Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/16/201901/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 1 NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2019 – 6:00 PM 222 LAPORTE AVENUE, FORT COLLINS – COLORADO ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER At 6:02 PM the meeting was called to order by Nancy DuTeau. ROLL CALL: • Board Members Present: • Nancy DuTeau – Chair • Luke Caldwell – Co-Chair • Jay Adams • Bob Mann • Elizabeth Hudetz • Board Members Absent: • Barry Noon • Ling Wang • Drew Derderian • Danielle Buttke • Staff Members: • Katy McLaren, Staff Liaison, Interim Climate Program Manager • Community Members Present: • David Tweedale – LCSB • Alan Braslau – Energy Board • Amanda Mansfield – FC Moves • Jason Komez, FC resident • Ginny Sawyer, Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) 2. AGENDA REVIEW 3. COMMUNITY MEMBER PARTICIPATION a. David Tweedale – LCSB put a memo to council to support the A version of .85 and had it sent to city council. b. Jason Komes – just here to listen in as city resident 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Correction from Nancy: when we were talking about city plan scenario 3 and about neighborhoods, and about abandoned wells- verify that they would follow the 500 residential and the 1000 foot special, did Ryan say anything about the 150 – we will be following the State guidelines 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 2 b. Add note for 6 and 7, other business that they note taker left at 8pm at the November meetings c. Luke motion to approve, Bob seconds, approved unanimously 5. NEW BUSINESS a. E-Scooter Regulatory Framework Amanda Mansfield, Transportation Planner, FC Moves, will present to the Board for informational purposes the City’s proposed regulatory framework for managing electric scooter companies including proposed code changes and draft content from a Shared Mobility Agreement. Staff will go to Council on Feb 19 and March 5 to request Council action on the e-scooter code change proposal. Staff will also briefly cover the implementation of the Electric Vehicle Readiness Roadmap. (Information: 30 min.) Regulating Shared Electric Scooters Presentation What are Shared Electric Scooters? Emerging technology and shared mobility service Systems are similar to bike share with fleets deployed strategically providing one- way trips “Low-power scooters” (seated e-scooters) • prohibited from riding on sidewalk or cross-walk • shall ride as close to the right side of the roadway as practicable • Only on streets with speed limits of 35 MPH or less • Require proof of insurance “Toy vehicles” (standing e-scooters) • allowed on sidewalks and in crosswalks • not allowed on roadways • not allowed if prohibited by signs or markings How do they work? • Access/payment is via an App or by text to unlock a device • User must be 18+ and have drivers’ license o (required by e-scooter companies) • Helmet required o (required by e-scooter companies) • Speeds are typically capped between 15-30 MPH Issues with E-scooters • Conflicts with Pedestrians • Parking issues, obstructing sidewalks • Safety concerns (crashes) • Where to operate (sidewalk or not?) • Management of the fleet o Charging o Daily Staging o Maintenance Existing Regulatory Tools – Permitting and Right-of-way • Dismounting Zones • Obstructing Rights-of-Way o City Code 23-46 • Encroachment Permits o City Code 23-81 City council support:  Short-term Action • Amending Downtown Dismount Zone signage to exclude e-scooters 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 3  Mid-term Action • Including e-scooters into the City’s existing permitting programs and selecting a preferred operational model • Establishing rules for e-scooter parking  Long-term Action • Working with the State on legislation that allows more local control of e- scooters  Downtown Dismount Zone sign language will be updated  Traffic code will be amended to define downtown dismount zone so as to make enforcement of sign language feasible Proposed Code Updates • Updating Chapter 24 Streets and Sidewalks with parking regulations for e-scooters & other portable shared & non-shared mobility devices • Updating DDZ definition in traffic code to allow enforcement of proposed DDZ sign language change • Updating Lost, Abandoned, Unclaimed or Unattended Tangible Personal Property Administrative Policy to include e-scooters and other devices Agreement would include: • Eligibility • Device Requirements • Permitting Process and Costs • Parking • Operations • Rider Experience and Support • Equity • Transportation Hierarchy • Data Sharing and Surveys • Privacy • Indemnification • Insurance and Liability Requirements • Compliance with Law • Term of 12 months Agreement and Encroachment Permit Process Documents required to provide: • Maintenance plan • Education plan • Equity plan • First mile/last mile plan • Data sharing plan • Privacy policies • Insurance certificate • Liability proof Proposed Parking Regulations Proposal • shall park in designated area and within x feet/up against bicycle parking • shall park in the furniture zone of the sidewalk • shall not park in on-street parking spaces • shall not park in such a manner as to: o block the pedestrian zone o impede use of