Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Constituent Letter - Mail Packet - 08/19/2025 - Letter from Mayor Jeni Arndt to Land Conservation and Stewardship Board re Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution Mayor City Hall Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2154 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com August 14, 2025 Land Conservation and Stewardship Board c/o Katie Donahue, Staff Liaison PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Chair Cunniff and Board Members: On behalf of City Council, thank you for providing us with July 23, 2025 memorandum regarding Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution wherein you recommend the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot. We also appreciate receiving the minutes of the July 23 special meeting wherein you discussed the topic at length before arriving at this recommendation. As you know, City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of the resolution on Tuesday, August 19. We invite you to view the Council meeting that night in person at City Hall at 6:00 p.m., online on fcgov.com/fctv or via cable TV. Thank you for the expertise and perspectives that you bring to the Board and share with City Council. Best Regards, Jeni Arndt Mayor /sek cc: City Council Members Kelly DiMartino, City Manager City Clerk’s Office 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6515 970.221.6295 - fax Boardsandcommissions@fcgov.com CC: [list any additional recipients] MEMORANDUM Date: July 23, 2025 To: Mayor and City Councilmembers From: Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Subject: Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and City Draft Resolution This memo is to provide City Council with a recommendation following a discussion regarding the Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report and the City of Fort Collins draft Resolution regarding the Civic Assembly’s recommendations. Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Special Meeting | 1745 Hoffman Mill Road July 23, 2025 Members: Ross Cunniff, Chair Holger Kley, Member Scott Mason, Vice Chair Elena Lopez, Member Denise Culver, Member River Mizell, Member Mark Sears, Member Tom Shoemaker, Member Jennifer Gooden, Member 7 /23 /20 2 5 – MINUTES Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL: LCSB: Denise Culver, Jennifer Gooden, River Mizell, Elena Lopez, Mark Sears, Tom Shoemaker, Ross Cunniff, Scott Mason, Holger Kley NAD Staff: Katie Donahue, Matt Parker, Julia Feder, Elaine Calaba, Emily Shingler, Mary Boyts 3. AGENDA REVIEW: The Board agreed to change the order of the two Action Items. 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: Patricia Babbitt, Doug Henderson, Melissa Rosas, Diana Murphy 5. ACTION ITEMS Hughes Civic Assembly Final Report Discussion Prior to opening the discussion, LCSB members disclosed their personal involvement with ballot initiatives that would impact the Natural Areas Department, petition signature gathering and financial contributions. LCSB Question: The use of “development” in the draft resolution is causing questions regarding intent; is it meant to describe land use planning or the construction of buildings? Staff Answer: In this case, the term refers to the creation and implementation of the proposed land use. LCSB Question: Was the 60 acres of natural areas listed in the draft resolution derived from the Civic Assembly process or was staff involved? Staff Answer: It was a bit of both. Staff provided an FAQ document to the Civic Assembly delegates that broke that property into quadrants based on conditions and features, noting the ecological condition on the west side is more aligned with the existing natural area. The FAQs also provided a very rough estimate of ecological restoration costs. Council members requested some acreage limits for some of the proposed features, so those were added to the Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 2 draft resolution. LCSB Question: The draft resolution states not more than 60 acres for a natural area. How does that align with previous staff analysis? Staff Answer: NAD does not have a position on the resolution. Natural Areas can implement whatever City Council decides. LCSB Comment: Previous memos submitted by LCSB were not specific on acreage, just themes like connectivity and compatibility. LCSB Question: Please clarify the current repayment of COPS financing using half Natural Area Fund and half General Fund. Staff Answer: It was arranged that way for financial expediency using two fund codes; purely budgetary. The final uses by acreage will determine how much of each fund will be used to cover the cost. There won’t be any financial adjustment until the final acreages are determined, i.e. if NAD overpaid, the Natural Areas fund will be refunded. LCSB Comment: It should be based on valuation. There are some portions of the land that would probably be assessed at a higher value than others. Staff Response: The typical practice is that the entire parcel is appraised. Any given parcel might have widely varying conditions. In this case the site was valued at a single price and Council agreed to a simple acreage split. The initial purchase price was about $12.5M, and the full debt repayment will be about $14M. LCSB Comment: Primary concerns include final acreage and location of a natural area. The member would support staff’s decision on acreage and location, but the process for determining these seems sort of loose. Staff Response: Due to the lack of time for a full site drawing and vetting process, the resolution language is designed to give a general idea but it is not perfectly specific. NAD staff would weigh in during design discussions that the west side of the property adjacent to Maxwell would make the best habitat connectivity and trail connections. LCSB Comments: The bike park folks are interested in part of the land (west side) that has more drop in elevation; it sounds like there's conflict there. One of the stated reasons for the bike park community wanting Hughes is the elevation change. Staff Response: They have also stated they are willing to work with what makes sense for the other occupants (uses) of the parcel. LCSB Comment: Concern there may be no limit on expansion in the future if there aren't some hard numbers on percentages and acres. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 3 LCSB Comment: LCSB visited the site in 2023 and noted all of the wildlife, not just on the west side, but in general including vocalizing birds and vocalizing chorus frogs. There is potential conflict with wildlife on the west side. LCSB Question: Both the Civic Assembly report and Council Agenda Item Summary seem very vague on the retention pond area which includes the disc golf course. Will the retention pond remain and will Stormwater acquire it? Staff Answer: There's no plan for the city to change that stormwater feature at the moment, but language could be left open for potential future changes to community stormwater needs. Anything that is not specifically spelled out in the resolution would probably be under Parks management. LCSB Question: If that area was carved off and included the retention pond, sledding, the disc golf course and potentially part of the bike park, would that all be managed as a part of the Park area and paid for by Park fees? Staff Answer: City staff have stated throughout this process that there is no funding for design or implementation. Right now, they're just trying to identify a plan and the funding for implementation will follow. LCSB Question: How does that coincide with the proposed CCIP tax, that lists the $5 million for the bike park. Staff Answer: The Hughes site is just one area under consideration as part of the bike park feasibility study. The purpose of the proposed CCIP tax would be funding for a bike park somewhere in Fort Collins. If CCIP gets approved by the voters, then there would be dedicated funding for that. LCSB Question: Do you know anything about the bike park feasibility study; the status on when specific parcel information will be released? Staff Answer: During the work session discussion with Council it was stated the specific parcel locations are not likely to be released because they're not owned by the city; this is a similar practice to future NAD acquisitions. LCSB Question: Given that the impermeable surface of the parcel has changed significantly with the demolition of the stadium, has stormwater done a new study to determine the appropriate size for that pond? Staff Answer: NAD staff is not aware of any design study following demolition. The resolution is the initial vision of what uses might be realized on the property with comprehensive site planning with steps like public engagement and Tribal consultation to follow. LCSB Comment: It is concerning to have to make a decision on this with so many unknowns. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 4 LCSB Question: The High Plains Environmental Center did an ecological characterization study. Is it possible for us to get a hold of that? Was the study done in conjunction with Natural Areas? Staff Answer: The study was initiated by an Assembly delegate. NAD staff does not have a copy but can attempt to locate it in the Civic Assembly documents. LCSB Questions: There are several examples of trail connectivity between Parks and Natural Areas, any examples of where that connectivity between uses that was deliberately limited? Would the planning process include looking at the characterization of the site and identifying areas where a trail would not be appropriate? Staff Answer: The Civic Assembly did call out trail connections to Maxwell and Pineridge. Staff imagine that there would probably be a trail connection to Maxwell but that would be part of the comprehensive site planning process. NAD has an interdisciplinary review process to identify the most sustainable trail alignment and there might be a portion of the property where we would not invite public access. Adjoining natural areas are on-trail only. LCSB Comment: The resolution’s 35-acre limit on the bike park does not include parking, restrooms or other infrastructure; that would make it the biggest bike park in Colorado. Staff Response: That figure represents a limitation on bike features. Parking and other infrastructure planning would take into account all future uses on the property, not just the bike park features. LCSB Question: Dueling ballot measures is a big concern. Is it written down somewhere that the one with the most votes wins? Staff Answer: NAD staff received that information from the City Attorney’s Office. LCSB Question: The focus of the joint project between the Rocky Mountain Raptor Program, Bird Conservancy of the Rockies and the Northern Colorado Wildlife Center has changed from animal rehabilitation to education. Was that discussed and why did it change? Staff Answer: 20 people were trying to work in a tight time frame to come to language that they all understood and that is not overly prescriptive. Staff did not get the impression that it changes the nature of the proposal from the Conservation Campus partners. LCSB Comment: The resolution does not constrain Council to the original vision of the joint project. Staff Response: This is why LCSB is discussing, to provide feedback to Council on how language might be interpreted. LCSB Question: Has NAD looked at the impact of purchasing 60 acres on the department budget? Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 5 Staff Answer: The purchase price is in the ballpark of what the department has been spending per year on property acquisition. Staff discussion is framed around opportunity cost. We can project that there would be enough funds to pay for the entire 164 acres out of the Natural Areas fund, but the tradeoffs would come in properties that NAD would not be able purchase. LCSB Question: The City’s 2023 Financial Report stated a NAD balance of $23 million. Please clarify how much is spent per year for land conservation. Staff Answer: The $23 million was a specific snapshot from 2023 and is not an accurate accounting of current funds. Staff believe if our sales tax projections come through there will be sufficient funds to complete the purchase for any acreage directed by Council. NAD typically budgets $5 to $7 million in spending depending on what sales are finalized. LCSB Question: There's opportunity cost also in not purchasing land locally. Does staff think costs are going to go up in town? Staff Answer: The NA ballot language is structured to account for the increasing cost of land and the NAD is focused on purchasing land earlier at lower cost. If Natural Areas covers the City’s $14 million commitment it would eliminate other purchasing opportunities. LCSB Question: Would NA be required to pay $14 million all at once? Staff Answer: None of the reconciliation process has been identified. If NAD was required to purchase the entire property it is likely the full debt service would be transferred to NAD rather quickly so it would have an immediate impact in that way. When General Fund or NA Fund that has already been spent would be reconciled, would be determined after the fact. LCSB Comment: Because of the uncertainty of dueling ballot measures, perceptions of meddling in the public dialogue, the inappropriateness of specifying acreages, and the mislabeling of the animal rehabilitation use as education, Council should not adopt this measure. LCSB Comment: There is opportunity for the LCSB to recommend implementation of wildlife coexistence features and the avoidance/mitigation of land uses that are disadvantageous to wildlife on portions of the property that would not be designated a natural area, such as lighting standards that would be compatible with Natural Areas management. There is room for negotiation between the most disadvantageous situation possible and an ideal situation. LCSB Comment: There will be time for weighing in on those things, perhaps in August or after the election. Noted parallels between spaces like Spring Canyon Park and natural areas – potential for creating policy around these transitions. LCSB Comment: Other possible topics to include would be reduction of habitat fragmentation and minimizing hardened surfaces. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 6 LCSB Question: Has anyone through this process discussed Indigenous protected areas? Staff Answer: There was a great deal of discussion about it and the Civic Assembly deliberately identified Indigenous engagement in how the site gets used and emphasized a gathering place. But they really tried to leave it up to the City to negotiate with Tribes in the local Indigenous community. Site planning would navigate different requests from the range of the indigenous community. LCSB Comment: The three PATHS founders are Indigenous Chicana and connection to the land is why they became involved in this effort ten years ago. The NAD engagement with indigenous groups is appreciated. Staff Response: The NAD hired an archaeologist. Staffing under the Equity and Inclusion Office has changed, but the City-wide Native American and Indigenous engagement and consultation effort will continue with a team be led by the Equity Office. There are regular open community meetings with the Indigenous community posted on the Equity Office calendar. There was a discussion about previous uses at the Hughes site and the development of city permitting for folks who request events onsite. LCSB Comment: The City has a good history of integrated planning, and there are good opportunities for integrated use on that site, so the member hates shutting the door on that. LCSB Comment: If the Yes for Hughes Natural Area does pass, it will determine one path, if it does not pass, the integrated site planning would occur. LCSB Comment: Member is not excited about this being decided by voters in the first place; does not support the civic process of design. They are not sure they could support a 35-acre bike park, but these park features could be designed with native vegetation to look and feel like a natural area. If this had been allowed to go through the regular civic planning process and be vetted fully, the community would be probably happy with the outcome. Perhaps that’s why Council is trying to put forward a juxtaposition of options. Not excited about the specifics that are available right now. LCSB Comment: As a person who has worked on this issue for years, don’t underestimate what the voters understand. At multiple listening sessions, participants knew what a natural area is, though there is some confusion about the difference between a natural area and open space. People know what they want and have asked for it over and over again. Connection to the adjacent natural areas is unique and the opportunity should be taken. The Civic Assembly process was fraught