The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 11/08/2011 - COMPLETE AGENDAKaren Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION November 8, 2011 6 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Council Work Plan Update and Policy and Plan Review Schedule Update. (staff: Diane Jones, Kelly DiMartino; 1 hour discussion) In July this year, City Council developed its Work Plan for the 2011 – 2013 term. Council action items - topics and actions that are to be addressed over the two-year term and beyond - are captured and tracked in four documents: 1. Council Work Plan (2011 – 2013) 2. Work Plan Items to be Done Administratively 3. Agenda Planning Calendar 4. Policy and Plan Review Schedule Since July, several new items have been added and the original schedule has been revised. The work session is an opportunity for City Council to review the information and suggest additional revisions if necessary. November 8, 2011 3. Sustainability Update. (staff: Bruce Hendee; 45 minute discussion) This sustainability update addresses a specific request from Council Leadership made in July of this year. It provides a definition of sustainability, City background on sustainability, a brief discussion on the importance of sustainability as a topic, background on key initiatives within the City organization and a brief look ahead. This update is directed primarily to environmental issues. Future sustainability updates will include social and economic as well. 4. City Fleet Use of Corn Ethanol. (staff: Bruce Hendee, Ken Mannon, Tracy Ochsner, Lucinda Smith; 1 hour discussion) The use of corn ethanol is a controversial topic. Ethanol is used in varying blends to reduce carbon emissions and thereby reduce the impacts of global warming. The use of corn ethanol has demonstrated benefits for the improvement of air quality and carbon emissions reductions, but comes with negative environmental and social factors. It has to be viewed as a short-term fix to a long-term problem. The benefits allow for a reduction in foreign oil dependence while improving air quality emissions from vehicles relative to the traditional use of gasoline. The negative social implications are that it takes away from an available food source and makes corn expensive. Corn for ethanol production is subsidized and tends to encourage this crop over others which might be used as a food source. A resulting trend from this over production is that food prices go up both for edible corn and other crops which are in less abundant supply. There is a subsequent impact on families in need of affordable and nutritious food. From an environmental perspective, the production of ethanol also has a negative impact. Because the crop is subsidized, it tends to encourage unsustainable farming practices. Farmers tend to add fertilizer and herbicides to encourage greater yields. Additionally, there is a tendency not to rotate crops. The resulting impacts are more fertilizer and herbicides in runoff from farm fields, and decreasing soil health. In fact, over- fertilization has created significant dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Currently City Operation Services has a policy of using alternative fuels, including E85 Blend (85% ethanol), when hybrid applications are not available and if the infrastructure is in place. There is currently substantial research on alternatives to corn based ethanol but, as of today, none of the alternatives have been successful at a commercial based production level. Complete elimination of use ethanol will increase carbon emissions from the municipal organizations operations by 525 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year without offsetting strategies. The challenge is in deciding the appropriate balance of strategies to reduce carbon emissions while still recognizing and protecting human and environmental considerations. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. DATE: November 8, 2011 STAFF: Diane Jones Kelly DiMartino Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Council Work Plan Update (2011-2013) and Policy and Plan Review Schedule Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July this year, City Council developed its Work Plan for the 2011 – 2013 term. Council action items - topics and actions that are to be addressed over the two-year term and beyond - are captured and tracked in four documents: 1. Council Work Plan (2011 – 2013) 2. Work Plan Items to be Done Administratively 3. Agenda Planning Calendar 4. Policy and Plan Review Schedule Since July, several new items have been added and the original schedule has been revised. The work session is an opportunity for City Council to review the information and suggest additional revisions if necessary. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED The purpose of the Work Session is for City Council and staff to check in regarding the progress related to the Council’s general work plan for the 2011 – 2013 term and make any necessary adjustments at this juncture. 1. Does City Council have any suggested revisions to the Council Work Plan, i.e., items to add, items to postpone or eliminate? 2. The Agenda Planning Calendar includes all of the currently scheduled Council Work Plan items as well as items yet to be scheduled. Does City Council have any suggestions or comments regarding the management of the Calendar? 3. Regarding the Policy and Plan Review Schedule, does City Council have any questions or comments about this tracking tool? November 8, 2011 Page 2 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Following the City Council elections (April 5, 2011) and a City Council Workshop (May 2011), in July City Council established its Work Plan for the 2011 – 2013 term. The Work Plan included items identified during the Council Workshop, priority items from the Plan Fort Collins Process, and regularly scheduled Plan and Policy updates. Topics and actions that are to be addressed by City Council over the two-year term are listed and tracked in the following documents: 1. Council Work Plan Update—there are four (4) sections in this document: (A) Items Completed or in Progress (July – October 2011) (B) Items Scheduled for November 2011 thru April 2013 (C) Written Status Reports (items originally scheduled for a work session, but due to new items these topics have been addressed via written reports to City Council) (D) Items to be Scheduled Please note the color and type coding: original Council Work Plan Items are in black; items from the May 2011 Council Workshop are shown in italics; the new items added for Council Action since July 2011 are in orange). 2. Agenda Planning Calendar Through April 2, 2013—this includes the Regular Council Meetings (discussion items) and Council Work Session calendar from July 19, 2011 through April 2, 2013. This serves as our “master calendar” and tracks changes and adjustments. There is a “key” that notes the adjustments and an explanation at the back of the calendar that annotates the reasons for the changes and adjustments. 3. Work Plan Items to be Done Administratively—this document is a list of the projects and topics that have been identified through the various processes (Plan Fort Collins; Plan & Policy Review Schedule; BFO; Council Workshop) and for which the follow up is administrative, that is, the follow up is to be done by staff and requires no formal City Council action. Also noted in the document are: (a) items for which further clarification is needed or are not currently resourced and (b) major capital projects that will be started and/or completed in the 2011 – 2013 time frame. 4. Policy and Plan Review Schedule —this document lists the plans and policy directions that have been acted on by City Council and for which there is some type of follow up anticipated. Many of the items are plans for which updates are anticipated in one, two, five or ten years. Other items are policies approved by City Council and for which Council requested some type of follow up (e.g., evaluation of the policy; a written status report) within a particular time frame. The Policy and Plan Review Schedule reflects information as of October 2011. November 8, 2011 Page 3 The work session is an opportunity for City Council to review its Work Plan - accomplishments to date, adjustments that have been made through the course of Council business, and the major items for which staff work and community conversations are in process and are scheduled to be considered by City Council between now and April of 2013. ATTACHMENTS 1. Council Work Plan Update 2. Agenda Planning Calendar Through April 2, 2013 3. Work Plan Items to Be Done Administratively 4. Policy and Plan Review Schedule 1 ATTACHMENT 1 COUNCIL WORK PLAN UPDATE – Council Action Items (Work Session or Regular Meeting) (A) ITEMS COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS (July – October 2011)  Establishing a Council Futures Committee – Resolution 2011-067  Creation of an Energy Board – Ordinance No. 098, 2011  Midtown Urban Renewal Plan – Resolution 2011-080  Land Use Code Update – Ordinance No. 120, 2011  Social Services Status and Scope – October 25, 2011 work session  Early Childhood Care and Education – October 25, 2011 work session  Expanding Mail Ballot Recipients – Ordinance No. 130, 2011  GOCO Poudre River Grant Opportunities - September 27, 2011 work session  Pineridge/Dixon Transmission Lines Alternatives - October 11, 2011 adjourned meeting and October 18, 2011 regular meeting (Resolution 2011-094)  Modification of Appeals Process – Ordinance No. 131, 2011 (Second Reading – 12/20/11)  URA – Update Policies and Procedures – October 4 and December 6, 2011 work sessions  Target Industries/Clusters Strategy – August 9, 2011 work session  Sign Code – Digital Signs and Pole Sign Design Criteria – August 9 work session, formal consideration - December 6, 2011  Jefferson Street Improvement Project – August 9 work session, formal consideration - December 20, 2011  GID No. 1 – Capital Improvements Plan – August 9 work session, formal consideration - November 1, 2011 (Resolution No. 22)  Electric Rate Options – September 13 work session, formal consideration - October 18 and November 1, 2011 (Ordinance No. 142, 2011)  Residential Energy Rate Options, Efficiency and Conservation – October 11, 2011 work session, formal consideration – November 15, 2011  Clarify Basis for Setting Development Review and Building Permit Fees – Resolution 2011-082  CDOT-North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement – Resolution 2011-090  Transportation Updates and Transfort items – September 27, 2011 work session  Poudre River Floodplain Regulations – October 25, 2011 work session - Items from Original Council Work Plan (Items from May, 2011 Council Workshop appear in italics) - New Items Added for Council Action since July, 2011 2 (B) ITEMS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 2011 – APRIL 2013  City Use of Corn-Based Ethanol - November 8, 2011 work session  E-Bikes – formal consideration - November 15, 2011  Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement Policy - November 29, 2011 work session, formal consideration – December 20, 2011  Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy – December 13, 2011 work session  Sustainability Update - November 8, 2011, July 24, 2012 and February 12, 2013 work sessions  Waste Reduction and Recycling Update - November 29, 2011 work session  Planned Development Overlay District (formerly Sustainable Flexible Predictable Zoning Tool), formal consideration – December 6, 2011  Poudre River Health – December 13, 2011 and March 13, 2012 work sessions  Economic Health Strategic Plan – December 13, 2011 work session  Traffic Safety (including the existing Crosswalk Policy) – January 31, 2012 work session  Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project Update – January 10, 2012 work session  Renewable Energy Standards – January 10, 2012 work session  Water Supply and Management Policy – January 10, 2012 work session  Art in Public Places Review – January 31, 2012 work session  Parking Plan – November 29, 2011 and February 14, 2012 work sessions  Strategic Housing Action Plan (City/CSU) – February 14, 2012 work session  Stormwater Master Plan – February 14, 2012 work session  Master Street Plan Street Classification Amendments – February 28, 2012 work session  Enhanced Transportation Capital Improvements Plan – February 28, 2012 work session  Affordable Housing Development Incentives Update – February 28, 2012 work session, formal consideration –April 3, 2012  Council Work Plan Update – March 13, 2012 work session  Transportation Update – March 13, 2012 and December 11, 2012 work sessions  Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines Update – March 27, 2012 work session, formal consideration – May 15, 2012  Transfort Fare Policy – March 27, 2012 work session  Low Impact Development Stormwater Policy – March 27, 2012 work session  Cardboard/Plastic Bags Ban in Wastestream – April 24, 2012 work session  Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study – June 12, 2012 and December 11, 2012 work sessions  Land Use Code Amendment: Review and Revise Neighborhood Transition and Compatibility Standards – May 22, 2012 work session  Economic Action Plan Update – July 10, 2012 and January 8, 2013 work sessions  Pedestrian Needs Assessment – August 28, 2012 work session  Mountain Vista/North College Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan – August 28, 2012 work session  Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan – Shields to I-25 – August 28, 2012 work session  Relocation Plan for Residents displaced by Redevelopment – October 23, 2012 work session, formal consideration - December 4, 2012  Railroad Quiet Zone (Phase 2) – December 11, 2012 work session 3 (C) WRITTEN STATUS REPORT – NO WORK SESSION HELD (July-October 2011)  Bike Program  Downtown Railroad Quiet Zone (Phase I) (D) TO BE SCHEDULED  Midtown URA/Mason Corridor Synergies  Geothermal energy Development Fees  Long-Term Financial Plan/Diversify Revenue Streams/Natural Gas Franchise Fee/Transportation Funding  Economic Model  Council/Community Key Outcomes and Performance Measures  Board & Commission Review  Growth Management Area Adjustments  Evaluate fees for Redevelopment/Infill projects  Citywide Capital Improvement Plan (Related topic: evaluate overall community connections between north and south Fort Collins – consider long-term vision for facilities and infrastructure for South)  City Strategic Plan  Public Engagement Process  Convention and Visitors Bureau Update AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 1 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details Regular CDBG Competitive Process ▀Modification of Appeal Process Economic Health Business Investment Item ▀Establishing a Council Futures Committee ▀Transition from Electric to Energy Board July 19 URA ▀Update Policies and Procedures July 26 Work Session CANCELLED Adjourned ▀Establishing a Council Futures Committee Mid-Year Review of City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge August 2 Regular CANCELLED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NIGHT OUT Work Session Update on Target Industry/Clusters Strategy Sign Code – Digital Signs and Pole Sign Design Criteria Jefferson Street Improvement Project August 9 GID No. 1 Work Session Downtown General Improvement District Capital Improvement Plan August 11 Special ▀Grove Appeal Hearings Procedural Issues Stormwater Enterprise ▀Storm Drainage Bond Refinancing August 16 Regular ▀CDOT North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement Review (FEIS) (tentative-dependent upon CDOT release of FEIS) ▀Land Use Code Update ▀Appeals of the Grove ODP and PDP ▀Storm Drainage Bond Refinancing ▀Transition from Electric to Energy Board August 23 Adjourned ▀Appeals of the Grove ODP and PDP Work Session **Bike Program **Electric Rate Option **Renewable Energy Standard **Downtown Railroad Quiet Zone (Phase I) August 30 5th Tuesday Joint Meeting with PSD Board and County Commissioners September 6 Regular ▀Museum/Discovery Science Center Funding Options (tentative) ▀Business Retention Assistance Package Midtown Urban Renewal Plan/Midtown TIF District #1 – Prospect South Amending Development Review Fees and Building Permit Fees ▀Land Use Code Update ATTACHMENT 2 AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 2 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details URA ▀Redevelopment Agreement for The Commons (Capstone) ▀Authorizing a North College Marketplace Line Item Adjustment September 13 URA ▀Redevelopment Agreement for The Commons (Capstone) Work Session **Poudre River Floodplain Regulations **Midtown URA/Mason Corridor Synergies (tentative) **Strategic Housing Action Plan (City/CSU) **Electric Rate Options **North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement September 20 Regular ▀Modification of Appeal Process ▀Items Relating to the I-25/392 Interchange September 27 Work Session **Parking Plan Update Transportation Update, Traffic Safety and Transfort (including **MAX fee structure) **Mountain Vista/North College Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan **Update on CSU Engines Lab Expansion and CSU/CSURF Lease **GOCO Poudre River Grant Opportunities October 4 Regular ▀Annual Appropriation Ordinance ▀Modification of Appeal Process October 11 Adjourned ▀Pineridge/Dixon Transmission Lines Alternatives Work Session **Social Services Status and Scope / Early Childhood Care Education **Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan – Shields to I-25 **Art in Public Places Program Review **Electric Rate Options and Water/Energy Conservation Program **2012 Budget Revision Requests Regular ▀Annual Appropriation Ordinance – SecondFirstReading ▀Utility Rates and Plant Investment Fees, including Geothermal Energy Development Fees-First Reading ▀Utility Specifications and Criteria Manual with Stormwater Best Management Practices **CSU/CSURF Engines Lab Lease, 430 North College ▀Airport Annual Appropriation ▀DDA Annual Appropriation GID No. 1 ▀Downtown General Improvement District Capital Improvement Plan ▀2012 Budget Skyview GID ▀2012 Budget October 18 Work Session **2012 Budget Revision Requests AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 3 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details October 25 Work Session **Streetscape Design Standards **Plan Fort Collins Monitoring **Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Follow-up (if needed) **Social Services Status and Scope **Early Childhood Care and Education Regular ▀Annual Appropriation Ordinance – Second First Reading ▀Utility Rates and Plant Investment Fees, including Geothermal Energy Development Fees-Second Reading ▀PFA Allocation ▀Jefferson Street Project **CSU/CSURF Engines Lab Lease, 430 North College URA ▀North College Marketplace Line Item Adjustment GID No. 1 ▀2012 GID Budget – Second Reading ▀Downtown General Improvement District Capital Improvement Plan November 1 Skyview GID ▀2012 Budget – Second Reading November 8 Work Session **Council Work Plan Update **Sustainability Update **City Use of Corn-Based Ethanol **Parking Plan November 9 Adjourned Annual Review of City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge November 15 Regular ▀Poudre River Floodplain Regulations CDBG Fall Competitive Process Legislative Policy Agenda ▀Revised Utility Construction Specifications ▀Stormwater Criteria Manual ▀E-Bikes ▀Items Relating to the I-25/392 Interchange ▀PFA Allocation ▀Residential Energy Rate November 22 Work Session CANCELLED November 29 5th Tuesday Work Session **Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement Policy **Xcel Gas Pipeline (Shields to Horsetooth to Timberline north) **Waste Reduction and Recycling Update **Parking Plan **Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 4 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details Regular ▀Planned Development Overlay District ▀Digital Signs and Pole Signs Regulations URA ▀2012 Budget ▀North College Marketplace Line Item Adjustment December 6 URA Work Session **URA Policies and Procedures Update December 13 Work Session Economic Action Plan Update-Economic Health Strategic Plan Poudre River Health (Instream Flows) **Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy **Retrofitting Streets/Collector Streets December 20 Regular **Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement Policy ▀Jefferson Street Project December 27 Work Session CANCELLED January 3, 2012 Regular January 10 Work Session Halligan-Seaman Water Management Project Update Water Supply and Demand Management Policy **Sustainability Update **Renewable Energy Standards January 17 Regular **Poudre River Floodplain Regulations January 24 Work Session CANCELLED FOR STATE OF CITY ADDRESS January 31 5th Tuesday Work Session **Art in Public Places Review **Traffic Safety (including the existing Crosswalk Policy) February 7 Regular February 14 Work Session Stormwater Master Plan