Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/16/2008NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Regular Meeting July 16, 2008 DATE: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 LOCATION: 215 N. Mason - Conference Room 1-A TIME: 6:OOpm For Reference: Alan Apt, NRAB Chair 221-9875 Ben Manvel, Council Liaison 217-1932 John Armstrong, Staff Liaison 416-2230 Board Members Present Alan Apt, Liz Pruesner, Joe Piesman, Linda Knowlton, Glen Colton Board Members Absent: Clint Skutchan, Phil Friedman, Heather Manier Staff Present Natural Resources Dept: John Armstrong, Alexis Hmielak, Susie Gordon, Lucinda Smith Call meeting to order Alan Apt called the meeting to order at 6:05 Introduction of Guests Ann Turnquist Agenda Review • NRAB Chairman Alan Apt pointed out they need to elect a Vice -Chairman Linda Knowlton nominated Liz Pruessner as Vice Chair of the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Motion Approved Unanimously Public Comments None Review and Approval of Minutes: • Glen Colton and Liz Pruessner had some minor changes to the minutes. Glen Colton moved and Liz Pruessner seconded a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Motion Approved Unanimously Trash Services Study Ann Tumquist, Project Manager for Fort Collins Trash Study, made a presentation to the NRAB. • Alan Apt stated he would like to entertain a few motions from the NRAB about the trash issue after Ann's presentation. Ann informed the NRAB that they were in midst of the study. o They presented at the Council work sessions in January and June o The consultant has completed the data collection process and recommendations and has compiled a 135 page report with a lot of recommendations. o They are currently in the process of getting feedback from the community and her visit to the NRAB is part of that effort. They consider the NRAB to be a stakeholder in this issue and it would be a good time for Council to hear from the NRAB. o The public is passionate both for and against a districted trash system. They will present more detailed options and recommendation for the Council at their September 23, work session. As background, Ann stated the City of Fort Collins operates its trash system by licensing trash haulers in an open, competitive system. o Residents/businesses can choose from 3 residential and 11 commercial haulers. o The residential haulers are required to offer "pay as you throw" pricing structure also curbside services to single family residential customers. HOAs and neighborhoods can choose a single hauler and many of them can save money by doing so. o Commercial trash hauling is not part of this discussion because, under state law, we have more limited ability to regulate it. It is also an open market but does not have the same recycling requirements as residential customers and does not have requirements for pricing. o Multi -family trash hauling is similar to commercial. In answer to a question by Joe Piesman, Ann Tumquist explained the city attorneys are investigating whether there is any state law that would prohibit the City from requiring commercial recycling. o Currently 52% of the Fort Collins waste is commercial waste. Ann stated the City Council gave staff a two-part problem to work on: 1. The impact of trash trucks on neighborhoods o Regarding the financial impact of multiple trash trucks on street wear in neighborhoods, they looked at the number of trash vehicles and number of trips per week per vehicle and the consultant calculated that one trash truck equaled the same impact as 1279 passenger vehicles. They are the largest and heaviest trucks that use the neighborhood streets, which are not built to be as strong as major streets or highways. They also only get 2.8 miles per gallon of gas. • They calculated there are an average of 2 haulers per neighborhood with 2 trucks (trash and recycling) x 2 trips each (both sides of street) = 8 trips/week. • Current cost to the city on street wear = $354,000/yr. • Council wanted to know how much would be saved if the trash districting model was adopted with one trash truck per neighborhood x 4 trips/week. Estimated savings could be $168,000 o The neighborhood aesthetics is degraded because of so many trash cans on the streets o The effect of trash trucks on air quality Large diesel trucks idling o Consultant analyzed emissions = 271 tons/year of CO2 emissions and other impacts. o There will be stronger vehicle emission standards from EPA in 2010 that will significantly impact diesel vehicles. As the trash haulers replace vehicles, the newer ones will be more efficient. However, there are no regulations regarding the quality of a trash truck. o Truck noise 2 2. The opportunity to improve the diversion/recycling rate • The city's goal is to increase total community diversion from 27% currently to 50% by 2010. • Of the total recycling and waste material in Fort Collins that is handled by the trash haulers,'only 7% gets recycled. There is a lot of opportunity in curbside to increase diversion. • The rest of the recycling that helps increase the overall diversion rate in the community comes from recycle centers, direct -haul to regional recycling brokers, commercial composting, and independent recycling companies' service contracts with local businesses. Ann Turnquist described the alternatives to the current trash hauling system under consideration. 