HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 07/20/2016MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Location: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1A
Time: 6:00–8:30pm
For Reference
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison 970-221-6317
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
John Bartholow, chair Elizabeth Hudetz
Katherine de Leon Bob Mann
Nancy DuTeau
Luke Caldwell
Jay Adams
Harry Edwards
Drew Derderian
Staff Present
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison, Environmental Services
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support, Social Sustainability
Honoré Depew, Environmental Planner, Environmental Services
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, FC Moves
Councilmembers
Bob Overbeck, District 1
Guests:
Steven Gillette, Director of Solid Waste, Larimer County
David Tweedale, citizen
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 6:00pm
Public Comments: None
Member Comments: A member brought up an item for endorsement. In the future, should make a
motion to add an item to the agenda.
Approval of Minutes:
Harry moved and Luke seconded a motion to approve the June minutes as amended.
Motion passed unanimously, 7-0-0.
Correction: p6, “John moved to adopt Bob Mann’s draft recommendation…”
AGENDA ITEM 1— Regional Wasteshed Coalition
Honoré Depew, Environmental Planner and Steven Gillette, Director of Solid Waste, Larimer
County, sought input on a long-term collaborative planning project aimed at optimizing waste
1 | Page
reduction and diversion efforts within Colorado’s north Front Range (our “wasteshed”) through
careful study, public engagement, and collaboration. The City is part of a regional coalition formed
to address the future of solid waste management in light of the upcoming Larimer County landfill
closure, expected around 2025.
Honoré: Wasteshed Planning Coalition formed as it is time to evaluate long term solutions, knowing
Larimer County landfill will close around 2025. Flow of waste is influenced by geography,
economics, and policy. Things that need to come together: public understanding and attitudes,
collaboration/partnerships, tools and technology, infrastructure, and economics.
Steven: When technical advisory committee started meeting, realized that needed to do waste sort to
collect data. Important to know composition of trash when making decisions. Interim report, 4
categories: MSW, industrial, residential and self-haul. Surprised by amount of organics. Over 40%
for all categories—up to 72% for self-haul. Opportunity to select future technology—composting,
anaerobic digestion, etc. In September will do another week of sorting. Will also do specific sorts for
Fort Collins and Loveland (separated). Technology is changing quickly in solid waste field. Ex:
waste to energy—once you build the beast you must feed it and continue to have the quantities
needed. In some places has led to burning recyclables to keep the plant running. County did buy
another property for landfilling, but it can be used for other purposes. Landfilling is outdated
technology. Do it for sanitary reasons, but better things to do with valuable resources.
Honoré: Organics are food waste, yard waste, wood and timber, and some textiles. Large portion of
landfilled items based on sampling. Last study showed 1/3 organics. Increased to 50%. Greatest
portion of waste stream that generates GHG is organics. Looking at feasible options, costs,
completing final draft report, will continue public outreach, conducting survey. 2020 deadline for
decision on future wasteshed management. Public engagement includes survey through end of July
and public forums in Fort Collins, Loveland, Wellington and Estes Park.
Discussion/Q&A:
• Outcome of public forums is dependent on skill of facilitators.
o Martin employs some students as facilitators and has had success in the past; will
have trained facilitators from the County as well.
• Any trend in per capita per day generation of solid waste?
o Have Fort Collins specific data—has held even at 4.8lbs over last 2 years. Goal is
3.5lbs/person/day by 2020. Will continue to enhance services for residents. New
recycle center opening in August. Updates to CRO will help increase diversion.
• Source reduction?
o Holy grail of waste reduction. Managing discards is below reducing what we produce
in the first place in hierarchy of materials management. Repairing, reusing, using
durable products, is all higher priority than dealing with waste, but also very
challenging. Looking at additional framework to RZW—sustainable materials
management. Have a white paper. Not yet fully operationalized on a municipal level.
Looks at extraction, production/manufacturing, transportation, etc. Enhancing access
to infrastructure and creating more consistent policy throughout the region can help
with those efforts.
• Any significant differences between Fort Collins and other Colorado towns of our size?
o Considered a leader in efforts to reduce waste. Strong leadership.
o Waste stream itself?
There is no state that has done a waste sort, or combined the information.
Most landfills are privately owned and until legislated will not be able to get
that information.
Can compare Loveland and Fort Collins, and found Loveland has fewer
organics in waste stream due to curbside yard waste collection and a
collection center.
• Does upstream waste reduction require larger entities? Working on legislation?
2 | Page
o Statewide regional planning document (integrated solid waste and materials
management study)—looks at regionalism/collaboration. No product stewardship or
extended product responsibility in legislation. In Germany have green dot program—
manufacturers must take back packaging—and saw significant reduction in
packaging. Have won awards in city for handling of electronics. Lifecycle
assessments to be used in procurement practices, etc.
