HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 06/15/2016MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 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 Katherine de Leon
Bob Mann
Nancy DuTeau
Luke Caldwell
Jay Adams
Elizabeth Hudetz
Harry Edwards
Drew Derderian
Staff Present
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison, Environmental Services
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support, Social Sustainability
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager, City Manager’s Office
Gary Schroeder, Senior Energy Services Engineer, Utilities Customer Connections
Honoré Depew, Environmental Planner, Environmental Services
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
Lisa Rosintoski, Customer Connections Manager
Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner, Community Development & Neighborhood
Services
Guests:
David Tweedale, citizen
Katherine Azari, citizen
Dan MacArthur, citizen
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 5:59pm
Public Comments: Katherine and Dan attended to hear more about the Dark Sky Initiative.
Approval of Minutes:
Harry moved and Elizabeth seconded a motion to approve the May minutes as presented.
Motion passed unanimously, 8-0-0.
AGENDA ITEM 1— Dark Sky Initiative
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager and Gary Schroeder, Senior Energy Services Engineer,
presented an overview of the Dark Sky multi-departmental initiative including objectives, actions,
and timelines.
1 | Page
Interdepartmental initiative. City effort to implement best practices in outdoor lighting. Reduce sky
glow (increase visibility), reduce light trespass and glare, and optimize light color and balance for
human and ecological health. Team members from Utilities, Planning, Building, Police, Natural
Areas, etc.
Three subcommittee focus areas:
• Technology and Research
o LEDs and new measures
o Safety and security
• Policy and Code Development
o Land use and building codes—incorporating best practices
o Pursue International Dark Sky Association certification (Natural Areas) for
Soapstone
o Considering Council resolution and future ordinances; July Work Session
• Education and Awareness
o Internal and external
o Best practices—directing downward, efficiency, color spectrum, light sheds, etc.
80% of North America can no longer see the Milky Way. Showed examples of lighting changes—
glare and over-lighting reduction while maintaining safety. Technology and features constantly
change. Ex’s: fixtures that control sidelight, control LEDs to turn off at certain times, change color
by time of night/only on when cars or people are present, etc. Over-lighting can create dark shadows,
which are a safety/security issue. Bright light glare makes traffic signage hard to read. Light when
and where you need it.
Learnings from Research
Looking a lot into blue light. Winslow (AZ) has demonstrations of five types of lighting. Have
observatory at Flagstaff Mountain. One sample filtered light has less than 1% blue light (blue
interferes with melatonin). LA and NY did mass retrofits for energy savings but added blue-white
light. We have opportunity to do it right. Many products available and Utilities is evaluating options.
May have citizen groups, tours to look at lighting options at different facilities around town, give
people opportunity to see. Lighting designers are also looking at right contrasts instead of light
levels. Bringing out contrast can be done with lower level lighting.
Discussion/Q&A:
• As change wave lengths or temperature, would this lead to different paint on street signs?
o Have not looked at that.
• Looking at cost savings?
o Yes. TBL and beyond—health, safety, energy savings, etc.
o Will implementation result in increased costs or cost savings?
Energy and maintenance will have annual savings. Have not gotten into
details of ROI. Have many different applications/scenarios to assess. Cost per
fixture has recently become more attractive.
Can address energy efficiency, CAP, Nature in the City, etc. Light and Power
has BFO offer in to do LED replacements.
• Research ready to be implemented for public? Can you do surveys of properties and give
recommendations?
o Gary hosted a contractor series on lighting. Have some information available to
public. Will get there.
o Utilities has incentives for lighting retrofits. Can consult with contractor for first cost,
pay back, rebates, etc. Want to make sure contractor looks at light color.
• Has there been discussion about amount of light reduction or other quantitative measures?
o Not for project overall. Natural Areas will have criteria to achieve certification.
o Not analyzing level of light throughout Fort Collins and setting reduction goal?
2 | Page
Pretty early in exercise. Getting sense of what direction to go. Have
opportunity to create policies that establish look and feel we desire for
nighttime. Can establish brightness, color criteria, etc. Long-term, complex
issue. There is lighting clutter and other components of light pollution.
• City code?
o Land use code for new projects, parking lot lighting, etc. Opportunity to update that
code.
That is only impacting new construction.
Affecting what is exists is another issue.
o As move into denser community, this becomes even more important.
o Some people’s answer to security is adding more light. Educational piece to get right
lighting.
• Enforcement? Fines? Police involved?
o Building codes.
o What should one do if having a light pollution issue from a neighbor’s home?
