Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/25/2007MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting 200 W. Mountain, Suite A July 25, 2007 For Reference: Ryan Staychock, NRAB Chair - 481-1801 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison - 217-1932 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Amy Dean, Glen Colton, Rob Petterson, Joe Piesman, Liz Pruessner, Clint Skutchan, Ryan Staychock Board Members Absent Alan Apt, Linda Knowlton Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: John Stokes, Judi Vos, Susie Gordon, John Armstrong & Claire Thomas Guests Ann Hutchison Public Comments No Comments Agenda Review Stokes said there is no new information on BFO project. He said he won't have more to share with the Board until August. Review and Approval of Minutes: Liz moved to approve the May 16, 2007 minutes. Dean seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Skutchan said on page 8 of 10 it should read "precedence was set here tonight", not "needs to be set". Skutchan moved to approve the June 20, 2007 minutes with the amendments. Fruessner seconded the motion which was unanimous. Update on Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling Program — Susie Gordon, John Armstrong and Claire Thomas Natural Resources Advisory Board July 25, 2007 Page 2 of 7 Gordon gave a brief history of the City's waste reduction and recycling program pointing out the uniqueness of the privatized trash collection system. The City has had a trash hauling license requirement since 1972. Curbside recycling was introduced in 1992 and that coincided with the construction of the Latimer County Recycling Center. The next major change was in 1995 they introduced pay -as -you -throw rates. At that point haulers were no longer allowed to charge for recycling. In 1999 the City adopted the goals of 35% waste diversion by 2004 followed by the goal of 50% by 2010. Gordon explained that they did some strategic planning in 2005 and came up with a list of key assignments which include: Education and outreach, ordinances, new electronics ban, drop-off site, economic development, commercial/business support, e.g., Climate Wise, infrastructure / markets, strategic planning, new initiatives and recycling opportunities and data collection. Gordon statied that the electronics waste ordinance was adopted in February, the Rivendell site was installed in 2002 and they collect 140-150 tons of materials per month on the average. She commented that recycling is very much an economic issue which involves creating the infrastructure and encouraging the market. Electronic Waste Awareness — Claire Thomas Thomas gave a brief explanation of the term "B-waste". She said E-waste accounts for 2% of landfill waste, but it is 70% of toxic waste in the landfill. She pointed out that Fort Collins is one of the first municipalities with an ordinance that bans electronic waste from the waste stream. The EPA estimates that E-waste will grow three times as fast as municipal solid waste in the coming year. Outreach has helped educate the residents about the ordinance and their options which includes: - Established a logo, website and flyers, posters - Have sent letters to businesses that deal with electronics - Electronic newsletters with updates - Working on Public Service announcement on Cable 14 - Advertising in local papers. - Looking into advertising with local radio stations E-waste collection event in partnership with Waste -Not Recycling Outcomes - Achieve greater awareness - Measure the hits on the web site - Partner with Foothills mall for a collection site in the Fall • Skutchan commented on the receptiveness of the radio audience and asked if they are looking at the non -receptive folks or audiences that might not see that message in their daily lives. • Thomas said they have had that conversation. With limited funds they aren't sure how to proceed but it is worth looking into. She said the EPA estimates that 17.5 E-waste is recycled right now but their short term goal is 35%. • Piesman asked if their education and outreach includes CSU students. • Thomas said they have posted flyers in the student hall and academic buildings. • Skutchan suggested KCSU as another resource. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 25, 2007 Page 3 of 7 In response to a'question from Staychock, Gordon said there is a federal ordinance prohibiting businesses from throwing away E-waste. Fort Collins is very specifically directing this toward residents. 2006 Solid Waste Inventory — John Armstrong Armstrong explained that a certain aspect of data is required as part of the licensing process for the haulers which allows the City to track progress toward the diversion goals, and to gauge the effectiveness of specific programs. It also provides the primary data for other initiatives. Armstrong said solid waste plays an important role in terms of establishing inventory for emissions as well as tracking recycling diversion. He explained that any licensed hauler is obligated to give the City data even though they may not be required to provide curbside recycling (commercial haulers). The largest employers in the area have their own recycling haulers or employ recycling specialists (waste not, etc). He said they have to rely on survey techniques to go after the unaccounted recycling tons. Results — 2006 SW Inventory results ■ Total Landfill: 224,700 tons ++ (2004: 230,400 tons) • Total Recycling: 60,250 tons++ (2004: 58,000 tons) ■ Diversion rate (excludes industrial material such as asphalt and car bodies): ■ 21 % = 6% (PAYT)= 27% (2004: - 26A) Armstrong explained the diversion rate is a very useful metric. This allows them to track progress over time. They look at the total solid waste inventory for the community — diversion tons added to landfill tons and the % of the diversion tons. They