HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 11/19/2008NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
November 19, 2008
DATE: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
LOCATION: 215 N. Mason - Conference Room 1-A
TIME: 6:00pm
For Reference: Alan Apt, NRAB Chair 221-9875
Ben Manvel, Council Liaison 217-1932
John Armstrong, Staff Liaison 416-2230
Board Members Present: Liz Pruessner, Heather Manier, Clint Skutchan, Phil Friedman, Joe
Piesman, Glen Colton
Board Members Absent: Alan Apt, Linda Knowlton
Staff Present: Natural Resources Department: Alexis Hmielak, John Armstrong
As Alan Apt was absent, Liz Pruessner chaired the meeting. She called the meeting to order at
6:05 p.m..
Introduction of Guests
Several CSU Natural Resources Students were present to monitor the meeting as a class
requirement: Dylan Pruitt, Chris Johnson, Tyler Tretten, Sarah Watson, Rachel Billings, Erin
McCowen, Alex Smiley, Kate Caputo, Rachel Winkler, Kelsey Schwager, Molly Center, Chad
Christofferson, Becky Jarman, Christine Schaulin, and Justin Humrichonse
Agenda Review
None
Review and Approval of October 15, 2008 Minutes
Joe Piesman moved and Phil Friedman seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October
15, 2008, Natural Resources Advisory Board meeting as presented.
Motion passed unanimously
SH392 / I-25 Interchange Project
Senior Transportation Planner, Denise Weston presented a report of findings stating the proposed
I-25/392 intersection project meets CDOT requirements regarding environment, physical design,
and funding. The report was done along with consulting firm, AECOM. Denise pointed out this
is the same presentation given to the City Council joint work session November 3, 2008. Denise
is the co -project manager for the environmental component for the I-25/392 project and came to
the Natural Resources Advisory Board for their input.
This is a three-phase project
1. Justification for separate action (Has been completed)
2. CDOT 1601 process (Currently being done)
■ Traffic Analysis and Enhanced Preliminary Design
■ NEPA clearance
■ Funding Plan that Fort Collins and Windsor agree upon.
3. Final design and construction of the project. (To come)
The City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor are doing this separate 1601 process
because the Colorado Department of Transportation's (CDOT) EIS will not be completed for
awhile. The two cities wanted to move forward with this more expedient process to get final
environment clearance and permission from the Federal Highways Administration and the
Transportation Commission to construct the interchange (when the funding is available.)
The "Tight Diamond" is the selected design and is consistent with North I-25 DEIS. It
minimizes environmental impacts while also providing safe and efficient traffic operations.
o There will be some modifications because the interchange improvements will be built
prior to the full interstate improvements. However, nothing proposed will preclude
what is in the EIS.
o The 1601 plan will address the frontage road and bridge and cleaning up traffic flow
across and on the off -ramps.
o The 1601 process will include conceptual design so costs can be evaluated in order to
address funding.
o The NEPA clearance (Categorical Exclusion) is expected to be completed by
December with documentation included in the 1601 package to be submitted to the
CDOT Transportation Commission in January. The 1601 process will not document
the potential impacts because they have already been thoroughly looked at and
documented at the EIS level for the following:
■ Air / Noise
■ Wetlands/Water Quality
■ Wildlife / T & E Species
■ Vegetation / Noxious Weeds
■ Hazardous Materials
■ Cultural Resources
■ Social / Economic impacts
Denise presented a resource map of the project area and the group discussed the impact of the
project on the natural resources of this area.
o A small wetland along Highway 392 would be impacted as a result road expansion.
o The project team is proposing a 1:1 mitigation which is the same mitigation proposed
in the EIS.
■ A 1:1 mitigation means whatever portion of acreage that is impacted, the
project will try to recreate that same amount of wetland in a different location
where it would be most effective.
o In answer to a question from Clint Skutchan, Denise stated the buffer area on the Fort
Collins' side of the interchange will be kept in the project and it meets all the
standards of Fort Collins.
o Impact to prairie dog habitat is another environmental issue. It was determined by
field surveys there is sufficient prairie dog habitat in the area so that impact will be
minimal.
o Another anticipated environmental impact is from hazardous materials at three
suspected sites. 'These sites will be thoroughly investigated to be sure there won't be
any hazardous materials in tanks or in the soils.
