Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 05/04/1994MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD COUNCIL INFORMATION CENTER - CITY HALL WEST MAY 4v 1994 For Reference: Bill Miller, NRAB Chair - 493-7693 Chris Kneeland, Council Liaison - 221-2950 Tom Shoemaker, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Natural Resources Advisory Board Members Present: Bill Miller, Chair, Phil Friedman, Lisa Howard, Katy Mason, Craig McGee, Phil Murphy, Hal Swope Board Members Absent (excused): Tim Johnson, Don Tidd N.R. Staff Present: Tom Shoemaker, Edith Felche, Maida Christner Parks ana xecreation aoara Members Present: Marilyn Barnes, K-Lynn Cameron, Sylvia Cramer, Rich Feller, Jessica MacMillan, Mary Ness, Eric Reno, Roger Tarum, Chair. Parks and Recreation Staff Present: Jackie Rael, Randy Balok. Guests Present: Margaret Hentschel, Applicant, NRAB This was a joint meeting of the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Parks and Recreation Board to consider acquisition of the following natural areas: a. Swanda Property b. Deines Property C. D.O.L.L. Property d. Mathews Property Summaries and maps of the four sites, which had been distributed to both Boards previously, are maintained in the Minutes Book. The two Boards met at City Hall West at 4:30 p.m. and toured the Swanda Property and Deines Property, returning at 6:30 p.m. to convene in the Council Information Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., Bill Miller presiding for the Natural Resources Advisory Board and Roger Tarum for the Parks and Recreation Board. Since some of the Board members had not been on the site tour, Tom Shoemaker proposed making brief presentations on each of the four sites being considered for acquisition, answering questions, then asking both Boards for recommendations to present to City Council. Wall -mounted detail maps of the Fort Collins -Loveland Corridor and the areas under consideration were used to pinpoint exact locations and other relevant features. Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 2 a. Swanda Property: This is a 440-acre parcel of land situated outside the urban growth area in southwest Fort Collins near Trilby and Taft Hill Roads. The property is currently listed on the market and if it is not purchased by a public agency, it is eligible to be developed into 35-acre parcels. The owner would like to see public ownership in one block and has offered the property to the City at a discount. The proposal is for a cooperative effort between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County. The property is also listed as an acquisition property for the Larimer County Parks master plan. Larimer County has proposed contributing $100,000 toward the purchase price at this time. If a sales tax passes in November and they have additional revenue available, they will contribute additional monies up to 50 percent of the purchase price. Management planning would be done jointly by Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, with actual maintenance and management of the property to be determined later. The consensus of all who viewed the property was that it is a remarkable piece of land which is relatively pristine. It is described as grassland going upward into shrubland, which is valuable as a mule deer habitat winter range, and capped by the hogback which forms a major view area to the backdrop of the Front Range. While at first this seemed to be too far out of the City, it is within the concept of maintaining an open corridor between Loveland and Fort Collins. Tom Shoemaker asked the Board for a recommendation as to whether or not they would encourage the City Council to authorize the purchase of this property. With an affirmative recommendation, he would take it to the Council on May 17, closing on the property by July 3, 1994. He noted that there is some urgency to this in that the seller has a tax- free exchange set up in Wyoming, so he needs to move fairly quickly. Tom noted that this property was not included in the original estimate of approximately 3,000 acres of natural open spaces to be acquired and was not included in the original cost estimates, so this is beyond what was originally anticipated and it does mean that very likely there will have to be judgments made as to trade-offs in the future. On the other hand, this would meet one of the goals of acquiring significant, large natural areas and seems to fit that concept. There is not much else available of this quality in the vicinity for purchase as a natural area. A question was raised on the liability for maintenance in conjunction with the County. Tom responded that the recommendation to City Council should be under the assumption that the City of Fort Collins would have the major responsibility for management and maintenance. When the sales tax decision is made, the joint/share on -going management with the County could be reconsidered. 0 Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 3 Bill Miller thought probably a group would be formed to examine potential management options, such as use of the area as pure open space with limited visitation, or classroom type environment for the county, similar to what is being done with the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Another question concerned what percentage of fees collected in an entire year this purchase would represent. Tom said that over the 5- year period, roughly $12 million was budgeted for acquisition and this year's budget has about $2.2 million. He was confident the cash flow is available to cover the acquisitions that the Board has been considering and he does not see this purchase as jeopardizing those. The consensus was that this site is ideally located, is in excellent shape and is a disappearing habitat as far as public land is concerned. Its purchase would protect the ridge line that is of concern to both Boards and the County. The price is