The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 02/14/2012 - 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 February 14, 2012 6 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Colorado State University Master Plan Update. (staff: Darin Atteberry; CSU Planning staff: Amy Parsons, Steve Hultin, Fred Haberecht, and Dr. Tony Frank; 90 minute discussion) This item will be a presentation from Colorado State University’s planning staff to update the City on CSU’s current Physical Master Plan process. The presentation will include a survey of buildings under construction, buildings funded and planned for construction and a framework for future growth, including a framework for housing, parking, research and academic buildings. 3. Student Housing Action Plan. (staff: Beth Sowder; 1 hour discussion) The purpose of this work session is to provide Council with an update on the Student Housing Action Plan project and to receive feedback from Council regarding the community engagement process, the process for identifying action items, and the proposed timeline. February 14, 2012 The purpose of Student Housing Action Plan project is to work with Colorado State University, Front Range Community College, neighbors, students, and other stakeholders to identify strategies and recommend action items to address the increasing need for multi-family student housing and potential impacts and compatibility issues upon existing neighborhoods. Feedback received through the community engagement process will drive the specific recommendations and action items, which could include procedural or process changes, Code changes, design criteria, and mechanisms for review and monitoring. 4. Report on Integrated Recycling Facility (Feasibility Analysis). (staff: Susie Gordon, Bruce Hendee; 45 minute discussion) To help reach the community’s goal of diverting 50% of the waste stream, the City examined drop-off systems which would facilitate materials diversion for residents. A consulting firm was hired in 2011 to do the work using Keep Fort Collins Great funds. This work session will review a final draft of an Integrated Recycling Facility (IRF) report that evaluates three types of expanded drop-off facilities, including analyses of each option’s financial structure and waste diversion potential. Geographic siting information and property costs were evaluated for 23 properties in Fort Collins as part of the IRF study. Because the sites represent potential real estate transactions they will not be discussed in the work session. However, it would be useful to gather Council perspective on general location considerations within the City. A second consulting project currently underway, called the Waste Stream Study and Waste Stream Conversion Technologies Review, will not be discussed until a later work session. 5. Other Business. 6. Adjournment. DATE: February 14, 2012 STAFF: Darin Atteberry CSU Planning Staff Pre-taped staff presentation: none WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Colorado State University Master Plan Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item will be a presentation from Colorado State University’s planning staff to update the City on CSU’s current Physical Master Plan process. The presentation will include a survey of buildings under construction, buildings funded and planned for construction and a framework for future growth, including a framework for housing, parking, research and academic buildings. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED This item is presented for Council’s information only. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The CSU Master Plan (Foundation for a New Century) provides the framework for design and serves as a working document that is updated every 10 years. Foundation for a New Century provides the basis for individual long-range plans and sub-plans. Long range plans include campus circulation, transit, building revitalization, landscape and gardens, utilities, and land acquisition. The subplans include outdoor lighting and safety, signage, drainage, art in public places, ADA Transition Plan, plaza improvements, and plans for outlying campuses. Colorado State University is in the process of updating the Physical Master Plans for the South, Foothills and Main campuses. Completion of the update and approval by the CSU Board of Governors and the Colorado Commission on Higher Education is required by statute to be completed in calendar year 2014. The update will provide a framework for future growth of the University and will specifically address on-campus housing, parking, circulation, academic and research buildings and campus open space. The update process stated in 2010, with a series of presentations of the updated Master Plan, including presentations to the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board, Larimer County Planning and Zoning Commission, University Transit and Mobility Committee and numerous internal university standing committees. Feedback from these presentations has been incorporated into the Master Plan update when appropriate. The presentation to the Fort Collins City Council will capture the update as it stands today, and include a survey of buildings under construction, buildings funded and planned for construction and a framework for future growth including a framework for housing, parking, research and academic buildings. February 14, 2012 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS 1. CSU Master Plan Update Powerpoint presentation 2-1-2012 COLLEGE LAKE RAMPART ROAD LAPORTE AVENUE SOUTH OVERLAND TRAIL HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR colorado state university FOOTHILLS, MAIN+SOUTH CAMPUS MASTER PLANS 2012 BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS NEW/FUTURE BUILDINGS UNIVERSITY AVENUE LAUREL STREET PLUM STREET SOUTH DRIVE PITKIN STREET WEST LAKE STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AGGIE LOOP REDWING ROAD RESEARCH BOULEVARD WEST DRAKE ROAD NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 1439 acres 310 acres 407 acres 0’ 200’ 400’ 800’ colorado state un AGGIE AGGIEE AGG AG AAGGI AGGI AAGG A AGGGIE AAG AGGGI AGGIIE AGGGG AAGGII AGGII AGGG AGGGGG AAGG AGGGGGGG AAAG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA GGIE G GG GGI GG GGIEE GIEE G GIE GI GG E LOOP LOOPP LO LOOOP LOOPPPP LOO LOOPPP LOOO L LOOOOO LOOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOO LOOO LOO LLLLLLLLLLLL OOP OOPP O OO OOOOP OOPPP OOO OOOP OOOO OP OPP OPPPP O OOPP OOP OOOOOO OOOO REEE REE REEEE REDWI REDW REDWW REDWWWW REDWWW REDDD RED REDD REDDDDDDD RE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR EDW EDWW EDWWWW EDD ED EDDD EEEEE DWW DW DWWW WI NG NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NGG NGGG NGGGG G GRO GR GG R RR RO ROO ADD AD ADDD ADDDD ADDDDD AAAAAAAAA D RESEAA RESSEA RESEA RESE RRRESEA RES RRESEA RE RRES R REESE RRE RRRES REESEA E ESEA ES EES ESE EE ESEAA ESEAAA SEA S SE SEAAA SEEA EA E EAA EEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARCH A AA RCH RRCH RC RCHHH RRC CH CHHB C CHHH CHH CCH CCCH CHHHHB HHBB HB H HH HHB HHHHHB HHHHHH HHH HHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOULEV B OULEV OOULEV OULE OULEVV OU OUL OULEE OOULE O OULEEV OUULEV OOULEEV OUULLEV ULEV U UUULEV UL ULE UULE UUUL UUUUL ULLLLLLEV ULEVV LEV LE L LLEV LL LEEEE LEE EV EEV EVV E EVVVVVVVVARD V ARD AARD AR AAARD AARRD AAAAAAARD ARRRRD ARDD RD R RDD RRD RR RRRD RDDD RDDDDDDDDDDD WEST EST ST SST SSTTT SSTT DR DRA DDDDDDDDDRAKE DDRA DDDRRRR DRRA DDDDDDDRAKE DRRRRRRA DDDDDDDRRRRRR DRAKE RA RRA RAAA RAAAAAAAAAAAAKE RAKE RR AKE AKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRROA RROA ROA RO RRROA RRRRRRRRO ROOA ROOOO RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRO ROOOOOAD RRRRRRRRRRRROA RRRO ROOOOOOOAADDDDDDD ROAD O OA OOOOOOAAADDDDDDDD OOOOOOOOAAADDDDD OAD 310 3333333333333333333333333 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 acres COLLEGE LAKE RAMPA RAMPART RT R TRO RO AD LAPOR LAPORTE TE AV AVENUE ENUE SS PITKI PITK PITKIN N STR STREET EET WEST EST LAKE AKE AK STREE STREETTTT SHIEL HIELDS DS WEST PROSPECT PROSP PROSPPECT ECT ROAD R ROAAD OAD CENTR CENT CE C N E AVENUEE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS Provide space and facilities that support the University’s programmatic role and mission. Provide physical character that symbolizes the University’s role in society. 2-1-2012 colorado state university MAIN CAMPUS MASTER PLAN 2004 MASON STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE LAUREL STREET PLUM STREET SOUTH DRIVE PITKIN STREET WEST LAKE STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 0’ 100’ 200’ 400’ EE E ET T MM EE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN THE OVAL ME MMMMMMMMMMMME MMMMMMMMMMMM ER E R RI ID D SS HI H EL E LD D DS S SS ST S TR RE R EE E ET TT UNIVERSITY TTY TY TT AVEN AVENUE UE PEDESTRIAN CORE CITY POPULATION: 127,033 25,400 students BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS NEW/FUTURE BUILDINGS 2 7 2-1-2012 colorado state university 2012 MAIN CAMPUS CURRENT CONDITION: N Lake St. Shields St. LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSStttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt.. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSShhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSttttttttttttttttttttttt.. THE OVAL EXISTING + APPROVED BUILDINGS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SHIELDS STREET MERIDIAN AVENUE SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE MASON STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST LAKE STREET WEST LAKE STREET PROSPECT ROAD PITKIN STREET SOUTH DRIVE PLUM STREET LAUREL STREET PITKIN STREET UN ERSITY AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CORE CITY POPULATION: 143,986 27,000 students 3 8 2-1-2012 colorado state university 2012 MAIN CAMPUS PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION N Lake St. Shields St. La LLLLa LLLa LLLLLLLLa LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLa Laa LLa Laaa LLLLLa Laaaaaaa Laaaaaa Laaaa LLaa LLLLLaaa LLLLaaaa LLLLLLLaa LLaaaa Laaaaaakkkkkkke kkkkkke ke kke keeeeeee kkkkkkke kee keee kkkkkeeeee kkkkkkkkke kkkkkeee kkkkkkkkkke kkeee kkkkkkkke kkkkke kkke keeeeee keeee kkkkkeeee keeeeeeeeee kkkke kkeeeeeeee kkeeee kkkkeee kkkkkkee k SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSttttttttttttttt. ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. ttttt. t. tttttttt. ttttttt. ttttttttttttttttttttt. tttttttttttt. tt. tttttttttt. ttt. tttttttttttttttttt. tttttt.tttt. . Sh Shhhh Shhhhhhh Shhh Shh Shhhhh Shhhhhhhh SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS ie ieee ieeee iee ieeeeee ieeeee ieeeeeee iiie ieeeeeeeeee iiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ld lddd ldd lddddddddd ldddd ldddddddd lddddddddddddd ldddddddddddddddddddddd lddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd ldddddd ldddddddddd ldddddddddddd lddddddddddddddddddddd lddddddddddd lddddd llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss SSt St Stt Sttttt SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS . THE OVAL SHIELDS STREET MERIDIAN AVENUE SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE MASON STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST LAKE STREET WEST LAKE STREET PROSPECT ROAD PITKIN STREET SOUTH DRIVE PLUM STREET LAUREL STREET PITKIN STREET 1 2 3 4 5 1. Engineering 2 2 & 4. Parmelee & Braiden Halls 3. Lory Student Center Theater 5. Morgan Library Study Cube 4 2-1-2012 colorado state university 2012 MAIN CAMPUS FUNDED PROJECTS N 1 2 3 1. Academic Village North 2. Lory Student Center Addition & Renovation 3. Animal Sciences 5 2-1-2012 colorado state university 2011 MAIN CAMPUS CURRENT CONDITION: GREEN SPACE 42% HARDSCAPE 43% BUILDING COVERAGE 15% OPEN . PUBLIC ART . HORIZONTAL . VISTAS . PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED total acreage: 407 trees: 4,590 assigned square footage: 6,225,727 vehicle parking spaces: 10,798 bicycle parking spaces: 13,860 169 acres 63 acres 175 acres 27,000 students 6 2-1-2012 UNIVERSITY AVENUE LAUREL STREET PLUM STREET SOUTH DRIVE PITKIN STREET WEST LAKE STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE 0’ 100’ 200’ 400’ BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS NEW/FUTURE BUILDINGS colorado state university MAIN CAMPUS MASTER PLAN 2012 35,000 students 7 GUIDING PRINCIPLES LAUREL STREET SOUTH DRIVE WEST LAKE STREET W ELIZABETH STREET E ELIZABETH STREET EAST PITKIN STREET PLUM STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE 2-1-2012 13 8 colorado state university MAIN CAMPUS FRAMEWORK DIAGRAM: Pedestrian + Green Space, 35,000 students EE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN • Restrict Development in 100 Year Flood Plain THE OVAL SOOU OUTH DRIV DRIVEE THE GREAT GREEN LAGOON GREEN SPACE P.E.R.C BAND FIELD TRACK FIELD MONFORT QUAD SCIENCE QUAD LIBERAL ARTS QUAD FLOWER GARDENS BUSINESS QUAD NATURAL RESOURCES QUAD • Maintain + Reinforce Green Quads + Open Spaces • Establish Green Setbacks at Campus Edges 40FT. SETBACK 100FT. SETBACK 40FT. SETBACK 40FT. SETBACK CAMPUS IDENTITY CORNER CAMPUS IDENTITY CORNER CAMPUS GUIDING PRINCIPLES LAUREL STREET SOUTH DRIVE WEST LAKE STREET W ELIZABETH STREET E ELIZABETH STREET EAST PITKIN STREET PLUM STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE 2-1-2012 13 9 LAKE STREET GARAGE FUTURE PARKING GARAGE MOBY PARKING LOT ENGINEERING PARKING LOT LIBRARY PARKING LOT PERC PARKING LOT UNIVERSITY PARKING LOT FUTURE PARKING GARAGE FUTURE PARKING GARAGE • Provide parking at campus edges + key internal locations FUTURE PARKING GARAGE FUTURE PARKING GARAGE Vehicular • Make Campus Permeable to the Community • Maintain vehicle access MERIDIAN AVENUE UUUUUNIV YY CENTR TR TRE E AVE VE VVV NN NUE NU N UE UU WEST LAKE STREET LAUREL STREET SOUTH DRIVE WEST LAKE STREET 2-1-2012 VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS NEW/FUTURE BUILDINGS colorado state university MAIN CAMPUS MASTER PLAN 35,000 students 2012 10 GUIDING PRINCIPLES LAUREL STREET SOUTH DRIVE WEST LAKE STREET W ELIZABETH STREET E ELIZABETH STREET EAST PITKIN STREET PLUM STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE colorado state university MAIN CAMPUS FUTURE CONSTRUCTION: 35,000 students 2-1-2012 11 12 THE OVAL ACADEMIC + OTHER STRUCTURED PARKING STUDENT HOUSING N 0’ 100’ 200’ 400’ 2-1-2012 GREEN SPACE 30% BUILDING COVERAGE 20% total acreage: 407 trees: 5,049 vehicle parking spaces: 14,035 bicycle parking spaces: 18,018 122 acres 81 acres HARDSCAPE 50% 203 acres assigned square footage: 6,769,568 colorado state university OPENCAMPUS . PUBLIC ART . HORIZONTAL . VISTAS . PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED FUTURE MAIN 35,000 students 12 2-1-2012 COLLEGE LAKE RAMPART ROAD LAPORTE AVENUE SOUTH OVERLAND TRAIL HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR colorado state university FOOTHILLS, MAIN+SOUTH CAMPUS MASTER PLANS 2012 BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS NEW/FUTURE BUILDINGS UNIVERSITY AVENUE LAUREL STREET PLUM STREET SOUTH DRIVE PITKIN STREET WEST LAKE STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AGGIE LOOP REDWING ROAD RESEARCH BOULEVARD WEST DRAKE ROAD NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 1439 acres 310 acres 407 acres 0’ 200’ 400’ 800’ colorado state un AGGIE AGGIEE AGG AG AAGGI AGGI AAGG A AGGGIE AAG AGGGI AGGIIE AGGGG AAGGII AGGII AGGG AGGGGG AAGG AGGGGGGG AAAG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA GGIE G GG GGI GG GGIEE GIEE G GIE GI GG E LOOP LOOPP LO LOOOP LOOPPPP LOO LOOPPP LOOO L LOOOOO LOOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOO LOOO LOO LLLLLLLLLLLL OOP OOPP O OO OOOOP OOPPP OOO OOOP OOOO OP OPP OPPPP O OOPP OOP OOOOOO OOOO REEE REE REEEE REDWI REDW REDWW REDWWWW REDWWW REDDD RED REDD REDDDDDDD RE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR EDW EDWW EDWWWW EDD ED EDDD EEEEE DWW DW DWWW WI NG NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NGG NGGG NGGGG G GRO GR GG R RR RO ROO ADD AD ADDD ADDDD ADDDDD AAAAAAAAA D RESSEA RESEA RESE RRRESEA RES RRESEA RESEAA RE RRES R REESE RRE RRRES REESEA ESEAA ESEAAA EES E ESEA ES ESE EE SEA S SE SEAAA SEEA EA E EAA EEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARCH A AA RCH RRCH RC RCHHH RRC CH CHHB C CHHH CHH CCH CCCH CHHHHB HB H HH HHBB HHB HHHHHB HHHHHH HHH HHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOULEV B OULEVV OULEE OULEEV OOULEEV OUULLEV OULEV OOULEV OULE OU OUL OOULE O OUULEV ULEV U ULEVV UUULEV UL ULE UULE UUUL UUUUL ULLLLLLEV LEV LE L LLEV LL LEEEE LEE EVVVVVVVVARD EV EEV EVV E V ARD AARD AR AAARD AAAAAAARD ARDD AARRD ARRRRD RD R RDD RRD RR RRRD RDDD RDDDDDDDDDDD WEST EST ST SST SSTTT SSTT DR DRA DDDDDDDDDRAKE DDRA DDDRRRR DRRA DDDDDDDRAKE DRRRRRRA DDDDDDDRRRRRR DRAKE RA RRA RAAA RAAAAAAAAAAAAKE RAKE RR AKE AKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRROA RROA ROA RO RRROA RRRRRRRRO ROOA ROOOO RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRO ROOOOOAD RRRRRRRRRRRROA RRRO ROOOOOOOAADDDDDDD ROAD O OA OOOOOOAAADDDDDDDD OOOOOOOOAAADDDDD OAD 310 3333333333333333333333333 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 acres COLLEGE LAKE RAMPA RAMPART RT R TRO RO AD LAPOR LAPORTE TE AV AVENUE ENUE SS PITKI PITK PITKIN N STR STREET EET WEST EST LAKE AKE AK STREE STREETTTT SHIEL HIELDS DS WEST PROSPECT PROSP PROSPPECT ECT ROAD R ROAAD OAD CENTR CENT CE C N E AVENUEE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS Provide space and facilities that support the University’s programmatic role and mission. Provide physical character that symbolizes the University’s role in society. 