Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 09/05/1990ti LJ • MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 - 7:00 PM Board Members Present Bill Miller Tim Johnson Dave DuBois Chuck Davis Board Members Absent Joyce Berry Deni LaRue (excused) Staff Members Present Edith Felchle Shirley Bruns Joe Frank Christine -Ferguson Will Smith Harold Swope Ward Luthi Tom Shoemaker Susie Gordon Minutes Minutes from August 8 regular meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. A request was made to identify the responsible party in action items in the minutes. Old Business Committee Assignments: Education - Johnson, Smith, Miller Recycling - Johnson, Smith, Miller Land Use - Ferguson, Swope Water - Swope, DuBois Hazardous Materials - DuBois, Davis Legislation - ad hoc Mitigation committee - ad hoc Johnson will call absent members to determine which committees they want to be on. He asks that last year's committee chairs phone new committee members and arrange the designation of new chairpersons. LDGS Audit: Joe Frank provided an update on the LDGS Audit and distributed copies of the most recent report. He explained that City Council reviewed the Audit at their August 28 work session and directed Planning to ensure that all the boards and commissions reviewed and 1 I commented on it. Council is very interested in each board's response. Frank agreed to wait until after the Board's meeting on October 3 for the NRAB's comments. Frank directed the Board's attention to the pull-out prioritization chart on page 45. On the following page, the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendations are given. Their additions and changes are identified by stars and. italics. For example, the P&Z Board added the Transportation Plan as a high priority item. (An updated version of this page was handed out separately from the report.) ...Swope... inquired.. whether _.Planning...had ...considered ._hiring,_a contractor to perform the Audit rather that doing it within the department to avoid the perception of bias. Frank responded that the time constraints of completing the project in 15 weeks precluded that option. In his opinion, the review by the P&Z Board, citizen surveys, and other public comment made it an unbiased, independent document. Johnson asked whether there had been any objections to the recommendation for a submission requirement for hazardous waste identification by industrial and commercial users (page 21). Frank answered that there had not been objections. He explained that an inherent problem during development is that the end user is not always known. Hazardous waste identification'may have to be added to Building permit requirements. - Ferguson suggested that Frank specify his expectations for the Board's response to the Audit. Frank explained that any thoughts, comments, or additional emphasis that the NRAB wanted to make on issues in their areas of concern would be useful to Planning and to Council. Frank said they are interested in finding out how things can be improved. He pointed out that just because an issue is rated "less important" that doesn't necessarily mean it won't get worked on immediately. Easy projects, for example adding wording to an ordinance, will be accomplished quickly. Ferguson observed that the Audit doesn't contain any strategies or tactics. Frank explained that the next step in the project is to develop the work program for the priority items by October, including descriptions of time frames and necessary resources, followed by work plans for the other items. Ferguson questioned Frank about the form that he envisioned the LDGS"will take in the future, and about enforcement. Is the P&Z Board bound to the LDGS decision -making tool? He replied that the essential structure of the LDGS is unlikely to change, but that some of the policies and some clarifications of criteria will change. It is a set of development regulations and they (P&Z) are K limited to the criteria contained in the LDGS. Ferguson asked about what is being perceived of as "short circuiting" the LDGS, the "so-called fast track." Frank responded that there was nothing on any "fast tracking" process being considered for the LDGS. He thought that what she referred to is consideration that is being given for a new zoning district that would apply to the Harmony Corridor area. A two step process is proposed; if a project is planned for one of the five uses identified in that zone, it is eligible to go through a special process. First it goes through a preliminary P&Z approval, where the LDGS criteria are applied. Then it goes through design guidelines.. and . special.. conditions.. review... .This.. process ,could potentially be applied to other projects that have gone through a master plan process; it's designed to allow that flexibility. However, it's not a new process, and it is not any faster. He commented that it is hard to tell at this point whether the zoning district proposal will be approved. Davis asked about the recommendation, "use of points." Frank replied that it is a suggestion to keep a log to track how the points are used, and how often people are taking advantage of certain features, such as including low income housing or energy conservation. Ferguson commented on the absence of noise pollution in the Audit. Frank answered that it was included as a traffic and neighborhood compatibility issue. She also complimented Frank on the professional work and expertise of the Audit, to which he replied that during the project they had adhered to the policy that "there are no dumb questions." Johnson requested that the land use committee review the Audit. Ferguson suggested assigning pages to each member of the Board to review. DuBois observed that Chapter 4 is the essence of the document. Johnson suggested that all members read the introduction and made the following assignments for Chapter 4; Ferguson, Swope City Land -Use Policy- Smith Design- Smith Infill and Neighborhood Compatibility- Ferguson Predictability of Land Use- Miller Predictability of Decisions- Davis Johnson observed that this coverage should provide solid