exceptionally good and it is hard to envision that in the future another piece of property could be bought for that amount of money per acre in that locale in the pristine condition of this one. Another strong concern was that this piece could be developed into 13 - 35-acre lots. Members of both Boards said City Council should be encouraged to see the area before it is brought for a decision, since it cannot be truly appreciated from a diagram or photographs. MOTION by Marilyn Barnes, seconded by Eric Reno, that the Parks and Recreation Board suggest to the City Council that they purchase the (Swanda) property. MOTION CARRIED. K-Lynn Cameron abstained because of a possible conflict of interest due to her position with Larimer County Parks. MOTION by Hal Swope, seconded by Lisa Howard, that the Natural Resources Advisory Board enthusiastically support the purchase of this (Swanda) property and recommend that the City Council visit the area. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Doiaos Property: Site Name: Burlington Northern Ridge. This was the second site visited by the Board. It was in the original inventory of natural areas, and the focus was on the wetland areas and the ridgeline on the eastern boundary of the property. This property is a 200-acre parcel bordered on the north by Trilby Road and on the west by Shields Street. It is within the city limits. Tom indicated on the map where County Rd. 32 would be extended. There is a drainage along the Burlington Northern RR which runs through the middle of the site; a grassland area along the eastern boundary of the property forms the significant natural area; the remaining part of the property is in dry -land wheat. One part was once in dryland wheat but has been put back to pasture. Neither of the Boards had visited this site previously because it was considered to be a moderate priority site; however, the opportunity to purchase the site has been presented by the Deines family. The owners Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 4 are interested in selling and getting some kind of agreement. Tom is looking for the Boards' thoughts and recommendations now; however, since there is no urgency on the purchase of this piece, he felt the Boards may want time to think about it. This is not scheduled for Council consideration and would not be until there are recommendations and a more firm agreement as to the terms of the sale. The sale price will probably be in the $3,000 to $4,000 range. Discussion has been held with the family about bargains or even outright donation and they have agreed to look at less than market price. The owners would consider selling on a rolling option basis where the purchase would be completed over a three-year period. The significant part of the site is the ridge line and connection with a corridor to the north that would hook into the Fossil Creek drainage area. In and of itself, the property is not as significant as some of the other sites being looked at. The Corridor Study, which is on- going, obviously includes this area and preliminary indications are that people do feel that the view up to the east is nice and that it could be part of an open corridor through there. The consideration on going ahead with the purchase at this time is to protect the opportunity to make a future decision about the land west of the RR tracks and trying to acquiring the area between the tracks and the ridge. If the site were kept in a natural area system, a native grassland restoration project would be done so there would be a prairie system. If the Corridor Study concludes this isn't a critical piece, it is possible it could be disposed of at that point in time, which would give the City quite a bit of control over future development in this area. Tom was asked to explain what would have to happen to make the connection to Fossil Creek and the significance of that. He said that, in general, the concept in the natural areas program is a system with large areas like the Cathy Fromme Prairie and Fossil Creek Reservoir, with small corridors of activity between them. Using a map of the area, Tom discussed pertinent sites around the subject area which have a couple of significant wetland systems as well as a drainage coming out of Fossil Creek. His thinking is that it would be desirable to have the wetlands areas as well as a 200 foot buffer zone around them and probably a 300' area, at least, to the west of the railroad tracks, so that you would then have an open space connection down to the Fossil Creek drainage. With regard to the RR right of way, there is no access to the area east of the railroad; that would have to be provided in the future and is one of the difficulties of this piece. Areas that would have to be purchased to form a corridor to Cathy Fromme and Fossil Creek were pointed out on the map and discussed. Bill Miller said that if the area were purchased he could see taking the area now in agricultural use and planting it back to native grasses, and it would not take long for the prairie dogs to occupy the west side of the tracks. He expressed concern with the loss of the Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 5 prairie dog habitat and the resulting reduction in their population which is the food -source for the raptors that winter in the area. He noted that the raptor population is on the increase now because of the protection of the habitat for the bald eagles, but if they lose their food source, the wintering population will decrease again. He therefore sees this property as part and parcel of a larger concept. Since it may not be possible to wrap up one contiguous piece of property, it may be necessary to get these little pieces here and there to preserve the type of habitat that the Board is generally interested in. Bill said the Cathy Fromme Area and the Landfill will probably extend to the south and this would become another extension of that area. Tom said