Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 02/15/2006MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting//Worksession 200 W. Mountain, Suite A February 15, 2006 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison - 217-1932 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Linda Knowlton, Jerry Hart, Glen Colton, Clint Skutchan, Alan Apt, Ryan Staychock, Rob Petterson, Nate Donovan, Joann Thomas Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Stokes, Terry Klahn, Susie Gordon, John Armstrong Guests Ann Hutchinson Agenda Review Glen Colton is wondering if it would be possible to have a joint discussion with the Transportation Board about CDOT's plans for Carpenter Road. He would like to hear other perspectives and it would be nice to do a walk -a -round. Public Comments None Review and Approval of Minutes: With the following changes the minutes of the January 18, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved: Staychock: page 11 of 21, add "er" to commuter Staychock: page 12 of 21, 3rd bullet, replace "by" with "use" Staychock: page 18 of 21, lg` bullet, 3'd to last sentence, replace "hope" with "hop" Correct spelling of "Petterson" in entire document. Election of Officers, Nate Donovan Chair: • Linda Knowlton nominated Rob Petterson as chair. • Petterson declined the nomination. • Joann Thomas nominated Linda Knowlton as chair and Rob Petterson as vice -chair. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 2 of 11 • Knowlton accepts the nomination with the condition that she receives assistance from Board members in writing the memos. • The motion for chair was seconded by Glen Colton. • The motion for chair passed unanimously. Vice -chair: • The nomination of Rob Petterson was seconded by Jerry Hart • Nate Donovan nominated Ryan Staychock. • Clint Skutchan seconded the nomination. • Staychock said he would like to bring a learning component to the board, not just from staff, but also from other community assets. Staff is always giving presentations, but there are many other viewpoints in the City. • Ryan Staychock was elected vice -chair by secret balloting with a count of 6 votes for Ryan Staychock 3 votes for Rob Petterson Recycling 5 — Year Strategic Plan, Susie Gordon and John Armstrong Susie Gordon said she would like to break the discussion into two parts, one part going over the packet containing the consultant's recommendations (the executive summary) and the second part talking about measures that are not included in the consultant's suggestions. Gordon said they'd be going to council on the 28`s. She would like a chance to come back to the board before that (at the board's March meeting) to talk about what staff has finalized as their recommendation. • Hart: How are the haulers responding to this report? • Gordon: There are two haulers on the committee. They've been involved. I think the other haulers are hearing indirectly. We heard some strong opinions yesterday. We have one more meeting. Both groups should simultaneously hear the direction we're heading in. • Colton: How did we establish 50% as being the goal? • Gordon: When council started being concerned, about ten or fifteen years ago, they set goals. Council agreed that 50% by 2010 seemed like an appropriate level of waste diversion. • Hart: I've seen in the paper that Council is very supportive of this. • Gordon: You might have seen articles about the public opinion. The public is supportive. I don't know if we have a read from Council. • Stokes: This study is in response to a work session a year or so ago. We talked about the 50% diversion rate, and we said that we cant get there without devising new strategies. They told us to go back and do some planning, develop ideas and come back. Gordon reviewed the draft packages and received comments from the Board: #7 Res — Curbside yard waste and Single stream recycling • Gordon: The haulers said they wish we wouldn't put so much emphasis on single stream. • Gordon: Communities with this type of program do extremely well with diversion. • Gordon: Haulers have asked for alternate week recycling. • Gordon: Haulers don't perceive this as something beneficial. • Thomas: Isn't what they're doing now single -stream? • Gordon: There are features of single -stream. If they chose to they could deliver single - stream. Their desire is to collect a dual stream. Going to single stream is a big investment. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 3 of 11 • Petterson: They get higher prices for the separate materials. • Knowlton: It seems that yard waste collection would not be year round. • Gordon: As part of this proposal its only a requirement during 6 months of the year. • Skutchan: Then they could return to every week. • Gordon: That would be confusing to people. • Gordon: This is really a central feature of the consultant's proposal. There would be a significant impact in increasing our diversion level. • Armstrong: This mimics trends in other parts of the country that have moved to a 3 container system. There are two large containers, organics and recyclables, and one small one that is trash. • Skutchan: People are creatures of habit. Are there other size containers. Like for elderly people who don't consume much to start with. • Gordon: That's feasible. • Colton: What six months? • Gordon: The growing season, April through November. • Colton: It seems like a good idea overall. #9 Res- Enhanced