HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/05/1992• MINUTES •
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
281 N. COLLEGE AVE. - CONFERENCE ROOM
FEBRUARY 5, 1992
For Reference: Will Smith, NRAB Chair - 223-0425
Cathy Fromme, Council liaison - 223-9360
Tom Shoemaker, Staff liaison - 221-6600
Board Members Present
Will Smith, Bill Miller, Chuck Davis, Hal Swope, Tim Johnson, Steve Erthal
Phil Friedman
Board Members Absent (excused)
Christine Ferguson, Deni LaRue
Staff Present
Tom Shoemaker, Julie Bothwell, Edith Felchle
Guests Present
Marian Block, Anne Manvel, Nancy Moir, Kathy Winder, Joan Boes (All of
these guests were from the League of Women Voters); Howard Alden (Colorado
State University); Bob Blinderman (Stewart Environmental Consultants)
Introduction of Guests
There were brief introductions of members and guests.
Minutes
The Minutes of the January 2, 1992 NRAB meeting were unanimously
approved with the following change: page 11, paragraph 6, last sentence,
should read "He is for enforcement, but you cannot enforce a plan until you
have a plan and this is stressing what needs to be done."
old Business
Colorado Rockies Regional Cooperative (CORRC
At the January 15 NRAB meeting, the Board discussed the CORRC.
Shoemaker was looking for a recommendation from the Board to Council as to
whether the City should participate in this cooperative. It was decided
that there were some unanswered questions so Howard Alden was present at
the February 5 meeting to discuss the CORRC and answer questions.
Alden said that in 1989 representatives from the Division of Wildlife,
US Forest Service, USGS, Bureau Land Management, National Park Service,
City of Boulder, Boulder County, Larimer County became concerned that there
was no organized forum to address the urban/wild-land interface and related
issues. Also at that time the US Man And Biosphere (NAB) Program was
looking at establishing biosphere cooperatives and the Forest Service was
concerned about the impact of homes in the mountains relative to fire
control problems, loss of migration routes, etc. Alden said, an individual
agency does not often have the mandate to deal with the wide range of
issues involved.
Alden said a major issue for the organization has been some type of an
affiliation with the MA` +rogram. The organization eeds to become a
"legal entity", but no oile has defined that except that it is done through
a Memorandum of Understanding. That is the basis upon which subsequent
contractual agreements can be made if, for example, the City wanted to
engage in some cooperative with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, and EPA on riparian habitats to maintain ecosystems
in urban areas. Alden said that through the US Forest Service, USGS,
Boulder County, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Colorado State
University (CSU) they put together two documents to move them to the next
level. So in a sense, CORRC is formalized. They have an organized forum to
deal with some of the issues related to the urban/wildland interface. One
is a memorandum of understanding which Alden said would be the first action
item that NRAB would be dealing with; it is an agreement to agree, it does
not commit the City to invest any financial resources unless there is some
issue that is of sufficient concern that the City wants to proceed with a
working agreement.
Alden continued by saying that the idea is to share information and,
when appropriate, coordinate research, extension work, and an education
program. Cooperators to the MOU tend to benefit in proportion to time,
energy, and information they contribute. It is a "by -choice" involvement
in terms of how in-depth the City would be involved. There is no financial
commitment unless the City, through the Natural Resources Division, decides
there is something worthwhile that they would like to be involved in.
Alden said the MOU allows them to move to any subsequent agreements. Alden
cited the example of six quads around Allenspark that deal with Forest
Service, Boulder County, and National Park Service properties relative to
visual corridors, vegetation types, and riparian areas. Alden said that
these agencies have signed a separate MOU to demonstrate the value of the
cooperative. They are entering resource data into a Geographic Information
System. All the data have been digitized, and now they are generating
basic resource inventory information. The intent is for all parties
concerned to share the information so that potential conflicts can be dealt
with in an intelligent, upfront manner.
Alden said they have also established a study plan for a feasibility
assessment and City of Boulder, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the US
Forest Service have each put $5,000 on the table. They anticipate that
USGS and some other parties may also do that. The intent of the
feasibility study is to delineate and describe a workable region that all
of the potential cooperators work in.
