HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-07/08/2008-Work SessionCity of
City Manager's Office
City Hall
Fort
or LaPorte Ave.
PO Box 580
Collins
Fort Collins. CO 80522
F
970.221.605
970.224.6107 -fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Ann Turnquist, Policy and Projects Manager
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager _
RE: Work Session Follow-up: Trash Services Study Update
DATE: July 10, 2008
On July 8, City Council, staff and the City's trash consultant R3 Consulting met in Work Session
to provide an update on the progress of the Trash Services Study. The following summarizes the
discussion and follow-up questions that staff will answer.
R3 Consulting Group has completed its Trash Services Study report, including an analysis of
Fort Collins' current open competitive trash system and a large number of alternative solutions
which address the problem statement offered by the City. The problem statement that staff and
the consultant have been addressing includes:
"In what ways can the City reduce the impacts of trash collection services in Fort Collins,
addressing issues of the cost of street wear, air quality, neighborhood aesthetics, noise,
and other neighborhood impacts? Are there ways that the City might also improve
diversion rates for recyclables?"
Council's feedback regarding the study included the following:
Council directed staff to ensure that the project thoroughly addresses diversion issues,
in addition to the collection system issues.
An overarching concern of Council was to ensure that all policy options need to be
considered as a cost/benefit analysis. Is the net improvement of any action
(regulatory, education, data collection, etc.) great enough to offset the cost to the city,
the hauler and the customers?
In several cases, Council asked for additional data regarding the current trash hauling
system. Data needs included the number of residential customers served through
HOA contracts, definitive data regarding actual weights of materials sent to the
cit�
of
1'_ � t`Collins
landfill, detailed current diversion rates, the value of materials that could be diverted
in the future, and the cost of collecting data.
An issue that the consultant emphasized and Council supported was the concept that
any action toward increasing diversion must target both incentives to customers to
reduce land filled materials (i.e. through Pay -as- you -throw ordinance) and incentives
to haulers to maximize diversion. Council discussed the concept that haulers could
benefit if the City ensures a level playing field where all haulers are implementing the
PAYT effectively and incentives are created for performance.
Council noted that residential waste is only part of the issue because the commercial
customers account for 70% of the community's waste stream. Council also took note
that state law limits much of the regulation of commercial waste collection.
Council Members generally agreed that regulations regarding trash truck appearance
shouldn't be considered. This hasn't been an issue in Fort Collins.
Council asked for additional information about a number of questions. Staff will gather this
information and provide it back to Council under separate cover.
Study Data:
1. Explain in more detail the ESAL calculations for street wear caused by trash trucks.
How is a trip in each direction considered to cause twice as much wear as one trip?
How do we analyze the difference between five trucks serving neighborhoods all over
the city versus 5 trucks that each work in their own area?
2. Review the CO2 emissions calculations. Detail the impact of stops which are spread
out widely across the community versus routes which are clustered together.
3. Can we provide more detailed data regarding the number of HOAs which participate
in consolidated trash service and the percentage of total household that this
represents?
4. Provide more information about the average weight of trash trucks.
Diversion Issues:
5. Provide more emphasis on recycling and diversion rates. Better emphasize the
benefits of increased diversion. Why is it important? What is the impact on air and
water quality? What is the scientific basis for why diversion is good for the
community?
6. Clarify how the 7% total for hauler controlled curbside recycling fits into the overall
27% community diversion rate.
7. Provide the analysis of diversion by method as a pie chart.
S. What is the value of the recyclable material which is currently ending up in the
landfill?
9. Are the current residential haulers asking for a fee or deposit for their recycling tubs?
10. What recycling education do haulers currently provide to customers?
11. Are haulers effectively complying with the Pay -as -you -throw ordinance when they
work with HOAs? Are they offering different size containers with different pricing?
12. What ideas would the haulers have for ways they can control increasing diversion
rates?
13. What are the costs of increased diversion, both to haulers and customers?
City of
'FCollins
Ntrt
Other:
14. Provide some information about the future of the Larimer County Landfill. Do we
have data regarding the number of trash trucks that go into the Landfill from the City?
How can we standardize the information from haulers to learn accurate weights for
the materials entering the landfill?
15. What percentage of trucks operated by local haulers are already compliant with 2010
EPA standards?
