HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 12/04/19910
0
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY
281 N. COLLEGE AVE. - CONFERE
Board Members Present
Bill Miller
Christine Ferguson
Tim Johnson (arrived 7:30
Board Members Absent
Deni LaRue (excused)
Staff Present
Tom Shoemaker
DECEMBER 4, 1991
Phil Friedman
Will Smith
excused)
BOARD
!ICE ROOM
Chuck Davis (unexcused)
Edith Felchle
Guest Present
Bob Blinderman, Stewart Environmental Consultants
Hal Swope
Steve Erthal
Julie Bothwell
Minutes
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of
November 6, 1991 NRAB meeting be accepted with the following corrections:
Bothwell stated that Jim Clark, Water and Wastewater, asked that the
following correction be made on page seven, paragraph two: "Kari Podmore"
should read "Terry Podmore. Felchle stated that Jan Meisel, Planning
Department, asked that the following correction be made on page five, the
first paragraph: The statement "Meisel agreed", should be clarified to
indicate that she agreed to change the wording for clarification as Johnson
suggested.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the Minutes of
November 20, 1991 NRAB meeting be accepted as presented.
Old Business
NRAB 1992 Work Plan Approval
The 1992 workplan for the Water Committee was approved as submitted.
Miller handed out a substitution for the Land Use Committee workplan
with the following changes: Paragraph la was revised to read as follows:
"Review the work of the Natural Resources staff on the continued updating
and implementation of an effective and comprehensive Environmental
Management Plan. Advise City Council of changes in the priorities assigned
to individual issues. Make recommendations as to which issues should be
included in the 1992-93 Environmental Management Action Agenda and Work
Plan." Paragraph lb, enumerated the three points instead of the semicolons
separating them. Paragraph C was revised to read as follows: "Recommend
appropriate changes to the LDGS to the City Council that will incorporate
required conservation criteria for energy, water, and other natural
resources including the esthetics of the environments."
Smith commented that paragraphs ld and 5 would relate to the
Transportation Committee. He explained that he was not denigrating
duplication between the two, just noting the crossover. Felchle stated she
had compiled the committ _ work plans into a single work plan for the
board, and that in doing so she found that paragraph id sounded like a
duplication of one of the Transportation Committee's goals. She said the
individual goals of the committees do not have to change, but for the sake
of the document, the board might want to review whether the repetition is
desirable.
Ferguson recommended that they be reworded as one to cut down on space
and reading for Council.
Ferguson moved and Miller seconded that any place where Felchle sees
that two different groups have stated a similar objective in their
workplan, she be allowed to combine them into one statement on the compiled
workplan for Council.
Felchle stated that she saw only one other example so far. It deals
with a recycling education goal addressed by both the Education Committee
and the Solid Waste Committee.
Miller asked if it would be better to remove goal Id. Ferguson stated
that she felt it is useful to be there as a reminder to the Board that it
is their guidance that they need to be thinking about and focusing on. She
felt that it is a complete statement and does not see any reason for it to
be removed.
Felchle stated the discussion left her with a little discomfort.
Smith stated that at this point it is Felchle's responsibility to interpret
the intent of the Board by leaving it worded as it is right now. He stated
that if it was difficult for Felchle then the motion becomes hard to
implement. Felchle said that she preferred that the Board decided which
one comes or goes. Ferguson said that her intent was that the goal remain
in the Land Use Committee document, not the compiled document. Miller
agreed that this particular topic logically falls under the Transportation
Committee's goals.
Friedman said that he had complete faith in Felchle's ability to do
this, but he felt that it is not appropriate for Felchle to have to
determine the intent of both the individual committees and the entire
board.
Smith commented that the intent is to provide a document that is
relatively concise for Council. He also said that normally the Chair
reviews the document prior to it being sent to Council, but if the Board
would like, Smith will make sure that people have a copy before it is sent
forward so if there are final comments on it, it is not completely
Felchle's responsibility to make sure that Council receives it. Felchle
said that, unless she missed something, the two items discussed here are
the only two instances in which she expects to deal with duplication.
Friedman stated that he was still confusing the compilation document
with the individual goal documents. Felchle handed out an example of the
compilation document that she put together before the meeting. It
basically takes those short term goals from each committee and puts them
all together; it does not identify subcommittees.
Friedman asked Felchle if she was still uncomfortable with the charge
of dealing the duplications. Felchle answered that it was clarified.
2
The workplan fore Land Use Committee was proved.
