HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 04/12/2016 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1
Wade Troxell, Mayor Council Information Center (CIC)
Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West
Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue
Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado
Gino Campana, District 3
Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14
Ross Cunniff, District 5 on the Comcast cable system
Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Winkelmann
City Attorney City Manager 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.
City Council Work Session
April 12, 2016
6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER.
1. College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts. (staff: Rick Richter, Laurie Kadrich; 10
minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to seek Council input regarding the proposed intersection improvements
at College and Prospect. Right-of-way acquisition is required from six commercial and two
residential adjacent properties. The six commercial properties were brought to Council on April 5 for
eminent domain authorization, if necessary, and discussions are on-going with the two residential
properties.
The Prospect Road and College Avenue Intersection Improvements Project is a collaborative project
between the City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University (CSU). As a part of the construction
of the Medical Center, CSU is required to make frontage and operational improvements generally
located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. The City has identified additional
improvements intended to improve long-standing congestion and safety problems in the area. The
project proposes road and intersection improvements, multimodal enhancements, utility
improvements, and access control improvements. This project is intended to address existing
congestion and safety problems at the intersection and improve connectivity for bicycles and
pedestrians.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
The project team has been meeting with affected property owners and exploring the full range of
design options over the last several months, with an emphasis on context sensitive design
approaches that balance the operational and safety needs of the intersection with property impacts.
Through this design process, the City has identified two primary design options that satisfy the goals
of the project while balancing property impacts. City staff is seeking Council input on the proposed
design options.
2. Neighborhood Connections. (staff: Josh Weinberg, Delynn Coldiron, Laurie Kadrich; 15 minute
staff presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of the Neighborhood Connections project is to develop and implement a best practice
neighborhood engagement program in Fort Collins. This program is intended to enhance the quality
of life for residents through increased connection, communication, collaboration, and co-creation with
the City. The program is intended to build unity within neighborhoods, cultivate leadership capacity
throughout the community, provide systems of support, and ensure individuals have a voice and the
ability to influence what happens in their neighborhoods and surrounding areas. Through this
program, Fort Collins residents will gain an enhanced way to engage with the City and have
opportunity to participate in creating and maintaining a healthy, vibrant, and dynamic community.
After researching best practices and conducting public outreach, staff is ready to initiate a prototype
program this summer for six to ten months, get further feedback, and adjust for optimal impact. The
proposed model is a semi-formal structure balancing multiple factors, including: intensity of effort
required by the City and each neighborhood to run the program, and the number and size of
participating neighborhoods. As the prototype program is rolled out, increased resources may be
required to achieve the level of neighborhood livability envisioned by Council.
3. Waste Optimization and Materials Management. (staff: Honore Depew, Jackie Kozak-Thiel,
Lucinda Smith, Jason Graham; 15 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update and seek feedback regarding the
Advanced Waste Stream Optimization initiative, including Sustainable Materials Management
research, waste-to-energy exploration, organics diversion, and regional collaboration.
OTHER BUSINESS.
ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
April 12, 2016
Dean Klingner, Engineer & Capital Project Manager
Rick Richter, Director of Infrastructure Services
Laurie Kadrich, Director of PDT
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek Council input regarding the proposed intersection improvements at College
and Prospect. Right-of-way acquisition is required from six commercial and two residential adjacent properties.
The six commercial properties were brought to Council on April 5 for eminent domain authorization, if necessary,
and discussions are on-going with the two residential properties.
The Prospect Road and College Avenue Intersection Improvements Project is a collaborative project between the
City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University (CSU). As a part of the construction of the Medical Center,
CSU is required to make frontage and operational improvements generally located in the northwest quadrant of
the intersection. The City has identified additional improvements intended to improve long-standing congestion
and safety problems in the area. The project proposes road and intersection improvements, multimodal
enhancements, utility improvements, and access control improvements. This project is intended to address
existing congestion and safety problems at the intersection and improve connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians.
The project team has been meeting with affected property owners and exploring the full range of design options
over the last several months, with an emphasis on context sensitive design approaches that balance the
operational and safety needs of the intersection with property impacts. Through this design process, the City has
identified two primary design options that satisfy the goals of the project while balancing property impacts.
City staff is seeking Council input on the proposed design options.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
What feedback does Council have regarding the Recommended Concept for the College and Prospect
intersection?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The Prospect and College intersection was identified as a high priority for congestion and safety improvements in
the City’s Arterial Intersection Study (2011). The intersection has some of the highest traffic volumes in the entire
city (70,000 vehicles/day) in addition to high numbers of crashes, significant congestion in peak travel times,
substandard bicycle and pedestrian facilities and insufficient turn lanes. Turn lane improvements and improved
signal timing will be implemented to reduce congestion, while re-designed medians and bicycle and pedestrian
facilities will update the look, feel and functionality of the intersection for all modes of transportation
As part of the 2011 Transportation Master Plan the College and Prospect intersection was identified as a
Gateway Intersection; on the Master Street Plan, it is identified as an Enhanced Travel Corridor. In coordination
with the City’s Streetscape Standards, this provides guidance on the look and feel of the intersection as a unique,
inviting, functional, well-integrated, mixed-use intersection and corridor. College Avenue is also the eastern limit
of the West Central Area Plan, and this project will incorporate improvements for the intersection consistent with
the recommendations of the West Central Area Plan.
1
Packet Pg. 3
April 12, 2016 Page 2
The Project Team has met with property owners and had detailed discussions regarding the design and process
moving forward with this project. Since the middle of January there have been approximately 20 meetings with
the affected owners in this area; nearly 10 (formal and informal) meetings were with residential property owners.
Many of the conversations centered on design flexibility and Context Sensitive Design in order to minimize
impacts to the properties. The property owners have suggested several design alternatives. Unfortunately, none
of these options have proven to be viable for safety and design reasons.
The project has identified several areas of flexibility with the design, including lane widths, intersection offsets,
geometry, horizontal curves, transition lengths, operations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, medians, landscape
and urban design, etc. All of these options are interrelated and have an effect on the overall intersection design
and alignment. The project team has looked at the flexibility of all of these options over the last several months
and presented options that meet the goals and needs of the project. The design flexibility is reflected in the
overall cross-section width. The City’s standard cross section width for a constrained arterial roadway is 102 feet
(115 feet for full City standard). The West Central Corridor Plan identified a narrower cross section of 88 feet for
particularly constrained areas along west Prospect Road. The current proposed cross section in front of the
residential properties has been narrowed to 71 feet by modifying the design standards as much as possible with a
Context Sensitive Design approach.
The Draft Recommended Concept provides dual westbound to southbound left turns. The Project Team’s
conclusion is that this design provides the most benefit to the operation, safety and functionality of the intersection
while still balancing impacts to the adjacent properties. In order to implement this, there are impacts to the east
side of the residential property north of Prospect Road. This option would provide a 20-25% reduction in
congestion/delay at the intersection.
The property owner at the northwest corner of Remington and Prospect is opposed to any impact to the concrete
wall on the southern edge of the property. In response to this feedback, the Project Team has also developed an
alternative that limits these impacts. This option eliminates one of the westbound left turn lanes, which would
provide approximately half of the congestion relief benefit of the dual westbound left turn lanes. It also leaves the
existing narrow sidewalk in place as both a pedestrian and bicycle facility. This option allows the wall to remain in
its existing location directly adjacent to the house.