1. Districted trash service o The city would put out for bid some districts for one or more haulers who would be awarded an exclusive multi -year contract for the districts they won. This would be to provide all the residential service (not commercial). o The City might have to bill customers through city utility bill, but not sure if that will be necessary. 2. Additional regulations of haulers o There could be increased regulation of haulers such as: vehicle emissions and noise; performance standards for recycling; vehicle loads and hauler reporting requirements. It would not really reduce number of trucks on the street. o Would protect choice and current hauler's interests. o Continue single -stream recycling program with new incentives in hauler contracts for them to increase trash diversion rate. o Set standards about vehicle age, appearance or emissions. o Enhancing the "pay as you throw" ordinance; change the rate structure as an incentive to recycle more by making the second/third bag of trash substantially more expensive. 3. Focus on increased recycling options: o Provide 65-90 gallon City -owned single stream "polycart" recycling containers that could be picked up once every other week, or require haulers to offer it. o Release the haulers from picking up recycling by hiring someone else to do it. o Add yard waste service to recycling ordinance with cost built into all rates. o Might look at requiring commercial recycling. Ann reviewed the pros and cons of districted trash service: • Pros o Would cut down on street wear caused by truck traffic and air quality issues • Cons o People would lose choice. o Might harm haulers. • Other actions discussed with Council o Require haulers to provide more data about their business to the City. o Hauler requirement to offer yard waste service, with cost built into all rates o Further regulate trash vehicle weights — encouraging Larimer County to put in scale at landfill. Ann pointed out that right now they're gathering community feedback o Questions being asked of the community are: • What questions does the study raise for you? • Which option do you prefer? • What concerns do you have with options? • What should council do? o Other ways for community to give feedback to Council ■ Board input ■ Individually o Go to www.fcgov.com/trashstudv o League of Women Voters forum — August 7 o Public meeting — September 3 o Letter, phone calls o Next Council work session — September 23 The Board discussed Ann's presentation: • Linda Knowlton noted the options given by the study are not apples and apples. One big category at issue is numbers of trucks on street. Another big area is recycling and how we can include that in goals. I think it might be easy for people to be confused. • Alan Apt asked what impact the 11 commercial haulers are having on the streets. In his opinion the biggest flaw in the whole system is the effect of commercial trash hauling. o Ann explained their impact hasn't been calculated in this study, because major streets are built to different standards than residential streets. The study focused on residential trash haulers' effects on residential streets. • Susie Gordon pointed out residential trash haulers are also providing commercial services. • John Armstrong stated the remaining eight commercial haulers are hauling less material than the big three often with less tonnage. • Alan also suggested construction waste should be included in the study because that is a large part of the trash scene. o Susie stated sometimes they leave a roll -off for construction for a month. • In answer to a question by Joe Piesman, Ann stated the haulers are supposed to be educating the public about single stream recycling, with all recycling into the same bin. The recycle center in Denver separates it out. o Susie pointed out the City hasn't yet mandated the haulers to do single stream. They have voluntarily gone to this system. It all goes into same truck. • In answer to a question by Alan, Susie stated that if haulers deliberately put recycling into the landfill they would risk losing their license. Alan strongly suggested the public be made aware of this since there seems to be a lot a misinformation out there about recyclables being thrown into landfills. • Alan was concerned that only 13% of the recycling comes from commercial generators, and that there seems to be no political will to do anything about it. • Ann stated that commercial recycling is collected two ways: by private trash/recycling hauler or a materials broker; if sent directly to a regional