Parking Plan Update Strategic Housing Action Plan (City/CSU)** February 21 Regular **Streetscape Design Standards February 28 Work Session Master Street Plan Street Classification Amendments Affordable Housing Development Incentives Update Enhanced Transportation Capital Improvements Plan March 6 Regular March 13 Work Session Transportation Update **Council Work Plan Update **Poudre River Health AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 5 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details March 20 Regular Stormwater Master Plan **Poudre River Floodplain Regulations March 27 Work Session **Harmony Corridor Plan Update – Gateway Analysis Low Impact Development Stormwater Policy **Transfort Fare Policy **Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines Update April 3 Regular Affordable Housing Development Incentives April 10 Work Session Budget – Council Review of Request for Results (RFR’s) & Priorities April 17 Regular Low Impact Development Stormwater Policy Parking Plan April 24 Work Session Cardboard/Plastic Bags Ban in Wastestream **Art in Public Places Review May 1 Regular May 8 Work Session May 15 Regular **Streetscape Design Standards May 22 Work Session Land Use Code Amendment: Review and Revise Neighborhood Transition and Compatibility Standards **Streetscape Design Standards May 29 5th Tuesday NO MEETING June 5 Regular June 12 Work Session **Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study June 19 Regular CANCELLED for Colorado Municipal League Annual Conference June 26 Work Session CANCELLED Adjourned Mid-Year Review of City Manager, City Attorney, and Municipal Judge July 3 Regular July 10 Work Session Economic Action Plan Update July 17 Regular July 24 Work Session Sustainability Update July 31 5th Tuesday NO MEETING August 7 Regular CANCELLED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NIGHT OUT August 14 Work Session Land Use Code Amendment: Revise Design Standards for River Redevelopment Zoning District Budget Preview AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 6 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details August 21 Regular August 28 Work Session Mountain Vista/North College Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan Pedestrian Needs Assessment September 4 Regular September 11 Work Session Budget September 18 Regular Land Use Code Amendment: “Nature in the City” Type Amenities in Mixed Use Projects September 25 Work Session Budget October 2 Regular October 9 Work Session Budget October 16 Regular Budget Adoption First Reading October 23 Work Session Relocation Plan for Residents Displaced by Redevelopment October 30 5th Tuesday NO MEETING November 6 Regular POSSIBLE CANCELLATION FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Budget Adoption Second Reading?? November 13 Work Session CANCELLED Adjourned Annual Review of City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge November 20 Regular Land Use Code Amendment: Revise Design Standards for the River Redevelopment Zoning District Budget Adoption Second Reading if Nov. 6 is cancelled November 27 Work Session CANCELLED Adjourned Annual Review of City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge December 4 Regular Relocation Plan for Residents Displaced by Redevelopment Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan Mountain Vista/North College Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan December 11 Work Session Railroad Quiet Zone (Phase 2) Transportation Update **Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study December 18 Regular December 25 Work Session CANCELLED January 1, 2013 Regular CANCELLED AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 7 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details January 8 Work Session Economic Action Plan Update January 15 Regular January 22 Work Session POSSIBLE CANCELLATION FOR STATE OF CITY ADDRESS January 29 5th Tuesday NO MEETING February 5 Regular February 12 Work Session Sustainability Update February 19 Regular February 26 Work Session March 5 Regular March 12 Work Session March 19 Regular March 26 Work Session April 2 Regular CANCELED FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTION AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 8 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details Items To Be Scheduled Anticipated Timeframe Establish Council Futures Committee a) Long-Term Financial Plan/Diversify Revenue Streams/Natural Gas Franchise Fee/Transportation Funding b) Economic Model c) Council/Community Key Outcomes and Performance Measures d) Board & Commission Review July 26, 2011 Resolution 2011-067 a) TBD b) TBD c) Determine what is needed following Oct. 25, 2011 Work Session on Plan FC monitoring d) TBD Growth Management Area Adjustments Dec, 2011 or later Evaluate fees for Redevelopment/Infill projects TBD Citywide Capital Improvement Plan (Related topic: evaluate overall community connections between north and south Fort Collins – consider long-term vision for facilities and infrastructure for South) Will be done concurrently with 2013-2014 Budget Process; exact work session date to be determined Ebikes – trial period (Related Topic: Trail Network Assessment and Regulations to Address new/Alternative Types of Vehicles) August or September, 2011 November 15, 2011 Amendment to City Plan re: Child Care Scoping project – date to be determined Eastside/Westside Re-set Scope and timeframe yet to be determined City Strategic Plan TBD Large Utility Poles in Easements TBD November 29, 2011 Public Engagement Process Spring, 2012 Convention and Visitors Bureau Update AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 9 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details **WORK SESSION CALENDAR ADJUSTMENTS Bike Program – work session of 8/23/11 cancelled to allow for The Grove ODP and PDP Appeal Hearings. Bike Program Progress Update Memo given to Council 9/15/11 Electric Rate Options and Water/Energy Conservation Program – moved from 8/23/11 to 9/13/11 to allow for The Grove ODP and PDP Appeal Hearings. Continued from 9/13/11 work session and expanded to include Water/Energy Conservation Program. Consultants to return for 10/11/11 work session. Renewable Energy Standard - work session of 8/23/11 cancelled to allow for The Grove ODP and PDP Appeal Hearings. Rescheduled for 1/10/12 – no earlier time slot available. Downtown Railroad Quiet Zone (Phase I) - work session of 8/23/11 cancelled to allow for The Grove ODP and PDP Appeal Hearings. Update Memo given to Council 9/15/11 Poudre River Floodplain Regulations – Item was postponed from 9/13/11 to 10/25/11 by City Manager. Formal consideration scheduled for 1/17/12. Moved from 1/17/12 to 3/20/11 by staff after Council direction given at 10/25/11 work session. Midtown URA/Mason Corridor Synergies – Item postponed indefinitely and is tied to 2012 Budget Exception Process. Strategic Housing Action Plan (City/CSU) – moved by staff from 9/13/11 to 2/14/12 to accommodate the need of other, more time-sensitive items that needed work session time. CDOT North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement Review (FEIS) – A work session was scheduled for September 13, but was cancelled the night of the work session due to length of other items on the agenda. Parking Plan - moved from 9/27/11 to 11/8/11 work session to accommodate more time- sensitive items. Moved from 11/8/11 to 11/29/11 because 11/8/11 work session was too full. Mountain Vista/North College Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan** - moved from 9/27/11 to August 28, 2012, to accommodate need for more time-sensitive items to be discussed at a fall work session. Update on CSU Engines Lab Expansion and CSU/CSURF Lease** - 9/27/11 work session added before formal consideration of Lease on 10/18/11. Moved from 10/18/11 to 11/1/11 to allow more time to complete lease. GOCO Poudre River Grant Opportunities** - GOCO grant opportunity came up quickly with a deadline of 10/14/11. Staff needed Council direction for potential concepts to submit to GOCO. Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan – Shields to I-25 – removed from 10/11/11 work session to accommodate need for time-sensitive items to be discussed at a fall work session. Work session scheduled for August 28, 2012 AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 10 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details **WORK SESSION CALENDAR ADJUSTMENTS Art in Public Places Program Review – moved from 10/11/11 work session to 1/31/12 work session (or 4/24/12, depending on staff availability) to accommodate need for time-sensitive items to be discussed at a fall work session. Social Services Status and Scope / Early Childhood Care and Education – Social Services Status and Scope moved from 10/11/11 to 10/25/11 work session and expanded to include Early Childhood Care and Education. Pineridge/Dixon Transmission Lines Alternatives – Transmission lines across Pineridge Natural Area issue was discussed at 8/11/11 Special Meeting. Adjourned meeting added to 10/11/11 to discuss alternatives to the Project. Streetscape Design Standards – removed from 10/25/11 work session to allow for discussion of other time-sensitive items. Moved from 2/21/12 regular meeting to 5/22/12 work session by staff (Pete Wray). Moved from 5/22/12 to 3/27/12 because slot opened up with removal of an item (Harmony Corridor Plan Update – Gateway Analysis). Formal consideration on 5/15/12. Plan Fort Collins Monitoring - removed from 10/25/11 work session to allow for discussion of other time-sensitive items. Memo on Plan Fort Collins monitoring will be provided to Council in November or December. Council Work Plan Update – added to 11/8/11 work session (City Manager, City Attorney and Municipal Judge yearly evaluation moved to Wed. 11/9/11). Council wants quarterly updates on progress being made on Work Plan. Next Update scheduled for 3/13/12. Sustainability Update – added by Leadership Team (Council wants updates 2x/year), originally scheduled for 1/10/12, moved to 11/8/11. City Use of Corn-Based Ethanol – added by Leadership Team Natural Areas and Open Lands Easement Policy - Policy review added to 11/29/11 work session to occur before discussion of Xcel Gas Pipeline. Formal consideration of Policy revisions – 12/20/11. Xcel Gas Pipeline (Shields to Horsetooth to Timberline north) – added 8/31/11 to discuss Xcel Energy’s plan to replace existing 8” pipeline. Project will impact Natural Areas and newly paved streets. Waste Reduction and Recycling Update – added by Leadership Team Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy – added to 10/25/11 work session, then moved to 11/29/11 work session to allow for discussion of other time-sensitive items. Poudre River Health – Update on 3/13/12 added to provide follow-up after 12/13/11 work session Eastside/Westside Neighborhoods Character Study – added to 6/12/12 work session by staff (Pete Wray). AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 11 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details **WORK SESSION CALENDAR ADJUSTMENTS Traffic Safety (including the existing Crosswalk Policy) – added to 1/31/12 work session at the request of Council 2012 Budget Revision Requests – work session added to 10/11/11 and 10/18/11 for Council input on recommended revision requests. FR and SR of Annual Appropriation delayed from 10/18/11 to 11/1/11 due to need for work sessions. MAX Fee Structure (expanded to “Transfort Fare Policy”) – removed from Transportation Update work session of 9/27/11 to allow for discussion of more time sensitive issues. Rescheduled to 3/27/12 and expanded from Max to Transfort Fare Policy. Harmony Corridor Plan Update – Gateway Analysis – work session item removed indefinitely because proposed development did not occur. Analysis will be done when development is proposed for Harmony Gateway area. URA Policies and Procedures Update – second work session scheduled for 12/6/11 to continue discussion started at 10/4/11 work session Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy – moved from 11/29/11 to 12/13/11 to make room for Parking Plan work session. Retrofitting Streets/Collector Streets – removed from 12/13/11 work session to make room for Housing Authority Fee Waiver Policy. Information will be provided to Council as a memo, not as a work session. AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 12 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details ▀REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR ADJUSTMENTS Modification of Appeal Process - scheduled for First Reading on 7/19/11 meeting, then postponed to September 20 due to lateness of the meeting on 7/19. Item deemed not ready for September 20 and was moved again to October 4. First Reading of Ordinance No. 131, 2011 was on 10/4/11. Second Reading postponed to 12/20/11 to allow time for more public outreach Establishing a Futures Committee-scheduled for 7/19/11, then postponed to 7/26/11 due to lateness of meeting on 7/19. Resolution 2011-067 adopted 7/26/11 Transition from Electric to Energy Board-scheduled for First Reading on 7/19/11, then postponed to August 16 due to lateness of the meeting on 7/19. Adopted (Ordinance No. 098, 2011) CDOT North I-25 Final Environmental Impact Statement Review (FEIS) – scheduled for 8/16/11, but postponed to September 6 because CDOT did not release report until 8/19. Postponed to September 20 to allow staff more time to review document. Adopted (Resolution 2011-090) Updating URA Policies and Procedures – postponed from 7/19/11 meeting, due to length of meeting, rescheduled for 10/4/11. Council decided it wanted a work session on the Policies after the discussion about The Commons Project, so the 10/4/11 URA meeting changed to a URA work session. Land Use Code Update – postponed from 8/16/11 to 9/6/11 to allow more time for staff to clarify an issue. Adopted (Ordinance No. 120, 2011) Grove Appeal Hearings Procedural Issues – Special meeting of 8/11/11 called to resolve appeal procedural issues before hearings were held due to anticipated length of the hearings. Hearings held at 8/23/11 adjourned meeting. Storm Drainage Bond Refinancing – Originally scheduled for 8/16/11 meeting but was considered on 8/11/11, after the special meeting, because of the anticipated length of the 8/16/11 meeting. The Bond refinancing was time-sensitive and could not be delayed. Appeals of the Grove ODP and PDP – Postponed from 8/16/11 to 8/23/11 due to anticipated length of time for the hearings and the lateness of the 8/16/11 meeting Museum/Discovery Science Center Funding Options – Item withdrawn because the Non- Profit Corp. decided not to seek a loan from the City but to seek different avenues for Exhibit funding. Business Retention Assistance Package – Item withdrawn indefinitely because the company was not ready to proceed. URA - Redevelopment Agreement for The Commons (Capstone) – Item scheduled for 9/6/11 but was postponed to 9/13/11 due to lateness of the 9/6 meeting AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 13 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details ▀REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR ADJUSTMENTS URA – Authorizing a North College Marketplace Line Item Adjustment – Item postponed to 11/1/11 at the request of the Developer. Item postponed from 11/1/11 to 12/16/11 at the request of the Developer and staff. Annual Appropriation Ordinance - First Reading moved from 10/4/11 to 10/18/11 to track with utility rate ordinances. Electric rate options work session was delayed from 8/23/11 to 9/13/11, so First reading of rate ordinances was delayed from 10/4/11 to 10/18/11. Utility Specifications and Criteria Manual with Stormwater Best Management Practices – moved from 10/18/11 to 11/15/11 at staff’s request. Renamed and split into 2 items: “Revised Utility Construction Specifications” and “Stormwater Criteria Manual”. Jefferson Street Project – added for formal consideration after 8/9/11 work session Planned Development Overlay District (formerly known as Sustainable, Flexible, Predictable Zoning Tool) – added by staff after 6/14/11 work session Digital Signs and Pole Signs Regulations – formal consideration moved from 10/4/11 to 12/6/11 to allow staff time to conduct additional public outreach that was requested by Council. Items Relating to the I25/392 Interchange – moved from 10/4/11 to 11/15/11 to allow for joint work session between Council and Windsor Town Board on 11/2/11 or 11/3/11. Poudre River Floodplain Regulations – Formal consideration moved from 11/15/11 to 1/17/12 to allow staff time to incorporate direction given by Council at 10/25/11 work session. Airport Annual Appropriation - added by staff to coincide with First Reading of Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Moved from 10/18/11 to 11/1/11 to allow Airport Director to be present at the meeting (he had a conflict on 10/18) DDA Annual Appropriation - added by staff to coincide with First Reading of Annual Appropriation Ordinance GID No. 1 - 2012 GID Budget - added by staff to coincide with First Reading of Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Skyview GID - 2012 Budget - added by staff to coincide with First Reading of Annual Appropriation Ordinance. PFA Allocation – added by staff to coincide with Second Reading of Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Moved from 11/1/11 to 11/15/11 by Budget staff. Moved from 11/15/11 to 12/6/11 by Budget staff after FR of the Annual Appropriation ordinance was moved to 11/1/11 URA 2012 Budget - yearly budget item added by staff Geothermal Energy Development Fees – removed from Utility rate increase ordinances considered on First Reading on 10/18/11 at request of staff – will not be considered until mid- 2012 at the earliest. There is not enough data available to calculate separate fees for these projects. AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Through April 2, 2013 Items in italics from Council Workshop ** - Work Session Calendar Adjustments 11/3/2011 ▀ - Regular Meeting Calendar Adjustments - 14 – Strikeout - Item has been moved – see tables at back of calendar for details ▀REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR ADJUSTMENTS Residential Energy Rate – to be considered separately from the Utility rate increase ordinances (considered on 10/18 and 11/1) due to postponement of work session on 8/23 to 9/13 and the need for a second work session on 10/11. Council direction needed from work session before the residential energy rate can be formally considered. Downtown General Improvement District Capital Improvement Plan – moved from 10/18/11 to 11/1/11 to allow staff time to resolve minor issues raised by the DDA. 1 Work Plan Items to be Accomplished Administratively – No Council Action Required These administrative items were identified during Plan Fort Collins, the plan & policy review schedule, BFO and/or the May 6-7, 2011 Council Workshop. Items from the Council Workshop appear in italics. Project/Topic Delivery Date Status 1 Regulation of Cell Phone Towers (on City property & Citywide) 2011 To be delivered to Council by the end of November 2011 2 Wastestream Study – Expand to “Waste to Energy” Analysis In progress Report due December 31, 2011 3 Re-evaluate policy to prohibit shake shingles (We prohibit untreated shake shingles. For older homes where the wood roofing materials is being replaced the new material must be at least a class C fire-rated (lowest fire rating available). Memo on current practice – July 2011 Question on shake shingles raised by Councilmember Troxell – verbal response given to him by Steve Dush. 4 Keep Fort Collins Great Prioritization In progress with Council Finance Committee 5 Evaluate “market” definition (mix of public/private sector) for employee compensation and benefits Memo on current practice - September 2011 Presentation to Council Finance Committee, November 14, 2011 6 Integrated Recycling Facility (formerly called Resource Recovery Site) RFP issued; Proposals due July 8, 2011; Report expected December, 2011 Company hired; Report due December 31, 2011 7 Gravel Pit Storage December, 2011 1Q 2012 Conceptual design being developed and evaluated for site below Drake Water Reclamation Facility. 