education push No comments. #10 Com'l — Commercial food waste • Gordon: There's no one in this part of Colorado accepting this yet. It would create a demand for a business that has not been established yet. • Sktuchan: What you're supposing is a private entity would collect and disperse? • Gordon: The haulers would be in a position to collect food waste • Skutchan: But you think there's someone that accept and divert the material? • Armstrong: The infrastructure is not quite in place. • Skutchan: Are there people you've talked to? • Petterson: Roger Hageman is interested if we can work out the regulatory issues. • Gordon: Loveland is close to allowing food waste in the yard waste. • Skutchan: Where would it go in the winter? • Staychock: A-1 Organics will accept food waste. • Gordon: A-1 is a big player. #12 Com'l — 3 months free recycling to business • Gordon: The cost of this is to the City. One time deal. It's likely to be attractive to haulers and the business community. • Skutchan: What about a business that starts up, closes down.... • Gordon: That would be a detail we'd have to work out. #15 Com'l — Recycling container mandatory for businesses with more than 10 cu yd disposal weekly • Gordon: Lots of businesses would be eligible for this program. The cost would be to the business. The haulers would not be required to absorb the cost. The haulers would be pleased to drop off recycling containers to customers. • Skutchan: Who would monitor this? • Knowlton: This would have to be an ordinance, right? Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 4ofII • Gordon: Yes. It could be two pronged monitoring. There are whatever resources we (the City) would need, and the haulers would be able bodied helpers. I don't think we'd be making them culpable. But it is in their interest to go out and extend the offer and recruit people to be part of the program. We think they would be willing participants. • Skutchan: What's the standard for duration? • Gordon: Once a customer signs up for a level of service it doesn't go back and forth. • Skutchan: I worry about that. If I am a business man its an added expenditure. • Gordon: If you have extra trash the company will schedule an extra day, or spot you an extra can. Its part of the concept we're trying to get people to think about. #18 No comments. #20 No comments. #22 C&D • Gordon: When you request a permit you pay a disposal fee. You get the money back if some percent of your waste has been recycled. If you fail to do the recycling the money goes into a fund to pay for the administration of the program, and the other recycling initiatives. • Skutchan: How would that deposit be determined? • Gordon: Probably the square footage of the project. • Armstrong: There are details that would need to be detailed out. • Skutchan: Seems like it could be a quagmire. Would this go through Council? • Gordon: Yes. • Colton: Since all of these are trying to divert waste from going into the land fill.... • Gordon: The land fill that Larimer County funds is in direct competition with private entities. They have to have a competitive pricing system. There's a federal law that the destination of trash can not be determined. #25 No comments. #26 C&D — Hauler incentives to "prospect for C&D" • Skutchan: If the City would pay where do these dollars come from? • Gordn; That's the question behind all of these. We're here floating ideas. • Knowlton: To clarify, if you did all of these things it would be an additional 19% diversion? • Gordon: Yes, with as much accuracy as we're able to get to. #32 No comments. #41 Multi -family • Knowlton: We've talked about this for a long time. #42 No comments. #43 No comments. #44 No comments. #45 No comments. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 5 of 11 #46 No comments. • Gordon: Phase II would be escalating the programs, and bans. • Petterson: Would this be a ban at the pick up site, or the destination site? • Gordon: The idea would be that in Fort Collins you cant put certain materials in your trash. Loveland has effectively banned a -waste in their community. • Hart: Can you talk about the costs in the first column. What's the average cost? • Gordon: In the full report there's a way to quantify the costs. • Colton: How much does a truck hold? • Gordon: It depends on the type of vehicle. • Hart: You're talking about $.04 a month for a residential consumer? • Gordon: The average is 1.5 tons per person per year according to data provided to the City by local trash haulers. • Petterson: We agreed we need to model that and include it in the report to Council. We got into a discussion of if these numbers are entirely accurate. It's important to remember "this is the low cost option", there's a level of precision that might not be there. • Skutchan: We went through the Phase II stuff quickly. What are the numbers in parenthesis? • Armstrong: Phase 2 is more of a secondary package that could be used to augment if we implemented all of Phase I and found the diversion wasn't what we thought it would be. • Skutchan: I'm not a big believer in mandates and bans. I'm not saying these aren't good ideas. The education piece is a smaller amount of money and would still be moving toward your direction. I'm a big believer in educating people and letting them decide for themselves. I believe in freedom. This is a highly educated community. • Gordon: That's a good point. There are a couple of percentage points