Alden said the area being considered for inclusion in the CORRC is
from the Wyoming Border to the south end of Boulder County, from the Pawnee
Buttes on the east to Jackson and Grand County on the west. He said in
terms of pure ecology, this area basically deals with the major life zones
in the Central Rockies, the urban/wildland interface, and mountain
development. If the MAB program materializes, this area would fit well
into their structure.
Alden said the other thing is the identification of priority issues of
regional concern -- environmental, land use, and socio-economic areas. The
intent is not to establish another bureaucracy, but to identify the
administrative mechanisms to address the issues, prioritize them, and
determine who has resources to contribute to addressing them.
On this action item, Alden said they have not asked Fort Collins to
participate in cost -sharing because they feel that $15,000-20,000 will move
2
the whole concept ford so then they can reall4pollow up on the Mou.
Alden said that since administrative funding procedures at the
University, State, County, Local, and Federal levels are a real maze, CORRC
has worked through the Nature Conservancy in Boulder. They have agreed not
to only participate on the steering committee, but basically be their
"banker." Alden said whatever comes out of the feasibility study obviously
would be shared with the City through the Natural Resources Division. Most
of the people who started this are the workers in the field and middle
management that sees the real need to formalize some kind of forum on these
concerns.
Shoemaker said that after visiting with Alden, Mike Smith of the Water
Department and Kari Van Meter -Henderson of the Planning Department, his
recommendation is to proceed with this for the following reasons:
o The City is interested in maintaining biodiversity; this is a
major thrust in the pending Natural Areas Plan. That requires
cooperation beyond the boundaries of Fort Collins. In terms of
staff commitment, they are looking at a three to four hour
meeting on a quarterly basis to keep tabs on what is going on.
o The opportunity to participate in the feasibility study provides
an opportunity to lay out all the issues where the City needs
help and see who else needs help with the same issues. Shoemaker
gave two examples: Staff knows there are important habitats for
Ferruginous Hawks and Bald Eagles in the Fort Collins Urban
Growth Area, but does not know how those habitats fit into the
whole regional scheme. This is perhaps an opportunity to work on
understanding how Fort Collins fits into the regional scheme for
a couple of species. The second example relates to the habitat
of those birds -- prairie dogs and the interaction, both positive
and negative, between people and prairie dogs. They know that
Boulder and Denver are dealing with some of those issues and
others ought to be because it is critical habitat for those
birds.
o The City and all participants in the Water Heritage Area will
want the best natural resource database possible to guide
interpretive programs, etc. This is a ready-made vehicle without
having to create something else.
Shoemaker said there are a lot of opportunities. The investment up
front is minimal, the potential gain is great. In the future, staff
commitment will be in proportion to the importance of the work to the .
City's issues. He said that he does not see that Natural Resources
Division would be working on something that has no value to Fort Collins.
Rather they would be working cooperatively with people who are wrestling
with the same issues. Shoemaker said the bottom line is that staff thinks
it is a good idea, but there is some faith involved.
Swope asked if one of the by-products of this would be identifying the
impacts of use of this area. Alden answered that it could be. Swope
stated that he thought the area should be extended farther east, downwind
and downstream, to measure such things as ground water, surface water, and
air. Alden said that it is complex in the sense of the diversity of
players. If they cannot come to consensus at the table, they will not be
able to get at that step.
3
Swope asked why thl -ish and Wildlife Service d the Soil
Conservation Service were not cooperators. Alden anAwered that this MOU is
established so that a person can drop off if they do not feel it is of
sufficient value and it does not result in the dissolution of the whole
cooperative. The other thing is that anyone can step in and become a
partner at anytime. This was just the initial list. He added that he has
talked with Fish and Wildlife and they do plan on signing; they have firm
commitments from the National Park Service, the Forest Service, Boulder
County, City of Boulder, Larimer County, Colorado State Forest Service,
Colorado Division of Wildlife, CSU, and University of Colorado.
Johnson asked who funded the MAB. Alden said that it was allied with
the State Department. It is a complex situation. MAB said they were going
to be in a position to invest money throughout. This particular
feasibility study and MOU ended up being rated second priority for national
funding. Then the solicitor from the State Department said they had to put
it out on bid, which was confusing because its unclear who you are bidding
against. It is not a research study; it is a feasibility assessment. The
bidding is against all of the players on the MOU. So now, MAB has been
told that they have to disband the program. The current approach can
proceed, with or without MAB.