If it’s in the land use code there is a process. If and when the codes increase,
the City is focused on compliance. Do get complaints about porch lights and
try to do awareness, education and mediation.
o Building inspectors inspect if there is a complaint. Grey area regarding what codes
were in place when building was constructed versus current code. Inspectors will
work with property owners to bring to current code. Don’t have enforcement to
require changes unless going through development review process.
• 20 years ago this discussion started. What can we do to keep the momentum?
o Interdepartmental team, CAP, Nature in the City—these can help carry the project
through. Will need dedicated resources to do the public education piece.
o Certification program has ordinance language.
Could get that done with existing staff resources.
o Unique place that is doing groundbreaking work. Making Fort Collins a really nice
place to live.
• Criteria to evaluate project—plan for community engagement, TBL, aspirational goals, etc.
What are issues that need to address for Council?
o What resistance does board think staff will encounter? One concern is perception of
safety; the other is cost to business.
o Police Services is involved. They talk to neighborhoods and suggest having light.
o As a team will continue to have these conversations.
• Possible to put solar with street light so they power themselves?
o There are products that do that, but sun does not shine when need the light so they
rely on batteries. This adds additional cost. Works in some applications, especially
when would need a lot of wire to run the light.
ACTION ITEMS: Ginny will share draft resolution with board when it is complete. Board can
weigh in at that time.
AGENDA ITEM 2—Community Recycling Ordinance Update
Honoré Depew, Environmental Planner, provided an overview of the proposed Community Recycling
Ordinance (CRO) in advance of a June 28 Council Work Session, including changes to the proposed
ordinance that have been made since the board last heard about it in December 2015.
CRO is proposed revision to existing rules around recycling and composting. Staff has been working
on this revision for over a year and has engaged in robust public and stakeholder engagement.
Brought suite of options to Council Work Session last year; were asked to work closely with haulers
to find consensus that would work for all.
3 | Page
Current Proposed Package Includes—
Incline Rate Change: Pay-As-You-Throw is ordinance that was adopted in the 1990s—considered a
best practice that allows residents to pay less to have a smaller trash container. There has been 100%
incline rate between container size options. Ex: if smallest can is $10, medium is $20 and large is
$30. However, this only applies to single family residence at this time. Most important change is to
extend recycling requirement to multifamily and businesses. Other change is to charge a 75% incline
rate.
Base Rate: This package would also reinstate hauler’s ability to charge a base rate, with a limit. The
bill could have a line item, which could be up to 25% of smallest service they offer. Changes in
commodities market and changes in cost to recycle are driving this. Haulers have been having to pay
to drop off recyclables recently, when used to get paid for them.
Organics Collection: For 2020 CAP goals, reductions associated with waste and organics are 25% of
reduction targets. Yard trimmings and food waste, aka organics, are large part of this. Number of
challenges to collection of organics: additional truck, where they can go to be processed, etc. Current
proposal includes additional requirement of seasonal yard waste collection, with additional cost.
Currently one hauler has this service already. Would be implemented next spring.
Multifamily Recycling: extends recycling to multifamily, with minimum 30% capacity—opportunity
for realistic amount of recycling capacity. See education as a form of enforcement. Set start date
further out to allow haulers and multifamily to adopt practices. If switch providers, goes into effect
immediately.
Commercial Changes: Haulers required to offer recycling to all businesses. Roll-out implementation
with deadline by 2022, but all new service contracts must comply immediately. Component for
haulers to demonstrate increased participation by 20% annually.
Grocer Composting: Looking at food waste. Most grocers already have a diversion program for food
waste. These changes would bring outliers into the fold. Retail, restaurant and single family
composting are off the table at this point.
Discussion/Q&A:
• Multifamily isn’t Pay-As-You-Throw now, and neither is business recycling. But what see in
new plan is that the services have to be offered.
o Recycling services will be required to be provided with trash collection services to
multifamily and commercial.
• Wouldn’t it make sense to increase the cost of container based on gallon size?
o 32 gallon, 64 gallon and 96 gallon are standard sizes.
Has same effect.
o A lot of research into sweet spot for incline rate. Right around 80% is considered best
practice.
o Costs haulers the same to make the trip no matter the can size. They don’t want so
much price differential between cans. Incentive to reduce waste lies in is what the
customer has to pay.
• Typical trash truck holds how many tons?
o Range. Community generates 140K tons of garbage per year. Several tons can fit in a
truck.
• In HOA have small box for recyclables.
o No additional cost for recycling under ordinance. Haulers can charge whatever they
think customers will pay for the service, but cannot charge separately for recycling.