recommendations for City Council. Frank cautioned the Board that the -old version of the chart and the new version of the pull-out chart look different but that the contents are the same. When an inquiry was made about the Anheuser Busch Agreement, Shoemaker explained that the agreement to an emissions cap had set a precedent that was being considered for other projects. Frank added that originally AB wanted to burn coal, but that they agreed to the use of natural gas with oil as a back-up. The discussion of the LDGS Audit concluded by Johnson encouraging members to call Frank if they have further questions. Recycling: Smith directed the Board's attention to the draft letter that had been handed out at the last meeting which made the recommendation to Larimer County Commissioners to adopt plans for an intermediate processing center (IPC). Because the Commissioners voted for- an..IPC.four- .days. later, _the..letter.will-be.not_be sent .as it was drafted. Shoemaker described that the County public hearing was well - attended and that the vote was unanimous, 3-0, for an IPC. Frank Lancaster, director of County Natural Resources, was asked to provide some more information on the IPC by the next and final hearing early in October. Bid proposals will be examined, and it is likely that the new facility will be built and operating by early summer, 1991. Shoemaker announced that a joint grant proposal made to the State Energy Conservation Office by Fort Collins, CSU, Estes Park, and Loveland has been accepted. In addition to awarding the request for $93,000, the agency allocated $10,000 for the purpose of disseminating information about the project to other communities in the state. Fort Collins will receive $30,000 of the grant. The money will be used for educational packages, and a video or slide program on waste reduction. Almost half of the money will be "pass through" funding for other groups' recycling projects and activities. Guidelines for project eligibility will be developed by the Natural Resources Division. Ferguson asked how the IPC will be funded. Shoemaker replied that a private contract would be likely to happen, and that the contractor would recoup their costs through increased tipping fees. The landfill rate structure is likely to be rearranged and tipping fees increased; potentially, use of the IPC will not cost anything. Smith inquired whether the resolution permits private companies to set charges based on whether or not customers recycle; is free market still the only approach that can be taken to rate structuring? Shoemaker commented that the IPC allows the opportunity to get one step closer; if there is no charge to recyclables and a higher charge for throwing away waste, there will be a direct incentive for haulers to participate in recycling. He added that the Commissioners were very interested in investigating a "pay as you throw" system. Shoemaker noted that their interest creates an opportunity to pursue joint legislative lobbying with the City to change state laws that prevent intervention into 4 private haulers' rate structuring. When Miller asked about the effect on individuals in the county who haul their own waste, Shoemaker replied that they would be subject to increased tipping fees, but in the same proportion, and that the same incentive to recycle would apply. Smith observed that the resolution doesn't include any reference to market development for recyclables, such as Styrofoam. Shoemaker replied that the Economic Development division could play a role here, and that the, operator of the IPC would be responsible for brokering recyclable materials. Ferguson inquired whether the City will receive a percentage of the IPC contractor's revenue, and whether that money would be earmarked to encourage people to participate. Shoemaker said it was included in Council's resolution, but that it was still a detail to be worked out. Smith asked if the County's plans will change the City's curbside proposal, other than the timing, to which Shoemaker replied, no, except to add the beneficial aspects of the IPC, such as the co -mingling collection system, which would reduce traffic, and to increase efficiency and economy of scale. Bruns commented that basically the only'change that has been made to the draft that was previously submitted to the Board is the addition of legal definitions. When asked about used motor oil pick-up, Shoemaker stated that he recommended against including oil collection until it has been determined by the EPA whether oil will be classified as a hazardous waste. Bruns added that commercial users are not exempt from used oil disposal regulations, but that they usually contract for its collection. Shoemaker explained that the ordinance specifies an annual designation by the City of the materials to be recycled. This will allow marketplace considerations to be part of the decision -making process. For example, yard wastes could be added (although they are not included presently in the recommendation) during the annual review. The market for compost is currently poor, and it is possible for people to perform composting individually. Johnson agreed that education would increase community awareness of the value and need for composting yard wastes. A draft letter to City Council concerning the recycling program,- was. distributed-. Discussion followed ---concerning the problem haulers have with reporting their list of customers. Shoemaker stated that he will ensure that reporting is conducted using proprietary locked files to alleviate their concern. Bruns noted that after the City Attorney's review of the ordinance, it F will be publicly available and the waste haulers and others will have a final opportunity to comment. The ordinance is scheduled to go before Council on October 2, at which point, staff will be asking for adoption of the ordinance on the first reading. Bruns referred Ferguson to page 5, section 9, when she inquired about commercial requirements. Smith interjected that there is no language in the ordinance concerning requirements. Council preferred to have free market conditions determine