o Best management practices will be implemented prior to construction which includes
mitigation for construction dust, noise and noxious weeds. Soils will be cleaned
before construction to prevent spreading of contaminated soil.
o Denise pointed out she will be going back to Council in December in a joint work
session and wants Council to know she has presented to various advisory boards so
they know what is going on and to get support if a Board so wishes.
o In answer to a question from Joe Piesman, Denise explained the wetlands were for
water retention and are not jurisdictional wetlands. The project will not be diverting
water but will be building a retaining wall. The impact to the wetlands is actually
from the widening of the road into the wetlands.
o Liz Pruessner questioned if there would be any reduction of water quality due to
runoff from the road. Denise stated none were identified. This plan is only to address
the level of service and safety for the interchange. The widening of I-25 will be a
separate EIS.
o Liz also asked if there was going to be a large transit center on the southwest corner
of the interchange. Denise said the 1601 Plan will not include a transit center but will
not preclude anything planned in the EIS. Some components of the EIS do include
transit which could include bus rapid transit running down the middle of I-25 and a
carpool lot.
o To clarify questions from Heather Manier and Clint Skutchan, Denise stated the 1:1
mitigation involves two small parcels of 0.3 and 0.4 of an acre that will be affected by
the road widening. Their exact size will be mitigated elsewhere. She did not know
the time frame for mitigation. One possibility is to mitigate them when they mitigate
for whole corridor.
o Liz asked if future impacts can be modeled as a result of future projects. Denise
stated the City will look at it under their development review process. Liz was also
concerned about the impact of future growth on migratory birds, especially the
Loveland airport.
o Liz asked if the mitigation addresses the potential of more animals crossing the road
and increasing road kill. Denise stated danger to animals is always a concern, but
didn't foresee this particular project would impact the level of crossings that are there
now.
o As the 1601 project area is outside the City limits, but still within the Fort Collins
Growth Management Area, Denise stated the City will put future development
abutting the wetlands through the development review process.
o In answer to a question from Heather, Denise stated the project will relocate prairie
dogs from the area. Phil Friedman suggested relocation of prairie dogs to a larger
area would be of greater benefit to raptors since raptors do not usually hunt in areas
smaller than 50 acres.
o Glen Colton asked about financing for the project. Denise stated the 1601 process
requires a financing plan. All stakeholders (CDOT, City of Fort Collins, Town of
Windsor & private sector) have a financial responsibility but it is hard to know where
the funding is going to go.
■ Cost estimates:
• Preliminary Cost Estimate: $ 22.7 Million"
• Funding from CDOT: $1.9 Million
• Funding GAP to Fill: $20.8 Million
** Based on CDOT data included in March 2008 IGA signed by the City, Town and the
developer. Amount is subject to change given inflationary trends for construction materials.
■ Three Funding Scenarios are being considered, however, no decisions are
being made at this time:
• SIGNIFICANT RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Based on the efforts of a
single site retail development plus a Metro District.
• PUBLIC ENTITY FUNDING Based on a significant joint investment
by both the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor plus a Metro
District.
• MIX OF PUBLIC ENTITY/ DEVELOPMENT Based on an equal mix
of investment by both the public sector (City & Town) plus all
impacted property owners, the funding is covered.
■ Any discussion of urban renewal is all being done on east site — Windsor
o Ben Manvel stated there aren't any developers at the table.
o What CDOT and FHWA really want is regional collaboration between Fort Collins
and Windsor.
o Joe Piesman asked if an EIS needs to be completed before the project is funded.
Denise answered because the full EIS is going to take so much longer and cover a
larger project area, the project can tap into that and bring it to our community and
work separately in a 1601 process. Also, nothing in the 1601 process will preclude
what's in the EIS. The 1601 process is projected to be completed in 2010 and
construction should begin in 2012 following completion of the EIS.
o Ben Manvel pointed out Windsor is pushing to get the project done, however there
isn't any money on the table because the developer went away.
Next Steps:
o Go back to City Council in December for a work session with Town of Windsor
o Final hearing with CDOT Commission in January for final approval of the CDOT
process.
o After approval, move into final design
Discussion
• Glen Colton expressed his concern that the land use pattern in this area will include retail that
will reduce air quality increase greenhouse VMT. He feels retail should not be built at every
highway interchange, but should be at the core of towns. He wondered if the EIS could look
at the land uses and make suggestions about better land use, or do we have to learn to live
with it.
o Denise stated FWHA and CDOT leave land uses to local municipalities. However,
the EIS takes into consideration the current levels of traffic and their response to land
use could be their evaluation of current and future traffic.
o Denise also stated the level of service is an issue for this particular interchange. The
air/environmental benefit of the improvements will reduce congestion and reduce air
pollution.
o Clint Skutchan pointed out this is a regional traffic corridor and a third of the traffic
comes from Fort Collins.
o Joe was concerned increased traffic would have adverse effect on the wetlands.
