Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/07/2005MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain September 7, 2005 For Reference: Nate Donovan, NRAB Chair - 472-1599 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison - 217-1932 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Linda Knowlton, Gerry Hart, Glen Colton, Clint Skutchan Randy Fischer, Ryan Staychock, Rob Petterson, Joann Thomas, Nate Donovan Board Members Absent None Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: John Stokes, Mark Sears, Terry Klahn Guests Ann Hutchinson Ben Marvel Agenda Review The Sterling donation agenda item will be postponed to a future time. There may be an executive session during the land conservation activity agenda item. Public Comments None Review and Approval of Minutes: August 3, 2005 : With the following changes the minutes of the August 3, 2005 meeting were unanimously approved Fischer: Page 5, top of page, change "resource recovery park" to "resource recovery farm" • Knowlton: Page 8, second comment, change "concuss" to "consensus" Joann Thomas brought to the board's attention that CDOT did not give the same presentation to the NRAB that was provided to the Transportation Board. The T-board received information about the environmental impacts on the different potential routes. They did not discuss that with the NRAB. Linda Knowlton thought that might be a result of the NRAB meetings. Nate Donovan questioned if there would be any benefit to asking CDOT to come back and discuss the environmental impacts of the routes. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 7, 2005 Page 2 of 8 NRD General Fund Budget Stokes reviewed the proposed budget and compared the 2005 budget to the 2006 proposed budget. • Petterson: What are the practical effects of the changes? • Stokes: We dropped a few things. In the Clean Air Program, we'll have less of Melissa Moran's time. She's a public relations specialist. The computer roundup will be terminated, but now computers can be taken to the land fill. • Manvel: They can be taken to Loveland also. • Stokes: In Solid Waste Reduction the outreach coordinator position was reduced from full time to half time. That was an intentional change that was made in the offer. We felt like it was a good idea. • Hart: It looks like we lost about 10% in Clean Air, and 15% in Solid Waste Reduction. It looks like Council whacked them pretty hard. Proportionately it looks like they got hit harder than the general fund in general. • Fischer: It's the same level of cuts we seen over the last few years. They did whack us really hard, twice as hard as other programs. And it's for pocket change. It will not make one iota of difference to the budget solvency. They seem to delight in taking away more and more money every year. Pretty soon there won't be a department except for Natural Areas. It's not acceptable. It's been the same old fight for the last three budget cycles. With this information it's virtually impossible to make any coherent recommendation. We need information on FTE's that were cut, dollar amounts, and where people are going. We need more detail. • Stokes: I'm glad to do that, I felt bad that I couldn't do that. I was waiting to get the final budget from the CMO. It would be easy to draft a memo to the board. I've captured most of it in what I've just told you. • Staychock: Does the general fund portion of NRD get any of the dedicated funds? • Stokes: No. What might not be included is about $80,000 in grants that the Clean Air Team has applied for and received. I can't remember if that's on top of that number, or included in it. • Donovan: Isn't your position funded partly by the general fund, and partly by Natural Areas. • Stokes: I'm 50/50 now. That will change to 65% NA's, and 35% general fund. • Donovan: Will that accurately reflect your time? • Stokes: Yes, it's a much more accurate representation. • Fischer: I think it's important to know how much of Doug Moore's time will be dedicated to natural resource protection. Will he be tasked with general development review? • Stokes: I suppose he could be tasked with other planning. His primary responsibility is to be the environmental planner. • Fischer: It would be nice to have an assurance that is what's going to happen. • Stokes: They have to have an approved budget by November 16. There is a series of meetings between now and then. • Skutchan: The 13`h is the first work session. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 7, 2005 Page 3 of 8 • Stokes: If you'd like to advise Council we could make the 21" a special meeting. • Colton: I'd like you to address how the cuts will affect the recycling program? Natural Areas Proposed 2006-2007 Budget Sears reviewed the projected budget. • Donovan: Is the projection of $5.7 or $5.8 million the reduced projection? • Sears: Yes. • Knowlton: A comment on the graphs, please use the same colors throughout. • Donovan: When OSY was adopted, or shortly before, I understood there was money from BCC that was back ended. • Stokes: That was leftover revenues. We dipped into that to close on the Soapstone Ranch. We had that conversation as a board. Most that is gone, there is a little bit of carryover that will come back. The dust won't settle for a while. They're still building the Northside Center. • Donovan: Was part of that due to projects being built in the early years of BCC. • Sears: It front ended some of the projects. Another part of the rationale is the County sales tax was due to expire. We were trying to even out the funding and put more money in the back years. Tom Shoemaker set that up. • Petterson: What are facility operations? • Sears: Facilities for staff, maintenance, office buildings, all of our equipment, and storage and utilities. • Sears: There are several short term bulges. We're hoping to add office space at Nix. We're bursting at the seams. The long range plan in 2002 projected staffing for 2019. We've already exceeded that staffing. We didn't anticipate OSY. We've grown by leaps and bounds. We will be building a house for one of our rangers. That's a facility expense. In 2008 it will go back down to a more normal budget. • Colton: What does the house cost? • Sears: $250,000 to $300,000. It's more than a house. We will save the front end, the historic part, and remove the back two-thirds. We're planning to spend more than what you would spend on a normal structure. We're trying to make it as close to zero energy use as possible. We want to make it a green facility with LEED certification. • Knowlton: Does this include redoing the road? • Sears: No. • Sears: We're also looking at finishing the improvements at Bobcat. It's quite a bit of money. We knew we wouldn't get it all built this year. There's $500,000 to start the access road improvements at Soapstone. That's ten miles of road to construct. We'll use city crews, and phase it in over 3 years. We hope to open it in 2009. It will be a gravel road. It's a very low use road. • Fischer: I was thinking there was an existing road to use as a main entry point. • Sears: It's unimproved. Some private people have maintained these roads themselves. It's six (6), or eight (8) miles of two track. It needs to be improved to a gravel road. We're going to improve an existing road. • Colton: What's the total cost of the road? Natural Resources Advisory Board September 7, 2005 Page 4 of 8 • Sears: We don't know for sure. It could be as much as $1 million. We thought we'd go ahead and budget for that. • Fischer: Is it really the most cost effective for us to use the Streets crews? Are there any private contractors in the area? • Sears: We ask for cost estimates up front. We've found they are way under others. They've been way cheaper, and they do outstanding work. You can't beat their quality. • Colton: Do you feel its necessary to have a full time caretaker? • Sears: At Bobcat we feel we need to have a ranger there. Having a presence 24/7 is going to be important to comforting the neighbors. • Skutchan: Is it cost effective to do the 1/3 historic preservation thing? • Stokes: That was a compromise. Our first inclination was to rip it down and build a relatively inexpensive house. The City asks individuals to not do that. We thought we should respect the City's approach. We agreed to restore the front part of the structure. • Skutchan: Will this be in lieu of compensation. • Stokes: Yes, we'll negotiate a salary based on free rent. • Staychock: What's the set aside fund? • Sears: In about 2015 we need to set aside a small amount of money. When we get to 2018 the county funds will run out. Council direction three years ago was to provide enough funding for three years after that. • Sears: We'll set aside enough money to operate until 2021. We decrease things in 2018. • Staychock: Is there anyway we could get a couple thousand in there next year. It's a good idea to get the kitty rolling. • Sears: The rate of return wouldn't be there. • Staychock: If I had that much money I would put some aside. • Stokes: We can spend it now, while land is cheaper, or we can put some in a set aside fund. But we won't be able to do as much land conservation. • Colton: My feeling is you're spending a lot of money on houses and improvements. • Skutchan: Is there a "what if' factor? Look at the gulf coast. What is the alternate plan if there was a community emergency, and they said we need to suspend the program? Would you sell off land to meet other cost needs? In this day and age, it doesn't take much to take the best laid plans and turn them up -side -down. Is there a back-up management plan? • Sears: There was a thought to set aside an endowment to fund the o/m in perpetuity. But, we would be putting in greater than 50% of our budget. • Skutchan: Is there a designated idea? • Stokes: It's a point well taken. If the County and City money went away we'd have a fire sale. But, we'd have other, bigger problems to deal with. If the City money went away we'd still have the County money, and we'd have enough to still have a staff. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 7, 2005 Page 5 of 8 • Colton: Some of us who worked on OSY felt like it was way overboard to set aside money for o/m 25 years in the future, for a future generation. They should decide themselves. • Donovan: There are two schools of thought. When Council considered the BOB proposal they wanted to build in seven years of o/m for what was going to be built. • Knowlton: That's the first time. • Stokes: The second, this program did it. • Sktuchan: Can you give capital costs versus maintenance? • Colton: That would be good. • Sears: Our personal services are about $400,000 out of the $2,000,000. • Stokes: Our staff is about $2.2million in a $11 million budget. • Skutchan: Resource management and facility operations are comparable. Is it fair to have those at the same level? • Sears: Land conservation activities include restoration. • Donovan: This is kind of an aside. I would ask that this board, or the new board, be able to see the plans for the construction of the house at Bobcat. I recall that when we were looking at plans for Fossil Creek Regional open space we saw a building that looked like a bat wing. We were scoffed at by the consultant. When I saw it, I was astounded. I understood there would be some space dedicated for education. • Sears: That was never intended. There is an outside pavilion. • Manvel: Is there any public space in the house, or around it? • Sears: Not in the house itself. There are outbuildings that will be preserved. • Manvel: Not even a picnic table? • Sears: Not at the parking lot. There is just up the trail. • Sears: Another thing that has increased public improvement spending is that for the first thirteen years of the program we've spent almost exclusively on land conservation. Now we're putting emphasis on getting sites open. We're building parking lots, adding toilets and catching up on trail construction and maintenance. • Sears: There's also increased contribution to Parks for trail construction. • Sears: Another aspect is restoration. We haven't done much until a year or so ago. We hired Rick Bachand to build up our restoration program. The first two years he did land conservation and planning. This is the first year for emphasis on restoration. • Stokes: It might be a fun tour to see what we've done. Some are pretty new, so they don't look so great right now. • Fischer: Rick was hired for the purpose of restoration. He also manages the ranger program. Does that have bearing on the rate we can restore the properties? • Sears: We budget .25 of his time for managing the ranger program. We have adequately staffed the positions under him. He has an environmental planner, crew chief, and we're replacing the technician. • Stocks: Rick has been distracted by other things. He's been working on a comprehensive restoration plan for everything we own. It's been daunting. • Stokes: In 2006 and 2007 we're not proposing any new employees. We're not going to hire more staff. We think we have the people to do what we need to do. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 7, 2005 Page 6 of 8 • Stokes: The City is interested in annexing Carpenter Road at the I-25 intersection. We have an iga with Larimer County on Fossil Creek Park that stipulates when the City annexes that area into the City, the City will manage Fossil Creek. If we do, we'll probably need to add staff. • Manvel: I was at the Larimer County Open Space Board meeting. They are upset they built the structure and now Fort Collins is interested in taking it over. It wasn't in our growth area, and now it has been added. They think it feels like an empire situation. • Stokes: Ben has it right. We're talking to their staff. The point is, if we end up managing that park, we'll have to add staff. • Colton: I would like to see you organize this budget better so it shows true o/m. It gets mucked up when you're building a house. The big projects should be separated. • Skutchan: The layers could be more generalized. Condense it down to o/m versus capital. Break it down into a simplistic sheet that defines it. • Stokes: That's a good point. There are easy ways to do this. We'll take it back to the office and figure that out. • Colton: It's important for the public, and everyone to know where this is going. We should be questioning things. I know we've spent a lot on conservation, but we don't want to compromise on critical separators. • Colton: Do we utilize volunteers to the extent we can; volunteer rangers, crews? We've got CSU and high school people who live here. • Colton: I hope since we're increasing bike trails that we get signs up saying that your tax dollars are funding these. I've mentioned this many times, but I've yet to see a sign. • Sears: As for volunteers, we've had a very successful volunteer program since day one. We've had tens of thousands of hours per year. We recently hired Zoe Shark full time. Half of her time is to ramp up volunteer projects. We're working next year to include a whole new aspect, volunteer trail hosts. • Knowlton: In that regard, I've met with Rick and the rangers and have some things going there to share information on how PWV operates. They're very interested. • Manvel: I appreciate all of the money saving efforts. Things are tough, and I appreciate John's willingness. We're cutting things we don't want to cut, and every dollar helps. • Sears: The volunteer appreciation picnic is Saturday, October 