• Report will have data or information from public meetings, as well? Talked about resource
recovery campus, supporting public/private development of technologies, having a wasteshed
district/authority.
o Report is comprehensive. Current conditions, existing infrastructure, projections, and
feasible options such as transfer station, composting facility, etc. Costs are hard to
determine, but have estimates. Also have section on funding approaches.
o Report from state—at stakeholder meeting talked about changing how funding is
distributed.
RREO grant used to fund the study. Trying to encourage consistent metrics.
Set some statewide recycling goals.
• Concerned in increase of waste from emerald ash borer?
o More when than if. Challenge due to infrastructure needed also needs to be viable
after ash trees are gone. Looking at viability of biomass burner. 60K trees on private
land. Local organics collection would be overwhelmed. Poses a risk to shorten life of
landfill.
o Ash borer is to Gunbarrel Road (Longmont). Biochar plant can handle most of what
the county would generate if wood is prepared properly, which is different than how
it should be processed to control the borer.
• Contingencies for natural disasters, ash borer, etc.?
o Supportive of resource recovery, anaerobic digestion, etc., but will still need disposal
option. Prices at the landfill will go up—champion public control. Recycle center is
operated by Waste Management. When have good contracts it can work.
o Landfill is run as enterprise fund and doesn’t use tax dollars.
• Municipal composting site, “lead by example” for the City?
o In response to state regulations around composting. Funded with waste innovation
dollars. Composting will be done by Parks department.
• Cost for waste composition study?
o $84K. City paid $20K for shadow study.
o Opportunity for more frequent studies? Do you understand how ordinances versus
educational outreach impact the waste stream?
If partners tell us in 4 years that need to do another waste study, County
would participate.
Keep careful records of diversion rates—reported by private haulers.
Different than waste audits.
o Aluminum cans in waste study equal to what is being recycled. Everyone knows to
recycle it, but it still gets into waste stream.
How do you define segment that is still doing this? When doing assessment at
landfill can’t get that information.
If transfer station is built, can extract cardboard and install a magnet to extract
metal. Waste Management purchased $1M piece of equipment to bundle and
ship cardboard directly rather than shipping to Denver. Now also bailing rigid
plastics. Also remarkable how much non-recyclable materials are being put in
bins.
• Still have very low contamination rate.
• Multifamily housing does not have recycling. Lot of money going into landfill.
3 | Page
o Fort Collins is burying over $6M of materials per year. Keeping those materials out
of recycling stream requires manufacturers to use virgin materials. High
environmental value to keeping products in circulation.
• Fort Collins RZW—do other communities have similar plans? Are they good partners?
o All good fits because all dispose of materials. Complementary.
o Largest city in county, so will take leadership role. All in this together.
o In County still have areas with no trash hauling services. Starting place.
AGENDA ITEM 2— Role of Transportation Planning and Climate Action Plan
Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, provided an overview of how FC Moves is
approaching carbon reduction strategies for multi-modal planning and development and their key
challenges and opportunities.
CAP goals adopted in 2014. Many strategy areas—one is to reduce transportation demand and use
cleaner vehicles. Transportation is about 24% of total GHG emissions. To get to 2030, 80% GHG
reduction goal would need to reduce VMT by 29%, expand transit network, about half of new cars
purchased to be electric and remaining need to be 40% more efficient. Change land use patterns—
sprawl leads to higher VMT. Encourage mixed use development, infill development, and higher
density development. Seeing this along Mason Corridor. “Complete streets” to accommodate all
modes. Shift trips from single occupancy to other modes. Have budget offer in for travel demand
management—education and incentives around biking, walking, telecommuting, and public transit.
Tactics include increasing access to information on alternative transportation, bike share, car share,
expanding transit, working with large employers, etc. Accelerated adoption of efficient vehicles—
personal and fleet. Increase education, provide public charging stations, incentives, etc.
FC Moves Programs and Efforts:
FC Bikes—Platinum level bicycle community. Bicycle Master Plan updated last year, changed how
target new bicyclists. Implementing low stress network—existing streets and trails getting
improvements to make biking more comfortable. Ex: Swallow has wide bike lanes, low speeds, etc.
Putting in guideway signs, improving crossings, etc. Reducing barriers to biking. Bike share has open
streets, bike to work day, education and safety classes. Also have Bicycle Friendly Driver class.
Safe Routes to School—Teaches children how to walk and bike safely to school. Reach ~5000
students/year. Recently received small amount of funding for infrastructure improvements around
schools. Help organize Walking School Bus—group of kids who walk together led by volunteer.