Swope moved and Johnson seconded that the Board recommend to Council
that the City participate in this program.
Smith asked if the City should contribute to the feasibility study,
either financially or in terms of staff. Shoemaker said that there were
examples of input that they would make to the feasibility study. Alden's
view is that CORRC has adequate funding now whether the City participates
financially or provides staff. At this point the City will be involved in
the feasibility study by providing input.
Davis asked Shoemaker how he would reply if, hypothetically, Council
asked to what extent we already have informal contacts within Corps of
Engineers, BLM, or somebody else who will readily supply all the
information that we need to make decisions affecting the City. Shoemaker
replied that he would say: 1. This organization proposes to tap resources
that staff is are not frequently in contact with; staff knows they are out
there, and could access them, but we are not able to contact all of the
organizations. 2. The other part is that he would hope, by all the
organizations making a commitment to the cooperative, this can become a
communication vehicle which can reduce some of the other informal
cooperatives.
Johnson said that over the years he has been interested in having a
trail that would go from Fort Collins up the Poudre River. The river
crosses many jurisdictions. When you talk to different agencies, often the
problem is that one agency does not know the other one exists or that there
are any plans that might deal with this. The fact that different groups
would link up to something like the CORRC is exciting. It needs all these
different organizations looking at it together. He feels that the
information sharing is critical and useful.
Smith said that the National Heritage Area was mentioned and asked
what Kari Van Meter-Henderson's reading was regarding Fort Collins
participation in the cooperative. Shoemaker replied that it probably does
not have anything to do with the passage of the legislation. In terms of
collecting the information for the interpretive and educational features,
4
he said that Van Mete Wenderson thought it woul 0 a quite useful.
The motion passed unanimously.
NRAB Retreat Date
Felchle said this has come up again because February 22 will not work
for everyone. Bothwell did a telephone poll of everyone's schedules
through April, and not everyone is available on any one Saturday. Felchle
said that there a number of things that could be done: the Board could
decide to pick a date when most people were available or could pick a date
when most new people were available.
Smith recommended March 14 and March 4 as a fall -back date. It was
discussed and agreed that the retreat will be March 14. Friedman is the
only one at the present time that cannot attend. Smith asked Friedman,
since he would not be able to attend the retreat, what needs to be done to
"involve" him. Friedman replied, "nothing because a retreat is such that
you get the value out of it by being there."
Shoemaker said that at a recent Council Worksession, Council addressed
at some length various items related to Boards and Commissions. Specific
focus was communication between Council and Boards. The outcome of that
was Council admonishing itself saying, "these Boards are doing what they
are supposed to do and if anybody has a problem speak up."
.Shoemaker received a call from Councilmember Maxey relative to the
discussion in the January 2 Minutes discussion about which Councilmembers
to invite to the retreat and why. Maxey expressed concern that there was
characterization of Councilmembers' positions and he did not appreciate
that. He also expressed concern in general about the way the Board was
going about receiving feedback from Council. Shoemaker said that Maxey
suggested that if the Board wants feedback from the whole Council, a
worksession with Council would be appropriate. Shoemaker suggested that a
Board member, either Smith or a member from the Education Committee, send a
memo to Councilmember Fromme as the Council liaison, with a copy to all
Councilmembers, saying that they are interested in having a retreat to
spend some time among themselves. As part of the retreat the Board the
wants to hear from some Councilmembers about how they are perceived and how
they can be more effective, and let Councilmembers decide how that will
happen. Smith recommended that the Education Committee draft the letter.
Smith said the Board had discussed having one or two Councilmembers
talk about effectiveness and asked if the Board wants to invite all
Councilmembers to attend. Erthal said he thought that was a great idea.
Smith stated that there is a difference between inviting all Councilmembers
and attempting to schedule all Councilmembers to speak. He suggested that
all Councilmembers be invited to attend, but at least make sure they
schedule some Councilmembers to discuss their perception of the Board's
effectiveness. Erthal said if that was the case then it should be Council
liaison Fromme. Davis said he agreed that the Council liaison should make
that decision. Friedman said it would be inappropriate to invite all
Councilmembers because the retreat is the Board's retreat. If all
Councilmembers are invited it is no longer a retreat; it becomes a
worksession. Miller suggested inviting any interested Councilmembers to
attend, but having two Councilmembers selected by Council. Shoemaker
suggested writing to the Council liaison, saying what the Board would like
to have and asking her to work with the other Councilmembers. Johnson,
11
Swope, and Davis agreed, '.th Miller. Erthal sugges d inviting the Council
liaison as a speaker and sending an open invitation to other Councilmembers
to attend.