8 Poudre River Corridor Access and Wayfinding – Interdepartmental Team to Explore Improvements January 2012 – December, 2012 9 Land Bank Program Evaluation December 2012 ATTACHMENT 3 2 Project/Topic Delivery Date Status 10 Bicycle and Pedestrian Wayfinding Plan Fall 2011 thru Fall 2012 11 Bicycle Lane System Review (depending on findings, may need to go back to Council) Fall 2011 thru Fal, 2012 12 Trail Design Standards Amendments (depending on findings, may need to go back to Council) Fall 2011 thru year-end 2012 13 Evaluate Election Process (technology/e-ballots; timing; ballot recipients, campaign finance, etc) Memo provided in June 2011 Ordinance No. 130, 2011 expanding mail ballot recipients adopted November 1, 2011 14 Address Language and Cultural Barriers Further exploring scope of project; exact timeline to be determined 15 Succession Planning for Council Sub-Committees Ongoing discussion with Council Finance Committee 16 City website improvements; renaming of stored documents Improvements ongoing; need further information on naming/storage improvement 17 Evaluate use of corn ethanol In progress; memo to Council July 2011 Work Session - November 8, 2011 18 Re-evaluate Budget Process - Cross-cutting budget prioritization - Result Team composition/citizen participation - Citizen engagement Spring 2012 19 Evaluate use of technology for Council materials Specific project yet to be defined 3 Project/Topic Delivery Date Status 20 Strategic Planning December 2011 Implemented a strategic planning initiative and results to date include:  a two-year Strategic Planning and Budgeting for Outcomes process and calendar. The calendar aligns our strategic planning process with the business/budgeting outcomes;  the first High Performing Government/Organizational Strategic Plan that will be completed at the end of November, to be operationalized in 2012-2014. The Strategic Plan provides structure and focus for the HPG Result Area, along with measures and targets that can be monitored for achievement. 21 Green Purchasing Study Consultant selection July 2011; Anticipated completion of study November 2011 Report to be provided to City Manager in December 2011. 22 Improve Communication & Interaction - Council listening sessions; re-evaluate citizen survey; customer surveys post-capital projects Post capital project surveys implemented; listening sessions by Fall 2011; Citizen Survey evaluation by Spring 2012 Update to be delivered mid-November. Information will include an overall summary of efforts to improve public involvement and a proposal for Council listening sessions. 4 Project/Topic Delivery Date Status 23 Online Development Review Tracking System Current project tracking done by end of 2011; access to archived projects not resourced. Worked in conjunction with MIS staff to migrate all planning development review activity processes into the Accela Development Management System. This implementation moved all planning workflows into an enterprise system, automating planning processes and making the information more readily available for collaboration efforts, Web-based inquiry through Citizen Access, and mobile integration for both citizens and staff. As well, this change has facilitated our ability to automate items such as the Current Project list and related map. These efforts are currently underway. Expanded our SIRE records management efforts through the creation of file cabinets for Current Planning records. A Budget exception request has been submitted to resource this item which will allow public access to planning development review records through CityDocs. 5 Project/Topic Delivery Date Status 24 Carnegie Building Creative Center Development/Arts and Culture Incubator and Education Planning starts Fall 2011; Museum will not vacate the building until mid-2012 Through an NEA grant, Beet Street and Cultural Services are working on a plan and design for an art incubator to be housed in the Carnegie. Planning phase will end July 2012. 25 Arts and Culture Consortium Ongoing partnership with UCC and Beet Street Group continues to meet quarterly to forward the goals established by UniverCity Connections 26 Newsracks Status Report May 2012 27 Manual on Parks sustainability practices December 2011 Parks and Recreation staff have completed the draft of the Manual and are reviewing it with the Parks and Recreation Board. The Manual will be finished by the end of 2011. Staff presented the draft manual at the fall Colorado Parks and Recreation Association conference. 28 Green Golf Courses July 2011 Parks provided an update of the Golf Division’s sustainability efforts in the City Manager’s July Monthly Report. Efforts include: actions to achieve Audubon Cooperative Program certification at all three courses; energy efficiency improvements to the Collindale Clubhouse; conversion of gas golf carts to electric carts at SouthRidge ; and participation in the Colorado Golf Course Carbon Accounting Research Study. 29 Federal Grant Support for Transportation Ongoing Staff continues to seek grant support through all avenues – federal, state and regional. 30 Voluntary or mandatory year-round drug drop- off program in partnership with pharmacy March 2012 31 Well City Designation Target Date – 2013 6 Project/Topic Delivery Date Status 32 Enterprise protocols and procedures/systems approach, e.g. - wetlands/habitat/river restoration - trail clean-up - recycling - building codes - punch lists for major projects - sidewalk rehab, etc . . . Ongoing 33 Pilot project to restore Poudre River & habitat (1/2 mile segment) Need to clarify scope of project; potential for external grant funding (state and federal) to match existing KFCG or BCC dollars 34 Waste Reduction and Diversion Campaign Ongoing project; semi- annual waste report completed for Q1 & Q2. First installment of new "I Recycle" campaign released (ads, twitter, utility bill insert, etc.), with second ad under development. New "Recycle Everywhere You Go" campaign in initial development stage. Work Session – November 29, 2011 First and second installment of "I Recycle" campaign has been released. New "Recycle Everywhere You Go" campaign has been released (stickers, website information, and during Q4 will have street banners hung) 35 Waste Diversion Assistance Program (aligns with #40 - Multi-Family and Business Recycling Outreach and Assistance) Related to Master Home Environmentalist Program; specific details to be determined Initial outreach to commercial customers and managers of multi-family complexes made, with offer to help subsidize costs of setting up recycling accounts with service providers. 7 Project/Topic Delivery Date Status 36 Construction & Debris Drop-off at Larimer County Landfill Conversations have begun with County Landfill Manager; discussions ongoing 37 Private Partnerships for Recycling Drop-offs Ongoing “recruitment” underway; no interest so far except from Colorado Iron & Metal, who would like us to relocate Rivendell drop-off to property on Buckingham Street. 38 Master Home Environmentalist Staff hired mid year; progress report to be provided at the end of 2011 and 2012 Staff hired; 1st volunteer training completed; in-home assessments being scheduled. 39 Waste Reduction Education Ongoing project, semi- annual solid waste report Work Session – November 29, 2011 40 Multi-Family and Business Recycling Outreach and Assistance Staff hired in May; design of program underway; progress report at end of 2011 Initial outreach to commercial customers and managers of multi-family complexes made, with offer to help subsidize costs of setting up recycling accounts with service providers. 41 Deconstruction policy – City property Administrative policy language to Darin by August 2011 Administrative Policy approved by City Manager, September 2011 42 Voluntary Employer Commute Trip Reduction Seeking grant funding Still seeking funding. 43 Lower Poudre River Watershed Program Status Report July 2011 Delivered to Council July 28, 2011 (report also available on fcgov.com) 44 Multi-Family Energy Efficiency Program To be developed in 2012 45 Local Renewable Energy (formerly called Net Metering Status Report) July 2011 Reporting within Energy Policy Annual Update in 2Q 2012 8 Project/Topic Delivery Date Status 46 Energy Policy Status Report June 2011 Reporting in 2Q 2012 47 Utilities Identity Theft Prevention Program Status Report February, 2012 48 Stormwater Program Review Quarterly updates 3Q Report to be provided in November 2011 49 PRPA Organic Contract/Supply Agreement Electric Board to review and provide suggestions To be reviewed by the Electric Board on November 9, 2011 50 Efficiency Financing Program (formerly called Energy Efficiency Improvement Finances and Incentives) In progress; updated provided in August 2011 Program starting 1Q 2012 51 Historic Preservation Grants Ongoing Staff continues to seek funding from two primary sources: State Historical Fund Grants and Certified Local Government Grants. 52 Green Street Project – identify, plan and design (does not include resources to construct) December 2012 53 Open Space Program – 5 Year Update June 2011 Complete – Report delivered to City Manager and Councilmember Ohlson – September 2011 ITEMS NEEDING FURTHER CLARIFICATION OR NOT CURRENTLY RESOURCED A. Youth Issues – Youth Advisory Board and Recreation have primary responsibility for ongoing efforts; project to amend City Plan regarding child care is currently being scope and scheduled. No additional efforts are resourced. B. PFA Emergency Response Model – Discussions are underway at PFA Board C. Snow removal ordinance enforcement – Will continue to enforce; no further action planned D. Community involvement/activity in Natural Areas and Recreation – This is currently a fundamental part of operations; no further action planned E. Community Marketplace Feasibility Analysis – dependent on Downtown Development Authority F. Old Town Square Plaza Renovation/Funding – no action currently scheduled; dependent on Downtown Development Authority G. Financial Management Policies – Needs to be scheduled with Council Finance Committee H. Investment Policy – Needs to be scheduled with Council Finance Committee 9 I. LUC Amendment: Nature in the City-type amenities in mixed use projects – Delayed due to higher priorities J. LUC Amendment: Review and revise neighborhood transition and compatibility standards – Delayed due to higher priorities scheduled for work session – 9/18/12 K. Market-Based Pay Analysis and Adjustments - Analysis to be provided to City Manager in fall, 2011; if Pay Plan adjustments are recommended, this will come to Council in November, 2011. L. Community policing – primary focus of new policy staffing funded by Keep Fort Collins Great; no further action anticipated MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS (2011-2013) - Advance Metering - Mason Corridor MAX BRT Project - I-25/SH-392 Interchange Construction - Fort Collins Museum/Discovery Science Center - Lincoln Center Renovation - North College Improvements (Vine to Conifer ) - Drake/Lemay Intersection Turn Lane - Harmony/Lemay Intersection Turn Lane - Harmony Road Maintenance (JFK to Timberline) - South Shields Street Improvements - Laporte/Whitcomb Bridge Replacement - South Shields Street Bridge over Larimer Canal #2 - Downtown GID Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project - Troutman Underpass - NRRC/Whole Foods Overpass - Arterial Intersection Priority Study - Linden Street Improvements - Lincoln Sidewalk - Ongoing Street Maintenance POLICY AND PLAN REVIEW SCHEDULE Plans/Policy Direction Staff Department Date of Adoption Ord/Res No. Notes Next Council Action (Work Session or Formal Consideration) Written Status Report Due BFO OUTCOME AREA 1 Parks & Recreation Policy Plan Craig Foreman Parks & Recreation 2/17/2009 2009-022 Plan has 10 year life. 2014 review is just an update 2014 Cultural Parks and Recreation 2 Climate Action Plan Lucinda Smith Natural Resources 12/2/2008 2008-122 Biennial Review to City Manager and Council prior to each budget cycle will serve as informal update to Climate Action Plan. An annual status report will be provided to Council. Formal update in 2016 2010 Status Report provided to Council 7/20/11 Next Bienneial Review - 2012 Environmental Health 3 Air Quality Policy Element of Air Quality Plan Lucinda Smith Natural Resources 5/15/2004 2004-072 2011-015 Policies updated by Resolution every five years, in conjunction with City Plan and Transportation master plan; Plan to be updated administratively Policies updated in 2011 in conjunction with City Plan. Next Council Action - 2016 Environmental Health 4 Land Conservation & Stewardship Plan Mark Sears Natural Resources 7/20/2004 2004-092 10 year plan 2013 or sooner Environmental Health 5 Natural Areas Easement Policy Mark Sears Natural Resources 7/17/2001 2001-094 Work Session - 11/29/11 Environmental Health 6 Cultural Plan Jill Stilwell Cultural Services 8/19/2008 2008-072 10 year plan 2018 Cultural Parks and Recreation 7 Solid Waste Susie Gordon Natural Resources 12/7/1999 1999-139 Missed goal for reaching 50% waste diversion level by 2010 (documented - 43% waste diversion Work Session - 11/29/11 report provided to Council 8/8/11 Environmental Health 8 Recycling Susie Gordon Natural Resources 5/5/2009 052, 2009 Biennial review to City Manager and Council Work Session - 11/29/11 July 2011 Environmental Health SERVICE AREA: COMMUNITY & OPERATION SERVICES Page 1 11/3/2011 ATTACHMENT 4 POLICY AND PLAN REVIEW SCHEDULE Plans/Policy Direction Staff Department Date of Adoption Ord/Res No. Notes Next Council Action (Work Session or Formal Consideration) Written Status Report Due BFO OUTCOME AREA 1 Newsracks Helen Migchelbrink Engineering 5/6/2008 031, 2008 Condo locations to be evaluated not less than every 2 years 5/5/2012 Transportation 2 Portable Signs Permit Helen Migchelbrink Engineering 3/24/2009 025, 2009 Report to Council on or before 3/17/13 Transportation 3 Historic Preservation Program Assessment Karen McWilliams Community Development Neighborhood Services (CDNS) 11/16/1993 1993-171 status report 2015 Economic Health 4 Transfort Strategic Operation Plan Kurt Ravenschlag Transfort 8/18/09 -Update Adopted 2009-079 5-7 year review of Plan 2014-2016 Transportation 5 Bicycle Master Plan DK Kemp/Kathleen Bracke Transportation Planning 10/27/2008 2008-094 Updated October 2008 2013 Progress Report provided to Council 9/15/11 Transportation 6 Transportation Master Plan Kathleen Bracke Transportation Planning 9/16/1997 1997-123 Update - 2011- 016 Updated 2/15/2011 2016 Transportation 7 Multimodal Transportation Capital Improvement Plan Kathleen Bracke Transportation POLICY AND PLAN REVIEW SCHEDULE Plans/Policy Direction Staff Department Date of Adoption Ord/Res No. Notes Next Council Action (Work Session or Formal Consideration) Written Status Report Due BFO OUTCOME AREA 13 City Plan Joe Frank Advance Planning 2/18/1997 1997-025 2004-058 Update 2011-015 Updated every 5 years; Last update in 2011 2016 Economic Health 14 Eastside Neighborhood Plan Ken Waido Advance Planning 3/18/1986 1986-058 Not funded as part of the 2010-11 BFO process 2014 Economic Health 15 Downtown Plan Clark Mapes Advance Planning 9/5/1989 1989-145 2013 Economic Health 16 Downtown Strategic Plan Timothy Wilder Advance Planning 2004 2004-028 2013 Economic Health 17 Old Town Area Plan Clark Mapes Advance Planning 1980 1980-092 2013 Economic Health 18 East Mulberry Corridor Plan Pete Wray Advance Planning 5/20/2003 2003-064 Joint City/County Plan Update 2015 Economic Health 19 Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan Pete Wray Advance Planning 6/15/1999 2/2/1999 1999-074 1999-015 Joint City/County Plan, mostly built out. No update anticipated N/A Economic Health 20 Harmony Corridor Plan Clark Mapes Advance Planning 7/15/2003 3/5/1991 2003-086 1991-042 Update for the Harmony/I-25 Gateway, owner initiative or coordinated with Harmony Enhanced Transportation Corridor Plan in 2012 3/27/2012 Economic Health 21 I-25 Subarea Plan Ken Waido Advance Planning 8/19/2003 2003-095 Update of Growth management area boundary and land uses as part of Plan Fort Collins process in response to FC/Timnath IGA No Update anticipated Economic Health 22 Mountain Vista Subarea Plan Pete Wray Advance Planning 9/15/2009-update adopted 2009-086 Full Plan updated in 2009 - Estimated 10- year update schedule to be determined 2020 Economic Health 23 North College Corridor Plan Clark Mapes Advance Planning 3/20/2007 2007-032 Full Plan updated in 2007-estimated 10 year update schedule to be determined 2017 Economic Health 24 Northern Colorado Regional Communities Corridor Plan Joe Frank Advance Planning 11/20/2001 2001-160 Regional planning effort that developed guidelines for the I-25 corridor. No update anticipated N/A Economic Health 25 Northside Neighborhood Plan Pete Wray Advance Planning 2005 2005-001 Estimated 10 year update schedule to be determined 2015 Economic Health POLICY AND PLAN REVIEW SCHEDULE Plans/Policy Direction Staff Department Date of Adoption Ord/Res No. Notes Next Council Action (Work Session or Formal Consideration) Written Status Report Due BFO OUTCOME AREA 26 Northwest Subarea Plan Timothy Wilder Advance Planning 2006 2006-120 Estimated 10 year update schedule to be determined 2016 Economic Health 27 Plan for Region between Fort Collins and Loveland Ken Waido Advance Planning 6/20/1995 1995-082 Plan implementation mostly complete with land acquisition and Transfer Development Units Program. No update anticipated N/A Economic Health 28 Prospect Road Streetscape Program Clark Mapes Advance Planning 2/16/1993 1993-007 Plan implementation mostly complete. Two sections are complete. Remaining two eastern sections will occur in conjunction with future adjacent development N/A Economic Health 29 South College Corridor Plan Timothy Wilder Advance Planning 3/3/2009 2009-024 Estimated 10 year update schedule to be determined 2019 Economic Health 30 West Central Neighborhoods Plan Ken Waido Advance Planning 3/16/1999 1999-035 Estimated 10 year update schedule to be determined 2016 Economic Health 31 Westside Neighborhood Plan Ken Waido Advance Planning 7/18/1989 1989-135 Estimated 10 year update schedule to be determined 2014 Economic Health 32 Eastside Westside Neighborhoods Character Study Pete Wray Advance Planning 2/1/2011 003, 2011 Twelve month study to be completed 4th quarter 2012 work session 6/12/2012 November 2011 Economic Health 33 Building Code Updates Mike Gebo CDNS 10/11/2010 098, 2010 All five IBC Codes will be updated in 2013 2013 Economic Health 34 Affordable Housing - Development Initiative Ken Waido Advance Planning N/A N/A Review of existing development incentives for affordable housing February 2012 Neighborhood Livability 35 Streetscape Design Standards and Guidelines Pete Wray Advance Planning 1/2/2001 Update initiated in 2011, estimated completion in May 2012 Work session 3/27/2012 11/28/2011 Economic Health 36 Parking Plan Update Timothy Wilder Advance Planning 6/26/1905 Update initiated in 2011, scheduled for adoption in Spring 2012 Work session 11/29/11;Formal Consideration 4/17/12 Economic Health 37 Periodic Fee Review Steve Dush CDNS 9/6/2011 2011-082 Effective 1/1/2012 and future reviews to be conducted with BFO in 2013 2011 Economic Health Page 4 11/3/2011 POLICY AND PLAN REVIEW SCHEDULE Plans/Policy Direction Staff Department Date of Adoption Ord/Res No. Notes Next Council Action (Work Session or Formal Consideration) Written Status Report Due BFO OUTCOME AREA 1 Economic Action Plan Josh Birks and/or Bruce Hendee Economic Development NA NA Plan will be updated into an Economic Health Strategic Plan in 2011; funding based on KFCG dollars Next work session 12/13/11 Economic Health 2 Purchasing Ordinance Mike Beckstead Jim O'Neill Finance 3/4/2008 2008-026 Annual Update to Council Finance Committee 2011 High Performing Government 3 Financial Mgmt Policies Mike Beckstead John Voss Finance 4/15/2008 2008-038 Annual Update to Council Finance Committee 2011 High Performing Government 4 Investment Policy Harold Hall John Voss Finance 12/2/2008 2008-121 Annual Update to Council Finance Committee 2011 High Performing Government 5 Use Tax Program Mike Beckstead John Voss Finance 8/17/2010 2010-059 Report given to Council Finance Committee 2/28/11 High Performing Government SERVICE AREA: FINANCIAL SERVICES Page 5 11/3/2011 POLICY AND PLAN REVIEW SCHEDULE Plans/Policy Direction Staff Department Date of Adoption Ord/Res No. Notes Next Council Action (Work Session or Formal Consideration) Written Status Report Due BFO OUTCOME AREA 1 Net Metering Patty Bigner Norm Weaver Utilities 003, 2010,adopted 2/2/2010 Annual updates as part of the Annual Energy Policy Update starting in 2011 2Q 2012 Environmental Health/ Safe Communities 2 Energy Policy Patty Bigner John Phelan Utilities 1/6/2009 2009-002 Annual report to City Manager, Electric Board, Council (completed 6/11) 2Q 2012 Environmental Health 3 Review of Chemical Materials Employed in City Operations Carol Webb Utilities 3/10/2009 work session Biannual update-white paper reporting progress of implementation report provided to Council 8/4/11 Environmental Health 4 Water Supply and Demand Management Policy Dennis Bode Utilities 9/16/2003 2003-104 Policy is being reviewed and updated work session January 10, 2012 Environmental Health 5 Water Conservation Plan Patty Bigner Laurie D'Audney Utilities Annual update as a component of Water Supply and Demand Management Policy report provided to Council 8/11/11 Environmental Health 6 Recognizing the Need to Protect Water Quality Keith Elmund Utilities 10/17/2000 2000-128 Annual report on water quality in Poudre and urban creeks (completed 7/7/10) 2012 Environmental Health 7 Drinking Water Quality Policy Lisa Voytko Utilities 10/5/1993 1993-144 Report completed annually in June (completed 6/11) 2012 Environmental Health 8 Utilities Identity Theft Prevention Program Patty Bigner Lori Clements- Grote Utilities 10/21/2008 2008-102 Annual report to Council February 2012 High Performing Government 9 Halligan-Seaman Project Kevin Gertig Utilities Staff is providing quarterly reports work session POLICY AND PLAN REVIEW SCHEDULE Plans/Policy Direction Staff Department Date of Adoption Ord/Res No. Notes Next Council Action (Work Session or Formal Consideration) Written Status Report Due BFO OUTCOME AREA Timnath IGA Steve Roy City Attorney 1/18/11-2nd amendment to IGA 008, 2011 Original IGA adopted 2/17/09 - 2nd amendment expires 2/17/12 December 2011 High Performing Government CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Page 7 11/3/2011 DATE: November 8, 2011 STAFF: Bruce Hendee Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Sustainability Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This sustainability update addresses a specific request from Council Leadership made in July of this year. It provides a definition of sustainability, City background on sustainability, a brief discussion on the importance of sustainability as a topic, background on key initiatives within the City organization and a brief look ahead. This update is directed primarily to environmental issues. Future sustainability updates will include social and economic as well. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Staff is beginning to discuss budget offers for the next budget cycle and would be interested in Council’s thoughts about future interests related to the topic of sustainability? 2. Does Council have thoughts about the potential creation of a Sustainability Advisory Board? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) energy use in the United States is anticipated to grow 53 percent between now and the year 2035; by sector 37% is petroleum based, 25% natural gas, 21% coal, 8% renewable, and 9% nuclear. According to the World Water Council, the world's population tripled in the 20th century, while the use of renewable water resources has grown six-fold. According to the Population Institute, the world’s population, as of the writing of this memorandum, sits just shy of 7 billion and, by the time the sustainability update is presented to Council on November 8, will have exceeded 7 billion. Only a short 12 years ago, our population stood at 6 billion. Today, the world’s population is growing at a rate of 80 million people per year and at the current rate will exceed 9.2 billion by the year 2050. The United States represents only 4% of the world’s population, yet consumes 25% of the natural resources annually. We have been the model of “modernism” and since World War II, technology and conveniences have driven us to the highest standard of living in the world. To those that come to America from other areas of the planet to visit, they leave wanting the same standard we have. So much so, that in emerging economies such as India and China, the two most populous nations on earth, are now beginning to emulate Americans in buying camper vehicles, ipads, flat screen TVs, and bigger homes. November 8, 2011 Page 2 In 1956, President Eisenhower signed the popularly known National Interstate and Defense Highways Act which created the beginnings of the interstate highway system. Today, we all know I-25 and the significant impact it has had on Colorado and Fort Collins. The Highway Act began the increased colonization of many areas of the country, which had in earlier times been impractical due to the lack of easy access. When this Act became reality and people realized they could live- the-dream of living in the country and working for higher wages in the City, the suburban movement began, and an ever expanding ring of farm land fell prey to tract home development. Unwittingly, the suburban expansion across America gradually diminished open space and gave rise to an increasing dependence on ever expanding community services required to service the newly formed neighborhoods and shops. Fire protection, police services, water, sewer and electrical lines, and roads were extended to service the growing neighborhoods and growing population. As Americans chased the dream of countryside and work, congestion on Interstate highways became apparent and congestion increased to ultimately cause the logjams of today’s rush hours. The convenience of the automobile became an American mainstay and, with suburban living, Americans developed a greater dependence on oil. The by-product of the suburbanization of America and the dependence on oil was an increase in carbon emissions and dependence on foreign countries in order to preserve the right of Americans to live where they liked and worked where they wanted. Today we are in a pickle. We live far from work and the services we need, and are dependent on, and often require cars. When coupled with enhanced medical services and increasing life spans, and growing populations around the world, we find our planet in a precarious position of accommodating more people and in many cases those people want more and better lifestyles. Sustainability The ever increasing demand on the natural environment has taken a toll and the environment is beginning to react to the demands we have placed on it. With the combined effect of population growth, increased vehicle use, increased industrialization and technology, and increased consumption of natural resources, the planet is showing signs of wear due to more and more carbon emissions. To a large degree, the world consists of oxygen generators and carbon dioxide consumers (plants and phytoplankton), and oxygen consumers and carbon dioxide emitters (mammals and other life forms that ingest oxygen and emit carbon dioxide). In balance, the climate reacts predictably and protects the atmosphere from the harmful rays of the sun. When the balance is lost, there is an inevitable change; in this case, one of the notable changes is weather. In recent years we have begun to see significant weather events that go beyond what is considered normal; for example melting of the polar ice caps, and expansion of the intensity of hurricanes and tornadoes. In just the last few years, we have seen a dramatic expansion in the frequency and intensity of tornadoes across the mid-west, a dramatic increase in typhoons and monsoons in Indonesia, and significant and intense storms in the Northeast. In Northern Colorado, we experienced an unprecedented F3 tornado, which severely damaged the Town of Windsor, a “500” year rainfall event in the Spring Creek Basin in 1997, and at least two highly unusual 30 inch plus snowfall events in the last ten years. Since 1900, the average annual temperature in Fort Collins has risen by 4.1 degrees and precipitation at high altitudes has increased, while rainfall on the eastern plains has decreased. Overall, generally we have seen decreasing snowpack and earlier melting and spring runoff. November 8, 2011 Page 3 While some may debate the actual cause and effect of these events, the growth in population and the increasing demand on natural resources is real, and the impact of a growing uncertainty is important to take into account in planning for the safety and welfare of our planet and our community. The definition of sustainability has been variously defined by the United Nations and other organizations. Perhaps it is easiest to think about the term as living in a manner that allows our children, their children and subsequent generations, as well as other species on earth to live their lives in a natural manner that does no harm. In the last ten years a new concept has arisen, which uses the term “Triple Bottom Line”. Variously defined as people, planet, profit; environment, economy, and social health, and other similar phrases, the intent is to optimize the environment for each, such that each continues to find a harmonious place without impacting the other. Quite a challenge. Recently there have been discussions among many colleagues within the community and nation that we should not limit ourselves to simply sustaining, but that we should begin a longer term approach, which begins with regeneration and ends with beneficent. In simple terms we begin the long journey toward systems and activities which make the planet better as a result of our activities. Sustainability and the City of Fort Collins - A few of the important features Climate Wise Sustainability has long been embraced by the City of Fort Collins as a vital part of our culture. Beginning in the 1990s, the City has been developing and refining its strategies and programs devoted to sustainability. With the advent of the Climate Wise program in the year 2000, the City began to seek to improve the environment through a collaborative program of working with the business community. This program has grown significantly over the years and today boasts 275 businesses which collectively achieved $13 million in savings in 2010 and simultaneously saw a reduction of 136,000 tons of carbon emissions. Climate Action Plan In 2001, the City first developed a municipal Climate Plan. In 2005, a Sustainability Team was created and a baseline established to monitor City operations. This baseline serves as a measure against which the City can continue to evaluate progress as it moves to a future goal of zero greenhouse gas emissions for the municipal organization. In 2008, Resolution 2008-051 formally adopted the Climate Action Plan, which established specific goals for carbon emissions reductions. These goals are to reduce emissions to 20% below the 2005 baseline, and to further reduce carbon emissions to 80% below by 2050. In 2010, the community is tracking slightly ahead of these goals, and reduced emissions by 11%. In the last year, the City retained a statistician to further refine monitoring and to enhance our abilities to track progress and estimate the benefits of various strategies. November 8, 2011 Page 4 Action Plan for Sustainability In September 2004, the City adopted an Action Plan for Sustainability which included nine primary goals and policies for sustainability for city operations to ensure the City was a model leader to for the community. These included: Priority A: Sustainable Purchasing General Priority B: Sustainable Purchasing Auto Vehicles and Equipment Priority C: Healthy Productive Employees/ Employee Health Priority D: Healthy Productive Employees/ Employee Safety Priority E: Green Buildings New Construction, Major Retrofits, and Operations and Maintenance Priority F: Healthy Ecosystems, Water Use Management, Irrigation Priority G: Sustainable Energy/ Employee Commuting Priority H: Pollution and Waste Reduction Office Recycling and Waste Reduction Priority I: Management Tools Planning In 2009, the municipal sustainability goal areas were expanded to cover ten areas, and numeric goals were established. Today, progress is being made in each category and is included in the attached PowerPoint and will be shared at the Council work session. Utilities for the 21st Century In 2009, Fort Collins Utilities first adopted the initiative “Utilities for the 21st Century” and adopted the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). These two strategies were specifically adopted to amplify and increase the speed with which sustainable initiatives could be addressed. Adoption of the GRI began a standardized nationally accepted practice for numeric reporting which is in place today and allows for a continuing monitoring. The system today provides and informative and measurable assessment of success in implementing goals. Additional strategies include use of a Triple Bottom Line Analysis Map (TBLAM), which is intended to provide a thorough evaluation of decisions and programs, based on the Triple Bottom Line. Plan Fort Collins In 2011, Plan Fort Collins was adopted by Resolution 2011-015, the City’s first comprehensive plan update, which used the Triple Bottom Line to establish the community’s planned direction. Through use of the TBL decision support tool, Plan decisions made by Council were determined by evaluating the three basic sustainability parameters in decision making. Today, this tool is in place and being used by the various Service Areas of the City. City Council Futures Committee In 2011, the City Council formed the Futures Committee, which is devoted to envisioning the long term future of the community through considering ideas 30-50 years into the future and aligning economic planning in a more intentional manner, focusing specific outcomes on the accomplishment of long term goals and objectives. November 8, 2011 Page 5 Reporting The City has just issued its third quarter report on sustainability (Attachment 1), which summarizes some of the accomplishments to date for the year. In addition, in July 2010, a progress report on the community Climate Action Plan was published, and the latest 2010 Utilities Sustainability Report was issued in September of this year. Challenges and Looking Forward The City plays an important role in the fight against global warming, not only because of its need to address the issue at a community scale but also because the City is a national leader in sustainability. In reviewing national trends, there are many communities that are now taking up the cause of sustainable practices, but there are far more that are hardly aware of the term or practice. As a community with a long standing history of embracing the natural environment and sustainability, the lessons we have learned will be important for others as they take up sustainable practices. As climate changes have a greater impact on our nation and other parts of the globe, the efforts of cities that have been making progress will be sought after. Fort Collins is poised to be a significant mentor. Where do we stand? Over the last summer, a review of the City of Fort Collins relative to other similar-sized peer cities, as well of all cities internationally was compiled. While the study was not exhaustive, it did compare key goals of other communities. Generally, Fort Collins can probably safely consider itself to be in the upper quartile of reporting communities and making significant headway in many areas, but there is significant room for improvement. While the municipal organization is making headway, it is a long way from even speaking about net zero emissions. If the community as a whole is taken into consideration, we are not even close. In fact, the municipal organization generates only 2% of community carbon emissions, whereas the community at large generates 98%. Sustainable Services Council is in the process of considering a new Sustainable Services Service Area, which would be a direct report to the City Manager. The Sustainable Services Director would be responsible for advancing City Council’s goals of becoming more sustainable. Key aspects of this new organizational effort would be to foster greater integration and innovation among the various City Service Areas in order to advance City goals. One of the methods of moving to greater integration would be the formation of an internal Board of Advisors with representatives from each of the Service Areas. In addition, the current Environmental Services team would move to the Sustainable Services Area, together with a representative from Utilities. Further adjustments may happen as the planning evolves. Additionally, it may be appropriate for Council to consider an advisory board for Sustainable Services consisting of community members and a Council Liaison. This may be a new board or a consolidation of other boards. November 8, 2011 Page 6 Potential key areas for the coming year There are numerous activities happening at all levels of the City organization. In order to achieve maximum benefit and apply the appropriate resources most effectively, staff would like to suggest developing a Sustainability Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan would review ongoing practices as well as to benchmark Best Practices. With a baseline and knowledge of Best Practices, a new Sustainability Strategic Plan could be developed with specific goals, metrics and financial plans to achieve a desired level of sustainability. Currently the City is not meeting some of its goals while we are exceeding others. Staff looks forward to the dialogue with Council as we move into the coming year. Listed below are a few of the key sustainable projects that we see in 2012. • Establish the Sustainability Services physical location • Evaluate together with Council the potential for creating a single Sustainability Advisor Board which may be a consolidation of other boards • Empanel an internal Board of Advisors to help review, manage, implement and research sustainable projects. • Develop a coordinated reporting system for sustainable efforts within the City • Consolidate, coordinate, and enhance a single green web site including implementing a system for continuously managing updates • Begin discussions on local foods and the role the City may play in this growing trend • Develop a comprehensive approach to data management for sustainable information. • Locate and purchase an integrated recycling facility (IRF) site(s). • Evaluate and enhance outreach programs to the community ATTACHMENTS 1. Third Quarter Municipal Operations Sustainability Update 2. Powerpoint presentation NOTE: There are two videos included with Council packets. One video is different than the norm. It is intended as a pilot that will be shown on Channel 14 and is intended to be more interesting to regular viewers on Channel 14. It will be reformatted after the Council meeting to make it targeted at the Channel 14 audience. We hope you will have an opportunity to watch. 1 Sustainability The Q3 report is an executive summary of the City’s sustainability Progress activities from July through September, 2010. The full report is available on the sustainability website. This report also evaluates Fort Collins’ internal and external progress at implementing sustainability measures in comparison with 328 other municipalities with populations over 50,000.i EnErgy EfficiEncy & EnvironmEntal SuStainability indicatorS % of citiES EngagEd fort collinS’ EffortS fort collinS’ implEmEntation Energy efficient lights installed in City buildings 89% yes Operation’s O &M Energy efficient streetlights installed 53% yes < 10% Energy Star purchase ordinance 31% no Incentives available Purchase/produce renewable electricity to help power City facilities 37% yes <1.0% Energy efficiency standards adopted for new or remodeled public buildings 40% yes City buildings must meet LEED Gold design standard. Commercial buildings will be required to meet the International Code Council. Vehicle fleet converted to hybrids, high efficiency, alt fuels 81% yes > 40% of fuel used is “alternative”. Anti-idle policy adopted for City-owned vehicles 48% yes 2009 Offer incentives to City employees to use methods other than single occupancy vehicles for work commute 32% yes Free bus passes Municipality provides information to residents on energy efficiency 77% yes Business Environmental Program and Residential Environmental Program series are offered throughout the year. Utility bill inserts Municipality provides incentives to residents to increase energy efficiency 32% yes Rebates Municipality provides incentives to developers to increase energy efficiency 23% yes Integrated Design Assistance Program Municipalities require private/commercial buildings to meet efficiency standards 22% partial ICC 2009. The City offers roof and server virtualization rebates. 