Smith said that there were some corrections to the Recycling committee
workplan. A discussion of woodwaste and/or construction was also added.
Goal six was changed to, "Continue to look at options and viability of the
City and County recycling waste solvents and used oil." Goal eight was
added: "Review alternatives for reuse, recycling, or composting of
woodwaste, yardwaste, and other organic components of the waste stream." A
goal nine was added: "Develop alternatives for use, reuse, and disposal of
construction byproducts."
Smith asked if the board wants to take an activist stance. They could
probably do that by changing the nature of their actions. Or if they would
like to take a passive stance, the document is probably fine as it now
stands.
Erthal stated he would rather be more forthright in their agenda and
would like to see absolute zero allowance for non recycables and packaging
in Fort Collins. He would like to set a goal for a loot recyclable city.
A goal ten was discussed, "Advocate the opportunities to make Fort
Collins a 100% recyclable city."
Ferguson said instead of monitoring the second and third phases of the
recycling program, she would rather push the phases forward. She would like
to see a more activist stance of finally having curbside recycling in place
for everybody in an effective way where they can recycle everything -
paper, cardboard, plastics, styrofoam. Smith stated that it was a year ago
that the ordinance was passed. He asked if the Board is requesting that
the workplan call for mandatory curbside recycling.
Ferguson stated that she was not aware of what the second and third
phase, were but "monitoring" to her was like saying, " they do not need us
to monitor they have the staff and ordinances and what they need us for is
driving". Smith replied that the first phase is for single family.
Erthal asked what the third phase was and Friedman asked what the
second phase was. Shoemaker explained that the second is multi -family,
beginning January 1, 1992, and the third phase is commercial
establishments, beginning July 1.
Ferguson would like for the Recycling Committee to figure out a way
for the City to afford for each neighborhood to have recycling bins where
the neighbors could bring their items together. She wants to create a
context where they are pushing for more, and feels that reviewing the data
and making recommendations for change would capture that.
Goal two was changed to read "Review the effectiveness of the Fort
Collins recycling program and recommend changes as needed.
Johnson stated there is no talk of procurement policies in the
document. Ferguson referred to goal three. Johnson said that is directed
toward minimizing waste through purchasing. He feels that the real key,
not only in Fort Collins but at the national level, is procurement, because
of what is happening in the markets. Some materials are hardly moving
along in the stream.
Shoemaker said that the City last year developed an affirmative
3
procurement policy which--che Board approved. It is' -In place and is being
implemented. He suggested that the Board review the effectiveness and
recommend changes as needed.
Goal three now reads "The City of Fort Collins should emphasize
procurement of recycled products wherever possible.
Smith asked if everyone was comfortable with the goals. Erthal
replied that with goal five "monitor" pops out again, and he feels it is
too tame. He highly encourages the implementation of the intermediate
processing center (IPC). Smith said that the decision will probably be
made during the next few weeks and construction could begin in January or
February. He also said that it was worded that way because they are just
monitoring the action and if something changes, then can take action if
needed. Erthal stated that if the County's decision does not meet the
Board's approval then the board should have other options available.
Smith said he realized the Board needs to be more activist oriented.
Erthal asked what the Board will do if the Commissioners vote nay. Smith
replied that assuming they are going to vote nay now is inappropriate.
Ferguson stated, "suppose the Commissioners delay their vote until
after the first of the year so that the Board is in a time when this work
plan is in force." She feels the board should "influence" instead of
"monitor." She asked if the committee had written to the Commissioners
with the NRAB's support. Miller and Smith replied that they could not. The
Board can only go through Council. Ferguson then asked if the Board has
gone through Council. Miller replied yes. Ferguson stated that is
proactive influencing; monitoring almost leaves you in a reactive mode when
activists have already made up their minds and you suffer the consequences
for another six months.
Erthal said an IPC for Larimer County is absolutely necessary and the
Board should work towards that and the implementation thereof. Friedman
suggested leaving out "the Board is determined/concluded" because he is not
so sure they could defend that position.
Shoemaker explained some background of where "monitoring" came from;
that along with the board the Council has formally endorsed the IPC.
Council, through staff, has had two public work sessions with the
Commissioners on the issue and continues to work actively though not
publicly to push the IPC.
Smith reminded the Board that frequently what they do during the
course of the year is not directly tied to the workplans. They look at
issues as they occur. He expressed that it is important to state where the
Board feels that they will be placing their efforts, but to be extremely
detailed at this point may not be an efficient use of time.
