Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Conservation And Stewardship Board - Minutes - 04/12/2006MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A April 12, 2006 For Reference: Bill Bertschy - 491-7377 Mayor Doug Hutchinson - 416-2154 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Bill Bertschy, Michelle Brown, Paul Hudnut, Vicky McLane, Linda Stanley, Karyl Ting, Michelle Grooms Board Members Absent Greg Eckert, Greg Snyder Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: John Stokes, Mark Sears, Terry Klahn, Rick Bachand Real Estate: Pat Hyland Guests Mike Dahl — PRPA (presenter) Agenda Review John Stokes said he needs to add a 30 minute agenda item, "State Land Board/City of Fort Collins Land Exchange". Public Comments None Review and Approval of Minutes February 8. 2006: The minutes of the February 8, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved as written. March 8. 2006: The minutes of the March 8, 2006 were unanimously approved as written. The board asked that a contact cell number be added to the agenda. We will put John Stokes' cell phone number on all agendas. Pipeline Easement — Meadow Springs Ranch Pat Hyland said he is looking for a recommendation from the Board authorizing the conveyance of right-of-way and the grant of temporary construction easement to Entrega Gas Pipeline Company for the construction of a natural gas pipeline at Meadow Springs Ranch. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April 12, 2006 Page 2 of 10 • Stanley: Why is this area so popular? • Hyland: It's a major distribution hub for natural gas. Once they identify a route they attempt to stay with other easements. Entrega does have FERC approval which gives them the right of eminent domain. If we object, eminent domain requires both parties to go to court. The Phase 1 Environmental Impact Study was reviewed by Karen Manci who said the project is likely to have only minor, temporary impacts to wildlife and native vegetation. The FERC restoration requirements are more strict than the City's. The City's restoration plan was modeled after FERC. Steve Comstock could not be here, but he is in full favor of this. • Stokes: You might be wondering why this board is seeing this item. The ordinance that created this board had a funny little sentence that said this board could weigh in on land transactions that have a nexus with other natural resource values. Previously Council would ask for the NRAB to weigh in to make sure staff looked at all impacts. This is a fair deal, pretty standard. • Hyland: This will be installed and maintained according to City standards. We went to Council on April 4 and will go for second reading on April 18. We don't expect any trouble. Its on consent and we don't believe it will be pulled. • McLane: In the normal course of events does Utilities refer these to Karen because they don't have the expertise to review the EIS? • Stokes: I don't know the answer. They often ask us to weigh in because we have a biologist. It's a nice courtesy. • Brown: Do they write the restoration plan or do they just have guidelines to follow? • Hyland: They have the FERC guidelines. • Stanley: Who makes sure it gets done correctly? • Hyland: Steve Comstock. They also have an obligation to monitor. They do that by air. • Bertschy: With the pipelines going in side by side, I assume there is appropriate spacing. • Hyland: They each have an easement, usually 50'. • Bertschy: Is there ever a point where enough is enough? • Hyland: If the FERC continues to let them have docket numbers they will continue to be able to take land. • Ting: Is this an easement or possession of the land? • Hyalnd: Easement. • Brown: Will this affect any animals? • Hyland: No, its all underground. • Bertschy: Is staff time figured in when doing the calculations of the easement amount? • Hyland: Real Estate Services is billable internally. • Sears: On our own easements we charge for staff time. • Hyland: They tell us they are generous because of internal expenses. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April12,2006 Page 3 of 10 Vicky McLane made the following motion: Move that the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board recommends to Council they authorize the Conveyance of a Right -of -Way Easement and the Grant of a Temporary Construction Easement for the construction of a natural gas pipeline at Meadow Springs Ranch. The motion was seconded by Michelle Brown. Discussion • Hudnut: Do we want to hear these types of things? Is this Land Conservation & Stewardship? There's no input on our part, we're rubber-stamping. • Stanley: I absolutely want to see easements across natural areas. • Grooms: I agree. • Bertschy: Someone should do it. Maybe the