HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/15/2020 - RESOLUTION 2020-118 GIVING STAFF DIRECTION ON NEXT Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 15, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Molly Saylor, Senior Sustainability Specialist
Judy Schmidt, Legal
SUBJECT
Resolution 2020-118 Giving Staff Direction on Next Steps for City Council Adoption of Plastic Pollution
Mitigation Strategies.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to present a Resolution to Council that directs staff to prepare an ordinance for
Council adoption, with anticipation that Council refers the adopted ordinance to the April election.
Based on Council feedback to date, the ordinance will include a hybrid approach, banning plastic bags and
putting a fee on paper bags at all large grocers.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Reducing Plastics Pollution is an adopted Council Priority, which aligns with the community’s Road to Zero
Waste goal to produce zero waste by 2030 as well as the goal to sustain and improve the health of the Cache
la Poudre River and watershed.
PAST COUNCIL ACTION
• Funding
o Midcycle budget offers funded:
▪ $35k to conduct plastic pollution reduction awareness and engagement during 2020.
▪ $35k for a study to address microplastics pollution in Fort Collins’ local waterways.
• Work Sessions
o February 11, 2020 - During this work session, staff provided plastic pollution context and learnings
from peer communities. Council provided direction for action both on micro and macro pollution.
(Attachment 1)
o October 27, 2020 - During this work session, staff provided a progress update on plastic pollution
awareness work, including impacts of COVID-19 on plastic use, policy development and community
engagement, and a staff recommendation. Councilmembers indicated interest in moving plastic bag
policy to a ballot measure. (Attachment 1)
o December 8, 2020 - During this work session, staff provided Council a suite of policy options for a
plastic pollution ordinance and related ballot measure. Council provided feedback on these policy
elements and other logistics as outlined below. (Attachment 1)
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 2
Based on Council direction at the December 8 work session, the Resolution directs staff to develop a plastic
pollution ordinance that:
• Leverages staff recommended base case with additions around equity and performance measurement and
emphasis on risk mitigation language.
• Takes a hybrid approach, banning plastic bags and putting a fee on paper bags.
• Applies the policy to large grocers.
• May include other items such as Styrofoam (i.e. expanded polystyrene), pending further discussion (see
section on optional language).
COUNCIL PREFERRED POLICY ELEMENTS
The Council preferred policy elements that are reflected in the attached resolution are outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Council preferred policy elements
Optional Language
Policy elements that multiple Councilmembers indicated interest in will be developed as optional policy
language for further discussion on January 12 and are outlined in Figure 2. Items marked with an exclamation
point require additional clarification from Council. Staff will develop optional language for these if Council
provides specific direction to do so.
Figure 2. Optional language for consideration at January 12 work session. Note: Accessory items are the straws, stirrers,
and plastic toothpicks.
Policy Details
Note: Updates have been made to staff’s recommended base case to reflect Council’s feedback around equity,
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 3
performance measures, and risk mitigation.
• Implementation:
o Implementation begins one year post election.
▪ Note: Pending the addition of other business types or items, implementation could be phased
to alleviate pressure on small businesses.
o Two-year campaign to provide free reusable bags to the community, ensuring distribution to those
most impacted by the change.
o Include an income-qualified exemption to the paper bag fee.
• Enforcement and Reporting:
o Compliance audit and data collection from large grocers.
o Civil penalties applied to retailers violating the bag policy.
o Annual reporting to Council on equity impacts, compliance, and outcomes, including performance
metrics around:
▪ Number and type of bags distributed; and
▪ Presence of single use plastic items in the environment, as a percent of litter removed from
sensitive areas such as Natural Areas and the Poudre River.
• Reporting can highlight the presence of bags specifically as part of this data set.
• Risk Mitigation:
o Include language in ordinance affirming Council’s commitment to monitoring equitability of the
ordinance and to adjusting based on future stakeholder engagement.
o Include language allowing Council to:
▪ Amend ordinance implementation dates if conditions change due to COVID-19 or other
unforeseen situations.
▪ To suspend in unforeseen situations, like COVID-19, that impact public health or disrupt
supply chains.
Engagement
With the timing of the April election, online engagement will need to end on January 31 for Council to consider
the ordinance on First Reading on February 2 and Second Reading on February 16.
Next Steps
Pending Council’s vote on this Resolution, staff anticipates the following next steps:
• Dec 16 - Jan 31 - Online engagement on OurCity (<https://ourcity.fcgov.com/plastics>) around the
preferred elements of a plastic policy.
• Jan 12 - Present ordinance and ballot language aligned to the Dec 15 Resolution for Council feedback.
• Feb 2 - First Reading of the plastic pollution ordinance.
• Feb 16 - Second Reading of plastic pollution ordinance and resolution to refer the ordinance to the ballot
as a referendum.
o Note: After this point, Environmental Services staff can no longer conduct any engagement on the
issue. City Clerk’s office manages the logistics of the ballot process.
Agenda Item 22
Item # 22 Page 4
PUBLIC OUTREACH
General public outreach conducted on plastic pollution policy from April through December. (Attachment 1)
No public outreach has been done on this Resolution specifically.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Sessions (PDF)
2. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
DATE:
STAFF:
December 8, 2020
Molly Saylor, Senior Sustainability Specialist WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Single Use Plastics Ballot Item Discussion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to continue Council discussion on initiating a single-use plastic ballot
measure.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What are Councilmember preferences on the outlined decision points?
x What type of regulation should the ballot measure include: ban, fee, or ban/fee hybrid?
x What businesses should be subject to such regulation: large grocers, all grocers, food service, retailers?
x What mechanism should be used for adoption of regulation:
o submission of ordinance to voters without Council adoption first
o referral of ordinance to voters after Council adoption
x What items should the regulation cover: plastic bags, paper bags, polystyrene, accessory items, plastic
plates, cups, etc.?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Reducing Plastics Pollution is an adopted Council Priority, which aligns with the community’s Road to Zero Waste
goal to produce zero waste by 2030 as well as the goal to sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre
River and watershed.
Past Council Action
Funding:
x Midcycle budget offers funded:
o $35k to conduct plastic pollution reduction awareness and engagement during 2020.
o $35k for a study to address microplastics pollution in Fort Collins’ local waterways.
Work Session:
x February 11, 2020 - During this work session, staff provided plastic pollution context and learnings from peer
communities. Council provided direction for action both on micro and macro pollution. (Attachment 1)
x October 27, 2020 - During this work session, staff provided a progress update on plastic pollution awareness
work, policy development and outreach, and a staff recommendation. Councilmembers indicated interest in
moving plastic bag policy to a ballot measure. (Attachment 1 and 2)
To put a plastic pollution question on the April ballot, staff will need direction on key decision points covering both
logistical matters and preferred policy elements. The following sections provide details of the outstanding decision
22.1ATTACHMENT 1
December 8, 2020 Page 2
points. Based on recent conversations with Council and best practices from other cities, staff also presents a
recommended base suite of policy elements that can apply to various types of policies (bans, fees, etc.) following
the key decision point sections.
Key decision points
Type of policy
Question: Does Council prefer a ban on plastic bags, a fee on plastic bags, or a plastic bag ban with paper bag
fee combination? The following options, information on efficacy and notes provide context on these elements:
x Plastic Bag Ban - Prohibits plastic bags from being distributed by a specific type of business (e.g. grocers,
retailers, etc.)
x Efficacy: Dramatically reduces plastic bags but can significantly increase paper bag distribution which may
shift the environmental burden elsewhere instead of mitigating it.
o Note: Few cities have solely used a ban - most have switched to a ban/fee hybrid. When paper bags are
still distributed for free, most consumers simply switch to using paper bags. Paper bags have a higher
environmental impact than plastic in some categories (e.g. GHG emissions, water use for producing,
etc.). See section on Systems Approaches for more details.
x Plastic and/or Paper Bag Fee Places a fee on plastic bags and/or paper bags, ranging from five to twenty
cents to recover costs of recycling and managing these material streams.
o Efficacy: Data from the City of Boulder suggests a fee on plastic and paper bags is effective at reaching a
70% reduction in bags overall. This approach typically does not achieve a 100% reduction. Note that if
the fee applies only to plastic bags, consumers may shift to paper bags. See section on Comprehensive
and Systems Approaches for more details.
o Note: Many cities (including Boulder) have conducted an evaluation to review the costs incurred to the
City and determine the appropriate fee amount. (Attachment 3)
x Bag/Fee Hybrid
o Efficacy: Best peer city examples suggest that combining a plastic bag ban with a paper bag fee
results in the best long-term results for single use plastic bag reductions, keeping paper bag use low,
and encouraging reusable bags to contribute to zero waste goals. The Palo Alto case study has more
information of their hybrid approach.(Attachment 4)
December 8, 2020 Page 3
Businesses impacted
Question: What types of businesses should be subject to this policy? Many types of businesses hand out plastic
bags with purchases, including grocers, restaurants, and retail establishments. The following information outlines
options and considerations.
x Large grocers
o Note: Many large grocers have existing practices and policies that can be applied locally if a bag policy is
enacted. These practices and policies have already been developed to comply with bag policies in other
jurisdictions.
x Expanded scope
o All grocers
o Food service
o All retailers and food service
o Note: Due to COVID-19 food service and many retailers are experiencing significant challenges that may
be exacerbated by policy changes in the near-term.
o Significantly increases the number of locations regulated and the compliance workload for the City.
Ballot timing
Staff understands Council interest to submit or refer a ballot question to the April election, which is lower cost and
initiates potential nearer term progress on Council’s priority. Including the question on the November ballot is also
an option. (Attachment 5)
Mechanism
Question: With no community-led petition being circulated currently, does Council wish to submit a question as a
Council initiative or adopt an ordinance and use the ballot measure as a referendum?
Pursuant to the Charter, Council may submit any question or proposed ordinance or resolution to the voters via
Council initiative. Alternatively, Council may refer any adopted ordinance or resolution to a vote of the people via
Council referendum.
x Initiative:
o Council submits ordinance to the voters without adopting it first
o If adopted by the voters, the ordinance can only be amended by subsequent vote of the people
o Council could include the ability for Council to make amendments in the ordinance, pending further legal
review
x Referendum:
o The Council adopts an ordinance first, and then puts it on the ballot for voter consideration
o If voter approval is received, Council is able to make future changes to the ordinance without voter
approval
Other additions
Question: Does Council wish to expand the policy beyond bags and add any of the following items or other policy
types?
December 8, 2020 Page 4
x Additional items
o Accessory items (e.g. straws, stirrers, toothpicks)
o Polystyrene (i.e. Styrofoam)
o Serviceware (e.g. cups, plates, lids, etc.)
x Policy options
o Bans - Ban single use plastic items.
o Note: May need to be evaluated for alignment with State law.
o Upon Request - Require single-use plastic items only be provided upon customer request.
o Note: Can create a broad reaching policy to reduce single-use plastics that does not create access issues
for disabled community members or limiting consumer choice.
Staff recommended base case
x The base case is the recommended approach to any of the policy options.
x Implementation:
o Implementation begins one-year post election
o Two-year campaign to provide free reusable bags to the community, ensuring distribution to those most
impacted by the change.
x Enforcement:
o Compliance audit of retailers and data collection from retailers.
o Civil penalties applied to retailers violating the bag policy.
o Annual reporting to Council on outcomes: equity impacts, mitigation impacts, compliance.
x Risk mitigation:
o Draft ballot language/ordinance to allow City Council to:
xamend the ordinance if future stakeholder engagement or annual reporting finds policy elements to
be inequitable or ineffective.
xamend ordinance implementation dates if conditions change due to COVID-19 or other unforeseen
situations.
o Draft ballot language/ordinance to allow City Manager to suspend in unforeseen situations, like COVID-
19, that impact public health or disrupt supply chains.
Engagement
With an April election, all engagement from the City would need to end by February 2, 2021. In December 2020
and January 2021, staff would share with the community an online survey to gather feedback about the proposed
elements.
Systems Approaches
Mayor Troxell recently shared an article (link below) with Council and staff speaking to the need for a systems
approach, the trade-offs of alternatives and policy action as only one piece of the puzzle.
A systems (or comprehensive) approach is one that engages multiple elements in the system to address an
issue. For example, in the case of addressing single-use plastics, a systems approach could include policy that
December 8, 2020 Page 5
balances trade-offs between different types of environmental burdens, improving existing recycling infrastructure
and technologies, addressing the circular value chain for packaging, and increasing consumer awareness and
community support for behavior change.
For plastic bag policies specifically, a systems approach involves addressing multiple materials systemically for
maximum positive environmental impact. This avoids an unintended consequence if an item targeted by a policy
is replaced by an item of similar environmental impact, thus shifting rather than reducing environmental impact.
x An example of shifting environmental impact could be reducing the waterway pollution impact from plastic
bags with a ban but increasing greenhouse gas impacts from paper bags if they are not also considered in a
policy.