2-1-2012 AGGIE LOOP REDWING ROAD CENTRE AVENUE RESEARCH BOULEVARD WEST DRAKE ROAD N colorado state university SOUTH CAMPUS CURRENT CONDITION 2012 EXISTING + FUNDED BUILDINGS 14 2-1-2012 colorado state university 2012 SOUTH CAMPUS CURRENT CONDITION: total (VTH Campus) acreage: 138 trees: 556 assigned square footage: 902,677 vehicle parking spaces: 879 bicycle parking spaces: 172 GREEN SPACE 42% BUILDING COVERAGE 11% HARDSCAPE 47% 58 acres 15 acres 65 acres OPEN . STRONG PRESENCE ON DRAKE AVENUE . PUBLIC CONNECTION 27,000 students 15 2-1-2012 16 AGGIE LOOP REDWING ROAD RE- WEST DRAKE ROAD colorado state university SOUTH CAMPUS MASTER PLAN 2012 N CENTRE AVENUE BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS NEW/FUTURE BUILDINGS GUIDING PRINCIPLES colorado state university SOUTH CAMPUS FRAMEWORK DIAGRAM LEGEND WEST DRAKE ROAD CENTRE AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE RESEARCH BOULEVARD N 2-1-2012 17 • No Development in 100 Year Floodway 100 YEAR FLOODWAY SOUTH CAMPUS GREEN VTH QUAD VTH POND • Maintain + Reinforce Green Quads, Open Spaces CAMPUS IDENTITY GATEWAY CAMPUS IDENTITY CORNER CAMPUS IDENTITY GATEWAY CAMPUS IDENTITY GATEWAY NT NTTTRE RE A AVENU VENU NUEEEEEEEEEEE 100 00 YEAR FLOODWA DWWWW DW W YYYYYY GREEN SETBACK GGGGGGGGGGGG GREEN SETBACK CA • Establish Green Setbacks at Campus Edges GREEN SETBACK UUUUUUUULEVAR LEVAR LEVA VT TH QUA AD DDDDDDDDDDDD VTH POND NDDDDD NDDDDDDDDDDD D CAMP AMP MP MPPP M US USS DEN DDDDDDDDDD TITY ITY ATE AAA WAY AY CAMP CAM CAMM C US USS IDEN IDDD TITY TYY CORN CCORN CO C ER ERR CAM CA CAAM AMP AM US USS IDEN IDE IDD D DE TITY TIT ITY GATE GAT GATEWAY WAY WAAA AY AMPUS US UUS EN E TITY TIT II TY TE TEEEEEEEEWAY WA WWA UUUUUUUULEVARD LEVARD LEVARDD CCCC SPRING CREEK TRAIL • Establish Pedestrian + Bike Gateways CAMPUS BIKEWAY 2-1-2012 total (VTH Campus) acreage: 138 assigned square footage: 1,092,239 vehicle parking spaces: 1015 bicycle parking spaces: 199 GREEN SPACE 22% BUILDING COVERAGE 21% HARDSCAPE 57% 46 acres 17 acres 71 acres trees: 414 OPEN . STRONG PRESENCE ON DRAKE AVENUE . PUBLIC CONNECTION colorado state university FUTURE SOUTH CAMPUS 35,000 students 18 2-1-2012 COLLEGE LAKE RAMPART ROAD LAPORTE AVENUE SOUTH OVERLAND TRAIL HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR colorado state university FOOTHILLS, MAIN+SOUTH CAMPUS MASTER PLANS 2012 BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS NEW/FUTURE BUILDINGS UNIVERSITY AVENUE LAUREL STREET PLUM STREET SOUTH DRIVE PITKIN STREET WEST LAKE STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AGGIE LOOP REDWING ROAD RESEARCH BOULEVARD WEST DRAKE ROAD NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 1439 acres 310 acres 407 acres 0’ 200’ 400’ 800’ colorado state un AGGIE AGGIEE AGG AG AAGGI AGGI AAGG A AGGGIE AAG AGGGI AGGIIE AGGGG AAGGII AGGII AGGG AGGGGG AAGG AGGGGGGG AAAG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA GGIE G GG GGI GG GGIEE GIEE G GIE GI GG E LOOP LOOPP LO LOOOP LOOPPPP LOO LOOPPP LOOO L LOOOOO LOOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOO LOOO LOO LLLLLLLLLLLL OOP OOPP O OO OOOOP OOPPP OOO OOOP OOOO OP OPP OPPPP O OOPP OOP OOOOOO OOOO REEE REE REEEE REDWI REDW REDWW REDWWWW REDWWW REDDD RED REDD REDDDDDDD RE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR EDW EDWW EDWWWW EDD ED EDDD EEEEE DWW DW DWWW WI NG NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NGG NGGG NGGGG G GRO GR GG R RR RO ROO ADD AD ADDD ADDDD ADDDDD AAAAAAAAA D RESSEA RESEA RESE RRRESEA RES RRESEA RESEAA RE RRES R REESE RRE RRRES REESEA ESEAA ESEAAA EES E ESEA ES ESE EE SEA S SE SEAAA SEEA EA E EAA EEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARCH A AA RCH RRCH RC RCHHH RRC CH CHHB C CHHH CHH CCH CCCH CHHHHB HB H HH HHBB HHB HHHHHB HHHHHH HHH HHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOULEV B OULEVV OULEE OULEEV OOULEEV OUULLEV OULEV OOULEV OULE OU OUL OOULE O OUULEV ULEV U ULEVV UUULEV UL ULE UULE UUUL UUUUL ULLLLLLEV LEV LE L LLEV LL LEEEE LEE EVVVVVVVVARD EV EEV EVV E V ARD AARD AR AAARD AAAAAAARD ARDD AARRD ARRRRD RD R RDD RRD RR RRRD RDDD RDDDDDDDDDDD WEST EST ST SST SSTTT SSTT DR DRA DDDDDDDDDRAKE DDRA DDDRRRR DRRA DDDDDDDRAKE DRRRRRRA DDDDDDDRRRRRR DRAKE RA RRA RAAA RAAAAAAAAAAAAKE RAKE RR AKE AKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRROA RROA ROA RO RRROA RRRRRRRRO ROOA ROOOO RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRO ROOOOOAD RRRRRRRRRRRROA RRRO ROOOOOOOAADDDDDDD ROAD O OA OOOOOOAAADDDDDDDD OOOOOOOOAAADDDDD OAD 310 3333333333333333333333333 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 acres COLLEGE LAKE RAMPA RAMPART RT R TRO RO AD LAPOR LAPORTE TE AV AVENUE ENUE SS PITKI PITK PITKIN N STR STREET EET WEST EST LAKE AKE AK STREE STREETTTT SHIEL HIELDS DS WEST PROSPECT PROSP PROSPPECT ECT ROAD R ROAAD OAD CENTR CENT CE C N E AVENUEE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS Provide space and facilities that support the University’s programmatic role and mission. Provide physical character that symbolizes the University’s role in society. 2-1-2012 colorado state university FOOTHILS CAMPUS CURRENT CONDITION 2012 EXISTING + FUNDED BUILDINGS COLLEGE LAKE RAMPART ROAD LAPORTE AVENUE SOUTH OVERLAND TRAIL HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR LEGENDS OF RANCHING N 20 2-1-2012 colorado state university 2012 FOOTHILLS CAMPUS CURRENT CONDITIONS total acreage: 1,439 trees: 785 assigned square footage: 1,209,881 bicycle parking spaces: 761 HARDSCAPE 16% GREEN SPACE 82% BUILDING COVERAGE 2% 1178 acres 226 acres 35 acres danbihn.com OPEN . AGRARIAN . SECURE . DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE MOUNTAINS 27,000 students 21 2-1-2012 colorado state university FOOTHILS CAMPUS MASTER PLAN 2012 BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS FUTURE BUILDINGS COLLEGE LAKE RAMPART ROAD LAPORTE AVENUE SOUTH OVERLAND TRAIL HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR LEGENDS OF RANCHING N 22 GUIDING PRINCIPLES colorado state university FOOTHILLS CAMPUS FRAMEWORK DIAGRAM LEGEND 5MW SOLAR PLANT FORT COLLINS WATER TREATMENT PLANT LAPORTE AVENUE OVERLAND TRAIL N 2-1-2012 23 35,000 students ANIMAL RESEARCH ANIMAL RESEARCH LAAP LAP LA L APP A ORT ORRT ORTEA E EAA EA EEA EAVEN A VEN VENN VVV UUUUUUUU STATE FOREST NURSERY • Allocated Land for Animal Research, Preserved Land for State Forest Nursery COLLEGE HORSETOOTH LAKE RESERVOIR 5MW MW SO SOLAR LAR AR A PLA PLANT LA NT FOR OR OORRRT T TTTT C OLL OLLL OO INS IN INSS WAT WWWA WWWW ER ERR TRE TR T EATM ATM ATMMMM ATMENT T ENTT E PLA PLAA PLANT NT NNNT N AN AAA IM IMAL AL AA RE RESE SEAR ARCH CH CC AN RE RESS SSSST ST SSTT TTTAT TT AT A EE FO FORE RESS SSSSSS SS NNU NURS RSSER ER ERYY HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR CITY OPEN LANDS • Maintain + Reinforce Green Quads, Open Spaces GREEN GREENSETBACK SETBACK GE G E 100FT. ECOLOGIC BUFFER AT WATERWAYS+WATER BODIES 100FT. ECOLOGIC BUFFER AT WATERWAYS+WATER BODIES CAMPUS IDENTITY GATEWAY CAMPUS IDENTITY GATEWAY • Establish Green Setbacks at Campus Edges, Waterways + Water Bodies SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS COLLEG LAKE 2-1-2012 total acreage: 1,439 trees: 730 assigned square footage: 1,234,078 bicycle parking spaces: 799 HARDSCAPE 21% GREEN SPACE 74% BUILDING COVERAGE 4% 1095 acres 237 acres 36 acres colorado state university OPEN . AGRARIAN . SECURE . DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE MOUNTAINS FUTURE FOOTHILLS CAMPUS 35,000 students 24 2-1-2012 COLLEGE LAKE RAMPART ROAD LAPORTE AVENUE SOUTH OVERLAND TRAIL HORSETOOTH RESERVOIR colorado state university FOOTHILLS, MAIN+SOUTH CAMPUS MASTER PLANS 2012 BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY NON BOARD OF GOVERNORS PROPERTY EXISTING BUILDINGS NEW/FUTURE BUILDINGS UNIVERSITY AVENUE LAUREL STREET PLUM STREET SOUTH DRIVE PITKIN STREET WEST LAKE STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE AGGIE LOOP REDWING ROAD RESEARCH BOULEVARD WEST DRAKE ROAD NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 1439 acres 310 acres 407 acres 0’ 200’ 400’ 800’ colorado state un AGGIE AGGIEE AGG AG AAGGI AGGI AAGG A AGGGIE AAG AGGGI AGGIIE AGGGG AAGGII AGGII AGGG AGGGGG AAGG AGGGGGGG AAAG AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA GGIE G GG GGI GG GGIEE GIEE G GIE GI GG E LOOP LOOPP LO LOOOP LOOPPPP LOO LOOPPP LOOO L LOOOOO LOOOOOOOOO LOOOOOOOOOO LOOO LOO LLLLLLLLLLLL OOP OOPP O OO OOOOP OOPPP OOO OOOP OOOO OP OPP OPPPP O OOPP OOP OOOOOO OOOO REEE REE REEEE REDWI REDW REDWW REDWWWW REDWWW REDDD RED REDD REDDDDDDD RE RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR EDW EDWW EDWWWW EDD ED EDDD EEEEE DWW DW DWWW WI NG NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NGG NGGG NGGGG G GRO GR GG R RR RO ROO ADD AD ADDD ADDDD ADDDDD AAAAAAAAA D RESSEA RESEA RESE RRRESEA RES RRESEA RESEAA RE RRES R REESE RRE RRRES REESEA ESEAA ESEAAA EES E ESEA ES ESE EE SEA S SE SEAAA SEEA EA E EAA EEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARCH A AA RCH RRCH RC RCHHH RRC CH CHHB C CHHH CHH CCH CCCH CHHHHB HB H HH HHBB HHB HHHHHB HHHHHH HHH HHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH BB BBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBOULEV B OULEVV OULEE OULEEV OOULEEV OUULLEV OULEV OOULEV OULE OU OUL OOULE O OUULEV ULEV U ULEVV UUULEV UL ULE UULE UUUL UUUUL ULLLLLLEV LEV LE L LLEV LL LEEEE LEE EVVVVVVVVARD EV EEV EVV E V ARD AARD AR AAARD AAAAAAARD ARDD AARRD ARRRRD RD R RDD RRD RR RRRD RDDD RDDDDDDDDDDD WEST EST ST SST SSTTT SSTT DR DRA DDDDDDDDDRAKE DDRA DDDRRRR DRRA DDDDDDDRAKE DRRRRRRA DDDDDDDRRRRRR DRAKE RA RRA RAAA RAAAAAAAAAAAAKE RAKE RR AKE AKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEE RRRRRRRROA RROA ROA RO RRROA RRRRRRRRO ROOA ROOOO RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRO ROOOOOAD RRRRRRRRRRRROA RRRO ROOOOOOOAADDDDDDD ROAD O OA OOOOOOAAADDDDDDDD OOOOOOOOAAADDDDD OAD 310 3333333333333333333333333 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 acres COLLEGE LAKE RAMPA RAMPART RT R TRO RO AD LAPOR LAPORTE TE AV AVENUE ENUE SS PITKI PITK PITKIN N STR STREET EET WEST EST LAKE AKE AK STREE STREETTTT SHIEL HIELDS DS WEST PROSPECT PROSP PROSPPECT ECT ROAD R ROAAD OAD CENTR CENT CE C N E AVENUEE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT GOALS Provide space and facilities that support the University’s programmatic role and mission. Provide physical character that symbolizes the University’s role in society. DATE: February 14, 2012 STAFF: Beth Sowder Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Student Housing Action Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to provide Council with an update on the Student Housing Action Plan project and to receive feedback from Council regarding the community engagement process, the process for identifying action items, and the proposed timeline. The purpose of Student Housing Action Plan project is to work with Colorado State University, Front Range Community College, neighbors, students, and other stakeholders to identify strategies and recommend action items to address the increasing need for multi-family student housing and potential impacts and compatibility issues upon existing neighborhoods. Feedback received through the community engagement process will drive the specific recommendations and action items, which could include procedural or process changes, Code changes, design criteria, and mechanisms for review and monitoring. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have comments, suggestions, or questions regarding the public process to date and as proposed moving forward? 2. Does Council have comments, suggestions, or questions regarding the plan for identifying affinities and issues and developing recommended strategies and action items? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Mission and Purpose The mission of the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) is to develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide an adequate supply of quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility. The City, through the City Plan update process, identified a need to address student housing now and into the future. Fort Collins is experiencing an increase in population and student enrollment, a limited supply of multi-family housing, very low vacancy rates, increasing rental prices, and challenges in addressing neighborhood concerns with potential development projects. These factors are driving the need for the development of strategies and action items to help facilitate adequate February 14, 2012 Page 2 student housing supplies while identifying impacts upon existing neighborhoods and developing strategies to resolve compatibility issues. The SHAP project is a collaborative effort with Colorado State University (CSU), Front Range Community College (FRCC), neighbors, property owners, developers and designers, CSU Research Foundation, Fort Collins Board of Realtors, Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association, Associated Students of CSU, CSU and FRCC students at large, and more. The effort has included a community outreach process conducted with the assistance of CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation, a department dedicated to enhancing local democracy through improved public communication and community problem solving. The key to this process is that the feedback received through the public engagement process will drive the strategies and action items that will ultimately be recommended to City Council. During the City Plan update (Plan Fort Collins), specific policies were adopted that are applicable to student housing: Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing – encourage public and private for-profit and non-profit sectors to take actions to develop and maintain adequate supply of single- and multi-family housing, including mobile homes and manufactured housing. Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population – plan for and incorporate new housing for the student population on campuses and in areas near educational campuses and/or that are well-served by public transportation. Action Plan (Near Term Actions: 2011 and 2012) – Student Housing Plan (PRIORITY) – Coordinate with Colorado State University, Front Range Community College, and others to develop a plan that identifies future locations and other desirable characteristics of future student housing development. The housing principles and policies within City Plan support the vision for a community that provides opportunities for people to live in safe, habitable, affordable, and accessible housing. They also support sustainable housing units, resource efficiency and conservation, and the need to provide various housing options as population and household composition and needs change over time. Currently, Front Range Community College does not have a policy related to student housing nor do they provide any on-campus housing, primarily because of limited space. Colorado State University’s student housing policy requires that all newly admitted first-year students without previous college experience, who are single, under 21 years of age, and not living with their parents in the Fort Collins area, live in the University residence halls for the first two consecutive terms of their attendance. First year students wishing to reside off-campus in the Fort Collins area with their parents or for other approved reasons may request a special exemption. CSU does not have a requirement for upper level students to live on campus, but they have not limited upper level students who want to live on campus after their first year. They estimate that 20% of students who live on campus are upper class students or transfer students. Other indicators driving the need for the development of strategies to help facilitate adequate housing supplies while resolving compatibility issues upon existing neighborhoods include February 14, 2012 Page 3 increasing population and student enrollment, limited supply of multi-family and student housing, low vacancy rates, and challenges addressing neighborhood concerns about development projects. Information and Data The work team began by identifying the scope and issues to be addressed, collecting data, gathering background information, and identifying and collaborating with partners and stakeholders. The data collected shows a snapshot of the current housing situation, particularly for students: (See Attachments 1 and 2 for more details) • Fort Collins total population – 144,880 • CSU total enrollment Fall 2011 – 26, 735 (total traditional undergraduate – 19,796) • Front Range total enrollment Spring 2012 – 6,320 • Multi-family Housing Vacancy Rate 2011, 3rd quarter – 2.2% (a healthy vacancy rate is around 5-6%) • Existing Off-campus multi-family student housing unit bedrooms – 12,077 • CSU On-campus beds 2011 – 5,184 • CSU future increase in capacity for on-campus beds thru 2015 – 840 • CSU long-term potential increase in capacity for on-campus beds 5 to 10 years – 3,500 • Approximately 45% of dwelling units are rentals (not unusual for a college town) According to a housing preference survey of CSU students conducted in Spring 2011, the first choice of most students is to live in a house in a neighborhood, although 76% would be willing to live in a larger, high-density complex if there were adequate sound barriers (See Attachment 3 for more details). Colorado State University External Affairs Office provided a student enrollment projection statement in an email that states: “In the Fall of 2000, CSU had roughly 23,000 students. Since then, we have grown to our current level of approximately 27,500. At that same growth rate, and with the continued strong market position for CSU in Colorado and around the nation, we would project enrollment that could be as high as 35,000 in a decade. We do not anticipate, or plan, to grow beyond that 35,000 student point – it is the outer limit in our current thinking. This would include undergraduate and graduate enrollment (it does not include on-line enrollment), and will, of course, continually evolve