The team has determined that it is not feasible to maintain dual lefts without impacting the east side of the
residential property. If the east side is not impacted, the dual lefts are not able to be implemented in a way that
does not raise safety concerns due to a compromised design.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Preferred Design Alternative (dual left turns) (PDF)
2. Single Westbound Left Turn Lane Design (PDF)
3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Packet Pg. 4
DUAL LEFT OPTION
ATTACHMENT 1
1.1
Packet Pg. 5
Attachment: Preferred Design Alternative (dual left turns) (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
SINGLE LEFT TURN
ATTACHMENT 2
1.2
Packet Pg. 6
Attachment: Single Westbound Left Turn Lane Design (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
1
College and Prospect –
Proposed Intersection Improvements
4-12-16
ATTACHMENT 3
1.3
Packet Pg. 7
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Direction Sought
What feedback does Council have regarding the
Recommended Concept for the College and Prospect
intersection?
2
1.3
Packet Pg. 8
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Project Context
3
1.3
Packet Pg. 9
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Project Need & Goals
Existing:
• 70,000 vehicles/day
• High congestion
• Narrow sidewalks, sub-standard turn lanes
Goals:
• Reduce congestion
• Safety – pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles
• Landscaping/Urban Design/Gateway
• Minimize adjacent property impacts
4
1.3
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Design Alternatives Process
• Full range of alternatives and iterations considered
• Context Sensitive – Flexible standards without affecting safety
• Congestion Relief is key outcome
• Constrained corridor = compromise
• Design for all modes
• Incorporate feedback from property owners
5
1.3
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Draft Recommended Concept
Key Design Elements:
• Add dual left turn lanes
and extend right turn lanes
• Upgrade substandard
infrastructure (utilities,
sidewalks, etc.)
• Improve bike/pedestrian
connections and crossings
• Requires rebuilding
wall/removing tree
6
1.3
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Alternate Concept
Key Design Elements:
• Best addresses
property owner
concerns
• Cannot include 2nd
WB Left Turn
7
1.3
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Residential Properties
8
1.3
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Residential Properties
9
1.3
Packet Pg. 15
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
Public Outreach
Outreach:
• Staff has contacted all property owners
• Staff has held ~15-20 individual meetings with property owners
• Concept plan has been adjusted to balance project needs/property
impacts
• Outreach effort will continue through final design and construction
• Mitigation (landscaping, parking, wall details, new trees, etc.) is a
focus of the next several months
10
1.3
Packet Pg. 16
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4325 : College and Prospect Intersection Design Concepts)
DATE:
STAFF:
April 12, 2016
Josh Weinberg, Sencior City Planner
Delynn Coldiron, Neighborhood Services Manager
Clay Frickey, Associate Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Neighborhood Connections.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Neighborhood Connections project is to develop and implement a best practice neighborhood
engagement program in Fort Collins. This program is intended to enhance the quality of life for residents through
increased connection, communication, collaboration, and co-creation with the City. The program is intended to
build unity within neighborhoods, cultivate leadership capacity throughout the community, provide systems of
support, and ensure individuals have a voice and the ability to influence what happens in their neighborhoods and
surrounding areas. Through this program, Fort Collins residents will gain an enhanced way to engage with the
City and have opportunity to participate in creating and maintaining a healthy, vibrant, and dynamic community.
After researching best practices and conducting public outreach, staff is ready to initiate a prototype program this
summer for six to ten months, get further feedback, and adjust for optimal impact. The proposed model is a semi-
formal structure balancing multiple factors, including: intensity of effort required by the City and each
neighborhood to run the program, and the number and size of participating neighborhoods. As the prototype
program is rolled out, increased resources may be required to achieve the level of neighborhood livability
envisioned by Council.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does Council have for staff moving forward with a pilot program?
2. What additional components, strategies, outcomes, and measures Council would like to see incorporated?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Public Engagement Summary
2
Packet Pg. 17
April 12, 2016 Page 2
This project has been driven by public involvement, with the aim of developing a community-based program. Staff
conducted a comprehensive outreach effort to understand the community’s vision for neighborhoods. See
Attachment 2 for more details regarding public outreach.
Best Practice Research
Staff studied a wide range of neighborhood engagement programs. In order to understand the various models
that exist, and those that are working well for other communities, staff identified fourteen cities to study that align
with similar demographics to Fort Collins, or that have strong reputations for successful neighborhood
engagement models and/or other exceptional community engagement programs. Every community studied has
their own version and, in general, such programs function on a spectrum of what staff refers to as “informal” to
“formal.” See Attachment 3 for highlights of each program.
Next Steps
Based on community feedback and best practice research, staff believes that implementation of a flexible
neighborhood engagement program, offering enhanced resources such as staff liaison, leadership training,
priority planning, and participatory budgeting/grant funding will be a good fit for the neighborhoods of Fort Collins.
This approach will realize the program goals of co-creation between the City and neighborhoods, building
connections within neighborhoods, and provide neighborhood representatives a forum to share opportunities and
challenges with representatives from other neighborhoods.
28 residents have expressed interest in piloting in a program and, during the proposed pilot phase, six to twelve
neighborhoods (from geographically distinct portions of the city) would be chosen to participate. The pilot program
duration would be six to ten months, in which time staff will evaluate staffing and resource needs. Neighborhood
Services and Planning staff will coordinate the pilot program, in assisting neighborhood leader selection,
developing content for the monthly neighborhood leader meetings, and liaising with individual neighborhood
groups. As the program expands, graduates from the City’s Lead 1.0 leadership development program will have
the opportunity to work as neighborhood staff liaisons.
Specific components of the pilot program, which will begin in June 2016, will include:
Hold initial neighborhood meetings
- Identification of neighborhood leaders/representatives and boundaries
Monthly meetings between leaders/representatives and City officials and staff
- Roll out leadership training program
- Provide training on asset mapping and neighborhood project prioritization
Optional monthly or quarterly neighborhood meetings to disseminate information, begin priority planning,
and inspire community building.
The pilot program will focus on four key strategies, with associated activities to implement the strategies, and
methods to measure the success of each:
2
Packet Pg. 18
April 12, 2016 Page 3
1. Strategy: Improve neighborhood information on City programs, initiatives, policies, and pilot
projects
Associated Activities:
- Consolidated messaging and notifications to neighborhoods on: development review, neighborhood
meetings, Council listening sessions, Police Department updates, etc.
- Explore dedicated City liaison to neighborhoods
Potential Measures:
- Number of touch points with neighborhoods
- Amount of online traffic around resources
- Number of requests for notifications.
3. Strategy: Build leadership capacity in community
Associated Activities:
- Deliver in-person leadership training courses with assistance from local resources
- Provide online leadership resources
Potential Measures:
- Participation in programs
- Shift in resident participation in their neighborhoods and in City processes
- Quality of community conversations among residents that are already engaged
4. Strategy: Enable neighborhoods to effectively organize and connect
Associated Activities:
- Conduct monthly meetings of representatives of all participating neighborhoods
- Topics that are of interest to everyone
- Includes training and informal networking/connecting
- Require participating neighborhoods be inclusive of all property owners and tenants
Potential Measures:
- Neighborhood representation / participation at meetings and events
- Feedback on effectiveness / flexibility of program
5. Strategy: Enable neighborhoods to positively and effectively influence planning
Associated Activities:
- Encourage proactive neighborhood planning through sub-area plan implementation, asset mapping,
and budget prioritization.