Denise stated when you improve the interchange to make it more efficient/safer, you
4
may not necessarily get more travelers. Also, congestion and safety issues are not
benefits for wildlife anyway.
The Board discussed whether they wanted to make a recommendation on this issue.
o Ben Manvel pointed out if the NRAB wanted Council to do anything specific they
can send a recommendation regarding those issues.
o Clint Skutchan stated he felt the board's endorsement would acknowledge that the
proper levels of communication and planning are being done environmentally.
o Liz stated she felt the NRAB supports the full examination of ramifications and want
it to be as rigorous as possible and do express concerns that Council consider future
impacts on that open space and recognize there is a need to improve that intersection.
o Glen stated all the ramifications of development at the interchange will have negative
impacts in this location. He feels land use concern should come first then develop a
transportation system that can efficiently move people.
o Denise stated it might be helpful to attach the minutes from the boards in the Council
packet.
o Clint Skutchan suggested Denise present a bulleted synopsis of comments from each
board.
o The NRAB came to consensus not to make a formal recommendation to Council,
feeling the meeting minutes should be sufficient input at this time.
Draft Climate Action Plan and proposed addendum
Lucinda Smith addressed the NRAB regarding the Draft Climate Action Plan. She explained
that, at the October 29, 2008, City Council work session, Council requested an alternative plan
be put together that completely closes the greenhouse gas reduction gap. She has come to the
NRAB meeting to discuss the proposed additional climate protection strategies. Council will
vote on this Plan at the December 2, 2008, meeting.
Elements of the Proposed Additional Climate Protection Strategies are:
• Purchase Carbon Offsets
o One of the major proposed additional strategies would be to purchase carbon offsets
or carbon certified renewable certificates to close the 2012 gap. This would be as a
last resort after all other possible strategies have been done. The price estimates for
these offsets vary according to type of offsets and prices range from $10/ton -
$20/ton.
o In answer to a question by Phil Friedman who asked why the City would purchase
non -certified carbon offsets rather than certified, Lucinda clarified that the
recommendation is for certified or verifiable high quality carbon offsets.
o Regarding a question regarding timing of purchasing offsets, Lucinda stated in 2011
an assessment progress report will be completed and if there is a gap at that time
Council would look at whether the City would want to buy offsets to make up the
gap. It would make the most sense to invest in offsets that would benefit us locally,
rather than international ones.
o In answer to a question from Joe Piesman, Lucinda explained the reason the carbon
offsets were put first on the list is to make the point that they are the largest chunk of
the reduction effort if we do all the other things. If we don't do all the other things
the proposed new quantified Strategies would fill the gap. Transportation is
supportive of having this an additional transportation related strategy.
o Clint Skutchan asked why these strategies are called intents, not goals. Lucinda
stated purchasing carbon offsets isn't recommended as a fast strategy when there are
so many other opportunities, but it would be up to Council to implement these
strategies to reach the goal.
o Glen Colton was concerned there is no commitment for renewable energy in the plan
and suggested Fort Collins make it a commitment to use renewable energy and "walk
our talk." Other states are being more aggressive on this than we are. Lucinda
responded there is renewable energy in the Climate Action Plan and the Energy
Policy by 2020. Utilities will be looking at renewable energy but has not committed
to doing it by 2012.
o Phil Friedman stated photovoltaic technology is very expensive and there are only
five states that have made significant inroads into adoption of this renewable energy:
California, New Jersey, New York and Colorado. The #1 place in the world is
Germany. Bottom line is that, without financial incentives, expansion of this
technology won't happen. There needs to be a viable way to incentivize this both at
the national and local level.
o Lucinda agreed incentives are necessary for PV and it was one of the
recommendations of the Climate Task Force. She added there are many creative
funding mechanisms. One question is whether to invest the money in efficiencies or
elsewhere. She can't predict what is going to happen.
o Clint stated carbon measurement is a myopic view and is concerned the City is
"selling out" by getting to the goal at all costs (purchasing offsets) rather than doing
the right thing.
o Lucinda stated some things in the Climate Action Plan will also bring other benefits
than carbon reduction and the Plan is one framework to stitch these things together.
o Clint disagreed, and said the state and local politicians have agreed to the carbon
reduction goals and, in order to achieve them, they will buy carbon offsets.