Erthal moved that the Board invite Council liaison Fromme to speak at
the March 14, 1992 retreat and send an open invitation to all
Councilmembers to attend. The Motion failed due to lack of second.
Miller moved and Johnson seconded that the Board send a letter to
Council, through the liaison, requesting that they select two Council
members to speak on Board effectiveness at the retreat.
Friedman asked for clarification if the motion was for two additional
Councilmembers beside the liaison or two total. Miller answered two
members total, but an invitation extended to all Councilmembers.
The motion passed unanimously with Erthal abstaining.
The Education Committee will draft the letter.
Pending Mitigation Fund Requests
Shoemaker said in respect to the mitigation funds there have been some
interesting developments. At a recent worksession Council discussed
whether Boards and Commissions should have the full authority to allocate
funding or whether they should simply make their recommendations to
Council. On February 4, the decision was made that those decisions should
be advisory to Council. In the process of researching the issue, it was
discovered that there was no ordinance empowering NRAB to determine
disposition of mitigation funds. Shoemaker said previous decisions are not
in question. Shoemaker said he has been advised to treat the Board's
recommendations as those of an advisory committee, making it clear to all
involved that it is Shoemaker's decision to make the final mitigation fund
determinations.
Shoemaker said if the Board has problems with this decision they
should let him know and they should advise Council that they would like to
have a specific ordinance giving the Board the decisionmaking power on
mitigation fund decisions.
Smith said he liked the procedure that has been used in the past
because those who were applying for mitigation funds had a public forum in
which to address their issues. The process would now stop at the point of
the Board voting on granting the funds. He asked if the Board thinks this
is a useful process. Shoemaker said he now plans for Staff to devise
projects and just do them if they are within current policy. If they were
looking for projects in the community and community participation, which is
how he would favor doing most of them, then they would use a bid process
similar to what they have done and there would be a committee that would
review the proposals and make the recommendations. Shoemaker said that he
would request Board involvement in the committee.
Swope asked if there was going to be anymore mitigation funds.
Shoemaker said that it was a one-time contribution to the City. In terms
of funding the natural areas program, Staff does not think mitigation funds
are the best option. There is currently a balance of $3,000-4,000, so his
sense is that it is not worth the effort to go to Council and get an
ordinance passed on it.
2
Shoemaker said with the two pending pr & sals, they are close to
having a plan that th think is really good with ort Collins Re -Leaf for
the Flatirons project. They have been meeting regularly with Re -Leaf, the
Forestry Department, and the Parks Department to•put together a good
habitat enhancement plan along the lines that they wanted. With respect to
the pending open space proposal, the Stormwater Utility feels there is a
high potential that they will need to disturb the land where Mr. Baker was
proposing to plant, so it does not make sense to proceed at this time.
Miller asked about the other projects that the Board endorsed.
Shoemaker replied that those projects are proceeding.
Swope recommended that staff work with Re -Leaf and relay the
information to the Board.
Miller said the Board may want to pursue the issue of a mechanism to
seek mitigation funds. If such a mechanism was in place, the idea of a
mitigation fund might not be a moot point anymore. Shoemaker said his
recommendation would be that they take it up and the Board make such a
recommendation in the context of the Natural Areas Policy Plan.
Framework for Environmental Action
Smith reported that Council unanimously adopted the Framework.
Shoemaker said that the Water Board unanimously endorsed the
Framework. The Chair of the Water Board also asked Shoemaker to convey to
NRAB that the previous comments by Mr. Moore expressing suspicion of NRAB
and Staff were Mr. Moore's personal opinions. The Water Board is eager to
corporate with NRAB where necessary. Shoemaker said that the Planning and
Zoning Board also unanimously passed a resolution accepting the document
for adoption.
Johnson said that as items are brought before the Board, he would like
staff to remind the Board where it fits into the Framework.