Size of recycling bin will have no impact on bill.
• For hauler that offers yard waste collection, what percentage of residences sign up?
o Unsure.
o They also allow multifamily to opt in to yard waste collection.
• What is punitive impact of putting cardboard in trash?
4 | Page
o Have education for business community, rather than punitive enforcement.
o Haulers are supposed to reject loads if there is significant cardboard in the trash.
• So many things not sure about for recycling correctly, like flattening, removing plastic, etc.
o There are changes to education required from haulers. Rolling out Recycle Happy
campaign and highlighting high value items. Fort Collins has low contamination rate
(under 10%), despite single stream recycling.
• Where does educational component happen?
o Haulers have long been required to provide educational information regarding Pay-
As-You-Throw and the recycling guidelines to customers once per year as part of
licensing agreement with the City. The new ordinance would require that the graphics
for this educational piece be provided by the City for consistency – all customers
receive the same information, no matter their hauler. The proposal also includes the
possibility for the hauler to simply print a URL/link on their paper bills where
customers can go to access the information.
Concerned about that requirement being on the hauler. If only provide a link
and not a document, wonder about actual impact and what changes we’ll see
to compliance.
More and more customers moving away from paper bills. Will get response
from Caroline.
Outcome of discussion with haulers. E-billing, but also value in annual paper
information.
Digital divide.
• NRAB member: Don’t like this ordinance. Ordinance the Board recommended in December
was a reasonable compromise with haulers. Have taken out the only things that really matter
from GHG perspective. Have taken out food waste and don’t even have implementation date.
With multifamily you have done the same, with implementation in 2020. Multifamily
recycling is done all over the country. This is a no-brainer. We have a fair amount of
multifamily, but primarily done by one hauler. Estimate is that 40-45% of multifamily are
already recycling. Others are not because hauler isn’t initiating. Business implementation
starts in 2018 with 20% increase annually through 2022. New customer must adopt
immediately, but existing customers don’t have to do this until 2018. Incline rate—don’t care
about base rate charge—except 75% is now unrelated to best practice incline rate. People
who are doing what we want will have the greatest increase in cost, while those throwing
away the most trash will get a reduction. Doesn’t make any sense. Not faulting staff, but the
challenge to get consensus with the haulers. Had forums all last summer and public surveys
supported banning recyclables from the landfill and adding composting. Can see other
communities along Front Range that have implemented organics collection. Boulder did it
within 12 months of adoption. Want to cooperate with haulers, but there is a sense in
community that don’t want to drive the haulers away. This won’t happen because profit
margin in trash is so high they can add recycling for free. Appropriate to push on them and
decide what is in best interest of community, not best interest of the haulers. Drafted
resolution.
o Agree that eliminating implementation dates for organics is a really bad idea. Having
those goals brings money to the table to develop the infrastructure, facilities, etc.
There has to be a guaranteed compost to support development of those facilities.
Backward looking to eliminate the goal. Not the first to do this. Lagging behind.
o Jeff Mihelich had article in Coloradoan today which included Zero Waste and CAP
goals. What proposing to Council does not significantly move us toward those goals.
• How would you respond to accusations that it will cost too much? To businesses and
individuals?
o Every piece is different—yard waste, food waste, multifamily, commercial. Also
depends on what comes online. Contract the landfill had with Waste Management
5 | Page
was beneficial, but new contract is hurting the haulers. It isn’t black and white. As a
City we are never privy to the financial information of the haulers. We are using
national averages.
• Would like to suggest a third option to the board—endorse recycling in a general sense and
acknowledge that some details are yet to be decided. Would not want to say something
negative. Would prefer a positive perspective for a good impact.
o Don’t want to suggest to Council that we move forward with this ordinance as it is
not in the best interest of the community.
o Recommend a strong ordinance modelled along lines of draft ordinance presented in
December.
o And point out importance of CAP goals and RZW. Implementation in 2022 does not
address 2020 goals.
• Have trouble with reinstating a service charge. Don’t have enough detailed information on
what was being done to give the hauler an increase.
o One challenge is that the City does not set the rate. The haulers do.
The haulers can set the rates, so why do they need a surcharge? If argument is
that they have been losing money from recycling for 18 months and looking
for ways to recuperate that, this charge never goes away. If can charge
whatever rate they want, no reason for surcharge. And cost of having a
contract is sometimes losing money.
o Two reasons haulers don’t want to raise rates—those doing good job of recycling are
using small trash containers so will have least increase. But if raise rate then almost
triple rate for larger container—people who are generating most trash are often those
who have the least ability to pay.
o What is profit margin on trash?