add a 6% increase based on the pay as you throw. Following a brief discussion Gordon said that in comparison with other communities that have these efforts, Fort Collins is in the middle of the pack but way ahead of other communities in Colorado. Barring any major changes and more aggressive measures, this is about what can be expected. Armstrong pointed out that they use the data to detect trends. They are seeing a flat trend. He said because they don't know exactly who is using Rivendell and the County drop off site, they have to make assumptions. When talking about tons it is important to think about trends and look at the larger implications. It is important to understand the significance and what are the opportunities. More discussion followed regarding the diversion of construction waste and the types of Programs that are available. Armstrong said the deconstruction business is growing in the areas. He said he would be happy to come back and put these topics on the agenda. • Skutchan asked about the programs that are running at capacity. He asked if the City is getting to where we can close in on the goals. • Gordon said that is a separate discussion. She said there are policy decisions that need to be made. We need more aggressive measures and decisions about spending money and more Natural Resources Advisory Board July 25, 2007 Page 4 of 7 regulations. Suggestions have been pretty carefully reviewed and quantified. Gordon said they can't do much more other than be as effective and efficient with the programs they are implementing. • Petterson asked if they should put a motion on the table about reaching the goal of 50% by 2010 which is not going to happen with the current efforts. He said the question to entertain is what information or other details would folks want to feel comfortable to make a motion. • Staychock asked Dean and Piesman as new board members what their thoughts are. • Piesman asked what is the priority list and what has not been implemented? • Stokes said staff was not prepared to have this discussion. He suggested that staff come back with a best hits version of the study with several strategies. The board could have a conversation about those measures. • Piesman asked if they can circulate the strategic plan. • Stokes said they may want to do that next month because it is critical timing in the budgeting for outcomes cycle. Gordon began her update on trash districting. She said in 1994 council adopted a specific goal to reduce the average number of trucks per week from six to two on 85% of residential streets. In 1996 they did a report to address what the ramifications were which was followed up in 1998. The information is still fairly current. Council reviewed the information with two follow up study sessions in 1998-99. o Concern over unintended consequences of City actions o Decision to postpone "districting" but to: ■ Revisit the idea in the future ■ Fund on new waste reduction projects (i.e. Rivendell) ■ Promote voluntary trash consolidation in neighborhoods What's happened since 1999? o Previous Council declined further discussion on trash efficiency o Few haulers in business; down from 6 to 3-4 companies o Homeowner associations urged / assisted to use single hauler o No data on exact levels of trash service consolidation o Decline in City's finances; road maintenance costs under greater scrutiny o Citizen interest in reducing number of trash trucks has remained steady. In 2007: o Local activists lobbying political representatives • Community for Sustainable Energy — CO2 emissions o June 13 panel discussion hosted by John Kefalas o Air Quality Advisory Board memo June 5 recommending City Utility o Interest in idea of districted trash service expressed by Climate Task Force • Gordon reiterated that they have not been given any direction from the current council. • Piesman asked as far as solid waste reduction, will it make a difference with districting or is it more about air quality and climate change. • Gordon said the City would have more decision making power about the program but it is more about the air pollution reduction and neighborhood safety. • Dean said she heard that the City of Loveland has their own trash district. • Gordon explained that Loveland has always had their own trash utility. They provide the service to roughly 98% of the market. Citizen's can still choose a different hauler. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 25, 2007 Page 5 of 7 • Staychock asked for definition of districting. • Gordon said the basic idea is that areas of town are designated for a single hauler to provide service. City would administer the contract. • Staychock asked if that means there would be only one hauler. • Gordon said it depends on how many districts were chosen. It would be legitimate to suggest 3-4 districts each with different contracts. • Piesman asked if the City would sign the contract or the home owner. • Gordan explained that the City would award the contract and the default would be that you have a subscription with that hauler. State law doesn't say the City can force the homeowner to use the hauler. For the most part people will go along with it. She said there would be a performance based mechanism in place. • Staychock asked if there is a reason to have only "X" amounts of districts. There is potential to say each HOA is a small district. • Petterson said the city in terms of air quality and road maintenance, if you don't localize it, you would lose all the benefit. • Gordon said it might be helpful. She said the concept has been available to cities in Colorado since 1994. There haven't been a lot of communities that have made the decision. Recently, Lafayette awarded to a single hauler. The HOA's were getting a better rate. Your cost of service could be lower if you have everyone on board. That was their