Pima County Conservation Bond Advisory Committee

 

County Administration Building

130 W. Congress, 1st Floor

Monday, March 1, 2004

5:30p.m.

 

SUMMARY OF MEETING

 

Note: The following is a summary of what transpired at the March 1, 2004 meeting.  Audio tapes of the meeting are available upon request.

 

 

1.         Roll Call

The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. with a quorum.

 

Members Present                               Members Absent

Tom Sheridan                                     Pat King

Rob Marshall                                       Steve Alexander

Paula Chronister                                

Jenny Neeley

Chris McVie

Gayle Hartmann

Chuck Pettis

 

Others Present

Sean Sullivan

Carolyn Campbell

Christine Curtis, Pima County Real Property

Steve Anderson, Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation

Nicole Fyffe, Pima County Administrator’s Office

 

2.         Decide upon language regarding the open space section of the bond implementation plan

 

It was clarified that recommended language from this committee would go forward with the title “Bond Implementation Plan Language – Open Space and Habitat Protection Recommended by the Conservation Bond Advisory Committee, March 1, 2004” and that it would not be necessary to list the members names in support of the language.  It was also clarified that Draft 3 contained all the changes and recommendations voted on or agreed upon by the committee at previous meetings.

 

A motion was made to delete the following words from the first sentence of paragraph 6 regarding conservation easements on page 2:  “as opposed to purchasing land outright”.  This motion passed 7 to 0.

 

Paula Chronister praised committee members for their dedication through out this process and for the preservation of open space and habitat in general.  Ms. Chronister said that she supports the bond language drafted to date with 2 exceptions, and submitted 2 proposals for a compromise position that would result in a unanimous vote in support of the draft language.  One proposal would allocate the $174.3 million by first deducting $10 million for Davis Monthan and $15 million for other jurisdictional requests, and then applying the 75/25 split, which equates to $112 million for Habitat Protection Priorities (vs. $123.3 in current draft) and $37.3 million for Community Open Space parcels (vs. $26 million in current draft).  Ms. Chronister expressed her concern that the current draft only includes 45% of the estimated costs for the Community Open Space Parcels.  The second proposal was that any land that qualifies for Section 10 credit be purchased will dollars allocated for Habitat Protection Parcels.  Ms Chronister stated that the rational behind these Habitat Protection Priorities was that they would qualify for Section 10 credit. Therefore if a Community Open Space parcel qualifies for credit, it should be paid for through Habitat Protection Priority funds.

 

Tom Sheridan noted that lands included in the Community Open Space parcels and other jurisdictional open space requests were brought to this committee through different constituencies, and are not necessarily of the level of biological value needed to apply to the Section 10 permit.  He stated that he fundamentally disagreed that the people in the community only think the Community Open Space and jurisdictional requests are important – hunters hunt further out than these properties and birders also venture further out.

 

Gayle Hartmann proposed that the Committee vote on the 2 proposals and then on the entire draft bond language, understanding that the recommendations from this committee would move forward not identifying who did or did not support the recommendations.  Ms. Hartmann noted that she was concerned that the bond language lists Community Open Spaces parcels that people identify with, but that people will be upset when they realize there is not enough money to purchase all the Community Open Space parcels listed.  Tom Sheridan noted that this situation also exists with the Habitat Protection Priorities, and that the current draft bond implementation language honors the mass of public input during the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan process, as well as the science involved.

 

A motion was made to adopt the second proposal reallocating the $174.3 million.  Paula Chronister questioned why some areas where left off the Habitat Protection Priorities map.  Rob Marshall explained in detail how the Habitat Protection Priorities were arrived at, and how some parcels were determined to have higher biological values than others.  The motion failed 2 to 5.

 

A motion was made to adopt the first proposal, which states that any land that qualifies for Section 10 credit be purchased with dollars allocated for Habitat Protection Priorities.  This motion was discussed.  Questions were raised regarding the standard that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service would use to evaluate the Community Open Space parcels, given that a standard has been set for the Habitat Protection Priorities and the Community Open Space parcels don’t meet this standard.  The motion failed 2 to 4.

 

A motion was made to adopt the Draft 3 language with the one change made earlier in the meeting regarding the conservation easement paragraph.  The motion passed 5 to 2.

 

It was clarified that a minority report would not be submitted in the interest of supporting the bond election.

 

3.         Call to the Public

 

Carolyn Campbell stated that she would work hard on the County Bond Advisory Committee to keep this language intact.  Ms. Campbell asked committee members to speak in support of all the bond questions not just the open space questions.  Also, she stated that she would continue to fight for the protection of all open space in the County, regardless of its category, and to seek other funds to compliment the potential bond funds.

 

4.         Adjournment

 

 The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.