based on funding levels, market conditions, and other factors.” There are a number of conceptual and proposed multi-family and student housing developments that are currently being developed or are in some stage of the development process. For a full list of these projects, see Attachment 4. These developments should satisfy short term demands for student housing around the University; however, there will continue to be long range demands for student housing if the above future enrollment predictions come true. It is difficult to predict how many students will chose to live in single-family residences versus multi-family complexes, especially if new projects meet student preferences; however, more preferred options will likely result in a healthier vacancy rate. February 14, 2012 Page 4 When CSU Enrollment On-Campus Housing Beds Off-Campus Housing Result 2011-2012 26,735 5,184 12,077 + single family rentals 2.2% vacancy rate 2021-2022 35,000 9,524 13,277 + 3,000 proposed + future developments + single family rentals Healthy vacancy rate? Building higher density, energy efficient, quality student housing on and near campus and transit would provide creative, sustainable student housing solutions. However, it is important that new student housing is in alignment with student housing preferences and needs while maintaining Fort Collin’s existing quality neighborhoods and addressing potential compatibility issues. In order to understand the varying perspectives regarding student housing, several focus groups were held with stakeholders. Public Process With the assistance of the Center for Public Deliberation, several focus group meetings were held with developers and designers, neighbors and property owners, and students (both from CSU and Front Range) from July 2011 through January 2012. An additional large group focus group that will bring together all of the various stakeholders to discuss possible recommendations and action items will be scheduled following the Council work session. The public process was designed to provide the data snapshot to participants, solicit their top preferences regarding student housing, and listen to input about what was most important to them. The input and feedback received through the community engagement process will drive the specific recommendations and action items for this project, which could include process or procedural changes, programmatic changes, Code amendments, and mechanisms for reviewing and monitoring the implemented changes. Stakeholders were identified according to their current level of interest and involvement in student housing. Neighbors and property owners from neighborhoods in close proximity to recently proposed student housing developments, developers and designers involved in student housing projects, and students interested in participating were recruited. To date, the goal has been to listen to the top concerns and areas of importance from the various stakeholders. Some general areas of common ground and areas for further discussion have been identified from these discussions (see Attachment 5 for full list). Some areas of common ground include: • The need is for “student housing” (as opposed to multi-family or affordable housing). • CSU student enrollment data should be looked at carefully to determine the type of housing needed since housing preferences are different for undergraduates versus graduate students. • There should be some caution in “over-building”. • It is important for student housing to be located close to campus or transit. • It is important for student housing to be located along the Mason Corridor where the transit will be easy and accessible, with increased frequency of trips, and earlier and later service. A shuttle service or increased Transfort service between FRCC and the South Transit Center will be important. February 14, 2012 Page 5 • There is a desire for a mix of housing. The size, height, and character should fit into the overall “feel” of the neighborhood. • Price is the most important concern for students. • An increased amount of education to students about living off campus is desired. • Vehicle and bicycle parking is important. • Diversity of residents is desirable – students and neighbors value a mix of residents - not just students, for example. • Personal and housing safety is important. • Quality design is important to both students and neighbors, but it still needs to be affordable for students. • Positive neighborhood relations are very important to both students and neighbors. • Increased enforcement of City ordinances is desired. • Students and neighbors would like more CSU involvement and accountability in off-campus housing. • CSU students have a clear perception of a natural progression that first year students live in the dorms, second year students live in apartments, then they move into houses in neighborhoods. This is consistent with survey data, but may differ for non-traditional students. • Non-traditional and FRCC students may have different housing preferences and needs. Some areas for further discussion include: • Role/responsibility of landlords when educating tenants about upkeep, laws/ordinances, and responsibilities. Some want more responsibility/accountability on landlords. Others feel that most landlords are doing a good job and believe the responsibility is on the City to increase enforcement of ordinances, or that students should be more accountable. • There is confusion about the development process, zoning laws, the difference between policies and codes, and what ordinances the City enforces. • There has been some concern about the role of historic preservation as it relates to student housing developments. How do we reconcile neighborhood character and the need for student housing? • There continues to be disagreement about the Occupancy Ordinance (U+2). Some do not understand why it is needed and feel that it is discriminatory against students. Others feel it is not discriminatory because it applies to everyone, and report that it has greatly improved the quality of their neighborhoods and has turned some rentals back into owner-occupied homes. The focus group participants will continue to work through these identified areas of common ground and concerns. Working through and probing deeper into these affinities and concerns will enable the group to identify strategies and action items. As strategies are identified, the group will help determine any associated action item, who would be responsible, and an implementation schedule. Each key outcome would be an action item – similar to the City Plan update Action Plan with short-, mid-, and long-term priorities. Once action items are identified, staff is proposing a series of open houses to gain more public input. The action items will be adjusted based on feedback received. February 14, 2012 Page 6 In addition to the focus groups, surveys, and open houses, staff has provided updates to the Affordable Housing Board, and Planning and Zoning Board. The Boards had a few clarifying questions, but no input at this point. An update will also be provided to the Landmark Preservation Commission. Staff will provide additional updates and seek input as recommended action items are identified. Additionally, staff will provide information to the Fort Collins Board of Realtors and the Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association. Timeline • March 2011 through January 2012 data and information collection, surveys, focus groups • February through April 2012 identify strategies and action items; continued outreach • May 2012 (if possible) Council adoption of recommended action items • June 2012 – ongoing (as determined in Plan) implementation and monitoring of action items ATTACHMENTS 1. Student Housing Action Plan Data Snapshot 2. State of Colorado Vacancy Rates by Market Area 3. CSU Student Rental Housing Survey Results, Spring 2011 4. Conceptual and Entitled Multi-family/Student Housing Projects 5. Stakeholder Areas of Common Ground and Areas for Further Discussion 6. PowerPoint presentation ATTACHMENT 2 1 1 Student Housing Action Plan Update City Council Work Session February 14, 2012 Beth Sowder, Neighborhood Services Manager 2 Purpose • Provide City Council with an update on the Student Housing Action Plan (SHAP) project • Receive feedback from Council regarding – Community Engagement Process – Process for identifying action items –Timeline ATTACHMENT 6 2 3 Direction Sought from Council 1. Does Council have comments, suggestions, or questions regarding the public process to date and as proposed moving forward? 2. Does Council have comments, suggestions, or questions regarding the plan for identifying affinities and issues and developing recommended strategies and action items? 4 SHAP Mission To develop community driven strategies that encourage and provide an adequate supply of quality student housing while maintaining neighborhood quality and compatibility. 3 5 SHAP Purpose • Engage stakeholders to define scope and issues • Address increasing need for student housing • Identify possible key factors for development • Develop strategies to resolve compatibility issues 6 SHAP Project Collaborative effort includes: –City – Colorado State University – Front Range Community College – Neighbors and Property Owners – Developers – Fort Collins Board of Realtors – Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association – Associated Students of CSU – Students 4 7 Community Outreach Process • Center for Public Deliberation • Feedback will drive the strategies and action items • Series of Focus Groups • Large Group Dialogue • Open Houses 8 Background –– Identified Need Plan Fort Collins – identified need through policies – Policy LIV 7.2 – Develop an Adequate Supply of Housing – Policy LIV 7.7 – Accommodate the Student Population – Action Plan (Near Term Actions: 2011 and 2012) – Student Housing Plan (PRIORITY) 5 9 Need Identified Other Indicators include: • Increase in population • Increase in student enrollment • Limited supply of multi-family and student housing • Very low vacancy rates • Challenges addressing neighborhood concerns regarding development 10 Information and Data Work group started in March 2011 – Formed and identified scope and issues – Began initial data collection – Gathered background information – Identified and collaborated with partners and stakeholders 6 11 Data Collected • Fort Collins population – 144,880 • CSU total enrollment Fall 2011 – 26,735 • FRCC total enrollment Spring 2012 – 6,320 • Fort Collins multi-family vacancy rate – 2.2% • Existing MF student off-campus bedrooms – 12,077 • Existing on-campus beds – 5,184 • CSU future increase in capacity 2015 – 840 beds • Approx 45% of all housing in FC are rentals 12 CSU Student Housing Survey • Conducted Spring 2011 • Most student’s first choice – house in neighborhood • 76% would live in a larger, high-density complex if there were adequate sound barriers 7 13 CSU Student Enrollment Projection • 35,000 – at most – in next 10 years • This is the outer limit – do not anticipate growing beyond this number • Includes undergraduate and graduate students • Does not include on-line enrollment • Continually evolves based on funding levels, market conditions, and other factors 14 Development Projects • Several conceptual or proposed multi-family and student housing projects • Should satisfy short term demands • Long range demands for student housing will still exist • Must meet student housing preferences while maintaining existing neighborhood quality and addressing compatibility and integration issues 8 15 Process • Focus Group – Developers/Designers – July 2011 • Focus Group – Neighbors/Property Owners – August 2011 • CPD assisted with informal questionnaire to stakeholder participants (students, neighbors/property owners, and developers) • Focus Group – Students – October 2011 • Focus Group – Neighbors/Property Owners – November 2011 • Combined Student & Neighbor/Property Owner Focus Group – November 29, 2011 • FRCC – student Focus Group – January 27, 2012 16 Areas of Common Ground • Student Housing is the focus • Consider student enrollment data – caution over-building • Close to campus and transit – Mason Corridor • Mix of housing – fit into overall “feel” of neighborhood • Price is most important concern for students • Increase education to students • Parking is important • Diversity of residents is important • Safety • Quality design; still affordable • More CSU involvement and accountability • Natural progression for off-campus living 9 17 Areas for Further Discussion • Role and responsibility of landlords • Confusion about development process • Concern about role of historic preservation • Occupancy Ordinance 18 Process Continued CPD will assist with a large group deliberative dialogue – all Focus Group participants to date – this will allow opportunity to: – Share input – Discuss ideas and perspectives – Ask for additional feedback – Discuss areas of common ground – Further discuss areas of tension – Identify strategies and action items 10 19 Additional Outreach • Series of Open Houses • Affordable Housing Board • Planning & Zoning Board • Landmark Preservation Commission • Fort Collins Board of Realtors • Northern Colorado Rental Housing Association 20 Timeline • March 2011 thru January 2012 – data and input • February thru April 2012 – identify action items, continued outreach • May 2012 (if possible) – Council approval • June 2012 – ongoing – implementation and monitoring of action plan 11 21 Direction Sought from Council 1. Does Council have comments, suggestions, or questions regarding the public process to date and as proposed moving forward? 2. Does Council have comments, suggestions, or questions regarding the plan for identifying affinities and issues and developing recommended strategies and action items? DATE: February 14, 2012 STAFF: Susie Gordon Bruce Hendee Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Report on Integrated Recycling Facility (Feasibility Analysis). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To help reach the community’s goal of diverting 50% of the waste stream, the City examined drop- off systems which would facilitate materials diversion for residents. A consulting firm was hired in 2011 to do the work using Keep Fort Collins Great funds. This work session will review a final draft of an Integrated Recycling Facility (IRF) report that evaluates three types of expanded drop-off facilities, including analyses of each option’s financial structure and waste diversion potential. Geographic siting information and property costs were evaluated for 23 properties in Fort Collins as part of the IRF study. Because the sites represent potential real estate transactions they will not be discussed in the work session. However, it would be useful to gather Council perspective on general location considerations within the City. A second consulting project currently underway, called the Waste Stream Study and Waste Stream Conversion Technologies Review, will not be discussed until a later work session. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED • Which, if any, of the options in the IRF report would the Council consider the best fit for the community? Staff would like direction from Council on whether an Integrated Recycling Facility should be brought forward as an Offer in the upcoming Budgeting for Outcomes process. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The City Council directed staff to examine how to create infrastructure necessary to divert more of the recyclables in Fort Collins’ waste stream from being sent to landfills for disposal. The City Recycling Drop-off Center, co-located with the Rivendell School on Riverside, was built in 2002. It continues to be a popular destination for citizens to take conventional recyclables such as cardboard, paper, and commingled containers. Citizens make an average of 400 trips per day. In the 2011 Air Quality and Recycling Survey, many respondents provided comments suggesting the City take a role in providing a broader range of recycling opportunities for citizens (Attachment 2). February 14, 2012 Page 2 About a dozen business places in Fort Collins allow the public to drop off a single material in the harder-to-recycle category, such as metal goods and appliances, electronics, scrap wood and yard debris, and concrete and asphalt. These drop-off sites are less well known and not always convenient for public use. Customers must source-separate each type of debris for drop-off at different locations as opposed to going to a single recycling destination. Three options for expanded community drop-off facilities were developed in the IRF study: Option 1: New Recycling Center • Build a new, free-standing recycling center at a location to-be-determined in Fort Collins, which could be expanded over time in four stages to collect a broader variety of recyclables • the initial target materials include ferrous (steel) and non-ferrous (aluminum, copper) metal goods, concrete/tiles/brick, electronics, clothing/rags (“textiles”), and cardboard. N Green waste (dimensional lumber, yard debris) would be added at a fourth phase • this composition is often found in mixed (non-segregated) loads generated at construction sites, and by remodelers and handy-man/repair businesses referred to in the report as landfill “self-haul” customers. Option 2: New Bins at Existing Facility • Add several new bins at City’s drop-off facility on Riverside to collect more types of recyclables such as: N metals N possibly, heavy-duty plastics such as outdoor toys and buckets Option 3: New Facility on City-owned property • Build a combined-purpose IRF on property owned by the City for comprehensive recycling activities, starting with green waste, which could be expanded over time in two stages. • the target materials include lawn clippings, leaves, tree and garden debris • the targeted users include residents and several City departments (Forestry, Parks, and Utilities) The IRF Report does not provide recommendations on how any of these options would enable the City to develop a drop-off system for household hazardous wastes (HHW) such as old gasoline, solvents, or paint. The consultants were unable to show how this type of service, which is extremely costly, could be built into a financial pro-forma. Staff will continue researching ways that the City could incorporate some type of year-round HHW services into a new recycling facility. For instance, with proper design considerations, it may be feasible to accept some less-hazardous materials such as batteries, compact fluorescent bulbs, or latex paint for recycling. February 14, 2012 Page 3 Environmental Impacts Recycling and waste reduction contribute to a variety of environmental benefits, including lower greenhouse gas emissions, both from avoided landfill methane and from “up-stream” energy usage when new products are manufactured from virgin materials; water conservation and reduced pollution associated with re-manufacturing; fewer raw materials mined and therefore natural habitat and ecosystems conserved; and longer lifespans for landfills that also result in savings to taxpayers. In 2010, the community reached a 43% diversion rate, according to data collected by the City. Nearly 77,000 tons of discarded materials were composted or recycled. An additional 20,000 tons were calculated to have been source-reduced in Fort Collins. At the same time, 130,000 tons were sent to landfills which still contained significant amounts of material that could have been recycled. For instance, 30% of Larimer County’s landfill intake was comprised of organic discards and another 25% was paper (Figure 4-1, Larimer County Landfill Waste Characterization, at http://www.larimer.org/solidwaste/publications/WasteSort.pdf.). Estimates were made in the IRF report on the amount of additional material that could potentially be diverted from landfills by each of the three recommended approaches to expanding Fort Collins’ drop-off recycling capabilities. Tons of materials (new recovery) for four drop-off recycling scenarios: Diversion Potential Low Medium High Option 1: Phase 1 7,719 Option 1: Phase 2 15,438 Option 1: Phase 3 19,500 Option 1: Phase 4 36,563 Option 2: Current Facility additions 300 Option 3: Phase 1 7,410 Option 3: Phase 2 22,230 With a new Integrated Recycling Facility in Fort Collins, changes to the City’s diversion rate would be anticipated to occur, ranging from an increase of less than 1% at the low end of the spectrum (additions to the current Recycling Center), to an increase of 13.5% for a fully built-out Option 1 facility. Financial Impacts The aggregated financial value of materials that would be collected at an IRF is fairly low. It is assumed by the consultants that private entities would not invest in the capital costs and operational costs for an IRF because of lack of profitability. If the Fort Collins community is interested in having a facility, the report concludes that the City would need to pay for the land and construction costs and be responsible for ensuring funds are available for ongoing operations. While this wouldn’t preclude the possibility of partnering with one or more local businesses at some level to provide services to the public at the site, the costs would need to be largely born by taxpayers, and/or paid through some level of user fees. February 14, 2012 Page 4 The study enumerates the new jobs associated with the construction of expanded recycling drop- offs. New research shows 10-20 times the number of jobs are produced by the recovery/recycling industry, on a per ton basis, than are produced by the landfill industry. The level of attention given to the job-creation potential of recycling activities is evidenced by a recent television interview given by Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMyj_FoHLXY), when Ms. Jackson stated that if the US were to reach an 80-90% waste diversion rate, it would create millions of “homegrown” jobs. Fort Collins would be likely to create financial benefits to the community from an Integrated Recycling Facility. ATTACHMENTS 1. Integrated Recycling Facility; Feasibility Analysis – Final Draft Report (January, 2012) with Real Estate details redacted 2. Excerpts from Fort Collins 2011 Air Quality/Recycling Survey: Recycling questions, report of results 3. Powerpoint presentation Attachment 1 February 14, 2012 Worksession Integrated Recycling Facility Feasibility Analysis FINAL DRAFT REPORT Ver. 4 Real Estate Information for Sites Not Included in this Version Prepared for Prepared by: SloanVAZQUEZLLC Municipal Solid Waste & Recycling Advisors 18006 Skypark Circle, Suite 205 Irvine, CA 92614 Office: 866.241.4533 Fax: 714.276.0625 info@sloanvazquez.com and 15230 Burbank Blvd, Suite 103 Sherman Oaks, CA 91411 Office: 818.267.511 cclements@clementsenvironmental.com January 2012 18006 Skypark Circle • Suite 205 • Irvine, CA 92614 Office: 866.241.4533 • FAX: 714.276.0625 • info@sloanvazquez.com SloanVAZQUEZLLC Municipal Solid Waste Management & Recycling Advisors January 2012 Susan Gordon Project Manager, Natural Resources City of Fort Collins 215 North Mason St., 2nd Floor Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Project No. 7249 – Integrated Recycling Facility Analysis – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Dear Ms. Gordon: Sloan Vazquez, LLC and Clements Environmental are pleased to submit this Final Draft of the Integrated Recycling Facility (IRF) Feasibility Analysis to the City of Fort Collins. Our hope is that this report will provide the City with findings and recommendations that will allow the City to make an informed and sound decision regarding how to increase diversion levels in the City of Fort Collins and how to proceed with the development of the IRF, if the decision is made to do so. We would like to express our sincere appreciation to all those who participated and assisted in our efforts to conduct this assessment, which would not have been possible without the guidance and support of City staff. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this assessment, please call me or Enrique Vazquez at (866) 241-4533. We look forward to future opportunities to continue assisting the City with solid waste management and recycling issues. Cordially, Joe Sloan President SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis i This page left intentionally blank. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Report Structure..............................................................................................................1 2.0 INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY OPTIONS .......................................................... 2 2.1 OPTION 1: Stand-Alone IRF..............................................................................................4 2.1.1 PHASE 1 – Small Volume Start-Up Operation (Up to 250 Cubic Yards per Day) ...................... 5 2.1.2 PHASE 2 – Medium Volume Operation (250-500 Cubic Yards per Day).................................. 7 2.1.3 PHASE 3 – Large Volume Operation (500-750 Cubic Yards per Day)....................................... 8 2.1.4 PHASE 4 – Large Volume IRF (500-1,450 Cubic Yards per Day, Plus Organic Materials and/or C&D Processing Operations) .................................................................. 11 2.2 OPTION 2: Expansion of Rivendell School Drop-Off Operation.........................................16 2.3 OPTION 3: Stand-Alone Green Waste Recovery Operation .............................................18 2.3.1 PHASE 1 – 25 Tons of Green Waste..................................................................................... 18 2.3.2 PHASE 2 – 75 Tons of Green Waste..................................................................................... 19 2.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS...............................................................................................19 3.0 PROPERTY INVENTORIES..................................................................................... 22 3.1 Screening-Level Site Evaluations.....................................................................................22 3.2 Detailed Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................22 3.3 Compilation of Data.......................................................................................................22 3.4 Analysis of Sites.............................................................................................................23 4.0 FINANCIAL MODELS ............................................................................................ 26 4.1 Option 1 – Financial Model.............................................................................................26 4.2 Option 2 – Financial Model.............................................................................................30 4.3 Option 3 – Financial Model.............................................................................................30 5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 32 6.0 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 34 6.1 Appendix A – Conceptual Site Plan 6.2 Appendix B – Site Evaluation Worksheets SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis iii TABLE OF TABLES Table 1 – Option 1-Stand Alone IRF Summary.......................................................................................... 4 Table 2 – Option 1-Phase 1 Equipment Requirements ............................................................................. 6 Table 3 – Option 1-Phase 1 Recovery....................................................................................................... 7 Table 4 – Option 1-Phase 2 Recovery....................................................................................................... 8 Table 5 – Option 1-Phase 3 Equipment Requirements ........................................................................... 11 Table 6 – Option 1-Phase 3 Recovery..................................................................................................... 11 Table 7 – Option 1-Phase 4 Equipment Requirements ........................................................................... 14 Table 8 – Option 1-Phase 4 Recovery..................................................................................................... 14 Table 9 – Option 2 Equipment Requirements......................................................................................... 17 Table 10 – Option 3 Equipment Requirements....................................................................................... 18 Table 11 – Site Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................... 24 Table 12 – Siting Analysis Summary Table.............................................................................................. 25 Table 13 – Option 1 Waste Characterization & Revenue/Ton................................................................. 26 Table 14 – Option 1 Capital Requirements............................................................................................. 28 Table 15 – Option 1 Stand-Alone IRF Proforma...................................................................................... 29 Table 16 – Option 2 Expanded Rivendell Proforma ................................................................................ 30 Table 17 – Option 3 Green Waste Drop-Off Proforma............................................................................ 31 Table 18 – Option 1 – Recovery Summary.............................................................................................. 32 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Option 1-Phase 1 & 2 Facility Layout ....................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 – Option 1-Phase 1 Site Operations............................................................................................ 6 Figure 3 – Option 1-Phase 2 Site Operations............................................................................................ 8 Figure 4 – Option 1-Phase 3 Facility Layout.............................................................................................. 9 Figure 5 – Option 1-Phase 3 Site Operations.......................................................................................... 10 Figure 6 – Option 1-Phase 4 Facility Layout............................................................................................ 12 Figure 7 – Option 1-Phase 4 Site Operations.......................................................................................... 13 TABLE OF PICTURES Picture 1 – C&D Sorting System............................................................................................................. 15 SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis iv This page left intentionally blank. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The City of Fort Collins (City) engaged the services of Sloan Vazquez and Clements Environmental (Project Team) to develop a feasibility analysis for an Integrated Recycling Facility (IRF) that will accept a variety of discarded materials such as electronic waste; household hazardous waste; compostable organics, including yard waste; construction and demolition debris; and, other types of recyclable commodities. The City’s goal to divert 50% of the waste stream from landfill disposal has not been met. The City currently operates a community recycling center that accepts a variety of recyclable materials. However, achieving additional diversion is constrained by the limited availability of local/regional infrastructure. This feasibility analysis is intended to assist the City in determining the viability for developing an IRF to increase waste diversion. The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the feasibility of such a facility including: • Identifying Potential Sites and Siting Issues, • IRF Conceptual Design, • Target Recyclables, • Capital and Operating Costs, • Market Considerations, and • Ownership Models. 1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE This Report is organized as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Integrated Recycling Facility Options 3. Property Inventories (redacted) 4. Financial Models 5. Conclusions Section 1 provides an introduction to the report with a brief background and purpose. In Section 2, the most feasible alternatives for developing additional recycling/diversion infrastructure are presented as three Options along with a general description of each facility and operational requirements. In Section 3, potential properties for siting a facility are examined and assessed along with recommendations for the most viable locations. Section 4 provides the financial models for each alternative including a summary of costs related to each operation. And finally, Section 5 provides a summary of the Project Team’s conclusions. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 2 2.0 INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY OPTIONS The Project Team developed three options for the City’s consideration. The operational and management requirements will vary depending upon the Option and Phases of operations. These options are described in detail in this Section and are listed for ease of reference below. • OPTION 1: Development of a Stand-Alone IRF o 40 hour per week operation (days and operating hours to be determined) o Targets “Self-Haulers” and lower value recyclables PHASE 1 – Small Volume Start-Up Operation (Up to 250 Cubic Yards per Day) − $500,000 municipal capital investment for land and improvements − $237,000 municipal capital investment for IRF equipment − Requires less than 1 acre operating site − Projected annual diversion from landfill: 7,719 tons − Creation of 3 new jobs PHASE 2 – Medium Volume Operation (250-500 Cubic Yards per Day) − No added municipal capital investment for land and improvements − No added municipal capital investment for IRF equipment − Requires less than 1 acre operating site − Projected annual diversion from landfill: 15,437.5 tons − Creation of a total of 6 new jobs PHASE 3 – Large Volume Operation (500-750 Cubic Yards per Day) − $1,000,000 municipal capital investment for land and improvements − $442,500 municipal capital investment for IRF equipment − Requires less than 1.2 acre operating site − Projected annual diversion from landfill: 19,500 tons − Creation of a total of 10 new jobs PHASE 4 – Large Volume IRF (500-1,450 Cubic Yards per Day, Plus Organic Materials and/or C&D Processing Operations) − $1,250,000 municipal capital investment for land and improvements − $1,492,500 municipal capital investment for IRF equipment − Requires less than 1.5 acre operating site − Projected annual diversion from landfill: 36,562 tons − Creation of a total of 21 new jobs SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 3 • OPTION 2: Expansion of Rivendell School Drop-Off Operation o Targets ferrous scrap, non-ferrous scrap and heavy-duty HDPE items o $21,600 municipal capital investment for additional storage containers o Projected annual diversion from landfill: 300 tons • OPTION 3: Development of a Stand-Alone Green Waste Recovery Operation o Targets lawn clippings, leaves, tree timmings and garden prunings o Assumes six day per week operation o Assumes use of City owned site of approximately 1 acre and no required improvements o $500,000 municipal capital investment for wheel-loader, tub-grinder and trommel screen PHASE 1 – 25 Tons per Day − Creation of 1 new job − Projected annual diversion from landfill: 7,410 tons PHASE 2 – 75 Tons per Day − Creation of 3 new jobs − Projected annual diversion from landfill: 22,230 tons SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 4 2.1 OPTION 1: STAND-ALONE IRF Option 1 is the development of a full-service, stand-alone IRF that can be implemented in up to four phases. The phases may be implemented one phase at a time or concurrently as deemed appropriate. Each phase is more fully described in the following subsections. Conceptual IRF site-use plans for each option are included in the following sections. A conceptual IRF site-use plan of the fully developed, Phase 4 option is included in Section 6, Appendix A – Conceptual Site Plan. TARGETED MATERIALS FOR RECOVERY/DIVERSION Each of the four phases targets the “self-haulers” and lower-value recyclables such as rock, brick, concrete, mixed salvage metals, green waste, wood, electronic waste (e-waste), and textiles. Though most of these materials have a low or negative value, they present excellent opportunities for increasing the amount of material that is recovered and diverted from landfill disposal. The following materials are targeted for recovery under Option 1: • Ferrous Scrap − Iron/Steel, Rebar, Cookware, Car & Truck Wheels, Canisters, Drums, etc. • Non-Ferrous Scrap − Window/Door Frames, Lawn Chair Frames, Siding, Copper/Brass Fixtures, Electrical Wiring • Concrete/Rock • Brick/Tile • Porcelain/Ceramic – Toilets & Insulators • Asphalt – Paving & Shingles • Wood – Dimensional lumber, Plywood • Green Waste – Yard Waste, Tree Trimmings • E-Waste – Monitors, Televisions, Computers, CRT’s, etc. • Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) • Textiles • Wet dirt from City Water Crews The following table provides a summary of the four phases: Table 1 – Option 1-Stand Alone IRF Summary Volume Employees Operations Area Remarks Phase I 250 cy 3 30,000 sq. ft. Primarily self unloading Phase 2 500 cy 6 30,000 sq. ft. Staff assisted unloading Phase 3 750 cy 10 50,000 sq. ft. Add wheel loader and deck sorting of material Phase 4 1500 cy 21 70,000 sq. ft. Add C&D sort line and green waste chipping and grinding SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 5 2.1.1 PHASE 1 – SMALL VOLUME START-UP OPERATION (UP TO 250 CUBIC YARDS PER DAY) Phase 1 consists of developing a small volume operation that can receive up to 250 cubic yards per day or 65,000 cubic yards per year. Based on a 250 lbs/cubic yard factor, the facility will be capable of receiving up to 8,125 tons per year. SITE OPERATIONS Self-haulers (residents and commercial customers) enter the facility and are directed to the area for unloading their recyclable materials into designated salvage bins (see Figure 1 – salvage bins are designated with a number 7). When full, the material-specific salvage bins are emptied into the larger roll-off boxes (designated with numbers 1 through 6 in Figure 1) by an equipment operator. The full roll- off boxes are delivered to local buyers/end-users. Figure 1 – Option 1-Phase 1 & 2 Facility Layout SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 6 Figure 2 – Option 1-Phase 1 Site Operations STAFF REQUIREMENTS Phase 1 operations require the following full-time personnel: • 1 – Site Manager • 2 – Equipment Operators (Forklift, Roll-Off Truck) Phase 1 operations require the acquisition of equipment as identified in Table 2. Table 2 – Option 1-Phase 1 Equipment Requirements Equipment Quantity Salvage Bins (3-Yard) 15 Roll-Off Boxes 50-Yard Boxes 6 12-Yard Boxes 6 Forklift (with rotator & attachments) 1 Roll-Off Truck 1 OCC Compactor 1 SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 7 MATERIAL RECOVERY & DIVERSION Based on the materials targeted and the operational configuration of Phase 1, it is projected that 95% of the materials received will be recovered and diverted from landfilling. Table 3 – Option 1-Phase 1 Recovery Annual Tonnage 8,125 Recovered 95.0% 7,719 Landfilled 5.0% 406 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES REQUIREMENT Implementation of Phase 1 requires approximately $737,000 in capital expenditures as itemized below: • $500,000 – Land and Improvements • $57,000 – Roll-Off Boxes and Salvage Bins • $140,000 – Forklift and Roll-Off Truck • $40,000 – OCC Compactor 2.1.2 PHASE 2 – MEDIUM VOLUME OPERATION (250-500 CUBIC YARDS PER DAY) Phase 2 consists of increasing the quantity of material that can be received at the facility to 500 cubic yards per day or 130,000 cubic yards per year. Based on a 250 lbs/cubic yard factor, the facility will be capable of receiving up to 16,250 tons per year. SITE OPERATIONS Site operations in Phase 2 are identical with those of Phase 1 with the exception that under Phase 1, customers unload and deposit their materials into the designated salvage bins while in Phase 2, the unloading of materials is expedited with the assistance of IRF staff. Implementation of Phase 2 requires three additional full-time sorter/unloaders for a total of six personnel to manage the anticipated additional tonnage/material. The personnel required for Phase 2 is as follows; • 1 – Site Manager • 2 – Equipment Operators (Forklift, Roll-Off Truck) • 3 – Sorters/Unloaders SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 8 Figure 3 – Option 1-Phase 2 Site Operations MATERIAL RECOVERY & DIVERSION Recovery and diversion from landfilling in Phase 2 is projected at 95%. Table 4 – Option 1-Phase 2 Recovery Annual Tonnage 16,250.0 Recovered 95.0% 15,437.5 Landfilled 5.0% 812.5 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES REQUIREMENT Phase 2 does not require additional capital expenditures other than the $737,000 identified for Phase 1. 2.1.3 PHASE 3 – LARGE VOLUME OPERATION (500-750 CUBIC YARDS PER DAY) Phase 3 expands the capacity of the facility to receive up to 750 cubic yards per day or 195,000 cubic yards per year by targeting the same self-haul customers and materials but also accepting loads that may require additional sorting at the site. Based on a 250 lbs/cubic yard factor, the facility will be capable of receiving up to 24,375 tons per year. As the IRF operation matures, if the City charges a fee that is equal to, or less than the amount charged at the Larimer County Landfill, the 750 cubic yards per day, or 15, 50 cubic yard roll off containers daily, should be readily attainable. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 9 SITE IMPROVEMENTS Implementation of Phase 3 requires the construction of a below-ground ramp for loading the residue resulting from the sorting process into roll-off boxes. This area is depicted at the bottom of Figure 4. SITE OPERATIONS Site operations during Phase 3 are similar to those in Phase 2; however, to accommodate the larger volume of materials, a wheel-loader spreads materials on the tipping floor to facilitate the identification and recovery of targeted materials by the sorters. The wheel-loader also removes residue (unrecyclable trash) from the floor-sorting process and deposits it into roll-off boxes designated for that purpose. Roll- off boxes for the accumulation of residue are shown at the bottom of Figure 4 and indicated with a number 10. Figure 4 – Option 1-Phase 3 Facility Layout SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 10 STAFF REQUIREMENTS Implementation of Phase 3 requires four additional full-time personnel for a total of ten (10) to manage the anticipated additional tonnage/material. The personnel required for Phase 3 is as follows; • 1 – Site Manager • 4 – Equipment Operators • 5 – Floor-Sorters Figure 5 – Option 1-Phase 3 Site Operations SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 11 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS In addition to the equipment acquired in Phase 1, Phase 3 operations require the acquisition of the equipment identified in Table 5. Table 5 – Option 1-Phase 3 Equipment Requirements Equipment Quantity Wheel Loader 1 Roll-Off Boxes – (50-Yard) 6 Pup Trailer (to pull double roll-offs) 1 MATERIAL RECOVERY & DIVERSION Recovery and diversion from landfilling in Phase 3 is projected at 80%. Table 6 – Option 1-Phase 3 Recovery Annual Tonnage 24,375 Recovered 80.0% 19,500 Landfilled 20.0% 4,875 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES REQUIREMENT The implementation of Phase 3 requires an additional capital investment of approximately $705,500 as follows: • $500,000 – Building & Site Improvements • $180,000 – Wheel-loader and Roll-Off Pup-Trailer • $25,500 – Additional Roll-Off Boxes 2.1.4 PHASE 4 – LARGE VOLUME IRF (500-1,450 CUBIC YARDS PER DAY, PLUS ORGANIC MATERIALS AND/OR C&D PROCESSING OPERATIONS) In Phase 4, the IRF is expanded to become a full-service processing facility for self-haulers to bring green waste and construction and demolition materials with a capacity to receive and process up to 377,000 cubic yards of the various materials annually. Based on a 250 lbs/cubic yard factor for the self-hauler waste, 300 lbs/cubic yard for the yard waste and 400 lbs/cubic yard for the C&D debris, the facility will be capable of receiving up to 47,125 tons per year. Changes in local market conditions will facilitate the development of Phase 4. Changes that may stimulate a growth in IRF tonnage include; a significant increase in landfill disposal costs, a significant increase in the value of recyclable commodities, or regulation requiring the segregation, collection and processing of green waste and legislation to ban the landfill disposal of green waste. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 12 SITE OPERATIONS In addition to all the functions performed in Phase 3, site operations during Phase 4 include the addition of green waste and C&D processing capacity with the addition of a tub grinder, trommel screen, and a C&D sortline. The trommel screen can be used to screen both chipped wood, green waste, and the dirt from the City water utility. The additional equipment can be placed in the area designated as “Future Green Waste Chip & Grind Operation and C&D Sorting Area” in Figure 6. Figure 6 – Option 1-Phase 4 Facility Layout SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 13 STAFF REQUIREMENTS When fully implemented, Phase 4 requires a staff of 21 employees; one site manager, one supervisor, one clerk, six equipment operators, and twelve sorters. • 1 – Site Manager • 1 - Supervisor • 1 - Clerk • 6 – Equipment Operators -Forklift -Wheel-Loader (Floor Sort) -Wheel-Loader (Organics/C&D) -Roll-Off Truck -Tub-Grinder • 12 – Sorter/Unloaders -5 – Floor Sorters -7 – C&D/Organics Sorters Figure 7 – Option 1-Phase 4 Site Operations SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 14 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS In addition to the equipment acquired in prior Phases, Phase 4 operations require the acquisition of the equipment identified in Table 7. Table 7 – Option 1-Phase 4 Equipment Requirements Equipment Quantity Tub Grinder 1 Trommel Screen 1 C&D Sortline 1 MATERIAL RECOVERY & DIVERSION Phase 4 continues the recovery and diversion achieved in the previous phases with the addition of recovery achieved from the green waste and C&D processing operation. The recovery rates achieved by the three processes are provided in Table 8. Table 8 – Option 1-Phase 4 Recovery Floor Sorting Green Waste Processing C&D Processing Total Annual Tonnage 24,375 9,750 13,000 47,125 Recovered 80.0% 19,500 95.0% 9,263 60.0% 7,800 77.6% 36,563 Landfilled 20.0% 4,875 5.0% 487 40.0% 5,200 22.4% 10,562 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES REQUIREMENT Growth from Phase 3 to Phase 4 requires an additional capital investment of approximately $1,300,000, as follows: • $250,000 – Site Improvements • $700,000 – C&D Sorting System • $300,000 – Tub Grinder • $50,000 – Trommel Screen SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 15 Picture 1 – C&D Sorting System C&D Sorting System including a steel-pan in-feed conveyor, a debris-roll screen for the removal of “fines”, and a sortline for the removal of wood, rock, concrete, steel, cardboard, etc. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 16 2.2 OPTION 2: EXPANSION OF RIVENDELL SCHOOL DROP-OFF OPERATION Option 2 is the expansion of operations at the Rivendell School Drop-Off Center to include up to three additional materials. TARGETED MATERIALS FOR RECOVERY/DIVERSION Option 2 adds to the items accepted at the site, as follows: • Ferrous Scrap − Iron/Steel, Rebar, Cookware, Car & Truck Wheels, Canisters, Drums, Bicycle Frames, Shelving, etc. • Non-Ferrous Scrap − Window/Door Frames, Lawn Chair Frames, Siding, Copper/Brass Fixtures, Electrical Wiring • Heavy-duty HDPE items such as big-wheel toys, garden hoses, 5 –gal buckets, etc. It is important to note that only small ferrous scrap that is compatible with the current unattended drop-off operation will be accepted. Large ferrous scrap such as large appliances or equipment with combustible engines or lubricants such as lawnmowers, or large construction equipment will not be accepted. High value commodities (such as ferrous metals) at an unattended site are susceptible to theft. Two obvious solutions present themselves; first, to provide an attendant for the operation, and second, to reduce the opportunity for theft by locking the ferrous metal container during the hours in which the facility is not open. Finally, it should be noted that even though the materials may be pilfered, they will be recycled which is the primary IRF objective. It is estimated that this option will divert approximately 300 tons per year, a very small amount in terms of overall diversion. SITE OPERATIONS The selected additional materials would be simply added to those currently accepted at Rivendell. The site can be rearranged to accommodate the delivery of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, as well as heavy-duty HDPE items or other items designated for recycling. STAFF REQUIREMENTS As currently operated, the Rivendell facility is not staffed. The addition of the three target materials will not necessarily require direct staffing of the site. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 17 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS Option 2 requires the acquisition of the equipment identified in Table 9. Table 9 – Option 2 Equipment Requirements Equipment Quantity Roll-Off Boxes 50-Yard Boxes 4 12-Yard Boxes 4 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Additional expenditures for the site will include the acquisition of additional roll-off and storage boxes at an approximate cost of $22,000, and an ongoing annual expense of approximately $15,000 to haul material loads to market. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are estimated at 80 loads per year at an estimated cost of $100 per load. Heavy-duty HDPE loads are estimated at 24 loads per year at an estimated cost of $300 per load. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 18 2.3 OPTION 3: STAND-ALONE GREEN WASTE RECOVERY OPERATION Option 3 consists of the development of a six-day per week, stand-alone green waste recovery operation that can be implemented in two phases. In Phase 1, the operation is configured to receive up to 25 tons per day or 7,800 tons per year of green waste and increasing to 75 tons per day or 23,400 tons per year in Phase 2. Currently, private companies provide green waste processing services to the City’s residents and businesses for a fee. TARGETED MATERIALS FOR RECOVERY/DIVERSION Materials targeted for recovery at the green waste drop-off site include: • Lawn Clippings • Leaves • Tree Trimmings • Garden Prunings SITE OPERATIONS Resident and/or commercial green waste generators deliver source-separated green wastes including lawn clippings, garden prunings, tree trimmings, leaves, and other designated organic materials to a designated unloading area. The materials, unloaded by the generator, are pushed into a stockpile by the loader operator and held until they are processed through a grinder. The ground (size-reduced) organic materials are extruded from the grinder and stockpiled. The size-reduced materials may be used as mulch for erosion control, weed abatement, or seed bed material some of which could be used for landscaping projects by citizens and by City crews, and or as a future source of energy using low- emission conversion technology. It could also be further processed via composting for use as an organic solid amendment if it could be transported to an appropriately permitted composting facility (transportation costs are not included in this evaluation). Otherwise, it is possible that a surplus of mulch could develop for which a current market is not identified. 2.3.1 PHASE 1 – 25 TONS OF GREEN WASTE When the site receives less than 25 tons per day, only one staff person is required to receive the incoming material and perform the functions of loader operator and grinder operator. As use of the site increases, additional personnel are needed to direct traffic on the site and operate machinery. EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS Option 3, Phase 1 requires the acquisition of the equipment identified in Table 10. Table 10 – Option 3 Equipment Requirements Equipment Quantity Wheel Loader 1 Trommel Screen 1 Tub Grinder 1 SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 19 CAPITAL COSTS REQUIREMENTS The implementation of Option 3 requires a capital investment of approximately $500,000, as follows; • $300,000 – Tub Grinder • $150,000 – Wheel-Loader • $50,000 – Trommel Screen 2.3.2 PHASE 2 – 75 TONS OF GREEN WASTE In Phase 2, when the tonnage received at the site increases to 75 tons per day, a total of three (3) staff will be needed. As long as the site is used strictly as a chip and grind operation, where the size-reduced materials are loaded and shipped offsite, the operation should not require more than three full-time staff: a loader operator, a grinder operator, and a person to provide traffic management and customer service, as well as act as load spotter and sorter. No additional capital is required for Phase 2. 