Staff will proceed with its outreach to the community regarding the proposed policy changes.
Based on the feedback from Council, Staff will focus on three alternatives during this outreach:
Should the City create Trash Districts for residential trash service?
Should the City increase regulation of haulers to address issue of noise, air
pollution, overloaded vehicles, enhanced Pay -as -you -throw requirements, yard
waste within the curbside recycling program and other actions that would reduce
the impact of trash trucks on residential neighborhoods?
Does the community desire additional programs and/or regulations which would
encourage or require increased residential recycling?
On September 23, Council will again consider this subject. Staff will present the community
feedback that has been gathered over the next two months along with staff recommendations for
next steps to be pursued.
F6rt Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 10, 2008
TO: Mayor Hutchinson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager lu_>_
Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager
FROM: Karla Smith, Boards and Commissions Coordinator
City Clerk
300 LaPorte Ave.
City Hall
PO Box 580
Fort Collins. CO 80522
970.221.6515
970.221.6295 - fax
fcgov.com
RE: July 8, 2008 Work Session Follow-up — Boards and Commissions Periodic
Review Process
At the July 8 Work Session, Council met with representatives of several boards and commissions
for the purpose of conducting periodic reviews. Council members present included Mayor
Hutchinson, Mayor Pro Tern Kelly Ohlson, Lisa Poppaw, Wade Troxell, Diggs Brown, and
David Roy. Following is a brief summary of each review:
General Employee's Retirement Committee (GERC) — (Ben Marvel, Council Liaison)
Jim O'Neill, Chairperson and Rick Richter, Vice -Chair represented the Committee at the Work
Session. They gave a brief overview of the functions of the Committee and discussion followed
as to how the Committee continues to monitor performance of the funds to ensure that when the
last person covered by the Plan retires the plan is fully funded.
Council asked whether employees could self -direct investments. Response was that the GERP is
a defined benefit plan, however, employees have other options through ICMARC to invest in
401 and 457 self -directed funds.
As of January 1, 2008 there were 235 active employees covered by the GERP; 121 terminated,
vested people who no longer work for the City but have a benefit due; and 159 retired or
beneficiaries collecting benefits.
Follow-up items and questions: No follow-up is needed at this time.
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) — (Kelly Ohlson, Council Liaison)
Chairperson Dwight Hall, Vice -Chair Dana McBride and staff liaison Peter Barnes attended the
Work Session as representatives for the Zoning Board of Appeals. They gave a brief overview
Fart Collins
of the Board's functions and outlined the criteria for granting variances. Discussion followed
regarding the workload for the Board. Chairperson Hall explained that the length of the monthly
agendas vary depending on the time of year. The agendas are generally lengthier during the
building season, and shorter during winter months. Individual items can vary from 20 minutes to
90 minutes, and the meetings usually are three hours or less in length.
Concern was expressed about the lack of a staff recommendation being presented to the ZBA. It
was explained that since the vast majority of the applicants are homeowners rather than
professional planning consultants, the documentation provided in the application materials is
usually not adequate to base a fair recommendation on. It is often only at the public hearing
where a clearer picture of the issues is understood. Staff clarified that comments and staff
opinion are offered during the course of the hearing when issues came to light. Dwight Hall
responded further explaining that during the course of discussion on an appeal, the
Boardmembers frequently ask for staff s interpretation, explanation of the intent of the code, or
opinion.
Council asked about Boardmember's comfort level in denying appeals. Chairperson Hall offered
his opinion that it is difficult to say "no." However, the members do a good job of denying those
requests which have no merit. He further explained that the majority of the cases they hear do
have some merit. Vice -chair McBride offered that while they do approve most appeals, many
are approved with conditions. It was mentioned that staff receives many inquiries for variances
which never proceed to a variance hearing, perhaps as many as 10 times the number which
actually appear before the ZBA. Staff explains to these potential applicants that the likelihood
of being able to satisfy the variance criteria is very remote, and consequently the proposal is
dropped or modified. If many of those projects actually proceeded to a variance hearing, it is
believed that the majority of variances would be denied instead of being approved.
Council expressed that based on the discussion with the Boardmembers and staff that there is
more comfort with how the current process works and how the staff and the Boardmembers
handle their roles.
