HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Futures Committee - 07/11/2016 -
City Manager’s Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
FUTURES COMMITTEE MEETING
Date: July 11, 2016
Location: CIC Room, City Hall, 300 Laporte Ave.
Time: 4:00–6:00pm
Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent:
Wade Troxell, Chair Kristin Stephens
Gino Campana
City Staff: City Staff Absent:
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Andrew Carroll, Intern, Environmental Services
Jonathon Nagel, Waste Reduction & Recycling Program Assistant
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner
Jackson Brockway, Graduate Management Assistant
Invited Guests:
David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Community Members:
Dale Adamy, citizen
Kevin Jones, Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce
Myles Crane, community volunteer
Stephan Gillette, Larimer County
Wade Troxell called meeting to order at 4:03pm
Approval of Minutes:
Gino moved to approve the May minutes as presented. Wade seconded. Motion passed
unanimously, 2-0-0.
Think Tank Item 7-2016: Garbage in the 21st Century: The Shift from Solid Waste
Management to Sustainable Materials Management—David Allaway
Intro from Jackie: Bringing in external thought leaders for content, best practices, and emerging
trends. David is senior analyst at Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality. Force behind
developing 2050 vision for materials management. Oregon has been national leader with one of
highest recycling rates. Shifting paradigm. Has won numerous awards.
Materials Management
Oregon state law requires updates of solid waste management plan.
Charged with protecting the environment more broadly. Materials that end up as waste have
environmental impacts along lifecycle. Traditional inventory of GHG does not show waste
materials. Reclassified to show why emissions occur: lighting and HVAC, transportation,
provision of food, provision of goods, use of appliances, etc. Emissions from provision of goods
and food come mainly from extraction, manufacturing and freight. Goal is using resources most
productively throughout their lifecycles—from extraction, to production, consumption, use and
end of life management. Consider impacts of products and actions that can be taken across
lifecycle.
Impacts of Waste
• Recycling requires truck—usually diesel. But recycling reduces emissions in other parts
of lifecycle.
• In CO, concern about transport of recyclables to market. Energy required to transport vs.
production energy savings from using recycled product. Must consider break-even point.
Ex: Aluminum break-even point by rail is 475K miles. Shipping recyclables out of state
is not a big problem.
• Opportunities to reduce impacts upstream. Ex: increasing recycling rate of PET bottles
from 37% to 62% does not have a large GHG impact. Using a lightweight bottle has
greater impact, while drinking tap water (and washing container daily) has much greater
impact on GHG reductions.
o Look at how we purchase and use products.
• Discards management vs. materials management
2050 Vision Process
• 20 of best in-state thinkers and some out of state people as well. Five day workshop.
Developed vision and framework.
o Vision: Produce and use materials responsibly—conserving resources, protecting
the environment and living well.
o Chose 2050: Stakeholders have investments in tech and systems and need time to
recuperate. Can think more broadly about best interest of state when date is
further out/thinking less about personal financial interests. Expect dramatic
changes: demographics, environmental limits, globalization, etc.
• Framework for Action: Four pathways (concurrent): foundations, policies/regulations,
collaboration, education.
o Legislative concepts approved last year restored funding for program and updated
state and local goals. Focus on increasing recovery of specific products: food
waste, plastic and carpet. Outsized potential for energy savings and GHG
reduction.
o Counting recovery in different ways—composting vs. recycling. Outcome based
metrics.
o Stronger focus on prevention of waste generation.
o Sustainable production—Ex: Concrete production has large carbon footprint. New
project: providing access to producers to free tool that rapidly calculates carbon
footprint of different concrete mixes.
Comments/Q & A:
• Waste as a resource vs. lifecycle impact. New Belgium does lifecycle analysis on 6-pack
of Fat Tire beer, including waste disposal. Public health/state perspective is interesting.
Applicable to our waste-shed analysis.
• This waste management plan tied to climate action plan?
2
o State does not have CAP. Have global warming
commission, which has developed 2020 roadmap, a list of
200+ good ideas. Does not have resources to commit. 2020
roadmap has full chapter on materials and waste. Many linkages and good
communication with commission. Local climate action plans have materials
management (consumption & waste).
• How many on team?
o Growing. Program has 45 FTE statewide. Most in permitting, solid waste
facilities, staffing for projects.
o Bill passed last year authorizing fee increase which went into effect in April.
Assessed on tip fees?
• Yes. Statewide. Have had this tip fee for many years. Last revision
in 1994. Adjustment was overdue.
• How much?
o Current fee is approx. $1.80/ton, statewide. Funds:
permitting and facility oversight, complaint response,
orphan site fund (cleanup of sites), recycling, prevention,
HHH, upstream sustainable production, composting, etc.
• Have statewide tip fee in CO?
o Commercial pays 35 cents/cubic yard, but not used for
same ends.
• Haulers are private or municipally run?
o Oregon has three cities with municipal waste collection, less than 10K population.
With few exceptions, waste management is through franchises. City sets rates;
locally regulated utility. State requires cities and counties provide recycling
opportunities. Allows governments to franchise and implement recycling through
franchises. If cities pass requirements to franchisees, must be fairly compensated.
Disallows waste collection rates to charge more for recycling and garbage
combined than for same volume as garbage only. Creates rate structure so waste
generators are incentivized to recycle.