Goal five was changed to say "Work towards the implementation of the
IPC."
The 1992 workplan for the Recycling Committee was approved.
With the Hazardous Materials Committee workplan, Johnson revised goal
one to read as follows: "Review implementation of the 'ozone -depleting
compounds' ordinance and recommend changes to the implementation program,
if needed." Goal two was revised to read as follows: It Monitor proposals
C!
to burn hazardous wasops in or near Fort Collins Od support City efforts
in opposition to burning of hazardous wastes."
The 1992 workplan for the Hazardous Materials Committee was approved.
In the workplan for the Transportation Committee, Ferguson said that
bicycling and pedestrians were talked about, but not other alternative
modes.
An item 2d was added that reads: "Investigate other modes of
transportation."
Smith said the Air Quality Task Force and NRAB Transportation
Committees will probably meet to listen to a program relative to
alternative transportation. There is going to be a review from Police
Services about "Police on Bikes".
Ferguson asked if the Transportation Committee wanted to look at
getting energy efficiency buses. Johnson said there is likely going to be
a Transportation Board soon that will be dealing with such things.
The 1992 workplan for the Transportation Committee was approved.
The 1992 workplan for the Education Committee was approved.
Ferguson moved and Swope seconded that the Natural Resources Advisory
Board's 1992 workplan be approved. The motion carried unanimously.
Smith asked how the Board felt about its ability to enact the
workplan. Johnson replied that he felt they should be more ambitious than
they know they can accomplish, and things that do not get accomplished this
year can be dealt with next year. He sees it as a "graduate program" and
not an undergraduate or high school program where a score of 50% is a good
score. Erthal stated that he would like to be over ambitious. Ferguson
added that it sends a message to Council that a group of people are
thinking about these things; and each member is a representative of a
contingent of people.
Ferguson stated that the Board has not addressed interaction with
larger entities and asked if a statement was needed of an active
relationship to coordinate with other entities in the larger
County/State/Country. Smith replied that this would require a proposal to
Council to change the mission of the Board.
NRAB Retreat Planning
A few months ago the issue of a retreat was brought up and the
Education Committee met and discussed topics for the retreat, the Board
came to a consensus on the following topics:
o Strategic Development of Informed Consent (SDIC) - what it is, why
City staff uses it, how it might increase adoption of natural
resources policies, how NRAB might use it.
o Staff/Board Interaction (expectation, what is reasonable)
o The Board's Charge - limitation, freedoms
o What Council will be looking for from the Board
5
o Programs of conside..,Ation for 1992
o Others as added
It was discussed and agreed that the retreat will be January 25, 1992
with February 8 as an alternate, from 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. A quorum is
required. Smith asked how far in advance the retreat can be canceled if we
see that a quorum will not be reached. Felchle replied that it depended on
where it is held. Ferguson suggested having it in a comfortable lounge
type room. Felchle said that with past experience in reserving places she
has not come along any that meet that criteria.
Swope said that he strongly objects to the kind of retreats where they
are brought into a classroom environment. All topics except the SDIC have
been discussed a number of times and feels that if they are not understood
they can be brought before the meetings to discuss. He explained that he
could get a lot more out of a field trip type of retreat.
Ferguson stated that she felt the same way as Swope and that his idea
of having Shoemaker fill the Board in on SDIC during one meeting is great.
She said that the Board becomes staff dominated because they bring the
Board ideas and help guide them, but the Board needs to ask themselves what
is their goal for the retreat. Her goal is not to be lectured to. Her
alternative would be to develop the Board's action agenda because what has
been laid out in the workplans is a tremendous amount of work. She asked
if the reason for the retreat was to build a sense of teamwork and
commitment among the members to sharpen their vision of what they want to
be working on.
Along with Friedman, Erthal agreed and stated that he did not want to
be in a retreat discussing procedural points of what the Board is up to.
He would like to have something where they sit down and get creative on
what the workplan is going to be and start actually devising plans for the
workplan for the year.
Smith asked if they still are talking about the retreat being indoors,
but the intent would be changed to discussing detailed actions. Ferguson
stated that she does not see it as detailed plans, but sees it as taking
the many defined users and picking the priorities that they want to focus
on.
Smith asked Ferguson if she believed that a retreat should be held.