to be gained through education. But if you're intent on a much higher level it calls for a more drastic level. Handout #2 • Gordon: This was omitted in the consultants report • Knowlton: Would the City need to subsidize half the fee for residential? • Gordon: The idea is it wouldn't be completely free. • Knowlton: I don't see why the City would need to subsidize it all. • Hart: It's fine in addition to the curb containers. • Petterson: Hageman already does this. He's touchy about this idea. • Colton: What additional people are you trying to get to? • Gordon: If you assume you have curb side the need is less dire. If you don't, this would become the alternative. • Skutchan: If this in an enhancement I wouldn't be for subsidizing it. We don't want the City subsidizing the County folks. • Gordon: In Loveland you have to bring your utility bill. There are five or seven communities who have free drop off. • Apt: In lieu of curb side? • Gordon: Loveland has both. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 6 of 11 • Donovan: How likely is it that most people will take yard waste other than leaves to a drop off facility? • Colton: If seems like if you don't do the curb side you wont be diverting as much. This would not be as good as curb side. #3 Optional Sign up • Petterson: We talked about this yesterday. It's $10 a month. I said if it were $2 or $3 I would sign up. We have to get a sense of the price point. • Gordon: The way it was introduced was that you must provide the service, but you can charge whatever you want. • Petterson: If you mandate the market the price will come down. • Harth I don't think you're going to fill up a 35 gallon container in a week. We're not gearing this to someone with 3 or 4 acres. I don't need this level of service. • Donovan: I agree with Jerry and Rob. • Apt: Some years ago we talked about districting. • Gordon: We didn't model it. We've heard pretty loud and clear from Council that districting is not on the table. • Apt: A City Trash Utility is a lot more radical than districting. • Knowlton: What would the $.25 environmental fee pay for? • Gordon: A variety of things. Grants, zero interest loans, creating infrastructure.. • Armstrong: An educational program. • Stokes: The haulers have been supportive of an enhanced education program. • Skutchan: As a consumer, if I'm paying a monthly fee ... You'd have to be careful how you spend that money. People will feel like they're never going to see that dollar. Why would you want to support charging yourself for no return? That's my initial thought. • Knowlton: I do think it's interesting the number of fees the City is talking about right now. New revenue sources, which is a tax by any other name. We have to avoid the telephone bill conundrum. Where you pay more in fees than for the actual service. People are going to wise UP. • Staychock: I'd be willing to pay so much money per year to receive a quarterly publication, made out of recycled paper, on education. I'd like to see more information. • Gordon: In the survey it was interesting to see how strongly people felt about being able to spend a little more money toward measures to enhance recycling opportunities. A high percentage of people were willing to find the money. • Petterson: If we get to a place where we need revenue to run a yard waste drop off program, that question would be how to fund it. • Apt: I think it needs to be a concrete thing, like curb side pickup or more recycling containers. Here's what I'm getting for my money, and its saving me trouble too. • Stokes: It's misleading to talk just about the City. Some of these programs may cost the haulers more. And that will be passed on to the consumer. Where does the willingness to pay fall out? That's important to know if we're going to pass an ordinance to require the haulers to do something new. • Petterson: I would not be excited to see the City pass a fee and subsidize the haulers. I would rather see the haulers pass the rates on. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 7of11 • Hart: by diverting waste from the landfill the City saves money by extending the life of the landfill. • Petterson: We should be clear in the education that we're extending the life of the landfill. • Colton: Where do the haulers have to take yard waste? • Gordon: If Hageman isn't there, the next closest is a site in Eaton run by A-1 Organics. • Colton: That might be when we'd need a city site. • Colton: It seems weird that it would cost more to do alternate weeks. • Stokes: We're not in the trash hauling business. It's hard for us to know. The haulers are not willing to say with precision. They're in competition. They're business people and they're shrewd. The consultant can give a pretty decent ball park average. • Skutchan: I'd be careful about this environmental fee. Label it appropriately. People may assume it's the same as the open space tax. • Apt: A ban on electronic waste is a good idea. • Knowlton: It s a wonderful idea. #40 Eco Park • Gordon: This is on our workplan. #44 Paper recycling • Gordon: This would be more drop off sites. It's a convenience factor. • Petterson: Small scale? • Gordon: Yes. • Petteson: What happens from a contamination point of view? If something looks or feels like a trash thing it will get used. • Staychock: I think it's a great idea. • Colton: These are all good ideas. Maybe we need to re -address if Larimer County really needs to be in the