New Business
Felchle said that Council is making increased use of their Ethics
Review Board and in doing they are looking closely at Board actions. She
said it is important for board members to pay close attention to issues of
conduct, guidelines, legal recommendations, and similar matters.
Felchle said that a lot of these issues, especially the procedural and
sometimes the legal, are easier for Staff to bring to the Board on a one-
time basis as opposed to getting in a middle of a discussion and having to
back up and look at the procedure or the legal aspect.
Bothwell distributed a memo that the Ethics Review Board asked all
Boards and Commissions members to review. It deals with conflict of
interest, specifically to the ability of board and commission members to
speak to their own board on matters in which they have a conflict of
interest. Felchle said one way a board member can determine if there is a
conflict of interest is to ask themselves if, in the judgement of a
reasonably prudent person, the Board member would tend to be impaired in
independence of judgement or action in the performance of their
discretionary duties. Financial interest would usually be clear. Felchle
said that this is something that Board members have to take responsibility
7
for because staff does i always know what their i zrests are, and staff
cannot always recognize'chat there may be a conflict She said the Ethics
Review Board memo deals with whether a Board member with a conflict of
interest should to talk to the Advisory Board on that issue. The Ethics
Review Board decision was that any Board member can speak to his/her own
Board relative to something in which they have a conflict of interest
providing that the member has stated the conflict of interest and has filed
the appropriate forms with the City Clerk and represents himself/herself as
a citizen. Then that person would not take part in the Board's discussion
on the issue or vote on the issue. Board members cannot speak to their own
Board as a representative of an organization, if they have a conflict of
interest.
Johnson and Erthal asked for more clarification on this issue.
Shoemaker said the document is saying that the Ethics Board does not
recommend that a member address the Board as a representative of another
organization.
Felchle said that if the Board has other questions relative to this,
one of the City Attorneys offered to attend a meeting to answer questions.
Smith asked if Felchle could act as a "watch dog" in terms of conflict
of interest issues. The limitations are that she does not know everyone's
backgrounds. Felchle replied that if someone felt there was a conflict of
interest question, she would like for them to raise the question, not wait
for her to recognize it.
Johnson said he objects to the fact that someone who has a conflict
of interest would also get their citizenship rights severed by not being
able to make a presentation as a member of that group that they are
representing. He would like to challenge this.
Erthal said that there is a fine line and how does one know when they
have passed that line.
Smith said that he would like to have someone from the City Attorney's
office attend the March 4 meeting to answer questions.
Shoemaker responded to the question of, "can Felchle or staff act as a
conscience." He stated that they can watch for concerns, but certainly the
law says it is the individual's responsibility and if there are ever any
questions the best thing would be to go to the City Attorney's Office as
they are also legal counsel to the Boards.
Felchle said that the reason it is so important to identify conflict
of interest is because of the consequences. Violation of the Code in this
respect could lead to a member losing his position on the Board and not
being able to serve on a Board for at least two years. Felchle said there
also is the possibility a decision based on an unidentified conflict of
interest could adversely affect that program. For example, the program's
funding could be pulled.
Felchle reminded the Board that all meetings including committee
meetings, are public meetings and must be posted. Such meeting should be
held in a place accessible to the public with no admission charge and no
requirement of purchasing anything (such as a cup of coffee or a meal) to
attend. She also reminded the Board that committee meetings are basically
8
for information gathtg purposes; there cannot any voting or decision
making. The informat n discussed at the commit a meetings should be
summarized for the entire Board. If a committee needs to report to the
Board, the committee chair should let Felchle know so she can add the item
to the agenda.
Felchle reminded the board of their legal functions. The Board is
chartered to advise Council. It also is charged with analyzing natural
resources issues, guiding development of natural resources programs, and
promoting citizen participation and education (e.g., the Environmental
Action Awards).
Felchle discussed the guidelines relative to conduct of Boards and
Commissions and she suggested that members read page 53 of the Boards and
Commissions handbook. She highlighted some of the issues that page
addresses.
Shoemaker discussed Council's desire to know about independent actions
taken by Boards. He said this came up at a recent Council worksession.