■ Ben Manvel pointed out politicians have to weigh both sides, as there are
some that say we shouldn't do it and others say we aren't doing enough.
o Joe pointed out there is a potential for real cost savings through conservation
measures such as smart grid and smart meters and plug-in hybrids. However, there
needs to be a short-term incentive up front in order to get the long-term gain.
o In answer to a question from Heather who asked how the City is prioritizing what's
going to happen and when, Lucinda stated the strategies aren't totally prioritized but
some are recommended for first level implementation because they will be coming to
Council soon anyway.
Additional VMT reduction by 2020
o Lucinda stated Transportation is supportive of additional VMT reduction by 2020.
The Colorado Climate Action Panel recommended reducing VMT 6% by 2020,
primarily by increase in transit. Other strategies would be infill/refill development
and transit -oriented development. VMT reduction is in the Plan because
transportation is one third of total emissions.
■ Glen pointed out VMTs increase faster than the population does. He is
skeptical this can happen because of the increase in large commercial
construction that would increase traffic.
o Lucinda agreed carbon reduction should be one of the large objectives
of the City plan. It is a challenge to balance carbon reduction versus
supporting the economy.
o In answer to a question from Heather, Lucinda stated Climate Wise has
recommendations for commercial businesses to reduce VMTs for delivery and
other vehicles by increasing efficiency.
Specific Recycling Strategy for Waste Diversion.
o Suggests developing a system to require a deposit for construction and demolition
waste (C&D) for remodeling or new construction to prove contractors had
responsibly dealt with construction waste.
o Another suggestion is to have a C&D drop off site.
o This strategy has a large greenhouse gas benefit.
o In answer to a question from Heather, Lucinda stated this program was aimed at
larger builders, but many smaller projects could add up and it may not be appropriate
to bypass smaller projects.
■ John Armstrong stated this type of program has been implemented in other
states and can be scaled to meet multiple objectives.
■ Joe Piesman added banning cardboard from the waste stream should be part of
this. Lucinda pointed out this strategy doesn't ban cardboard, it asks for
responsible management of it.
Two modifications to existing strategies are proposed:
o Increase the participation goals in the Community Climate Challenge from 1 % per
capita reduction to 2% per capita over 10 years. The plan assumes 90% double
counting since people will be doing other things in the plan.
■ Joe Piesman asked what does the City have to spend to get the 1 % reduction.
Lucinda stated there isn't an estimate for long term but they do plan to
implement a $30,000 pilot plan for next year and to learn from that. This kind
of thing could be suitable for grant funding.
o Increasing the voluntary participating goals for Colorado Carbon Fund from 5,000
tons of carbon reduction to 12,000 tons by 2012.
■ One way to accomplish this could be if 6500 people pay to offset one airline
flight.
■ Fort Collins can have its own portal into the Colorado Carbon Fund. We
could funnel people to purchase their offsets through the City website and Fort
Collins would get a portion of that.
■ John Armstrong stated this is a voluntary carbon offset program that would be
efficient and cost effective.
In answer to a question by Phil Friedman, Lucinda stated this could be part of
the Community Challenge and it is already starting to happen through Climate
Wise.
Other minor recommended changes to the plan:
o Replace "Time of Sale Energy Conservation Ordinance" with "Explore Additional
Opportunities to Increase Efficiency of Existing Buildings"
■ This backs away slightly from the original focus and recognizes there are a range
of tools, financial and regulatory, to achieve building efficiency. This will be
more palatable but still identifies mandatory upgrades at time of sale.
o Long Term strategy to look at the waste stream in a more integrated fashion
■ John Armstrong explained this long-term strategy is a new way to look at the
waste stream as a commodity and using conversion technologies in order to better
deal with waste in general. There are local and regional companies already
7
working on this and some pilot projects and some full scale ones on the east and
west coasts. This could be done through private/public partnerships.
■ Clint suggested not having constraints in a partnership that would preclude
them from developing cutting edge technology.
John pointed out that currently, waste is shipped out of the country. This strategy
encourages improvements to the community's overall efficiency.