land fill business. • Gordon: That's a basic argument. • Knowlton: You plan to have your recommendations available by the 27a'? Possible Board Recommendation to Council on CDOT's SH392 Environmental Overview Study, John Stokes Stokes said that Options A and C are both contenders. Both have environmental consequences. It's not clear which route would be better from an environmental perspective. We met with County Open Space staff, Transportation staff and had a long talk with Mark Jackson. We agreed to make the same recommendation to both the Transportation Board and the NRAB. Both are viable options, both have an up side and a down side. • Petterson: Was there a "no -action" alternative? • Stokes: Not that I'm aware of. • Hart: In a NEPA study there has to be. • Stokes: I guess it could be an alternative. The Transportation Master Plan called for 4 or 6 lanes, I believe it was 6. What Mark is telling me is its extremely unlikely for a very time. It could be twenty years away. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 8 of 11 • Petterson: From my perspective its an enabling type of thing. If you build more capacity people will use it. • Apt: I don't see compelling reasons for doing anything. • Stokes: The way we looked at it was, assuming an expanded roadway in twenty years, both A and C were viable options. • Knowlton: Between the two, you're not saying either is better than the other? Is "E" a non- starter? • Stokes: From the perspective of the County and City "E" is not going to go anywhere. Initially Mark Jackson and CDOT were leaning toward "A". We were not certain it was the best. We thought "C" might be better. After looking at it on the ground we realized "A" or "C" might work. We didn't want to get wedded to one or the other. • Hart: I guess the real question is, the choke point is I-25. The highway is not a problem if I sense the group correctly. We ought to say we don't think anything should be done till the intersection is redesigned. • Stokes: Another choke point is the intersection with Timberline. One of the options there is a round -a -bout. • Colton: We need to work on the choke points and not expand the whole thing. I hate to throw out "E". Our purview is the natural resource. What if "E" was in there? Would that be the preferable one, or are there others? I don't know why Fort Collins Sanitation concern's are more important that natural resource concerns. • Stokes: It wasn't just the sanitation district. It was also the County. From their perspective "E" wasn't viable. • Colton: They were the ones who allowed all of this development to begin with. • Stokes: We co -manage Fossil Creek. That's why we met out there. • Stokes: There's an impact now. If we moved it away, it might get rid of that impact. • Colton: I'd go with the null until I hear more about "E". • Staychock: I support widening, and option "A". The road is there. There are impacts to the soils. I'm vehemently against "C" and "E". • Stokes: The road is an impact. If it needed to be widened and the curves straightened it would go through wetland and the north bank of Duck Lake would have to be pushed south. If we move to option "C" it wouldn't have the same impact on Duck Lake, but it would impact wetlands. Either way we're going to impact land we own and manage right now. • Donovan: I can understand it impacting the wetlands on the west side. On the east side is there a possibility of going up to the land we own north of the road, upland habitat? That might be less destructive than the north bank. • Donovan: I wonder about the owners and the condemnation issues. • Apt: What if you look at "C" and you move that a little farther south? • Skutchan: One of the key things on "A" is the concern of it dividing the area. If they are to leave a road are you going to be able to dictate which one it is? When you look at the right- of-way there's nine acres of difference between "A" and "C". The wetland is four additional acres with "C". Look at the combined impact and measure between the two. You should have your say on the best possible option of the realistic ideas of what's going to go forward. The alternative is "A". If you go with the null option I believe your voice is lost. You lose part of your ability to comment on the others in a formal fashion. I don't think that's realistic. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 9 of 11 • Knowlton: It seems from a purely environmental view point alternative "E" is the best. We were told "B" had the least effect on park lands and open space. It seems to conflict with what the County people told you. Alternative "C" has the greatest wetland effect. Putting all of them together, from a purely natural resources view, "E" is the best. You say it's a non- starter, but we should make a recommendation on the values we represent. • Stokes: The difference between "A" and "C" environmental impacts are hard to discern. Until the road was more carefully engineered, and we thought hard about what we could mitigate its hard to say one alternative was better or worse. • Skutchan: My concern is that there is going to be a footprint, regardless of "A" or "C". • Petterson: Setting aside the null option, at some level what needs to happen is these things need to be considered in twenty years. Who knows what's going to happen. I don't know, maybe null isn't viable. • Donovan: Except that one of the ideas is they want to start acquiring land