• Problems with commodity pricing being low for recyclables?
o Over last 20 years has worked well. Changes in net profitability due to changes in
commodity prices get compensated for in rate adjustments. Material is defined as
recyclable if it meets certain criteria including that the entity who collects it can
get it to a market at a cost that is no higher than disposing of in landfill.
o Definition of recyclables, rate of return, practicality in adjustments. Good to think
about for own community.
o Direction regulatory system may be going—regulatory decisions informed by
economics should take into account full social costs. Externalities are real
economic costs, not reflected in market prices of transactions. Ex: recycling cans
have economic and GHG impacts that can be quantified.
• Citizens bridge the gap?
o People choose whether to subscribe to services. If had a material that is no longer
recyclable under economic test, but has demonstrated significant social benefit,
then collection rates must go up to pay for ongoing collection of that material. In
lieu of human health costs of pollution of not recycling those materials.
o Single fee for pickup of trash and recycling.
• Can you share analysis on low carbon concrete? Fort Collins has concrete recycling.
o Tool was developed by national trade association. Proprietary tool with licensing
requirement. Have agreement to fund license so all members can use it. Fort
Collins could acquire a license.
3
• Consideration of cradle to grave design? Credit or encouragement
for more of that to be used?
o Lot of interest in design community. Has significant
potential for environmental benefit. Materials management framework is
concerned with all segments of lifecycle, not just production and waste. Cradle to
cradle concept as well. Just because something is made from recycled materials
does not make it inherently a low carbon product. Ex: Instant coffee—in
recyclable steel can, recyclable plastic tub, or non-recyclable film-like pouch.
Cradle to cradle advocates encourage the recyclable products, but film pouch has
much less material and smaller footprint. Ex: Compostable upholstery from plant
fibers and wool. Sheep produce lot of methane. Natural renewable resource with
significant environmental impacts. Finite resources and growing population.
• Oregon has moved to consumption based inventory for quantifying GHG. Fort Collins
has discussed, but has momentum for sector based GHG accounting. Does Oregon look
at both types of accounting to keep peer-to-peer accounting?
o Officially adopted as part of inventory, but have not abandoned traditional
inventory. Use two to three lenses to understand state contributions. Lot of
merit/value and quality of information in traditional model. Full update every five
years.
• Waste to energy and other energy benefits of waste streams, not just GHG perspective?
Look at waste as an energy resource?
o Look at materials as energy resources including waste. State policy hierarchy of
waste management prefers waste to energy over landfilling. Economic reality is
that landfilling is less expensive and have abundance of land and communities
that want landfills. However, comparing waste to energy with recycling—
recycling is almost always preferred method. White paper available online.
• Local landfill has 10 year life left. Looking at options. Advice?
o Will always need place to dispose of materials. Will always be discards. Choose
infrastructure that balances cost and environmental impact, that also allows
flexibility. Waste to energy has higher capital costs. Financing model requires
guaranteed flow of waste. If economy dematerializes, do you cannibalize
recycling to keep out of bond default? Portland metro is doing planning exercise
for waste disposal for 25 years. Planning to send 25% of waste to incinerator.
Landfills provide backbone/option of last resort. Hybrid system—waste to energy
system that is not oversized. Combine waste streams with neighboring
communities to make pan out economically.
• Haven’t adopted zero waste?
o Good marketing tool to increase recycling and composting. In most communities
encourages these in favor of prevention. Frames as a waste issue. Prefer materials
management.
• Conversation relevant to current issues. Could have a panel of experts in field share
thoughts with all of Council, like a Work Session.
o Framing issue. Problem trying to solve. Karen Bandhauer with Recycle America
can provide another perspective.
o Continue reading white papers to have more educated perspective.
• State department of public health and environment?
o CDPHE has had leadership changes. 320 page report to regional wasteshed
coalition—bigger picture approach. Dividing state into wastesheds for holistic
look.
Colorado Plan and what David shared—based on flexibility. Can’t
continue to put all of our eggs in one basket.
City document with local context.
4
• Synergy Network?
o Jackie has been tracking. Matchmaking process underway.
Can get an update.
• Met with mayor of Cheyenne—potential to collaborate on waste streams. Can get to
critical mass.
o Direct connection between recyclables and an end user, reduces costs.
o Like flexibility in fees so haulers can get return on investment.
o Our plans are greener than Oregon’s.
State level. Portland has similar plans to Fort Collins.
• Drew distinction between motivations created by RZW; complementary.
• Technologies available in 30 years may change everything.
• In Norway scale technologies differently; more capital up front. More dynamics, more
investment.
• Shame that more members of policy committee and TAC working on wasteshed were not
able to attend.
DO: Next Steps
• Consider implications to Pay As You Throw—CRO update
• TBL analysis is soft, qualitative impacts. Move to lifecycle analysis. Resources at CSU.
ISO standards. Look at incorporating as normal practice.
o BFO offer this fall for lifecycle assessment work.
o Look more at practices in Oregon—rate of return, definition of recyclables,
regulatory relationship
o Revamping TBL
o Send update to Council—summary of Oregon zero waste white paper, report from
state, etc. Had sustainable materials management Work Session in April.
Include brief document describing context.
o Will send slides from David’s presentation.
o Update on Synergy Network.
Other Business and Upcoming Meeting Planning
One topic per meeting is working better for timing. Jackie will work out details on schedule.
Future Agenda Items
• August: Sports Tourism
• September: Fort Collins Food System Panel Discussion
• October: Climate Economy
• November: Community Architecture
• December: Resilient Infrastructure
Meeting adjourned at 5:20pm.
5