Long Range Planning—Set of enhanced travel corridors have been identified, including West
Elizabeth and North College. Focused effort to improve all modes of transit. Ex: Mason/College
corridor has Mason Trail and Max. Responsible for Master Street Plan and Transportation Master
Plan. Updating TMP with CAP alignment.
Discussion/Q&A:
• Can you measure reduction in VMT or just a supposition?
o Want to do this better. Rely on MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization)
household travel survey and census data. Have budget offer for annual travel survey.
Boulder has been doing annual travel survey for 15 years—have great history of
information so know impact of policy and infrastructure.
• Examples of City supporting EV sales?
o Could have changes to land use code.
o Working with Drive Electric Northern Colorado—providing opportunities for people
to test drive EVs. Fort Collins has had high EV sales. Supporting infrastructure and
education.
• Does Master Street Plan include parking spaces?
o No. Where streets are, how large they are, but not parking.
o How is parking affected by street plan?
4 | Page
Some street classifications allow parking and some do not. Planning and
Parking Services departments can inform board on parking issues.
Have been discussions of limiting parking to encourage other modes of
transportation.
• How well do we understand VMT for grocery shopping vs. going to work and what that
looks like for different parts of the city?
o The MPO household travel survey asks those questions.
o There is concentration of services. Could use this information to identify areas that
need services, grocery stores, etc.
o Want to do own behavior survey to better target programs, infrastructure, etc.
o Get asked about behavior changes. Now can do physical counts, but would be good
to get bigger picture.
• Concerned about impact of charging electric vehicles overnight. Won’t it impact
requirements for electric power?
o City and electric provider are concerned about peak loads at 5:00 when people return
home. Aware and looking for solutions. Efforts underway to understand current
behaviors by surveying EV owners. Potential to have incentives to use off-peak.
Utilities is exploring time of use rates. Disincentive to charge during peak
energy use.
o Unintended consequence of greater demand for electricity, which means burning
more coal and producing more CO2.
True, and over time expect source to become cleaner.
May be ways to incentivize charging when renewables are more available as
well.
o Consider hybrids to be EV?
Fit into more efficient vehicles category.
• Suggest encouraging drivers’ education schools to hold the Bicycle Friendly Driver class.
o Break down barriers through infrastructure and education. Changing language from
pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. to people who are walking, people who biking, people
who are driving, etc. We all do all of these things.
AGENDA ITEM 3— Budgeting for Outcomes Offer Discussion
Nancy DuTeau provided an overview of the specific 2017/2018 budget offers for comment or
recommendation from the NRAB.
Interdisciplinary staff teams do first and second round of review and make recommendations to the
Budget Lead Team. The BLT creates the City Manager’s Recommended Budget, which goes to
Council. Very important for staff and Council to have public and board input.
Four step process:
1. Understanding process and offers—FAQs available on budget webpage. Had presentation
from staff on process and specific offers in prior meeting. May get input from citizens.
2. Explaining to self and others—Offers are based on goals/objectives identified in various
department plans and policy documents.
3. Evaluating—Ongoing offers vs. enhancements. Do they support achieving goals/objectives?
Make list of questions for staff.
4. Providing input
Based on presentations from Utilities and ESD, Nancy created a list of offers to discuss, prioritize,
and/or recommend. Note that the last offer is an enhancement from the Parks department to enhance
downtown recycling. Community Livability offer for code compliance is for 3 FTEs for enforcement
and education. One would be focused on environmental issues. Watershed Protection offer will be
discussed more next month.
5 | Page
Discussion/Q&A:
• Hard to compare offers when some have many things lumped together, while others are split
up; some are urgent while others could wait for a couple of years.
• Didn’t NRAB vote on preferences last cycle and it was passed on to Council.
• If offers we endorse don’t make it into CMO Recommended Budget, can make an additional
recommendation to Council to bring above the line.
• Suggest using a points system to rank offers (1-low to 4-high)
ACTION ITEMS: Members requested to review list of offers, prioritize, and send questions to
Nancy. Questions due August 5. Bring rankings to August meeting. Nancy will send reminder email
to board members. Nancy will consolidate questions and send to Katy. Katy will request answers by
August 15.
AGENDA ITEM 4—Other Business
Open Board Discussion/Announcements
• Tour of Drake Wastewater Treatment Facility—8:00am, July 22.
• CA utility has planned to close state’s last nuclear power plant in 2025. Equivalent to 7
Rawhides. Located on seismic fault.
o Energy efficiency is part of reason—demand has decreased.
o Governor supported people’s decision to turn away from nuclear power. Too many
things can go wrong.
o If build NISP, that dam is also located on a fault that has been inactive.
• Watershed tour August 11, all day.
Agenda Planning/Review City Council’s 6-Month Planning Calendar/NRAB Action Items
• Not discussed.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:30pm
Next Meeting: August 17
6 | Page