• Lucinda pointed out the last proposed strategy is to promote Fort Collins as a sustainable
community.
The NRAB discussed banning cardboard from the waste stream
• Glen stressed it is very important to ban cardboard from the waste stream.
■ Lucinda added that cardboard is the second largest component of landfill after food
waste. It would impact businesses the most since residential trash customers already
have the ability to recycle cardboard. Banning cardboard would be a first step to
increasing commercial recycling.
■ John Armstrong stated some Climate Wise program businesses have discovered
keeping cardboard out of the commercial waste stream saves them money in reduced
trash bills due to the bulkiness of the material. Also, as a commodity, cardboard still
has value and the price of cardboard boxes is increasing.
■ Lucinda pointed out banning cardboard in the waste stream is in the 2020 plan.
• Phil Friedman suggested thinking about the logistical aspect of recycling cardboard
and keeping it separate from commingled trash.
■ Lucinda stated another strategy in the plan that would help recycling efforts is to have
larger containers.
■ In answer to a question by Clint, John Armstrong stated Climate Wise does not have
good numbers as to who is not recycling, however, they are bringing on some new
businesses that have never recycled before. Clint also asked if the short term
regulatory gain versus the long term gain is worth it.
■ In answer to a question by Heather, Lucinda stated there is support at the Fort Collins
Master Plan level for the principles listed in the Climate Action Plan.
Joe Piesman moved and Liz Pruessner seconded a motion:
"The Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends City Council adopt the Draft 2008
Climate Action Plan, including addendum to meet the 2012 intent and 2020 goal. Priority items
for NRAB, include:
• Expanding the Climate Wise program
• Banning cardboard from community waste stream
• Energy efficiency
• Smart grid and •smart meters
• Upgrading residential building codes
• Community Climate Challenge
• Implementing customer -based renewable energy solutions by 2012
• Embedding commercial recycling fee in trash rates by 2012
Before purchasing carbon offsets, consider accelerating all priority items.
Motion passed 5-1 with Clint Skutchan voting against.
Draft 2008 Energy Policy
John Phelan addressed the board regarding the Energy Policy and handed out the latest version
of it. The Energy Policy will go to Council the same night as the Climate Action Plan
(December 2, 2008.) John stated he and Patty Bigner addressed the NRAB in August, 2008,
and the Energy Policy has had very minor changes since then. He came tonight to answer
questions about the Energy Policy and the relationship between other initiatives.
Discussion
In answer to a question from Glen Colton, John Phelan answered "carbon neutral electric
service" is a goal for the 2020 time frame, but hasn't been specifically defined at this time.
Joe Piesman recalled that the Utilities and PRPA previously presented a mission statement
that electric service would be "affordable and reliable." Fort Collins' City Council asked that
the word, "sustainable" be added but PRPA said, since the other cities have already voted on
it, they can't change the wording. Joe wanted to know the status of this request.
o John Phelan didn't know but will find out. He stated the real issue for PRPA having a
contract with the four cities (Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont and Estes Park) is to
allow them to issue bonds because the four cities have guaranteed they will be
exclusive customers.
o Joe also asked the question if CSU generates power, would Fort Collins Utilities buy
it. John replied that by state law we can buy power from individual customers, but
not over a certain size in megawatts. In that case, CSU or small generators would sell
to PRPA who, in turn, would sell to Fort Collins.
John Phelan stated the Energy Policy is trying to set high level goals around the liability of
our environmental foot print, affordability and local economic vitality.
Glen Colton asked how they define "affordable", why there is very little clean energy in our
portfolio and he proposed that having the lowest rates does not contribute to economic
vitality.
W,
o John Phelan stated that historically, reliability and low rates was the goal of Utilities.
This new Energy Policy is shifting the language to "affordability" for the first time in
order to convey the reality that people pay bills not rates. The first iteration of the
Policy in 2003 addressed costs and Fort Collins Utilities had a rate increase then to
cover those costs. Utilities also provides tools for customers for efficiency to lower
bills.
o The definition of affordability will require creating a new metric. Our electric rates
are so low, we don't compare to others. We'll have to decide what makes sense for
our community.
o The Policy also says we will have regional competitive rates that encourage
conservation. The previous policy used Xcel Energy as a benchmark, but we're 20%-
50% lower.
• Joe attended the Energy Plan open house and understood from that presentation there is a
plan to contract a consultant to provide a report on feasibility, timeframe and cost for smart
grid technology. He asked what was the timeframe to submit recommendations to Council.
o John Phelan responded the first plan to go to Council will be energy efficiency
implementation; most likely February, 2009. John stated the smart grid will take
longer, perhaps in the middle of 2009, depending on the consultant.
• Joe Piesman suggested if they can't get a large scale program going soon that they start a
pilot program.
o John pointed out that, of the top 13 commercial users, one third of them represents
half the energy load and they have communicating meters. Data can be downloaded
on line, but it is not read in real time.
o The display meters in homes are only one piece of the smart grid/meter system. They
need to develop a communication and system to handle the thousands of small
generators on the system. Our customer information system is handling several
photovoltaic commercial customers right now. The automated metering structure will
enable us to process an increase in PV generation and other ways of generating
electricity.
• Ben Manvel stated he was skeptical of PRPA's limit of 1 % alternative power generation
from other sources because they need to sell bonds because conservation and co -generation
are increasing. John Phelan stated he thought the 1 % limit was an individual, not aggregate
limit.
• Liz commented that as rooftop PV systems became affordable and more residents and
businesses chose to put them on their roofs, it could reduce the demand from PRPA. Ben
Manvel stated he didn't think it would put PRPA out of business, just flatten the increase of
power demand.
• Glen Colton asked what is the state requirement for renewable energy.
o John Phelan replied that it has evolved over time. The minimum requirements from
the state for renewable goals is 20% below 2005 and 10% by 2020. The Energy
Policy has set the overall goal as a carbon reduction goal, maximized through
efficiency and conservation
• Clint Skutchan stated it was his opinion that a significant percentage of Fort Collins citizens
do not see carbon reduction, and how it impacts climate change, as real and that they are not
willing to pay for it. Clint strongly suggested cost and reliability of carbon reduction has to
be better explained because people won't want to pay for something they feel is too
expensive for the benefit. The City needs to be ready to deal with no buy -in for this program.
Clint stated they need to get out of their activists' mentality and acknowledge many people
10
will not pay more to reduce carbon. He is frustrated they cannot describe in a tangible way
how carbon is measured. It is a huge barrier to the success of this plan.
o John Phelan stated it will be challenging to reach some of the levels of efficiency and
we will have to reach more customers. However to reach the higher levels, people
will have to pay more. John also explained carbon is measured as a percentage of
whatever resource is used to make electricity, i.e. coal or natural gas.
Glen Colton wondered why the city isn't investing in more renewables since Fort Collins is
touting itself as a green city. It does not look good for the City's credibility.
o John answered that renewables are currently 6% of current resources. It is a matter of
opinion on what is the goal and what is reality
o John stated there is a there is potential for a lot of things. How long do we want to
pay for them and spread out this cost? A small rate increase over a long time or a
large increase over a short time.
Liz Pruessner moved and Joe Piesman seconded a motion:
"The Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends that City Council adopt the Draft 2008
Energy Policy.
The board acknowledges the coordination and interrelationship between this policy and the
Draft Climate Action Plan. that the Natural Resources Advisory Board recommends City
Council adopt the Draft 2008 Energy Policy. The board acknowledges the coordination and
interrelationship between this policy and the Draft Climate Action Plan."
Motion Passed 3-2
with Heather Manier abstaining and Clint Skutchan against
The group reviewed the proposed 2009 work plan.
Glen Colton moved and Joe Piesman seconded a motion to adopt the 2009 Natural Resources
Advisory Board Work Plan.
Motion passed unanimously
John Armstrong stated he would forward the final 2009 Work Plan to the City Clerk's Office on
/ behalf of the board.
% New Business
• John Armstrong mentioned the South College Area Plan goes to Council in 2009. He
was asked by the lead planner if the NRAB wants a presentation. The group decided no
presentation would be necessary as the project has very little natural resource impact.
• Clint Skutchan suggested an initiative be made to get recycling bins at gas stations in
town. John Armstrong suggested contacting the Environmental Committee at the Fort
11
Collins Area Chamber of Commerce as the committee is currently developing a recycling
container sponsorship program for businesses.
Adjourn
Liz Pruessner adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Submitted by Alexis Hmielak
Administrative Secretary I
l /
Approved by the Board on17 2008
Signed
F
ti 1709
Admi ' afive ecr6Date %
12