2 EnErgy EfficiEncy & EnvironmEntal SuStainability indicatorS % of citiES EngagEd fort collinS’ EffortS fort collinS’ implEmEntation Planning/land use decisions explicitly consider GHG emissions 32% no Proposed as new policy in City Plan Planning/land use decisions consider impact on sprawl emissions 61% yes City Plan and Land Use Code Planning/land use decisions explicitly consider impact on flood plains 69% yes City Plan and Land Use Code Planning/land use decisions explicitly consider impact on community character 91% yes City Plan and Land Use Code Planning/land use decisions explicitly consider impact on tree removal 47% yes Land Use Code Engaged in any explicit climate protection efforts 66% yes 1998 Climate Action Plan and Sustainability Annual Report GHG inventory conducted 41% yes 1998 and 2005-2009 inventories GHG reduction goal formally adopted 30% yes Climate Action Plan (1998) and Sustainability Annual Report GHG reduction plan developed and formally adopted 24% yes 1998 Climate Action Plan Climate protection activities have line in municipal budget 17% no Responsibility for CP coordination designated to a specific dept, individual or committee 56% no Sustainability Team, Air Quality Program, Utilities for the 21st Century and Energy Management Team 2005-2009 IndIcatorS of MunIcIPal oPeratIonS SuStaInabIlIty Indicators are measures to track if the City is improving or declining in select areas. They also can inspire behavior changes and data driven decisions. During the 3rd quarter, two indicators have improved. improving SuStainability trEndS • Alternative fuel use • Cost and use of natural gas • Outdoor water use • Well Day participation • Volume of recycled material • Comparisons to sister cities dEclining SuStainability 3 goal 1: Reduce GHG emissions reduce gHg emissions from municipal operations at least 2%, or 1,223 tons gHg annually, in order to achieve a reduction of 20% below 2005 levels by 2020; ultimately achieve carbon neutrality for the municipal organization. Below is a comparison of GHG emissions from electricity use in the third quarter of 2009 compared to the third quarter of 2010. ii goal 2: electRicity & natuRal Gas Reduction reduce city energy consumption by 20% below the 2005 baseline by 2020 (2% annually), and reduce peak demand use 15% by 2020. • An electric cart at Water Treatment Plant was converted to solar power. • Operations adjusted Building Automated System building hours for coincident peak energy use and completed HVAC controls at 281 N College and 117 Laporte buildings. • Operations Services installed a solar thermal unit at EPIC. goal 3: Fuel Reduction reduce traditional fuel use by the city’s vehicle fleet 20% by 2020 and reach a 1.5 average vehicle ridership by 2020 for city employees. • Parks’ employee team led a fuel reduction challenge during the first six months of 2010, resulting in 11% fuel use reduction. New ideas that were implemented included: use of bicycles by botanical teams, assigning mowing crews to clean restrooms while servicing park sites, and other responsibilities rearranged for efficiencies. • 155 employees participated in Bike to Work Day. Employees rode 782 miles which equates to 840 pounds of reduced carbon. goal 4: solid Waste Reduction reduce solid waste generated by 50% of overall waste stream by 2012 and 80% by 2020. • Using funds from the newly created Waste Innovation Program, Forestry is diverting large tree stumps and Q2 - 2009 Q2 - 2010 GHG emissions from Electricity Metric Tons - CO2e July-September 1260 1250 1240 1230 1220 1210 1200 1190 4 trucks from landfills through a wood grinding project. • A cross-departmental team updated the contract for internal trash and recycling collection services to the 60+ offices, shops, and facilities operated by the City. During the first quarter of implementation (June – August), costs for trash and recycling services showed a significant decrease compared to previous years. Another feature of the new contract arrangements that has proved successful is the shift to single-stream recycling, which offers greater convenience for employees and less storage space needs. goal 5: education & outReacH information about the municipal sustainability program will be available to all levels of the community – students in grades K-20 and university, the general public - as well as internal customers. • Several departments shared a booth at the Rocky Mountain Sustainable Living Fair, where NRD also launched a Community Solid Waste and Air Quality Challenge that runs through Oct 18. Staff also assisted in teaching Future Fridays workshops for high-school students that preceded the Fair. • The following definition of sustainability has been incorporated into Plan Fort Collins and Municipal Sustainability Report to align sustainability practices: “The City will systematically and thoughtfully utilize natural, social, and economic resources to meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations as well as the ecosystems upon which they depend, to endure and thrive. • Throughout City buildings, 87 new placards and signs were posted to better communicate sustainability, safety and health goals to employees. • Gardens at the Standford Community Garden and other affordable housing facilities were productive through the summer, and residents assumed responsibility for maintenance. goal 6: FundinG in addition to reporting on annual gHg inventory, cost savings that directly result from energy and waste conservation will be tracked. • Metal recycling yielded $53,990 to date in2010. • Sod removed from the Utilities Service Center was transplanted by Parks to Fossil Creek Park, saving $1,000. goal 7: PaRks/natuRal aReas achieve a 30% forest canopy density in suitable areas of city parks by 2020, and a specific percentage of native and non-native vegetative cover in natural areas. • Forestry has extended the tree mulching program to the Affordable Housing Department. goal 8: WateR reduce municipal operations water irrigation use and increase efficiency per acre. reduce building water use (normalized to account for weather conditions), by 20% by 2020. 5 • The Utilities Service Center implemented water efficiency landscape upgrades. • Laurie D’Audney received the Alice Darilek Water Conservation Award from the Rocky Mountain Section of the American Water Works for her work as an outstanding contributor to the water conservation field and leadership. goal 9: GeneRal PuRcHasinG implement environmentally preferable purchasing practices throughout the city organization and establish means to verify departments’ compliance with purchasing policy. • Employees were encouraged to use Office Depot as the preferred contractor to obtain the contracted rebate. • MIS expended $185,000 of ARRA funds for infrastructure acquisition which includes a blade chassis, server blades, data storage units, and network switch equipment. goal 10: emPloyee saFety & HealtH incorporate a city-wide program fostering a culture of health and safety. increase the number of employees that participate in the Wellness program from 45% to 75% by 2020 and increase the number of employees that earn their first Well day from 414 to 500. • All City departments now have access to online Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) from any computer within their departments. MSDS’s provide critical information about specific chemicals used in the workplace, and protective measures to take to in case of injuries or spills. • 386 employees earned their second Well Day and 562 employees and family members attended the 2010 Health Fair. eXternal ProJectS • Fort Collins was ranked among the top twenty-two 2010 Smarter Cities for investments in green energy and energy efficiency measures by the Natural Resources Defense Council. • Utilities published the third Utilities for the 21st Century Sustainability Report. • 2009 Community-Wide Climate Status report was published. • Preliminary analysis indicates that 38 percent of residents charged to a 65 gallon recycling service and 14 percent to a 95 gallonii.i • Police Department hosted a collection day for unwanted pharmaceuticals as part of the National Prescription Drug Take Back Day. Colorado collected 9,200 lbs of pharmaceuticals and our staff collected 300 lbs. • The Municipal Sustainability Report was shared with Climate Wise Platinum partners. • CSU, Fort Collins Public Library, and the City launched a Sustainability Lunch & Learn movie series. • NRD has been working in conjunction with Plan FC to integrate the TBL and TBLAM tools into our planning, operational and budget processes. A triple bottom line training will be held with staff and consultants on Nov. 3 at 3:30 at 215 N. Mason Community Room. i Based on three national surveys and research conducted by IU and NRD staff. ii Based on Utility Management data. iii Data from only two of the three haulers was available. Please contact Dr. Rosemarie Russo at 416-2327, rrusso@fcgov.com with questions or if more information is needed. 1 1 Sustainability: Assuring Quality of Life City Council Work Session November 8, 2011 2 Defining Sustainability Current definition in use: The City of Fort Collins will serve as a community leader to systemically, creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend. ATTACHMENT 2 2 3 Definition of Triple Bottom Line The Triple Bottom Line is an accounting and performance framework which optimizes economic, social and environmental considerations. 4 Or, all of these definitions equate to: Leaving the planet equal to or better than when we found it. 3 5 History of Sustainability: City of Fort Collins • Health and Safety committee (mid 1990’s) • Green Energy Program (1998) • Climate Wise Program (2000) • Energy Management Team (2000) • City-wide Wellness Program (2001) • Action Plan for Sustainability (2004) •21st Century Utilities (2008) • Numeric Municipal Sustainability Goals (2009) • Open Book and Access Fort Collins (2010) 6 Supporting Sustainability Policies • Plan Fort Collins • Climate Action Plan • Energy Policy • Water Supply and Demand Management Policy • Economic Health Plan • Green Building Code Amendments 4 7 Ten City Sustainability Goals GOAL#1: Reduce carbon (CO2) emissions from City operations 20% by 2020; at least 2% per year from 2009 Status: City met its 2% annual reduction target and emissions have dropped by 10% since 2005 8 City Sustainability Goals GOAL #2: Reduce City electricity and natural gas consumption by 20% by 2020 Status: City did not reach goal reduction 5 9 City Sustainability Goals GOAL #3: Reduce traditional fuel use by the City’s fleet 20% by 2020 and reach a 1.5 average vehicle ridership by 2020 for City employees. Status: City surpassed fuel goal but did not reach ridership goal 10 City Sustainability Goals GOAL # 4: Reduce solid waste generated by 50% by 2012 and 80% by 2020 Status: Did not achieve 50% waste diversion 6 11 City Sustainability Goals GOAL # 5: Information about the municipal sustainability program will be available to all levels of the community Status: Annual reporting is ongoing 12 City Sustainability Goals GOAL #6: Track cost savings from energy and waste conservation Status: City met its goal for tracking annual savings 7 13 City Sustainability Goals GOAL # 7: Achieve a 30% forest canopy density in City Parks and 70% native vegetative cover in Natural Areas Status: Goal achieved -30% forest canopy density -Vegetative cover at 73% 14 City Sustainability Goals GOAL # 8: Reduce municipal irrigation use and increase efficiency. Reduce building water use by 20% by 2020. Status: Did not meet annual reduction target 8 15 City Sustainability Goals GOAL # 9: Implement environmentally preferable purchasing practices and establish means to verify departments’ compliance with purchasing policy Status: City has retained Green Purchasing Inc. (GPI) to evaluate City purchasing practices 16 City Sustainability Goals GOAL # 10: Foster a culture of health and safety. Increase the number of employees that participate in the Wellness Program. Status: Culture of Health/Safety grows and Wellness Program participation increased 9 17 Best Practices • Asphalt, Concrete and Toilet Recycling • Climate Wise • Advance Meter Fort Collins • Mason Corridor • Green Building Code 18 Examples: Organization-Wide Collaboration and Stewardship • Platinum Climate Wise Award • Ongoing work with Mason Corridor • CIPO/Red Fox Meadows construction • Hay production for Lee Martinez Farm • Household Hazardous Waste Events 10 19 2010 Awards for Sustainability Efforts • Energy Star awards for three city buildings • Community award from CO Alliance for Environmental Education • Bicycle Friendly Community - Gold level • Top 22 “Smarter Cities” for programs and investment in clean energy from National Resources Defense Council • Forbes 4th best place for businesses and careers • Money Magazine 6th best place to live in nation 20 2010 Awards for Sustainability Efforts Continued… • EPA’s Director’s Award for Safe Water • Silver Colorado Environmental Leadership Award for both plants • RMWEA Burke Award for Outstanding Safety • Reliable Public Power Provider • Savvy Award for Excellence for Fort Collins Conserves Public Outreach Campaign 11 21 Next Steps • Implement Sustainable Services – Location of sustainable services physical facility – City Council appointed advisory board – Internal Board of Advisors • Sustainability Strategic Plan – Baseline evaluation – Benchmark analysis – Strategic vision – Implementation offers • Develop a comprehensive approach to data management 22 Next Steps • Coordinated reporting – Consistent green web site – Evaluation of reporting systems – Expanding outreach to community • Green Summit • Local foods • Integrated recycling facility 12 23 Thank You Questions? DATE: November 8, 2011 STAFF: Bruce Hendee, Ken Mannon, Tracy Ochsner, Lucinda Smith Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION City Fleet Use of Corn Ethanol. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The use of corn ethanol is a controversial topic. Ethanol is used in varying blends to reduce carbon emissions and thereby reduce the impacts of global warming. The use of corn ethanol has demonstrated benefits for the improvement of air quality and carbon emissions reductions, but comes with negative environmental and social factors. It has to be viewed as a short-term fix to a long-term problem. The benefits allow for a reduction in foreign oil dependence while improving air quality emissions from vehicles relative to the traditional use of gasoline. The negative social implications are that it takes away from an available food source and makes corn expensive. Corn for ethanol production is subsidized and tends to encourage this crop over others which might be used as a food source. A resulting trend from this over production is that food prices go up both for edible corn and other crops which are in less abundant supply. There is a subsequent impact on families in need of affordable and nutritious food. From an environmental perspective, the production of ethanol also has a negative impact. Because the crop is subsidized, it tends to encourage unsustainable farming practices. Farmers tend to add fertilizer and herbicides to encourage greater yields. Additionally, there is a tendency not to rotate crops. The resulting impacts are more fertilizer and herbicides in runoff from farm fields, and decreasing soil health. In fact, over-fertilization has created significant dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Currently City Operation Services has a policy of using alternative fuels, including E85 Blend (85% ethanol), when hybrid applications are not available and if the infrastructure is in place. There is currently substantial research on alternatives to corn based ethanol but, as of today, none of the alternatives have been successful at a commercial based production level. Complete elimination of use ethanol will increase carbon emissions from the municipal organizations operations by 525 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year without offsetting strategies. The challenge is in deciding the appropriate balance of strategies to reduce carbon emissions while still recognizing and protecting human and environmental considerations. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Should the City continue its approach to E85 (Alternative 4: Increase use of E85)? November 8, 2011 Page 2 2. If not, which of the other three alternatives does Council prefer? • Alternative 1: Stop using ethanol • Alternative 2: Continue using E85 at current levels only • Alternative 3: Switch from E85 to E50. 3. Does Council need more information? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION I. National Ethanol Production and Mandates The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders. The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under EPAct, the original RFS program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable- fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways and became the RFS2 standard: • expanded to include diesel, in addition to gasoline; • increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022; As part of the regulations corn based ethanol was capped at 15 billion gallons/year. • established new categories of renewable fuel, and set separate volume requirements for each one. • required EPA to apply lifecycle greenhouse gas performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer greenhouse gases than the petroleum fuel it replaces. The new standard recognized the following fuel types and established specific tracking standards for production called Renewable Identification Numbers. The new standards include: • Cellulosic Biofuels • Biomass based diesel • Advanced bio based fuels November 8, 2011 Page 3 II. Environmental Impacts of Corn Ethanol Energy Balance Energy balance compares the total amount of fossil fuel energy put into the process of making ethanol compared to the energy released by burning the fuel. A positive energy balance means more energy is created by burning the fuel than was used to make it. A majority of studies show that corn ethanol has a positive energy balance of 1.24 – 1.3 while studies show that gasoline has a negative energy balance of 1.23. This balance speaks strongly in favor of ethanol as a more productive form of energy in terms of efficiency to produce per gallon. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The EPA defines life cycle greenhouse gas emissions as the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes), including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution and end use by the consumer. Whereas the energy balance looks primarily at fossil fuel energy inputs and outputs, life cycle greenhouse gas emissions also include impacts to carbon sequestration in soil and plants as a result of changing agricultural practices. A number of studies show that corn ethanol produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline fuel. For example, research from Argonne National Lab has shown that corn-based E85 reduces greenhouse gas emissions 18-29% compared to gasoline. The U.S. Department of Energy’s position is that today, on a life cycle basis, ethanol produced from corn results in about a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline. In 2010, the City’s use of 61,945 gallons of E85 resulted in 525 metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided, compared to using traditional unleaded gasoline. For perspective, 2010 greenhouse gas emissions from the entire municipal organization were 44,730 metric tons carbon dioxide. If the City did not use E85, the 2010 greenhouse gas emissions would have increased to 45,225 metric tons carbon dioxide. Air Quality Impacts E85 provides the following changes in tailpipe emissions, compared to gasoline: • 17-23% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions • 20% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions • 30% reduction in particulate matter • 18% reduction in nitrogen oxides • Reduction in aromatics (benzene, 1,3 butadiene) • Increase in aldehydes (i.e., formaldehyde 50% increase) (Note: the aldehydes are less reactive than aromatics, and therefore less likely to contribute to ozone formation.) E85 is much less volatile than gasoline and therefore reduces ozone precursor emissions compared to gasoline. November 8, 2011 Page 4 Water Growing corn and producing ethanol both use water. In 2008, a National Research Council study found that agricultural shifts to growing corn and expanding biofuel crops into regions with little agriculture, especially dry areas, could change current irrigation practices and greatly increase pressure on water resources in many parts of the United States. In addition to increasing water demand, growing corn results in significant nitrogen loading of surface water and ground waters, and associated harm to the ecosystem, human and animal health. In addition, there can be water quality impacts from processing ethanol, including elevated emissions of phosphorus and residual chlorine into waterways. Land Use Impacts Increased corn production can lead to reduced crop rotation and depleted soil nutrients due to over- farming. In addition, clearing new land for biofuel crops will release more carbon into the air than was previously sequestered in the soil and plants. As corn production increases in the U.S. in order to meet larger corn ethanol demand, other crops, including soy, will be displaced. To compensate, land in other countries is being cleared to plant soy, and releasing carbon emissions from the deforestation. III. Social Impacts of Corn Ethanol Impact on food prices Producing ethanol for use in motor fuels increases the demand for corn, which ultimately raises the prices that consumers pay for a wide variety of foods at the grocery store, ranging from corn syrup sweeteners found in soft drinks to meat, dairy, and poultry products. In addition, the demand for corn may help push up the prices of other commodities, such as soybeans. This leads to the “food vs. fuel” debates over crop-based biofuels, including corn ethanol. A 2008 report of the United Nations attributes 70% of food price rise in 2007-2008 to biofuel crop expansion. A Council of Economic Advisors report (2008) attributes 20% of food price rise in 2007-2008 to the U.S. biofuel crop expansion; and 35% of the food price rise to global corn ethanol production. Similarly, a 2009 paper by the Congressional Budget Office attributes 10-20% of food price rise in 2007-2008 to biofuel crop expansion, while also citing energy price increases and growing demand for meat and associated needs for corn feed as contributing to the food price increases. IV. City Use of Ethanol The City of Fort Collins uses ethanol (E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) as part of a portfolio of approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its fleet. The use of ethanol as an alternative fuel (vs. the 10% that is already automatically blended into unleaded gasoline) supports the following municipal goals: November 8, 2011 Page 5 • Goal #1 - Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from municipal operations at least 2 % in order to achieve a reduction of 20% below 2005 levels by 2020; ultimately to achieve carbon neutrality for the municipal organization. • Goal #3 - Reduce traditional fuel use by the City’s vehicle fleet by 20% by 2020 • Administrative Policy 5.2 C1 – Reduce dependence on foreign oil. City vehicle purchasing policies call for the City to purchase hybrid vehicles whenever possible, followed by alternative fuels (as long as the fueling infrastructure is in place, the vehicle is built at the factory to accommodate alternative fuels, the economics including life cycle cost are beneficial to the City, and it meets the needs of the department). The table below summarizes various vehicle options available at this time. Table 1. Availability of Alternative Fuels for Specific Vehicle Applications Propane Compressed Natural Gas Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Hybrid Electric Flex Fuel (Ethanol blend) Bio- diesel Fuel Efficient Additional cost over a traditional vehicle $8-10K $50-60K busses; $5K vans $8-9K $2-4K na zero zero na Buses XX Staff cars XX X X Patrol X Pickups XX X X Heavy trucks X X = Currently available and part of the City of Fort Collins fleet V. Alternatives Analysis Below are 4 alternatives to consider. In addition to the 3 alternatives originally proposed in a memo to City Council on June 27, 2011 (alternatives 1-3 below), a fourth alternative has been added to continue using ethanol on the upward trajectory, as recommended for Council consideration by the Air Quality Advisory Board on October 2011 (alternative 4 below). The assessment below presents some of the pros and cons regarding the decision relative to the City’s policy goals and budget. 