Unknown.
They must be making some profit on the trash.
o If ordinance goes into effect as is, there is no sunset on the base rate fee. So if they
start making money on recycling again the fee does not go away?
Correct.
John moved to adopt Bob Mann’s draft recommendation with suggested edits. Elizabeth seconded.
Motion passed unanimously, 8-0-0.
• Agree with positive language around recycling and referencing December proposal. Name
changes that do not support and are not in best interest of community. Also, not what
community supports.
• At risk of micromanaging. Not comfortable with that. Details can be worked through by the
hauler and City staff. This board ought not to be micromanaging.
o This is policy.
• Support prior ordinance language, not current changes.
ACTION ITEMS: Bob will provide final draft of motion to NRAB. Must be submitted to CMO by
June 21.
AGENDA ITEM 3—Budgeting for Outcomes Process
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director, and Lisa Rosintoski, Customer Connections
Manager, provided highlights of budget offers for NRAB consideration related to Environmental
Health Outcome area.
6 | Page
Lisa Rosintoski: Functional areas of Customer Connections: resource conservation, customer care
and tech, remote service on and off, communications and marketing, community engagement, and
customer accounts. In resource conservation category has efficiency targets. Ongoing offer for
Energy Services in Resource Conservation dept. will have a decrease of 5.6%, but requesting
enhancements for 1Full time employee (FTE) for Energy Services engineer. Also requesting to
increase ongoing offer for participation in energy efficiency, commercial solar power purchase
program, distributed energy resource management system, community solar, and commercial solar
rebates.
There is a Water Conservation goal of 130 gallon/capita/day (11% decrease). Looked at how can
make existing programs more robust, and requesting 16% funding increase (not for salaries), but to
inform and educate. Using advanced metering data to recognize when people are using more water
than normal. Contact them and can identify leaks this way. Also requesting enhancements for FTEs
for a water conservation coordinator and a water conservation specialist.
Lucinda Smith and Katy Bigner: ESD has a number of guiding policy documents, including the
City Strategic Plan and a departmental strategic plan. ESD’s ongoing offer is requesting a 7%
increase from last budget cycle—two new positions have been added: Green Built Environment and
CAP Program Manager. Enhancement offers in Climate Commitment include:
• Municipal resiliency and adaptation planning
• Community resiliency and adaptation planning –large scale effort
• FortZED—Third cycle requesting funding, $25K for website and marketing support
• CAP Innovation Fund—Pool of money that could be used externally to address barriers.
Opportunity to open to community, business, and other partners. Ex: reverse RFP. Pose a
question and open to businesses and organizations to solve. Get competitive proposals. Build
innovative community.
• EV Readiness Roadmap—Coordinating with others working on EV and planning locations
for charging stations. PDT and Utilities have worked on this. Identifying barriers and who
should lead EV efforts. One time request.
• CAP Program Assistant—Full time person to help with CAP (has been hourly, changing to
classified)
• City Energy Project—City is one of 18 applicants. Could receive funding for FTE to advance
green building.
• CAP Support—$1.5M request. Council asked staff to bring forward reserve pool that can be
used to fund new ideas as they come to light. Each item would have to be reviewed by
Council independently.
• Expand Healthy Homes Program—Including DIY approach, translating materials into
Spanish, and evaluate messaging.
• Timberline Recycling Center
• RZW Program Support—Increase Env. Planner position to full time and add research dollars
for materials flow analysis. Support business participation in WRAP and education for
construction debris and recycling.
• Expand Municipal Innovation Fund
• Leading by Example Municipal Sustainability—EV stations, solar on show mobile,
additional compositing, recycling at golf courses, electric Zamboni, etc.
• Local Food Cluster Coordinator and Food Systems—Including vehicle to take local food to
areas of community with low access. Portable store/farmers market.
• Municipal Lawn and Garden Equipment Fund—Move away from diesel.
Discussion/Q&A:
• If ongoing offer is decreasing, but got all enhancements funded, what percentage would
ongoing offer increase?
7 | Page
o Some are project specific, but increase to ongoing for 4 years would be about $2.5M.
When reach significant penetration, don’t need as much. Total ongoing budget is
$4.6M.
• CAP executive team recommended delaying funding for some projects.
o That was a midcycle offer that Council is asking to put into the regular BFO cycle
coming up in July.
• IQR was at Work Session yesterday. Does this target a certain population for efficiencies?
o Correct. Two fold effect—recognize that they pay more than the average based on
income and also know exactly where they are to reach out and meet needs around
efficiency and education.
