HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/21/2015MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Location: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1A
Time: 6:00–8:30pm
For Reference
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison 970-221-6265
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
John Bartholow, chair Joe Halseth
Nancy DuTeau Jeremy Sueltenfuss—resigned
Bob Mann Kelly McDonnell
Harry Edwards
Luke Caldwell
Staff Present
Susie Gordon, Staff Liaison
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Jen Shanahan, Environmental Planner
Renee Davis, Water Conservation Specialist
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Program Manager
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner
Guests:
David Tweedale, citizen
Kirtone Chiron, citizen
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 6:03pm
Public Comments: Jeff from FoCo Café provided the food for the meeting. They are the first 501c3
nonprofit café in northern Colorado. Focused on locally sourced and organic foods.
Agenda Review: Nature in the City update next month. Originally scheduled for tonight.
Approval of Minutes:
Harry moved and Nancy seconded a motion to approve the September minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously, 5-0-0
Corrections: page 4, correct spelling of raucous; page 6 river flow gauge is at McMurray trail.
AGENDA ITEM 1—River Health Assessment Framework
Jen Shanahan, Environmental Planner, provided an update on the final Poudre River Health
Assessment Framework and a look forward into its applications.
City has several planning documents the move forward a healthy and resilient river: This plan is
focused on defining what that means. Establishing a methodology for river health assessments. Team
of staff who work in water or with river in other ways. Went through all objectives and how they are
1 | Page
sometimes in conflict with each other. Decided that divisions have different areas of focus; the water
shed services become the common purpose. Around the world many river health reports exist. Found
framework/focus areas in other plans are similar to own. Need to understand complicated systems
and data and communicate through stakeholders, leadership and public. FACstream is a method for
completing rapid assessments. The City framework includes indicators, metrics, recommended
ranges, and guiding concepts. Indicators include key physical, chemical and biological systems.
These include hydrology, sediment, water quality, floodplain connectivity, etc. Metrics are associated
with each indicator. Staff developed a rating system (A-F). There are references for each grade and
metric. For example, B: Highly functioning, may need some management, while a C: Functioning,
means management is likely required. FACstream can be used with multiple levels of data, including
GIS, field rapid assessment, and data, which can give a more complete assessment. Examples:
1. Level 1—staff will measure the width of five year floodplain using GIS.
2. Level 2—rapid assessment with FACwet on channel erosion uses visual assessment.
3. Level 3—field data includes flows, water quality, etc. Examples of biota include insects,
native fish, birds, etc.
Guiding concepts of healthy and resilient system include variability of flows, disturbance, and higher
biodiversity. Reality is much water is pulled off of the river. Recognize that working with a novel
ecosystem and variety of partnerships. Recommended ranges for metrics support a functioning
system, grounded in reality of this being a managed river. Focus for project is for how it affects Fort
Collins, so looking at I-25 and upstream. As collect more data and incorporate existing data sets, will
assess more segments. All data will wrap up to one report card, with four segments delineated. Next
year will be collecting data and creating report. Can only make recommendations on ranges when
have baseline data. Looking at current conditions, reach length, ecological relationships, stressors,
and what the City can influence versus degree of stress. End product will serve as an educational
tool. Will continue to monitor and update report every three to five years.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Are adjectives on slide for resilient, healthy, etc. in order as a spectrum?
o They are descriptive words used in the report, but not in order as a spectrum.
• Is there a similar grading system for resiliency?
o No. Resiliency is more subjective as depends on for whom.
o Wouldn’t functioning be the same?
Yes. However, for functioning, staff is focused on the ecosystem. Resiliency
brings in the human aspect of community resilience.
• Difference between this and ecological response model (ERM)?
o That model compares different flow scenarios, using many of same indicators. With
that model could not turn to staff to determine what we want. This is reflection of
what is actually occurring, using data, rather than a model. Monitoring versus
modelling. ERM was incorporated into this project.
• Talked about working with staff across water utility. At one time they were concerned about
expending resources on things they could not justify to rate payers as services. Here, talking
about recreation and aesthetics. Has that issue been resolved, so that rate payer resources can
be used to accomplish these objectives?
o Watershed Specialist Jill Oropeza’s job is to understand water quality, which directly
impacts drinking water. For stormwater and waste water there are impacts to
discharge. Helps bring their issues and information to the front. Stormwater has MS4
program that helps quality, but did not have tools to measure results of their work.
Ex: If working with developer to reduce sediment, want to see measurements.