Potential Measures:
- Neighborhood actions on planning objectives
- Feedback from citizens on planning and implementation effectiveness
Staff plans to submit a Neighborhood Livability Enhancement offer as part of the 2017-2018 Budgeting for
Outcomes process that will recommend the addition of staffing to assist with this and other program and
2
Packet Pg. 19
April 12, 2016 Page 4
enforcement efforts. With regard to this project, the additional staffing will be integral in the pilot phases of the
project, as well as in the design, implementation and ongoing support of the final program(s) developed.
Anticipated duties include assisting with liaison duties between the City and neighborhoods, providing support to
the neighborhoods for marketing, outreach and technical efforts, supporting and/or administering grant funding,
and assisting with various neighborhood meetings and/or trainings throughout the year.
Conclusion
When citizens engage with a city and each other, everyone wins. According to urban theorist Richard Florida, a
person’s place of residence is a fundamental contributor to a person’s well-being. He believes that communities
that work to create a unique sense of place, that foster strong social relationships, that care about and treat
residents fairly, and that share decision-making and collaborate with residents on the items of importance to them,
are highly effective in creating cities that people love. Additionally, Peter Kageyama’s recent work in For the Love
of Cities and Love Where You Live talks about cities that make themselves easier to connect with become more
attractive for residents and produce more residents that desire to be involved and engaged. Kageyama introduces
the concept of “co-creation” to define the specific type of partnership between cities and residents that develops
places people love. Staff is excited about the opportunities this project presents in terms of co-creating with our
community at a neighborhood scale, enhancing sense of place, and collaborating on important projects.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Overview of Neighborhood Connections (PDF)
2. Public Outreach Summary (PDF)
3. Best Practice Research Findings (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
2
Packet Pg. 20
1
What is it? Revolving Communication and Support
A customized model, unique to Fort Collins, created from a compilation of nationwide best
practices and community input to strengthen communication and access to resources
19 communities studied including 8 site visits across the United States
Neighborhood groups that provide a point of contact and information for their neighbors,
other neighborhoods, and the City of Fort Collins enhancing livability
Method to enhance co-creation, co-management, and public engagement
Why do we need it? Awareness & Utilization of Resources
Citizen Survey indicated the 87% of people receive news via word of mouth
o Help facilitate and be a part of those discussions
Dozens of resources committed to neighborhoods but majority of people stated they were
“unfamiliar” with the programs
Problem isn’t a lack of resources but a lack of utilization and awareness
Clear path of communication for people about the issues that affect them most
Meet people when, how, and where they prefer or need to be reached
Help eliminate barriers for harder-to-reach populations and between neighborhoods
Community Outreach Involvement Every Step of the Way
Total reach: Over 500 people (not including social media)
o Questionnaire – online and print in Spanish and English
o Community Issues Forum discussion topic
o Presentations to community organizations
o Community Advisory Groups
o Leadership Training Events
o Focus Groups
We asked:
o What issues would your neighborhood organize around?
o What should the program achieve?
o What should the program avoid?
What Do People Want? The Fort Collins Model
Majority wants more formal interaction with the City and each other
Most interested in:
o Leadership Training
o Council of Neighborhoods
o Neighborhood Planning
o Participatory Budgeting
o Expanded Neighborhood Grants
ATTACHMENT 1
2.1
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Overview of Neighborhood Connections (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Public Outreach Summary
In all, over 500 community members participated in shaping the Neighborhood Connections program.
Outreach included:
x A Community Advisory Group of 20 citizens representing all areas of the City to provide
feedback on potential engagement models
x Online questionnaire
x Focus group meetings to vet elements of the neighborhood engagement model
x Discussion at the Community Issues Forum
x 2 leadership training events focused on neighborhood engagement
All of the outreach conducted sought to answer three key questions:
1. What issues would your neighborhood organize around?
2. What should the Neighborhood Connections program achieve?
3. What should the Neighborhood Connection program avoid?
Citizens established clear outlines for the program with their responses:
- A more formal relationship with the City to improve access to and knowledge of City
departments and programs
- Additional opportunities to engage with the City and increase awareness in the community as a
whole
- Feedback on neighborhood boundaries, requirements for groups, and potential elements and
resources for the program.
Citizens established clear outlines for the program with their responses:
What Neighborhood Connections Can Enhance in Neighborhoods
x Community building
x Transparent engagement with the City
x Inter/intra-neighborhood connections
x Development activity
What Neighborhood Connections Should Achieve
x Improved communications and connections within neighborhoods, between neighborhoods,
and between neighborhoods and the City of Fort Collins
x Proactive system to manage issues and projects
x Capacity building for neighborhood members and leaders
x Give neighborhoods more prominent voice early on in projects
x Flexible system that can meet the needs of various kinds of neighborhoods
ATTACHMENT 2
2.2
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
What Neighborhood Connections Should Avoid
x High barriers for participation
x A top down approach where the City requires neighborhood organizations to receive
information or access to programs that neighborhoods can currently access
x Creating conflict between HOAs and neighborhood groups
x If people do not know about the program, they will not be able to use it
Questionnaire Results
Neighborhoods would like a more formal relationship with the City to improve access to and knowledge
of City departments and programs. As part of the outreach for Neighborhood Connections, staff
developed a questionnaire to gauge interest in organizing neighborhoods in a more formal way. 294
community members responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire results have provided key
insights into how community members hope their neighborhoods can interact with the City and the
sorts of issues they would like to work on as a neighborhood. According to the questionnaire:
x Nearly 80% of respondents said their neighborhood interacts with the City in an informal way.
x Almost 50% of respondents said they would like their neighborhood’s relationship with the City to
be somewhat formal or formal.
x Many respondents expressed they did not have sufficient access to various City departments.
x Most respondents were unfamiliar with the neighborhood-oriented City programs identified in the
questionnaire.
Citizens Survey Results
Programs that provide additional opportunities to engage with the City will increase awareness in the
community as a whole. The biennial Fort Collins Citizens Survey identified 87% of respondents find out
about City issues, services, and programs through word of mouth. The prototype program is a way for
the City to enhance its connections with neighborhoods
Focus Group Results
Participants provided feedback on neighborhood boundaries, requirements for groups, and potential
elements and resources for the program. The purpose of the Neighborhood Focus Groups was to reach
out to a broader audience to provide feedback on potential elements of the Neighborhood Connections
program. Over 60 interested neighborhood residents participated in these focus groups. Participants
discussed the following topics in depth:
x Size of neighborhood boundaries
x Minimum requirements for developing a recognized neighborhood group
x Potential resources and elements of the program
2.2
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
After discussing these topics in small groups, the participants gave their opinion on the program as a
whole and their level of excitement for the program. Over half of participants indicated they plan to be
involved with the program in some capacity upon its formation.
2.2
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
2QOLQH4XHVWLRQQDLUH5HVXOWV
1
$$
1
$$ "%
1
"8
1
"
: 7 $ " 2
: 7 $ " 2 "
"
:
$ "2
:
$ "2
&.
:
$ "
&""1
&
"
&
& 7
& $$
"
&
!
&" "
"& $$7 $ " "" -
&" "
"& $$
&" "
" $$
6" "& $$
6" "& $$0
6" "& $$ 2
"
#% '
"
!
!
! $" 2 4
!
"
) ! " "
!
!
"
!