She replied that she did feel one was needed for team building and renewal
of commitment at a time which was not limited to 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
She said there is usually too much on the agenda to talk about what the
Board's vision is, what they are doing, and what they care about. She
explained that she feels ineffective. To her, a retreat could be a time of
cross-examining themselves to see if they are being effective; how do they
need to change to be effective. Erthal commented that he liked Ferguson's
idea and his only objective is he would like to get rid of the word
"retreat."
Johnson stated that there are some new members and perhaps a few of
the topics in short form can bring the new members together He also
added that what makes sense to him is to focus on action.
Ferguson said for her another goal of the day would be to deal with
0
the fact that all ove9the world citizen committAk are beginning to try
and have an effect on preserving things and the Board does not know how to
do it yet. She stated that it would be nice for someone to train citizen
committees on how to be powerful, so the Board could work on understanding
their process, and how they influence the process to begin to be powerful.
Smith stated that perhaps someone from Council or Steve Roy should come in
and talk about what the boards were set up to do. There is a difference
between a citizen action group and a city board. Ferguson stated that she
did not want other people to define it for her. She wants the Board to
define it for themselves. She stated that she will not attend to hear Roy
lecture her on what he wants her to do; she will attend to discuss what
the board wants to do.
Friedman stated that they are not a citizen advocacy board or a
citizen action board, the NRAB is an advisory Board to Council and to be
considered and regarded by Council they need to operate to a great degree
within those bounds. Ferguson replied that she is not suggesting that the
board go outside the bounds and that they are a citizen action board and
not an advisory board. She feels that the Board needs to be "driving" what
they are advising Council and how they are advising Council. Shoemaker and
staff, Council, or the issues have often been in the driver's seat. She
said the board has the vehicle and should ask themselves if they want to be
in the driver's seat.
Friedman stated that to some degree, in order to be in the driver's
seat you have to learn how to drive. An example would be to listen to Roy
and learn how to drive. He does not know what the legal authorization is
to the Board and does not know to what degree the Board has been listened
to and whether, they step over their bounds, they are listened to. He
stated that he did agree with Ferguson's principle.
Erthal asked if the Board was suppose to wait for Council to come to
them and then respond to it? Smith stated that, as the board looks at the
workplan, the key is "do they feel that there are issues that the City is
completely overlooking or looking at incorrectly?" It is at that point
that they say, "excuse me Council there is something you must do on this
issue, there is something that must take place." This is where they become
an activist Board. But frequently Council will turn to certain issues and
say, "We would like comment on this issue by the Natural Resources Advisory
Board." He further explained that there are at least two ways, if not
more, that Council can come to the board. He wants to make sure that the
Board is covering the topics and areas that are the biggest concern to this
locality. If the Board is saying that they believe something is an issue
they should recommend it to Council.
Smith stated that when the Board was formed there were a lot more
issues and things that were not being evaluated; the Board took a more
activist stance on it. At the present, the City has very strong staff. So
the issues that are being completely bypassed are not so frequent anymore.
In fact, more of the Board's time is taken by reviewing what the City is
already doing in areas that they have concern, it becomes tougher for the
Board to find areas that are not being reviewed. It is not impossible and
maybe that is what the Board wants to look at doing.
Erthal disagreed with Smith and stated that he sees the Board doing a
lot of reviewing and monitoring. He would like the Board to take a more
active stance in creating and defining policy for the City. He added that
he felt the Board could come up with a master plan for implementation for
7
xeriscape around the Cit4-yin parks and wondered why a workplan has not been
made up and submitted to Council. Johnson replied that, in terms of
monitoring and reviewing, the Board initiated plans several years ago and
staff has worked to implement them and the board sees that they are on
track and in place. The Board actively encourages and pushes for many of
the issues e.g., recycling, natural areas purchases, and solar orientation
along with others. Erthal stated that he would agree to that, but to some
extent he believes that the board can come up with some master plans.
Shoemaker stated that he was hearing a couple of things and they were
all valuable points of discussion. The first point of discussion was the
question of, "Does the Board feel that it is being effective and how can it
change its operations to be more effective within the Charter?" He
explained that it is always a legitimate item to discuss. The second point
of discussion was that the Board was up to their eyeballs with this
important "stuff" and not able to step back and look at the whole picture
or to look ahead. Shoemaker stated that he feels the same way. The third
point was why can't a master workplan be developed. His response was that
his understanding of the Board's role and what Council wants the Board to
do is for them to focus on thoughts, the background, what is going on in
the community and present ideas to staff and Council. The Board is not to
be doing the grunt work of digging through the "stuff" and putting the plan
on paper; that is for staff. He asked the Board if it was able to have the
kind of involvement that was needed to have in development of those plans
and how can that be improved.