• Suggest adding additional rebate funding so people who design xeriscaping and permiscaping
could do long-term work with people. Not to mention pesticide use for lawns.
o Currently looking at making xeriscape program more robust. Have rebates for
landscape architects. Also looking at xeriscape garden parties.
o Add permiscape so that animals can benefit from landscape design. This design
includes plants that are native, low water consumption, and provide food for wildlife.
• Explain enhancement versus ongoing and FortZED.
o Enhancement is viewed as discretionary, not as ongoing required services. Typically
bring new programs in through enhancement and then fold into ongoing as
continue/become core service. FortZED has been funded as an enhancement multiple
times; it has not been folded into ongoing expenses.
o Even though FortZED is an ongoing program, still considered with enhancements to
see if still a priority. Budget office makes determination about moving items from
enhancement to ongoing (core) offers.
• Is biogas what to do with the GHGs? Have heard about methane capture for energy.
o Was talking about Heartland—they take mixture of organics from feedlots. Waste
water treatment plant also creates biogas from solid waste composting.
o There was midcycle offer that provided funding for Drake Water Reclamation
Facility to clean the biogas produced there to use for energy. Landfill has methane
gas collection, but has been flared up to now. Entering agreement to clean methane to
help fuel compressed gas vehicles. When burning methane it becomes carbon
dioxide, which is a less potent GHG than methane.
• Proposal to take Local Food Cluster out of competition with other clusters?
o Would support with a person to lead it.
o City has pool of money used to support industry clusters that enhance private
innovation (energy, biotech, food, etc.). These all compete for funds. The City
provides expertise and funds for startup. Food Cluster will outgrow City funding and
become self-sustaining at some point.
• Lawn and garden equipment would impact commercial?
o Offer is for municipal equipment replacement. Will demonstrate and showcase
alternative fuel and electric commercial scale equipment. Can provide education.
o CNG is part of fracking, and reason fracking has become so popular. Burns cleaner in
the air, but other consequences. Might not want to invest in CNG.
o Bus fleet is moving toward all CNG. It is a transition fuel. Transit applications for EV
are not fully developed.
• Movement and support for more EV—hope this pushes the City to change Rawhide away
from coal.
o Platte River is moving in that direction—adding 30MW solar—30% non-fossil fuel,
but a lot further to go.
• How would staff suggest boards go about sorting through all the offers? Read all offers?
Divide among members?
8 | Page
o Would wait until City Manager’s Recommended Budget is completed. Will have
more clarity about what is recommended for funding. Look at offers ranked below the
line that you feel are important to fund. Can also make recommendations around
items the board thinks should not be funded.
• Staff presented offers aligned to Energy Policy to Energy Board; the board prioritized from
there to give recommendation to Council.
o Lucinda, Katy and Lisa combed through the offers to find ones related to the NRAB
scope. Start by looking at titles to find offers in passion areas. See if they come above
the line in the CM Recommended Budget. Can make recommendations as a board
and as private citizens. Have seven outcome areas. Vast majority this board will be
concerned with are in Environmental Health section.
o Offers highlighted tonight are in wheelhouse of this board.
o Last round, met with staff ahead of CM budget and talked about where most
vulnerable and issues most concerned about.
ACTION ITEMS: Katy will send BFO offer information.
AGENDA ITEM 4—Other Business
Open Board Discussion/Announcements
• Elizabeth provided information on topic she would like to be discussed. City attorney gave
feedback that the board needs to be careful not to take positions for or against policies. Board
can make recommendation to Council but cannot endorse directly. Should not use Board
time, resources, etc. for private advocacy.
• Elizabeth sent email to board members about proposed initiative outside of board time.
Elizabeth moved that the NRAB recommend that Council endorse the Colorado Community Rights
Amendment. Motion failed.
• Is the amendment before the Council in any other form than from this board? It is not on their
agenda nor has it been raised by Council.
o Correct. It is not on their agenda.
• What is being amended?
o Constitution of the State of Colorado.
• Council supported this in the past. Would give the whole state home rule.
• Under Colorado State law, the State has supremacy over these decisions.
o Yes. The state trumps home rule.
• Recommend this is premature. Don’t know what is in the works. Has not yet gotten to the
place where a recommendation from the NRAB would be appropriate.
o Elizabeth requested communicating with the board via email.
• If this is an issue on which we will be voting, the item should be listed on our agenda.
o Can consider placing it on the agenda next month.
Agenda Planning/Review City Council’s 6-Month Planning Calendar/NRAB Action Items
• Not discussed.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:46pm
Next Meeting: July 20
9 | Page