commercial window display or access to/from bldg. o impede or interfere with the reasonable use of any bicycle rack o impede access in transit/loading/disabled pkg zone, to street furniture, curb ramps, entryways, driveways Proposed Public Outreach Efforts:  Press Release 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 4  Ongoing Educational Offerings • Led by City and operator(s)  Dynamic Web and Social Media Content • City and State regulatory framework, code, and policy • Parking and operation rules and instructions for riders • How to operate in Fort Collins instructions for operator Next Steps:  Council Hearings February 19 and March 5 • Present proposed code amendments for action, R • FP/encroachment process/ SMA  Await State Legislative Action • Increased flexibility in determining regulations to operate on roads  Educate and engage public and business community • Web/social media content, press release, rider educational offerings  Administer RFP • Incorporating SMA and existing encroachment permit process Comments: We will fit, cap on operators, cap on vehicles, and application period with review, avoid issues with safety and community political issues Will return to city council to update after State legislature is put out about topic NRAB Questions:  NANCY - Was this citizen initiated, staff, or vender? • It was city council initiated because they are concerned about current use of e-vehicles, so they want to assure there is a regulatory program in place for issues that come up  ELIZABETH: As it is like bike program, how does it work with the last mile/first mile, how are they regulated? • Primarily the responsibility of the company, using GPS to know where their vehicle is, “Geofencing”, look at all of FC and see where they can use them and park them. If you ride outside of the geofencing riders will get a text, notifying them of a fine.  BOB: So they currently won’t be allowed downtown? • Once the city allows and regulates them, based on state legislature, we will have more information, prior to a launch.  JAY: what is the difference between skateboards and roller skating? • They move more quickly and are electric. Updates to the downtown signage is already planned  LUKE: happy that FC Moves has been proactive, two nodes that are going to get 90% of use are between CSU and downtown, and it essentially makes it non- competitive, CSU will not allow them on campus. They don’t want to allow them on sidewalks, but they would be allowed on trails? • Not allowed on trails, there is an age-specific ridership and it is difficult to signal with them, no electric signaling devices, seems a given all of those dead zones will exist with CSU, and that it’s a no-go if the state does not approve. • With the RFP, it would be in agreement with companies that main enforcement is self-enforcement and the companies will have people going around enforcing and reporting on complaints.  LUKE: Where and how does enforcement come in, same issue with e-bikes? Is it fair to say that most enforcement will be technology? • Members can use their apps to report other rider behavior. Police force can enforce certain violations, outreach to correct issues. 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 5 • Luke agrees it will be important to be aggressive with outreach and corrective behavior.  ELIZABETH – what about personally owned ones? • Cannot use tech, will use outreach efforts, and code enforcement. b. Keep Fort Collins Great Information and options for consideration of the Keep Fort Collins Great voter approved tax sunset. Providing a recommendation is optional. (Information/Action: 30 min.) Background: The city pays for all services and ops through fees and taxes. Focus on the tax side of equations  Since 1982, on-going sales tax rate = 2.25%  3 dedicated ¼-cent taxes:  Street Maintenance  Capital Improvement  Open Space  Keep Fort Collins Great  .85%  10-year sunset (2011-2020) Local Total: 3.85%  City council use to be able to change taxes by votes, now they are voted on.  Long history of voter support. 30 plus years of dedicated funding for capital but increase to base which pays for operation and maintenance of capital.1973 with city tax to build things. Breakdown: Keep FC Great .85 is currently divided between • 33% Street Maintenance and Repair- $65M (9M) • 17% Other Transportation Needs- $32M (4.5M) • 17% Police Services- $32M (4.5M) • 11% Parks and Recreation- $22M (3M) • 11% Poudre Fire Authority- $21M (3M) • 11% Other Community Priorities- $22M (3M) • Annual Spending and Efficiency reports: fcgov.com/kfcg Examples: (not comprehensive, snapshot from 2018 spendings report)  Street Maintenance o City Bridge Program support o Street Maintenance operations o ADA-Safe Routes to Everywhere Compliance  Other Transportation o Dial-A-Ride Service o FC Bikes and Bike Library o Protected Bike Lane Pilot Project o Safe Routes to School Program o School Crossing Guard Program o Signal Pole Inspection Program o Street Operations o Traffic Mitigation Program o Traffic Operations and Equipment o Transit Local Fixed Routes  Police Services o Police Patrol Services o Police Body Camera and Taser Program 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 6 o Police Campus West Substation o Police Patrol Specialized Units  Fire o PFA Operation, Maintenance and Capital o 911 Dispatcher Position  Parks & Recreation o ADA Playground Compliance o Ice and Aquatics o Memorial Parks o Parks Equipment Replacement o Parks, Trails and Facility Grounds Maintenance o Recreation Activities and Programs o Senior Park Ranger Position  Other Community Priorities o Additional Funding for Affordable Housing Fund o Citywide Volunteer Program Manager and Program o Communications and Public Engagement Programs and Services o Connecting Homelessness Resources - Special Agency Session Resource Specialist o Council Training and Engagement o Development Review Programs and Services o Downtown Business Association Ambassador Program o Downtown Landscaping and Maintenance o Downtown Recycling Expansion o Economic Health Office Programs and Services o Environmental Compliance Inspector o Environmental Services and Programs o Forestry Priority Safety Tree Pruning and Removal o Homelessness Initiatives o Municipal Climate Adaption Planning Key Elements: • KFCG revenue can be replaced in full or at another amount. • Base rate can be increased • Dedicated tax can be created • If the desire is to NOT replace KFCG revenue in full reduced levels of service from the general fund will need to be identified. • Council direction to date: • No additional tax on groceries (current tax equals about 10million/year • Don’t increase total tax burden Overall feedback so far: • Overall support for replacing most if not all revenue. • Overall support for an increase to the base rate (to cover police, streets, and fire.) • City revenue and expense is a challenging conversation for the public to be able to provide specific revenue options. • Majority like level of service with limited suggestions for where to reduce. • Have engaged with over 200 people Combinations for same revenue: B and C lines, (from graphic • C puts the .85 into base rate, all of the areas with dedicated funding, now have discretionary funding and council and community decides where it will be spent. • B talks about increasing base rate by .60, covers current contribution for police, streets, fire 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 7 • .25 dedicated would be split and support other transportation, calling it sustainability, economic health, review, environmental • If council votes for option B, two ballot questions. Either of these options are different enough it triggers TABOR language. Volunteers would need to run a strong campaign. Ongoing Outreach timeline:  January 22 Work Session  Last Day to Refer Ballot language- February 5, 2019  Election-April 2, 2019 NRAB COMMENTS: • LUKE: the money that KFCG saves, would like to see that those get bundled, the needs are here and not going to go away, and seems absurd that we revisit every year? Strong proponent of giving parks and rec dedicated funding, those are heavily use and will only get more so those are the things our city has built our brand around. Would like to have parks and rec in the.25 (B line). We voted for KFCG and I think they will vote for it again • BOB: people have supported KFCG and it’s this bundle, and when you separate it out, you are taking away some of the things that brought people to vote for why they voted for KFCG. What are we going to face in getting this supported? • LUKE: everyone supported it, we need to make this a permanent tax • JAY: Who makes up volunteer committee that will need to sell this? • Campaign committees, many of the same folks, fire and police unions will get behind it, parks and rec and transportation board will have interest. Long time city folks will back it. Typically we get some early funders behind running a campaign and based on the interests, people like it; some businesses. • NANCY: seems like these have gone from wish list to necessary so if it gets put into the base tax, what we are saying with this, is that we are going to maintain it and get a standard operating budget, when transit advocates come in. Right now all of transit comes out of 2.25, parks comes and wants dedicated tax. You do open that up. • JAY: Proponent to raising it, committees realize these better than the public. That’s why asking who will sell it to the public. Has to be volunteers and everyone in the room as individuals, and as a board and advisory to council should you want to make a recommendation. • NANCY: Right now, what is the strategy, if we add it to the base rate, we can’t call it KFCG, and it could be an “extension of the current program”? “KFCG forever” • LUKE: when we look at tax revenues for city, they are not increasing right now. • LUKE: Happy to discuss a letter of support to council, supporting the .85. Then if council is unwilling to do .85, maybe they would do .60. • GINNY: depending on the timeframe, some of the current tax rates are going to expire as early as 2025, hard to explain to voters. • BOB: propose supporting level C. Letter would need to be out by Tuesday, can it be an email. If you want to do it as NRAB, also do a read • Email council person directly. NRAB ACTION: Outline DRAFT and email and chair will send to mayor and city council that we heard this last night that we support the city tax and that we support section C that would put it into base rate and a letter would follow. Voted to approve: unanimous c. Outdoor Residential Burning Ordinance Update 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 8 Cassie Archuleta, Environmental Program Manager, will seek feedback from the Board regarding recommendations that will be presented to Council at the January 22 Work Session to address negative impacts from outdoor residential wood burning. (Action: 55 min). • Going to council on Jan 22. o Does the NRAB recommend that council consider: allow outdoor residential wood burning fires with a permit? o Providing resources to support implementation and enforcement? • Project Goal asked to develop recommendations around outdoor wood smoke, o council made it a priority in Feb 2018 o public engagement mar –Sept 2018 o back to council in Oct 2018 o back to talk about in Jan 2019 • Findings: o Smoke and particle pollution o Nuisance and/or health concerns o Sensitive populations o Smoke can travel o Recreational amenity • Policy research range of policy options o Less regulatory – status Quo, middle ground, ban NRAB Recommended: Support for middle ground if it came with adequate education and outreach and resources to effectively enforce. Middle ground: Regulatory option to address only fires that impact neighbors • Objective o Prohibit residential wood fires that negatively impact neighbors • Recommendation o Allow outdoor residential wood fires with permit o Permit conditions establish:  Discretion to require a fire is extinguished based on complaints  Ability to revoke permit for continued complaints Permit application: • Conditions o Required for outdoor wood burning o No fee (initially) o Annual renewal • Acknowledgments o Safety requirements o Property owner permission o Restriction on high pollution advisory days o Subject to extinguishment and/or permit revocation based on smoke complaints • Recommendations o Notify neighbors prior to burning o Low smoke wood burning practices • Exemptions o Electric, liquid-fuel or gas-fueled appliances o Non-commercial cooking appliances (e.g., BBQs and smokers) • Enforcement Discretion examples 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 9 Healthy nuisance concern, location/proximity, time of day, purpose (cooking exempt), frequency/duration – evaluation of factors pull that together and see if that fire is unreasonable. • Complaint Response Process - Need better intake system • complaint received • permit research (do we know the location, permit obtained, history of complaints) • Permit enforcement (notify of requirements, citation for burning without permit, suspend or revoke permit?) • Triple Bottom Line Scan Results (TBL-S) Environmental o Positive  Indoor and outdoor air quality  Education and outreach opportunity o Negative  Resource needs Economic o Positive  Innovation (e.g., CSU Energy labs) o Tensions  Gas appliance vs. wood appliance sales  Community brand of environmental/health vs. over-regulation Social o Positive’  Access to healthy indoor air o Negative  Accessibility of process o Tensions  Better vs. worse neighbor relations • Timeline and Resources • Outreach/Adoption Feb-Mar 2019 • Initialization April-May 2019 • Year 1 June-Dec 2019 • Evaluate Year 1 2020 • Resource Needs o Permitting system (software updates): ~$5,000 (one-time) o Implementation and enforcement (Environmental Services): 0.25 FTE; $18K/year (ongoing) NRAB QUESTIONS: • NANCY: where does outreach cost come from? Re-read minutes with suggestion of phone line, and doesn’t know if that is part of 211 or how is information available? This is part of what Environ serves does already, it will be absorbed • LUKE: do you print brochures and ask retailers. There is an umbrella budget, much is at no additional cost to the department • LUKE: permit approval process looks like? When giving out permits, do you just give out permits to anyone who applies? Education around “how do we create healthier air? Number of permits in given area? Similar to ditch burning, is there any criteria to stop a permit? • BOB: part of the education happens during the permitting process, you find out the regulations and repercussions are 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 10 • LUKE: agrees, most of that education comes from is from people having problems, maybe if a non-permit holder is contacted, they can provide some of that education. Even if you send every household a letter. • BOB: more education is going to happen when neighbors complain, and that gives the neighbor some power when there is a process, there are regulations for this. • LUKE: Lessons from Denver and Boulder who have permits and bans? Denver has a permit system but they will not issue permits, de-facto ban. Here you would self-acknowledge and self-certify. People that don’t know about it in Denver, neighbors help others to understand and they don’t do citations. Boulder gets many complaints, they handle them through outreach and education. • JAY: Why can’t we charge a permit fee? • LUKE: financial incentive in future to replace wood burning with non-wood burning • LUKE: enforcement, would they be code compliance officers? What other members? Code compliance could write up citations, other outreach and education agents to get most of there. We do not have code