• How do you see this helping to work with the public? How does it change their
understanding of the river?
o Support. Hope for example that if public understands a reach is highly fragmented,
when staff goes before Council with BFO for restoration, the public will be
2 | Page
supportive. Also beneficial for public to understand water shed services, connections,
science based information to increase educated understanding of situation and
decrease polarization.
• Grading system has benefits, but also potential for misunderstanding. Easy to get snapshot,
but background is not easily conveyed. Want to avoid misinterpretation. Unintended
consequences. Ex: If a reach got a D, could see public pressure mounting in ways that might
not be helpful, or on topics outside the City’s influence.
o Personally struggled with grades as well. Importance to have truth in reporting. There
are existing reports that include D grades. What is alternative?
Just acknowledgement of potential flaw in how communicating with public.
Don’t have solution. Many will look at grade and nothing else. If the City
can’t readily address the issue, could be a problem.
Educational moment. City does not have all the control.
• For public communication, staff can’t give all the details. Maybe provide a narrative with
each grade.
o Staff is considering options for how to present the information. There are other
existing reports that will be used as models. They include schematics, narratives and
mitigation strategies.
• Does staff see grades not galvanizing people where it really should, such as getting a B-.
Could grade become complacency?
o Good to think about.
AGENDA ITEM 2—Water Efficiency Plan
Liesel Hans, Water Conservation Program Manager, followed up with the Board on proposed water
efficiency goals that were discussed with Council at their October 13 Work Session.
The completed water efficiency plan will be submitted to the state. Three areas of service: efficiency,
technical support, customer service. Financial benefits include avoiding and/or delaying large capital
projects. Ex: water treatment facility was planned for larger capacity than currently needed, so able to
lease capacity to other community. Fosters a conservation ethic and commitment to sustainability.
Improves environmental health and prepares for climate change. Makes sure the community and
supply system is more resilient to drought: reduction in supply planning demand level. Current
planning level is 150 gallons/capita/day. Conservation goals are in gallons/capita/day (gpcd). In 1992
gpcd was nearly 200. With drought began new programs. In 2010 adjusted goal to 140 gpcd by
2020. New goal is 130 gpcd by 2030. Five areas of opportunity: advanced metering, outdoor
efficiency, integration with land use planning, expanding commercial and industrial sector strategies,
and water literacy. Will continue to partner with neighboring water districts. Currently provide
sprinkler audits to some of district customers; can expand partnerships. Making sure anything new in
town is as efficient as possible. Want to be above and beyond standards. Can make large difference
in bottom line by working with key accounts/largest users. Community education includes learning
around factors/systems and helps with marketing for conservation and drought restrictions.
Prioritization includes cost effectiveness, staff resources, participation and reach, etc. Have had input
from technical advisory group, key stakeholders, and boards and commissions. Save the Poudre is on
board.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Does staff envision 130 gpcd being the lowest possible?
o Always changes in building standards, regulations that could be implemented for
outdoor use, changing technology, behavioral component, etc. These are factors that
could change our goals.
o American Water Resources had meeting in Denver. Speaker suggested lowest use
possible is around 70 gpcd, but with business included is 117 gpcd.
3 | Page
Residential is at 91 gpcd. Also hard to compare across communities due to
differences in businesses. Looking for metrics by sector.
Approaches needed to meet goals are different for different sectors.
• Water district is required to submit report to state every seven years?
o Requirements for entities that provide water include showing that we measure current
supply, demand, projections, etc.
o City comes up with own conservation methods?
Certain activities found in a strong plan, such as meters, children’s education,
rebates, audits, etc. Many resources available through that entity.
• Suggestion for reaching out to adult community: when register to vote is a good time, when
move get a little packet.
• What are main factors keeping the proposed goal somewhat high and extending the timeline
to 2030? Why not more aspirational goal?
o Try to set a goal that is optimistic and realistic. Also must consider changing and
growing population. Goal is beyond the time we will update, so if see moving faster
than anticipated would set new goal.
o Would it change your actions to have a more aspirational goal?
Department tries to put forward programs that customers want, will
participate in and that benefit them. Limited by resources (time, funds,
bandwidth). Do really well with what we have.
o If City Council said 120 gpcd, would you ask for higher budget?
Yes.
o Explanation of being able to move goals, could easily work the other way. Could you
set the goal for a shorter timeframe? In education outreach those are numbers public
sees.
o CAP and Zero Waste are aspirational goals. Seems like not as aspirational here. In
water conservation have always exceeded goals. In a time where tech is changing
rapidly, some things will change just as result of tech change. Ex: low flow toilets.
Yes, have exceeded goals, but there is also plateauing happening now.
o Overall water consumption should decline as reach goals.
With population growth, overall use goes up.
o What is plan for excess water?