" 2$
) 2"(
; 2
$ %"
2$
" <7& $$
$
$
"
$
"*0$$" %
",
) $
"
$
>0$$"
""
$ >&
$$%
"
" % "
$ .
@2 "
$
'
$$ &
:$"
2
$
% $$
"7 4" -
"
"'
$
"
"'
" = $$
" "
"
) "
"
"
"= $$
$$
" 2
$
< "
< '
< %
< " "%
< $&
<
"
B"
%
= % ":$/-" @$$
= $$ : "
0
"0 $
0$$" - 4&.
0 "
0 $"
0 $7
0
0%
07 $
07 $
E 4;F 3
4F
)4F G
<
$ G
4-
"
7 $
%
"* 44&
." 8
%
",5
E4;F
4F
)4F
;
2.2
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
E D4DF G
;4)F )
<
$ 3
)4-
$ "
%
"5
ED4DF
;4)F
G
2.2
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
% % $ %
.-
2
'
" %
"
'
" %
"@$" %
6"7 $ 34F ))
"7 $ ))4F G
7 $ G4F
=
7 $ 4F )
<
$ ;3
4&
$
"
" % '
% "$
5
6"7 $34F
"7 $))4F
7 $G4F
=
7 $4F
2.2
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
6"7 $ 4;F )
"7 $ )34F
7 $ )4)F 3
=
7 $ 4;F D
<
$ G
34&
$
$
"
" % '
5
6"7 $4;F
"7 $)34F
7 $)4)F
=
7 $4;F
2.2
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
$ "
"
$ $
! "
$
"*,"
"*
@ " ",JB"
% J
4F 4F 4F F
0
"8"2$ 1 $
&
" I 4F 4F 4F F
6 %
"
"7 % $" %
*
> $
4F 4F 4F F
77 %"
4F )
%
2 $ )4F G
" 4F
% $2 )D4DF
$ ;4F )D
'
"> " 4;F G
. 4F 3
<
$ G
*+,*
!7 $" ;
'
%%
'
"% $
2 " % '
>
8>$
$ $
$>
0 7 %
""+
"K"4.
"
"
C$ "
E ;4F )3
)4F )G
68"
7+- 4F
<
$ G
4-
%
""%
"
% $ +- 5
E;4F
)4F
68"
7+- 4F
2.2
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
'
"
$ " 4F
$ % ;4F )
7 D4F
6"7 % 4F )
< "
" D4DF
%
"
%
" " "% ""%
"
$ %
"
1 .
< $%%
$
" "@
" "
"
/" '
$ 77 40 $$ "
"" $
$ %
"
" 7'
$ $ 4
" $ " %
""$
4& " $
7 $
40
5
;4F
)F
)4F
;4F
34F
3D4)F
DN4F
7 "
" 4F
B" ; 4F
; 4F
) 4F
) 4F D
;4F
3 4F 3
3D 4)F
DN 4F
7 "
" 4F
<
$ G
)/4
4D
- 4
2+ D4
3
2.2
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
2$ )43F
1$ 343F ;
. 4DF
7 "
" )4F G
<
$ G
40 % "
" 7
5
2$)43F
1$343F
. 4DF
7 "
" )4F
D
2.2
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
" 4DF
$% 4F
&
L/GGG $ )4F
L/;GGG 4F
LG/;D/GGG 34F D
L;;/G/GGG )4F ;G
L/LG/GGG 4)F )3
L/ 4F D
7 "
" 4F 3)
<
$ G)
D40
""$
$ "%
5
L/GGG $)4F
L/;GGGF
LG/;D/GGG3F
L;;/G/GGG)4F
L/LG/GGG4)F
L/ 4F
7 "
" 4F
G
2.2
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
)
2.2
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Report of Results
November 2015
48
Table 31: Question 19
If you answered 'less effort' for any of the items in question 17, what specific services and amenities would you like to
see reduced?
Percent of
respondents
Transportation 24%
Parks, recreation and open space 3%
Neighborhood and community services 26%
Police 9%
Government organization and functions overall 24%
Recycling and environmental sustainability efforts 19%
Economic growth 12%
Table 32: Question 20
Thinking about the future of Fort Collins, what do you think should be the top three priorities for the
City within the next five years?
Percent of respondents making a
comment
Economy/ Business 39%
Environment 30%
Neighborhoods/ Housing 34%
Safety/ Police 13%
Culture, Parks & Recreation 17%
Transportation/ Traffic 63%
General Government 5%
Other 25%
*The column labeled "Percent of respondents" includes all respondents to the survey. The column labeled "Percent of respondents making a comment" includes only those who responded to
question
19.The total may exceed 100% as respondents were able to write in multiple services.
Table 33: Question 21
Please rate the City's performance in each of the following areas. Very good Good Average Bad Very bad Total
Welcoming citizen involvement 22% 47% 27% 4% 1% 100%
Listening to citizens 14% 36% 36% 9% 5% 100%
Informing citizens 18% 41% 31% 7% 2% 100%
Providing opportunities to participate in government activities 15% 40% 35% 9% 2% 100%
Providing emergency information 21% 42% 33% 3% 1% 100%
2.2
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Report of Results
November 2015
49
Table 34: Question 22
Please indicate how frequently, if ever, you or other members of your household use each
of the following sources of information regarding City issues, services and programs. Always Frequently Sometimes Never Total
Fort Collins local cable channel 14 1% 2% 19% 78% 100%
Online video of cable channel 14 on www.fcgov.com/cable14 0% 2% 9% 88% 100%
City's website (www.fcgov.com) 7% 19% 54% 21% 100%
“City News” (insert with utility bill) 12% 21% 33% 35% 100%
Newsletters or brochures from City departments 7% 15% 40% 38% 100%
Tracks and Trails (the guide to natural areas activities) 8% 25% 35% 32% 100%
“Recreator” (guide to recreation programs) 11% 27% 32% 30% 100%
Word of mouth 14% 39% 34% 13% 100%
Newspaper (print or online) 16% 25% 31% 28% 100%
Radio 8% 21% 34% 37% 100%
Television news 11% 16% 30% 43% 100%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.) 10% 20% 29% 40% 100%
Fort Collins Idea Lab (idealab.fcgov.com) 1% 1% 7% 91% 100%
City of Fort Collins mobile apps (Access Fort Collins, Digital Publications, Recreator) 1% 3% 15% 80% 100%
City booth at local events 2% 5% 34% 59% 100%
2.2
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Report of Results
November 2015
129
Table 136: Question 21 by Geographic Area of Residence
Please rate the City
performance in the
following area. (Average
rating 0=very bad, 100=very
good).
Geographic area of residence
Northeast East
Central
South of
Harmony Northwest/CSU
West
Central Overall
Welcoming citizen involvement 70 69 73 78 68 71
Listening to citizens 56 60 62 67 59 61
Informing citizens 69 68 66 70 62 67
Providing opportunities to
participate in government
activities 66 60 68 65 62 64
Providing emergency
information 68 70 72 73 65 70
Table 137: Question 22 by Geographic Area of Residence
Please indicate how
frequently, if ever, you or
other members of your
household use each of the
following sources of
information regarding City
issues, services and programs.
(Percent at least sometimes).