The focus was really on Council and how well they do in terms of
communicating with Boards and Commissions. At times Councilmembers have
not spoken up when they felt uncomfortable with a specific board action;
they admonished themselves to speak up in such instances. They also asked
that independent actions should be brought to Council's attention.
Smith said that boards put together an annual work plan that is sent
to Council. He asked if boards now have the additional requirement to
emphasize independent actions. Felchle replied yes, there does need to be
additional communication.
Swope asked if the challenge between the Air Quality Task Force and
NRAB, of leaving your car home one day a week, was an independent action.
Shoemaker said yes.
Felchle also discussed procedures for making motions because there has
been some confusion. She reminded the Board that they are to follow
Robert's Rules of Order. She added that she has seen confusion when a
motion has been introduced and during discussion it becomes clear the Board
does not want that motion. At anytime, the Chair can call the question; if'
it is voted down, motion is disposed of.
Confusion also seems to exist because the board feels they must have
unanimous agreement before voting on a motion. Depending on what the goal
is, if the recommendation is to present Council -with a unanimous
recommendation, then the Board may want to continue until they reach a
unanimous decision. However, board members, particularly those who feel
they have a minority opinion they want Council to hear, may let the
question be called. Then when they vote against it they may (but are not
required to) explain why. If a board member states why they voted against
a motion, it will become part of the minutes. They also can ask that it
become part of the recommendation letter presented to Council. Smith
recommended that the Board follow the procedure of stating why they voted
against a motion unless they have a strong feeling for not giving the
reason. Erthal disagreed. He feels that it should have already come up in
the discussion.
Felchle also clarified "friendly amendments." In the past there has
been some confusion about what the motion is and what is being voting on.
Felchle distributed copy" s of relevant pages from S vert's Rules. There
are several ways of dear:ng with amendments: 1. at-6r a motion as been
made, but before the Chair has restated it and opened it for discussion, a
member can recommend a change and at that point the maker of the motion can
accept or reject the change. 2. After the question has been stated by the
Chair and opened for discussion, the maker of the motion can request
unanimous consent to modify the motion. If everybody does not agree to
change it then the vote goes as originally stated. 3. If something has
been voted down, Robert's Rules actually says that the same thing cannot be
presented again at the same meeting. However, during the discussion, a
member can urge rejection of the pending motion, saying that if it fails
they will offer a different motion on the same subject and the question can
be called.
Report on Boards and Commissions Breakfast
Smith said that Mayor Kirkpatrick invited all Chairs of boards and
staff liaisons to a breakfast to discuss how well the boards felt they are
communicating with Council. She was also looking at some ideas concerning
The Year of the River. Smith said that since Mayor Kirkpatrick has called
1992 "The Year of the River," he would like to see the Board compile a list
of considerations and/or projects that would be specific to that theme for
the City. He asked Board members what their thoughts were. Johnson said
he would like to discuss it at the March 4 meeting. Erthal said that he
liked it. Swope agreed. Davis asked if it would be appropriate to dredge
up any ideas regarding open space priorities they might want to pursue
e.g., the Seven Springs area. All agreed. Smith would like for all
committees to come prepared with a list of items for consideration.
Swope asked for clarification. Smith said he feels this is an
opportunity to talk about actions that are taking place, and maybe not
taking place -- existing projects that are under considerations and
projects that are not under consideration but should be brought forward.
Johnson stated an easy start would be for the different committees to
take their goals for the year and narrow them down to two or three obvious
ones.
Shoemaker said that he could circulate a list of the projects that
Staff is doing that would fit into the Year of the River.
Smith asked Board members how they felt the communication was with
Council. It was agreed upon that they felt the communication was okay.
Committee Reports (scheduled)
Transportation Committee
Johnson reported that the NRAB and Air Quality Task Force
transportation committee met with Brad Hurst of the Police Department to
discuss how can get police officers out of their cars and into alternate
transportation. Johnson said they do make some effort to use other
vehicles such as horse and bike patrol in some areas. Smith further
explained that it was up to the Shift Supervisor to make alternative
transportation mode assignments because they have a minimum requirement of
people who must be on the road at any specific time; that is five people on
patrol and one supervisor. If there are additional officers available, it
is the option of the Shift Supervisor to determine how those people will be
deployed.