A systems approach is supported in the following mechanisms at the City:
x Our Climate Future Big and Next Moves
o The broader work of taking a systems approach to plastics and waste management is incorporated in the
Our Climate Future work, through Big Moves such as:
xCircular Economy
xCooperative Communities
o Universal Recycling and Composting
x The City’s Legislative Policy Agenda on Recycling and Solid Waste Reduction incorporates many elements of
a systems approach, including these statements
o Encourages integrated, sustainable waste management planning and implementation policy, including but
not limited to centralized data collection requirements and reaching statewide diversion targets.
o Supports greater producer responsibility initiatives, such as “take back” regulations that assist consumers
to appropriately recycle packaging materials or certain products (e.g., cardboard and expanded
polystyrene packaging, single-use plastic shopping bags, or mattresses). Producer Responsibility is
already successfully implemented in Colorado for paint.
Article: <https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/our-insights/the-drive-toward-
sustainability-in-packaging-beyond-the-quick-wins>
Next steps
Pending Council’s work session discussion on December 8, 2020, staff anticipates the following next steps:
xAt the December 15, 2020 Council Meeting, consider a resolution directing staff to draft ballot language
and a corresponding ordinance.
xEarly December - end of January - Online survey and engagement for ballot measure.
xAdditional next steps are dependent on Council direction on December 8, 2020. (Attachment 6)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Work Session Agenda Item, October 27, 2020 (PDF)
2. Work Session Summary, October 27, 2020 (PDF)
3. Fees vs. Attachments in Context of Plastic and Paper Bags Memo (PDF)
4. Comprehensive Approach Case Study - Palo Alto (PDF)
5. Ballot Timing Considerations Memo (PDF)
6. Paths to April Election (PDF)
7. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
DATE:
STAFF:
October 27, 2020
Molly Saylor, Senior Sustainability Specialist
Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist, Utilities Watershed
Program
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Plastic Pollution Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to update Council on the status of the Microplastics Mitigation Study and
Macroplastic Pollution Awareness and Policy work.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
MACROPLASTIC POLLUTION: Which option would councilmembers like staff to pursue for plastic pollution?
1) Focus on Awareness and Delay Policy Discussion.Focus awareness work funded through 2020 on
making single-use “opt-in” vs. “opt-out” and other simple actions; re-evaluate policy work in 2021 based on
readiness criteria (outlined below).
2) Limited Policy Work. In addition to awareness, focus policy work on most feasible option with respect to
COVID-19 (e.g. “utensils and accessory items upon request only”) and reevaluate comprehensive approach
to other plastic items in 2021.
3) Comprehensive Approach.In addition to awareness, prioritize policy work and maintain comprehensive
approach.
4) Refer Ballot Initiative. In addition to awareness, place single-use plastic bag regulation on the April 2021
ballot.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Reducing plastics pollution is a Council priority, which aligns with the community’s Road to Zero Waste goal to
produce zero waste by 2030 as well as its goal to sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River
and its watershed.
Past Council Action
xFunding
o Midcycle budget offers funded
$35k to conduct plastic pollution reduction awareness and engagement during 2020.
$35k for a study to address microplastics pollution in Fort Collins’ local waterways.
xWork Session February 11, 2020
o During this work session, staff provided plastic pollution context and learnings from peer communities.
(Attachment 1)Council provided direction for action both on micro and macro pollution.
Macroplastic Pollution Awareness and Policy Update
1) Awareness: Outreach and Data Collection BFO Offer Update
a. Elements that have changed
o Majority of campaign was delayed due to budget restrictions between March and mid-July.
o Some messages have been adapted and presentations have been held virtually.
ATTACHMENT 1
COPYBE ANSWEAN
Ymbers like staff to pursumbers like staf
on.on.Focus awareness workFocus awareness
simple actions; resimple action -evaluate puate
ess, focus policy wos, focus policy rk on m
ms upon request only”) and n request
on to awareness, prioritize on to awareness, prior
on to awareness, place singawareness, place
ONON
COn is a Council priority, whs a Council priority
0 as well as its goal tas well as its goa
October 27, 2020 Page 2
o Litterati app to characterize local plastic pollution had limited participation, as the best conditions for
litter collection are in spring, which coincided with the onset of COVID-19.
b. Progress
o Adapted consumer awareness campaign in response to COVID-19: May the Fork Be With You
campaign (Attachment 2).
o Outreach to businesses and groups interested in plastic pollution from March through September.
o Fall business recognition and awareness campaign will launch in late October and run through the
end of the year. Campaign will feature businesses reducing plastic pollution and provide tips
businesses can apply in their operations.
o Community science and litter pick up campaign ran from March-July. Staff has also secured another
year of the Litterati license to continue collecting litter pick up data.
2) Policy Development: Progress Update
A. Councilmember direction: Targeted engagement and equity lens
1) Elements that have changed
o COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted several of the stakeholder groups that would
potentially be highly impacted by a plastic policy.
o With other priorities such as navigating closures, lost business, paying rent, and covering basic
needs for these groups during the pandemic, this is a challenging time to ask for input. The Our
Climate Future planning project has worked to engage these stakeholder groups and has
encountered significant barriers to these groups engaging at this time; the same difficulty applies
to engagement on the plastics topic.
B. Councilmember direction: Robust stakeholder and community engagement
1) Elements that have changed
o During several months of engagement we have heard from primarily members of environmental
groups and senior community members, and not the community at-large.
Broad engagement tools not getting typical results (e.g. Utility Bill inserts).
Low participation may relate to the significant focus in the community on COVID-19.
o While there are committed individuals asking for change, it is unclear if there is broad support
without more diverse participation.
2) Progress
o Policy-focused outreach campaign including presentations, advertising, OurCity informational
website and two online surveys between March and October of 2020.
o Over 200 community members have engaged to date, primarily people from environmental
groups and senior community members.
Individual community members have also shared their interest directly with Council and staff
is aware of a 600+ person petition to ban plastic bags.
C. Councilmember direction: Take a comprehensive approach to policy development
1) Elements that have changed
o A comprehensive approach assumes the ability of community members to use reusable
items (mugs, bags, containers etc.). Due to COVID-19 and new corporate policies, reusables
are not currently allowed in many businesses.
It is unclear when these will be available again making implementation uncertain.COPYveral of the staf t
y.
ures, lost business, payinges, lost busines
mic, this is a challenging timemic, this is a challengin
worked to engage these sworked to engage these
ese groups engaging at this ese groups engaging at this
c.
keholder and community engkeholder and comm
hs of engagement we have hengagement we h
community members, and nonity members, and
gement tools not getting typicgement tools not getting typ
cipation may relate to the sigcipation may relate to the sig
e are committed individuals are committed individua
ore diverse participation. diverse participati
utreachutreach caca
ne su
October 27, 2020 Page 3
2) Progress
o 117 people have shown support for acting on many types of single-use plastic items
(recognizing the limitations of who has been/not been engaged) with only four respondents
disagreeing that the City should act. See Attachment 3 for more information.
D. Councilmember direction: Collect more data on the problem and existing solutions
1) Elements that have changed
o Data collection from businesses
Businesses have been closed or operating in a limited capacity, making outreach to them
about plastic pollution policy difficult.
2) Progress
o See “Outreach and Data Collection BFO offer update” above for information on the Litterati
community science data collection effort.
o 4 out of 9 major and natural/organic grocery stores in Fort Collins offer a bag credit for
bringing a reusable bag in non-COVID times. (Attachment 4)
Other elements that have changed
●Staff capacity
o Due to retirement and COVID-related deployments , the Waste Reduction and Recycling team is currently
understaffed.
●Resources
o The mid-cycle offer for plastic pollution awareness and engagement was on pause from March-July to
support the 2020 budget rebalancing process, meaning only Q3 and Q4 is left for planning and executing
policy engagement and awareness work.
Figure 1. Summary: Awareness and Policy Work Challenges
Key: COVID-19 Staffing On track
Possible approaches for moving forward
As discussed, community and stakeholder capacity for engagement, lack of reusable alternatives and unclear
timelines for when they will be reintroduced, and understaffing present significant challenges to policy
development. Recognizing this, the following options, including staff’s recommendation, are intended to focus
future efforts based on Council direction.OPYhe Waste Waste Reduction and Re Reduc
eness and engagement waseness and engagement was
ss, meaning only Q3 and Q4s, meaning only
cy Work Challengescy Work Challenges
October 27, 2020 Page 4
1) Staff Recommendation - Focus on Awareness and Delay Policy Discussion.Focus awareness work
funded through 2020 on making single-use “opt-in” vs. “opt-out” and other simple actions; re-evaluate policy
work in 2021 based on readiness criteria (outlined below).
Benefits:
o Respects community priorities and limitations (e.g. basic needs, rent, lost business, etc.) related to
COVID-19.
o Allows staff to focus on supporting businesses on COVID-19-related strategies to mitigate plastic waste.
o Delivers on awareness element of Council priority in anticipated timeline.
o Future policy work can be timed to when reusable alternatives are available again.
o Early results indicate future policy work may be supported by plastic-related strategies emerging from the
Our Climate Future planning process.
Risks:
o This approach will not deliver a new plastics pollution policy for Council consideration by the end of Q1
2021.
Proposed Criteria for Restarting Policy Engagement
o Alternatives to single-use plastic items (e.g. reusable bags, mugs, etc.) are available or there is indication
of their reintroduction within a one-year timeframe
o Community partners connected to key stakeholders indicate various groups are ready to engage in the
conversation
o Staff proposes a mid-2021 update to Council on readiness criteria status
2) Limited Policy Work. In addition to awareness, focus policy work on most feasible option with respect to
COVID-19 (e.g. “utensils and accessory items upon request only”) and reevaluate comprehensive approach
to other plastic items in 2021.
Benefits:
o Mid-cycle funding available to support engagement.
o Advances Council priority with a policy consideration.
Risks:
o The highly impacted stakeholders may not be available for engagement.
o Scope of engagement and policy process is more limited than initially proposed.
o May need to be evaluated for consistency with State legislation.
o Would require new or redeployed additional staffing, such as a co-lead to support engagement.
3) Comprehensive Approach.In addition to awareness, prioritize policy work and maintain comprehensive
approach.
Benefit:
o Delivers comprehensive policy for this Council’s consideration.
Risks:
o Policy conversation may not get needed buy-in in the current moment.
If the community does not support, may impede future policy work.
o Policy may not be possible to implement for several years due to COVID and conditions may change
significantly in that time.
o To accomplish comprehensive policy work, would require additional staffing or staff resources would have
to be diverted from other Environmental Services Department priorities (such as Our Climate Future,
Regional Wasteshed, etc.), given the short timeframe now remaining for comprehensive plastics policy
engagement.COPYbags, mugs, etc.) are avaags, mugs, etc
ders indicate various groups ers indicate various grou
il on readiness criteria statuson readiness c
reness, focus policy work oreness, focus pol
y items upon request only”) y items upon request
ble to support engagement. le to support engagement.
rity with a policy consideratiority with a policy consideratio
d stakeholders may not stakeholders may
and policy procesand policy proce
d for consistd for consist
loyed a
October 27, 2020 Page 5
4) Refer Ballot Initiative. In addition to awareness, place single-use plastic bag regulation on the April 2021
ballot.
Benefit:
o If successful, a ballot initiative would enact plastic bag regulation, reducing the amount of plastic bags
that become litter.
Risks:
o Ballot initiative may have similar challenges as the Comprehensive Approach above, specifically, the
availability of potentially highly-impacted community members and businesses to inform an equitable
policy solution, of staff to develop ballot language, and of reusable alternatives due to the pandemic.
o May need to be evaluated for consistency with State legislation.
o Few peer or leading city examples are available to learn from.
The only example City staff is currently aware of is Louisville, CO. Louisville has referred a plastic bag
fee of 25-cents to the April 2021 ballot.
Microplastic Pollution Update
1) BFO offer: Council appropriated $35,000 as part of the 2019 mid-cycle budget process to fund a study to
address microplastics pollution in Fort Collins’ local waterways. There is currently an information gap that
limits the ability of staff to quantify the occurrence of microplastics and develop a targeted mitigation action
plan. Staff proposed hiring a contractor to conduct a scientific review of available microplastics monitoring and
analytical methods and best practices and technologies for the collection and treatment of water to mitigate
microplastics pollution within the City’s drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.
a. Elements that have changed
o The project was paused in 2020 due to budgetary restrictions.
o The COVID-19 Pandemic has forced program staff to adjust work priorities, workloads and schedules
in order to continue providing world class services to our community while also providing necessary
care for family members.
o Expanded technical support for the Halligan Expansion as well as the emerging monitoring, response
and recovery efforts for the Cameron Peak Wildfire have resulted in no staff capacity to complete the
Microplastics Pollution Mitigation Project in 2020.
b. Progress
o Budgetary restrictions and constraints on staff capacity delayed progress on this project.
o Staff will re-evaluate by the end of Q2 2021 if it will be feasible to complete in 2021. A reappropriation
of 2020 funds will be required to complete this project. By this time, more will be known about the
wildfire response and recovery effort resource needs.