2.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TOTAL ACREAGE & BUILDINGS Option 1, Phases 1 & 2 requires an area of not less than 30,000 square feet. Phase 3 requires an area of not less than 50,000 square feet. In order to host the Phase 4 operations, approximately 1.5 acres (220” x 290”) are needed, as seen in Section 6, Appendix A – Conceptual Site Plan. The simplest and least expensive option is an open-air facility. A small office is optional and can be a modular structure. The office will need to be equipped with a cash register, a safe, a computer, and billing software. The City may determine to install a scale and track the IRF material by weight instead of by volume. An enhanced version can include a building of approximately 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet to enclose the vehicle unloading area, providing shelter from the elements and reducing potential impacts of noise, dust, odor, and litter. Storage can be provided by bunkers, roll-off containers, and bins. It is not necessary to cover these storage areas or containers. Both phases of Option 3 may be implemented as an open-air operation on a stand-alone 20,000 to 30,000 square foot parcel. TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS The simplest configuration is to load materials in roll-off containers. They can then be picked up by roll- off trucks and hauled to processing plants. E-waste and other special materials can be loaded in specially constructed boxes or shrink-wrapped on pallets and loaded by the forklift onto flat bed trucks and hauled to processing facilities. ZONING CHARACTERIZATION Industrial zoning and adjacent land uses are preferred. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 20 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENT Stormwater will be controlled at the site by a series of bioswales, catchment basins, and/or retention ponds that will control and treat runoff before release offsite. PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS Construction and operation of a recycling drop-off facility does not require a formal solid waste permit. Wolfgang Kray at the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment’s Solid Waste Division stated that under new regulations materials collected must be contained in a proper manner so as not to cause a nuisance. Expansion of the IRF to include material sorting/processing (Phase 2) requires the facility to register with the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment and report tonnages. Additionally, an Application for Stormwater Discharges must be submitted in order to obtain a Recycling Industrial General Permit for stormwater. As part of the stormwater permitting process, a Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared and certified. Lastly, the type of air permit required depends on the levels of criteria pollutants anticipated for the project. For the IRF, particulates are the primary source of emissions. If the facility produces greater than two tons of particulates annually, an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) must be filed. A Construction Permit is required for emission of more than five tons of particulates annually. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACCESS PLAN The traffic circulation plan depends on the specific site, its driveway locations, and layout. In general, vehicles delivering material access the site off an “arterial” grade street. They pull into the site and optimally follow a counterclockwise pattern to the tipping area and then head back out to the scales or directly off-site. Trucks picking up material follow a similar pattern. Sufficient space must be provided so that vehicles do not need to queue on the street. INFRASTRUCTURE Depending on location, the site may require modifications to the road and driveways to accommodate public vehicles and truck traffic. The site will require electricity for site lighting, fencing and gates, signage, and paved surfaces. If an office is included, then water, sewer, and gas connections would most likely be needed. PUBLIC VS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OPTIONS If the IRF facility is to be provided as a public service, free to residents of Fort Collins, then it makes the most sense for the City to own the real estate. The operation of the facility and the provision of the equipment could be done by the City, or contracted out to a private company. In this scenario, the City would subsidize the entire cost of the operation. If, however, the operation is to be self-supporting and charge a fee for the service, it is possible that the private sector could own and operate the IRF. It is unlikely that a venture of this sort would be profitable. The value of the material to be collected at the IRF is either low or negative. Landfill fees in Colorado are very low. If a fee is charged at the IRF that is higher than local landfills’ fees (approximately $20 per ton), it creates an economic “disincentive” for residents to deliver material to SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 21 the IRF. One way this disparity in pricing could work is if the County and other landfill operators heavily penalized self-haul loads at the landfill, or banned them outright. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 22 3.0 PROPERTY INVENTORIES For this siting analysis, the Project Team evaluated potential sites in and around the City for an IRF. The City began as a hub for agricultural production but more recently, it has shifted its focus from an agriculture-based economy to a high-tech economy. Additionally, the City is the home to several breweries and a major university. There are several potential sites which may qualify for the IRF. Due to current economic conditions, a number of the sites initially identified are either abandoned or listed for sale. 3.1 SCREENING-LEVEL SITE EVALUATIONS Rather than perform an exhaustive survey of all possible properties, representatives of the Project Team identified an initial 23 potential sites for the IRF. In order to identify these sites, the Project Team met with City representatives, including Lindsay Kuntz, a Real Estate Specialist for the City. Also, the Project Team made two trips to Fort Collins to tour the city and view potential sites first-hand. The sites fell within a broad spectrum of zoning and locations, including Industrial (I), Employment (E), River Downtown Redevelopment (RDR), Community Commercial North College (CCN), Transition (T), Harmony Corridor (HC), Commercial (C), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN). The Project Team ranked each site on the initial list with a priority from high to low. Table 11 shows the initial site list with site priority and availability. A map with the locations of all 23 sites is shown in Figure 8. Sixteen of these sites were ranked low due to ownership issues or other problems that were considered significant, and these sites were eliminated from further analysis. The seven high priority sites are highlighted in Table 11 and were further evaluated using the established site evaluation criteria. 3.2 DETAILED EVALUATION CRITERIA The seven high priority sites were analyzed using a matrix of site evaluation criteria that was developed by Clements Environmental. The criteria, listed in Table 12, represent a mixture of information regarding specific site development, environmental issues, land use compatibility, traffic issues, proximity to service areas, and availability. 3.3 COMPILATION OF DATA Data required for the site analysis was obtained through: • The City Zoning Department (zoning, assessor’s maps, general plan, etc.) • Site Tours • Existing information and knowledge provided by City officials and staff • City Real Estate Specialist, Lindsay Kuntz SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 23 3.4 ANALYSIS OF SITES A matrix was developed to assist in evaluating the information for each site according to the site evaluation criteria. Each site was scored in each criterion, ranging from zero (0) to a high of five (5). A score of five (5) represents the best score for that criterion. Low scores indicate a weakness that will need to be addressed if the site is to be further considered. One low score was not grounds for elimination of a site because the weakness could perhaps be mitigated, and it is the relationship and totality of the various characteristics of a site that ultimately determine suitability. The scores for each criterion were then added to obtain an overall score for each site. The summary scores are shown on Table 13. Site Evaluation Worksheets for each of the seven high priority sites can be found in Appendix B – Site Evaluation Worksheets. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 24 Table 11 – Site Evaluation Criteria SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA Site Development Issues (minimize difficulty, maximize flexibility): • Relative Cost/Difficulty: Presence of major design constraints (parcel shape, slope, soils, rock, flooding, etc) • Useable Acreage: Facility expansion potential Natural Environment Issues (minimize possible impacts): • Potential for Biological Impacts (presence of sensitive habitats) • Potential for Cultural Resources (known historic/archaeological sites) • Water Quality: Would the IRF impact either surface or ground waters? Land Use Issues (minimize possible conflicts): • Noise (site proximity to sensitive receptors such as homes, hospitals) • Visual Issues ( anticipated site visibility from homes, parks, scenic hwys) • Zoning: Is IRF permissible with current zoning, or is change required? Is IRF compatible with zoning of adjacent parcels? • Existing land Use: Would IRF displace a current use important to Fort Collins? Would IRF be compatible with adjacent land uses? Traffic Issues (minimize congestion / dangers / air quality impacts): • Capacity of access routes (incl. number of lanes, left turn pockets, and arrows) • Traffic Safety Issues (if any) • Avoid access through or adjacent to residential areas • Availability of two or more site access points for circulation Site Proximity to Service Areas (minimize travel distance) • Fort Collins (road distance to geographic center of the City) • I-25 Freeway (road distance to freeway for commodity trucks) Availability for Acquisition (minimize uncertainty and cost) City-Owned (best situation if space available for IRF use) SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012- Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 25 Table 12 – Siting Analysis Summary Table Site Site Evaluation Criteria 2 6 7 12 15 17 21 Site Development Issues (minimize difficulty, maximize flexibility): • Relative Cost/Difficulty: resence of major design constraints 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 (parcel shape, slope, soils, rock, flooding, etc.) • Useable Acreage: Facility Expansion Potential 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 Natural Environment Issues (minimize possible impacts): • Potential for Biological Impacts (presence of sensitive habitats) 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 • Potential for Cultural Resources (known historic/archaeologic sites) 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 • Water Quality: Would the IRF impact either surface or ground waters? 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 Land Use Issues (minimize possible conflicts): • Noise (site proximity to sensitive receptors such as homes, hospitals) 2 4 5 1 5 3 1 • Visual Issues (anticipated site visibility from homes, parks, scenic hwys) 3 4 5 1 5 4 1 • Zoning: Is IRF permissible with current zoning, or is change required? 3 4 5 2 5 5 3 Is IRF compatible with zoning of adjacent parcels? 3 5 5 2 5 5 2 • Existing land Use: Would IRF displace a current use more important to Fort Collins? 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 Would IRF be compatible with adjacent land uses? 3 5 5 2 4 3 2 Traffic Issues (minimize congestion / safety / air quality impacts • Capacity of access routes (incl. number of lanes, left turn bays, and arrows) 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 • Traffic Safety Issues (if any) 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 • Avoid access through or adjacent to residential areas 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 • Availability of two or more site access points for circulation 4 4 5 5 2 5 3 Site Proximity to Service Areas (minimize travel distance) • Fort Collins (road distance to geographic center of the City) 5 4 4 3 4 4 1 • I-25 Freeway (road distance to freeway for commodity trucks) 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 Availability for Acquisition (minimize uncertainty and cost) 3 2 2 2 5 4 2 City-Owned 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 TOTAL POINTS 66 76 81 62 83 80 57 Recommended No No Yes No Yes Yes No SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 26 4.0 FINANCIAL MODELS Each Option/Phase presented in this report contains capital and operating costs considerations. The financial projections range from the minimal requirements of Option 2 with only $22,000 in capital expenditures, $15,000 in annual operating costs and no labor costs, to the large requirement of Option 1, Phase 4 with approximately $2,700,000 in capital expenditures and $1,360,000 in operating costs, and a full-time staff of 21. In the sections that follow, financial models are presented for each of the Options and Phases proposed, together with the assumptions and costs projections used to develop each model. 4.1 OPTION 1 – FINANCIAL MODEL The financial models for Option 1, Phases 1 through 4 are presented in Table 16. The financial models assume that materials will be received free of charge and therefore only revenue from the sale of recyclable materials is anticipated. However, considering that the materials targeted are currently being landfilled at a cost of $5.50 per cubic yard in addition to the time and hauling costs incurred by self- haulers, it is likely that a fee of up to $5.50 per cubic yard (approximately $44/ton) is attainable. Provided that the assumed operating factors are achieved, the costs per cubic yard calculated for Option 1 (Table 16) indicate that each of the phases could be operated at a lower cost than current landfill fees. The revenues for all four phases were projected based on the waste characterization and commodity prices provided in Table 14. In addition to the percentage distribution of each commodity, the market value of each commodity is provided in column “$/Ton”. The “Revenue/Ton” represents the proportionate amount of revenue that each commodity will generate per ton of material received. Based on this waste characterization and commodity prices, each ton of materials is projected to generate $10.59 per ton. Table 13 – Option 1 Waste Characterization & Revenue/Ton Commodity % $/Ton Revenue/Ton Ferrous Scrap 6.5% $160.00 $10.40 Non-Ferrous Scrap 1.5% $500.00 $7.50 Concrete/Rock 12.5% $0.00 $0.00 Brick/Tile 12.5% $0.00 $0.00 Porcelain/Ceramic 3.0% $0.00 $0.00 Asphalt 6.0% $0.00 $0.00 Wood 25.0% ($31.25) ($7.81) Green Waste 15.0% ($33.33) ($5.00) E-Waste 5.0% ($50.00) ($2.50) OCC 8.0% $100.00 $8.00 Textiles 5.0% $0.00 $0.00 Revenue/Ton $10.59 Note: The prices listed in the “$/ton” column are derived from conversations with local and regional buyers and brokers of the subject commodities (December 2011). SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 27 For Option 1, Phases 1 and 2, total capital expenditures were projected at $737,000 consisting of $500,000 for land and $237,000 for the acquisition of rolling stock and waste handling equipment (see Table 15 for a detail projection of capital outlays). In all options, land and improvement costs are amortized over a 30 year term at 3% interest. In Option 1, Phase 1, up to 8,125 annual tons, or 65,000 cubic yards are projected. The net cost, after crediting the projected value of recovered recyclables, is $29.83 per ton, or approximately $3.73 per cubic yard (see Table 16). By charging a fee of $3.73 per cubic yard, the City can expect to break even under Phase 1. In Option 1, Phase 2, additional capital expenditures are not incurred. However, added staff are required to handle the extra material that is expected – up to 16,250 tons per year, or 130,000 cubic yards are projected. With the added tonnage and no additional capital requirement, the IRF operating costs drop to $17.08 per ton, or $2.14 per cubic yard (see Table 16). By charging a fee of $2.14 per cubic yard, the City can expect to break even under Phase 2. For Option 1, Phase 3, total capital expenditures of 1,442,500 were projected consisting of $1,000,000 for land and improvements and $442,500 for rolling stock and waste handling equipment (see Table 15). An additional three sorters are included in the full-time staff and disposal costs escalate due to the anticipated receipt of mixed loads that will likely contain more hard-to-recycle materials. Even with the expected annual tonnage increase to 24,375 for Phase 3, the added capital, labor and disposal costs render a per ton operating cost of $25.33 per ton, or $3.17 per cubic yard (see Table 16). By charging a fee of $3.17 per cubic yard, the City can expect to break even under Phase 3. With the implementation of Option 1, Phase 4, the City will move into a full-service waste processing operation. Total capital expenditures of $2,742,500 are projected consisting of $1,250,000 for land and improvements and $1,492,500 in rolling stock and waste handling equipment, including $700,000 for a C&D sorting system, $300,000 for a tub-grinder, and $50,000 for a trommel (see Table 15). The IRF will operate the original self-haul recovery operation (Phases 1 through 3), plus full-scale C&D and green waste processing operations. The operating costs will be approximately $35.02 per ton with a cost per cubic yard of $4.38 (see Table 15). By charging a fee of $4.38 per cubic yard, the City can expect to break even under Phase 4. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 28 Table 14 – Option 1 Capital Requirements Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Price Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount Land $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Building $250,000 $250,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 Compactor $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 Tub-Grinder $300,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $300,000 Trommel $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000 C&D Sortline $700,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $700,000 Wheel Loader $150,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 150,000 1 $150,000 Forklift $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 Roll-Off Truck $100,000 1 $100,00 1 $100,000 1 $100,00 1 $100,000 Pup Trailer $30,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $30,000 1 $30,000 3-Yard Salvage Bins $400 15 $6,000 15 $6,000 15 $6,000 15 $6,000 50-Yard Roll-Off Boxes $5,000 6 $30,000 6 $30,000 9 $45,000 9 $45,000 12-Yard Roll-Off Boxes $3,500 6 $21,000 6 $21,000 9 $31,500 9 $31,500 TOTAL $747,000 $747,000 $1,442,500 $2,742,500 SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 29 Table 15 – Option 1 Stand-Alone IRF Proforma Revenue tons $/ton Annual tons $/ton Annual tons $/ton Annual tons $/ton Annual Gate Fees 8,125 $0.00 $0 16,250 $0.00 $0 24,375 $0.00 $0 47,125 $0.00 $0 Commodity Sales $10.06 $81,723 $10.06 $163,441 $8.47 $206,437 $0.27 $12,870 Total Revenue $10.06 $81,723 $10.06 $163,441 $8.47 $206,437 $0.27 $12,870 Operational Costs Labor $22.19 $180,331 $17.67 $287,179 $18.97 $462,302 $19.89 $937,113 Equip Maint & Ops $7.15 $58,128 $3.58 $58,128 $3.83 $93,420 $3.44 $162,129 Disposal 406 $25.00 $10,156 813 $25.00 $20,313 4,875 $25.00 $121,875 10,563 $25.00 $264,063 Sub-Total Operational Costs $30.60 $248,615 $22.50 $365,620 $27.80 $677,597 $28.93 $1,363,305 G&A Costs $1.65 $13,400 $0.82 $13,400 $0.71 $17,420 $0.43 $20,100 Interest & Depreciation Interest Expense $2.65 $21,568 $1.33 $21,568 $1.73 $42,224 $1.70 $79,903 Depreciation $4.98 $40,476 $2.49 $40,476 $3.55 $86,500 $4.24 $199,833 Sub-Total Interest & Depreciation $7.64 $62,045 $3.82 $62,045 $5.28 $128,724 $5.94 $279,736 Total Costs $39.88 $324,060 $27.14 $441,064 $33.79 $823,742 $35.29 $1,663,141 Surplus/Deficit ($29.83) ($242,337) ($17.08) ($277,624) ($25.33) ($617,305) ($35.02) ($1,650,271) Tons 8,125 16,250 24,375 47,125 Cu Yds @ 250 lbs 65,000 130,000 195,000 377,000 Cost/Cu Yd ($3.73) ($2.14) ($3.17) ($4.38) Phase4 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 30 4.2 OPTION 2 – FINANCIAL MODEL Option 2 calls only for the expansion of materials that are accepted at the City’s Rivendell School Drop- Off Operation. It assumes the City’s current contract for hauling full bins to recycling processors would be renegotiated to add trucking services for new materials. As such, only the addition of four roll-off boxes and four salvage bins is anticipated. The financial model for Option 2 is presented in Table 17. If mixed metals are recovered in the projected quantities, it is estimated that Option 2 will produce annual revenue of approximately $58,000 after deducting costs related to transportation and interest and depreciation for the purchase of roll-off boxes and salvage bins. Table 16 – Option 2 Expanded Rivendell Proforma Revenue tons $/ton Amount Gate Fees 333 $0.00 $0 Commodity Sales $229.31 $76,360 Total Revenue $229.31 $76,360 Operational Costs Labor $0.00 $0 Equip Maint & Ops $44.82 $14,925 Disposal - $0.00 $0 Sub-Total Operational Costs $44.82 $14,925 G&A Costs $0.00 $0 Interest & Depreciation Interest Expense $1.83 $609 Depreciation $9.27 $3,086 Sub-Total Interest & Depreciation $11.10 $3,695 Total Costs $55.92 $18,620 Surplus/Deficit $173.39 $57,740 It is important to note that at a capacity to handle 333 tons per year, Option 2 will accomplish little in terms of added annual diversion. In comparison, Phase 1 of Option 1 will operate at 8,125 tons capacity per year. 4.3 OPTION 3 – FINANCIAL MODEL Option 3 presents a full-service green waste drop-off operation. The operation is presented in two phases; Phase 1 will receive and process up to 25 tons of green waste per day, Phase 2 will ramp up to 75 tons per day. It is anticipated that the green waste drop-off center will be located on the City’s Timberline Road property. A capital investment of approximately $500,000 will be required; $300,000 for a green waste grinder, $150,000 for a wheel-loader, and $50,000 for a trommel screen. An operating cost of $75 per ton was used for the grinding operation. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 31 In Phase 1, only one staff person is required. When the tonnage is ramped-up to 75 tons per day in Phase 2, three staff are required; one spotter/sorter, and two equipment operators. Table 17 – Option 3 Green Waste Drop-Off Proforma Revenue tons $/ton Amount tons $/ton Annual Gate Fees 7,800 $0.00 $0 23,400 $0.00 $0 Commodity Sales $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Total Revenue $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Operational Costs Labor $6.66 $51,946 $5.96 $139,507 Equip Maint & Ops $7.27 $56,700 $5.54 $129,600 Disposal - $0.00 $0 - $0.00 $0 Sub-Total Operational Costs $13.93 $108,646 $11.50 $269,107 G&A Costs $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0 Interest & Depreciation Interest Expense $1.84 $14,316 $0.61 $14,316 Depreciation $7.23 $56,429 $2.41 $56,429 Sub-Total Interest & Depreciation $9.07 $70,744 $3.02 $70,744 Total Costs $23.00 $179,390 $14.52 $339,852 Surplus/Deficit ($23.00) ($179,390) ($14.52) ($339,852) Phase I Phase II SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 32 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Each of the Options presented in this report accomplish important aspects of the City’s objectives in commissioning the IRF Study. A household hazardous waste component for the IRF was considered impracticable because of the extraordinary costs of permitting, receiving, handling, manifesting, transporting, processing, recycling and disposing of the material. The financial models for each option demonstrate that the cost per cubic yard can be lower than the cost of landfilling. It is important to note that the bottom-line costs in each model are driven by a projected volume of incoming material and a projected value of the recovered commodities. We have used conservative projections for the volume and value in the financial models for each assumption. Option 1, presented in four Phases, is designed to accomplish all of the City’s stated objectives immediately upon implementation of Phase 1. With Option 1, Phase 1, the City will be able to offer a service to residential and commercial “self-haulers” that will target materials that are currently being landfilled. With Phases 2, 3 and 4, the City will be able to expand local services to receive and process larger volumes of materials, if needed. The quantities of materials projected to be processed, recovered and landfilled under each phase of Option 1 are summarized in Table 19. Table 18 – Option 1 – Recovery Summary Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Annual Tonnage 8,125 16,250 24,375 47,125 New Recovery 95.0% 7,719 95.0% 15,437.5 80.0% 19,500 77.6% 36,563 Landfill Disposal 5.0% 406 5.0% 812.5 20.0% 4,875 22.4% 10,562 Under Option 1, the singular difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is the addition of personnel in Phase 2 to handle an increased volume of materials. Phases 3 and 4 require considerable additional capital investment and increased staffing, up to 21 personnel. If implemented, Phases 3 and 4 will become a major component of the Northern Colorado solid waste/recycling infrastructure. Option 2 offers an opportunity to expand the targeted commodities that Fort Collins residents may recycle. With this Option, the City would simply expand the items accepted at the Rivendell Drop-Off site. This option will require a small capital investment and, depending upon commodity sales revenue, may produce a net positive financial result. With the projection of approximately 300 tons per year of additional diversion, this option will accomplish very little toward the City’s goal of reducing landfill disposal. Though Option 3 targets only green waste, with its implementation, the City will be able to offer a full- scale opportunity for all residents to dispose of their lawn, garden, and tree trimmings in a program that will divert those organic materials from landfill disposal. It projected that up to 7,410 tons will of green waste material will be divereted in Phase 1 and up to 22,230 tons in Phase 2 of Option 3. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 33 The City is fortuate to have numerous sites that could be appropriate for hosting the operation of an IRF. Because the (redacted) site (see Section 3.5.5 and 3.6.1) is already owned by the City and is ideally located, we believe that this site presents the fewest obstacles for successfully implementing Options 1 and 3. Finally, during the preparation of this report, we were pleased to find that the local area is well served by various public, private and non-profit organizations that offer opportunities to recycle and reuse concrete, rock, brick, tile, organic materials, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, furniture and fixtures, in additional to the traditional newspaper, bottles, and cans. Highly motivated residents and businesses already have multiple options for recycling. The primary benefit of developing an IRF operation would be to provide a convenient lower-cost option for the self- haulers that currently use the landfill. While an IRF could serve as catalyst for a new wave of recyclers and recycling in the commmity, it is likely that the success of such a facility will require sustained operational and financial support from the City. SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 34 6.0 APPENDICES 6.1 APPENDIX A – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 6.2 APPENDIX B – SITE EVALUATION WORKSHEETS SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 6.1 APPENDIX A – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis 6.2 APPENDIX B – SITE EVALUATION WORKSHEETS Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Air Quality & Recycling Survey Report of Results 2011 Page 25 - excerpts Support for recycling in Fort Collins was strong. Most residents in Fort Collins (about 80%) somewhat or strongly agreed that businesses and residents in both single and multi-family dwellings should be required to recycle. About 90% of respondents would like to see yard waste recycling options for single-family residences. Most do not think that smaller businesses should be exempt from recycling requirements. Figure 1: To Help Increase Recycling I Think: (2011) Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Page 54 Question 26 I recycle at the following level: 2011 2007 Number Percent Number Percent Can’t, it is not available 43 10% 49 9% Never, but it is available 18 4% 79 14% Less than once a month 3 1% 0 0% Once a month 19 4% 90 16% Twice a month or more 326 75% 345 61% Don’t know 23 5% 0 0% Curbside recycling program Total 432 100% 564 100% Can’t, it is not available 79 20% 106 19% Never, but it is available 85 22% 98 18% Less than once a month 58 15% 0 0% Once a month 20 5% 150 27% Twice a month or more 62 16% 196 36% Don’t know 90 23% 0 0% Yard trimmings Total 393 100% 549 100% Can’t, it is not available 62 15% 106 19% Never, but it is available 71 18% 81 15% Less than once a month 142 35% 0 0% Once a month 7 2% 121 22% Twice a month or more 9 2% 239 44% Don’t know 110 27% 0 0% Electronic waste Total 400 100% 547 100% Can’t, it is not available 18 4% NA NA Never, but it is available 140 35% NA NA Less than once a month 97 24% NA NA Once a month 29 7% NA NA Twice a month or more 17 4% NA NA Don’t know 103 25% NA NA Drop-off site at Rivendell School, NE corner of Riverside and E. Prospect* Total 405 100% NA NA 2007 had different response categories they matched to 2011 data as follows: "Always"= "Twice a month or more, "Sometimes"="Once a month", "Never"="Never", "Can't/Don't know"="Can't, it is not available Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Page 54 Question 27 (2011 only) To help increase recycling I think: Number Percent Strongly agree 256 57% Somewhat agree 95 21% Somewhat disagree 46 10% Strongly disagree 44 10% Don’t know 6 1% All businesses should be required to recycle Total 447 100% Strongly agree 54 13% Somewhat agree 75 17% Somewhat disagree 116 27% Strongly disagree 161 37% Don’t know 24 6% Only businesses of 15 or more employees should be required to recycle Total 430 100% Strongly agree 258 58% Somewhat agree 98 22% Somewhat disagree 34 8% Strongly disagree 46 10% Don’t know 10 2% Multi-family apartments should be required to recycle Total 445 100% Strongly agree 230 52% Somewhat agree 111 25% Somewhat disagree 41 9% Strongly disagree 53 12% Don’t know 10 2% Single-family residents should be required to recycle Total 445 100% Strongly agree 273 62% Somewhat agree 129 29% Single-family residents should have options for yard-waste recycling Somewhat disagree 9 2% Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Strongly disagree 19 4% Don’t know 13 3% Total 443 100% Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Appendix VI Page 5 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Appendix III: Verbatim Responses to Openended Survey Questions Following are verbatim responses to open-ended questions as written on the survey in the respondents’ own words, which have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Within each question, the responses are in alphabetical order. Question 28: Please tell us if there are any parts of the recycling system in Fort Collins that don’t work for you or that you would like to see changed. Comments related to cost  City should provide low-cost drop-off recycling of E-waste, Incl. Batteries, 2. City should provide free drop-off recycling of scrap metal.  Curb side free service good.  Free curbside.  Free yard waste & other house hold recycling.  I like the free recycling program with Gallegos sanitation. If yard waste has free as well that would be great.  I take my recycling to work and deposit in their bins. I think FTC should have a free location to drop off.  I think it's great! The only thing that may not work for some people is the cost. I feel really good filling my recycle bin full every 2 WKS!  If you make the recycle program voluntary and no cost. People will use it I believe  Need to have our company offer more pickups at curbside recycle without charging.  Recycling, including yard waste should be free. Curbside City should pick up leaves raked into street in fall for compost (free).  The Taft hill land fill requires residents to pay too electronic and non-paper waste. Bad Bad policy!!  Too expensive.  Too many containers for amount of storage area at residence - also too expensive.  We need a higher return like California or Michigan, than people will recycle, & it’s all about money.  We recycle as long as it is free of charge. It currently is free through our waste removal company.  Would like to see no charge for electronic waste recycle. For you can trough/piece into the dump at a time. Comments related to single or multi stream  1. Attract markets to purchase recycled water, 2. Reduce contamination in single. Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Appendix VI Page 6 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.  Curbside recycling is co-mingled. Rivendell has too many separated bins - makes it a pain to have 5! Bins at my house. Rivendell should have one co-mingled at least.  Looks like a very inefficient process to co-mingle all recyclables only to have to separate them later.  Paper should probably be separated rather than dumped in with everything else as it used to be.  Separate bins for plastics & glass composting bins would be good too.  Single-stream trash/recycle should be implemented.  The curbside recycle program should require better sorting - it seems that most of the material is being contaminated by broken glass & errant additions.  The drop-off site near riverside should be single-stream! Comments related to item type  A definitive list of every item that can be recycle, i.e. TV dinner cartons & plastic containers in them-cups (Wendy's) etc.  Add Styrofoam recycling; allow recycling of plastic food containers if washed.  Better pet waste recycling easier/better household chemical/hazardous waste recycling.  Broader scope of curbside recycling (I.E. Styrofoam, electronics) composing should be more encouraged/taught.  Can't recycle certain plastics, milk & juice cantons covered with plastic coating.  Electronic recycling is needed, I read the paper and inserts but never see anything.  Expand plastic recycling to include all types. Add green/composting recycling to single homes.  For a city this size not to have yard waste drop-off should be felonious!! Idiots!!  I think it should be easier / encouraged to recycle household batteries.  I was not aware of the programs how do I recycle office paper all newspapers.  I was used to separating recyclables & recycling Polystyrene foam that should be available.  I would like to know where old appliances, old computers, can be recycled.  I would like to see curbside glass recycle separated from the remaining co-mingled material.  