recycling facility by a broker, those volumes may not get included in the diversion calculation. • Ann also stated other ways of recycling that are not part of trash hauling are: o Reuse outlets o Compostables o Recycling drop off centers o Independent recyclers o Materials brokers Alan pointed out 27% of the total waste stream is currently being recycled and 50% diversion is the goal. He does not see how the City can achieve the goal without increasing commercial recycling. o Ann stated the City Council did not ask the study to address commercial. However, the community can recommend it to Council. o Linda Knowlton suggested the NRAB ask the study to be modified to reflect commercial recycling. El o Susie pointed out that the Climate Task Force is also targeting increased recycling to help reduce CO2 emissions. Joe Piesman stated a memo to Council could do two things: focus on whether residential trash districting should go forward and focus on commercial recycling. The City should investigate making commercial recycling mandatory. o Ann stated the City attorney is looking at this. o Susie pointed out if a business is willing to recycle, it will lower their trash bill. Liz Pruessner stated one aspect of the Climate Task Force's recommendation is to have more businesses participating in ClimateWise. When they join ClimateWise they will see what the savings are. • Liz also pointed out a striking omission in the study is lack of data. — i.e. we don't know how many vehicle traveled miles will be reduced by going to a trash districting system. We need to know how many vehicle miles are actually traveled to get a clear picture of carbon emissions. She is writing her haulers that her choice is trash districting because it will help air quality. o Alan stated the City should require the haulers to give this information in order to have a contract with the City. o Susie stated the haulers currently provide the city with two pieces of data: — the amount of trash and recyclables that are collected, and the participation in recycling. • Joe Piesman suggested the people objecting to districting because they have a relationship with a hauler could be grandfathered in. However, he did not think there would actually be long term loyalty to any one hauler. o Ann informed the group that they had talked to the City of Lafayette about this same process. Lafayette discovered that after they implemented districted trash service, many of the perceived problems went away. o Susie stated Lafayette did grandfather in some HOAs to stay with old hauler, but when contracts lapsed some HOAs have asked to join the city contract because of good terms and price. The service issues went away and the fears were unfounded. • Liz stressed outreach to the community is very important. They need to really sell the truth of how the system works, especially single stream recycling. • Glen suggested putting pressure on packaging companies and to also stress "reduce, reuse and recycle" in order to achieve the 50% diversion goal. o Susie pointed out in other countries there are producer responsibility laws to prevent manufacturers from forcing their disposal issues on the local community. • Alan stated 98% of the community wants more recycling. He suggested letting people know we have a high rate of personal trash compared to many other parts of the country and encourage them to reduce that. He also stated some people aren't convinced pay as you throw is working. • Glen Colton suggested mandatory recycling of yard waste. o Susie pointed out Gallegos offers curbside yard waste recycling for a monthly fee. • Alan suggested the City needs to say what the districted trash rates will be for multiple trashcans for HOAs. o Susie stated the City can't tell the rates but can tell the rate structure. Regardless of cost, the second/third can of trash has to follow a tiered system. • Alan also suggested having an agreement with Larimer County to get tiered structure from haulers to divert more from land fill. He knew of a city in California that had performance standards for the haulers with price incentives for keeping trash out of the landfill by recycling. • Susie stated the Larimer County Landfill acts as an enterprise zone and is very sensitive to increasing their rates too high so people go to other landfills. She also pointed out Waste Management has their own landfill in Ault. • Alari stated his opinion that cardboard is a large percentage of the waste stream and needs to have mandatory recycling. o Susie stated cardboard takes up a lot a space in the trash, but is very recyclable and worth good money. Perhaps the City could have a different way of approaching it. Last year council Fort Collins banned electronic waste in landfill. Perhaps the City could better educate the community to recycle cardboard. We already tell haulers they must provide cardboard recycling to commercial customers but they can charge for it. If the City required haulers to bundle