that while this piece is expensive for what it is, it's value is in its connection with the other areas; it can connect Cathy Fromme Prairie and Fossil Creek but other than that, there does not appear to be much value to anyone else and the price may therefore be reduced as time goes on. K-Lynn Cameron expressed concern over the financial picture. She said that obviously trade-offs are being made with these decisions but she doesn't have a feel for what is potentially being traded off. If the bigger purchase is made right now, the Board really needs to look at how much is left, what has been spent year-to-date, and what may be on the horizon, even if they aren't known right now. Tom replied that this is something that he is planning to do with both Boards in the next couple of months; review what has been done so far, and revisit priorities for next year. Most of what has been done so far have been things that were clearly established with the Board. A couple of opportunities have come up that were not anticipated but they were not comparatively large dollar amounts. This piece is one of those that is in the large dollar category but is in the more moderate range. It is in the second tier of priorities. Discussion continued on the feasibility of buying the eastern portion or buying the whole thing and selling the western part, thus maintaining the area for the wildlife and the valuable ridge line. Either way was considered to be a good negotiation. However, another opinion was that you would be left with a relatively narrow strip of about 50 acres in size, with development right and left, and while there may be an ecosystem value on the ground, there probably would be no value for raptors. One hundred acres is a good block, but splitting it in half makes it too small to be valuable for that kind of habitat; geese and waterfowl will go anywhere but it might not work as a raptor area. Tom said that the 200 acres restored with prairie dogs would have a high likelihood of raptor use but if it were split in half it would be too narrow. The sense of the Board was that Tom should continue to work with the owners and if he could get a good deal he should bring it back to the Board; otherwise, to focus on other areas. Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 6 Sylvia Cramer, Mary Ness and Randy Balok left the meeting at this time. C. Humane Society Wetlands (partial) - 53 acres, located in southeast Fort Collins, east of College Avenue, north of Trilby Road in an area surrounding the Fort Collins Humane Society. Tom pointed out the area on a wall map in relation to the adjacent Transfort facility, the Light and Power Substation, Fossil Creek Park, and Paragon Point. He noted that the map had been put together to highlight some of the planning challenges and opportunities for natural area acquisition in that location. The upland areas have substantial development potential; the City of Ft. Collins Southside Service and a bus facility have been constructed. There are another five acres that might be kept for further municipal use but the remainder is a candidate for acquisition for natural areas. The park site is owned by the City, anticipated at some future point as a community park, meaning a Roland Moore type park with active use. It is 99 acres in size and there would be a substantial natural component to it as well. Fossil Creek drains to the east, and there is private open space, and the D.O.L.L. property that is under considered tonight is in the vicinity. There is a substantial amount of wetland adjacent to it. In this area, the Huntington Hills development proposal has been approved and an initial phase received final approval. Diligent attempts have been made to try and get them to sell land to the City that would make a large connection between two areas, D.O.L.L./South side Service Center and the Fossil Creek drainage, but this was not successful. What they have offered in the way of mitigation and what may be possible to achieve is blocking out the areas between the two creeks, Mail Creek and Fossil Creek, working with the private home owners associations as well as the park development, thereby obtaining a substantial area. The City was especially interested in purchasing a large portion of the development property connecting the Humane Society area and the southern shore of Portner Reservoir. Skyway Drive would form the northern border; the wetland extending near there would be disturbed somewhat but basically is still there. There would be a collector street running on the northern side over to Lemay. With the 53 acre D.O.L.L. property and an anticipated proposal to purchase the remainder of the Southside Service Center, the result would be about a 85- to 100-acre parcel of wetland and upland complex. This won't be the 200-250 acres that was hoped for. Tom said a contract had been entered into on the D.O.L.L. property about a year ago, after which an environmental audit was done since there were concerns about previous oil and gas spills from several sites. No groundwater contamination was found, but there were some very small levels of oil and grease contamination in the soil at the property boundary. That is judged not to present a liability concern to the City since they were not the source of it and would not be asked to clean it up. It does not seem to be something that would • C1 Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 7 affect the use of the site, but it is an ongoing concern that must be dealt with, regardless of who owns it, to get the state and county to do the enforcement action it really needs to have. The contract has been extended until there are better answers to these concerns, however that has expired. The owners are now quite interested in having a decision one way or another on this site. The purchase price is $150,000 which is a little under $3,000 an acre. In terms of comparison, Tom said there's been some luck and