Swope stated that the time to think is between the meetings and come
to the meetings with recommendations. This is why the Board gets so bogged
down in the meetings. It is a complex issue; they get off center and there
are so many directions that can be taken. The Board should stay with the
important items that the City is addressing at the present time and
emphasize those things because that is what is in front of the public. If
they start up with something new when the other major issues are being
addressed the Board will not be effective.
Miller stated that the topic at this point was the retreat and the
discussion was that Swope indicated that maybe the retreat needs to be held
in the early fall when the board can start airing all the other issues so
the committees have an idea of what to draft as goals. That maybe getting
away from "retreat" and calling it a "planning session" needs to precede
the development of these goals by the committees.
Smith asked then if the Board wanted to drop the intent of having a
planning session until the fall. Ferguson replied that there is a value in
bringing people together for a relatively free time that is about defining
the Board's vision and building their sense of commitment. She can see
getting together for the creative time of listening to each other and
looking at the multiple plans of work and circling the ones that are hot
and having a consensus about that.
Smith asked if the Board wanted to hold "something" January 25.
Erthal stated that he would like to have one. Ferguson said that she could
not answer the question until the goal of the meeting is defined.
Smith asked what agenda would enable Ferguson consider attending. She
replied that she would attend to look at their generalized workplans,
prioritize what they think is important, and do some brainstorming and
creative thinking about how they would be effective in implementing the
iC3
things that they want4po do. Steve said ditto. 9ope commented that if
that is how it was going to be done he would like to see very close records
kept so after the meeting they could see what they accomplished. Johnson
said that he would be happy with that. Miller stated that he concurred
with Johnson and Ferguson.
Smith asked Ferguson to set an agenda for the "retreat" and bring it
to the January meeting. Erthal will help. Shoemaker asked Ferguson and
Erthal to work with Felchle.
Shoemaker stated that there has been a fair amount of discussion of
defining further the workplan. He said he thinks it is realistic for staff
to share with the Board, their best estimate of how things are coming in
terms of staff and other department work programs. Certainly there is some
potential to change, but it also would be quite important to look ahead at
1993 and 1994.
Johnson stated that Swope suggested a tour. Maybe it would be
appropriate to finish up the retreat by going up to the Poudre River
Filteration Plant I and looking at the possibilities up there. Smith said
that at this point the agenda has been left for Ferguson to pull together
with the help of members so she can call anyone for some ideas.
Letter to Council on Fort Collins High School
During the November 20 meeting, a draft letter regarding parking at
FCHS was discussed. Smith modified the second paragraph, second sentence
to read as follows: " There is no discussion of alternatives to this
subsidization of single occupancy vehicles." because there is not 100%
allocation for all vehicles at the school. Johnson stated that he had
minor corrections and would write them on his copy and give to Bothwell.
Smith stated that the real concern he had with the letter is that one
of the biggest things that has been discussed is the integration of the
school within the land use and many of the developments taking place. He
explained that was the reason for the third paragraph being weak, and
redrafted it to read, "The development and integration of the school and
its surroundings should reflect the greater community values. A sensitive
use of this large block of land will be a crucial example of how City
policies are reflected in physical reality. There are numerous
environmental considerations to be made in developing this property. In
the articles and discussion presented in the press to date, (see enclosed
articles) there has been very little mention of environmental integration."
Smith stated the intent of the letter is to say, "City Council, we
think this is something that the City should strive to work very closely
with Poudre R-1 on and to date it sounds like it has not been necessarily
occurring." Johnson said that he liked the third paragraph. He suggested
that the fourth paragraph be simplified by leaving the last sentence off.
Ferguson said that she had made a note about the importance of having role
models teach students how to taking into account environmental
considerations, energy conservation and esthetics. She thinks it is
important to have some kind of sentence that states, " this is what
teaching is." Johnson commented that this is what a positive example is.
Ferguson feels that the Board should amplify it to say that the experience
of students going to school is teaching them how life should be.