1. • Colton: Would it be possible to get a spreadsheet with more detail. • Stokes: We have a narrative budget. New Business • Stokes: This is the first meeting since I met with Council about the board situation. They quickly gravitated to the option of a new board. I will be preparing an ordinance to that affect for November 2. Council liked that idea. The stipulated they would like the skill sets identified; restoration ecology, experience in recreation on public land, generalist interest. My understanding is they aren't slots that have to filled, but would be encouraged. We'll put together an ordinance. Karla has put out Natural Resources Advisory Board September 7, 2005 Page 7 of 8 the ads, and we encourage you to look and encourage friends and colleagues who might be interested. • Staychock: Any word on members from this board going to that board? • Stokes: There was no council support for that. • Manvel: Anyone can apply. • Skutchan: Will we get to see that? • Stokes: It will be boring. Where it gets interesting is considering what will be the scope of the board, what's their realm of responsibility. That will be the crafting that will be tough. • Skutchan: What projects would still come our way? It would be nice to have a clear understanding. • Stokes: My sense is the new board will advise staff and council about the Natural Areas program. • Manvel: You might need to bring forward a new description for this board. • Stokes: We would probably be able to go to just once a month. I'm not sure the charter needs to be changed for the NRAB. • Donovan: It's broad. The scope is environmental issues. I think we can leave it the way it is. Announcements Ann Hutchinson said the Friends of BOB have started to meet. You're welcome to join in. That group is meeting on Friday's at noon at the Chamber. Mary Roberts is spearheading the campaign. Committee Meetings Randy Fischer said there was no Solid Waste Committee meeting today. Six Month Planning Calendar - CPES update to Council scheduled for October 11, 2005 work session - Fall Land Use Code Update • Donovan: Is there anything this board should be looking at? • Stokes: Not that I know of. Ted is good about bringing items to this board if he thinks there's anything of interest. • Hutchinson: They were going to consider density in LMN, and the possibility of going to three stories. • Stokes: Its part of the effort by Current Planning to facilitate infill and re- development. It's an ongoing process. • Fischer: I would note that at some point in the land use code changes the definition of what could be done on POL land changed. You would think we would have been informed. I don't know if it takes more vigilance on tracking the changes, or what. We need to make sure if there are things that are natural resource oriented that we look at it. Natural Resources Advisory Board September 7, 2005 Page 8 of 8 Other Business • Stokes: Holcim, the old concrete plant will sell at auction on September 17. We feel like there are other, more important projects that we need to do. • Fischer: We should be working with owners to get fee title to gravel mines so we could have more control and more influence in restoration and management of lands when they're done being mined. Is there any merit to that approach? • Sears: There's a lot of merit. But those lands aren't going away, other lands are. Do we tie up money and only gain a little influence? My feeling is as long as we acquire them before its restored we can have more influence. I don't think we want to buy outright. I'd rather be a partner with the water districts, then we can have a huge influence on how they're reclaimed and how the storage is shaped. Certain areas will not be suitable for water storage, as they're too far from the river. • Fischer: I came back from Windsor. It's pretty alarming what they're doing, building around the gravel mines. I'd hate to see something like that happen out there. • Colton: Did Windsor buy into the separator plan? I thought they did. • Stokes: I think so. • Colton: Maybe its time to refresh the issue. See if they're still committed. • Stokes: Wally Cameron, on our real estate staff, has been giving us an extraordinary effort. There's so much going on day to day. We've had a hard time attracting and keeping people. We're lucky to have Wally. He worked for 15 years for Boulder. We've had another person leave recently. He has to put all of these deals together. We're keeping up, but its been difficult. Our pay scale is low. We cant keep people. They keep getting better jobs and they leave. If Wally wasn't here we'd be in trouble. • Colton: It's a critical position. Since his salary is paid out of Natural Areas is there some way to..... • Stokes: We have pay ranges for job titles. Land Conservation Activities Mark Sears briefly reviewed local, regional and separator land conservation activities. At 8:45 the board voted unanimously to go into executive session for the purpose of considering specific potential land conservation activities. The board returned to open meeting at 9:05 p.m. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Terry IUahn Admin Support Supervisor �