motivation. • Staychock said he is in favor of making solid waste reduction a reality, always diverting more but what is right for this community. • Petterson said they want to push Council to direct staff to put together a plan around districting. The Board should encourage Council to look at more efficient ways of collecting trash. • Colton said a lot of costs are being externalized. The haulers aren't paying for road repairs and air quality. • Staychock said they pay a use tax? • Colton commented another solution might be to say you pay so much per mile for miles driven for street maintenance. • Skutchan asked who would be the collector of the revenues under the different programs. • Gordon said in one scenario, the City would act as the collector. It could be on the utility bill. The other scenario is that it would bypass the City and haulers would continue to do direct billing to their customers. Discussion followed about the differences between a City utility and a trash hauling district. Petterson moved that the NRAB ask City Council to have staff put together one or more recommendations in the area of trash hauling which will have the effect of significantly reducing air pollution/road maintenance and other costs to the city. Such recommendations may include districting or a utility, or other excellent ideas as the staff may devise? Pruessner seconded the motion. A lengthy discussion followed. Adjustments were made to the motion on the table by Petterson. Petterson withdrew the previous motion based on the new motion as crafted. Natural Resources Advisory Board July 25, 2007 Page 6of7 Petterson moved that the NRAB ask City Council to have staff put together one or more recommendations in the area of trash hauling which would have the effect of significantly improving environmental quality while simultaneously reducing road maintenance and other costs to the City. Such recommendations may include districting or a utility, as well as an analysis of the current system and its effectiveness. Dean seconded the motion as amended which was ,,,,a imam„. Budgeting for Outcomes Update — John Stokes • Stokes commented that none of the information has changed from the initial proposals. The results teams have made their recommendations to the Budget Lead Team (BLT). The BLT and City Manager will release the proposed budget in several weeks. • Petterson asked if the proposals and dollar amounts are still on the table and does that mean they have survived the process. • Staychock said since those offers are out of the department's hands, is it more appropriate for the board to weigh in on the BFO process once the decisions are made. • Stokes said until the BLT has completed the process, he doesn't know what has been accepted or not. He said he believes the City Manager wants the boards input in September. • Staychock said they want to know what offers have been accepted once they left the department. They will want to know so they can take action on that. • Stokes said he will give the comparison in August or September. New Business • Pruessner encouraged everyone to look at the West Nile Virus plan that was forwarded. She suggested they might want to weigh in on this. • Stokes said Council directed the City Manager to reconvene the West Nile Task Force. Eric Levine might call to see if any NRAB members might want to be involved. They would like to have a new plan put together before the next season starts. If there are budget implications, they need to know now. • Piesman indicated that he may have a conflict of interest. • Staychock said he would be interest and ask if anyone else is interested. • Dean said she is interested as well. • Piesman said Council will look at the Soapstone Management Plan and asked if the NRAB should weigh in on that. • Stokes said they will be taking the plan to the LCSD board on Aug 8`s and could come to this board on the 15s'. He said it will go to Council on the 28`s. He asked the Board to keep in mind that Council will not vote on this. • Petterson asked where they are on various energy questions. A— uguust Green Energy Policy Solid Waste Diversion Soapstone Management Plan Natural Resources Advisory Board July 25, 2007 Page 7 of 7 September Green Building Climate Wise CSU Annexation Plan • Staychock asked if there is interest in the city forester coming to talk about the role of urban forestry. • Dean and Petterson are interested. • Skutchan asked Stokes about the uranium mine discussion. He asked if City staff is going to do anything in consideration of how that could affect the water table. He would like an objective third party opinon. • Stokes said it's so far out of the jurisdiction of the City, he has not heard of any direction given to City staff. He said all that water is east of Fort Collins. • Skutchan asked if they are going to get a third party presentation. • Stokes said we can't do that. • Stokes said council has directed staff to get more engaged in gauging the impact on the NISP regarding both economic and environmental issues. He said they will present the results of their study. • Staychock said something that has been missing from NISP is another private water project — green river. That project needs to be part of the context of the discussion somehow. • Stokes said they have talked about that. It is so speculative and so far down the road. He doesn't think the Core will consider it. They would still need permits. It is not being considered in the analysis. • Colton asked about the budget — buying renewable energy credits, is that a budget issue. • Stokes said that would be a policy decision. Can charge an additional 1 % to fund the supply of renewable energy. Has already been approved by council. Would be a separate process to change that. Committee Meetings Solid Waste — August Adjourn at 8:45 Submitted by Judi Vos Admin Support Supe�rvi