinance, so they have to track the money. Shoemaker asked if the relative proportions sound okay with the Board. Johnson commented that acquisition is the primary intent of the ordinance, but the other things also have to follow. There is a plan to guide allocations. He would like close attention paid to what Karen Manci, Natural Resources Division, is doing with respect to restoration and enhancement because public acceptance will be greater in the future if a couple of good projects are completed i.e., the Wren Pit restoration concept and the Prospect Corridor. Shoemaker stated that they are planning to do $30,000 in restoration enhancements and anticipating doing two moderate sized enhancement projects each year. This year they have two river bank restorations and there is $15,000 allocation for the Wren Pit restoration, if the City 'is successful in acquiring it this year. Acauisition Criteria Shoemaker stated that Staff has inventoried the urban growth area and will update and expand the inventory over time. The Natural Areas Plan set an objective for a system of publicly owned natural areas with wording about the types of purposes for acquisition. The relative priorities are not established in policy, but in a technical memorandum to the plan which describes a process of evaluating all those lands. Staff did a two stage screening; first was to identify areas already protected and areas that are fairly easy to protect with regulatory approaches. This left roughly half of the 8600 acres as potential acquisition sites. Staff then did a description of each of those properties in terms of resource value, and basically looked at sites based on five criteria: resource value, relative threat, public use, multiple objectives, and opportunity. Shoemaker stated that staff will use these criteria again in repeating the process, but will anticipate bringing it to both Boards and Council. Shoemaker stated that this was brought up in discussions with the initiative organizers. Two scenarios could come up. The City may have a lot of interest in one part of the land, but not in another and the landowner may not be willing to split. So, it could happen that even though the City is not interested in the whole property, we would have to purchase it all to set the appropriate areas. In that case, the question YI is how will they dispose`":f it. This recommends tha6=if the circumstances come up, those lands could be subject to sale, after a determination by Council that it is in the best interest of the City to do so. If that occurred the proceeds from that sale would go back to the Natural Areas Fund. Shoemaker stated that the proceeds that go back to the natural areas fund would be either the purchase price paid or the proceeds from the sale, whichever is higher. Smith stated that he has a concern of saying that the minimum the City could receive is the market value of the piece of land. He feels it must include the appreciation portion of that because there is a loss in monies if you take it at the purchase price level and do not account for the accrual of interest on that money. Shoemaker stated that if the property decreases in value you will need to reimburse at least what you paid for it. LaRue stated that one thing that could be done is if there is a property coming up that fits this situation then the City could look for a shared buyer. Shoemaker stated that this is what they will try and do because the City does not really want to have the money tied up in land that is not desired for a public purpose. LaRue asked if it does depreciate, who picks up the difference. Shoemaker answered the general fund does. Shoemaker stated that the other circumstance with respect to disposal is the question of "how to make sure that these lands are obtained as open land?" He said that the initiative organizes wanted to place additional restrictions on the sale. The City Attorney's office felt existing restrictions were adequate and did not recommend additional measures. Future Street Constructions Shoemaker stated that staff wanted Council to be aware of the financial implications of some potential acquisitions on street construction. He explained that streets get built in new areas when and if development occurs. So, streets get built with the money from street oversizing fees and landowner charges. Shoemaker stated that there are a few properties that they are proposing to buy that are not up to arterial standards yet. The good news for the natural areas fund is that the money cannot be spent to build streets and the trigger for assessing those fees is a building permit. But, for example, road improvements for Taft and Shields adjacent to Seven Springs/Hahn are estimated at $2.1 million and since development will not occur there, eventually streets will need to be built and the community will need to pay for it from other,sources. He stated that staff has identified the issue and what seems prudent to do, is not to spend natural areas money to build the road, but to try and see how many places this is likely to occur and what the overall magnitude of the concern is. The Boardmembers agreed to read through the rest of the document in their own time and come back with any questions. Shoemaker stated that he would like to schedule a meeting to discuss a acquisition priorities He would also like to plo a tour of the places they are working on. The Board decided on a tour for early April. Announcements LaRue suggested that the Board get together for dinner before the Boards and Commission appreciation show on March 11. The Board discussed it and there is a reception before the show so they decided to meet after the natural areas tour in early April. Miller announced that if anyone was interested in seeing the Fossil Creek Drainage area there will be a tour of some of the prairie dog towns on February 13. The meeting place is the Pizza Hut beside Wal Mart at 8:30 a.m. Johnson announced that the week of February 8, Citizen Planners and Friends of the Poudre are having their annual meeting. Shoemaker announced that the Natural Resources Division and the Air Quality Task Force presented the Air Quality Stragetic Plan to Council on January 26. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M. M