Growth pays for self in terms of water: rights or cash in lieu. Conservation
plan does not encourage growth. Supply and demand go hand in hand. Have
efficiency goals so that with changing climate have resiliency in supply and
demand systems.
• Sought input from real estate?
o Yes. Did not hear back from Board of Realtors. Meeting with DBA.
• Lessons from California?
o Crisis is never wasted.
o Changing laws for cisterns, grey water, reuse, etc.?
Some businesses have recycling on site, have reuse of effluence with PRPA,
but limited with return flow rights. Have maxed out reusable supply. State
regulation to allow grey water, but need local ordinance. On list to move that
forward.
• Thought on Net Zero water?
o Not sure what it means/looks like for our community.
o Has some neat elements. Hitting ground in Fort Collins with FortZED. Aspirational
things in our back pocket. Ex: breweries that are conservationally minded—can they
offset by working with neighborhood? When scale up to city bump against return
flow issues. Can take your property, analyze, reduce use, and offset. Includes
stormwater.
4 | Page
• Suggest staff develop more aspirational goal. Could develop a draft resolution between
meetings and vote on it in next meeting.
ACTION ITEM: Web survey will be available soon. Liesel will make sure the board receives
notification.
AGENDA ITEM 3— Debrief on Recycling Projects
Environmental Planners Susie Gordon and Caroline Mitchell reported on Council’s responses to
staff presentations at the October 13 Work Session, including a community recycling ordinance and
modified concepts for an expanded recycling center. Bob Mann reviewed outcomes of a regional
waste-shed planning meeting that he and Nancy DuTeau attended at The Ranch on October 14.
Community Recycling Ordinance
Bob Mann has been on community recycling ordinance advisory committee. Ordinance is talking
about small change to single family homes price differential and some big expansions for
multifamily and commercial, and in two years expanding organics to large grocers and restaurants.
Council was generally positive about expansions.
Staff recommendation was to change price differential from 100% to 80%, to allow haulers to charge
necessary cost for services while adding new services. Based on comprehensive data. 80% delivers
same results in terms of participation and diversion. Haulers would like 50% differential, and would
like to apply a recycling fee to bills, as a result of changes in recyclables market. Next step is staff
will meet with Deputy City Manager and haulers.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Is there a way to have price differential so that smallest trash container plus largest recycling
is still less than having the largest trash container?
o Part of confusion in conversation is a fundamental piece of Pay-As-You-Throw—
bundling cost of recycling and trash service. It is not optional to pay for recycling
currently. Without ordinance, in system like Fort Collins, you have to pay for
recycling. Typically only 20% of residents will pay for recycling. Tie together costs
and have prescribed increment to offer incentive to recycle. 50-80% price difference
window is sweet spot that drives behavior change of diversion.
Psychological part of having recycling separate is that it becomes optional.
o As more people use Pay-As-You-Throw, those who are creating trash must bear
burden of increased rates. Haulers don’t want to raise rates, but need help. Bundling
and Pay-As-You-Throw are two different things. You can bundle and charge a fixed
fee, or charge a fee related to the level of trash service. Council is currently using
terms synonymously.
o When have trash service in Fort Collins, it comes with recycling. People don’t want
this to go away. Council does not want to un-bundle.
Transparency, shouldn’t trash cost what it costs and recycling cost what it
costs? But lose incentive to do the right thing here. Suggested in advisory
group to do a “set-out” bundled fee, for everything put at curb, and have
landfill ban on certain items. 95% of residential already participating in
recycling. How much incentive do we really need? Community is at different
place than when created ordinance. Impressed with Jeff Mihelich and his
comprehension and support of a resolution.
Will get to resolution. Will be a few more conversations. Caroline will
continue to update the board.
• What is City’s biggest fear, that rates will go up to a point that there is less participation in
recycling?
5 | Page
o All of recommendations from the project had end goal of helping meet Council
adopted diversion goals. Concern is whether removing incentive will cause backtrack.
In end City recommendation of 80% cost differential is to maintain diversion.
Haulers don’t like raising rates because don’t want to lose customers to other haulers.
Hauler cost to providing service to single family home is fairly flat regardless of
volume. One question from Council: have off the shelf numbers for price differences,
but want to know diversion changes. But those numbers are not readily available.
Could hire a consultant to do modelling. One argument for 50% difference is that if
people are already making diversion choice, when fees increase it will keep the
highest end lower than at an 80% differential. Many competing factors.
Don’t think we’ll see much impact on diversion between 50% and 80%.
If find not a big deal, may go with 50%.
Have created patterns of behavior already.
• Must appreciate role haulers play in this community.