now. • Colton: We should only look at "C" or "E" if we get a firm commitment the old road will be shut off, they put up a gate. Clint Skutchan made the following motion: Move that the NRAB advises Council with some hesitance that we move forward with Option A, with the idea that we're continually updated on the impacts as they come about. Ryan Staychock seconded the motion. • Petterson: I don't want to see this board effectively unconditionally show acceptance of this road, regardless of the reality. • Hart: I go along with that. It seems that by focusing on the road we're not focusing on the problem. This board ought to say, go with the most benign environmental alternative for improvement to the road. But, until you can deal with bottlenecks it doesn't really matter. You're not dealing with the problem. • Skutchan: Hwy 392 and I-25, if things stay the course, will be taken care of far before this would come into play. We're being asked to decide on this stretch. To me the three options that have the impacts on the conservation easements, open space and ROW are the primary concerns for us. The motion was defeated with two members (Staychock and Skutchan) voting in favor and seven members (Knowlton, Hart, Colton, Apt, Petterson, Donovan, Thomas) opposed. • Knowlton: We could support the staff recommendation that either "A" or "C" is..... • Petterson: Personally, I feel its very important that consideration be given to not widening the road at all, and focus on the choke points. And that if the road must be widened we're in accord with where staff is. • Apt: "A" and "C" are a toss up. Add "E" as the back end. If they wanted to they could work it out, and make adjustments to make it more tenable. Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 10 of 11 • Stokes: There seems to be uncertainty. You might adopt a resolution that doesn't endorse any alternative, but simply says that future information and research is needed. • Apt: We need to focus on the choke points first, and if you're going to look at these other things you need more data. • Donovan: I agree with Clint, we're not putting our best foot forward if we on suggest the null alternative, but we can talk about choke points and things that need to be done before its widened and still accomplish our role of advising Council. • Hart: As a point of fact, this board's purview is Duck Lake and natural areas. Rob Petterson made the following motion: Move that the NRAB strongly encourage Council to direct the Transportation Department to seriously consider when and if the road needs to be widened at all, with an intent to deal with choke points and other constraints before widening the road. And , if at such time the road needs to be widened, that the least environmentally impacting alternative be chosen. At that time we would need more information on "A", "C"and "E" to make that recommendation. • Knowlton: This is an EOS, this is not the EIS. They would have to come back with and EIS before anything happened. • Stokes: There's a lot more process invovled. • Knowlton: If we had an EIS we'd be more clear. • Skutchan: I find it strange that the one person in the room who screams the most about condemnation is in favor of the option which could cause the most. • Colton: If there's condemnation someone knows about that. We're looking at the environmental impacts, and to me "E" has to be weighed with the others. • Staychock: I'd like to go on record that I strongly disagree that "E" is the most environmentally preferred. It's going to add a road. I'm flabbergasted that we think it's the least impacting. • Hart: It has less impact on wetlands. • Petterson: Clearly there is a differing sense of what alternative is best. Can we get a straw poll? The important part is the "before" part. • Hart: We don't have enough information to make a recommendation. • Donovan: We can make a statement of the values we want to see without picking an alternative. • Colton: I don't want to see "B" knocked out. The motion was seconded by Nate Donovan. The motion passed with seven votes in favor (Knowlton, Hart, Colton, Apt, Petterson, Donovan, Thomas), and two vote opposed (Staychock, Skutchan). • Skutchan: We're talking about roads that were there before there were natural areas. It's frustrating to think that it should go back to a dirt road. We have to be forward looking, and be willing to accept that this is a planning process. I'm frustrated by the whole process. This board was hostile to this from the start. It's been a frustrating process for me. We're not Natural Resources Advisory Board February 15, 2006 Page 11 of 11 putting our best foot forward. We might as well say that a Hwy 287 study needs to be done, and take over CDOT's role on a grand basis. Petterson: My perspective is that the purview of this board is not only the natural areas of Fossil Crek and wetlands, but the whole environmental impact. The impacts could be significant, and its not clear its necessary. It enables further environmental damage down the road. We could take the position that's the way its always been. Knowlton: If they do get to an EIS it wont be us. It will go to the Land Board. Petterson: I'm concerned about that too. The environmental impact is beyond the land that is condemned or taken from natural areas. Glen Colton will write the memo which is due before March 14. Adjournment The board adjourned to work session at 9:00 p.m. v ✓z3 IS'---)-csz� (o