2) Council direction: Council desired the project to also focus on outcomes related the health impacts of
microplastics on people and wildlife
a. How direction would be addressed
o The prevalence of microplastics in our local waterways and impacts to humans and wildlife are not
well understood. This project will provide an inventory of monitoring and analytical methods.
Evaluating the toxicity of microplastics to people and wildlife is beyond the scope of this study;
however, mitigating microplastics pollution with the City’s water infrastructure will likely lessen health
risks of these pollutants to people and wildlife.
9 mid-cycle budgeycle
rways. There is currentrways. There
icroplastics and develop a lastics and de
cientific review of available mcientific review of availa
ogies for the collection and ogies for the collection and
water, wastewater and stormwwater, wastewate
ue to budgetary restrictionsue to budgetary restr .
forced program staff to adjuforced program staff to a
ng world class seworld class services to orvices to o
upport for the Halligan Expanor the Halligan Exp
s for the Cameron Peak Wilds for the Cameron Peak Wild
llution Mitigation Project in 20ution Mitigation Project in 20
ctions and constraintsions and constrain
e by the end of e by the end of
required required
cove
October 27, 2020 Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Item Summary - Work Session February 11, 2020 (PDF)
2. Spring Awareness Campaign (PDF)
3. Community Engagement Data (PDF)
4. Data Collection (PDF)
5. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)COPY
DATE:
STAFF:
February 11, 2020
Molly Saylor, Senior Sustainability Specialist
Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist, Utilities Watershed
Program
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Mitigating Plastics Pollution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to share existing best practice research and to propose taking a comprehensive
approach to mitigating single-use (macroplastic) pollution, while continuing to study microplastic pollution.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Macroplastics pollution
1. Do Councilmembers support a comprehensive policy and engagement approach to reducing plastic pollution?
2. Does Council have a preference on an initial focus area (e.g., plastic bags, straws, take-out containers)?
Microplastics pollution
3. Do Councilmembers have input on staff’s approach to addressing microplastics?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
City Council has identified plastics pollution as a priority concern for the City to mitigate, which aligns with the
community’s Road to Zero Waste goal to produce zero waste by 2030 and its goal to sustain and improve the
health of the Cache la Poudre River and its watershed.
Waste Reduction Context
In Fort Collins, plastic makes up around 10% of what is landfilled as “municipal solid waste”. With a community
vision of producing zero waste by 2030, mitigating plastic pollution will be a necessary component of achieving
this goal.
River Health Context
A healthy Poudre River and surrounding watershed provides innumerable benefits to the Fort Collins community,
some of which include reliable, high quality water supply; flood attenuation and protection; recreation, health and
wellness opportunities; healthy plant communities and habitat for fish and wildlife. Accordingly, the City invests
considerable resources each year to ensure that the health of Poudre River is maintained and whenever possible,
improved. Plastic pollution has the potential to negatively impact all these beneficial functions, whereas
conversely, mitigating the problem supports and potentially even enhances outcomes in these areas.
Overview of Micro and Macroplastic Pollution Sources and Pathways
Practitioner knowledge about micro- and macroplastics differs. While the former is still a relatively new area, more
is known about how to measure, track, and mitigate macroplastic pollution.
ATTACHMENT 1
COPYCOPYE ANSWANANAN
YYd engagement approach to rgagement apprgagement apprgagement appr
area (e.g.area (e.g.area (e.g.area (e.g.,plastic bags, strawplastic bags, straplastic bags, straplastic bags, stra
approach to addressing micapproach to addreapproach to addreapproach to addre
OOs pollution as a priority conpollution as a priority copollution as a priority copollution as a priority co
ste goal to produce zero waste goal to produce zero waste goal to produce zero waste goal to produce zero wa
e River and its watershed. River and its watershed. River and its watershed. River and its watershed.
xt
up around 10% p around 10% p around 10% p around 10%
y 2030, mi 2030, mi 2030, mi 2030, mi
February 11, 2020 Page 2
Microplastics
Microplastics are small plastic particles that are less than 5 millimeters in size and can include both visible and
microscopic particles and fibers. Microplastics include particles that are either intentionally manufactured at very
small sizes for the production of other plastic products or particles that form when larger plastic materials break
down and fragment into progressively smaller pieces. These plastics originate from a variety of sources, including
car tires, road markings, litter, personal care products, synthetic textiles and clothing, among others. The
pathways for these materials to enter the environment include domestic and industrial disposal via the wastewater
collection system and subsequent discharge of treated wastewater, stormwater runoff from the urban landscape,
and improper disposal. Once these materials enter aquatic and terrestrial environments, they present hazards to
fish, wildlife and potentially even humans, through ingestion and/or chemical exposure.
While the ubiquity of microplastics in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems is well recognized, there is much less
information available about effective methods for identifying, monitoring and mitigating microplastics pollution. As
a result, the City is currently limited in its ability to develop targeted action plans around this issue.
To begin addressing this knowledge gap, Utilities provided funding in 2019 towards a microplastics study of the
South Platte River Basin that was designed to identify sampling and analytical methods that are well-suited for
Rocky Mountain streams. The study is a cooperative effort between Inland Ocean Coalition and the University of
Colorado-Boulder. Utilities supporting funds for this project came from the Utilities Watershed Program
operational budget and enabled the inclusion of two new study sites on the Poudre River.
Additionally, through the 2019 mid-cycle budget revision process, Council funded $35,000 for the purpose of
conducting a scientific review focused on (1) analytical and sampling methods for monitoring microplastics; and
(2) control technologies and industry best practices for mitigating microplastics pollution during the treatment of
drinking water, wastewater and stormwater.
Macroplastics
Macroplastics are plastic particles (or products) larger than 5mm, including but not limited to single-use plastic
items such as grocery bags, cups, take-out containers, etc. While some plastic is actively littered, many single-
use plastic items enter the environment inadvertently. As depicted in the graphic below, winds can gust
lightweight plastic items out of receptacles (or garbage trucks or landfills) and into the surrounding area. From
there, storm events move plastic items into natural areas and local waterways. Once in natural areas and
waterways, they may persist for hundreds of years, degrading into microplastics and at risk of being ingested by
wildlife.
Global markets and impacts
Global markets for recyclable materials have suffered due to sweeping nationwide policy changes in China that
halted the import of U.S. recycling commodities, including plastic materials. As the largest end-market for U.S.
recycled plastics, this change has dramatically impacted cities’ ability to maintain recycling for some types of low -
grade plastic.
Single-use items, including those made from low-grade plastic, often have a higher environmental impact than the
same items made from sturdier materials that can withstand reuse (for example, durable plastic bags or utensils).
While the environmental “payback” period may be longer for reusable items, they reduce environmental impacts
along the supply chain, as well as locally.COPYCOPYanalyticnalynalynaly
Inland Oceand nd nd
came from the romromrom
ites on ttes ontes ontes on he Poudre Rie Poe Poe Po
process, Council funded $3process, Council funprocess, Council funprocess, Council fun
and sampling methods for mand sampling methods foand sampling methods foand sampling methods fo
for mitigating microplastics por mitigating microplastics por mitigating microplastics por mitigating microplastics p
roducts) larger than 5mm, inducts) larger than 5mm, ducts) larger than 5mm, ducts) larger than 5mm,
ke-out containers, etc. Whileout containers, etc. Whilout containers, etc. Whilout containers, etc. Whil
onment inadvertently. As dt inadvertently. At inadvertently. At inadvertently. A
eceptacles (or garbage truceceptacles (or garbage trueceptacles (or garbage trueceptacles (or garbage tru
astic items into natural areastic items into natural areastic items into natural areastic items into natural are
st for hundreds of years, degfor hundreds of years, degfor hundreds of years, degfor hundreds of years, deg
February 11, 2020 Page 3
Regional Wasteshed Coalition
Fort Collins, Larimer County, Loveland, Estes Park, and Wellington have collaborated since 2015 to plan for
waste, recycling, and composting infrastructure once the Larimer County landfill reaches capacity. Waste-to-
Energy (WTE), a technical process that converts materials, such as plastic, into energy through a combustion
process, was identified as a Tier II recommendation. After Tier I recommendations have been implemented, the
coalition will evaluate how waste-to-energy could recover single-use plastic items that cannot be recycled. The
Regional Wasteshed Coalition’s Policy Advisory Committee is scheduled to re -assess Tier 2 recommendations
(including waste to energy) in Q4 of 2020.
Past Council Actions
In 2014, City Council passed a single-use bag policy requiring grocers to charge a 10-cent fee on plastic and
paper bags. Under this ordinance, grocers retained the fee with 50% being directed to the purchase and
distribution of free durable bags for customers. This ordinance was repealed later in 2014 in response to the
concerns of community members opposing restrictions on single-use bags.
Best Practice Approaches to Mitigating Single-Use Plastic Pollution
Measures to reduce plastic pollution range in mitigation potential, for example, awareness about littering or
recycling plastic items (Attachment 1) may not have the same efficacy as options that reduce consumption of
plastic in the first place. Many cities have embraced the “reduce” philosophy in order to disrupt the pathway
described above. By reducing the consumption of single-use items, environmental impacts along the supply chain
are also addressed. To understand nationwide best practices, staff engaged a Colorado consulting firm Ecocycle
to speak with program managers across the U.S. about their plastic policies. Based on this research, some
common mechanisms to reduce single-use plastics include:
x Banning items
x Enacting fees on items
x Restricting certain items and/or in certain situations
o e.g., making accessory items like utensils available upon request only
x Awareness (generally paired with another measure to increase efficacy)
Some cities have targeted efforts to reduce single-use plastic as a whole category instead of enacting stand-alone
policies that target individual plastic items (e.g., straws, bags, etc.). This comprehensive approach looks across
multiple single-use plastic items and bundles of policies that, together, create a larger mitigation strategy to be
implemented over time (multiple years). Creating a roadmap means impacted businesses and groups in the
community know what to expect, can use up existing stocks, and have time to identify replacement items.
Comprehensive approaches also allow time for the community to adjust to changes and learn from each policy
component. COPYCOPYal, for example,exexex
e efficacy as options e efficacy as e efficacy as e efficacy as
educe” philosophy in ordeduce” philosopduce” philosopduce” philosop
se items, environmental impae items, environmentae items, environmentae items, environmenta
ctices, staff engagctices, staff ctices, staff ctices, staff ed a Colora Cola Cola Col
about their plastic policies. about their plastic policies. about their plastic policies. about their plastic policies.
include:ncludencludenclude
rtain situationsain ain ain
ry items like utensils availablems like utensils avems like utensils avems like utensils av
ith another measure to increaher measure to incher measure to incher measure to inc
orts to reduce singleorts to reduce singleorts to reduce singleorts to reduce single----use plasuse plasuse plasuse plas
al plastic items (e.g.plastic items (e.gplastic items (e.gplastic items (e.g ,strawsttt
c items and bundles of polims and bundles oms and bundles oms and bundles o
ultiple years). Creatingtiple years). Creatiple years). Creatiple years). Crea
pect, can use uppect, can use upect, can use upect, can use u
o allo allo allo allow time ow time ow time ow time
February 11, 2020 Page 4
Cities with Comprehensive Approaches
Attachment 2 lists peer cities, Colorado cities, and other U.S. cities that have acted on single-use plastics.
Attachment 3 provides a case study of Palo Alto’s policy work to mitigate plastic pollution.
Current Actions - Plastic awareness campaign, data collection, and stakeholder engagement
Through the 2019 mid-cycle budget revision process, Council funded $35,000 for an awareness and outreach
campaign on plastic pollution, covering both macro and microplastics (separate from the $35,000 funded for
scientific review on microplastics). The campaign will launch in Q2 and raise awareness on why single-use plastic
items (macroplastics) are damaging to the environment, how they get there, and how they may eventually
become microplastics. It will also encourage residents to:
x Reduce their use of single-use plastic items by declining items when they are offered and un-necessary
x Bring their own reusable items
x Correctly dispose of plastic items when they can’t be avoided.
The campaign will also have a business component that is currently under development.
In order to further raise awareness about the problem, the campaign will provide opportunities for the community
to take action by:
1. Removing plastic litter from the environment using the Litterati app
Litterati <https://www.litterati.org/about>is an app that allows community members to photograph, tag, and
geocode litter before disposing of it. Over 100,000 users in 117 countries have used this app to remove litter
from their surrounding areas. In a collaboration between Sustainability Services, Natural Areas, and Human
Resources, volunteers will be directed to download the app for City-led cleanups. The broader community will
also be invited to participate in challenges.