participation in recycling, which is why the Board advocates financial incentives.He added that brokering services are very important to small and medium sized customers. When asked whether there are restrictions to out -of -county haulers to using the landfill, Shoemaker commented that he thought it likely that the IPC would become a brokering center for northern Colorado. He mentioned that it has been a concern of the Chamber of Commerce that businesses that have been conducting their own brokering and recycling will still have their rates increased. Johnson noted that a recommendation will need to be made on the ordinance, and that the Board doesn't meet until October 3. A motion was made and passed for the recycling committee to meet and prepare a recommendation on staff's recycling proposal. EMP Report: Shoemaker related the outcome of the August 28 work session and Council's appraisal of the Environmental Management Plan, and suggested that the Board consider scheduling a separate additional meeting to discuss it. He described the session as a command performance that could not be postponed, although staff had notified Council and the City Manager that work on the EMP Framework had not been completed. Shoemaker noted that there was a strong message from Council that too much process had been presented, and that Council was anxious for the action on the plan. Most importantly, Council conveyed that they care about improving environmental management in the city. He stated that the door is open and that staff intends to take action items to Council. Shoemaker went on to say that staff is in the process of regrouping and that an Action Agenda report is being prepared for printing next week. The goal is to produce a manageable report, 15-20 pages long. A background report will be available for further reference. At this point, Shoemaker distributed a handout, EMP Action Schedule. Swope related his observation of the Council work session that Council seemed to want to be further along. There was dissention among individual members; Maxey expressed that the EMP should be a broad policy, while Horak wanted to see specific areas addressed. 0 Swope thought that Council seemed puzzled about what was expected of them, that it wasn't clear. Johnson concurred with Swope. He went on to underscore that the stage appears to be set for action and to urge staff to move forward with specific proposals. It was agreed to schedule a supplemental meeting to discuss the EMP on Wednesday, September 19, at 7:00 pm in the Employee Development Conference Room, 200 W. Mountain, Suite A (please note that this is a change in location). Land Acquisition Fund: Shoemaker explained that the timing is probably good for promoting a land acquisition fund. Councilman Horak had raised the issue at the August 28 work session and at the same time, Council has been deliberating on the historic preservation fund. He added that the City Manager has requested that he prepare a budget proposal for acquisition projects. At this point, Shoemaker distributed a draft letter to Council concerning land acquisition. He explained that because of the timing of upcoming budget reviews, he took the opportunity to draft a letter that requested funding be set aside. Davis inquired about the option of using a change in zoning to accomplish land acquisition. Shoemaker agreed that as an avenue of preservation, zoning needs to be investigated. Miller concurred that it could be a strong selling point, to offer a zoning change, or else acquisition. He wondered if an acquisition fund could be dovetailed with open space. Shoemaker stated that although other funds such as open space and stormwater in part achieve the objectives of natural area planning, there is a need to preserve areas that may not have recreational or flood control value. The lottery money funding is designated for trails year by year. The funding source that we are requesting would be new money. Smith asked whether the future designation of land purchased under this fund could be shifted to open space, or whether designation as natural area was binding. Could this be a transitional source of funding, used to acquire land as unexpected opportunities arise and when other sources have been used up? Shoemaker expressed that he thought there should be a funding source allocated for natural resource values, but -that he would expect natural areas to be part of the open space system, managed under different management plans. The NRAB would likely play a role in making decisions. 7 Ferguson observed that the City Manager wants to see "a map with circles and price tags and priorities." Shoemaker commented that there are other aspects to the program, such as finding ways to help homeowners associations and reservoir companies create and preserve.natural areas. The heart of the program is to determine what constitutes valuable land, where they are, and what their costs are. Smith asked whether the fund would carry over from year to year and have a regular inflow of money, or need to be used annually. Johnson stated that the money- should be used for appropriate purchases and not just to get spent. Shoemaker commented that. the fund would provide the ability to respond to opportunities, especially when there are limitations to other funding. A discussion ensued about the format of the letter to Council and how to make the request, or "fill in the blanks." Johnson cited the Harmony Corridor project, during which planners identified available wetlands and estimated their costs at $6 million. He asked whether the Board should make a list of available purchases in a particular price range of $1/2-2 million as part of the proposal to Council. For example, the Spring Creek Corridor could be identified as a prospect. Swope noted that if there were a fund, people would probably be inclined to donate land or contribute money to it. Smith suggested that instead of looking at large corridor projects, smaller individual parcels could be purchased. Miller asked whether it would be useful to avoid specific wildlife or wetland designations and just buy land in the