1. Stop using ethanol • Increase City greenhouse gas emissions by ~ 525 metric tons of carbon dioxide (1.2% of the entire municipal carbon inventory) • Increase air pollution emissions that contribute to ozone • Reduce certain air toxics (aldehydes) • Might have to pay back the Governors Energy Office $30,000 for stations November 8, 2011 Page 6 • Will not expand the municipal ethanol infrastructure • Will use more imported fuel (unleaded) unless another alternative found. 2. Continue using ethanol at current levels only • Lose future potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution emissions thru expanded E85 use • May end up paying higher total fuel costs if unleaded price rises and E85 does not. 3. Switch from E85 to E50 • E50 can be made available locally at no extra cost • Increase carbon emissions from the municipal operations by approximately 275 metric tons carbon dioxide • Keep grant money from the Governor’s Energy Office for the E85 stations • Maintain support for ethanol infrastructure so we can take advantage of cellulosic ethanol when commercially available. 4. Increase use of E85 • Realize greater carbon reductions • Keep grant money from Governor’s Energy Office for E85 stations • Supports investment in ethanol infrastructure to take advantage of cellulosic ethanol when commercially available. ATTACHMENTS 1. Air Quality Advisory Board memo 2. Air Quality Advisory Board minute excerpts 3. Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes excerpt 4. City staff white paper on Corn ethanol 5. Powerpoint presentation Natural Resources Department 215 North Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6600 970.224.6177 Fax fcgov.com/naturalresources M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Weitkunat and Councilmembers FROM: David Dietrich, Vice Chair, Air Quality Advisory Board CC: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer Ken Mannon, Operation services Director Greg McMaster, Chair, Air Quality Advisory Board DATE: October 21, 2011 SUBJECT: AQAB Recommendation on Corn Ethanol ______________________________________________________________________________ The AQAB discussed the air quality aspects of the City’s use of corn ethanol E85 on October 17, 2011, and developed the following recommendation: Please contact me if you have any questions. The Chair, Greg McMaster, was not able to attend the Oct 17 meeting. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the corn ethanol issue. Dennis George moved, and Scott Groen seconded the following motion: o To continue to use E85 as an alternative fuel on the current trajectory o To encourage staff to continue to look for options and alternatives to traditional oil-based fuel sources o To develop and implement a plan to encourage Eco-Driving o To maintain the City’s focus to reduce greenhouse gasses and meet the goals of the Climate Action Plan Motion passed 8-0-0 Attachment 1 AQAB DRAFT Minutes excerpt from October 17, 2011 1 Corn Ethanol Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager, Tracy Ochsner, Assistant Operations Services Director and Ken Mannon, Operations Services Director joined a discussion lead by Senior Environmental Planner, Lucinda Smith about the air quality aspects of the City’s use of corn-based E85 flex fuel.  Questions had been raised in City Council meetings in the past regarding the use of corn ethanol by the City’s fleet and whether it should be discontinued because of adverse social implications. o The Air Quality Advisory Board agreed to hear about this issue and weigh in as to how it might affect air quality in Fort Collins. o Council will consider this issue at a November 8 work session.  As background, Lucinda Smith explained the corn used to make ethanol is not the same as human food corn. There are three sources of ethanol: o Fermented feed corn – Most common ethanol produced in the U.S. Current market share is 10%. o Corn and sugar from sugar-based crops like sugar cane and sugar beets (There are no sugar ethanol plants in the U.S.) o Non-food cellulose such as wood, grasses or biomass stock. Production in the U.S. is not produced at a commercial scale yet. Even though the Renewable Fuels Standard’s objective is to have 16.0 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol being produced by 2022, it is questionable how fast it can be brought on line as a viable, readily-available fuel.  City policies support using alternative fuels: o City policies have the goal of reducing GHG emissions 20% below 2005 by 2020, reducing traditional fuel use 20% by 2020, and reducing dependence on foreign oil o The City’s legislative policy agenda supports programs and policies that promote advanced low emissions vehicle technology and encourage or promote alternative fuels such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen and compressed natural gas. o The City is working to reduce fuel consumption by addressing driving behavior including limiting vehicle idling, vehicle fuel efficiency and the carbon intensity of fuel used by City vehicles. o City policy is to buy alternative fuel vehicles if: fueling infrastructure in place; the job application fits OEM vehicle; economics are beneficial to City of Fort Collins and the vehicle meets the needs of department.  Vehicle purchasing hierarchy: hybrids; alternative fueled vehicles; down-sized vehicle  Alternative fuel vehicle suitability and availability data indicates there are no incremental costs to purchase a flex-fuel vehicle. o The City has 96 flex-fuel E85 capable vehicles with 7 local fueling stations. o The City received a Governor’s Energy Office Grant for $30,000 to fund the building of one fueling station Attachment 2 AQAB DRAFT Minutes excerpt from October 17, 2011 2  The largest 2010 fuel usage was biodiesel (38%). Unleaded gas was 36% (a portion of which included mandated ethanol additive). o The cost of E-85 has varied a lot but is now approximately $3.20/gallon. Unleaded gas is approximately $3.50/gallon. Future prices could increase at an unknown rate. o Vehicles that use E-85 are not as efficient as those who use unleaded gas.  E85 Tailpipe benefits include reductions of approximately: 20% of CO2 and CO; 30% in particulate matter; 18% in NOx (nitrogen oxides), and aromatic s but a 50% increase in aldehydes. Other air quality benefits are that E-85 contributes less to ground level ozone.  Three alternatives for City fuel use have been proposed to City Council: o Stop using ethanol.  Would increase Greenhouse Gas (GHG) ~ 550 MTCO2e (1.2%).  Would increase other air pollution emissions that contribute to ozone.  May save money on fuel now but will change if prices increase.  Might have to pay back GEO $30,00 for ethanol station.  Use of more unleaded, imported fuel unless other alternatives are found o Continue using at current levels only  Would lose future potential to reduce GHG and air pollution through expanded E85 use.  May end up paying more fuel costs if unleaded price rises and E85 does not. o Switch from using E85 to E50  E50 can be made available locally at no extra cost  Would increase carbon emissions slightly.  City would keep grant money from GEO.  Justifies future purchase of flex-fuel vehicles to take advantage of cellulosic ethanol when commercially available.  A white paper was put together for Council in July 2010 that stated corn ethanol provides a near-term way for the city to reduce its fleet GHG emissions, and ethanol use is considered reasonable as a transition strategy until more sustainable biofuels are locally available. To exit from the use of corn-based ethanol, the City will annually evaluate whether other clean fuels choices have become available to meet the City's goals. It is anticipated that cellulosic ethanol may be locally available by the middle of this decade. Discussion  To answer Rich Fisher who asked what was motivating Council to want to stop using ethanol, Bruce Hendee stated it was a combination of: use of food for fuel; social impact; use of additional fertilizer; inorganic farming; government subsidy of corn E- 85 resulting in a gradual impact over time. o Rich Fisher stated it could be as much an energy issue as a social issue. The cost of producing ethanol is close to the cost of burning it. AQAB DRAFT Minutes excerpt from October 17, 2011 3  Lucinda Smith stated she saw several sources that came to the conclusion the net energy balance for ethanol is positive in that the fuel itself puts out more energy than the fossil fuels used to create it.  Dennis Georg discussed a Congressional Budget Office report he read regarding the implications of ethanol use on world food prices. The report concluded that, even if you look at the energy required to produce the ethanol, ethanol is a win on a lowered GHG emissions basis. Ethanol also has a bigger gain versus natural gas and coal and cellulosic ethanol has a dramatic gain to reduce GHG emissions. The report concluded the E-85 industry is not the cause of the increase of food costs worldwide; only a small factor. Worldwide demand for meat had a much greater impact on the cost of food by a factor of 5. Currency manipulation of the US dollar also has a higher impact on the cost of food than ethanol. .  Dave Dietrich stated his opinion that stopping use of E-85 production will not substantially affect production of feedstock corn because that corn will continue to be grown for the production of high fructose corn syrup, feeding animals, and other uses.  Dennis Georg stated it is his understanding production of corn for human food is only a fraction of the entire corn crop and it is on a downward trend because demand for animal feed is growing globally. It is not a local issue  Scott Groen pointed out some interesting facts about E-85: o Reporting mileage numbers on ethanol are tricky because there is a 20% loss in mileage when using ethanol. o The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) wrote a paper last year stating that although VOCs are reduced with E-85, they are finding other problems with E-85 contributing to ozone. o E85 is not 85% alcohol; up to 5% is gasoline to denature it (prevent it from being consumed as grain alcohol). o Scott suggested the City keep purchasing E-85 vehicles because, even if the City stopped using E-85, flex-fuel vehicles run fine on regular gasoline and they cost the same. o E50 is good idea because there is a new E-50 fuel is coming out soon that will increase mileage to be comparable to unleaded gasoline.  To answer Dennis Georg who asked if the City has data on mileage on regular gas versus E-85, Ken Mannon stated they have the data but it depends on the vehicle what mileage they get. We think E-85 is first step. Cellulosic fuel will be better. If we drop it down to E-50 it would get the fuel economy back up and have cleaner air. It takes 8 – 10 years to replace a vehicle.  Scott Groen stated biodiesel adds lubricity with less injector failures.  Dennis Georg stated there are many drivers to commodities. If the City really wanted to impact the social issues Council is interested in it would be impractical and outside the scope of the City  Bruce Hendee asked if the City should also look at purchasing compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles or ethanol. o Dennis Georg suggested that looking at turbo diesels would be better. They are having a large impact Europe. o Scott Groen felt that Americans didn’t like diesel because of the noise and smell. AQAB DRAFT Minutes excerpt from October 17, 2011 4 o To answer Scott Groen who asked what is the cost per mile on diesels, Ken Mannon said the City is trying to reduce diesels. They have seen a positive mileage impact from busses being converted from diesel to natural gas. They are also clean, quiet and smooth o Dave Dietrich pointed out CNG is still a fossil fuel (CNG) with environmental impacts.  Dennis George emphasized the City would be better off from an air quality perspective to recommit to our Climate Action Plan goals and do a regular assessment to these alternatives as they come along to see if they are economically viable. It is not a good idea for a City Council member to dictate use of fuels.  John Schroeer liked the option to use E-50 because the City would still be getting benefit and use of the infrastructure and it would keep door open to new ethanol fuels.  Michael Lynn stated he didn’t see any basis to remove E-85 because the City would lose the ability to move forward and to take advantage of latest and greatest fuels.  Dave Dietrich stated the AQAB is not addressing corn growing and its use as a commodity for all the things it’s used for. Bruce Hendee will make a point to note that to Council. Dennis Georg moved and Scott Groen seconded the following motion: o To continue to use E85 as alternative fuel as current trajectory. o To encourage staff to continue to look for options and alternatives other than traditional oil use sources. o To develop and implement a plan to encourage eco driving o To maintain the city’s focus to reduce GHG and meet the goals of the climate Action Plan Motion passed unanimously NRAB DRAFT Minutes excerpt from Oct. 19, 2011 1 Discussion of Ethanol/Biofuel in City vehicles Discussion  Harry Edwards suggested adding a fourth alternative: To continue to grow ethanol- containing fuel as a no-action alternative. The City does a disservice to reject it out of hand.  Lucinda read the Air Quality Advisory Board’s recommendation to the NRAB that also recommended continuing to use E-85 fuel: o To continue to use E-85 as alternative fuel as current trajectory. o To encourage staff to continue to look for options and alternatives other than traditional oil use sources. o To develop and implement a plan to encourage eco-driving o To maintain the City’s focus to reduce GHG and meet the goals of the Climate Action Plan  Joe Piesman felt that the global food issue is so complicated that the City of Fort Collins can observe it but not affect it. In the future, trying feed seven billion people will be difficult. He sees this issue as one of balance of land use and energy. o Lucinda stated the AQAB also mentioned several studies that show the expansion of corn had an impact on price of food. The demand of corn for meat and high fructose corn syrup is another aspect of it.  Liz Pruessner stated because the US Department of Agriculture is subsidizing corn and promoting biofuels and biofuels plants in the farm bills millions of acres in conservation are being converted back to crops to make good money. It is crazy to take food and put it into our cars but an economic component is driving it. Plowing grasslands to turn them back to corn also has huge carbon emissions. It is also a political issue. If the City makes a political statement it probably won’t make a difference in whole big issue. Politically, everything is on the table with the federal deficit. They are looking at all the programs and many big changes may be coming. We might need to know where the federal subsidies go before the NRAB makes a decision. If the subsidies for corn ethanol are stopped, the prices will skyrocket. o Tracy Ochsner stated if price of ethanol goes higher could help make an easier decision because it would be an economic decision. o Harry Edwards cited an article in Chemical and Engineering News that stated the Department of Energy has been funding development of cellulosic biofuels but the development has been disappointing. They haven’t figured it out yet.  Joe Piesman stated sugar cane ethanol is highly efficient in Brazil. China is also getting more interested in alternative fuels and is in the research phase.  To answer Joe Piesman who asked if the compromise to reduce from E-85 to E-50 is doable, Tracy Ochsner stated it is doable, but more importantly still keeps us going – in event cellulosic ethanol does break.  Harry Edwards stated it was fortunate the City has well- informed staff considering this issue.  John Bartholow recommended the NRAB abstain from making any formal recommendation on this issue. He did not see any clear bearing on the Natural Resources of Fort Collins. Attachment 3 NRAB DRAFT Minutes excerpt from Oct. 19, 2011 2  Andrew Newman said things are in motion – if we waited we could make a better recommendation.  Lucinda Smith stated staff is not making recommendation but Council will be interested in reading the minutes to see what the NRAB’s discussion was.  