the cost of recycling into commercial customers' basic trash service, rates might increase and people would be very unhappy. o Alan stated little businesses in big office complexes have no clout to demand recycling. o Liz stated it could be a leaming factor so that when businesses learn the cost savings they would be more likely to recycle cardboard. o Alan pointed out uncollapsed boxes in the trash cost businesses more because they are billed by volume. Linda Knowlton moved and Glen Colton seconded a motion that the Natural Resources Board supports the option in the Districted Trash Study report of districted trash collection. Motion passed unanimously Joe Piesman moved and Liz Pruessner seconded the following motion: The Natural Resources Board asks that Council aggressively pursue commercial waste diversion because commercial waste is the majority of the community's waste stream. Commercial recycling options are crucial to achieving 50% diversion. Research has demonstrated that commercial recycling can greatly reduce the cost of trash disposal for businesses. The Climate Wise program has also demonstrated this savings. In addition, we ask that council ask staff to look at potential incentives and disincentives for the commercial sector including: 1) Prohibiting the disposal of cardboard, 2) Requiring the provision of bundled commercial recycling, 3) Providing incentives to haulers who divert significant amounts of trash by enhancing recycling. We feel, since there is 98% community support for additional recycling opportunities, it is very important to provide this opportunity for citizens in their workplace. The potential savings on carbon emissions is enormous as the Climate Task Force Report has mentioned. Addressing the commercial waste stream is an important climate goal. Lucinda Smith Motion passed unanimously a progress report on the staff review of the Climate Task Force recommendations that will go to the Council at their August 26 work session. • The Climate Task Force completed its recommendations in May and submitted their report to Council on June 10. o There are 16 short term and several long term recommendations. • The recommendations are in progress and staff is not doing public outreach until after the Council work session. ■ The recommendations are prioritized into three tiers. (Lucinda pointed out the recommendations in Tiers 1 & 2 are enough to meet the 2012 intent.) o. Tier 1 — top priority ■ Expand ClimateWise program ■ Government GHG Goals ■ Community Climate Challenge o Tier 2 • Recycling • 50% diversion goal — biggest strategy of all recommendations • 15% renewable energy by 2011 ■ Increase energy efficiency programs o Tier 3 ■ Local carbon offset program ■ Smart meter program ■ Residential electric rate structure ■ Low cost home energy assessments ■ Reduce vehicle miles of travel ■ Time -of -sale energy conservation ■ Natural gas energy conservation ■ Incentives for low emissions vehicles ■ Incentives for renewable energy ■ Modern roundabouts Staff is currently reviewing the CTF recommendations carefully and will present to Council August 26 with final Council decision to adopt on October 21. ■ They are trying to coordinate the trash services study, the Climate Task Force recommendations and the electric energy policy so there is a clear relationship between these efforts in order to support each other. ■ Public and board input will be gathered in September. o Staff developed a template to use as they review the CTF recommendations in order to give consistency and structure to the review. ■ Measure name ■ Brief review summary statement ■ GHG benefit assumptions ■ Cost estimates ■ Implementation levels ■ Funding options ■ Implementation steps ■ Implementation obstacles (if any) • Feasibility assessment ■ Other comments and alternative ideas (if any) Lucinda gave more details on the following items: o Climate Wise ■ The Climate Wise staff and Brendle group reviewed some of the assumptions done last year and took into considerations new data gathered since then. • The Climate Wise program overlaps with other programs and there could be some double counting in the CO2 reduction goals. Therefore, they assumed ''/z of their goals were covered under other programs and adjusted their goal to be 66,000 tons CO2. • Staff thought that because there would be some efficiencies with the other efforts,the City cost could be I FTE and less expensive. o Local Government GHG Goals • In general, the CTF called for the City, CSU and Larimer County to make greenhouse reduction goals. o The CTF-recommended City goal is 10% reduction by 2010, however the City is considering adopting the slightly less aggressive community -wide goal of 20% by 2020. o CSU is working on their climate -neutral plan. o Latimer County hasn't discussed a greenhouse goal yet, but has an active green team. • They estimate a possibility of 75% - 100% double counting in this goal because the state's 2012 Green Government Executive