Geographic area of residence
Northeast East
Central
South of
Harmony Northwest/CSU
West
Central Overall
Fort Collins local cable channel 14 30% 25% 18% 18% 22% 22%
Online video of cable channel 14
on www.fcgov.com/cable14 20% 11% 10% 11% 10% 12%
City's website (www.fcgov.com) 85% 74% 80% 70% 88% 79%
“City News” (insert with utility bill) 61% 69% 71% 49% 72% 65%
Newsletters or brochures from
City departments 68% 57% 61% 54% 69% 61%
Tracks and Trails (the guide to
natural areas activities) 75% 60% 75% 65% 69% 68%
“Recreator” (guide to recreation
programs) 83% 65% 78% 54% 74% 70%
Word of mouth 96% 84% 87% 78% 92% 87%
Newspaper (print or online) 79% 78% 71% 62% 73% 72%
Radio 76% 64% 62% 59% 62% 63%
Television news 62% 58% 65% 43% 58% 57%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter,
Nextdoor, etc.) 62% 59% 54% 62% 62% 60%
Fort Collins Idea Lab
(idealab.fcgov.com) 8% 6% 5% 13% 12% 9%
City of Fort Collins mobile apps
City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Report of Results
November 2015
142
Front Range Benchmark Comparisons
Table 156: Quality of Life and Community Benchmarks
Please rate Fort Collins as a
community on each of the items
listed below.
Fort Collins
average
rating
Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to Front
Range benchmark
Overall, as a place to live 89 3 27 Much higher
Availability of affordable quality
housing 38 15 17 Much lower
Quality of public schools 82 2 15 Much higher
As a place to raise children 87 4 28 Much higher
As a place to retire 79 2 29 Much higher
Community acceptance of all people 72 1 20 Much higher
Overall quality of life in Fort Collins 85 3 32 Much higher
Table 157: City Neighborhood Benchmark
Please rate the quality of your
neighborhood on each of the
items listed below.
Fort Collins
average
rating
Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
Front Range
benchmark
Your neighborhood as a place to live 83 6 26 Much higher
Table 158: Overall Safety Benchmark
Please rate Fort Collins as a
community on each of the items
listed below.
Fort Collins
average
rating
Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to Front
Range benchmark
Overall safety of residents 81 5 15 Much higher
Table 159: Personal Safety Benchmarks
Please tell us how safe you feel
in each of the following areas in
Fort Collins.
Fort Collins
average
1
EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ&ŽĐƵƐ'ƌŽƵƉ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ
Feb. 4, 6, and March 7, 2016
Session 1: What was the most compelling reason for this developing program. (we did not have
dedicated time in small groups to discuss this, so this only includes notes if it the purpose come up
in discussions on its own).
1) A few of the group members were interested in how neighborhoods working together as a part of this
program would positively contribute to the climate action plan (reducing carbon footprint). Those working on
the climate action plan want to further their processes and build off of the work that is being done via
Neighborhood Engagement. *not listed on sheet
2) Our group was also very concerned with improving connections between City and neighborhoods/within
neighborhoods (D) *on sheet
Liaisons was definitely the main focus of our group. All but two people at our table thought that it would be
great to have a liaison and that was mostly want they wanted to learn more about.
We didn't talk about this specifically but I saw a lot of these reasons come up. The main topic we talked
about was the idea of a liaison as resource. This probably goes with A. identify/build city programs/services
neighborhoods want and C. productive structure to address challenging issues most.
However, small town feel was brought up specifically as well!
Session 2: So what do you think about using census tracts to help define neighborhoods? How
would it work with your neighborhoods in terms of supporting the goals of this project?
Some of the boundaries don't make sense. Also there are natural barriers that cut of some parts off from
other parts in the neighborhood i.e. Linden Neighborhood.
The markers are somewhat confusing.
Hard to read the proposed boundaries that would define the neighborhood.
Map needs to be better.
If the neighborhood was better defined it would be easier to connect with others and work towards a
common sense of community.
Participant disagreed with using census tracts, arguing:
-Communities are created from shared values and usually arise from development plans that have kept
their names over time.
-Census tracts may not work well, asked how the census is set up.
-Distinguished how apartment complexes/renters have a different lifestyle than house owners. And that
renters come and go and have different priorities for the city versus home owners. Feels using census
tracts may bound these people into one district
-Does't want to census tracts to bound too many communities into one
Participant responded:
-Doesn't want to feel segregated from neighbors. Saying that renters have different priorities for city and
thus don't matter and shouldn't be included is insensitive. Homeowner doesn't want to feel separated from
apartment/rental owners.
Another Participant added:
-Not any single system is optimal
-Scaling communities is hard
-From a community members perspective the boundaries don't make a big difference
In general:
-All agreed that when a connected neighborhood counsel registered for the program and was labeled under
2.2
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
2
a certain "boundary," that this boundary should be fluid because it would probably shift with time and
neighborhoods could restructure
-Possible criteria's: Streets, Schools
-If we put another layer of administrations that act as medium to communicate to the city it could create
more bureaucracy and lead to less neighborhood communication
-How many representatives is to many?
-Should use Next Door Neighborhood app to get statistics on who people consider their neighbors
Whats the basis for this?
-Geographic or demographic census?
-What is the defining measurement of this census data? -Population?
-Its going to be hard to break down preexisting informal neighborhood systems and structures
1) It is too early to identify whether or not the census divisions will work
2) The census lines may split up the neighborhoods unequally (unequal representation)
3) There were concerns about the populations of the small neighborhood boundaries. We talked about how
a neighborhood of mostly college students would be different than ones with mostly families, or military
families etc. This all impacts neighborhood relationships
4) There was a concern for the dynamic of having apartment complexes and high-end homes located so
closely together and being captured by the same census boundary
5) Some liked the idea of keeping boundaries small to promote inner neighborhood connections, and "small
town feel"
• you can’t just use these lines because they run through established neighborhoods
• census lines don’t indicate a neighborhood
• This is critical, the boundaries and neighborhoods should be decided by the people who live in them- a
good way to start cohesiveness
o To do this, you need to organize meetings to talk
o In North College, there are many postal addresses, so banners would be easier to spread word about
visioning process and defining our neighborhood
o This process needs to reach far deeper into the individual neighborhoods
• Neighborhoods are a big identifier and Fort Collins does not have that
• Questions about Down Town are city wide issue but this is just a neighborhood issue
• It is important to do this now as population grows
• To marry consistency and flexibility together you would need the city to tell the neighborhood that they
need to figure out how to manage change so that it’s not managed by someone else and it is not
unmanaged since the city is going to change so much
• Allow people to be able to define their own neighborhood
• The quantity of neighborhoods represented seems do-able
o That would be about 5,000 people per neighborhood
• It’s not the city’s issue
o Neighborhoods need to come up with their own models because one won’t work for all
• Are geographic boundaries really what have meaning?
• Resources are likely to dictate how many neighborhoods “connections” can be established.
Some people felt that these wouldn't necessarily represent the interests of all people. The idea of school
districts as making up some of these neighborhoods and how that could present an appropriate size came
up as well. One man felt that the census lines that were drawn wouldn't work because their community was
very divided into a younger and older population and her didn't see any changing that.
Our group talked about different ideas of ways to divide up neighborhoods to try and potentially find a
middle ground between the current next door and census tract boundaries.