Follow-up items and questions: City Council members did not request any additional
follow-up nor did they have any additional questions
requiring further response. Representatives of the ZBA did
not have any additional questions or comments.
Air Quality Advisory Board (AQAB) — (David Roy, Council Liaison)
Vice -Chairman Greg McMaster, Boardmember Dale Adamy and staff liaison Brian Woodruff
represented the Air Quality Advisory Board. Greg McMaster gave a brief overview of the
AQAB's functions. He indicated that part of the description of the Board's functions is to
coordinate its work with the Transportation Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board and the
Planning and Zoning Board. However, these Board's functions do not specifically mention
coordinating duties with the AQAB.
Fort of
Board representatives shared concern regarding communications with Council. They had
questions about how to be certain that Council receives information provided by the Board and
how the Board can be informed of issues that are being considered by Council before an item
goes to Council for approval. It was important to the Board that Council not consider these
concerns as criticism, rather they were just looking for answers for better two-way
communication. Council assured the Board that communications included in the weekly Council
packets are read and given consideration. It was also pointed out that Board recommendations
are presented to Council with agenda background materials. City Manager Darin Atteberry
assured the Board that staff is working on improving the communication process between staff
and Boardmembers. Council encouraged the Board to improve communications by speaking
before City Council meetings during "Citizen Participation" and to continue to provide
recommendations to Council as they are important to Council.
Follow-up items and questions: Staff will prepare Code changes regarding coordinating
duties with the Transportation Board, Natural Resources
Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Board.
The City Manager and staff will provide Council with the
Yearly Trends and Recommendations Report. Staff will
make changes to the format so that it is more concise and
easily accessible.
Staff will provide Council with a short update on Council
action on air quality and the status of monitoring.
Community Development Block Grant Commission (CDBG) — (Ben Manvel, Council
Liaison)
Chairperson Bob Browning, Boardmember Catherine Costlow and staff liaison Ken Waido
attended the Work Session. Discussion followed regarding changing the name of the
Commission to more accurately reflect its role. Since the Commission deals with more than just
the CDBG program, i.e., it also deals with the HOME Program and the City's Affordable
Housing Fund and Human Services Program, a name that encompasses all programs should be
developed.
It was noted that the Commission would like to meet with Council at a work session prior to each
funding cycle to present its recommendations. No consensus was reached on this request. If
approved, there would be two work session scheduled each year.
The Commission also reported that it is working on: (1) an addition to the funding application
where they would ask applicants how they would measure success of their program/project; (2) a
customer satisfaction questionnaire for the last funding cycle; and, (3) a review of the "Point
Chart" criteria to see if changes are needed in the more subjective questions.
City of
F&t Collins
Follow-up items and questions: The Commission will work on the name change and bring
back a recommendation to the Council.
City of
Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) — (David Roy, Council Liaison)
Earan Russell, Chair; Ian Shuff, Vice -Chair; and Joe Frank, staff liaison represented the
Landmark Preservation Commission at the Work Session. Boardmembers Russell and Shuff
provided a brief overview of the role of the LPC and some current issues facing the LPC.
Councilmembers stated that they have had no recent contact with the Landmark Preservation
Commission, but that no news is probably good news in that the LPC must be doing its job well.
The LPC was encouraged to contact Council Liaison Roy when needed. The Commission
members were assured that Council reads the LPC minutes and will contact the Commission if
needed.
The LPC suggested re -instating a "design review committee" to meet with potential applicants.
Discussion followed as to why this committee was eliminated several years ago if the committee
was so successful. Commission members stated that it was not officially part of the functions of
the LPC at that time. It was agreed that the LPC should work with staff to present Council more
information on adding the "design review committee" to its functions.
Commission representatives also expressed a desire to increase the funding for the City's Zero
Interest Loans for Rehabilitation program. They would like to increase the funding from
$25,000 to $50,000. Discussion followed as to where this funding comes from and the feasibility
of increasing the amount.
Council is interested in hearing the LPC's opinion on the impact of "pop-up and scrape -off' of
homes in the community. While change in the core neighborhoods can be positive, some
Council members were concerned about the scale and character of new buildings and major
additions.
Follow-up items and questions: Staff and Commission members will prepare pros and cons
to present to Council for re -instating the "design review
committee."
Staff will provide more information to Council regarding the loan program and how its funding
could be increased.
/ks/sek