maybe some good work in acquiring the Fromme Prairie and some others at good bargain prices as the market price is now. Development ground on the low end is priced in the range of $5000-$8,000 up to $16,000 or more, with wetlands and places with some development limitations going in the $2,000-$3,000 an acre range. In terms of market, it cannot be said that the wetlands have no value but if development does occur around this area, it would be unlikely to substantially impact the wetlands, per se. Tom said he is bringing this site to the Boards for discussion because he thinks there is public value in having this large wetland area in public ownership. The Humane Society has proposed generically working together on interpretive kinds of things, such as education, and they are a hypothetical future partner in management. There still is some uncertainty about what will transpire in this whole area and that could be a reason to delay on this a bit longer. This is a fairly large block in terms of a natural wetland. It also gets a fair amount of use by bald eagles, hawks and foxes using that area. It is listed as high on the priority list of natural areas. Discussion was held on the various sites in the area and Tom suggested the Board might wish to take another field trip to review the area. He was asked if there was negotiation on the land between Mail Creek and Fossil Creek and said there was. It is part of the development proposal. An attempt was made to purchase this property, but the owners were most unwilling to sell it and condemnation was not considered under the natural resources program. The developer was asked to provide a mitigation plan and they have done so, but it is not satisfactory and that is still being worked on. what they have proposed by way of mitigation is the opportunity to have a certain portion left undeveloped and they have suggested that the City acquire the area between Mail and Fossil Creeks. That makes a lot of sense, providing the price is OK, but negotiation on that is not very far along. In answer to a question about the contract on the property, Tom said the contract has been extended a couple of times but had expired. In answer to why it had not been acted on, he responded that there were two reasons: one that a better understanding of the contamination was necessary. If gasoline were flowing into the ground water that problem would have to be resolved. It is thought to be at an acceptable level but it was felt desirable to work with those people to make them better neighbors. The other reason has been to get a better handle on what is going to happen in this whole area. Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 8 There does not seem to be a huge risk the property will be lost. Tom was asked if his recommendation was to purchase it or continue the contract. His recommendation was to go ahead and purchase it. He did not think the owners were willing to negotiate on price. He has been working on it for quite some time and at less than $3,000, thinks it is a pretty good price. The Humane Society had negotiated on this property previously; they had no funds but wanted to see how far they could get the price lowered. K-Lynn recapped the situation, noting that staff has been working on this a long time; there has been a contract on it for a year which has been extended a couple of times; it seems to tie into some bigger pictures there. A disappointing factor is the inability to negotiate with the developer on the middle piece of property; however, for the city's reputation and what is being done with all the other land deals, she recommended that the Boards go ahead with it so the City doesn't get a reputation of letting things drag, which might hamper other deals. She said she was not saying that is a reason to go ahead with it; Bill Miller has looked at it in terms of the raptors, and in view of all of the above, the Boards should go ahead and recommend it to City Council. Tom responded that he doesn't think (the City) would have a reputation of dragging our feet because of this property because they've shown they can close deals fast when needed. There are some very legitimate concerns on this one and since there are three leaking underground tanks next door, it's OK to be cautious. Tom was asked if the situation were resolved to where he felt comfortable with it, and he responded that he was, but it's still not perfect; and could not say there are no environmental problems. The construction company next door will have to be dealt with; there is a collector street coming through; it's not going to be a wilderness area situation but it would be a very large, natural wetland, one of the largest natural wetlands in the community with potential for a nice upland habitat and a connection to the Southridge area. It will be an area that has some value and a sense of place to it on its own. Bill Miller asked if Tom wanted to recommend this to Council for purchase at this next meeting and he replied that he did. MOTION by Hal.Swope, seconded by Katy Mason, that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommend (to City Council) the purchase of this area (53 acre parcel known as the Human Society Wetlands). CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by K-Lynn Cameron, seconded by Marilyn Barnes, that Parks and Recreation Board recommend to the City Council that they go forward with the purchase of this piece of property (53 acre parcel known as the Humane Society Wetlands). CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 9 d. Matthews Property, (Inventory N57) This area has become available unexpectedly. It is a triangular 7.5 acre site in the Greenbriar area of north Fort Collins, between the Larimer/Weld canal and East Willox Lane. It is comprised of woodlots and wetland south of the Larimer and Weld canal. Tom located the area on a wall map. The City owns Greenbriar Park. Stormwater owns a wetlands as a