10
Johnson said th o transportation committ also discussed
interaction relativeWoverlapping issues. He RRd it was reiterated that
the Air Quality Task Force is to take the lead in air quality in regard to
transportation.
Johnson said they also discussed a previous NRAB recommendation that
the Transportation Department take alternative transportation for one week
sometime during November through February and a week some other time during
the year. The plan was never endorsed although some Councilmembers had
some interest in it. Johnson said there was discussion relative to whether
the letter should be written again and submitted, from both NRAB and the
Task Force, to Council. Smith said that the Transportation Committee will
bring this to the Board at a later date.
Smith said they have not seen any details concerning the formation of
the Transportation Board. It was predicted to be early February, but has
been deferred to the second Council meeting in February. Shoemaker said
he will find out what is going on. The material has been drafted, but he
has not seen it yet. He stated that it would probably be an agenda item
for the March 4 meeting.
Education Committee
Friedman said that the Education Committee met to discuss the issue of
the environmental awards. They revised the press release from 1991, made
procedural changes, revised the guidelines for making nominations, and made
a minor revision to the actual nomination form. They did not generate any
new paperwork that did not exist last year.
Friedman said he notified Councilmember Fromme that this independent
action was being taken. She was excited and pleased that the Board was
doing it again. Bothwell faxed her a copy of the press release,
guidelines, and nomination form so she could present it to Council.
Friedman said that the contact people for the press release were Felchle
and himself.
Felchle handed out nomination forms and stated that she has more if
anyone needs them.
Friedman said the awards will be presented at the April 21 Council
meeting. The deadline for submitting applications is March 20. The
committee will meet March 27 to make some preliminary judgements and will
make recommendations to the Board at the April 1 meeting. Who will be
presenting the awards is yet to be decided. Felchle said it will probably
be the Board.
Committee Reports (unscheduled)
Land Use Committee
Miller spoke of the idea of the Mall/School proposal at the Fort
Collins High School site.
Erthal would like to discuss it at the March 4 meeting.
Smith stated that, at the Council worksession, Councilmember Fromme
brought forward a letter the Board wrote to Council concerning the new
school. The letter asked Council to be more involved with PR-1 in terms of
design. Council discussion has noted that developments on school
11
properties are not the i.e as other developments.
Shoemaker said that Council received in their packets a memo
clarifying the process of what the City's involvement is and clarifying
what the school system plans in terms of their.public process. He said
that a copy of the memo will be included in the next Board mailout.
Miller said that he received information from Kari Van Meter -Henderson
of the Planning Department regarding the National Heritage Area and where
the two Bills are at the present time. He said that if members are
interested in participating as an individual, letters recommending it get
knocked out of committee and go for a vote would probably be appreciated by
Senator Brown and others.
Smith asked if Van Meter -Henderson could write a brief article for the
environmental newsletter as to the status of the National Heritage Area.
Felchle said that currently a city-wide environmental newsletter is being
processed, and the first issue probably will not come out until June. It
was clarified that timing is not an issue for this article.
Announcements
Felchle handed out an announcement of a public meeting on the
Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion program.
Shoemaker announced that for the first time since 1974 the volume of
trash going to the landfill has decreased by 1 1/2 percent. The past
record has been between 2 and 6 Dercent increase.
Shoemaker announced that the Board has fostered the phrase, "World
Class Environmental Learning Center", and pushed for corporation between
the City and CSU in making plans for the area along the Poudre from the ELC
upstream to Mulberry. Mayor Kirkpatrick met with Dr. Yates, President of
CSU, January 23 to discuss mutual interest in this. The City and CSU
reached an agreement in principal to have a cooperative partnership.
Shoemaker said that they are meeting February 7 to discuss a joint master
plan for the area which could lead to funding proposals.
Shoemaker announced that Councilmember Fromme has organized a town
meeting February 27, at 7:00, at the Lincoln Center. The meeting is to
discuss issues related to growth.
Smith announced that if other members would like to participate in a
Recycling Committee meeting, he is going to call a meeting and would like
to know schedules.
Smith announced that because of the amount of effort that went into
the Framework for Environmental Action, Johnson suggested that the Board
and staff get together for a dinner. Everyone agreed to meet for dinner
immediately preceding the March 4 NRAB meeting.
Smith reminded the Board of the challenge with the Air Quality Task
Force.
Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
12