city's best interests, but other members felt that the fund would get diverted. Davis stated that specifying a dollar amount would necessitate having a "for instance" list. Johnson observed that a fund could be built up from an initial amount of perhaps $3/4 million now, to be added to next year. Miller inquired whether there was a possibility of dovetailing the fund with mitigation fines. Johnson thought that would be a possibility to discuss. Smith suggested using an acreage approach instead of a monetary approach. Ferguson agreed that a per capita acreage figure could be established. Davis asked Shoemaker if he knew of a precedent in other cities for average first year spendings on this type of program. Shoemaker stated that there were programs in various forms around the country. Johnson noted that it is important to provide a dollar amount in the proposal in order to be included is this year's budget. Shoemaker stated that all these tools need to be addressed in this policy, but agreed that a dollar figure should.be offered so that the opportunity isn't missed to be included in the budget. He noted that when it was proposed at this time last year, lack of a 8 t budget proposal put the recycling program out of sync and under- funded. Council will be considering the budget on October 2, and it would be valuable to have the Board's recommendation for a land acquisition fund for the work session next week, or in the week following. Shoemaker stated that a recommendation from the Board is important to allow implementation to proceed once the natural areas policy is approved. When Ferguson asked him if the exact dollar amount is needed, Shoemaker replied, no, just that it gets included in the budget. Smith observed that giving Council some approximations and examples will set a feel for the costs. A motion was made and passed to complete the draft letter establishing a land acquisition fund, including examples of other cities' first year funding for similar projects. Committee Reports Education Committee: Felchle discussed the draft proposal for an NRAB Environmental Action award. She distributed a copy of a news article on a similar type of award sponsored by a commission. Smith suggested that in order to be effective, there should be a public announcement for the award. Felchle noted that the award has good potential for schools' class projects. When asked about the funding for the award, Felchle explained that it comes out of the Natural Resources division budget. Johnson proposed using the columbine flower as the symbol for the award. Smith inquired whether other groups could share the sponsorship of the award, but members felt that it should be retained as a Natural Resources award. Felchle asked for a recommendation on the draft from the education committee, and for ideas about the composition of the review board. Comments should be addressed to Felchle or Smith. Legislative Review: Davis directed the Board's attention to recent pesticide legislation and his concerns about the state's preemption of local control over commercial applications. He described the law as an "industry protection bill." Shoemaker reminded the Board that City Forester Tim Buchannon has been considered for a presentation, and that he might be able to provide more information on the law. New Business Ferguson expressed her concern about unnecessary staff time being spent in Board meetings, and suggested scheduling staff presentations early in order to excuse them as soon as possible. W Smith offered a note of congratulations to Natural Resources staff as recipients of the Golden Handlebar award for highest City department participation rate on Bike -to -Work Day. Felchle discussed the Clean Air Fair that is being held at the Foothills shopping mall on October 13 and 14. She made a request for volunteers to help staff the booths and to (briefly) wear the "Whiff the Clean Air Pup" costume. Board members will be receiving flyers in the mail and are asked to post them if possible. Miller reported on the progress of Operation Osprey. The death of one fledgling has been attributed to encephalitis. Nine birds reached -.the - flight stage, and -four- have - been sighted in fishing activities. Migration may have already started for the other birds. Only 3-4 years of the project left to go! Miller credited volunteers for extreme diligence and hard work. Congratulations were voiced for Miller and Operation Osprey. Swope asked that the mitigation process that was discussed at the last meeting in his absence be amended to include consideration to the area where damage has occurred. This has been omitted as a criterion, but it is important that the need for repairing damage be included. A motion was made and passed to amend the mitigation process to include reference to local areas consideration. The 1990-91 Board and Commissions Manual was passed out to members. The question was raised whether the NRAB is short a member. Johnson stated that the status of Ward Luthi is not clear, as he has not formally submitted his resignation from the Board. Felchle noted that Council has not determined yet whether the policy will be to discontinue the appointment of alternative members, or whether the NRAB has been determined to be a nine member or it member board. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 9:45 pm. iE • .0 NRAB ACTION ITEMS September 5, 1990 1. Recycling committee will meet and prepare a recommendation to City Council on staff's proposed recycling program on Wednesday, September 12, at 7:OO pm. The meeting will be held at Tim Johnson's house, 2939 Brookwood Place. 2. Board has scheduled a supplemental meeting to review the EMP on Wednesday, September 19, at 7:00 pm. The location has been changed to Employee Development Office, Conference Room 200 W. Mountain, Suite A 3. Complete and "fill in the blanks" of the draft letter to Council requesting the establishment of a land acquisition fund. (Johnson, Smith, Swope, and Davis) 4. Amend the proposed mitigation process that was approved at the August S meeting to include reference to local area consideration. (Shoemaker) 11