Order is under CSU's plan and may be achieved outside the Climate Task Force's recommendations. ■ Savings might be underestimated because utility costs are going up. o Community Climate Challenge • This has an aggressive CFL program but the analysis on this is not finished. • Utilities are already doing a CFL program, has hired a consultant to help them analyze their strategies and have looked at CFL programs with up to 23,000 tons of benefits. ■ Tyler Ruggles, an intern recently did a best practices assessment of 12 cities in the US that are doing community outreach and climate challenges and will be reporting back how Fort Collins ranks in the study. His recommendations to the City are o Have one large umbrella program the Community Climate Challenge would fall under with a unifying logo and theme that can be recognized by the public. o One easy and one complex program supported by utilities programs. o Capitalize on the challenge aspect. o Focus on "free" marketing. o Develop a sophisticated user-friendly website. o Use an outside calculator rather than the City developing its own calculator. o Push to meet the 50% Waste Diversion Goal (The CTF is recommending this goal by 2011) Components of this plan are: o Residential enhanced PAYT o Commercial recycling fee embedded in rates —key element of this goal o Ban yard waste from trash collection and offer yard waste drop off and weekly collection o Increased education o Construction and Demolition drop-off (C&D preference for City contracts) • Susie Gordon and John Armstrong revisited the model with a 50% diversion goal and, even with the 2011 timeframe, felt that level of reduction could be achieved. ■ Lucinda pointed out most strategies in CTF are also under the trash services study outreach except yard waste ban. o In answer to a question by Glen Colton who asked how recycling helps with greenhouse gas reduction, Lucinda explained recycling takes into account and provides credit to Fort Collins for the upstream energy avoidance when things are recycled instead of being made from virgin materials. In addition, methane emissions are reduced. o John Armstrong stated it is likely we are underestimating climate impacts from landfill by not focusing on avoiding landfill emissions and the efficiencies of using recycled materials such as aluminum. o Lucinda stated we can take credits for recycling. When carbon regulations come in to play, we will really be focusing on what reductions are theirs. o Increase natural gas energy efficiency by: ■ Reducing residential natural gas use 3% by increasing rates and funding incentive programs. 0 ■ Replacing the "occupation tax" with franchise fee agreement — to pay a % of revenue to use the ground to put in pipes to use ■ Something to consider is what impact would this have on businesses and the ability to attract new businesses since gas and electric rates will continue to rise. o In answer to a question by Joe Piesman, Lucinda stated she didn't know how much control the City has over rates. o Changing the franchise fee would not go to a vote. Changing the occupation tax would have to go to a vote. o Reduce vehicle miles of travel. ■ The CTF recommended 2% reduction by 2013. o Walkibike programs (Funding is biggest obstacle.) o Employer TDM programs o School transport programs o Transit Improvements o with 3,000 tons CO2 reduction. ■ Glen Colton stated he felt reduced VMT is very difficult because retailers are at edge of city and there are no neighborhood shopping centers. o Roundabouts ■ Goal is 5 roundabouts by 2013 with reduction of 1,000 tons of CO2e with net savings to the city. o Incentives for Low Emission Vehicles (LEV) ■ Suggested $2,000 incentives ■ 277 vehicles/year for 3 years to reduce 3,000 tons CO2e ■ Question was with the price of gas, would any incentives be needed? o Utilities Preliminary Review of Energy Strategies ■ Initial review supports the concepts suggested by CTF ■ Overall program costs may be significantly greater ■ 2012 carbon reductions may be somewhat smaller. ■ 2020 carbon reductions maybe significantly greater. ■ Many of the measures require a ramp -up period that extends beyond 2012, but are likely to contribute significantly in the 2020 timeframe. o Smart Meters — most cost effective strategy, even though it has a high cost. ■ Utilities to install Smart (electric) Meters in all homes by 2015 to avoid 22,000 tons CO2e by 2012. ■ Utilities also interested in doing program to include water. o Local Carbon Offset Program ■ The CTF identified 5% of houses (3200 households) to purchase enough offsets to go carbon neutral at a cost of $750+/year ■ The consultants leaned towards the less expensive Green Energy Program ■ Lucinda stated it is still a work in progress. ■ John Armstrong explained the Colorado Carbon Fund would allow for community level re -investment. There could also be a development fund for supporting projects too small or odd to certify like recycling. Fort Collins /DenverBoulder