with problems; it was a black box. Comparing a 10-year community process to a brief Civic Assembly process, this has resulted in something extremely vague. There is too much vagueness and ambiguity. LCSB Comment: The Hughes site is a treasure. The Board’s direction should be making sure where there's ambiguity that the City errs on the side of maintaining current and future Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 7 ecological value. LCSB Comment: Concerned about being stuck between a rock and a hard place; there are opportunity costs, and significant differences in the conditions across the parcel. In the past, LCSB has written about encouraging certain uses and discouraging others. If the process had been able to follow the normal path, a good result might have been possible. High impact uses like a bike park are concerning, especially if it is regional scale. Additional traffic into the existing NAs could be impactful. Member feels that a bike park is not compatible. If Council is going to refer something to the ballot, this is the one chance for LCSB to make for the wording. Declining to endorse a second ballot initiative might give up the opportunity to weigh in on improving the language. LCSB Comment: Agree about weighing in on language. Agree that the City has done great work in the past. Assuming the planners will do the right thing. The Board could weigh in on ecological elements such as lighting, location of the bike park, etc. The Board could get more prescriptive about what to protect. LCSB Comment: If properly worded, a “no” recommendation could be useful to Council. Following the election, Council could come up with a more detailed plan or potential future ballot initiatives. Not sure how to rewrite the resolution, so suggesting falling back on principles. LCSB Comment: It would hard to be get to agreement on more detailed uses. The concept of the wildlife center has morphed over time. LCSB Comment: The Civic Assembly has some good ideas, but they are highly conceptual. The regular next step is for professionals to do more detailed design work; that does not seem feasible with the current timeframe. LCSB Comment: The opportunity afforded by the Hughes site is so unique, it should be done with a great deal of thought. The Board discussed potential wording of a motion and whether or not to include language around the competing ballot measures. They also discussed whether or not to separate the issues of the civic assembly recommendation and the referral to the ballot. They discussed how competing ballot issues have been presented to voters in the past and revisited concerns that the Board was unfamiliar with the applicable statute or legal process for determining a winner for competing ballots. LCSB Comment: A concern is that competing ballot measures could impact the outcome of other ballot initiatives related to Natural Areas. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 8 Chair Cunniff made the following motion: Whereas the uniqueness of the Hughes site and its being contiguous with existing natural areas presents a rare opportunity, uses should be planned carefully with ecological compatibility in mind. Therefore, Land Conservation and Stewardship Board recommends the City Council not adopt the resolution nor refer it to the ballot for the following reasons: Prescriptive uses and sizes have not been well vetted in the planning process and there is insufficient analysis of ecological characterization and compatibility of uses with adjacent natural areas. Member Lopez seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 9-0. Meadow Springs Ranch Conservation Discussion Chair Cunniff invited board discussion and feedback on the draft Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) Conservation and Environmental Protection memo. The LCSB discussed edits and additions, including an executive summary. Staff reported that Utilities has drafted a memo on biosolids testing at MSR but because the One Water Director has been out of town she has not been able to sign and forward it to NAD staff. The board would like to include relevant information from the Utilities memo in their recommendation to Council. The board is concerned about PFAS and other possible contaminants on property that may be considered for future NAD acquisition or conservation easement. LCSB asked if it was possible for a voter approved deed restriction/conservation easement. Staff reported that the One Water Director is reluctant to propose any future use of MSR until Utilities has completed a comprehensive assessment. LCSB is considering a conservation easement on roughly 20-25% of the highest value habitat portions of MSR. LCSB would like Utilities to complete quick inventory/ecological assessment because of the concern of potential contaminants. LCSB noted Utilities Platinum accreditation from the National Biosolids Certified Management Program might be a process-based accreditation and not an outcome based one. Their recommendation to do soil sampling is to make sure that the processes that we're following are actually leading to the results that we're hoping to get. Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C Land Conservation & Stewardship Board Regular Meeting 7 /23 /202 5 MINUTES Page 9 Black footed ferrets should be included in the memo; there are BFF operations on the east portion of MSR. The LCSB agreed to amend the draft memo and to consider it for adoption after further discussion during the regular August meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Ross Cunniff, Chair Date Docusign Envelope ID: 88658C8D-6D41-414F-A05F-7ABDDBCEFD0C 8/13/2025