Andrew Newman stated the City has many resources invested in E-85 fuel and it would be premature for the NRAB to make a recommendation before we understand the dynamics of what may develop in the next 12 months. Backing away from those resources would be a knee jerk reaction. Another issue would be the City would have to return the $30,000 for an E-85 fueling station. City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 1 Corn Ethanol White Paper Synopsis Evaluating the pros and cons of corn ethanol is a very complicated issue. Estimates of the net benefits or risks of corn ethanol are affected by assumptions about future crop productivity and production processes and there are contradictory conclusions in the literature. The City of Fort Collins uses ethanol (E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) as part of a portfolio of approaches to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from its fleet. In 2009, ethanol comprised 3.8% of total City fuel use. The City has made investments into ethanol including about 100 ethanol capable vehicles and 4 fueling stations. The ethanol provided at the City’s ethanol fueling station is produced in Windsor, thereby reducing some of the negative impacts of corn ethanol in general, such as deforestation. While other fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG) offer even greater tailpipe GHG benefits, there no other alternative fuel vehicle applications suitable for police vehicles, and very limited for options for the rest of the light duty fleet. Corn ethanol provides a near-term way for the City to reduce its fleet GHG emissions, and its use is recommended as transition strategy until more sustainable biofuels are locally available. However, the City should annually evaluate whether new CNG vehicle options or other clean fuels choices have become available to meet the City's goals. It is anticipated that cellulosic ethanol may be locally available by the middle of this decade. If the City were to completely stop using ethanol until cellulosic ethanol becomes available, GHG emissions would increase by 265 tons, and we would use over 20,000 more gallons of petroleum fuel based on 2009 usage levels. In addition, we would likely have to repay the State of Colorado Governors Energy Office about $30,000 of grant funding that was used for fueling infrastructure. Introduction The City of Fort Collins uses ethanol (E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline) as one of several alternative fuels in its municipal fleet, for the purpose of reducing tailpipe and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and decreasing our reliance on foreign fuel. Currently, only ethanol made from corn is widely available in the USA. There has been much debate in recent years about the net value of corn ethanol as a replacement for fossil transportation fuel. Issues include the net energy balance, net greenhouse gas emissions, impact on food supply and prices, feasibility of meeting future transportation fuel needs, impact on national security, and its role in transition away from carbon intensive fuels. Research studies show greatly varying results for energy balance and GHG emissions. The diversity of these findings is, in part, attributable to differing methodologies, including widely ranging assumptions about future conditions of crop production, which inputs and outputs (such as unfermented distillers grain by-product) should be considered, what condition the crops are planted in, and over what time period the impacts should be calculated. This white paper takes a brief look at the most current perspectives on these issues. Definitions Corn ethanol, as defined in Wikipedia, is ethanol produced from corn through industrial fermentation, chemical processing and distillation. It is primarily used in the USA as an alternative to gasoline. Corn ethanol is the most common type of ethanol in the United States, but is considered less efficient than other types of ethanol (sugar cane, etc.) because only the grain is used and many petroleum-based products such as fertilizer and pesticides are used in its production.1 ATTACHMENT 4 City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 2 Sugar ethanol is ethanol produced from sugar based crops including sugar cane and sugar beets. Brazil is the second largest ethanol producer in the world, behind the U.S., and the largest producer of ethanol made from sugarcane. By promoting sugar-based ethanol and increasing domestic oil production, Brazil eliminated its dependence on foreign oil by 2006. There are no sugar ethanol plants in the USA. Cellulosic ethanol is a biofuel produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible part of plants. Energy Balance Two of the major issues regarding corn ethanol surround its energy balance and its life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. The energy balance compares the total amount of energy put into the process of making ethanol compared to the energy released by burning the fuel. A positive energy balance means more energy is created by burning the fuel than was used to make it. For the sake of clarity, this will be referred to in this paper as a favorable energy balance. A number of studies show that the energy balance of corn ethanol is positive and therefore favorable (i.e. it prodcues more energy when burned than it takes to make it). In 2005, USDA reported an energy balance of 1.24 for corn ethanol (1.24 units of energy produced for every 1 unit to create the fuel).2 A 2006 a study from the University of Minnesota also found that ethanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, hence a positive and favorable energy balance of 1.25.3 In 2007, a Natioanl Geographic article reported 1.3 energy balance for corn ethanol.4 However, there are also studies claiming a negatvie energy balance for corn ethanol. Most notable is the 2005 study by David Pimentel from Cornell University and Tad W. Patzek at UC Berkeley.5 Their study found that corn ethanol requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced when combusted. This study considers the energy required to produce and repair farm machinery and ethanol processing equipment. The study also states that it costs substantially more to produce ethanol that it is worth on the market. The study also notes other major environmental impacts including the fact that corn production uses more herbicides and pesticides than any other crop produced, and results in significant water use and pollution. Clearly, energy balance study results are affected by which inputs are considered. There is still debate on whether to include inputs such as energy required to feed the people growing the corn, the energy needed to maintain the farm equipment (i.e. for fencing material, etc.) and the energy embodied in farm equipment. There is also no consensus on what value to give the corn by-product such as the stalk, commonly known as the ‘coproduct’. Some studies leave it on the field to protect the soil from erosion and to add organic matter, while others burn the coproduct to power ethanol plants but fail to address the resulting soil erosion (which would require energy in the form of fertilizer to replace).6 Some studies use the coprodcut as feed for livestock. In 2006, a study reported in Science magazine looked at six ethanol energy balacne studies. After normalizing for assumptions and input/output boundaries, this study concluded that ethanol produced today (2006) is less fossil fuel-intensive than gasoline, although it did not report a net energy balance for corn ethanol.7 Figure 1 below from a National Renewable Energy Lab presentation plots a number of ethanol energy balance studies, with the majority with a positive (favorable) energy balance.8 City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 3 Figure 1. Ethanol Energy Balance Study Results It is also useful to evaluate energy balance of gasoline production. Argonne National Lab reports a negative and unfavorable energy balance of 1.23 for gasoline production.9,10 This means that for every BTU of gasoline burned, it took 1.23 BTU’s to create the fuel (for extraction, processing and transportation). There are significant national security costs associated with the use of traditional petroleum fuel as well. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Another criteria for evaluating corn ethanol is greenhouse gas emissions. EPA defines lifecycle GHG emissions as the aggregate quantity of GHG emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as emissions from land use changes), including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution and end use by the consumer.11 Whereas the energy balance looks primarily at fossil fuel energy inputs and outputs, lifecycle GHG emissions also include impacts to carbon sequestration in soil and plants as a result of changing agricultural practices. A number of studies show that corn ethanol produces fewer GHG emission than gasoline fuel. For example, research from Argonne National Lab has shown that corn-based E85 reduces GHG’s 18-29% compared to gasoline.12, 13 The Colorado Governor’s Energy Office also states that the use of corn ethanol reduces GHG emissions. It states that on a per-gallon basis, corn ethanol could reduce GHG emissions by 18% to 28% when the complete life-cycle of the fuel is considered and that cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from plant fiber materials) offers an even greater benefit, at 87% reduction in GHG emissions of the life cycle of the fuel. 9 City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 4 The EPA’s GHG emissions factor for corn-ethanol combustion is 37% lower than the factor for gasoline combustion. However these factors are used for reporting Scope 1, or “direct” emissions that occur right within a reporting entity’s boundary, and probably do not take into account lifecycle impacts. Indirect Land Use Impact on GHG Emissions When total life cycle emissions, including indirect carbon dioxide emissions caused from clearing land, removing plants that trap CO2 and releasing carbon from the soil are considered, the GHG picture for corn ethanol may change. Two studies published in Science magazine in 2008 ("Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt" and "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use Change"), indicate that land use changes associated with production of biofuels leads to increased net carbon emissions. In “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt", Tilman and his colleagues examined the overall CO2 released when land use changes occur. Converting the grasslands of the U.S. to grow corn results in excess greenhouse gas emissions of 134 metric tons of CO2 per hectare, creating a carbon debt that would take 93 years to repay by replacing gasoline with corn-based ethanol.14 In “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use Change”, Searchinger finds that ethanol demand in the USA has caused some farmers to plant more corn and less soy. This has driven up soy prices, causing farmers in Brazil to clear more Amazon rainforest land to plant valuable soy. Because a soy field contains far less carbon than a rainforest, the greenhouse gas benefit of the original ethanol is wiped out. His study concluded that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings in GHG emissions, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years.15 These two studies led to the conclusion in a February 2008 Scientific American article that biofuels are just plain bad for the land. 16 These two studies by Tilman and Searchinger are contested by the U.S. Department of Energy, who criticizes the assumptions used by the authors as outdated and/or incorrect. The DOE paper documents why they find the assumption erroneous.17 However, a number of studies point out that some of these negative impacts could be mitigated in the future through improved practices. For example, a more recent study that evaluated the GHG emissions from biofuels concludes that a global greenhouse gas emissions policy that protects forests and encourages best practices for nitrogen fertilizer use can dramatically reduce emissions associated with biofuels production.18 Figure 2 below presented by Argonne National Lab summarizes the range of findings on GHG emissions benefits of ethanol, when compared to gasoline, with a the majority of studies showing a favorable GHG impact for ethanol.10 City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 5 Figure 2. Ethanol GHG Emissions Comparisons Impact on Food Productions and Prices Aside from the greenhouse gas emission impacts, there can be impacts on food production as a result of increasing biofuels, especially food crop-based biofuels. A team of researchers from the University of Kassel in Germany found that 90 percent of Brazil's sugarcane expansion in the last five years displaced cattle rangeland, forcing ranchers to push into the forest. This team concluded Brazil's plan to expand biofuel cropland over the next decade will push displaced rangeland into more than 47,000 square miles of forest and another 17,760 square miles of other native habitat.19 A recent UN report concludes that although the potential benefits are large, the biofuels boom could reduce food security and drive up food prices in a world where 25,000 people die of hunger every day, most under age five.20 The question also exists about how much capacity the USA has to grow biofuel crops. The EPA has estimated that current sustainable production of corn for fuel in the USA is limited to about 15 billion gallons of ethanol per year.8 A researcher at the University of Minnesota claims that if we convert every corn kernel grown today in the U.S. to ethanol we offset just 12 percent of our gasoline use," notes ecologist Jason Hill of the University of Minnesota.3 City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 6 Air Pollution Impacts Ethanol is known for reducing direct tailpipe emissions of particulates and carbon monoxide. The Colorado Governor’s Energy Office provides the following statement about the tailpipe benefits of ethanol9: Some pollutants in tailpipe emissions are reduced significantly, others are increased. Compared to gasoline in Tier 2 (passenger type) vehicles, ethanol produced the following emissions: • 55% to 70% less benzene, 1,3-butadiene, & PM2.5 when tested at 72°F • 19% less benzene and 69% less PM2.5 when tested at 20°F • 2 to 3 times more NonMethaneHydrocarbons when tested at 20°F • 50 to 120 times more acetaldehyde when tested at both 20°F and 72°F • 2 to 4 times more formaldehyde when tested at both 20°F and 72°F Ethanol has been widely distributed in the USA in “oxy-fuels” programs as an additive (up to 10%) in gasoline to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. However, ethanol is more volatile than gasoline and therefore contributes to the formation of ground level ozone, aggravating medical problems such as asthma. A study by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University found that if E85 was the primary biofuel used in 2020, its use would increase the risk of air pollution deaths relative to gasoline by 9% in Los Angeles, compared to deaths predicted from gasoline use in 2020.21 Correspondingly, for each billion gallons of ethanol fuel produced and combusted in the USA, the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline and could soar up to an estimated $952 million for corn ethanol, depending on the heat sources used at the biorefinery. This same study found that the health care costs associated with cellulosic ethanol could range from $123–208 million, depending on feedstock.22 Water Impacts A National Research Council committee was convened to look at how shifts in the nation's agriculture to include more energy crops, and potentially more crops overall, could affect water management and long- term sustainability of biofuel production. In terms of water quantity, the committee found that agricultural shifts to growing corn and expanding biofuel crops into regions with little agriculture, especially dry areas, could change current irrigation practices and greatly increase pressure on water resources in many parts of the United States. The committee also concluded that quality of groundwater, rivers, and coastal and offshore waters could be impacted by increased fertilizer and pesticide use for biofuels. High levels of nitrogen in stream flows are a major cause of low-oxygen or "hypoxic" regions, commonly known as "dead zones," which are lethal for most living creatures and cover broad areas of the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, and other regions. However, the report also notes that there are a number of agricultural practices and technologies that could be employed to reduce nutrient pollution.23 In addition, there can be water quality impacts from processing ethanol, including elevated emissions of phosphorus and residual chlorine into waterways.24 City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 7 U.S. Ethanol Policy The stated objectives behind national biofuels policies are to improve energy security and GHG mitigation. In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act. This Act includes ethanol as an important element of the energy solution. It sets a goal to triple annual ethanol production to 36 billion gallons a year in 12 years. This goal includes 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2022.25(Though critics say that this amount of ethanol production will require the entire corn crop in the US, every kernel of corn.26) This act also modifies the “Renewable Fuels Standard” (RFS) program. The guidance in the RFS program states that to meet the nation's renewable standard, a fuel's "life-cycle" carbon emissions must be at least 20 percent below that of gasoline or diesel in 2005.11 In February 2010, EPA and the Obama administration approved corn ethanol as a low-carbon renewable fuel that will meet the 20% GHG emission reduction threshold compared to the 2005 gasoline baseline.19 EPA’s underlying analysis is based on assumptions of significantly increased crop yields linked to production efficiencies that are likely to occur by 2022. EPA also considered the “Indirect Land Use Impacts (ILUI) that would occur in 160 other countries in this analysis as well. It is interesting to note that the finding of corn ethanol as a renewable fuel is in contradiction to California's determination in 2009 that corn ethanol carbon footprint was too big to help the state mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. The California assessment looked at current emissions associated with corn-based ethanol and concluded they were too steep to include it as a strategy.27 Critics of ethanol are also concerned about the cost of subsidies. Ethanol subsidies began in 1979. Today ethanol is being subsidized at a rate of 51¢ per gallon, which costs taxpayers over $4 Billion in 2008.16 Critics also claim that the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.6 Cellulosic Ethanol Production of ethanol from cellulose may present a brighter picture in terms of reduced environmental impacts and food crop displacement. Cellulose is contained in the tough chains of sugar molecules that make up plant cell walls. Breaking the cellulose that make up the cell walls of non-food crop materials such as stalks, leaves, sawdust, and perennial grasses such as switch grass and buffalo grass could result in biofuels that do not compete with food crops. In its bioenergy policy, EPA anticipates a ramp-up of commercial production of cellulosic ethanol, starting with just a few plants in 2010, increasing to one billion gallons in 2013, 4.25 billion gallons by 2016 and 16 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2022. EPA’s strategy also calls for further investigation into more sustainable sources of cellulosic material, even including forest residues or organic waste in municipal solid waste.28 General Conclusion Evaluating the pros and cons of corn ethanol is a very complicated issue. Estimates of the net benefits or risks of corn ethanol are affected by assumptions about future crop productivity and production processes and there are contradictory conclusions in the literature. Some studies indicate that corn ethanol does not City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 8 have a positive energy balance, causes elevated lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, harms water quantity and quality, and competes with food crops, while other studies indicate positive benefits. Critics argue that the massive US subsidies of corn ethanol only benefit large agribusinesses and do not benefit small farmers, and are very costly to the American taxpayer. These concerns are likely to render corn ethanol a poor long-term solution as a transportation fuel. However, as we approach conditions of peak oil when the demand for fuel exceeds the supply capacity, new sustainable alternatives are desperately needed. Promise may well lie in other forms of ethanol, such as cellulosic ethanol, especially if national and global policies are put in place to protect forest lands and support farming best practices that minimizing nitrogen fertilizer use in order to reduce the negative impact of ethanol production. "We can create ethanol in an incredibly dumb way," says Nathanael Greene, a senior researcher with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "But there are many pathways that get us a future full of wildlife, soil carbon, and across-the-board benefits." The key, Greene and others say, is to figure out how to make fuel from plant material other than food: cornstalks, prairie grasses, fast- growing trees, or even algae. That approach, combined with more efficient vehicles and communities, says Greene, "could eliminate our demand for gasoline by 2050." 