detention pond. This Board recently approved acquisition of another property in the same area and the City has closed on those properties. This will be a wetland restoration project, detention pond and pilot demonstration area. A future bike path has been designated in the area by the Northwest Area Transportation study. This came in with the conceptual review for development and was identified as a place to look at. Division personnel went out and looked at the property and given what else is going on there felt it should be purchased to form a nice complex of public use in the area. It is on the scale of a "neighborhood natural area." Deer wander through, foxes and other animals are there. There is agreement on price at $8,000 an acre. It is developable ground and the owners are pushing hard to get a decision quickly. The land is owned by a partnership of people who live in Greeley and eastern Colorado. If developed, it could be broken up into about 21 or more units. Tom noted this is not a major conservation piece, and it is not a critical part of the city's ecosystems. On the other hand, one of the goals is to have throughout the city some of these smaller walking areas for bird watching and that sort of thing. If it were simply this piece and there were not these other things and other departments around it he would not be bringing it to the Boards, but since it does and with the connections along the trail, he thought it made sense to pursue it. The cost of the property previously purchased in the area was $8,000 per acre for the upland piece and around $4,000 per acre for the wetland piece. The Boards requested further identification of the surrounding properties and proposed development, which Tom explained. On the other side of the canal are single family developments with quite large lots. The area east of the Stormwater land is undeveloped. There is a development proposed along Lemay MOTION by Marilyn Barnes, seconded by Jessica MacMillan, that the Parks and Recreation Board recommend"to City Council to purchase this property (Mathews Property, Inventory N57). CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Katy Mason asked a question about the negotiation status and Tom said there was another party interested in this parcel. He owns property across the street, but because the view has been obstructed by the Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page to construction of another house, he would like to have a lot in the proposed site(about 3-1/2 acres). Tom had told him that the City wanted the entire property and was not interested in his proposal. This other party had made another offer to the owners so it is possible the City will have some competition and may lose it. Stormwater would buy about two acres (one quarter) of the property. MOTION by Hal Swope, seconded by Craig McGee, that Tom Shoemaker be authorized to recommend purchase of this property (Matthews Property, Inventory N57) to City Council. The Chair asked if there was further discussion. Phil Friedman said he was concerned and wanted to make sure that in working with other parties in these close -in situations these purchases did not result in a windfall for a certain person or certain people which is really not fair to anyone else in the community because they don't happen to live next to the area. He wanted to be cautious about that type of situation occurring. The intent is to purchase the natural areas for their natural resource content without strings attached or struggling with people living in the area. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for the vote and the MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Tom thanked the Parks and Recreation Board for participating and the meeting recessed at 8:35 p.m. at which time the Parks and Recreation Board left. The Natural Resources Advisory Board regular monthly meeting resumed at 8:45 p.m. Approval of Minutes of the April 6. 1994 Meeting. There being no discussion, corrections, additions or deletions, the Chair called for a motion to approve the Minutes of the April 4, 1994 Board meeting. MOTION by Hal Swope, seconded by Kathy Mason that the minutes of the April 6, 1994 meeting be approved as submitted. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. nvironmental Action Awards to Schools: Phil Friedman, Chair of the Education Committee, said the committee had reviewed the four applications that were submitted by the schools. Phil noted this is the first year of the split version of the Environmental Awards. This spring awards are being made only to schools. The rest of the awards will be considered later in the year. The Committee was disappointed in the small number of school participants, which may have resulted from the way the competition was structured this year. 1 C Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 11 Of the four entries submitted, two were chosen to get awards, and two to get certificates of recognition. This was not the first time an award had been presented to more than one entry. The Committee was asking for agreement or disagreement with the two suggested winners, or if the Board had a different recommendation. The Committee felt the two other entries clearly did not merit an award, while the winners were of equal merit. Phil explained that at first the entry entitled, "Environmental Action" had been considered the winner, but upon further reflection it was decided that what the other school was doing, while it was not of the same scope or scale, was quite interesting and innovative, particularly with the idea of composting food within a public building. They were able to work with the Health Department and overcome all hurdles and actually do it. MOTION by Hal Swope, seconded by Craig McGee, to accept the recommendation of the Education Committee on the Environmental Action Award to Schools. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Phil Friedman said the Mayor would be given the option of making the award to both schools, with or without a member of the Board present. If the Mayor cannot do it, then a member of the Committee should make the presentation. It was felt this was more appropriate because Committee members were more familiar with the award structure. Centennial High School was a winner with a landscaping project. Dunn Elementary was the other winner with a food composting project. The other two schools that entered were Moore Elementary School and Putnam Elementary. Tom Shoemaker referred to a memo from the Mayor (contained in the Board's packets) regarding preparation the City's 1995 Annual Budget, in which Boards and Commissions are asked for suggestions on any key budget issues that are of concern to them. Meadow Springs Stormwater Utility Property: Hal Swope said he was concerned with the over -grazing on the Meadow Springs Storm Water Utility property. Volunteers from CSU will build a fence but there are no funds with which to purchase the materials. Five miles of fencing would be of tremendous value. A dollar cost amount will be checked out. ISTEA Grant Application for Water Treatment Plant 11 Bill Miller said a recommendation should be made to the Council to contribute $30,000 to $40,000 to make up the difference lacking in the $131,000 matching grant application for ISTEA at Water Treatment Plan ,#1, and get the access opened up. (Total Cost of project - $656,000.) Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 12 Status Budgeting for Natural Areas Katy Mason asked if the Council continued to budget for natural areas in light of the 1/4-cent sales tax. Tom replied that they only covered two areas; Parks Maintenance, who do open space management, is still funded at the level that it was for existing areas; and we are not charging for existing staff time, such as Tom, Karen Manci and Rob Wilkinson or others who work on the natural areas. Last year Council did not include any additional monies other than the 1/4 cent sales tax. Katy said she did not agree with that. The 1/4 cent sales tax was voted on as an addition to what was already happening, not to replace the program that was already in place. There are some large areas that can't even be approached; there is the Fossil Creek issue, in which a partnership with lot of other entities will be needed, but time is of the essence, and if we need more monies, I would suggest going to Council. Hal Swope agreed and noted that there was a budget requested every year which he thought the Board should continue to request. Tom said the Council had appropriated $200,000 each of three years but there was never anything said about continuing that. Hal Swope asked if it should be put in the form of a motion. Tom thought a memo would be appropriate. Poudre River Study. Council has budgeted $40,000 for this year. Katy wondered if more would be needed to do it right. The team will consist of Kari Henderson and Jeff Lakey from CSU. Tom has seen the scope of work and it looks good to him. The budget is $1,000 over what was appropriated. Other Budgetary Matters: Since the budget process goes from now to mid -November, the Board should feel free to communicate to Tom or the Council any additional ideas they might have. Natural Resources Division: Katy asked what areas of emphasis that Tom sees in the Natural Resources Division that may need additional funding. Tom said he did not have a good picture of that in his own mind yet. He knows that all are working awfully hard, have dropped the ball in a couple of areas and need to look at whether that is a question of the order of priorities or whether there is a need for additional staff. Monitoring Equipment: Hal Swope asked if more money is needed for monitoring water quality or air quality. He expressed concern that staff did not seem to believe in monitoring air quality or want more equipment but he doesn't agree with that. He said a lot of things have happened since the one site was selected for air quality monitoring that we have and something entirely different would be found if there were another station out at the Harmony Road area. He felt Brian did not want more equipment. Tom said he thought it is not a matter of not wanting it, it's a matter of the relative value of monitoring versus programs that work toward cleaning our air. Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 13 Industrial Pollution: Katy Mason expressed concern with the issue of industrial pollution and that we are not on top of at all. She wondered if it was a matter of not having the money for equipment or what. Tom said that is an issue in terms of completing an emissions inventory and those kinds of things and until that work is done, we won't know what to suggest to monitor. But it is not his role at this meeting to debate the merit one way or another. An Air Quality Action Plan has just been adopted and that is one which will receive a lot of scrutiny also. Additional resources may have to be requested to make sure that is handled well. Recycling Review: Tom reported that the recycling review is proceeding well; that could be a major budget issue as it progresses. Bill Miller said the Larimer County Environmental Advisory Board had a booth at the Lawn and Garden Show and about 50 percent of the comments received from seventy or eighty persons were related to recycling. There still seems to be a lot of confusion on the part of the public. Apparently the haulers are not doing a good enough job of keeping their customers informed and it is one of those issues that needs to be kept in the forefront all the time. Trash Hauling by City: Hal Swope asked about the status of trash hauling by the City and if it would be on the 1995 election, noting that budgeting would have to be done for that. Tom replied he is working to get information to the point where Council and community could decide whether or not to put it on the ballot and he would report on that at the next meeting. Bill Miller asked if the City can participate as a municipal hauler, create a new city service, or were they precluded from that by the recent state legislation. Tom said they were not precluded and could do that with certain notification. The legislation requires that if the City moves to municipal services, they must provide a "Request for Proposal" to private haulers. Private haulers and the city would submit proposals and the contract would go to the best proposal. The other option is to contract. Budget items for the xayor: 1. The riparian issue at Meadow Springs, and fencing. 