I would like to see more plastic recycling. Also, I would like a bottle/can deposit to encourage recycling.  I'd love to know more about electronic waste recycling - I'm not aware of such a program, & we need one!  I'm perpetually confused by what is recyclable and what is not. Jar lids? Clam shell containers? A good, clear pouch that doesn't change would be great!  Improve explanation of acceptable items. Put sticker on recycling bins/boxes.  Is there a better way to recycle clothes paper clips, pencils etc.  I've heard rumors (from breweries) that the city does not actually recycle glass. Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Appendix VI Page 7 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.  Knowing how clean items need to be in order to be recycled.  Milk cartons and the like should be recycled.  More accessible or better advertised electronics recycling.  More signs available in stores as to what containers & numbers are accepted in Ft Collins.  Need info on electronic waste.  Need option for Styrofoam.  Need to have recycling available for Styrofoam and yard waste.  Plastics are confusing; push for less packaging.  Please ban Telephone Company from issuing phone books unless requested by customers.  Styrofoam collection. Reduction in trash cost for recycling implemented. Weekly pickup please.  Styrofoam recycling should be added.  Take Styrofoam.  The descriptions on the Corr. Cardboard & paper board containers at the Rivendell site need better details.  We should be able to recycle more types of plastic; electronics recycling should be easier to access; should be able to recycle grocery bags in curbside recycle bins.  We use a lot of waxed cartons & aseptic packages (for tofu & soy milk). I'd like to be able to recycle those. More frequent hazardous or pharmaceutical waste days. (Seems like they happen when I'm out of town).  What is accepted for recycling can be confusing; would like to drop batteries/electronics somewhere other than landfill.  Where can we take old TVs and computers for free disposal?  Would like to recycle Styrofoam. Comments related to yard waste  Cheaper, year-long availability of the yard waste cars.  Drop off for electronic recycling, leaf recycling at parks, branches at parks, used oil at more places, having more drop off days for paint etc.  Fort Collins should adopt the city of Loveland’s yard waste & recycling program.  Garbage companies provide yard waste pick up as part of package w/o high additional cost.  Green waste (yard trimming) recycling should be easier.  I don't know but the yard trimmings program.  I have no obvious direction to go with yard waste.  I have to pay for yard trimmings at Hageman’s about 3 or 4 times a year - I wish our neighbor would have a method of doing this.  I would like to see more yard waste recycling options since we don't compost. Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Appendix VI Page 8 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.  In spring & fall, the city of Ft. Collins should have some type of tax break for private waste trash services to pick up residential yard trimmings & leaves at no cost to residents.  Love the curbside recycling. Curbside - or at least easy - yard waste would be helpful.  Need year-round curbside recycling for yard waste.  No yard waste available in F.C.  Offer free yard waste recycling - possibly once per month.  Only small amount yard waste - would not deliver container for it pick up.  Please please please add a free yard waste/recycle program it would help everyone and make for the city.  Residential curbside yard waste recycling would be great. We even had that in Kentucky. Also, I don't think anyone should be required to recycle. But there should be incentives.  The yard waste (above) would be great - Also a composting option!  What about composting or the programs in Boulder for compost in public buildings?  Would like to have a yard waste site to dispose of tree branches etc. available.  Yard trimming recycle sites are avail. But, for a cost. I don't mind recycling yard trimmings, but I will not pay for it.  Yard trimmings - I'm not sure how/where to recycle my yard debris.  Yard waste recycling is good, saves Lar. Co money and improves land fill life and quality. Make it free, it'll get used more.  Yard waste recycling would be good if it was a reasonable cost. Comments related to increasing service (pickup, hours or locations)  Either extended hours or one extra Saturday per month to drop off electronics recycling the WM facility.  Have to drive several miles to recycle oil, antifreeze or pay extra for yard trimmings.  I fill up my recycle more than my trash, but it only comes every other week. It should be switched with trash pick-up.  I use Gallegos sanitation & they only pick up recycle cars every other week. Recycle cars should be picked up every week.  I would recycle but unaware of location at City Park & Elizabeth St. Convenient enough to walk trash too. It breaks my heart, really.  Instead of every two weeks pick up make it every week because it fills up too fast.  Larger recycling containers, our 95-gellon overflows at each every-other-week pickup.  More drop-off site for E-waste. No change on yard training.  More drop-offs for e-waste & household hazardous waste (Batteries, CFLS, etc.).  More electronic waste (ex. Batteries) drop-off sites.  More info & options on how to dispose of odd things I.E. Paint, Batteries.  More recycling.  Our bin gets too full and not everyone uses it properly. Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Appendix VI Page 9 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.  Pick up once a week instead of every other week.  Plastic bag recycling needs to increase & be easier to access & do recycling pickups should be more frequent in "non-home" areas (i.e. apartments, condos).  Recycling seems limited and not well known, provide better labels for what is recyclable & build more infrastructures to support additional types of recycling.  See that everybody has access to a recycling system.  Some areas in Fort Collins don't supply recycle bins to use.  The number of trucks that come down the street.  The public parks & Downtown should have recycling bins attached to or next to (important that they are next to each other) the trash.  There could be more recycling bins in public areas / the biggest problem in this town is traffic congestion and noise from traffic.  They cut down recycling pick up to every other week instead of weekly. So it gets too full.  We as a sustainable city need! need! Recycle cans/bins in the old town area. I'm always looking but they are not there.  We fill our recycling every two weeks - if it was provided every week we would recycle almost everything.  We need more "drop off" dates for hazardous waste so people will use it - many won't drive to landfill.  We would like to see weekly recycling return & the opportunity to recycle electronics & yard waste at least.  Weekend hours for hazardous waste drop extended more electronic recycle resources.  Would like weekly pickup. Comments related to multi-family dwellings  Awareness of recycling locations for those of us in apt. Complexes with no recycling.  Condo recycling by contractor.  Don't have enough room in the can provided at my S-apartment building.  Feel strongly about recycling not being available in condo/apartment units. It should be available.  HOAs and condo associations should be required to offer recycling services.  I would like a recycling bin at our complex.  If you use a dumpster at a residence, GSI won't pick up recycling.  Many apartment complexes & do not have recycling bins - OR - the bins provided are too few or in a very poor location.  Many apt complexes do not make recycling available to tenants.  More bias at my apartment complex (New Colony).  Multi-family apartments should be required to offer recycling.  My condo only provides for newspaper recycling, but everyone puts their cardboard in there anyway. I would like it included. Attachment 2 February 14, 2012 Work Session Appendix VI Page 10 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.  My Prop. Management does not provide recycling. It is frustrating!  Recycle bins at apts. get filled quickly; it would be nice if more bins were provided.  There is no recycling option at my apartment complex, a separate GM for recycling would most likely increase expending here. General (uncategorized) comments  Container too small - need more frequent pick up.  Don't know.  Eliminate vehicle listing cost exclude benefits.  Fort Collins is great @ recycling!  I think that people & Business should have the requirement to recycle, but some people can’t afford it, they should be able to get assistance for the program.  Investing in a local recycling plant would cut down on recycle transport costs & provide community jobs.  I've only lived in Ft. Collins since Sept. 2010 - Thus, I am less knowledgeable than many residents!  Just moved here from Dallas, TX and compared to there, Y'all's recycling program is outstanding!  Periodic info re recycling included in utility bills.  Recycling bins are constantly stolen by drunken college students, but not much can be done about this.  Recycling mandates similar to the SF Bay area world be great.  So far, the current recycling system is working great.  The recycle Karts - Totters are too big we like the smaller 18 gal baskets better.  Trees in alleys need to be pruned regularly - city worst at it!  We are satisfied.  You can't make businesses & families; recycle - We need to continue to educate people through schools & possibly when applying for small business. Comments expressing disagreement  City has no business telling/forcing people to recycle.  I do not like government intervention in every aspect of our lives.  I don't believe it should cost extra $ and I don't support taxpayer subsidies on this program. If it works economically it must stand on its own.  Keep it voluntary and keep Government out of my business and my home!! This survey is very slanted!  Roads & efficient stop lights are much more important to me than this. Personal efforts are important, but government should not spend trying to stop charges in climate. It's a futile waste of money! 1 1 Feasibility Report: Integrated Recycling Facility City Council Work Session February 14, 2012 Bruce Hendee, Director, Office of Sustainability Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner 2 Background • Community goal set for 50% waste diversion by 2010 • 43% level documented, below goal • Information requested in 2011 on systems-wide examination of facilitating recycling, landfill diversion, and management of waste. – February 14 Work Session is an update on three new types of drop-offs we evaluated for Fort Collins – April/May: Waste Stream Study is underway, including feasibility of recovering energy from debris ATTACHMENT 3 2 3 Tonight’s Discussion: • New materials for recycling • Financial structure, funding for an IRF • General area of locations that qualify for IRF but not details for privately owned properties – Section on ownership, prices, mapping was removed from the report 4 Integrated Recycling Facility Feasibility Analysis FINAL DRAFT REPORT Ver. 4 Real Estate Information for Sites Not Included in this Version Prepared for Prepared by: SloanVAZQUEZLLC Municipal Solid Waste & Recycling Advisors 18006 Skypark Circle, Suite 205 Irvine, CA 92614 Office: 866.241.4533 Fax: 714.276.0625 info@sloanvazquez.com 3 5 Materials to Add to Recycling • Focus on discards that offer greatest opportunity to make significant progress at meeting landfill diversion goal • A single site could provide drop-off for all/some of these: – Metal goods and small appliances – Large pieces/loads of cardboard – Scrap wood and yard debris – Concrete, asphalt, bricks, etc. – Electronics – “Textiles” including clothing and rags • Not recycling for conventional commodities (bottles/cans, newspaper, cardboard) already available through curbside program and City recycling center 6 Targeted Materials Generated By: • Construction sites and remodelers • Handyman clean-up projects • Homeowners These materials are generally: •Bulky • Found in loads of mixed waste • Delivered to landfills by “self haulers” • Can be cumbersome to source-separate at job sites • Perceived to have little value and “hard-to-recycle” 4 7 3 Concepts for Expanded Drop-off Facility Option 1: New Recycling Center Build a new, free-standing recycling center – Expand the facility in four stages – Extended list of materials • Steel, aluminum, copper scrap metal • Concrete, asphalt, bricks • Dimensional lumber • Electronics • Textiles • Cardboard • Green waste (tree and yard debris) 8 Option 1 Site Plan 5 9 Option 2: New Bins at Existing Facility Add several new bins at current facility on Riverside collect more types of recyclables • Metals • Heavy-duty plastics (large toys and buckets) Option 3: New Facility on City-owned property Build an IRF for comprehensive recycling activities • Expand in two stages • Lawn clippings, leaves, tree and garden debris • Use by residents, commercial sector, and City departments (Forestry, Parks, and Utilities) • Potentially move current Recycling Center to same site 10 Tons of materials for Three Drop-off Facility Options Option 3: Phase 2 22,230 Option 3: Phase 1 7,410 Option 2: Current Facility 300 additions Option 1: Phase 4 36,563 Option 1: Phase 3 19,500 Option 1: Phase 2 15,438 Option 1: Phase 1 7,719 Low Medium High Waste Diversion Potential (tons) 6 11 Financing for Drop-off Facilities • Many identified materials have low or zero financial value • Private enterprises’ role: – Unlikely to combine collection for multiple materials and built a “one-stop shop” for citizens’ use – Receives cleaned materials for marketing or further processing – May be contracted to operate site • Could help pay capital and operating costs with user fees – Incentivize IRF use by charging less than landfills, which charge $20/ton for C&D, $40/ton for green waste – Pro-forma statements in Tables 15 & 17 of report 12 GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS • Which, if any, options in the IRF report would the Council consider the best fit for the community? • Does an Integrated Recycling Facility have merit as a potential Offer in the upcoming Budgeting for Outcomes process? 7 13 User Fee Possibilities • Option 1 New IRF: break-even pricing – Phase 1 $3.73/yard – Phase 2 $2.14/yard – Phase 3 $3.17/yard – Phase 4 $4.38/yard • Option 2 Riverside Recycling Center No fee • Option 3 Green Waste Site: break-even price – Phase 1 $23.00/ton – Phase 2 $14.52/ton 14 Other activities in the community that are supported by the City include: - Rivendell Recycling Center – On-line Leaf Exchange & Worm Exchange (for vermiculture composting) – Green Building Code requirements for construction site recycling, effective 2012 – Household hazardous waste collections – Prescription drug take-back events – Electronic recycling collection events – Christmas tree recycling Provide the physical environment that encourages, through the university facilities, a sense of community between faculty, staff and students. Maintain the health, safety and well being of all users of University facilities. 25 S NO BUILD ZONE OPEN LANDS PRESERVE • No Development in Foothills Zone EL. 5800 MAX. BUILDING ELEVATION • Establish Pedestrian + Bike Gateways Pedestrian + Bike • Preserve + Reinforce View Corridors COLLEGE LAKE VIEW CORRIDOR • Establish Mass Transit Mass Transit Vehicular Provide the physical environment that encourages, through the university facilities, a sense of community between faculty, staff and students. Maintain the health, safety and well being of all users of University facilities. 19 Pedestrian + Bike CITY BIKEWAY MASON BIKE TRAIL GREE GREEN EEEEEEEEEN N NSE NNNSE NNSE SE SET OOOOOOOOO GREE GREEEE GREEN REEN EE NNNNNNNNN SE SETBACK TBACCCKKKKKKKKK CITY ITY BBBBBBBBB WAY AY • Establish Mass Transit Centers Mass Transit Vehicular MAX/BRT GUIDEWAY VTTH VT VVT VVVVTH T QU Q QQ • Preserve + Reinforce View Corridors VIEW CORRIDOR MAINTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR CEN CCCCCCCCCEN CE CENN ENNN EN E BIKK BIK BIKEWA KKKEW EWA EW WA W AYYY YYYYYYYYYYYY 35,000 students Provide the physical environment that encourages, through the university facilities, a sense of community between faculty, staff and students. Maintain the health, safety and well being of all users of University facilities. 13 W ELIZABETH STREET EAST ELIZABETH STREET EAST PITKIN STREET PLUM STREET WEST PROSPECT ROAD MERIDIAN AVENUE CENTRE AVENUE SHIELDS STREET SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE WEST PITKIN STREET OLD MAIN DRIVE OVAL DRIVE HOWES STREET MELDRUM STREET LOOMIS STREET GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG E GG MAX/BRT GUIDEWAY • Establish Mass Transit Centers Mass Transit INTERNAL CAMPUS TRANSIT • Develop Internal Campus Transit LEGEND colorado state university MAIN CAMPUS FRAMEWORK Access + Transit, DIAGRAM: 35,000 students UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU OOOOOOO EN MASON BIKE TRAIL BIKE PATH BIKE PATH • Maximize Alternative Modes of Transportation Bike E QUARTER-MILE RADIUS HALF-MILE RADIUS STR ST TR N 0’ 100’ 200’ 400’ IDENTITY CORNER RRRRRRRRRRR PEDESTRIAN CORE • Expand + Reinforce Pedestrian Core/Plaza • Preserve + Reinforce View Corridors PITKIN STREET VIEW CORRIDOR THE GREAT GREEN VIEW CORRIDOR PLUM STREET VIEW CORRIDOR UNIVERSITY AVE VIEW CORRIDOR EE OV SS QUAD PIT W C QUARTER-MILE RADIUS C STR TR FL G HE CAM AM NT NE H V HALF-MILE RADIUS N 0’ 100’ 200’ 400’ Provide the physical environment that encourages, through the university facilities, a sense of community between faculty, staff and students. Maintain the health, safety and well being of all users of University facilities. 1