• Mandatory trash service?
o Did not end up being part of proposal.
o Didn’t find it to be easily enforceable or useful tool for code compliance. Issues they
encounter would not be impacted.
• If recycling gets itemized, would there be support for lower income families so they don’t
drop out.
o Not supporting itemized trash bill.
• Heard comment that all subsidized housing in Fort Collins already supplies recycling to
residents.
o Yes. However, remains important to provide recycling drop off site since not required
for multifamily.
• Alpine Waste just closed, which deals with compost. Resiliency of companies that provide
services?
o Alpine made choice because smaller accounts use cart system. Larger accounts use
dumpsters. They come from Denver and don’t want to run two trucks. Will continue
to serve large customers with front end loaders. Ordinance would give two year
notification for inclusion of organics, to allow market to build.
Poudre School District also lost service.
Having trouble finding new provider. Gallegos unsure can handle new
volume.
o Lot of interest in composting in general in Fort Collins, even when closest facility
was Commerce. Alpine Waste is doing well, but has a lot of composting going on in
Denver. Right on verge of having business opportunity make sense for local haulers
as can now take composting to Eaton.
If want to bump up service to a dumpster, can still get service from Alpine.
Also exploring community scale.
Community Recycling Center Update
Council supportive of proceeding with budget for ongoing costs for O&M at Community Recycling
Center. In BFO. If passes through BFO will open next year.
Regional Waste-Shed Planning Meeting Debrief
Nancy: Take aways include: Cheapest option is to set up new landfill with business as usual. More
expensive to do education for increased diversion. Discussion of trash district, like water districts.
Some of small communities would then have representation and municipalities would pay in and
have power to make decisions (solid waste authority). Some of these types of districts have taxing
authority. Problem here is low tip fees because have available land, so low incentive for diversion.
Colorado is one of 12 states with no recycling mandates. Also no bottle or can fees and lack of
6 | Page
recycling facilities (disincentives). Don’t have flow control—haulers can use other places. This
impacts long range planning. There is a poor market for recyclables in Colorado as we are land-
locked. At least one company coming in to do glass washing. Solid waste manager from Loveland
gave presentation about creating resource recovery campus when landfill closes. Would also have a
transfer station. People are excited about waste-to-energy and other innovation. Current landfill not
designed for methane capture (too arid climate). New one could be designed for methane capture.
County has new transportation planner, who is interested in having natural gas vehicles and would
like fueling station at landfill.
Bob: Important that this event was regional and that right people participated. About 50 participants:
planners, solid waste people, department of health, compost permitter, A1 Organics, MRF’s person
for 4-Corners. Strong feeling of need to continue discussions.
Discussion/Q & A:
• Prioritized items. Consensus was that county should pursue new landfill.
o Why?
Cash cow. Landfills are cheap. Taxpayers pay for siting, creation and
compliance. Whoever runs it gets operational dollars. Municipality gets to
close it and has costs of that maintenance.
Put lots of money aside for post-closure costs. A lot of equipment costs.
Low cost is disincentive for resource recovery.
• Methane generation at landfills is from decomposition of organics, things that could
otherwise be composted. Want to capture methane, but not effective method of generation.
Another competing factor.
o Low methane production now is due to microbes going into dormancy because of
lack of water.
o If all organics are diverted from landfill, should not invest in methane capture.
ACTION ITEM: Staff will give another update in November.
AGENDA ITEM 4—Other Business
Tours
Opportunity to tour waste water treatment plant and discuss co-gen. Susie will schedule.
Funding for Poudre River Downtown Project
• Positive outcome of memo to Council. Article in Coloradoan about Council support and
private fundraising efforts for kayak park.
Re-upping for NRAB in 2016
• Need additional applications. Susie will check on deadlines.
• Expiring terms?
o Kelly is expiring. Has not yet responded to email regarding re-upping.
Agenda Planning
• Energy Policy going to Council on consent.
• Dust Control on next NRAB agenda.
• Oil and Gas wells data speaker will be scheduled.
• Lindsay Ex will be responsible for CAP. Schedule update November or December.
• How is City responding to Thornton water issues?
o Water they will be taking initially is not a new diversion. If NISP not built, Thornton
could eventually take additional water.
7 | Page
• Cameron Gloss, future visions from planning department on expected code changes.
o Semi-annual issue.
Announcements
• Separate glass collection pilot has begun. Locations: Odell’s, Horse and Dragon, FoCo Café,
EPIC, City Park 9, and two at CSU. Will do a press release if it goes well.
• Sandhill Crane flocks around town.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:43pm
Next Meeting: November 18
8 | Page