An additional benefit of Litterati is its ability to provide staff with data on:
x Ratio of plastic to other materials
x Percentage of specific types of plastic relative to all plastic found
x Whether these data points are influenced by location COPYer U.S. cities that have acter U.S. cities that har U.S. cities that har U.S. cities that ha
y work to mitigate plastic polluwork to mitigate plastic powork to mitigate plastic powork to mitigate plastic po
data collection, and stakehata collection, ata collection, ata collection,
process, Council funded $3process, Council process, Council process, Council
oth macro and microplasticsoth macro and micropoth macro and micropoth macro and microp
ampaign will launch in Q2 anmpaign will launch in Q2 ampaign will launch in Q2 ampaign will launch in Q2 a
to the environment, how ththe environment, how tthe environment, how tthe environment, how t
courage residents to:ge rge rge r
use plastic items by declininuse plastic items by declininuse plastic items by declininuse plastic items by declinin
itemstemtemtem
lastic items when they can’tic items when theyic items when theyic items when they
a business componbusiness compobusiness compobusiness compo
about taboutaboutabout
February 11, 2020 Page 5
2. Providing input on what the City should do to mitigate single -use plastic pollution in Fort Collins.
Outreach will include opportunities for community members to share thoughts, as well as engage key
stakeholders on a more targeted basis (e.g., the accessibility community and straws), acknowledging that this
is a communitywide issue and that certain groups and businesses may be disproportionately impacted.
Initial list of stakeholder categories (Subject to refinement based on Council direction)
- Residents
- Members of the accessibility community who must regularly use single use plastics
- Historically underrepresented community groups, residents, and business owners
- Local businesses (restaurants, grocery stores, retail stores, etc.)who provide single use plastics
to their customers or otherwise rely on them to do business
- Local businesses who manage single use plastic waste or who use it as a raw material
- Local business associations and chambers of commerce
- Local producers and suppliers of single use plastics (for example, wholesale suppliers of single
use plastics)
- Local nature, environment, and sustainability focused advocacy groups
- Organizations directly involved in litter clean up
-City departments
Key Takeaways
Staff’s evaluation of peer, Colorado, and U.S. cities has led to the identification of best practices that Fort Collins
could build upon, if Council desires to move forward. Key learnings from staff’s review of other cities actions and
best practices are:
x Take a comprehensive approach that includes multiple items (e.g., individual type of plastic products),
allowing the community to know what to expect, use up existing stocks, and have time to identify replacement
items.
x Phase policy-development and implementation over time (multiple years).
x Move toward reusables and away from disposables.
x Thoughtfully engage stakeholders, including groups and businesses that will be impacted by policy measures.
Fort Collins is in a strong position of having some of the key characteristics of successful cities, including well-
founded policies based on community vision and goals (Zero Waste, Climate Action Plan), as well as
collaboration through regional wasteshed planning.
Next Steps
x Gather community and stakeholder input
x Launch plastics awareness campaign and collect data (midcycle offer)
o Gather community and stakeholder input
x Regional Wasteshed Coalition’s Policy Advisory Committee is scheduled to reas sess Tier 2 recommendations
(including waste to energy) in Q4 of 2020.
x June 9, 2020 City Council work session.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Types of Single-Use Plastic Items (PDF)
2. List of Cities taking action (PDF)
3. Comprehensive Approach Case Study-Palo Alto (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)COPYCOPYdvocacvocvocvoc
led to the identification of beled to the identification of led to the identification of led to the identification of
Key learningsKey learningsKey learningsKey learnings from staff’s rererere
ncludes multiple items (e.gncludes multiple ncludes multiple ncludes multiple
o expect, use up existing stoo expect, use up existino expect, use up existino expect, use up existin
plementation over time (multmentation over timementation over timementation over time
way from disposables.m dism dism dis
olders, including groups and olders, including groups andolders, including groups andolders, including groups and
position of having some of tsition of having some ofsition of having some ofsition of having some of
on community vision andcommunity visiocommunity visiocommunity visio
al wwwwasteshed planningasteshed plannasteshed plannasteshed plann
r
1
Types of Single-Use Plastic Items
Types of Single-Use Plastics
The broader category of single-use plastic includes a wide-range of items, from cigarette butts and
sanitary wipes to plastic bags and straws. The items listed below are those most commonly addressed
by municipal plastic policies.
Carry-out bags: Bags made of thin, flexible plastic designed to transport purchases
Polystyrene: Plastic foam take-out coffee cups, plates, and containers.
Foodware: Plastic plates, cups, and utensils.
Accessory items: Lids, utensils, straws, stirrers, etc.
ATTACHMENT 1
COPYCOPYe plastic designed to transpoplastic designed plastic designed plastic designed
offee cups, plates, and contafee cups, plates, and contfee cups, plates, and contfee cups, plates, and cont
and utensils.ensiensiensi
ensils, straws, stirrers, etc.nsils, straws, stirrers, etc.nsils, straws, stirrers, etc.nsils, straws, stirrers, etc.
1
Who is Taking Action?
Key: X = has taken action, P = planning to take action, C = comprehensive approach, R = repealed
Peer City Carry-out
bags
Polystyrene food
containers Accessory items Food serviceware
Fort Collins, CO R
Palo Alto, CA C C C P
Santa Barbara, CA X X X
Santa Rosa, CA X X
Portland, ME X X
Eugene, OR X X
Boulder, CO X
Tacoma, WA X
Colorado City
Denver, CO X
Boulder, CO X
Avon, CO X P
Telluride X
Aspen X
Carbondale X
Breckenridge X
Fraser X
Frisco X
Vail X
Nederland X
Crested Butte X
Avon X
Ridgeway X
Steamboat Springs X
Winter Park X
Sample U.S. Cities - Not Comprehensive
Seattle, WA C C C C
Berkeley, CA C C C C
Albuquerque, NM X
Austin, TX X
San Francisco, CA X X
Baltimore, MD X
New York City, NY X
Davis, CA X X
Berkeley, CA X X
ATTACHMENT 2
XCOPYCOPY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYPYPYPYYYYPYPPYPYPYYYYYPYPPYPYPYOPOPOPOPPPOPOPOPPOOOOOPOPOPOPPPX OOOOOOX XXX
COCOCOCOOX XXX
COCOCOCOCOCOX CCCCCOCCOCOCOX CCCCOCOCOCOCOCOX CCCCCCCCCCX X X X CCC
1
Comprehensive Approach Case Study – Palo Alto
Population: 66,666
Disposable Bag Policy (2008)
The City of Palo Alto began addressing single-use plastics in 2008 with the adoption of its Retail and
Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance which banned the distribution of
single-use plastic carry-out bags from grocery stores. After subsequent creek cleanup events showed
that plastic bags were still prevalent in local creeks and on streets, the policy was updated in 2013 to
include all retailers and food service establishments. The updated ordinance also required a 10-cent fee
on all paper and reusable bags that were distributed to deter the use of single-use paper bags. In 2019,
the policy was updated again to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags for produce, meat, and
bulk food bags and require these bags to be certified compostable (paper or bioplastic). The city’s policy
is now one of the most comprehensive in the country because it affects many different business types,
including all retailers and food service establishments, and many different types of single-use plastic
bags, including carry-out bags as well as meat, produce and bulk food bags.
Key drivers for success
x Other local policies: Palo Alto’s plastic bag ban followed in the footsteps of other California
cities including San Francisco and Santa Monica.
x Store leadership: Three of the city’s seven supermarkets had stopped distributing plastic bags as
the city was exploring the policy.
x Community support: Public and City Council supported exploring policy options. Local
nonprofits dedicated to the reduction of plastic pollution were helpful in garnering community
support.
Effectiveness at meeting local goals
x City data from creek cleanups showed a 90% reduction in the amount of plastic bags in the
creeks after ordinance went into effect.
x Compliance checks conducted by the city after implementation in 2008 found that over 90% of
businesses complied with the policy. Future compliance checks will be conducted through the
ATTACHMENT 3
COPYCOPY2008 with the adopt2008 with th2008 with th2008 with th
Ordinancerdinancerdinancerdinance which banned twhichwhichwhich
PYPYAfter subsequent creek cleaAfter subsequent creek After subsequent creek After subsequent creek
s and on streets, the policy ws and on streets, the policy ws and on streets, the policy ws and on streets, the policy w
ments. The updated ordinancnts. The updatnts. The updatnts. The updat
stributed to deter the use ofd to deterd to deterd to deter
e distribution of singlee distribution of singlee distribution of singlee distribution of single-use pl
gs to be certified compostabs to be certified compostas to be certified compostas to be certified composta
ensive in the country because in the country bee in the country bee in the country be
d service establishments, and service establishments, ad service establishments, ad service establishments, a
bags as well as meat, producbags as well as meat, producbags as well as meat, producbags as well as meat, produc
es:es:es:es:Palo Alto’s plasPalo Alto’s plaPalo Alto’s plaPalo Alto’s pla
ancisco anancisco anancisco anancisco an
of th
2
Zero Waste group and will be scheduled after the next phase of the ordinance goes into effect in
January 2020.
x Through a survey, Palo Alto saw a sharp decline in plastic bag use and an increase in the use of
reusable bags following its plastic bag ban. However, paper bag use increased immediately in
response to the plastic bag ban. Paper bag use sharply decreased once the city implemented a
fee on paper bags in 2013, and this led to a further increase in reusable bags and customers not
using any bags. From 2008-2015, overall plastic bag use has declined from over 50% of bags
used to zero, and over 75% of bag use is now reusable bags or no bag.
Significant challenges faced
x Opposition from plastics industry: The American Chemistry Council and Dart Container Corp.,
one of the largest manufacturers of polystyrene foam food containers, lobbied against the policy
and testified before the city council. The industry group SavethePlasticBag.com also threatened
the city with a lawsuit. The California Restaurant Association also closely echoed the concerns of
the plastic industry representatives.
x Fee: State law prohibits California cities from collecting a bag fee from retailers so retailers keep
the entire 10-cent fee on all paper or reusable checkout bags sold.
Disposable Foodware Policy (2019)
In 2019, Palo Alto adopted the Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan, which is a three-phase program
with the goal to eliminate the use of disposable foodware items and switch to reusable items in order to
protect local watersheds and oceans, reduce litter, encourage Zero Waste, and reduce contamination in
the composting program. The first phase of this plan was implemented in 2019 with the passage of the
Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance, which banned single-use plastic
foodware accessory items including plastic straws, plastic utensils, plastic drink stirrers, plastic drink
plugs, plastic food and drink picks, plastic drink accoutrements, and plastic produce bags. Businesses are
required to provide only reusable or compostable alternatives, and these products must be offered only
upon request or via a self-serve station. The policy applies to any business in Palo Alto that serves food,
including restaurants, bars, delis, grocery stores, food trucks, hotels, convenience stores, and cafeterias.
Hospitals were exempted from the program.
The goal of the Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan:
x Reduce the amount of single-use, disposable foodware generated in Palo Alto
x Encourage the use of reusable foodware
x Ensure that single-use disposable items are either recycled or composted
The plan has a phased approach:
x Phase 1 – 2019: Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance
o Bans single-use plastic foodware accessory items such as straws and stirrers. COPYCOPYvethePethetheth
ation also closalsalsals
lecting a bag fee from retaicting a bag fee fcting a bag fee fcting a bag fee f
e checkout bags sold. e checkout bags sold. e checkout bags sold. e checkout bags sold.
osable Foodware Reduction able Foodware Reductionable Foodware Reductionable Foodware Reduction
se of disposable foodware itedisposable foodwadisposable foodwadisposable foodwa
d oceans, reduce litter, e oceans, reduce litter, e oceans, reduce litter, e oceans, reduce litter, encounconconco
The first phase of this plan wThe first phase of this plan wThe first phase of this plan wThe first phase of this plan w
Items and Other Disposablems and Other Dispms and Other Dispms and Other DispCOCOms including plastic stras including plastic s including plastic s including plastic
nk picks, plastic dk picks, plastic dk picks, plastic dk picks, plastic d
able or comble or coble or coble or co
tat
3
o Requires compostable or reusable alternatives are offered only upon request or via a
self-serve station.
x Phase 2 – 2021
o Charge for disposable cups and containers
o Require reusable foodware for dine-in customers
o Require all new construction for food service establishments to install a dishwasher
x Phase 3 – 2025
o Ban all single-use disposable foodware for take-out
o Require all food service establishments to have one of the following services to support
reusable foodware:
Have a dishwasher on site
Sign-up for dishwasher service
Sign-up for reusable foodware service program
o Require reusable foodware for take-out, including allowing residents to bring their own
containers and/or implementing a citywide reusable food container rental/return
program (see p. 59 for current pilot programs)
Key drivers for success
x Mitigate environmental impact: Palo Alto has a strong history of support for reducing waste,
reducing the amount of plastics in oceans, decreasing litter in the community and reducing its
climate impact.
x Support for compostables in business survey: The city’s survey of food businesses ĨŽƵŶĚЫŽĨ
food service establishments already utilized some form of compostable foodware and 52%
reported it would be easy to switch to compostable products.
x Local community partners: The city partnered with Girl Scouts and a local high school biology
class to conduct business surveys. Several nonprofits and community advocacy groups
submitted a letter of support to the city and encouraged the city to take bolder action. Local
stakeholders promoted not using plastic disposables and reducing use at local community
events (i.e. farmer’s market).
x ReThink Disposable proves success stories at local businesses: The city signed a 3-year contract
with ReThink, a technical assistance program provided by the City of Palo Alto Watershed
Protection and Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. This program helps businesses,
institutions, governments, and consumers reduce waste and associated costs by targeting
disposable packaging items through outreach and education, and conducted local business case
studies to show waste reduction and cost savings.