1. Overlaying the council districts into the current map and see where these council districts come in and
then break up from there
-found issue in the big difference in demographics in some neighborhoods (specifically talking about Avery
Park in East and West areas with East being young renters)
-other areas seemed like they could mesh together very well (specifically Harvest Park, Timber Creek,
Sage, Fossil Lake and that area
2.2
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
3
2. This brought up the idea of how families are important in these districting topics and thought creating
boundaries based on schools for the neighborhoods could be a good starting point (came to conclusion that
4 high schools makes areas too big but using middle schools could be a viable option --> council district w/
school district subset)
-Use information about schools and area dynamics but can't forget about issues that come with rental areas
when basing boundaries off of schools, when you get closer to CSU and Old Town the school boundaries
don't work as well
-Demographics seem to drive census organization while communication drives next door, need to find data
that overlaps these two areas to create common neighborhood boundaries (someone pointed out taxes and
laws)
-Making better communication between school administration and neighborhood engagement to foster
better relationships between schools, neighborhoods, and the city
-Commercial interest also come into play though, need to think of dynamic changes in the various
communities
-Need to be careful about not becoming too discriminatory, each area is different so when talking about this
issue it's hard when each focuses on their own experience in their neighborhood
Overall, seemed very opposed. Talked much more about utilizing people to determine neighborhood
boundaries. Also discussed using geographical markers like parks/natural spaces and/or elementary
schools
Q: What do you think about using census tracts to help define neighborhoods?
1. Census tracts are variable in size
a. They are population sensitive
b. My neighborhood, Water Glen, is huge and I don’t know if there would be a connection in a
neighborhood that large
i. It would need to be a more natural dispersion
2. If it is supposed to be about meeting people then the census is pretty overwhelming
a. The little green boxes (nextdoor) would probably be too small of groups and be hard to manage for the
city
3. Older neighborhoods that are very established will not want to be disrupted
Q: Supporting goals?
1. Census tract makes sense for leadership but not for the small town feel
2. Varying areas of traffic/roads are blocked due to games and university events while causes different
issues in certain parts of the city
Q: What about letter C?
1. If you are a tiny neighborhood could be hard to think about the city in perspective
a. For example, there are homeless people in Fort Collins even if you never see them
2. Get overlay of community representation
3. Might not provide structure but could be solution based
4. Issues are different in certain areas of town but it would help for everyone to work together to solve these
issues
Q: What about F?
1. I like using an ambassador for neighborhoods, maybe not census but nextdoor instead
Q: Are there too many neighborhoods?
1. Sounds like that is more for city leadership and doesn’t help
neighborhoods to be this big
Why? -A, What? -B, How? -C.
C: + all neighborhoods should focus on elementary schools (D) as boundaries... can it work in foco?
A: + manageable small groupings (meaningful conclusions), organization/communication.
C: - works for some (census tracts) but not all. How have the boundaries been chosen so far? ... closer to
old town being smaller (boundaries)?
C: - how do rental vs owner residential properties affect involvement/boundaries?
D: - the spread of information regarding current events (dissemination) happens through schools. what if no
kids in school?
C: + divided by churches? community centers? libraries? maintenance/safety. ...Pinpoint landmarks on
2.2
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
4
map. key of points of community activity.
-Generally dislike
-school districts would work better because that's who I interact with because of my kids
-problems with interests would overcome census borders
-could be helpful because they already exist
-boundaries that don't cater to development level and socioeconomic is an issue
-they need to take natural barriers into consideration. Certain neighborhoods don't mesh because there is a
different vibe on other sides of river and natural areas
-start with city council districts and divide from there.
-There are too many census boundaries
Session 3: Before we get into specifics, what do you think generally about having some minimum
requirements to officially become a Connected Neighborhood? Will they help us achieve our goals?
It allows for some form of structure.
I don't get it, why would you register with the city if it's a neighborhood organization?
Are the minimum number of group members enough?
What about those in the neighborhood who choose not to participate?
They have the right not to participate if that is their choice. However, if they are forced to pay for something
they did not agree to, there may be conflict.
-Voting annually keeps things, groups, information fresh and is a way to mobilize neighborhood needs
-Voting once a year would promote proactive vs. reactive goal
-Boundaries at the time of registration should be fluid over time because it will probably change
1) It depends on which model we go with-the formal vs. informal will work differently (better/worse) in
different neighborhoods
2) Requirements, such as training for new comers, would be beneficial
3) There will need to be some formal requirements for groups to meet before participating
The requirements didn't really come up in our discussions, I think they just assumed that would fall
together. They really wanted to talk about the resources. One man from our table didn't want a liaison but
wanted everything else and didn't think they should have to be appointed a liaison if they already have a
good relationship with their city councilman. He was the only person at our table who felt that way.
-In 100% residential areas, it can be hard to engage rental communities who don't stay long, have separate
amenities in facilities. This makes them hard to integrate into the rest of the community and creates a lack
of stability with constant changes in neighbors.
-Need to connect with stable neighborhoods or property managers to meet goals and have people who are
around enough.
-Should be mix of all variety of homes in Fort Collins but generally it seems that this is an ideal (doesn't
work as well in varying communities.)
-Formal model drawbacks --> would be good for creating structure but would need interaction (HOAs have
formality and great where they are used --> could build off of this structure)
1. Yes, there does need to be bare minimums and guidelines but I think there also needs to be a hybrid
model not so this or that. Give more structure and options
2. Some will want more and some will want less engagement which could make some of these
requirements hard to meet
Formal - 1, Informal - 2, Requirements - 3.
1: + grants specifically to allow for formal structural change... + forces people to engage, - what if thy don't
2.2
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
5
participate?, what's the availability of the grants?
3: + requirements are good overall... +how to maintain accountability?
Minimum # of group members requirement: why not proportionate to population/size of community?... + yes
for proportionality, + yes for short vs. long term tenant differentiation.
3: + if money is involved, need a duration of stay so time is committed... - maybe commitment would inhibit
participation?, variable tenure?
Register/Renew Annually requirement: Who? how do they get involved in leadership? if a 2 year
commitment, and they only stay for one, should require representation for the following/remaining year of
commitment.
- How do we get people involved to create the neighborhoods?
-its on a neighborhood to neighborhood bases but don't see it actually happening
Session 3: We specifically want feedback on the idea of requiring seven members to form a
Connected Neighborhood, and then we’ll open it up to react to the other ideas, or offer your own.
What do you think about requiring 7 members?
Seven people is not a sufficient number.
Feels arbitrary.
The minimum number should be a percentage of the residents.
How do the students get involved with neighborhood engagement? The are only here for a few years, they
may or may not be interested in participating at all. What about other renters?
Membership should be open to both homeowners and tenants.
How does the leadership element work? The concept of leadership sounds great, but not sure what that
looks like, what are their roles?
It would be nice if the city educated residents about the pros/cons of organizing.
If the city moves forward with this propsal, a neighborhood reference guide would be helpful.
-7 members might be a stretch. Are that many leaders willing to step up?
-Apathy
-Maybe start with three
-Participant who was an HOA president said he would want one person from every HOA to be in the
counsel
-Neighborhoods that don't have an HOA will have to try and find volunteers
-Neighborhoods could get funding for bloc party
-Implementing may be difficult especially with already organized neighborhoods
-HOA's will want to be a part and one contact from a HOA should be incorporated in each connected
neighborhood
-Or let HOA's be one contact and then an informal group be another contact for neighbors
-Another challenge: HOA's can be small, should we combine HOA's?
-Will the HOA's get in the way of this program?