2. The ISTEA grant, assuming it's approved. 3. Funds for natural areas 4. Poudre River Study Air Quality & Recycling Tom asked the Board if they wanted air quality and recycling issues put on the list or just talked about. The Board just wanted to make sure those items were funded properly to fulfill the Air Quality Plan. Phil Friedman suggested that the Board should make the Council aware that one of the problems with recycling has been identified as being a some confusion and lack of awareness by the public and that is due to the need for more education and that costs money. Only a certain amount can be done with a given amount of funds; with twice as much or Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 14 half -again as much you can put out that many more radio spots, coordination with King Soopers, etc. Bill Miller suggested adding an item for more money for recycling, education, materials and demonstration recycling projects. Growth Management Bill Miller asked if it is still valid to pursue the idea of determining just what growth costs and making a development pay it's own way. Tom thought it was valid and very reasonable for the Board to identify general areas like growth management, and make sure there is enough resource there to get all the planning work done. Miller said this is a big issue there at the County level also. The permitting process for 35-acre parcels, even where there is no Planning & Zoning work, but just the building permits doesn't pay their own way either. Free Dump Day Miller said it is cost prohibitive to have the free dump days. He said that on the average weekend there are 400 vehicles a day; on the free weekend, there were 2700+ on Saturday and 2900 on Sunday. The Landfill took in over 9,000 pounds of foam, 4-1/2 tons of hazardous waste, such as acid, much of which was identified by people directing traffic. Members expressed concern that people saved their trash for a year and take in on the free day. Tom said the intent when establishing the free day was to promote community cleanliness and the alternative that we're jointly suggesting is a certain amount of credits from each community towards landfill charges for bona fide community cleanup rather than "y'all come." Miller said there would be no more free dump days. Designation of Rockv Mountain National Park as a Wilderness Area: This referral came from the Council Legislative Committee in the form of a letter from Senator Wayne Allard that asked for the City's view on this. The Legislative Committee is seeking any particular views from the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Water Board. At the time the letter was received there was no particular legislation but apparently legislation was introduced on Monday. Tom has not yet seen the legislation but is aware of it from the media. Senator Hank Brown is upset about it because it does involve water rights and interests. Federal reserved water rights means it can have implications on downstream water users. In terms of management of the Park, Homer Rouse who is the Superintendent, has called for the designation. He has said it would underscore the existing historic management of the Park and would protect it from any commercial development that might be proposed in the Park. Question was if this was a true wilderness designation, like in the Rawah. Tom responded that it was. Bill said not the entire Park would be so designated but those areas that are now roadless. It would preclude any further road building. An example would be the area from Bear Lake, up. Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 15 Bill Miller understood from Kim Ashley, who is a retired Park Service Manager, is on the Larimer Board and was in a meeting with Homer, and paraphrasing Homer, was saying that it was to protect the Park Service from itself. Essentially, you could get a route through the Park right now just to alleviate the congestion. The wilderness designation would preclude them from doing that. Miller continued that he had seen that Hank Brown has said that the Parks were created for recreational use and we should be encouraging that but for the last few years it's pretty well documented that Parks are being abused from over use and they are thinking of a rationing system with only so many people a day allowed in. Friedman said that one of the nice things about Rocky is the complete absence, except for the Visitor's Center, of any tourist activities in the Park itself. No hotels, no grand hotel, no motels, no tourist - trap stores, no grocery stores. It is the fifth most visited Park in the country - over 2 million people a year - so something like this would do wonders to preserve the feel of that park. Contrast it to Yellowstone, Yosemite or Glacier or even Mesa Verde, all of which has a lot of that kind of thing, which is OK for those parks, but maybe Rocky is one that shouldn't have any of that. They don't all need to have that level of activity. He is sure there would be pressures for that type of use in the future. The Chair asked if the Board should take a formal position of recommending support for, against, or remain neutral on the legislation to give the City some guidance on that. Tom said it was whatever the Board felt comfortable with. He thinks the Council is looking for that kind of input, or just to make them aware of general feelings about the designation. Tom was asked who had requested the information and he said it was the City Council Legislative Committee, composed of Chris Kneeland, Alan Apt and Ann Azari. It is a subcommittee of the Council that works intensively on state and federal legislation. There is a group of staff that work closely with them. The Chair said that since they are looking for input and specifically asked for it, it would be most effective as a motion. MOTION by Hal Swope, seconded by Phil Friedman, to (recommend to Council to) support this bill to help the Park protect themselves against themselves or anyone else. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Following the motion considerable discussion was held on the ramifications this legislation might have on water rights and the Board said they are concentrating on the land value issues and not addressing the water management issues. It was noted that the reservoirs are not under Park management; they were grandfathered into the (water law) by the irrigation companies. Tom said the Water Board is looking at this also. The Chair called for the vote and the motion carried unanimously. Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 16 Worksession - May 18: Tom said there was a request at the last meeting from a woman named Ann Yang to talk about issues with respect to adjacent development in the Cathy Fromme Prairie and there is need for some further Board discussion of those issues and looking at perhaps some alternatives out in the area, weighing pros and cons in attempting to do additional acquisition and some of those kinds of things. He knows that there are interested parties who would like to address the Board and participate in a public discussion of that area. Tom suggested that a way of handling that might be to have a work session mid -month, focused primarily on that and allow some extensive conversation and discussion and then if its needed for this Board to take a particular position, that could be done in June, having had a little bit of time to think about it. He had in mind trying to structure it in the form of a work -shop with some presentations and information on what the situation is and what some potential alternatives are and then actually bring in a facilitator to try and work with small groups to look at pros and cons and options. Tom thinks the developer would show up and/or his consultants. There's a fairly large contingent of interested parties in the area that would like to come. He asked if the Board was interested in having a work session in mid -May to talk about that particular area. Katy Mason asked what the status of it is now. Tom replied that the status is that the zoning was finally approved and it ended up at two units per acre. There is some new information that was part of the review process. Staff has documented that there is more extensive use of trees on the next parcel than was known previously, including night use, which shed a little different character on it. Tom hired a consultant to check the Division's work and to look at the issues, but the bottom line comes down to Phases II and III. It is unlikely that they could develop without disrupting the use of the trees as a night roost so the trade-offs are, how important is that? If that's really important, should we pursue acquisition and to what ends? How much money would we be willing to spend, plus there are implications that even if we did that, we would pretty much have to follow the same course of logic on quite a bit of additional land. There are some things to talk about; alternatives ranging from acquisition to accepting loss, trying to swap some lands for development and reconfiguring some things, possibly using some of the existing Fromme Prairie land along Shields. Some of those kinds of things that may sound crazy, but need to be looked at in terms of alternatives. Miller said it also gets the Board into the whole idea of how additional open spaces are treated as they are acquired. Should properties just be bought and developed right up to the borders or should the Board be looking far enough ahead of time and trying to buy the transitional zones, so to speak, and look at some buffering, either by purchasing additional land or else restricting development on adjacent properties. It's an issue whose time has come. 1 • • Natural Resources Advisory Board Meeting May 4, 1994 Page 17 Addressing Tom, Bill asked if he was considering just an information session or should the Board expect to take any action. Tom replied he thought it would likely get to the point where a recommendation would be needed from the Board, but that could be done at the June meeting. The proposal was for an informational/working session. It was agreed that the Board would take a quick trip over to the area before that meeting. Tom was asked to arrange to get into the Robbins property. The date set was the third Wednesday of the month, meeting at 5:30 p.m. at 281 North College, carpooling to the area and returning for a 7:00 p.m. meeting. Those who do not want to come into town to carpool, could meet there at the intersection os Fossil Creek and Shields and walk across. Dinner will be provided on return to 281 North College. Other Business - Bill Miller asked about the status of the Poudre River Study and whether a contractor had been selected. Shoemaker reported that Kari Henderson Associates and Jeff Lakey from C.S.U. had been selected as the consulting team, but the contract had not yet been signed. Bill Miller asked if staff had provided a follow-up letter to Light and Power on the prairie dog management study at the substation site near Prospect and Timberline. Shoemaker said he had not yet followed up with the letter but would try and get it done very soon. MOTION by Phil Friedman, seconded by Katy Mason, to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.