Effectiveness at meeting local goals
x The ordinance is expected to reduce waste by 290 tons per year and save 470 tons of carbon
pollution once fully implemented.
x ReThink Disposables Report on how businesses in Palo Alto successfully reduced disposable
foodware showed the effectiveness of minimizing disposable foodware: 111 businesses were COPYgramamamam
ing allowing reowowow
reusable food contaireusable fooreusable fooreusable foo
grams)ms)ms)ms)
Alto has a strong history of sto has a strongto has a strongto has a strong
oceans, decreasing litter in tceans, decreasinceans, decreasinceans, decreasin
in business survey:business survey:business survey:business survey:The city’The cityThe cityThe city
ents already utilized some folready utilized somlready utilized somlready utilized som
e easy to switch to composta easy to switch to compost easy to switch to compost easy to switch to compost
y partners:partners:partners:partners:The city partnereity partnereity partnereity partnere
uct business surveys. Severalbusiness surveys. Sbusiness surveys. Sbusiness surveys. S
ter of support to the citr of support to ther of support to ther of support to the
oted not using poted not using oted not using oted not using
market).arket)arket)arket)
es
4
recruited and provided with outreach materials; 14 businesses were ReThink certified and found
that 1,123,443 single-use foodware items were eliminated annually and had $32,023 combined
total annual net-savings.
Significant challenges faced
x Council members were concerned with the availability of compostable foodware items.
x Businesses were primarily concerned about the additional cost of compostable items, the
difficulty in finding replacements and that these products would still result in litter.
Supporting City Policies and Plans for Bags and Food Serviceware
x Palo Alto’s Bag Ordinance was adopted in 2008 to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags
at grocery stores. This was updated in 2013 to require a 10-cent fee on paper and reusable bags
sold by the retailer, and to include all food service establishments. (There is no charge for
customers to bring their own bags. However, retailers cannot provide reusable bags for free and
must charge a minimum fee on any bags sold to the customer in order to reduce the distribution
of any free bags of any type.) In 2019, the ordinance was updated again to include produce,
meat, and bulk food bags, and require them to be reusable or certified compostable.
x The Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers Ordinance was adopted
in 2009 and updated in 2016. The policy prohibits foodservice and retail establishments from
distributing prepared food in plastic foam or other non-recyclable plastic food service
containers.
o City facilities and events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers
made from plastic foam or non-recyclable plastic.
x In 2017, guidelines were updated to prohibit city staff from using Petty Cash and procurement
cards to purchase polystyrene products, bottled water, and other plastic products.
x The 2018 City of Palo Alto Zero Waste Plan has a goal of 95% waste diversion by 2030.
x The Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan was put together in 2018 by the Zero Waste Group,
which is a roadmap for the city to switch from disposable foodware items to reusable foodware.
x The Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance was adopted in 2019,
banning plastic: straws, utensils, stirrers, beverage plugs, and produce bags. Alternative
products must be compostable and can only be provided upon request or at a self-serve station.
x The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requires the city to eliminate storm drain litter by
2022.
COPYCOPYhmentsmenmenmen
cannot providet prt prt pr
customer in order tocustomer incustomer incustomer in
ance was updated again to e was updated e was updated e was updated
to be reusable or certified coto be reusable or certifiedto be reusable or certifiedto be reusable or certified
clable Food Service Containeclable Food Service Containeclable Food Service Containeclable Food Service ContainePYPYcy prohibits foodservice andprohibits foodprohibits foodprohibits food
c foam or other nonoam or other noam or other noam or other n -recycla
vents are prohibited from usnts are prohibited from usnts are prohibited from usnts are prohibited from us
tic foam or nonam oam oam o -recyclable plablablab
were updated to prohibit citywere updated to prohibit citwere updated to prohibit citwere updated to prohibit cit
e polystyrene products, bottpolystyrene products, bottpolystyrene products, bottpolystyrene products, bott
of Palo Alto Zero Waste PlaPalo Alto Zero WaPalo Alto Zero WaPalo Alto Zero WaCOCOFoodware Reduction Poodware Reductiooodware Reductiooodware ReductioCCp for the city to p for the city to p for the city to p for the city to
are Itemre Itemre Itemre ItemC
1Mitigating Plastics Pollution
Molly Saylor and Richard Thorp
2-11-2020
ATTACHMENT
Questions to Council
Macroplastics pollution
1. Do Councilmembers support a comprehensive policy and engagement
approach to reducing plastic pollution?
2. Do Councilmembers have a preference on an initial focus area?
(such as plastic bags, straws, take-out containers)
Microplastics pollution
3. Do Councilmembers have input on staff’s approach to addressing
microplastics?
2
rehe i e poreheieporeheiepoprehensive polprehensive polprehensive pol
tiontiontion
eference oeference oeference o
ws, takews, takews, take---out conout conout con
have inpuhave inpuhave inpu
STRATEGIC
ALIGNMENT
Environmental Health
• 4.4 Zero waste
• 4.9 Poudre River health
BUDGET
Midcycle funding
• $35K each for
macroplastics and
microplastics
Plastics Pollution
3
COUNCIL
PRIORITY
Plastics Pollution
• Microplastics
• Macroplastics
Approximately 10% of Fort Collins’ municipal solid waste is plastic COPYCOPYPYYSTRASTRASTRATEGITEGITEGIAAAAA
ALIGNMALIGNMALIGNM
nmnmnm
•••ZeZeZe
49P49P49P YYOPYPYOPYOPYOPYOPYCCCC
State of Science and Policy
4
• Knowledge of pollution pathways
• Ability to quantify and monitor
• Efficacy of mitigation options
More informationLess information
MacroplasticsMicroplastics
Plastic particles
less than 5mm
Plastic particles
greater than 5mm
COCOKnowledge of pKnowledge of pKnowledge of p
Ability toAbility toAbility to
EfEfEfficacyficacyficacyfffff OPOPOPOPMMMatiatiati
MacroMacroMacro
c pac pac pa
ggg
Microplastics: What are they?
Primary – manufactured at a size less than 5mm
• Examples: microfibers, microbeads, pellets or “nurdles”
Secondary – break down into micro-particles
• Examples: water and soda bottles, fishing nets, and plastic bags
5
Fleece fibers
Resin pellets / “nurdles”
Plastic bag fragments
han 5mhan 5mhan 5m
robe perobeperobepecrobeads, pelcrobeads, pelcrobeads, pel
ooo---particparticpartic
d soda bottd soda bottd soda bott
esin pellets / “nuesin pellets / “nuesin pellets / “nu
6
Paint /
Coatings
Litter
Sources of
Microplastics
Synthetic
textiles &
clothing
Personal Care
Products
(microbeads)
Car Tires /
Brake Dust
Road Markings
Pellets /
manufactured
plastics
Atmospheric
Deposition
Artificial turf OOSourcesSourcesSources
MicroplastMicroplastMicroplastPY
COCPYPYtititi
othothoth
Current & Proposed Future Actions
7
2019 Rocky Mountain microplastics survey phase II: Methodology Study
• Utilities Watershed Program funded two sites on Poudre River
• Study led by Inland Ocean Coalition & University of Colorado, Boulder
Past Project
Current Project
Assess current state of the science on microplastics, with focus on:
• Analytical & monitoring methods - source identification and monitoring
• Control technologies - drinking water, wastewater, stormwater
e s e on meseonmeseonme science e science e science
oring methoring methoring meth
---drinkdrinkdrink
y phase II: My phase II: My phase II: Mypypyp
nded twnded twnded two o o
oalition & Uoalition & Uoalition & U
OPOP
Macroplastic Pollution Pathways
8OPYOPOPYOPYOPYOPCOPCOPCOPCOPCOPCOP
Mitigation Options
9
Mitigation options Challenges
Anti-littering awareness Not primary pathway
Waste-to-Energy Risk of blowing out of bin
Recyclable replacements Risk of blowing out of bin
Compostable replacements Wildlife risk & contamination
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCCPYPYPPPYPYOPOPOPYOPYOPOPOPOPCOPCOPOPOPOPOPPYPYPYPYOPOPOPOPYYCOCOhallengehallengehallenge
Not primary Not primary Not primary ppp
Risk oRisk oRisk o
entsentsents RiskRiskRisk
ememem WWW
CC
Mitigation Options
10
Mitigation options Benefits
Fees on items
Avoid plastic items entering
the environment
Avoid supply chain impacts
Ban items/require reusables
Ban/fee hybrids
Item-specific restrictions
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCCOPYOPYOPOPPPPYPYOPOPCOPCOPOPOPPYPYPPOPOPOPYYCOCOnefitsnefitsnefits
oidoidoid
the the the
AvAvAvoidoidoid
sss
ononon
Types of Plastic Items
11
Carry-out bags Polystyrene
(Styrofoam)
Foodware Accessory itemsCCCOPCOPOPYOPYystyrenystyrenystyren
Carry-Out Bags
What is it?
Bags made of thin, flexible plastic designed to
transport purchases
Mitigation options:
• Fees
• Bans
• Fee/ban hybrid
Peer cities: Santa Barbara CA, Palo Alto CA,
Eugene OR, Portland ME, Santa Rosa CA, Tacoma,
WA
12
edtoedtoedtoed to ed to ed to
a CA, Pala CA, Pala CA, Pal PYPY
Carry-Out Bags
Fort Collins context:
Bag Policy 2014: 10-cent fee on plastic
and paper bags at grocery stores
• Grocers retained fee; 50% for free
durable bags to customers
• Repealed in 2014 before
implementation
Current Efforts: Awareness; plastic film
recycling at TRC, grocers and box stores
13
c c c
free free free
ess; plastiess; plastiess; plasti
and boxand boxand box PYPY
Polystyrene Food Containers
What is it?
Plastic foam take-out coffee cups and
containers.
Mitigation options:
• Fees
• Bans
• Restrictions
• Dine-in only
Peer cities: Santa Barbara CA, Palo Alto CA,
Eugene OR, Portland ME, Santa Rosa CA
14PYPY
Food Serviceware and Accessory Items
What is it?
Plastic plates, cups, lids, utensils, straws,
stirrers, etc.
Mitigation options:
• Fees
• Bans
• Restrictions
• Self-service stations; upon request
Peer cities: Palo Alto CA, Santa Barbara CA
15
,,,
pon re uestpon re uestpon re uest PYPY
Peer Communities
16
Palo Alto, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Santa Rosa, CA
Portland, ME
Eugene, OR
Boulder, CO
Tacoma, WA
Denver, CO COOCOCOCCCOCOOOOOPYYPYPYOPYOPYOPOPOPOPPYPYPYPY
Best Practices
17
Successful approaches:
•Comprehensive strategy with multiple policies
• Policy development and implementation over multiple years
• Move away from disposables and toward reusables
• Extensive stakeholder outreachCOCOPYCOPYPYPYrategyrategyrategywww
mmm and impand impand imp
way from disposway from disposway from dispos
e stakehoe stakehoe stakeho
Stakeholder Outreach
Considerations
• Who should be engaged depends on item
• Insight from other cities
• Alignment with stakeholder goals
Examples of stakeholder types
• Accessibility community (need items due to disability)
• Local businesses that provide/sell/distribute single-use items
• Local businesses that recycle plastic
18
temtemtemitemitemitem
alsalsals
r types r types r types
ity (temsity(temsity(temsity (need iity (need iity (need i
ttt provide/sprovide/sprovide/s
ecycleecycleecycle
Next Steps
• Gather community and stakeholder input
• Launch plastics awareness campaign and collect data
• Continue supporting legislation to facilitate local action
• June 9th Council work session, single-use plastics update
• Regional Wasteshed: Policy Advisory Committee meeting on Tier 2
recommendations (including waste to energy) - in Q4 of 2020
• Microplastics study completion in Q3 2020
19
nputnputnput
aign d colaigndcolaigndcolaign and collaign and collaign and coll
to facilitto facilitto facilit
sion, singlesion, singlesion, single
cycycy sory Csory Csory C
ncluding wastencluding wastencluding waste
c l tiicltiicltiicompletiocompletiocompletio
Questions to Council
Macroplastics pollution
1. Do Councilmembers support a comprehensive policy and engagement
approach to reducing plastic pollution?