-Communities that don't have an HOA will have some organization
-Should be a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that each Connected Neighborhood counsel has diverse
members so that HOA's do not dominate
-People may feel more comfortable communicating with a representative who then goes to the city
1) Having 7 people at the beginning would be too difficult (you couldn't recruit that many people right away)
2) 2 or 3 people could work as a starting place, depending on size of neighborhood
2.2
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
6
3) Question: When they envisioned the 7 person model, did they envision what responsibilities the
members of the group will fulfill? President? Secretary? Etc?
4) Question: Do the 7 have to be from different parts of the neighborhood? Self-appointed or elected?
• Having minimums upstart people in the neighborhood to have initiative to find their own model for their
neighborhood
• Requiring to vote helps neighborhoods have their voice
• I would frame the requirements with tying them to reasons and bigger principals so that people are more
likely to follow it
o The red tape with no explanation would turn people off
o Framing is important
• Frame requirements around “easy to digest concepts” marry them to the reasons why the exist (so it
GRHVQ¶WFRPHRIIDV³UHGWDSH´ĺVHFRQGHGWKH\UHDOO\GRQ¶WOLNHWKHZRUG³UHTXLUHment”
• We need to be told what we have found what will work so that each neighborhood can use those as a
starting point
• Can there be multiple ways of satisfying the requirement: having meetings more often than the
requirements, or over FaceTime.
o Accommodations for meeting satisfaction so that we are not setting them up for failure
• There is only so much the neighborhood can do with these specific requirements
o For the city to have accountable we need to create our own rules
• Voting requirements in terms of representation and # of voters should be a set number
• 7 is probably okay but I could also see 5 being acceptable and wouldn’t go over 9
• Each neighborhood should have a different minimum number of people on the counsel because it will
depend on neighborhood size
• Consideration has to be given to big neighborhoods (as far as 7 people)
o 7 people to show up to these meeting requirements would be difficult
• Who are the 7 people going to be?
o How do we define those members?
• There has to be a way to use these 7 members to represent our neighborhood and also use their
influence in the city
• Registration requirements are pretty important
o Needs defining
• Emphasis flexibility over time as they change and grow
One lady felt the best way to do that was to look towards the HOAs for people who were already committed
but then arose the issue of some places not having HOAs so we didn't get too far on that.
Our group got super stuck on talking in general, did not talk about the 7 members specifically. See question
below for what we discussed.
1. I understand why they want variety so there are not single people pushing their agenda
2. 7 is still probably too big and too high of expectations for some neighborhoods to get that many people
involved
a. why?
aa. you can sometimes be lucky to get one person to volunteer
3. Minimum requirement should be one member from the neighborhood
a. Someone who wants to be engaged
aa. I think it would need to be two, one is too few
aaa. Yeah one is a person not a community and cannot represent a neighborhood. Should be at least two.
-can't imagine people coming together on their own to do this
-informal is better because we don't want to be forced to do this
-required # would be difficult because what happens if you are in a small neighborhood? Also how would
you get people involved
Session 3: Any reaction to the other potential requirements (registering annually, requiring
votes,
This is more for the city, but there was push back at my table about the wording (on the white sheet
describing everything). The city made it sound like those neighborhoods who did not register with the
2.2
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
7
city for this program would not receive any resources at all. The table thought that it wouldn't be fair to
give only a portion of the community resources and information and not the other.
The overall requirements seem fair.
What happens when the neighborhood fails to meet the requirements?
Would the process for renewal be online?
Neighborhood representatives should be able to choose how leadership is appointed.
One participant asked:
-What is the value of having this structure?
Response: Better Communication
-What is the core and common vision the city is hoping to get our of this program?
Response: To keep the city small scale, "Townships"
1) People need credibility to participate
2) If people need to register annually, then there needs to be some kind of incentive, like training or
something
3)Different areas will differ in their level of participation
The requirements didn't seem to mean much of anything to them.
This isn't exactly a requirement but the idea of have a "small town feel" came up about keeping people
engaged and this was the positive to neighborhood organizations. The trade-off was about how at the
same time the implementation of rules and requirements takes away from that small town feel. This
was a trade-off no one seemed to have thought of previously and deals somewhat with the notion of
how to keep a small town feel with a bigger, growing community.
-They talked about the need for neighbor to neighbor connection to help keep the small town feel and
be engaged to keep the community connection.
1. City staff would like us to renew annually but I don't understand why we have to have minimum
members. That doesn't seem fair because getting people to participate can be hard but we still want
neighborhood engagement
2. Why is voting required and how does it apply to neighborhood engagement?
none specifically
-don't want to create issues when there aren't any currently
-We don't need this because everything is fine, we will come together as a neighborhood if there is a
problem, (more reactive)
-generally, people aren't going to like having the city try to tell them to meet certain requirements when
right now there aren't any
-Voting should not be a requirement, what would we vote on? What if we don't need to vote on anything
Session 3: What other requirements do you think should be considered (either at the city-wide
level, or rules you would want to consider for your own Connected Neighborhood)?
The overall requirements seem fair.
-engage businesses, schools, hospitals, public services? Should program include this, maybe some
benefits and increased diversity because these sectors have special relationships with neighbors, they
bring in jobs, tax payers, and are a big part of communities
1) Training for leaders
2) The first step to Connected Neighborhoods is getting people to want to collaborate and
communicate, they need to be provided with the means to do so
The requirement these people wanted was for the liaison assigned to their neighborhood to have a lot
of power to get things done and not just become another middle man.
See above. Didn't talk about specific requirements much, were stuck on the above.
1. In my neighborhood we meet once a month and there is a lot of structure and consistently. It works
well. I would be worried about how we can get more people to help
2. Representatives should be required to attend a leadership workshop
none specifically
- table didn't see that any needed to be added
-table generally did not like the idea of having minimum requirements
2.2
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
8
Session 4: Looking over the potential resources (F-M), which do you think will be the most
impactful to improving neighborhood engagement?
K would be the most impactful.
Staff Liaison
-A channel to get City council members to be in tuned with neighborhood issues.
-Having a liaison dedicated to a neighborhood is a direct source to a city council members
-Each liaison should be paired with a neighborhood and assigned to a council member
-Each council member is connected to liaison which is connected to Connected Neighborhood district
-Helps with representing underrepresented people in neighborhoods
Our table really liked: G,J (it ought to be two way communication, newsletter in the neighborhood etc.,
PR needs to be expanded), H (maybe change the title to "staff mentor" or something, "liaison" might
sound like it is too connected to government), M, G (we really want neighborhoods to feel empowered),
and I
Notifications
o There needs to be a way of informing residents across boundaries
o Communication needs to be better
• Text messages, emails?
o Used to get postal neighborhood notifications of things happening in my neighborhood, but now I get
notifications for the whole city and I won’t read that anyone
• They need to be relatable to the specific neighborhood
• Notifications need to be more specific
o Technological notifications
Leadership training and staff liaisons
o This will help with the communication problem to the city and to the residents
o Liaisons need to be advocate across all departments for the city infrastructure and planning process
• We need someone who is connected to all of the departments and the residents
• Making information more accessible
• Liaison would have to be a part of the city staff
• In Denver, there is a lady named Lisa G that work through specific development plan and then provide
resources to get that done. We have no one in FoCo to do that.
• Grant and neighborhood renewal fund
o Partnerships to access grant funding and renewal funding
• Grants currently are announced by city but before the grants are awarded there should be
neighborhoods input
• Engagement in Development Review
o Advanced planning in the development process that that the neighborhood can come to a census
about the project
• Giving residents a chance to make an informed decision
• Participation in BFO process
Additional Resources not mentioned:
• Metric for community standards as an overarching city wide view
We really only focused on the liaisons.