NRAB should do it. There should be some oversight. • Hudnut: Its not oversight, its information. • Grooms: We can say if we don't like it. It's a word of dissent. • Knowlton: It may affect future easements. • Ting: Are we preempting NRAB? • Stokes: We're not taking it to the NRAB. • Bertschy: My preference is to hear these before they go to City Council. Was it timing that precluded that? • Hyland: Yes. They told us they need to do this project and need it done as quickly as possible or they'll start eminent domain. Because of the short time line they already gave us the notification required by Colorado law to initiate eminent domain proceedings. • Hudnut: I'm just trying to frame our board. What it does and what it doesn't do. This strikes me as just time from our agenda. If you feel its valuable, we'll do it. The motion passed unanimously. • Stokes: Paul, this might dissuade your concerns. In the three years I've been here we've only had one other easement like this. Platte River Power Authority — Power Line Easement — Colina Mariposa Mark Sears said that we've been working with Mike Dahl for almost a year on this project. We took it to the NRAB at conception to get their reaction. Even though overhead lines are prohibited in our easement policy staff is recommending this easement be allowed. The mitigation that PRPA is proposing to do is overwhelming. It's a win/win for PRPA, the City's Natural Areas Program, and community separators. Stanley: Is this the horrible monstrosity on N. Taft Hill, or Overland I've been reading about, and getting emails from citizens. There are a lot of complaints from citizens wondering where this came from, and what it is. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April 12, 2006 Page 4 of 10 • Dahl: We didn't notify everyone in town, but we sent letters to the people on both sides of the easements. We answered their questions. No land owner got a pole that didn't have one before. • Stanley: Are they bigger? • Dahl: They're taller, but narrower. • Dahl: We're proposing to use an existing right-of-way. • Stanley: How much taller are the poles? • Dahl: Distribution poles are 35-40'. These are about 80'. The National Electric Safety Code sets the requirements. • Dahl: We're happy to let the easement we retain be used for a trail if that turns out to be part of the management plan. • Sears; That's the long range plan. It may start as a soft trail and evolve to a paved trail. • Grooms: Have you considered going underground? • Dahl: We have built underground in the past. The reason we're asking for this is it's a very expensive project. It would cost $3 million to go underground through this one mile of the city. • Grooms: How long will this last? • Dahl: Seventy-five years, or longer. • McLane: My main concern is that before we make an exception we need some guidelines or criteria. Once you make an exception you've opened the door. We need to be able to come up with guidelines or criteria. We need a way to evaluate, and not say yes to every request that comes along. • Sears: It almost always has to be specific to the site. When granting waivers we have to look at each and every one individually. You can run the risk of setting a precedent, but you have to look at the mitigation. We're taking two power lines and putting them underground, and putting one up. The net visual affect is a positive. • McLane: An 80' foot pole is more visual impacting than 2 40' ones. Its your opinion that the mitigation offsets the impact. • Sears: It's a judgment call. I could establish guidelines, but they're subjective too. Environmentally there's no significant impact. Financially it's a win/win situation. Another criteria is that this is the only place. It would go through one of our natural areas either underground or overhead. We didn't make them go through that tonight. This is reasonable. PRPA is us, and we are them. They're not a foreign entity if we take a look at the economics. They're acquiring the Powell property, right there's 11 acres of conservation that we probably weren't going to get. There's the trail easement. Another incentive or benefit to Loveland, the County and us is to have that corridor given to us with little to no expense. We thought the mitigation definitely outweighed anything else. • Stokes: Maybe the board needs a copy of the easement policy. It's on the website. The essential point Mark is making is this is a pretty decent deal. The mitigation is very worthwhile. The net gain from our perspective is positive. When we discussed this with the NRAB they were comfortable with the mitigation as well. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April 12, 2006 Page 5 of 10 • Hudnut: If you had to bury it and it cost $3 million, where does the $3 million come from? How does it affect the rate base, and what's the payback? • Dahl: We have the money in the bank. We would not be borrowing. The net result is the loss of the interest income. If we bury the whole way we're talking about $6 or $7 million. We lose the interest income, that's a loss of income. That by itself in an isolated sense does not create the need for a rate increase. But there's this project, and a $30 million transmission project planned for Longmont, going right through town. That and the rise of natural gas. There's no one thing that creates a rate increase. • Grooms: Why is the transmission line so much more expensive to bury? • Dahl: Because of the voltage, the class of the conductor. • Grooms: Are other communities experimenting with buried and overhead transmission. What's everyone doing today? • Dahl: There's much more acceptance of building underground transmission where its deemed appropriate. • Grooms: How do you differentiate? • Dahl: If there is an existing transmission line and existing easement we'll rebuild a line overhead. If its virgin territory we're willing to bury it where we think it's the right thing to do. There's a lot of guesswork. So far we've been pretty successful. I wouldn't say we haven't thought about what we're doing. We know easement requirements don't allow what we're proposing. It's right along a railroad track, and it's a fairly deep valley. Folks view of the mountains wont be impeded. Ting made the following motion: Move that we recommend to Coucnil to accept PRPA's easement proposal. i ms motion dies for lack of a second. McLane made the following motion: Move that we put this decision off to the next meeting when we have more time to discuss and talk among ourselves about how to approach this type of question in the future. This motion dies for lack of a second. • Hudnut: Are there going to be other groups other than PRPA looking to do this? • Dahl: There are 3 entities. PRPA own around the cities, Tristate owns the existing transmission line to the substation in the north end of the picture. Its unlikely they will want to build a transmission. Western owns the transmission around Dixon. Western doesn't serve any customers, they won't expand. • Hudnut: Are there other areas that you expect in the next 10-15 years that you'll be crossing natural areas? • Dahl: I cant guarantee anything. With the City policy on annexation and growth, that could have an impact on where transmission is needed. Based on the growth projected Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April 12, 2006 Page 6 of 10 in the next 10 years, and based on the location, this could be the last transmission that's needed for the next 10-15 years. That's more than likely, especially in this part of town. The one area of town that might grow is the east and north-east part of town. • Stanley: The main reason why I find this a hard one is the exception to the policy. You guys have obviously done a lot of good things. If everyone that wanted an easement came with this kind of stuff what a change that would be. You're really to be commended. Trying to buy that 11 acres has been a nightmare, he's been unwilling to work with anyone. And another part of me feels like if we use electricity we should see where it comes from. If we don't like how it looks than we shouldn't use it. I may grumble some, but we're getting a lot here. • Bertschy: The exemption piece is also what bothers me. But that 11 acres, every time I drive by it I wish we had it. • Ting: If we're saying this is a single exception do we have to address the broader picture. If we say this is the only exception that we're allowing I don't see it opening the flood gates. • McLane: Why was it in the policy to begin with? • Sears: We've created an incredible corridor along the foothills. This corridor is going to be a magnet. That's why the NRAB wanted that language in there. Unfortunately, as with all policies, there will be exceptions. These should be judged on their individual merits. • Stokes: Stokes: There's an existing power line where this one is going to go. • Hudnut: And a railroad. • Stokes: This mitigation is overboard. We'd be delighted if all of our applicants came in with stuff like this. • Hudnut: Have any other natural area policies been waived in the past, or is this the first time? • Sears: Nothing of this significance. • Bertschy: What about Cathy Fromme Prairie? • Sears: We've granted an incredible number of easements. We haven't had any that went to council with an objection from the board or staff that ultimately got supported. There were several easements that didn't cross the "t's", or dot the "I's", just a little waiver. Nothing as dramatic as this. • McLane: It just depends where your values are, and what you're willing to pay. I'd be happy to pay more to have this be an underground line. Ting made the following motion: The Land Conservation & Stewardship Board has reviewed the request from Platte River Power Authority and recommends that Council waive the requirement in the Natural Areas Easement Policy that does not allow overhead power lines to be built across natural areas and approve the permanent transmission easement across Colina Mariposa Natural Area with the conditions that the four mitigation projects proposed be completed and the compensation of $173,250 paid. Michelle Brown seconded the motion. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April 12, 2006 Page 7 of 10 Discussion • Stanley: It's so permanent. • Ting: It's a common sense factor, especially the issue about the particularly difficult parcel of land. I actually agree the number of poles presents more of an eyesore than the height. The people who will object the most will be the ones who see the top of the pole. It just seems to be a common sense proposal. • Bertschy: One of the real advantages is the trail right of way. We're progressing on the east side of town, and we're well fixed. We're not so well fixed north/south that is off street. That's a strong advantage. There's no way I would support it if the railroad track wasn't there. Its already an impacted area. • McLane: There's a good chance that Denver will buy the entire line and relocate all of their freight trains through Greeley in the next twenty years. • Grooms: I love the fact of the trail system. I'm conflicted, existing railroad, $6 million to bury it, that eyesore piece of property. The pros are all good pros. I just wish we could stick it underground. But what you get is more important. The motion passed with 6 votes in favor (Bertschy, Brown, Hudnut, Stanley, Ting, Grooms), and one vote opposed (McLane). • Bertschy: We should come back with the easement policy and have a broader look. Bobcat Ridge Management Plan This item was postponed to a future meeting. State Land Board/City of Fort Collins Land Exchange Stokes briefly reviewed a spreadsheet highlighting the details of the proposed exchange, and said we're looking for a recommendation of the real estate transaction. • Ting: It's a creative arrangement. • Stokes: This is the biggest deal they've done like this. • Stanley: How did you come up with twenty homes? • Stokes: The net present value, and what they would be worth in the future. • Brown: I'm amazed you get $85,000 a year. • Stokes: We did an extensive review, and we did an extensive environmental clearance. • McLane, Why shouldn't we be wildly in favor of this? • Stokes: I'm trying to think of a down side. The down side is we're investing more money in Soapstone. It will put us closer to our cap in the 20/20/20 split. We bought Soapstone in 2004. We issued COP's for $15 million. We knew we would spend a lot of money regionally for a couple of years and we wanted to spread the cost out. Hudnut made the following motion: Move that we recommend approval of this transaction as outlined by John's (Stokes) spreadsheet. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April 12, 2006 Page 8of10 Karyl Ting seconded the motion. • Stokes: The reason we need Council approval is we're conveying an interest in land to the State Land Board. We're conveying a piece of property to another entity. • Brown: If the lessee doesn't want to continue will it stay open space, or find another contract? • Stokes: They could lease for sod farming, or to another farmer, or it could be planted in pasture grass. • Brown: Is the kind of lease specific, or is it up to the State? • Stokes: They can use it for agriculture, or put it back to native prairie. In community separators we don't get into the details of how these lands are managed. The motion carried unanimously Michelle Brown made the following motion: I move, under Section 2-712(b), and 2-31 (a)(3) of the City Code, that the Land Conservation & Stewardship Board go into executive session to discuss real property acquisitions . The motion was passed unanimously. The board was in executive session for 15 minutes. Hageman Lease Stokes said this is a request for renewal of an existing least. It's 15 acres of land on E. Prospect, to Hageman Earth Cycle, a composting business. • Stokes: He doesn't compost there. He collects and shreds. Its hard to find a piece of industrial land where you can site an operation like his. • Bertschy: I have experience with the guy. He appropriated the land without asking, that's how it started. The City asked him to stop using it and that created an uproar. He's the only one locally who does this. We tried to negotiate a transitional lease with the idea that he would move. I don't have a lot of sympathy, but I do have a tremendous amount of respect for the need of the service. I don't think he's made much of an effort. • Stokes: We have indicated this is the last lease, but that call should be made by Council. They have to review and tell us what they want. We thought this was the right thing to do. • Brown: How much does he charge to drop things off. • Hudnut: $5.00 to $10.00 • Brown: Has the City of Fort Collins taken a look at doing something similar to what the City of Loveland does? Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April 12, 2006 Page 9 of 10 Stokes: We recently developed a solid waste diversion plan and took it to Council. One idea is a notion of a City -run drop off site. Loveland has A-1 Organics. They grab it and compost it. The City collects an environmental fee. This Council is not inclined to support that concept. Hudnut: What do you think about the lease rate, how was it determined? Stokes: Wally Cameron and Real Estate Services determined the rate, its fair market value. Michelle Brown made the following motion: Move that we recommend to City Council to provide another 2 year lease to Hageman Earth Cycle. The motion was seconded by Paul Hudnut. • Grooms: If we approve the lease will that cause Council to not look at City run composting? • Stokes: I don't think so, there's no direct relationship. • Bertschy: Does Utilities still own the Resource Recovery Farm? • Stokes: We own it. • Bertschy: I thought that would be a good use, its ideal. • Stokes: Yes, as a drop off site. • Bertschy: We can make recommendations to Council. We're not restricted to approving leases. • Stanley: Are you sure this is final? • Stokes: Things change. In two years its possible we could be back here saying we ought to renew the lease. • Stanley: Have the problems been fixed in terms of the run-off? • Stokes: Yes. The motion carried unanimously. New Business • Stokes asked if the board was interested in a presentation on the dam projects. The project manager talked to senior staff this week, and will be talking to the NRAB. • Bertschy: As I drive around town I see parcels of land for sale. Its easy to ask why don't we own that that. How do we do that? How do we pick those pieces of land. What are we looking at? Can we have input? Are those kinds of questions of interest to the board? • Ting: And, coupling into that, the issues related to Andrijeski about if this enclave is a plot. From a sociologic standpoint we have to address the PR side of that. People do see it as a nefarious plot. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board April 12, 2006 Page 10 of 10 • Stokes: The NW Subarea Plan, 95% of the people out there are overjoyed we're acquiring open space. It's a good topic. If you see a piece of land you think belongs in the system, call us. We think we're on top of it, but call us. • Hudnut: We've talked about a couple items where we might have people come in and talk to us. I'd like to clarify if we're asking for presentation or discussion or both. Presentations aren't brainstorming around real strategy, that's takes more time than short discussions. • Bertschy: I think both. Staff deserves the ability to give a presentation. • Hudnut: We need more than a bullet approach to the agenda. If its discussion it can't be 15 minutes of presentation and 5 minutes of discussion. • Bertschy: Maybe we need to try one and see how it goes. • Stokes: History and background are important. A perfect example is the easement policy. • Hudnut: Is what we're supposed to do is come up with strategies and proposals? That's not what we've done up to date. • Stokes reminded the board of the joint field trip to Soapstone with the County's Open Land Board on May 5. • Stokes: We fumigated last week. If you drive out you'll see some prairie dogs, but fewer. • Sears: We've got a volunteer host program. The deadline to apply was April 17, but its been extended to the 19th. If you personally, or know of someone who might be interested we'd sure like to encourage it. • Hudnut: Its mountain bike season again and I've been on the trails. The trails are really hammered, especially the trail behind the stadium. The bike patrol has a lot of people who have trail work experience that would like to help out. So far that hasn't been picked up. The Maxwell trail is a high traffic trail that could use some work. • Stokes: You're right, the shoreline does need some work. We did some trail re -work at the Solider Canyon Dam. Our crews did a fantastic job. I'd be interested in your observations. We'll get back to you on that. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admun Support Supervisor