2. Do Councilmembers have a preference on an initial focus area?
(such as plastic bags, straws, take-out containers)
Microplastics pollution
3. Do Councilmembers have input on staff’s approach to addressing
microplastics?
20
rehe i e poreheieporeheiepoprehensive polprehensive polprehensive pol
tiontiontion
eference oeference oeference o
ws, takews, takews, take---out conout conout con
have inpuhave inpuhave inpu
Types of Plastic Items
21
Carry-out bags Styrofoam Foodware Accessory itemsCCCOPCOPOPYOPYyyyrofoamrofoamrofoam
Case Study - Palo Alto
22
Palo Alto,
CA
Plastic
bags
(2008)
Accessory
items
(2019)
Disposable
containers
(2021)
Take-out
containers
(2025)
• Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan
• Reduce single-use
• Encourage reusable
cessorycessorycessory
itemsitemsitems
(2019)(2019)(2019)
DiDiDi
e Reduction Pe Reduction Pe Reduction P
se se se
ababab
Sample Project Timeline
23OCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECRESEARCH
MICRO Sampling, Analysis & Control
Technology
MACRO Policy Best
Practices Data Collection
POLICY
OUTREACH B&C B&C, Public &
Stakeholders
B&C, Public &
Stakeholders
AWARENESS Awareness
RECOMMENDATIONS
WORK SESSION PYYOOOPYOPYCOCOOPOPOOOPYOPYPYPYPYPYOPOPCOCOCCCMAMAMAAPAPAPplingplingpling
sss
BBB
SSSS S S
ATTACHMENT II: May the Fork Be With You
Spring Awareness Campaign: May the Fork Be With You
Description: May The Fork Be With You is an awareness and education campaign designed to raise
awareness and provide an action that people can take to reduce single-use plastics. May The Fork Be
With You encourages people to skip the utensils when ordering take out. The campaign was designed
specifically in response to the increase in take-out ordering due to COVID-19. Messages were shared via
social media and City communications and newsletters from May through the summer.
Community reception: May The Fork Be With You was well-received and several community members
have requested the associated Zoom background.
ATTACHMENT 2
COPCampaign: May the FoCampaign: May
With You is an awareness anWith You is an awareness
action that people caction that people canan take take
people to skip the utensils whople to skip the ut
e to the increase in takeo the increase in ta -o
mmunicationsmunic and nand
e Fork Bk
ATTACHMENT III: Community Engagement Data
Bottom line: Staff does not have a complete picture of community support or concern due to generally
low sample sizes and very low or no participation from stakeholders who could be disproportionately
impacted by a policy.
Stakeholders minimally or not engaged through survey:
x Member of the LatinX community
x Grocery store owner/manager
x Coffee shop owner/manager
x Restaurant owner/manager
x Clothing retail owner/manager
x Producer, wholesaler, or supplier of single-use plastics
x Waste industry professional
x Small business owner/manager
x Income less than $25,094 per year
x High school or college student
x Member of a historically underrepresented group, please describe below
x Business owner/manager
x Person living with a disability
x Minority-owned business owner/manager
Stakeholders engaged:
x 169 survey responses across two surveys
o Plastic Bag Survey – 47 responses
o Single-Use Plastic Survey – 122 responses
x A significant number of responses were from members of environmental groups and senior
community members.
Key themes:
x The majority of respondents were positive about addressing plastic bags and single-use plastics
and mentioned a variety of voluntary and regulatory options in their responses.
x Many respondents
o Attempt to limit their use of single-use plastics, including bags.
o Feel frustrated when they are given single-use plastic items by default and do not have
an option to opt out.
o Are noticing a significant increase in the amount of single-use plastics due to COVID-19
and fewer alternative options.
ATTACHMENT 3
COPYicscs
presented group, please descresented group, p
ity
ess owner/managerner/
sponses across two surveynses across two su
ag Survey g Surv – 47 respores
lastic Surveyastic Survey
respo
o Reuse single-use plastics, such as bags, before discarding or recycling.
x Some respondents (fewer than 15 responses)
o Indicate support for action on single-use plastics but responded negatively to the City
taking action.
o Do not support action on single-use plastics at all.
COPY
ATTACHMENT IV: Plastic Pollution Data Collection
Community science campaign on local plastic pollution:
Starting in April 2020, Environmental Services partnered with Human Resources and Natural Areas to
launch a community science project using the Litterati app to characterize local plastic pollution.
Community members collected over 2,000 pieces of litter, much of which was plastic.
Key takeaways:
x Plastic litter comprised 48% of all items collected
o 19% of items were cigarette butts
o 29% of items were other types of plastic
Figure 1. Fort Collins Plastic Litter Distribution. Figure excludes cigarette butts to better present the other categories. Note that
this is community science data and should be interpreted as directionally correct vs. precise.
Existing practices at Fort Collins major grocers:
Staff surveyed local bag-related practices by phone and found trends amongst national chains and
natural/organic grocers.
Key takeaways:
x Major national chains in Fort Collins
ATTACHMENT 4
Y
o Offer plastic bags.
o Do not offer bag credits for bringing reusable bags (3 out of 4 major grocers).
o Report approximately 50% of people bring their own bags.
x Natural/organic grocers
o Do not offer plastic bags (4 out of 5 natural/organic grocers).
o Offer bag credits (4 out of 5 natural/organic grocers).
o Report that the majority of people bring their own bags.
x Bag credits range from 2 – 10 cents and in some cases are associated with a donation program
instead of the traditional cash back.
COPY
1Mitigating Plastics Pollution
Molly Saylor
10-02-2020
ATTACHMENT 5
Questions to Council
Which option would Councilmembers like staff to pursue for
plastic pollution?
2
cilmembe
STRATEGIC
ALIGNMENT
Environmental Health
• 4.4 Zero waste
• 4.9 Poudre River health
BUDGET
Midcycle funding
• $35K each for
macroplastics and
microplastics
Plastics Pollution
3
COUNCIL
PRIORITY
Plastics Pollution
• Microplastics
• Macroplastics COPYCOPYSTRATEGIA
ALIGNM
nm
•Ze
49P YYOPYOPYCC
Background Context
4
Grounding in plastic pollution
• Plastic pollution threats to waterways and wildlife
• More information is needed on how to better quantify and monitor
microplastic pollution
• Litter as a source of pollution we can act on now
• Peer cities and best practices recommend a comprehensive approach
•Engagement – broad and targeted – is essential to good policyCCCCCCands and ifefe
w to bett
n n a
t practices recomm
oaddta etedoad and tar
Councilmember Input
5
1) Targeted engagement and equity lens
2) Robust stakeholder and community engagement
3) Comprehensive approach to policy development
4) More data on the problem and existing solutions
COPYPYYnd equ
r and commun
ive approach
ata on the prob
6
Plastic Pollution Awareness
7
May the Fork Be With You
- Adapted to be relevant to COVID-19
- Well-received
Broad outreach
- Businesses & groups: HP, Broadcom, League
of Women Voters, Interfaith Council
- Virtual Earth Day
Upcoming
- Business recognition and peer awareness
- Business tip guide
roadcom, Leag
Co
nd peer
Engagement Insights
Who we’ve heard from
• 100+ people
• Environmental groups
• Seniors
8
Who we haven’t heard from
• BIPOC
• Small businesses
• People with disability
• People with limited English proficiency
What we’ve heard
• Broad support for action on most items
• Specific interest in bags and polystyrene
• Current lack of alternatives
• Concern about plastic pollutions impacts
ho w e haven’t
BB
S bus
People w Ove hear
d su port fo
pecific interest in
Current la
•Concern
COVID-19 Impacts
1. Targeted engagement and equity lens
• COVID-19 disproportionate impact on “most-impacted” stakeholders
• Competing priorities for historically underrepresented community
members, i.e. housing costs, job loss, childcare, health
2. Robust stakeholder and community engagement
• Engaged to date: environmental groups and seniors
• Broad engagement tools not getting results
9
len
pact on “mosp
orically underrepr
s job los
d munit
: environmental
me tt ls not gment tools
COVID-19 Impacts
3. Comprehensive approach to policy development
• COVID-19-related restrictions on reusable alternatives
• Unclear timeline for return of reusable items
4. More data on the problem and existing solutions
• Impact of COVID-19 on businesses makes data collection on
existing practices challenging
• Litterati campaign launched and data collected! Yet, limited reach
due to COVID-19
10
cy dev
on sable
of reusa em
em and exis
9 on businesse
es challenging
paig lnched a
D-
Council Direction On track
Significant
challenges
Significant
barrier
Outreach and awareness work
Targeted engagement and equity lens
Robust stakeholder and community engagement
Comprehensive approach to policy development
More data on the problem and existing solutions
Key: COVID-19 Staffing On track
COVID-19 and Staffing Impacts
11CexistinCOo p evCOPengagemen YYPYOPYYYYPYOPCOCCYYCC
Options for Moving Forward
1. Focus on Awareness and Delay Policy Discussion. Focus awareness work funded
through 2020 on making single-use “opt-in” vs. “opt-out” and other simple actions;
re-evaluate policy work in 2021 based on readiness criteria
2. Limited Policy Work. In addition to awareness, focus policy work on most feasible
option with respect to COVID-19 (e.g. “utensils and accessory items upon request
only”) and reevaluate comprehensive approach to other plastic items in 2021.
3. Comprehensive Approach.In addition to awareness, prioritize policy work and
maintain comprehensive approach.
4. Refer Ballot Initiative.In addition to awareness, place single-use plastic bag
regulation on the April 2021 ballot.
12
u n
vs. “opt-out”
di it readiness criteri
awareness
(e.g. “utensils a
nsive approach
ach.In addition to
he approach.
addition
Questions to Council
Which option would Councilmembers like staff to pursue for
plastic pollution?
1. Focus on Awareness and Delay Policy Discussion
2. Limited Policy Work
3. Comprehensive Approach
4. Ballot Measure
13
bers li
and Delay
k
iv A rosive Appro
Environmental Services
222 Laporte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6600
fcgov.com/environmental services
MEMORANDUM
Date:October 30, 2020
To:Mayor Troxell and City Councilmembers
Thru:Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jacqueline Kozak Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
Theresa Connor, Interim Utilities Executive Director
Liesel Hans, Utilities Deputy Director
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director
From:Molly Saylor, Environmental Sustainability Senior Specialist
Richard Thorp, Lead Specialist, Science
CC: Jill Oropeza, Director of Sciences, Water Quality Services
Re: October 27, 2020 Work Session Summary: Plastics Pollution Update
Attendees: Jacqueline Kozak Thiel and Molly Saylor presented an update on microplastic and
macroplastic pollution work in light of COVID-19 challenges. Mayor Troxell, Mayor Pro Tem Stephens,
and Councilmembers Cunniff, Gorgol, Gutowsky, and Pignataro were present.
Key discussion points:
x Recognition of the challenges of engaging the community and most-impacted stakeholders on
plastic pollution policy during COVID-19.
x Some interest in following the impact that State legislation would have on potential local action.
x There was interest in exploring a potential plastic pollution ballot measure
o Perhaps a measure to ban plastic bags and perhaps considering accessory items as well.
o Incorporating information from related actions in other communities.
x Perspective that COVID-19-related challenges, such as availability of alternative items and
temporary suspensions in times of health crises, would need to be addressed
x Other perspectives include:
o Interest in seeing waste-to-energy considered as part of a systems approach to plastic
pollution mitigation, specific interest in follow up on the energy content of plastic items
(see table below).
o That a ballot measure is premature until more engagement can be done, more data
collected on options (such as waste-to-energy) and COVID-19 has a lesser impact.
o Concerns were raised about impacts of a regulation on businesses and consumers,
especially while COVID-19 is reducing available options.
o Interest in more data and health-related implications
Next steps:
x Macroplastics:
o December 8
th work session to continue discussion of a plastic pollution ballot measure.
o Continue existing online engagement.
x Microplastics:
o Staff will re-evaluate by the end of Q2 2021 if it will be feasible to completethe
microplastics study in 2021.
o By this time, more will be known about the wildfire response and recovery effort resource
needs.
o A reappropriation of 2020 funds will be required to complete this project.
ATTACHMENT 2
2
Table 1 summarizes a range of energy values contained in plastics often used to make single-use items.