4 City of Fort Collins Use of Corn Ethanol The City of Fort Collins has a goal to reduce GHG emissions from municipal operations 20% below 2005 levels by 2020. Embedded within that is a goal to reduce traditional fuel use by the City’s vehicle fleet by 20% by 2020. According to a number of references above, the GHG emissions associated with corn ethanol are lower than those associated with gasoline. Hence, the City began using E85 in 2007, consuming 2,332 gallons. In 2008, City use rose to 28,330 gallons. In 2009, the City used 28,240 gallons of E85, which represents 3.8% of the total City fuel used in 2009 for all operations. The City has several vehicles that can burn E85 or gasoline. There are currently five ethanol fueling stations in Fort Collins including the Poudre Valley Fuel Co-op on East Mulberry, Western Convenience on West Drake Road, the City Fleets Facility, Fossil Creek Park, and Spring Canyon Park. Currently, a gallon of ethanol costs about $2.20 in Fort Collins and a gallon of gasoline costs about $2.50. The City of Fort Collins’ E85 fuel is provided by the Windsor ethanol plant. Most of the corn used in the Windsor plant is produced locally. The plant buys as much local corn as we can during the harvest season from Weld County and beyond. As a result, the life-cycle environmental impacts from this corn ethanol are probably significantly less than for ethanol produced elsewhere because it is not resulting in deforestation or transported long distances before use. There may be regional economic benefits from production of ethanol in Windsor as well. Staff Recommendations Regarding Continued Use of Corn Ethanol in City Fleet The range of results referenced in this paper makes it difficult to determine whether the net environmental impacts of corn ethanol now are favorable or negative. While corn ethanol may offer reductions in GHG emission compared to gasoline, other alternative fuels offer greater GHG reductions on a per-gallon basis such as CNG (35% reduction) and LPG (41% reduction). However, there are only limited vehicle offerings in CNG fuel and a much wider array of vehicle types that can use ethanol. The City should carefully consider each vehicle purchase decision to find the optimal balance of life cycle costs, air pollution impacts and net greenhouse gas emissions while using the smallest vehicle application practical to meet the user needs. Since the City has already invested in ethanol through the acquisition of about 100 ethanol capable vehicles and the installation of an E85 fueling station, since ethanol currently represents a very small percentage of total City fuel use, and since the ethanol used by City fleets is City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 9 produced locally, it is not recommended to completely abandon its use at this time. If the City were to completely stop using ethanol until cellulosic ethanol becomes available, GHG emissions would increase by 265 tons and we would use 24,000 more gallons of petroleum fuel, based on 2009 usage levels. If predictions hold true, the next decade will see improved methods of producing ethanol with more ethanol coming from cellulosic feedstocks, so the net environmental impacts are likely to improve. Accordingly, the City’s Legislative Policy Agenda calls for the City to “Support programs and policies that promote advanced low emission vehicle technology; and encourage or promote alternative fuels such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen and compressed natural gas.” The City should also continue efforts to reduce the GHG emissions from transportation through “demand management” approaches such as efforts to reduce the amount of driving and unnecessary idling. In summary, staff recommends that the City continue using E85 vehicles and fuels until other alternative fuels and vehicles become locally viable. The City should annually evaluate whether new CNG vehicle options or other clean fuels choices have become available to meet the City's goals. It is anticipated that cellulosic ethanol may be locally available by the middle of this decade. References 1 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol 2 Estimating the Net Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol Hosein Shapouri, James A. Duffield, and Michael S. Graboski Agricultural Economics Report No. (AER721) 24 pp, July 1995 www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer721/ 3 Hill, Jason; Nelson, Erik; Tilman, David; Polasky, Stephen; and Tiffany, Douglas (July 25 2006). "Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (30): 11206–10. doi:10.1073/pnas.0604600103. PMID 16837571 4 Green Dreams: Making fuel from crops could be good for the planet—after a breakthrough or two. Joel K. Bourne, Jr., National Geographic, October 2007. Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-text on April 5, 2010 5 Pimentel, David and Patzek, Tad. Ethanol Production Using Corn, Swithcgrass and Wood: Biodiels Prodcution using Soybeans and Sunflower. Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14:1, 65-76. March 2005 6 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance#cite_note-10 7 Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals Alexander E. Farrell, Richard J. Plevin, Brian T. Turner, Andrew D. Jones, Michael O’Hare, Daniel M. Kammen 506 27 January 2006 vol 311 Science City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 10 8 “Ethanol Production, Distribution and Use”. Presentation by NREL to Rocky Mountain Fleet Managers Association, May 14, 2008. Source: http://www.colorado.gov/energy/images/uploads/pdfs/BiofuelsScienceResponse.pdf 9 Source: http://www.colorado.gov/energy/index.php?/renewable/ethanol 10 Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Results of Ethanol Fuel. Presentation by Michael Wang, Argonne National Lab, September 2005. Source: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/354.pdf 11 EPA Lifecycle Analysis of GHG Emissions for Renewable Fuels. EPA-420-F-10-006. February 2010. Source: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f10006.pfd 12 M. Wang, C. Saricks, D. Santini. "Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions" (PDF). Argonne National Laboratory. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/58.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-07. 13 M. Wang. "Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Effects of Fuel Ethanol" (PDF). http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/271.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-07. 14 Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt", Tilman http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/files/land_clearing_and_the_biofuel_carbon_debt.pdf 15 "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions from Land Use Change”, http://www.whrc.org/resources/published_literature/pdf/SearchingeretalScience08.pdf 16 Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change, By David Biello, February 7, 2008. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biofuels-bad-for-people-and-climate 17 “New Studies Portray Unbalanced Perspectives on Biofuels”, DOE Response. Source: http://www.colorado.gov/energy/images/uploads/pdfs/BiofuelsScienceResponse.pdf 18 “Indirect Emissions from Biofuels: How Important?” Jerry M. Melillo, John M. Reilly, David W. Kicklighter, Angelo C. Gurgel, Timothy W. Cronin, Sergey Paltsev, Benjamin S. Felzer, Xiaodong Wang, Andrei P. Sokolov, C. Adam Schlosser http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1180251 19 “Feds conclude corn-based biofuels help reduce emissions, in contrast to California regulators, who said they don't. Who's right? Oddly enough, both may be”, By Douglas Fischer, Daily Climate. February 12, 2010 Source: http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2010/02/ethanols-contrasting-carbon- footprints 20 The State of Food Production and Agriculture 2008: Biofuels: Prospects, Risks and Opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations. Rome, 2008. Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0100e/i0100e00.htm City of Fort Collins, Natural Resources Department May 27, 2010 11 21 “Study warns of health risk from ethanol”, Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer, Wednesday, April 18, 2007. Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/18/MNG7EPAN601.DTL#ixzz0kS1TSluU 22 Hill, Jason, Stephen Polasky, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Hong Huo, Lindsay Ludwig, James Neumann, Haochi Zheng, and Diego Bonta. "Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline.(SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE)(Author abstract)." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 106.6 (Feb 10, 2009): 2077(6). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. BENTLEY UPPER SCHOOL LIBRARY (BAISL). 6 Oct. 2009 23 Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States, by the Committee on Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States, National Research Council, 2008. Text from http://news.mongabay.com/bioenergy/2007/10/report-increase-in-first-generation.html 24 Ethanol Benchmarking and Best Practices. The Production Process and Potential for Improvement. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program. March 2008. (Source: http://www.mntap.umn.edu/MnTAP%20Ethanol%20Report.pdf) 25 “Ethanol Production, Distribution and Use”. Presentation by NREL to Rocky Mountain Fleet Managers Association, May 14, 2008. Source: http://www.colorado.gov/energy/images/uploads/pdfs/BiofuelsScienceResponse.pdf 26 Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_energy_policy_will_incr.html 27 Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ethanol-corn-climate 28 Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis: Changes to Renewable Fuels Policy. EPA-420-D-09-001, May 2009. Source: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420d09001.pdf 1 1 City’s Use of E85 Corn-Ethanol City Council Work Session November 8, 2011 2 Questions for Council to Consider 1. Should the City continue its approach to E85? • Alt. 4: Increase use of E85 2. If not, which of the other three alternatives do you prefer? • Alt. 1: Stop using ethanol • Alt. 2: Continue using at current levels only • Alt. 3: Switch from E85 to E50 3. Do you need more information? ATTACHMENT 5 2 3 The Issue Member(s) of Council raised questions about the City’s use of a corn-based fuel (E85) based on the social implication of using corn as a fuel source. Possible Fuel-based Alternatives 1. Stop using ethanol 2. Continue using ethanol at current levels only 3. Switch from E85 to E50 4. Increase use of E85 (recommended by AQAB) 4 Sources of Ethanol Corn ethanol • 13.2 billion gallons produced in USA in 2010. • Ethanol market share in gas supply grew from 1% in 2000 to 10% in 2010. Sugar ethanol • Brazil is the largest producer of sugar ethanol • No sugar ethanol plants in the U.S. Cellulosic ethanol • Produced from wood, grasses, or the non-edible part of plants 3 5 Renewable Fuels Standard 2 2022 16.0 36.0 2021 13.5 33.0 2019 8.5 28.0 2017 5.5 24.0 2015 3.0 20.5 2014 1.75 18.15 2013 1.0 16.55 2012 0.5 15.2 0.25 13.95 2011 0.0066 Cellulosic Total Year biofuel 6 Renewable Fuels Standard 4 7 Outline 1. City policies 2. Approaches to address City policy 3. Existing City use of E85 (vehicles, stations) 4. Impacts of Corn Ethanol 5. Analysis of Alternatives 6. Board Recommendation 8 City policies Reduce GHG emissions from municipal operations at least 2 % in order to achieve a reduction of 20% below 2005 levels by 2020; ultimately to achieve carbon neutrality for the municipal organization. Reduce traditional fuel use by the City’s vehicle fleet by 20% by 2020 Reduce dependence on foreign oil (Administrative Policy 5.2 C1) 5 9 City Plan policy Policy ENV 9.1 – Promote Alternative and Efficient Transportation Fuels and Vehicles Promote alternative and efficient transportation fuels and vehicles that improve air quality. Invest in infrastructure throughout the City to support alternative fuel vehicles and promote the use of such vehicles through education and incentives. 10 City policies Legislative Policy Agenda 2011 Support programs and policies that promote advanced low emission vehicle technology; and encourage or promote alternative fuels such as biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen and compressed natural gas. 6 11 Approaches to address City policies Driving Behavior Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Carbon Intensity of Fuel 12 City Vehicle Purchasing Policies Vehicle purchasing hierarchy 1. Hybrid 2. Alternative fueled 3. Down-size vehicle Purchase an alternative fuel vehicle if: • Fueling infrastructure is in place • Job application fits OEM vehicle • Economics are beneficial to City (considers life cycle) • Vehicle meets needs of department 7 13 Alt. Fuel Vehicle Suitability & Availability Propane CNG PHEV Hybrid Electric Flex Fuel Bio- diesel Fuel Efficient Incremental Cost $8-10K $50-60K busses; $5K vans $8-9K $2-4K na zero zero na Busses XX Staff cars X X X X Patrol X Pickups X X X X Hvy trucks X 14 Fort Collins 2010 Fuel Usage Biodiesel 38% Propane 1% Unleaded 36% E85 8% (62,000 gallons) CNG 12% Diesel 1% 8 15 City E85 Use City Fleet E85 Use 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 200520062007200820092010 Gallons 16 City E85 Use 96 flex-fuel, E85-capable vehicles 7 Local E85 fueling stations • Poudre Valley Fuel Co-op on East Mulberry • Western Convenience on West Drake Road • Western Convenience on Jefferson St. • City Fleet Shop on Wood Street • Fossil Creek Park • Spring Canyon Park • Police Services 9 17 City E85 use 18 Costs Fuel E85 price varies around $3/gallon Unleaded prices varies $3- $4/gallon E85 is only 2/3-3/4 as fuel efficient as gasoline “Break even” point varies with fuel costs and vehicle Flex Fuel vehicles No added cost for flex fuel vehicles Fueling Infrastructure Governor’s Energy Office grant for $30K funded 2 City ethanol fueling stations 10 19 E85 Tailpipe Benefits (gm/mi)* • 17-23% reduction in CO2 (carbon dioxide) • 20% reduction in CO (carbon monoxide) • 30% reduction in PM (particulate matter) • 18% reduction in NOx (nitrogen oxides) (up to 50% in non-FFV) • Reduction in aromatics (benzene, 1,3 butadiene) • (Increase in aldehydes; formaldehyde 50% increase) *Source: Dept. of Energy’s Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicle Data Center 20 E85 – Other Air Quality Benefits Evaporative E85 Reid Vapor Pressure lower than gas Ground level ozone VOC contribution to ground level ozone less than gas (Source: AWMA, Yanowitz, V59, Feb 2009) 11 21 Energy Balance Compares the amount of fossil energy used to make ethanol against the total amount of energy released when it is burned. • Ethanol: + 1.24 (positive) • Gasoline: - 1.23 (negative) 22 (BTU/gallon burned minus BTU/gallon to make it) 12 23 Greenhouse Gas Emissions U.S. Dept. of Energy – corn ethanol life cycle emissions are 20% lower than gasoline Obama administration – corn ethanol will meet RFS low carbon fuel definition (lifecycle emissions are at least 20% below 2005 gas or diesel) by 2022. California - rejected corn ethanol as a strategy to mitigate its carbon emissions based on current lifecycle emissions. 24 Water Impacts of Growing Corn Expanding biofuel crops into dry areas will greatly increase pressure on water resources. (Nat’l Research Council 2008) Nitrogen fertilizer for biofuels contributes to high nitrogen in streams and ground water (ecosystem nitrification and human/anima health problems). Ethanol production itself uses water and releases phosphorous and chlorine. Increased ethanol production could impact Ogallala Aquifer resources. (Enviro. Defense 2007) 13 25 Land Use Impacts of Growing Corn Clearing new land for biofuel crops will release more carbon into the air than was previously sequestered in the soil and plants. More corn gown here means less soy, so more land/rainforests cleared in other countries for soy, with associated carbon release from deforestation. Increased corn production can lead to reduced crop rotation and depleted soil nutrients due to over- farming. 26 Impact of corn-based fuel on food prices World Bank attributes 70% of food price rise in 2007- 2008 to biofuel crop expansion. Council of Economic Advisors (2008) attributes 20% of food price rise in 2007-2008 to US biofuel crop expansion; 35% to global corn ethanol production. Congressional Budget Office (2009) attributes 10-20% of food price rise in 2007-2008 to biofuel crop expansion. 14 27 Capacity of US to produce corn ethanol 2001 - ~ 7% of US corn crop used for ethanol (CRES) 2009 – 26% US grain crop used to produce ethanol 2017/2018 – estimated 33% of US corn crop used to produced ethanol 28 Alternatives Analysis 1. Stop using ethanol • Increase City GHG inventory ~ 525 MTCO2 (1.2%) • Increase air poll’n emissions that contribute to ozone • Reduce certain air toxics (aldehydes) • Might have to pay back GEO $30,000 for stations • Will not grow ethanol infrastructure • Will use more imported fuel (unleaded) unless another alternative found 15 29 Alternatives Analysis 2. Continue using ethanol at current levels only • Lose future potential to reduce GHG and air pollution emissions thru expanded E85 use • May end up paying higher total fuel costs if unleaded price rises and E85 does not. 30 Alternatives Analysis 3. Switch from E85 to E50 • E50 can be made available locally at no extra cost • Increase carbon emissions 275 MTCO2 • Keep grant money from GEO for E85 station • Maintains support for ethanol infrastructure so we can take advantage of cellulosic ethanol when commercially available 16 31 Alternatives Analysis 4. Increase use of E85 • Realize greater carbon reductions • Keep grant money from GEO for E85 station • Supports investment in ethanol infrastructure to take advantage of cellulosic ethanol when commercially available 32 City white paper statement July 2010 • Corn ethanol provides a near-term way for the City to reduce its fleet GHG emissions, and its use is considered reasonable as a transition strategy until more sustainable biofuels are locally available. To exit from the use of corn-based ethanol, the City will routinely evaluate whether other clean fuels choices have become available to meet the City's goals. 17 33 AQAB Recommendation • To continue to use E85 as an alternative fuel on the current trajectory • To encourage staff to continue to look for options and alternatives to traditional oil-based fuel sources • To develop and implement a plan to encourage EcoDriving • To maintain the City’s focus to reduce GHG and meet the goals of the Climate Action Plan (Motion passed unanimously ) 34 Questions for Council to Consider 1. Should the City continue its approach to E85? • Alt. 4: Increase use of E85 2. If not, which of the other three alternatives do you prefer? • Alt. 1: Stop using ethanol • Alt. 2: Continue using at current levels only • Alt. 3: Switch from E85 to E50 3. Do you need more information? trEndS • % of renewable energy purchased by the City (.0001%) • Volumes of office solid waste generated • Electricity use inSufficiEnt data • Water use in buildings • % of alternative fleet vehicles • # of LEED employee • % of LED traffic lights • Average vehicle ridership • Adherence to EPP policies • Energy consumption related to water use nEutral SuStainability trEndS • Number of sustainability scholarships awarded in 2009 • Diversion rate for office solid waste • 30 % forest canopy goal • # of LEED buildings Municipality served by public transportation 61% yes Transfort Residents offered incentives to take public transit (free days, reduced fares, etc) 25% yes Intermittent programs like “Try Transfort” and reduced fare bus passes for large employers Community-wide hike and bike trails in place 65% yes 25 miles in City limits /99 miles on City-owned property. Bicycle lanes present on roadways 70% yes 28 miles of bike lanes, and 30+ miles of bike trails Residential yard waste is composted 63% partial Voluntary self-haul and one of the three main haulers has a subscription service. Municipality has a tree canopy cover goal 39% yes 30% canopy goal Tree ordinance adopted specifying planting/removal requirements for developers 75% yes Tree ordinance adopted specifying planting/removal requirements for developers (Land Use Code 3.2.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection). Q3 2010 10/2010 ATTACHMENT 1 January 10, 2012 Environmental Health 10 Stormwater Program Review Jon Haukaas Utilities quarterly updates to Council Safe Communities 11 Platte River Power Authority Organic Contract/Supply Agreement Steve Catanach Utilities Revised Contract adopted 6/1/10 061, 2010 062, 2010 Electric Board to review annually and suggest any revisions November 2011 12 Utility Specifications - Stormwater Best Management Practices and Design Criteria Jon Haukaas Utilities 11/15/2011 Safe Communities/ Environmental Health SERVICE AREA: UTITLITY SERVICES Page 6 11/3/2011 These plans will be consolidated as part of a full update of the Downtown Plan. May be submitted as a 2013-14 BFO offer depending upon work load and available resources Page 3 11/3/2011 Planning 3/2/2004 2004-038 Update 2011-016 Updated 2/15/2011 2016 Transportation 8 Master Street Plan Kathleen Bracke Transportation Planning 3/2/2004 2004-038 Update 2011-017 Updated 2/15/2011 2016 Transportation 9 Pedestrian Plan Kathleen Bracke Transportation Planning 8/20/1996 1996-093 Update 2011-018 Updated 2/15/2011 2016 Transportation 10 US 287 Access Management Plan (South College Avenue) Kathleen Bracke Transportation Planning 4/16/2002 2002-018 Plan is almost 10 years old, should be updated as part of Midtown Corridor Transporation Study 2013 (proposed) Transportation 11 US287/SH14 Access Managment Plan (North College / Jefferson / Riverside / Mulberry) Kathleen Bracke Transportation Planning 4/4/2000 2000-053 Plan is more than 10 years old and needs to be updated pending available budget 2014 (proposed) Transportation 12 Harmony Road Access Management Plan Kathleen Bracke Transportation Planning 11/24/2004 Harmony Access Plan to be reviewed and updated as part of the scheduled Harmony Corridor ETC Master Plan (2012) 2011-2012 Transportation SERVICE AREA: POLICY, PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION Page 2 11/3/2011