Smith asked, with the change he read as the third paragraph and
Johnson's clerical changes, could he get a motion that the letter be sent
to Council. Ferguson asked if her comments about teaching were being
ignored. Smith replied that he thought they addressed by Johnson's wanting
to drop the last line in paragraph four. He asked if Ferguson was arguing
for the reinstatement of the line. Ferguson said it is a bigger issue and
is something that should receive more than one line. Ferguson would like
it to read, "the school should be teaching students to take energy
conservation, environmental factors, and esthetics into consideration in
land use planning." She would also say something like, "the school is a
model and it should be done so they should make it a model showing how it
should be done appropriately. The school should teach students by their
example to take energy conservation, environmental factors, and esthetics
into consideration in land use planning and development." At Miller's
request, Smith reread the corrected third paragraph. Miller suggested that
the third and second paragraph be switched and then have Ferguson's
rewritten line inserted. Ferguson agreed. Ferguson asked that the term
"mobile incinerators" in the now third paragraph, first line be removed.
Smith also added that since "complete" was removed in the second sentence
of the third paragraph, 11100%" also needed to be removed. It was changed
to "significant allotment."
Friedman said that from what he understood the entire planning process
and the entire conceptual design process as well as site design and the
actual site location for the school was done in close cooperation with the
City's Planning Department. He also added that he thought,a good deal of
the recommendations for the current school come from the Planning
Department.
Shoemaker explained that the School Board said that they were looking
at these sites, and they asked for staff's comments and concerns. Staff is
involved in everything with the development review process and Shoemaker
said that he has not seen anything on it other than site locations.
Johnson moved and Ferguson seconded that the letter be approved. It
was approved unanimously. Friedman abstained because of a potential
conflict of interest because his wife is on the School Board. Shoemaker
stated that technically Friedman should "withdraw" because an abstention
gets treated as a yes vote. Felchle explained that, also, if Friedman
feels that he has a conflict of interest he needs to file the conflict of
interest form. Smith asked for Shoemaker's and/or Felchle's opinion as to
whether Friedman has a conflict of interest. Felchle replied that she
needed to look at it more closely. On the first issue, personal monetary
gain, she did not see any conflict of interest. The other aspect,
membership in an organization, could have implications. Shoemaker stated
that his assement is that Friedman did not have a conflict of interest.
Smith asked staff to review the position and let the Board know because it
will come up again in the future and the Board needs clarity. Felchle
explained that there were different ways that the conflict of interest
could be addressed for this specific meeting. Friedman could fill out the
form for tonight's meeting or he can wait until it is determined if he has
a conflict. Miller asked how much does the School Board participate in the
planning of the site layout. Friedman replied that he was not sure because
this is the first high school that has been built since Rocky. He further
explained that there is a significant involvement of the Board. Friedman
chose to simply abstain from voting at this meeting and wait for staff's
determination regarding filing the conflict of interest form.
Joint Meeting with Air Quality Task Force (AOTF) on Transportation
Smith stated that he has not been able to talk with Dave Dietrich of
10
the AQTF, but he is tying to get together a jo s committee meeting
between the Transportation Committees of the NRAB and the AQTF. He added
that he is trying to arrange for Brad Hurst, Police Department, to discuss
"police on bikes". A letter has been drafted expressing the Board's
interest and he believes that it would be a program that would be a
positive example for the City if it is implemented. When the meeting is
held it will be open to the public and any members of the Boards can
attend. Smith asked if it is a committee meeting and enough members attend
does it become an official meeting. Felchle replied that the meetings have
to be announced 24 hours in advance. Smith stated that once the date is
set they will let others know and if members plan to attend they need to
notify staff because it may change the meeting notice requirement.
Shoemaker suggested that the meeting be set up for February because in
addition to the regular Board meeting and the retreat being in January
there is the possibility of a special meeting being held.
Shoemaker handed out two letters regarding the National Heritage Area
for the Board's review. Shoemaker reminded the Board that there had been
lengthy discussion regarding the National Heritage Area and tied into that
there were two considerations that the Board wanted addressed to Council.
The first was the question of funding levels between Senator Brown's Bill
and Representative Allard's Bill and encouraging Council to stay on top of
that. The second area, and the second letter, deals with the board wanting
to be proactive about developing "flagship" projects and encouraging some
thought be given to those in advance.
Ferguson asked what action was requested of Council on the "flagship"
projects. Shoemaker replied that it is basically informational to Council.
The first thing that it asked Council to do is to include in their work
program consideration of the project at the Water Treatment Plant I.
Secondly, it asked them to make sure that staff includes the "World Class
Environmental Learning Center." in the implementation of the Natural Areas
Plan.
Ferguson moved and Erthal seconded that the letter be approved. It
carried unanimously.
The funding letter asked Council to keep working with Senator Brown to
assure adequate funding for the Heritage Area.
Johnson moved and Friedman seconded that the letter be approved.
Miller asked if it was worth encouraging supporting legislation by
Senator Brown at even higher funding levels. Ferguson stated that she
liked that idea. Miller further stated that in the initial phases, he
thought the proposal was the $3 million level. Smith asked if there was a
simple way to address this by taking out the parenthetical elements and
leave it to the responsibility of the individual members of Council to be
aware of the funding levels specified or for them to ask for that
clarification. Ferguson stated that she would like to leave the numbers in
to remind Council what Senator Brown and Representative Allard are going
after. Miller agreed. Ferguson further added that she would like a
sentence be put in that states, "believes a higher ($3 million) is needed."
Miller suggested that the last two sentences in paragraph two be reversed.
Shoemaker refreshed the Board's memory that the funding that is
included in the authorization is for the commission to put together a plan
11
for the National Heritagd'Area, not implementatiog it. Smith asked, with
this information, how the Board felt about the way the letter is written
now. All agreed to leave as is.
It carried unanimously
clarification.
New Business
Miller thanked Shoemaker for the
Board input at Council Meetings
A letter was included in the mailing out concerning the fact that, at
Council meetings when issues that Boards have reviewed are being
considered, Council would like for someone from that Board to present the
Board's opinion. This is a representation of the Boards opinion, not
personal opinions. Smith stated that there are good reasons for this,
e.g., in some instances members of staff have had to attempt to interpret
the desires of the respective Boards. Secondly, it begins to recognize the
efforts of the individual board more directly. Smith said that, for the
NRAB this means that for every issue they pass forward to Council, when
Council begins to deliberate that issue someone from the Board should be
present.
Ferguson stated that she disagreed. She does not see it as just when
the Board has an issue under consideration, but that at every single
Council meeting that they have an opportunity to address the Council. To
her that is an important distinction because the Board might therefore want
to talk about something that is not necessarily on Council's agenda. She
feels that the letter gives the Board that opportunity. They can go
everytime and anytime. Miller agreed. Friedman said that he interpreted
the letter partially as Ferguson did; however, it seems to him that the
Board can only do that if the Board approves the presence of that person,
be it the Chair or the Chair's designee.
Shoemaker stated that his understanding of the letter was that Council
wants to formally recognize at the Council meetings the special role of the
Boards and to make sure that they have the opportunity to address the
Council on specific items. The general order of presentation on a regular
scheduled agenda item would be staff presentations followed by Board
presentations. Ferguson asked if it should be limited to the content of
the Council meeting. Shoemaker replied yes. Miller added that they have
the opportunity to just be there and be subject to be called by Council to
speak if they so wish.
Smith said this means that since Council meets one day ahead of the
Board and thirteen days after the board they will have to pay closer
attention to the Council agenda, making sure that when issues the Board has
are on the agenda, someone from the Board is in attendance.
January Meetina Date
Since the regular meeting in January is the first, a holiday, it was
decided to hold the regular meeting January 2. Shoemaker suggested another
meeting be held in January to discuss the Framework for Environmental
Action, the revised Natural Areas Policy Plan, and the implementation plan
for the Natural Areas Plan. Smith recommended that these specific items be
discussed at the regular meeting and that if they do not complete them at
the regular meeting, an alternate date be selected. Swope reminded the
Board that the people who presented Mitigation Funds were told to come back
12
to the January meeting January 15 was agreed foOthe second meeting,
Friedman will not be able to attend.
Scheduled Committee Reports
Transportation Committee (Transportation Plan Update
Smith said that the Mission Statement and Objectives were passed
unanimously at the December 3 Council meeting after a minimum of debate.
The only public input was from C4 and Smith. Horak was the only
Councilmember to comment. His comments were concerns about language. He
was concerned the terminology of whether you meet specifications or meet
the standard. If that was narrowly interpreted, that would mean you hit
the standard on the mark as opposed to doing better than the recommendation
Smith stated that Rick Ensdorff is working to bring forward the
charter for the Transportation Board for Council approval. After it is
approved, board member selection will probably take place in February.
They will not dissolve the Ad -Hoc Transportation Committee.
Smith said that if members knew of anyone living in the city who wants
to serve on the Transportation Board, have them watch for applications in
January or February. Johnson stated that Councilmember Fromme will be the
Council Liaison for the Transportation Board.
Land Use Committee (Solar Orientation Update)
Smith said that the December 3 vote, or multiple votes, by Council was
a good example of politics. Ultimately the ordinance passed, but not at
the 70% level, but at a 65% level. There was vigorous debate by numerous
people; Smith was there along with Friedman; many homeowners and builders
were present to comment on it. Smith recounted the formal action on the
ordinance. The ordinance originally stated a one year time frame for
evaluation. It was changed to 350 homes which is about what occurs in a
year, but if it is a slow year then it gives a longer period of time. The
motion was then amended by Councilmember Winokur to a 60% level. At that
point Councilmember Horak proposed an amendment on the amendment to a 75%
level which was defeated. The 60% level amendment was approved; there was
a vote by Council and it failed 3-4. Those voting for it were Mayor
Kirkpatrick and Councilmembers Fromme and Winokur. At this point Council
took a break because it had already been discussed for close to 3 hours.
When the meeting resumed, there was a comment to watch for something to
happen; Councilmember Horak asked if everything was through on the
amendment and Mayor Kirkpatrick replied, "yes." Horak said that he had
another item for additional business at the end of the meeting; Mayor
Kirkpatrick commented that she wished he would not. Smith stated that at
the end of the meeting, Councilmember Horak brought the issue back and
reamended it to a 65% level for solar orientation. At that point the
ordinance passed 4-3 with Councilmember Horak voting in favor, in addition
to Mayor Kirkpatrick, Councilmembers Winokur and Fromme.
Smith stated that Councilmember Winokur commented that the biggest
effect will not occur in those developments that already having
approximately 60 or 65 or 70%, solar orientation , but in those
developments that are operating at the 26,31, 35, and 37% level. This will
require them to get to 65%. It is not the case of moving the average as
much as the case of moving the minimum.
Friedman said during the break that Council took after the vote had
Ott]
failed, Friedman and a Q�veloper had discussed the issue and the developer
had expressed many problems with the ordinance itself, particularly with
the estimated cost of $21.00 per lot. He said it was absolutely untrue and
showed Friedman some particular new developments where the cost could be
well into the thousands of dollars per lot. Friedman commented that he
felt the Planning Department fell short in coming up with a valid number
for that. He stated that the developer said that the other item that was
untrue was the way the homeowner was perceived as being the person that
comes up with the final decision on how their house will look. He felt
that Council or the Planning Department did not correctly address that. In
reality, a vast majority of home buyers have no say whatsoever in the
nature of what their house is going to look like, although if you are
building a custom home or remodeling you do.
Ferguson moved and Swope seconded that the discussion end. The
motions carried unanimously.
Announcements
Ferguson announced that Citizen Planners is having their annual
Environmental Christmas Party on December 6 at 7:00 at Scott and Katie
Mason's house, 821 Sandy Cove Lane. The Board and staff are invited. For
directions, call Scott or Katie at 226-4824.
Ferguson also said that Citizen Planners is trying to develop an
environmental business after hour once a month. This would be a chance for
those in the community who are working on different issues to come to know
each other and share information.
Smith handed out a letter that Earl Wilkinson wrote to the Boards with
his response to some of the comments that came from different groups.
Shoemaker said that Staff has been looking at options for waste oil
recycling. He will send a copy of the report that was prepared for
Council. They will sponsor quarterly collection at a supermarket type of
location where a tanker will be set up for people to pour their oil in.
It is jointly funded by the Natural Resources Division, Water Utility, and
Stormwater Utility. The preferred option for the oil in the future is to
try and develop contracts with local service stations where they will
accept the material; the City would provide the tanks and pay for disposal.
There is no current funding for this option. Community and grant funding
will be investigated. Smith commented that King Soopers in Denver does a
once a quarter drop off program. The person who coordinates it is Dave
Spencer of King Soopers. Smith also said that there is used oil drop-off
site for employees at Platte River Power Authority and at Rawhide Plant.
Shoemaker added that the City's waste oil program will probably be a joint
venture between the City, Sierra Club, Grease Monkey, and either King
Soopers or Steeles.
Ferguson stated that she had heard that the City was doing an
experiment of using low energy use compact flourescents light bulbs. If it
is true and if there is any data on how effective it has been, she would
like a report on it. Shoemaker noted that Council has a work item to look
at energy policy. The first stage of that is a summary of existing policy.
When that report is ready would be a good time to review the light bulb
experiment.
Smith said that in the discussion of solar orientation Councilmember
14
Edwards said that the*olar orientation ordinance should be part of the
overall energy plan and not brought forward on its own.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
15