Figure 1. Energy values of plastic types typically used to make single-use plastics. Source: Tsiamis & Castaldi (2016): Determining Accurate
Heating Values of Non-Recycled Plastics. https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Energy-Values-Non-Recycled-Plastics.pdf
Fees in the Context of Plastic and Paper Bags
Bottom Line:
1. The City could require vendors to charge customers a disposable bag fee, rather than permitting
them to give disposable bags away. If such a fee is not shared with or remitted to the City, it
would not be a fee (or a tax) charged by the City. The City could include acceptable uses of the
fee by the vendor in its ordinance.
2. To support a disposable bag fee that is paid to the City in whole or in part, the fee would need to
be imposed for the purpose of running education, mitigation and/or waste reduction programs
and the City should:
x Identify the police power basis for its imposition of the fee and its role in a larger regulatory
scheme of activities to be funded by it;
x Identify how the amount of the fee bears a reasonable relationship to the cost of the overall
program/service (e.g. recycling costs) and/or regulatory scheme it is intended to support
(e.g. education, outreach and awareness, mitigation, waste reduction programs – which
may require a fee study).
Decision Points – Charging a Fee:
x Who collects the fee – vendor?
x Is any portion of the fee remitted to the City?
x What can the vendor and the City use the fee for (if City, must be used to offset cost of
service provided such as education/mitigation related to waste reduction programs for
example)?
x Is the fee reasonably related to and not more than the cost of the programs and/or
regulatory structure it is intended to support?
Fees v. Taxes: Fees are assessed to defray costs of providing specific services and cannot be used for
another purpose. Taxes are assessed on the value of something (property, sale of goods, etc. – often
referred to as ad valorem (added to and based on the value) and are used for general governmental
purposes. New taxes cannot be imposed under TABOR without a vote.
Aspen Case: With these principles in mind, the relevant details of the Aspen case can be summarized as
follows:
x In the Aspen case, a $.20 fee (waste reduction fee) is imposed by Ordinance for each
disposable paper bag provided to a customer (it also banned plastic bags). The grocer
retained a portion of the waste reduction fee (up to a monthly cap) to be used for specific
costs (educational information to customers, staff training, infrastructure
improvement/alternation and administration of the fee). The remaining amount was paid
into the City Waste Reduction and Recycling Account to be used to fund specified waste
reduction and recycling activities and projects.
x The issue that the Colorado Supreme Court in the Aspen case addressed directly was
whether the fee was a really tax (which required a TABOR vote), and the Court held that it
was not a tax requiring a vote under TABOR.
ATTACHMENT 3
x The Court found the purpose of Aspen's charge was not to raise revenue to fund general
governmental expenses so it was not a tax (and not based on the legislative power to
tax). Instead, the Court found that the primary purpose of the charge was to “defray some
of the costs of a comprehensive regulatory scheme aimed at improving environmental
health and safety through a waste-reduction program” arising out of Aspen’s exercise of its
regulatory police power focused on protection of health, safety, and welfare (which can be
used to support “education and outreach on environmental sustainability”) .
x The Court looked at the question of whether the charge was, “in fact, imposed to defray the
direct or indirect costs of regulation and if the amount of the fee [was] reasonable in light of
those costs. The Court found that the charge was only one part of a “larger regulatory
scheme” to educate and promote waste reduction, recycling, and reduction of impact of
disposable bags on the environment.
x The Court also found that the charge was “reasonable” based on “a San Francisco waste-
reduction study that found the cost of subsidizing recycling costs for plastic and paper bags
was $0.17 per bag” and (2) the City’s analysis of its recycling costs for such bags. On this
basis, the Court held that a $0.20 fee per bag bears a reasonable relationship to the costs of
the regulatory scheme it was assessed to fund and did not need to exactly match the cost of
providing the service or regulating the activity (the cost of permitting the use of such bags).
Comprehensive Approach Case Study – Palo Alto
Population: 66,666
Disposable Bag Policy (2008)
The City of Palo Alto began addressing single-use plastics in 2008 with the adoption of its Retail and
Food Service Establishment Checkout Bag Requirements Ordinance which banned the distribution of
single-use plastic carry-out bags from grocery stores. After subsequent creek cleanup events showed
that plastic bags were still prevalent in local creeks and on streets, the policy was updated in 2013 to
include all retailers and food service establishments. The updated ordinance also required a 10-cent fee
on all paper and reusable bags that were distributed to deter the use of single-use paper bags. In 2019,
the policy was updated again to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags for produce, meat, and
bulk food bags and require these bags to be certified compostable (paper or bioplastic). The city’s policy
is now one of the most comprehensive in the country because it affects many different business types,
including all retailers and food service establishments, and many different types of single-use plastic
bags, including carry-out bags as well as meat, produce and bulk food bags.
Key drivers for success
x Other local policies: Palo Alto’s plastic bag ban followed in the footsteps of other California
cities including San Francisco and Santa Monica.
x Store leadership: Three of the city’s seven supermarkets had stopped distributing plastic bags as
the city was exploring the policy.
x Community support: Public and City Council supported exploring policy options. Local
nonprofits dedicated to the reduction of plastic pollution were helpful in garnering community
support.
Effectiveness at meeting local goals
x City data from creek cleanups showed a 90% reduction in the amount of plastic bags in the
creeks after ordinance went into effect.
x Compliance checks conducted by the city after implementation in 2008 found that over 90% of
businesses complied with the policy. Future compliance checks will be conducted through the
ATTACHMENT 4
2
Zero Waste group and will be scheduled after the next phase of the ordinance goes into effect in
January 2020.
x Through a survey, Palo Alto saw a sharp decline in plastic bag use and an increase in the use of
reusable bags following its plastic bag ban. However, paper bag use increased immediately in
response to the plastic bag ban. Paper bag use sharply decreased once the city implemented a
fee on paper bags in 2013, and this led to a further increase in reusable bags and customers not
using any bags. From 2008-2015, overall plastic bag use has declined from over 50% of bags
used to zero, and over 75% of bag use is now reusable bags or no bag.
Significant challenges faced
x Opposition from plastics industry: The American Chemistry Council and Dart Container Corp.,
one of the largest manufacturers of polystyrene foam food containers, lobbied against the policy
and testified before the city council. The industry group SavethePlasticBag.com also threatened
the city with a lawsuit. The California Restaurant Association also closely echoed the concerns of
the plastic industry representatives.
x Fee: State law prohibits California cities from collecting a bag fee from retailers so retailers keep
the entire 10-cent fee on all paper or reusable checkout bags sold.
Disposable Foodware Policy (2019)
In 2019, Palo Alto adopted the Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan, which is a three-phase program
with the goal to eliminate the use of disposable foodware items and switch to reusable items in order to
protect local watersheds and oceans, reduce litter, encourage Zero Waste, and reduce contamination in
the composting program. The first phase of this plan was implemented in 2019 with the passage of the
Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance, which banned single-use plastic
foodware accessory items including plastic straws, plastic utensils, plastic drink stirrers, plastic drink
plugs, plastic food and drink picks, plastic drink accoutrements, and plastic produce bags. Businesses are
required to provide only reusable or compostable alternatives, and these products must be offered only
upon request or via a self-serve station. The policy applies to any business in Palo Alto that serves food,
including restaurants, bars, delis, grocery stores, food trucks, hotels, convenience stores, and cafeterias.
Hospitals were exempted from the program.
The goal of the Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan:
x Reduce the amount of single-use, disposable foodware generated in Palo Alto
x Encourage the use of reusable foodware
x Ensure that single-use disposable items are either recycled or composted
The plan has a phased approach:
x Phase 1 – 2019: Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance
o Bans single-use plastic foodware accessory items such as straws and stirrers.
3
o Requires compostable or reusable alternatives are offered only upon request or via a
self-serve station.
x Phase 2 – 2021
o Charge for disposable cups and containers
o Require reusable foodware for dine-in customers
o Require all new construction for food service establishments to install a dishwasher
x Phase 3 – 2025
o Ban all single-use disposable foodware for take-out
o Require all food service establishments to have one of the following services to support
reusable foodware:
Have a dishwasher on site
Sign-up for dishwasher service
Sign-up for reusable foodware service program
o Require reusable foodware for take-out, including allowing residents to bring their own
containers and/or implementing a citywide reusable food container rental/return
program (see p. 59 for current pilot programs)
Key drivers for success
x Mitigate environmental impact: Palo Alto has a strong history of support for reducing waste,
reducing the amount of plastics in oceans, decreasing litter in the community and reducing its
climate impact.
x Support for compostables in business survey: The city’s survey of food businesses ĨŽƵŶĚЫŽĨ
food service establishments already utilized some form of compostable foodware and 52%
reported it would be easy to switch to compostable products.
x Local community partners: The city partnered with Girl Scouts and a local high school biology
class to conduct business surveys. Several nonprofits and community advocacy groups
submitted a letter of support to the city and encouraged the city to take bolder action. Local
stakeholders promoted not using plastic disposables and reducing use at local community
events (i.e. farmer’s market).
x ReThink Disposable proves success stories at local businesses: The city signed a 3-year contract
with ReThink, a technical assistance program provided by the City of Palo Alto Watershed
Protection and Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund. This program helps businesses,
institutions, governments, and consumers reduce waste and associated costs by targeting
disposable packaging items through outreach and education, and conducted local business case
studies to show waste reduction and cost savings.
Effectiveness at meeting local goals
x The ordinance is expected to reduce waste by 290 tons per year and save 470 tons of carbon
pollution once fully implemented.
x ReThink Disposables Report on how businesses in Palo Alto successfully reduced disposable
foodware showed the effectiveness of minimizing disposable foodware: 111 businesses were
4
recruited and provided with outreach materials; 14 businesses were ReThink certified and found
that 1,123,443 single-use foodware items were eliminated annually and had $32,023 combined
total annual net-savings.
Significant challenges faced
x Council members were concerned with the availability of compostable foodware items.
x Businesses were primarily concerned about the additional cost of compostable items, the
difficulty in finding replacements and that these products would still result in litter.
Supporting City Policies and Plans for Bags and Food Serviceware
x Palo Alto’s Bag Ordinance was adopted in 2008 to ban the distribution of single-use plastic bags
at grocery stores. This was updated in 2013 to require a 10-cent fee on paper and reusable bags
sold by the retailer, and to include all food service establishments. (There is no charge for
customers to bring their own bags. However, retailers cannot provide reusable bags for free and
must charge a minimum fee on any bags sold to the customer in order to reduce the distribution
of any free bags of any type.) In 2019, the ordinance was updated again to include produce,
meat, and bulk food bags, and require them to be reusable or certified compostable.
x The Expanded Polystyrene and Non-Recyclable Food Service Containers Ordinance was adopted
in 2009 and updated in 2016. The policy prohibits foodservice and retail establishments from
distributing prepared food in plastic foam or other non-recyclable plastic food service
containers.
o City facilities and events are prohibited from using disposable food service containers
made from plastic foam or non-recyclable plastic.
x In 2017, guidelines were updated to prohibit city staff from using Petty Cash and procurement
cards to purchase polystyrene products, bottled water, and other plastic products.
x The 2018 City of Palo Alto Zero Waste Plan has a goal of 95% waste diversion by 2030.
x The Disposable Foodware Reduction Plan was put together in 2018 by the Zero Waste Group,
which is a roadmap for the city to switch from disposable foodware items to reusable foodware.
x The Disposable Foodware Items and Other Disposable Products Ordinance was adopted in 2019,
banning plastic: straws, utensils, stirrers, beverage plugs, and produce bags. Alternative
products must be compostable and can only be provided upon request or at a self-serve station.
x The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requires the city to eliminate storm drain litter by
2022.
Ballot Timing Considerations
This attachment provides context for timing for a question included in the April or November election.
Descriptions include references to “submitting a ballot question” and “referring an ordinance” which are two
different options for how Council may place a plastic policy on the ballot. More description and details on these
options are presented in the Mechanisms section of the AIS.
April considerations
x Considerations by ballot mechanism:
o If Council wants to submit a ballot question on the April 2021 ballot, it must do so by Resolution.
In order to provide optimal time for preparation of the ballot, the preferred date to do so is
February 2, 2021. The last possible date to do so is February 16, 2021.
o If Council wants to adopt an ordinance and then refer it to the voters in April, second reading of
the ordinance could occur no later than February 16. First reading could occur on February 2, or
at an adjourned meeting on February 9.
x The cost to add an additional item to the April ballot is negligible, unless the total number and length of
candidate races and ballot measures will not fit on a standard 8.5” x 11” ballot. An 8.5” by 14” ballot will
increase material and mailing costs.
