Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Full - Legislative Review Committee - 09/09/1999 -r Legislative Review Committee September 9,1999 CIC Room 7:3OAM—8:3OAM Attending: Council Members:Ray Martinez,Karen Weitkunat,Kurt Kastein Staff Members:Alan Krcmarik,Diane Jones,Rita Davis,Dennis Sumner,Rita Davis,Steve Roy,Tom Vosburg,Greg Byrne,Ron Phillips,Ginny Brown (recorder) Approval of Minutes: Minutes from August 12,were approved as written. Legislative Agenda: Discussions continued regarding the 2000 Legislative Agenda.Council members Karen Weitkunat and Kurt Kastein reiterated their concerns about policy statements focusing on specific issues versus broad policy statements i.e. City of Fort Collins opposes needle exchange programs.Council members asked that these type of statements be stated more broadly i.e.City of Fort Collins opposes programs that compromise officers safety,support drug use and do not have a proven track record in reducing drug abuse. Other comments/revisions about the agenda included adding the term “cost effectiveness”when advocating for pollution prevention programs etc. The agenda will continue to integrate modifications from various individuals and groups until 9/30/99.After this point the agenda will be given to the City Clerk’s office in preparation for adoption at the 10/19,council meeting. Growth Management: Greg Byrne,Service Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services provided the LRC with information about growth management legislation and its relationship to CML’s 10 Pont Plan. Concerns associated with CML’s 10 Point Plan are outlined in a letter (see attached)sent by City Manager,John Fischbach to Sam Mamet,Associate Director of the Colorado Municipal League. 0 0 The following is a summary of those concerns and recommendations: 1.Legislation for 2000,needs to establish a more effective framework for implementing good basic land-use planning within the state’s fastest-growing areas. 2.Legislation needs to mandate basic planning elements be adopted by jurisdictions. 3.Growth management legislation needs to respect local control. 4.Proposed legislation needs to include minimum,mandatory planning elements: a.Establish criteria that defines which jurisdictions need to plan. b.Local plans must include a land use element;a transportation element;a sensitive lands element;and a growth management element that establishes: •urban growth boundaries •local government provisions of key urban services •Mechanism for regional coordination. 5.CML’s 10 Point Plan: •Needs to include consequences for communities that fail to be responsible in this area. •Is enabling and a bleak piece of legislation. •Counties have veto power and cities would have nothing to say about it. •It is improved from last year,however,a number of initiatives could result this session that we don’t want. Recommended actions: •Find legislation that supports our interests and support it. +Need to get involved with other groups too make sure that something doesn’t result that could hurt our interests. •Regional planning is very important for our future. •Council members support planning’s recommendations. Priority Legislative Issues: All departments identified legislative issues that they anticipate for next session. The following is a list of those priorities: •Finance 1.State Tax Policy Interim Committee —Monitor to see what results. 2.Franchise Fees (Natural gas and electric) •Land Use 1.Vested Rights 2.Takings 3.Growth Management Issues 0 •Transportation 1.Transportation Legislative Review Committee —Monitor to see what results. 2.Local shareback of state appropriation. •Utilities —Electric Deregulation •Telecommunications —Monitor State Interim Committee to see what results. •Natural Resources —Inspection and Maintenance Program Other Issues: Backflow prevention device testing for residential lawn sprinkler systems was briefly discussed between Mayor Martinez and Dennis Sumner.Attached is a response to the issue raised at the meeting. Next Meeting:Thursday,November 18,1999 form 7:30 AM —8:30 AM in the CIC Room. MEMORANDUM DATE:September 15,1999 TO:Virginia Brown FROM:Dennis Sumner RE:Backflow Prevention device Testing for Residential Lawn Sprinkler Systems In the 9/9/99 Legislative Review Committee meeting Mayor Ray Martinez raised some questions concerning the annual testing requirement for backflow prevention devices used for residential lawn sprinkler systems.At the meeting I was asked to provide some background information to help with this discussion. Please forward the following information as is appropriate in response to that request. In short,state law imposes on the city,as a provider of water,the obligation to require annual testing of all backflow prevention devices of this type.The issue in question concerns efforts to comply with this requirement,the reaction of many citizens against this imposition,and current efforts of the utilities to make changes in this requirement. Required Testing: To comply with the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations the City of Fort Collins adopted Ordinance No.77,1994.This ordinance,in part,required all backflow preventers installed on actual or potential health hazard service connections to be tested annually.Water Board and the City’s legal staff concluded that although the main emphasis of the program is on commercial and industrial connections,residential sprinkler systems are included in this designation. Current data indicates a failure rate of 21%on all residential irrigation units. Further broken down,1999 year-to-date data shows a 47%failure rate on existing units that have never been tested before,these would typically be older units that are just now being tested.Additionally,a 16%failure rate has been found on previously tested units,these are units that have failed due to wear and tear from time,fall blow-outs to protect from freezing,etc. Public Outreach and Response: There has been an extensive public education effort,including articles in the City News,pamphlets at home improvement centers seminars for installers and testers,and extensive one on one contact.To give residents an option,a type of backflow preventer installation that does not require an annual test was approved for use.Few residents have chosen this type of installation.The City currently sends notices to about 3,000 residents,with approximately 2,500 compiling by having the backflow prevention device tested.There are an estimated 15,000 residential systems in Fort Collins. The public’s response to this testing program has been mixed.Although the vast majority understand and comply,there is a growing number of customers who feel the actual probability of a problem does not justify the program.Many view the program as another example of government intrusion into their lives. Staff Efforts to Change This Requirement: Although we rely on the private sector to provide the actual testing resources, staff is concerned about the practicality of eventually testing 15,000 assemblies every year.Our current staff could not administer the sheer number of notices and test reports this would generate.This fact,along with feedback from our customers,is causing us to review this part of our program.In follow-up with the State Health Department we are not getting the clear information provided in the past.This lack of clarity has produced predictable results among the State’s water purveyors.In contacts with other water suppliers we are finding there is notable confusion and inconsistency related to policies and practices. The Utility is currently preparing an official request to the State Health Department to change and/or clarify the current regulations for residential lawn sprinkler systems.In addition,we are working with other water purveyors on the Colorado Water Utility Council to gain support for clarification and/or change. Specifically,our plan is to continue to support the installation and testing of the proper backflow prevention assembly on residential lawn sprinkler systems.We would prefer however,that in most cases,backflow prevention devices be tested when installed,repaired,replaced or at least every three to five years instead of every year.The exact interval will be determined through a change in our ordinance,once we have received clarification from the State Health Department.We feel this proposal would still provide adequate protection for our drinking water and would be more acceptable to our customers. City Cnager City of Fort Collins July 15,1999 To:Sam Mamet Colorado Municipal League From:John Fischbac City Manager Re:Key Points to Include in Proactive State Growth Management Legislation CML is now working to identify legislative proposals for the upcoming session.This memo outlines our suggestion for a statewide growth management bill.We encourage CML to actively participate in developing such a bill. Fort Collins supported Senator Sullivant’s proposed Responsible Growth Act in the Legislature last year.Although that bill failed to pass,Fort Collins staff believes that it is in the best interest of both the City and its residents that some legislation be passed to establish a more effective framework for implementing good basic land-use planning within the state’s fastest-growing areas. Last year,CML developed a proposal for an alternative growth management bill that was referred to as the “CML Ten Point Plan”.This plan would have enabled counties and cities to better engage in regional planning on a voluntary basis;however,the plan did not propose mandating that any basic planning elements be adopted by any jurisdiction.In contrast,Senator Sullivant’s bill would have mandated certain basic planning requirements. I recommend that the “CML Ten Point Plan”as proposed be strengthened to support the public interest in this area.It is common knowledge that advocates of growth management are actively planning a public initiative to address growth management in Colorado.It is in the interest of municipalities statewide that any legislation regarding growth management respect local control, and for that reason we should make every effort to avoid a situation where such legislation is established through initiative as opposed to a more deliberative legislative process. Because I believe the prospect of a successful public initiative to be very real,I urge CML to actively participate in developing meaningful growth management legislation.Any bill that does not include at least minimum mandatory planning elements will not be adequate to satisfy those interests that are actively preparing the initiative.Therefore,we urge CML to either modify the “Ten-Point Plan”proposal to include some basic minimum mandated planning requirements,or to actively work with Senator Sullivant and other interests to craft a meaningful growth management bill that can be successfully adopted next session. We would like to suggest that any growth management bill supported by CML include at least the following points: 1.Not all communities need to plan.The bill needs to establish criteria that define which jurisdictions need to plan,and which do not. 300 LaPorte Avenue r.o.Box 580 •Fort Collins,CO 80522.0580 (303)221-6505 N 2.For those communities that must plan,we believe any meaningful bill must include requirements that local plans include at least the following: A land-use element; A transportation element; -A sensitive lands element; An affordable housing element;and A growth management element to include: C establishment of urban growth boundaries; o local government provision of key urban services;and o a mechanism for regional coordination. 3.Each of the above plan elements must be based on credible and consistent population projections,set within certain tolerances of the State demographer’s projections. 4.The bill needs to provide rewards for planning and penalties for noncompliance.Perhaps eligibility for certain state funds could be tied to compliance with the bill’s requirements. The bill needs to provide resources for communities that cannot afford to develop plans on their own. 5.The bill needs to contain some method for evaluating local government’s plans in regard to compliance with the bill’s requirements. 6.The bill needs to contain a conflict resolution technique to offer local jurisdictions a speedy alternative to litigation. The points outlined above would not represent an undue burden on local governments nor would infringe upon local control of plan’s specific provisions and contents. I hope that you find these suggestions helpful.Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about these comments.