and several other Colorado communities are participating in this first tier of activities. It is first of its kind in the country and has great potential. o Low Cost Home Energy Assessments ■ The CTF recommends 600 homes/year with assessment cost split between Utility and homeowner. The Utilities feels the services aren't currently available at this level, but are working on expanding the home performance `Energy Star" program that should achieve the same goal. Additional staff may be required to achieve the desired level or low cost home energy assessments. o Additional Utilities Observations ■ Utilities is continuing to evaluate the electric rate structure for best fit with other energy demand reduction goals; including a review of potential impacts on low income customers ■ Ramp up implementation of other energy measures will contribute to reaching the 2012 milestone but is difficult to track. ■ The CO2e emissions factor for electricity has changed a number of times in the last five years and can swing the calculated carbon reductions substantially higher or lower. 0 2012 Milestone • Council established an "intent" to reduce emissions by 2012 ■ Projecting from 2008, with business as'usual growth, look at where the reductions that would be needed in 2012 would be about 450,000 tons CO2 reduction. ■ Staff analysis determined the CTF's strategies would achieve that goal. o Lucinda stated the Council will see all the CTF recommendations and minor adjustments and will have to make hard decisions on how to make real progress. Our task as staff is to provide best in formation. o The next steps are: o July 11 — Aug — refine review and needed o Aug 15 — work session materials due o Aug 26 — Council work session • Alan Apt suggested the CTF give Council the questions in advance so they could answer the questions before you get there. • Lucinda asked if there was anything on the list the NRAB doesn't want staff to pursue further. o Joe suggested maybe LEV incentives. • Glen pointed out waste diversion is very important and felt the main roadblock, other than perceived increases in cost for commercial, would be fear. o John Armstrong pointed out this is a very complicated question with complex cost/benefits, especially for waste diversion programs without supporting infrastructure in place. In addition, there could regulatory requirements. We don't know what the cost to typical business or house would be. It is also a political question. o In answer to a question from Joe Piesman, Lucinda explained this would probably be a strategic plan adopted by resolution that expresses Council intent. If they want to meet the goals they will have to implement them. We have an obligation to help Council meet the milestone. • Alan Apt stated the NRAB should be the one that takes this on by becoming a monitoring group on a semi-annual or annual basis. He related there has to be a Council action to implement it. A timetable is critical to achieve the plan by 2012. He would like to see the NRAB hold Council accountable for this. o Joe agreed the CTF can be a guidepost for the NRAB to use to help evaluate the plan's progress. o Lucinda pointed out they also need to pay attention to how trash services and energy policy link to the CTF recommendations. • In answer to a question by Alan Apt, Lucinda stated they are not going to boards for the purpose of input right now, but the NRAB can always give input and give a recommendation for a timetable and a prioritized list. Quarterly monitoring might be too frequent. • October 21 is when Lucinda is expecting action by Council on the CTF recommendations. 10 Linda suggested Council be given action items, an implementation plan, timeframe and costs or they will not be able to make a decision. o Lucinda was not sure everything needs to be fleshed out to the detail of writing an ordinance. It may hold up the plan. But those items would be helpful to have. This may need to go through another work session. The way the information is presented is critical. o John Armstrong pointed out the time frame between now and 2012 is going to be tight. Alan Apt summarized between now and August there is nothing the NRAB needs to do. It would be in September and October. New Business Joe Piesman gave a West Nile Advisory Board update. o The group is comprised of three people — Greg McMaster from the Air Quality Advisory Board, physician Robert Pescine and himself. o They will be the advisory board when recommendations come in for spraying o There been 2 human cases of West Nile Virus in Larimer County ■ One in Loveland (who might have been bit in Arkansas) ■ One in Berthoud, but where they contracted it is questionable o Cases are way below last year because of weather. Liz Pruessner moved and Joe Piesman seconded a motion to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 Submitted by Alexis Hmielak Administrative Secretary I Approved by the Board on 2008 Signed v 8 � fig, Administra i e Secretary I Date 11