Staff support
x Ordinance development
x Online survey-based engagement between early December and January 31st
x City Clerk’s support for election-related matters
x City Attorney’s Office support for developing language
November considerations
x If Council determines it would rather target voter consideration at the November 2021 election, action to
do so would need to occur no later than August 17.
x The cost to participate in a November election is based on three factors:
o The number of entities participating in the election;
o The number of registered voters in the City; and
o Whether the City has any ballot issues required to be included in the TABOR notice.
x If the State of Colorado participates in the election, it pays $.80 per active voter in the County, thereby
reducing the costs to be borne by all other participating entities.
x Until the participating entities for a November election are known, which can be as late as early September,
there is really no way to estimate potential cost to the City to participate.
x The following table shows historical costs of November elections in which the City participated:
Election
Date
Cost Questions on Ballot TABOR
Notice
In-City
Voters
Ballots
Cast
Nov 2017 $ 68,690 Authorization to revise medical marijuana provisions
and a Charter amendment relating to Broadband
No 118,082 38,097
Nov 2016 $129,436 Retention of excess KFCG revenue Yes 123,641 85,570
ATTACHMENT 5
Nov 2015 $ 61,425 Broadband No 94,912 31,404
Nov 2013 $ 39,579 Fracking moratorium No 96,824 43,562
Nov 2012 $292,276 Repeal of ban on medical marijuana No 93,075 80,595
Nov 2011 $ 16,125 Ban on medical marijuana NO 71,251 37,053
Bold italics indicates a Presidential election year
Staff support
x Ordinance development
x Online survey-based engagement
x Stakeholder meetings (pending COVID-19 developments may be possible by November, likely not possible
in the April timeframe even if virtual)
Paths to April Election
Depending on the mechanism (Council initiative or referendum), the following dates reflect two possible
paths to the April election.
Council initiative. Council may submit any question or proposed ordinance or resolution to the voters.
Dec 8 - Single Use Plastics Ballot Item Discussion to gain clarity on policy elements and other logistics.
Dec 16 – Jan 31 – Online engagement around the elements of a plastic policy.
Dec 15 - Council resolution to pursue a ballot measure and direct staff to prepare the ballot
language/ordinance with specific elements as discussed on December 8.
Jan 12 - Present ballot language and ordinance for feedback from Council aligned to the Dec 15
resolution.
Feb 2 - Council passes resolution to submit the ballot question to the April election via Council initiative..
After this point, Environmental Services staff can no longer engage in any engagement on the issue. City
Clerk’s office manages the logistics of the ballot process.
April election
Council referendum. Council may refer any adopted ordinance or resolution to a vote of the people.
Dec 8 - Single Use Plastics Ballot Item Discussion to gain clarity on policy elements and other logistics.
Dec 15 - Council resolution to pursue a ballot measure and direct staff to prepare the ballot
language/ordinance with specific elements as discussed on December 8.
Dec 16 – Jan 31 – Online engagement around the elements of a plastic policy.
Jan 12 – Council work session to provide feedback on proposed plastic policy ordinance.
Feb 2
a) First reading of plastic policy ordinance.
Feb 16
a) Second reading of plastic policy ordinance.
b) Council resolution to refer the ordinance to the April ballot via Council referendum.
ATTACHMENT 6
City Clerk’s office manages the logistics of the ballot process.
April election
0LWLJDWLQJ3ODVWLFV3ROOXWLRQ
-DFTXHOLQH.R]DN7KLHODQG0ROO\6D\ORU
ATTACHMENT 7
4XHVWLRQVWR&RXQFLO
ϭ͘ tŚĂƚĂƌĞŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ
ƉŽŝŶƚƐ͍
675$7(*,&
$/,*10(17
(QYLURQPHQWDO+HDOWK
=HURZDVWH
3RXGUH5LYHUKHDOWK
%8'*(7
0LGF\FOHIXQGLQJ
.HDFKIRU
PDFURSODVWLFVDQG
PLFURSODVWLFV
3ODVWLFV3ROOXWLRQ
&281&,/
35,25,7<
3ODVWLFV3ROOXWLRQ
0LFURSODVWLFV
0DFURSODVWLFV
'HFLVLRQ3RLQWV
7\SHRISROLF\ %XVLQHVVHVLPSDFWHG 0HFKDQLVP 2WKHUDGGLWLRQV
%DQ
)HH± SODVWLF
)HH± SODVWLFDQG
SDSHU
+\EULG
/DUJHJURFHUV
$OOJURFHUV
$OOIRRGVHUYLFH
$OOUHWDLOHUV
,QLWLDWLYH
5HIHUHQGXP
$FFHVVRU\LWHPV
6W\URIRDP
3ODWHVFXSVHWF
)XWXUH
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ
2&)
6\VWHPV$SSURDFK
&RPSUHKHQVLYHDSSURDFK
7UDGHRIIVZLWKDOWHUQDWLYHV
6\VWHPVDSSURDFK
0XOWLSOHV\VWHPVFKDQJHVQHHGHGWRIXOO\
DGGUHVVSODVWLFSROOXWLRQ
2XU&OLPDWH)XWXUH%LJDQG1H[W0RYHV
&LUFXODU(FRQRP\
&RRSHUDWLYH&RPPXQLWLHV
7\SHRI3ROLF\
3ROLF\7\SH 5HVXOWV
)HH 6PDOOIHHWRSODVWLF
DQGRUSDSHUEDJV
%RXOGHU UHGXFWLRQLQSDSHUDQGSODVWLFEDJV
%DQ 1RSODVWLFEDJV
DOORZHG
3DOR$OWR LQLWLDO 5HGXFHGSODVWLFEDJV
VLJQLILFDQWO\LQFUHDVHGSDSHUEDJV
+\EULG %DQRQSODVWLF
EDJVDQGIHHRQSDSHU
3DOR$OWR UHYLVHG UHGXFWLRQLQSODVWLFEDJV
UHGXFHGSDSHUEDJVLQFUHDVHGUHXVDEOHEDJV
2XWFRPHV %DQ )HH %DQ)HH+\EULG
5HGXFWLRQLQSODVWLFEDJV
6KLIWVEHKDYLRUWRUHXVDEOHEDJV
UDWKHUWKDQPRUHSDSHU
*LYHVFXVWRPHUVRSWLRQV
7\SHRI3ROLF\
%HVWRXWFRPH*RRGRXWFRPH 1RRXWFRPH
%XVLQHVVHV,PSDFWHG
/DUJHJURFHUV $OOJURFHUV )RRGVHUYLFH $OOUHWDLOHUVDQG
IRRGVHUYLFH
(QJDJHPHQW
2QOLQHVXUYH\WRROVIRUHQJDJHPHQWDQGFRPPHQWVRQEDOORW
ODQJXDJHDQGUHODWHGRUGLQDQFH
%HJLQ 0LG'HFHPEHU
(QG -DQXDU\
0HFKDQLVP
ŽƵŶĐŝůŝŶŝƚŝĂƚŝǀĞ͘ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĂLJƐƵďŵŝƚĂŶLJƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŽƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ
ŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŽƌƌĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞǀŽƚĞƌƐ͘
ŽƵŶĐŝůƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĚƵŵ͘ŽƵŶĐŝůŵĂLJƌĞĨĞƌĂŶLJĂĚŽƉƚĞĚ ŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞŽƌ
ƌĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƚŽĂǀŽƚĞŽĨƚŚĞƉĞŽƉůĞ͘
2WKHU$GGLWLRQV
3RO\VW\UHQH
6W\URIRDP
)RRGZDUH $FFHVVRU\LWHPV
%HVW3UDFWLFH3ROLF\(OHPHQWV
,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ (QIRUFHPHQW 3ROLF\UHVLOLHQFH
0D\ 2QH\HDUSRVW
HOHFWLRQ
&RPSOLDQFHDXGLW
GDWDFROOHFWLRQ
&LYLOSHQDOWLHV
$QQXDOUHSRUWLQJ
3XEOLFKHDOWK
6XSSO\FKDLQ
6WDUWGDWH
(TXLW\
*Assumes Council initiative
6WDIIUHFRPPHQGDWLRQDFURVVEDQIHHRUK\EULGSROLF\
'HFLVLRQ3RLQWV
7\SHRISROLF\ %XVLQHVVHVLPSDFWHG 0HFKDQLVP 2WKHUDGGLWLRQV
%DQ
)HH± SODVWLF
)HH± SODVWLFDQG
SDSHU
+\EULG
/DUJHJURFHUV
$OOJURFHUV
$OOIRRGVHUYLFH
$OOUHWDLOHUV
,QLWLDWLYH
5HIHUHQGXP
$FFHVVRU\LWHPV
6W\URIRDP
3ODWHVFXSVHWF
)XWXUH
FRQVLGHUDWLRQ
2&)
4XHVWLRQVWR&RXQFLO
ϭ͘ tŚĂƚĂƌĞŽƵŶĐŝůŵĞŵďĞƌƉƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ
ƉŽŝŶƚƐ͍
1Mitigating Plastics Pollution
Molly Saylor
12-15-2020
ATTACHMENT 2
STRATEGIC
ALIGNMENT
Environmental Health
•4.4 Zero waste
•4.9 Poudre River health
BUDGET
Midcycle funding
•$35K each for
macroplastics and
microplastics
Plastics Pollution
2
COUNCIL
PRIORITY
Plastics Pollution
•Microplastics
•Macroplastics
Council Preferences
Ty pe of policy Businesses
impacted
Mechanism Other additions
q Ban
q Fee –plastic
q Fee –plastic and
paper
ü Hybrid
ü Large grocers
q All grocers
q All food service
q All retailers
q Initiative
ü Referendum
q Accessory items
q Expanded polystyrene
q Plates, cups, etc.
q Future consideration -
OCF
3
Optional Wording
Ty pe of policy Businesses
impacted
Mechanism Other additions
q Ban
q Fee –plastic
q Fee –plastic and
paper
q Hybrid
q Large grocers
!Al l grocers
!Al l food
service
!Al l retailers
q Initiative
q Referendum
v Ac cessory items
v Expanded
polystyrene
q Plates, cups, etc.
q Future consideration -
OCF
4
! =clarity needed v = optional wording
Policy Details
Implementation Enforcement Risk Mitigation
•May 2022 (One-year
post election)
•Income qualified fee
exemption
•Compliance audit & data
collection
•Civil penalties
•Annual reporting
including performance
measures
•Public health
•Supply chain
•Start date
•Equity
5
Plastic Pollution Ballot Resolution
Resolution directs staff to prepare ballot language with the
following policy elements and logistical considerations:
•Staff recommended base case
•Hybrid approach –ban plastic bags, fee on paper
•Large grocers
•Referendum
•Optional language for further business types and items
6
-1-
RESOLUTION 2020-118
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
GIVING STAFF DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS FOR CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF
PLASTIC POLLUTION MITIGATION STRATEGIES
WHEREAS, City Council has identified plastics pollution as a priority concern for the
City to mitigate, which aligns with the community’s Road to Zero Waste goal to produce zero
waste by 2030 and its goal to sustain and improve the health of the Cache la Poudre River and its
watershed; and
WHEREAS, because plastic makes up about 10% of landfilled as “municipal solid
waste”, mitigating plastic pollution will be a necessary component of achieving the City’s goal
of producing zero waste by 2030; and
WHEREAS, City Council funded midcycle budget offers to conduct plastic pollution
reduction awareness and engagement during 2020 and fund a study to address a study of
microplastic pollution in the local Cache la Poudre River and other waterways; and
WHEREAS, City Council has discussed various options for mitigating single-use plastic
pollution, while continuing to study microplastic pollution, at three Council Work Sessions on
February 11,2020, October 27, 2020, and December 8, 2020; and
WHEREAS, City Council wishes to direct City staff to develop for Council’s
consideration a plastic pollution ordinance as described herein: and
WHEREAS, City Council further intends to adopt an ordinance and refer it to a vote of
the of Fort Collins’ voters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes any and all determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Council hereby directs that staff prepare and present to Council for
consideration an ordinance containing the following elements:
A. Ban on distribution of single-use plastic bags and fee on paper bags, applicable to
large retail grocers with a place of business in the City of Fort Collins; and
B. Said ban and fee to commence May 1, 2022; and
C. Set a not to exceed maximum for the paper bag fee and limit any portion of the
fee returned to the City to no more than the reasonable costs of a defined plastic
pollution mitigation and solid waste reduction program to be approved by
Council; and
-2-
D. Include an exemption to the paper bag fee for low income residents; and
E. Include provisions for compliance audit of and data collection from retailers
subject to the ban and fee and civil penalties for violation of the ordinance, and
F. Include provision allowing suspension of program requirements as deemed
necessary due to public health emergencies or other unforeseen circumstances.
G. Require monitoring and annual reporting to Council on equity impacts,
compliance and outcomes, including performance metrics related to number and
type of bags distributed, presence of single-use plastic bags in the environment as
a percentage of litter removed from sensitive areas such as Natural Areas and the
Poudre River; and
H. Include language affirming Council’s commitment to evaluating and adjusting,
whether by expanding, contracting or modifying, the requirements and provisions
of the ordinance based on stakeholder engagement or other unforeseen
circumstances.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
15th day of December, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk