Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 05/21/2014NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2014 DATE: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 LOCATION: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1-A TIME: 6:00–8:30pm For Reference: Joe Piesman, Chair 970-691-6697 Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337 Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison 970-221-6265 Present: Joseph Piesman, Chair Joe Halseth John Bartholow Harry Edwards Alexa Barratt Rob Cagen Absent: Liz Pruessner Robert Mann Staff Present: Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support John Stokes, Natural Areas Program Director Rick Bachand, Natural Areas Environmental Program Manager (tour of Sterling Pond prior to meeting) Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director Mark Sears, Natural Areas Program Manager Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Management Guests: Rob Graves Lori Graves Call meeting to order: Joe Piesman called the meeting to order at 6:14pm. Member Comments: New board member Rob Cagen introduced himself and his background. He is a former physician and currently owns an auto repair company. He was a member of the Parks and Recreation Board for three years and previously served on the Air Quality Task Force as well. Public Comments: None Review and Approval of April 16, 2014 minutes Harry Edwards moved and Joe Halseth seconded a motion to approve the April 16, 2014 NRAB minutes. Motion passed unanimously, 6-0-0. AGENDA ITEM 1— Site Visit Prior to the regular business meeting, NRAB members toured Sterling Pond natural area, which is undergoing restoration (soon to be renamed as part of the N. Shields Ponds). Rick Bachand, Natural Areas Environmental Program Manager, led the site visit. (Heavy rain prevented visit to second natural area restoration project. AGENDA ITEM 2— Budgeting for Outcomes Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director, summarized Environmental Health proposals that have been submitted for funding in the 2015/16 budget, and discussed next steps for the NRAB to consider taking to provide input into the BFO process. Lucinda said the City has a two-year budget cycle and is developing requests for 2015/16. Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) offers are developed for funding requests. There are pools of funding including the General Fund, Utilities’ revenue and enterprise accounts, and Natural Areas fund. Ongoing offers are for basic operations and ongoing projects. Enhancement offers are for additional funding and new projects. There are seven outcome areas under which all offers fall. The City forms teams to review the budget proposals (BFO teams); these teams have seven staff and two citizens each. The Teams evaluate the offers against the City’s Strategic Plan. City Plan contains the seven outcome areas and principles and policies; the Strategic Plan brings it to the five-year outlook. There are strategic objectives in each outcome area, against which the offers are evaluated, and performance metrics for each area. The Teams give feedback to departments, which are given a chance to revise. Recommendations are given by the Team, which the Budget Lead Team reviews, and ultimately the City Manager gives his recommendations to Council. There has been significant public outreach to a variety of demographics across the City, as well as a citizen survey in order to obtain citizen input. There are three City Council work sessions and two budget hearings in the process. In November the budget will be adopted. Citizen input can be given online at fcgov.com/budget through June 30 and will be given consideration after the first round of revisions. While the City is in a fairly good position because the economy has picked up, there are some new requirements from the general fund, including funding to Poudre Fire Authority and changes in health benefits to employees due to the Affordable Care Act. As a result, the City may not be able to fund many of the enhancement offers. Projections about revenue are done by the Finance Department and allocations are given to each outcome area by Finance and the Budget Lead Team. Discussion/Q & A: • Can people vote multiple times? Lucinda is uncertain (follow-up note: CPIO staff say they try to prohibit multiple voting two ways: 1) People are required to give their name and email when they submit feedback and 2) There are cookies embedded in the site that will recognize a computer's IP address and prohibit them from voting multiple times). • Joe Piesman said some of the big funds in Environmental Health are ongoing. Those are a given, correct? Lucinda said in the environmental area, there are revenue funds and less that is coming to the General Fund. There is also the Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) tax that will sunset in five years. KFCG is used for discreet projects. Joe added that there is staff in the KFCG offer, but they are contract people to work on specific projects. If this board is going to have influence, it might be 2 best to choose a few discretionary projects the board is interested in rather than discussing ongoing projects that are likely to continue to be funded. Lucinda added that staff would not want to have a fully classified staff member in KFCG. • Rob said the majority of KFCG money is earmarked. Is Environmental allocated the remaining 11%? Lucinda said the unallocated portion is divided by the Budget Lead Team, but it does not all go to Environmental. KFCG dollars might be more competitive this time with the increased demands on the General Fund. • Rob said because Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) is already getting a fair amount, they are not allowed to compete for more KFCG dollars. Lucinda said she would not anticipate enhancement offers for KFCG funding from PFA. • Joe Piesman asked about the regional organics transfer station. Susie said staff talked to Larimer County about collaborating to use a new anaerobic digester (AD) facility being built in Kersey. The collection and transportation would be easier if there is a transfer station. The landfill doesn’t want to do composting themselves, but could collect the materials. This is an important step in the Road to Zero Waste, but it is a longshot in this BFO cycle. Loveland may also participate. They have the same goals and desires as Fort Collins. This offer was developed very quickly when staff learned about the new AD facility. • Harry asked about sustainable theatrical lighting for the Lincoln Center. He wonders if the payback period has been calculated. They have a stream of revenue coming in from ticket sales, so it might pay for itself. Lucinda said it was not funded last cycle. It has an estimated ten-year simple payback. It is not scalable, but has to be done all at once, due to their lighting control systems. It will save approximately $16,000 per year based on 2012 energy rates and has a carbon benefit. • Joe Halseth asked about the NISP analysis and Joe Piesman asked John Stokes to discuss the in- stream flow specialist offer. John Stokes said the NISP offer will provide staffing and outside experts for the supplemental environmental impact statement. The staff person would also work on crafting a quantitative and qualitative vision for a healthy Poudre River through Fort Collins. They would like a framework to inform opportunities/threats to the river. John said there were funds in this budget cycle to look at in-stream flow issues, including structures and dry-points. John Stokes and Dale Trowbridge have been working with the River Runs Through It group and Water Conservation Board in Denver to determine how to get water in the river and protect it. They need more capacity to complete this work, and it is extremely complicated work. Staff would like to hire a water resources engineer with training in ecology and conservation. • Joe Piesman said members toured the restoration areas. John Stokes said staff received funding last budget cycle for these projects and hope to get additional funding in this budget cycle. • Joe Piesman asked how the board can best communicate to Council on these offers. Lucinda said the board may consider a memo to Council in June. The Round Two offers would be available and there might be modifications from input in Round One at that time. In July the comments will go to the Budget Lead Team. It would be good to weigh in as a board in September as well. Joe Piesman suggested drafting a memo to Council in June and copying staff. Lucinda will find out more information about the process for boards to give input. • John Bartholow said he would like to take time to draft his comments. Rob Cagen said when he was a board chair for Parks and Recreation he had meetings with Council members to give his input and invited Council members and the City Manager to board meetings. It may be a good idea to start earlier, come up with items the board thinks are key, and present them. There is nothing to say you 3 cannot meet with your representatives. If we focus on advising Council as individuals it could come to fruition. • Joe Piesman asked about the citizens participating on the Environmental Health BFO team. Lucinda said they are Phil Friedman and Gary Steen. • Susie asked Lucinda for clarification on the scope of the Climate Action Plan citizen advisory committee. Lucinda said it could continue through February of 2015. One objective is to weigh in on high-level issues. Staff will engage technical experts to provide suggestions as well. The group could have up to 25 members. AGENDA ITEM 3— Master Plan for the Poudre River – Downtown John Stokes, Natural Areas Program director, and Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development, reported on the status of this project. John Stokes brought a large map of the Poudre River Master Plan for the board to view. Staff has been working on the corridor plan for about a year. Four principles include stormwater, habitat and restoration, recreation, and aesthetics. Most of the work is for habitat and restoration. In a few areas staff is looking at more hardscaping to accommodate people. The City own about 65% of the floodplain throughout the GMA, so we have a lot of influence on what happens to the corridor through town. Regarding connectivity for recreation and habitat, staff would like to get tubing passage through the Lake Canal structure. Creating a bypass channel is one option. The Coy diversion could be modified or removed. Lake Canal delivers water and needs to be protected, but Coy does not. The Coy diversion is blocking fish passage as well. There may be other opportunities to create bypasses for wildlife connectivity. Part of the management issue is that people are getting out of the river wherever they want and are creating erosion and footpaths. The idea is to create access points for tubers with small beaches so people don’t have to cut a bank. The other issue is parking. Staff is looking at the North Shields Bridge and planning to add a parking lot near it when the bridge is rebuilt. There will be sidewalks on the bridge and a trail on either side to provide safe access. Staff is collaborating with the County on this project. There is habitat restoration in floodplain areas and the department has created wetlands in the northern part of the river. In Lee Martinez Park they looked at the tree dump; it could be lowered by a few feet to provide more retention. They would like to move the Hickory Street Bridge to get alignment with the path. At Legacy Park they would like to make the area more inviting by burying riprap and moving the parking away from the river. Across from Ranchway Feeds they would like to take down a bank and re-vegetate. At Woodward they are reconnecting the river to the floodplain. It is designed so that the river backs up into the pond when very full. Regarding stormwater improvements, the Coy diversion backs water up over College Avenue in a 100-year flood. The drops can be used to reshape the reach of the river and build some kayaking waves, and prevent the overtopping of College in a flood event. The bank would be rebuilt and infrastructure for people added, including a parking lot on Vine. This is the area with the most hardscaping for people that has been planned. With the drop in elevation this is the best location for kayaking without disturbing habitat. The plans include steps, seating, and a pergola, kayaking waves in the river and places to recreate out of the water. The plans are conceptual but fairly detailed. For 25 years the City and kayaking community have been trying to do this, but people are afraid of the consequences to habitat. The primary response from citizens is that it’s great. Some said the plan would be better if hardscaping was toned down, and a handful does not want a kayak park at all. The project is on the website and people can give input online. Not including the bridge, the project cost is around $6 million. $3 4 million is requested from the general fund, $1 million from Stormwater, and $2 million is expected from donations and the kayak community. Stormwater agreed to pull $1 million from reserves to fund this project. Staff would like to collaborate with the kayakers to raise funds. Discussion/Q & A: • Joe Halseth asked, if it is protecting the bridge, is there any way to get state funding, since it is a state highway. John Stokes said that is a good idea. In a hundred-year flood there will be split flow down Vine that will be mitigated, but the improvements would prevent water flowing over College (Hwy. 287) at the bridge. • Rob Cagen asked about the stream flow in the area and if it would be time limited. John Stokes said in an average year it could run 200+ CFS for about 35 days. It can be used for kayaking down to 100 CFS, and tubing below that. The cost increment to do the kayak park is $1 million. If we are putting in structures to last, they must go into bedrock, which increases cost. Behind the Northside Aztlán Center is an EPA-remediated site. Preliminary indications are that this area by the Engines Lab is okay. But that does not mean they won’t find something else; there used to be tank farms upstream. The samples are being tested. • Susie asked about the methane pump station. John Stokes said the only concerns from there are noise and smell. The engines lab is also noisy, but could be mitigated. One of the questions is about the homeless people who use this area. John said good urban design brings people to make these areas hotspots, which will change the character of an area. • Craig added that if we don’t get this right, we will have too much hardscape and end up with tournaments. On the other hand, if we make it too small, people will not be able to find where they are going. There is a sweet spot of size that will not damage habitat. We can get more habitat, vegetation and fish flow with proper restoration. • Joe Piesman said Land Conservation Board members were on the tour of the river corridor several weeks ago and they want to see habitat improvement, not recreation. They do not want funding going to structures. John said the issue is with the steps in the plan. LCB members thought the hardscaping was too much, but the footprint will be much smaller than it appears in the drawings. Staff would also like ADA access so people in wheelchairs can visit the river. Also, staff would like native fish back in this area, and engineers and fish biologists will work together on this issue. John Stokes said if the board would like to advise Council, June would be the appropriate time. Staff will be going to work session July 8. • Joe Piesman asked about fish passage at the Larimer/Weld diversion. With the Josh Ames diversion taken out, you could have fish passage all the way up. John said New Cache is the next diversion downstream. He has not spoken with the Larimer/Weld people. If the City can raise the funds and deliver water without interfering with operations there may be options. • Joe Piesman asked when improvements at Legacy Park would be completed. Craig said the Master Plan for Lee Martinez and Legacy would be completed this year, and then it can be priced out. John Stokes said Linden to Lincoln is a major restoration project area; the other chunk is College Bridge to McMurray. Staff would like to put that in with BOB2 funds, if that is approved. The whole plan will take 30 to 50 years. • Joe Piesman said the kayak park is diverting funds and time, when it could be spent on habitat. John Stokes said if this project is successful, it will help create momentum for more projects on the river. There is momentum about trying to make the river nicer and this is the time to do it. 5 • Rob asked about NISP. John Stokes said Halligan, Seaman and NISP would all have impacts on the river. NISP affects flows in May, June and July. This may not have as much implication to recreation as it does to habitat. • John Stokes handed out a high level conceptual memo that is a narrative of the plans. He asked members to call or email him with questions. AGENDA ITEM 4— Funding Sources for Poudre River In-stream Flow Augmentation Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager, reviewed long-range revenues, financial opportunities, and constraints for funding in-stream water flows. Mark Sears said the department has budgeted for land conservation and water acquisition, but the same money is available for restoration: $31 million over the next 10 years. If revenues continue up they may have more, but funding can fluctuate. The resource management budget has $250,000 per year for major restoration. They have used that as seed or leverage money to get KFCG funds to ramp up restorations. They have also received grants. Projects being wrapped up include Sterling Pond at North Shields Ponds ($1.2 million budget). McMurray had a $950,000 budget. Woodward had a $3.5 million budget with $3 million from TIF and $.5 million from Natural Areas, but they may not have to spend .5 million. The Kingfisher area restoration is dependent on an enhancement offer for $500,000, or they may be able to roll over $500,000 that was unused from Woodward. Running Deer has a BFO enhancement offer in also, with implementation in 2016, which includes $500,000 from KFCG and $250,000 from the Natural Areas budget. Hopefully Council will continue to fund restoration projects. Rick has been working on a wetland mitigation fund for those needing to mitigate loss of wetlands. CDOT has four projects impacting wetlands and will pay Natural Areas to mitigate the losses, which can be rolled into another wetland project next year. John Stokes added that the mitigations they are doing for CDOT are in the Poudre watershed. Mark added that the four projects add up to 1 acre. By giving Fort Collins the funds there is higher probability of a better outcome, with higher quality wetlands put in more appropriate locations. Discussion/Q & A: • Joe Halseth asked if wetland mitigations have to be done in the same watershed. Mark said yes. Joe Halseth asked if the CDOT project destroys wetland in construction, where can they move the wetland to. Joe Piesman asked who approves these projects. John Stokes said it depends on the size of the wetland and whether it is administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. They are looking for places to mitigate. • John Bartholow asked what percent of the $31 million is going into each of the three categories. Mark said staff anticipated the funds going into land conservation and water acquisition exclusively. This year they are using some for restoration of gravel mines. We get the gravel mines at no cost, but have to take money out of the land conservation budget to restore them. • John Bartholow asked about augmentation. Mark said staff has looked at both augmentation and in- stream flow. They have been looking at other methods for gaining in-stream flow. John Stokes said water is so expensive to buy and change the use, that while we think we need to do that, it will never get us all the way there. Alternative strategies need to be looked at. It costs money in people, planning, legal, etc. We have purchased water that comes with properties we are buying either for irrigating the property or for augmentation or in-stream flow needs. It’s very expensive. 6 • Joe Piesman asked where the gravel ponds are. Mark said out of this year’s $5 million land conservation budget they taking $2.4 million to restore ponds east of Ziegler Road on Horsetooth. A 55-acre parcel south of Horsetooth Road was given to the City. Also, the POE Pit across the RR tracks from Strauss Cabin is being acquired and restored. Lafarge will give the POE property at no cost, plus a water right, and Natural Areas will use excess material out of water storage reservoir just south of the site to fill the majority of the site, reducing the need for water augmentation. Joe Piesman asked if there will be public access to these areas. Mark said they are anticipating having a wildlife habitat area with no public access. It is a bald eagle nesting site. • Joe Piesman asked about the gravel pits west of Taft along the Poudre Trail. Mark said now that Martin Marietta owns the remaining pits; they will need to talk with them. There is a lot of work to be able to make use of them. There is a lot of water there. Any pond they are not looking to convert to water storage, we could look at for conservation and restoration. • John Bartholow said at one time someone said the City had too many gravel pits. Mark said the City has $2 million in water augmentation liabilities with gravel pits. The City is not inclined to take pits just to have open water; at $60,000 per surface acre that is expensive recreation. John Stokes said the ones we are doing now can be filled with little augmentation. We have 32 acres of surface water. Some of the ponds won’t be attractive to the City from a business perspective. • Joe Piesman said the flow through town gets down to 1 CFS. If the City had any water retention ability above town to restore even a minimal flow, it could play a role, but that only happens a couple times a year. John Stokes said the storage upstream is all spoken for. The reason we are in the Rigden pit is to adjudicate downstream flows. • Mark added that staff looks for opportunities in partnerships and with BOB2. • Joe Piesman asked about looking for angel partners. Do any exist? What about companies that make a lot of money off the water of the river? John stokes said the scale of the projects is big; it’s easy to raise tens of thousands, but not millions. We don’t have a resource like GOCO available like we did in the past. The $31 million is oriented toward land; water is not the main focus. • Joe Piesman asked if they have considered donation check-off boxes on utility bills for water. John Stokes said it has been discussed but not pursued. AGENDA ITEM 5— Climate Action Plan Committee The City Manager invited a representative of NRAB to participate on the new Citizen Advisory Committee for the Climate Action Plan update. Joe Piesman said Council is looking to form a citizen advisory committee for the Climate Action Plan and this board is requested to have one member participate. Joe Piesman said he and Harry sat on the ad hoc committee that looked at climate and energy. The City Manager asked members to suspend the ad hoc board and is creating this committee in lieu. Discussion/Q & A: • Harry volunteered to be the board representative to the CAC. He asked what the work product would look like. Susie said the expectation is that the committee will carefully review recommendations of the updated Climate Action Plan. There will also be significant public involvement. • Joe Piesman clarified that the CAC will review what is written by staff and consultants. 7 • Harry added that he felt really good about what the ad hoc committee was doing and looks forward to continuing that work. AGENDA ITEM 6— Other Business Review City Council’s 6-Month Planning Calendar/Future Agenda Items • Susie said the Disposable Bags Ordinance will be developed and brought back to Council. Council said they would support a ten-cent fee. They are also supportive of providing low-cost bags to consumers. Staff will make a proposal, with an effective date of January 2015. The ordinance will go through two hearings. • July 8 Work Session: Downtown River Project. Board will create a memo at next month’s meeting. Members should bring drafted language. • The board will create a list of BFO enhancement offers the board supports. Harry likes the lighting improvement project. It is defined and the cost analysis is done. • Rob Cagen would like the board to rank BFO offers. Joe Piesman wondered about including an explanation of rankings. Susie added that a lot will be fleshed out in the next three months, the list will shrink, and there will be another opportunity to weigh in. Rob added that if after the first round a project that is important to this board does not make the cut, the board can continue to argue for that offer to be reprioritized. He has seen this work in the past. Personal relationships can bring a lot of help. He is willing to continue communicating with Council on behalf of the board, but the chair has more weight. • Joe Piesman added that solid waste, an integrated recycling facility, and health of the river are items the board has had continued interest in. Susie added that some offers are for dedicated funds. Joe Halseth asked about NISP. Joe Piesman said it is an enhancement from the General Fund. • Harry said there is a board and commission meeting next week that will be about board and commission structure and BFO offers. • Harry asked what kind of outcome can be expected around boards and commissions. Susie was unsure. Joe Piesman added that the organizational chart of the boards does not match the organization of the City departments. Announcements • Joe Piesman went to the Women’s Commission breakfast. One thing expressed was general tone of public discussion at City Council meetings and the disrespectful tone that has taken over. People feel discouraged about attending Council meetings because of the contentiousness. Adjournment: Harry moved to adjourn. Joe seconded. Meeting adjourned at 8:45pm. Approved by the Board on June 18, 2014 8 Signed ____________________________________ 7/2/2014 Dianne Tjalkens, Administrative Clerk II Date 9