compliance resources after hours. You would not get immediate response. • JAY: if you charge a fee for the permit; people will be less likely to wood burn $75 fee was highest, it was prohibitive, most were at $10; some were free • LUKE: if no one is doing outreach after hours, you are undermining the city’s ability to address health concerns if they don’t deal with it while it’s happening. • NANCY: How many complaints? Complaints have increased: “Summary of Complaints” PFA finds more fires that were not preapproved by neighbors • LUKE: How does this impact homeless communities that may need to have fire? They are already prohibited. What we do know is that not everyone knows about fire requirements. • LUKE: Questions to NRAB board: Does the NRAB recommend that council consider: allowing outdoor residential wood burning fires with a permit? Providing resources to support implementation and enforcement? • Email directly to council? Air quality said they aligned something more than what we do NRAB Recommendation: • Elizabeth motion to middle option, with optional minimal fee • BOB seconds the motion “We support wood burning with a permit and providing education with implementation and enforcement, we would not be against a minimal fee.” • Voted upon: unanimous 6. OTHER BUSINESS – 8:00 – 8:30 p.m. a. Approval of Annual Report 1 Nancy, last year, I propose that we delay approval to give members a couple of days to look over it and ask for comments and suggestions before end of business Monday. MOTION BOB SECOND JAY Voted: Unanimous 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 11 2 Questions: boiler place, how many meetings (10/10), how many agenda items (29/35), how many items to council (5/10). Joint meetings with water, energy and LCSB last year. 3 What did we all participate in, liaison-ships, committees? a Nancy, in minutes we were calling it sustainability services group of boards and commissions, but futures committee of council is talking about structures and the idea of joint meetings? Elizabeth, not sure, problem is scheduling. Idea was to plan long-term, such as TBL board. Asked by council until they put together boards and futures commission, and they have been discussing, nothing back. Boards and commissions that deal with the TBL, most are in sustainability. 4 CSU student visiting, no field trips last year a ELIZABETH visited the wind turbines, Six electrical lines b. Board Member Reports 1 LUKE – Approval to submit “Memo to Council re e-bikes on trails” to Tessa Geiger in council packet, appreciates support from this board, believes direct experience and exposure is key to understanding the e-vehicle programs a Process clarification: Katy sends to Sarah Cane, and it’s included in packet but separate b MOTION JAY c SECOND ELIZABETH d Voted: Unanimous 2 NANCY – Jay and Nancy were invited by Clark Mapes, planner with Harmony corridor, went to a meeting at Straus cabin. Response was so strong, the city has adopted the update of the Harmony Gateway as a part of the city plan. Discussion was adversary based on misinformation that it appeared to be a single developer plan; now it’s the entire chapter to reassure people that it wasn’t something being slipped in to appease developers Workshop at senior center gave a lot of information on Tuesday. a This will leverage the city investment in updating this vision because of the Mulberry annex. b Boundaries of Harmony Gateways: Kechter, Harmony, I-25, Includes property to north (Bens Natural Area) Wanted NRAB involved to protect natural resources that are involved c. Six Month Calendar Review 1 Many issues coming up a E-bike (will be approved before elections) Nancy would like to do a Memo to council on supporting efforts, Lindsey or Ryan would be resource for that. b City plan - Nancy would like to do a Memo to council on supporting efforts, Lindsey or Ryan would be resource for that. 2 Other topics that may not be on the list a Solid waste advisory group placements information needed b Board and commissions code revision coming up, one topic is “funding for recorders” may be no longer available, LUKE contacted Christine, expressing questions that if it is to be recorded by a member, would the member be able to completely participate. Several boards and commissions use an audio recorder, why not use that as record of meetings? What city law would restrict digital recording? Per Christine, it’s a minimal cost Per Katy it is a cost cutting effort to rectify the departmental budgets, 01/16/2019 – MINUTES Page 12 based on what city council wanted to fund, approved through budget team during budget offers -Luke would like someone to present information on that after Feb 26th meeting, before decisions are made. Sees strong value in retaining written minutes to refer back to and offer transparency. d. Additional Announcements 1 Feb 4th is a super issue meeting, presentation on Montava and residential burning, dinner at 5:30 2 March meeting is middle of spring break, NANCY will email about availability to assure quorum is present is met 3 This commissions’ elections are next month 4 Veterans services for county and city is having an opportunities and services fair for veterans and the public, JAY is asking all to share handout ADJOURNMENT 8:39 p.m.