-Pro-development participant pointed to item "k" about improved engagement in development review
process... concerned that if there is too much public engagement things become unpredictable and
developers are going to leave and go to other cities. There needs to be sensitivity to these sorts of
issues if this is going to be done so that it can be done well.
-Overall, A LOT of talk about the liaisons... the issue of adding an extra level of communication that if
these people are not properly trained residents will be going over their heads just like they used to and
this will create even more disorganization. The conclusion the group came to (with almost complete
agreement) was that for a liaison to work they would need past experience and be extremely well
trained. If these people do not know what they're doing to a tee it will not be an effective or efficient use
of city time or resources. Liaisons need to have the experience, connections, power, and understanding
of what they need to do and HOW to get it done.
-Worry is that there is no way for liaisons to have the experiential background necessary to truly make
2.2
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
9
them effective.
-Liaisons are not magic bullets, there needs to be a connection between the various neighborhoods.
1. J: What is a renewal grant program?
- I always want to be in transition if I can get money
- Grants are great but how is this money budgeted? This might hurt lower income neighborhoods that
don't have the resources or time to apply but likely have a larger need
- How can we make it more equal and regulated?
- This could be successful depending on how it is administered. Would the city be active in this
process?
- Couldn't be free-for-all because it could get abused
2. L: I'm for this for better development
- Setting priorities to keep divisiveness between neighborhoods
- Like satellites. Who will get it? How should we allocate those resources that would benefit
neighborhoods
3. I: Resource toolbox is great idea and nextdoor could be a great platform for this
- F: What would that toolbox look like?
- Call lists, how to deal with noise issues, dogs barking, parking, mediation
- Would need to be categorized and easy to use
- I submitted a dog barking complaint but took hours to figure out where to go and how to do this
- City has so many resources that few people know about or how to use
overall -1, formal - F, informal - IF.
1: should be an opportunity to repeal decisions made by city council. Allow neighborhoods to tailor
policies tot heir neighborhood. More responsive opportunity beyond the designated 7 folks.
K: - develop process is for developers, but no real value due to lack of results. looks good.
M: + people involved with city have a better understanding so they can have an input. more citizens on
government committees.
K: + if process is changed so citizens have binding result. - need increased other binding component.
1: how to gauge effectiveness of each of these overall? How to judge citizen effect?
F/IF: why should informal get fewer resources? How would other current processes/procedures be
effected? neither model matters until the more whole picture is realized. informal structure would
promote participation (welcoming). informal would be good for intermittent issues, formal would be
good for more regular topics/issues.
-seems fine
-the grants are too broad. Are there limits to this? What sort of things can we get money for? Not sure if
this is a good and fair resources because if one neighborhood gets money to through an ice cream
party then all neighborhoods should even if they don't apply
Session 4: What is missing? What additional resources would you be interested in?
nothing that we can tell.. this looks like a great start.
Providing small internships. Paid maybe-Get from city funding. Someone in neighborhood, preferably
someone young, would have opportunity to do an internship opportunity with the city in relation to this
program and would represent one neighborhood. Training could be provided to the intern.
1) There should be a city-funded website that has info about the food bank and other neighborhood
services (with no advertisements). The website could be used to share community success stories,
report "helping hand" locations, discuss food drop-offs etc.
• Neighborhood festivals
o Every neighborhood has culture and neighborhood so a way to identify it and present it to
neighborhood festivals or newsletter
• Creates pride and arts within the neighborhoods
o People would be more likely to want to come and explore the town if we have festivals that define our
history and culture
• Know what is going on
2.2
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
10
o Coloradoan could highlight neighborhoods
• Events in neighborhoods
• Main resource for what’s going on in the city
Not a missing resource but NET program was brought up discussing police officers and safety and how
great this organization has been.
Interfacing with community leaders and city leaders to foster relationships. Direct points of contact
throughout every department in the city offices for community members. Man power and resources for
neighborhoods as well as guidance and tools to execute plans with mobile access
1. Would love to see what other communities have
- This could be useful, but could it bring negative competition?
2. Neighborhood watch system
- Could be better utilized through nextdoor
- Neighbors who know each other look out for each other
what other topics?
driveways, lighting standards (street), create communication to help growing aging populations, fix
developer mishaps (construction)
- More Fort Collins as a whole community events to foster that neighborhood to neighborhood
engagement
Any notes that don't fit specifically with these questions?
HOA vs. city/neighborhood
What responsibilities are of the HOA, what responsibilities are the city's.
How do we know when to go to our HOA with a concern vs. When to go the city?
there should be disclaimer to the neighborhood organizing that states: "this is not an HOA!!"
Session 5: Ideas
1) Zoning Laws (are now easier to change and this is bad)
-Neighborhoods are expanding and people are getting screwed because the zoning laws keep
changing and devalues property worth
-Changing the zoning laws screws houses worth and neighborhood zones
Example: Women has house and now an apartment complex is being built behind it and how house
values is down $50,000.
2)Disaster Preparedness
-Should have workshops on disaster training
-What do we do if toxic materials come from a railroad or if a train derails?
-The 7 members can propagate this information from the City to residents in the neighborhood
3) Events would be cool
-Community bonfires
-Students could have mentors within each neighborhood (Mentor programs and assistance)
4)U+2
-People get away with it
-5% of deviants cause 90% of the problems
5)Safety
Session 5:
-Residents need to be participating in city planning
-CityPlan 20 year vision
2.2
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
11
-Festivals, gathering, parties
-Sidewalk infrastructure needs help
There were concerns about:
1) Trains/traffic and accidents
2) Creating a crime prevention program
3) Senior citizen care
4) Community potlucks/block parties, food donations, community gardens
5) Bringing back "helping hand"
6) Interest in a "repair cafe," where people can come and have their stuff repaired
• The work in last March and April needs to be updated, and some of the questions need to be carried
through the whole process to measure the change
• Engagement seems to be the major issue (especially because there is nobody here, that shows the
engagement)
• Want for an information medium that is local neighborhood approach
- A yearning for each neighborhood to have its own culture.
- This includes block parties, festivals
- Want to highlight what neighborhoods doing what
- Influence Fort Collins Media to encourage the community feel?
• Want to see how priorities shift over time
After Session 5: Engagement around future neighborhoods...
-Budgeting for outcomes (i.e. building sidewalks) along with enforcement for existing ordinances. Takes
a minimum of a week to hear from someone, staffing problem, under-resourced --> talk about liaison's
ability to help here (again with pushback because of the extra layer of people and communication
required)
-Talk about Access Fort Collins being easiest way to get anything done. But the ways it doesn't work is
in communication between departments when something is fixed. There seems to be an organizational
shortcoming, a better program for processing information and making sure all departments can be
aware of what others are doing/have done.
Projects/topics participants thought neighborhoods could take on: community as an attitude, connecting
resources to people in need including elderly populations to aid in aging in place, coordination of
resources, landscaping natural areas and trails (connecting areas for pedestrians and cyclists), how to
reach renters, intergenerational community building including a neighborhood watch
F: What kind of projects we can take one?
1. Neighborhood solar farms
2. Xeriscaping initiatives
3. Track water/electricity usages against neighbors to encourage conservation
4. Platform for knowing when neighbors need extra support
- Had a baby, just a surgery, needs someone to look after pet, ect
5. Programs that foster community relationships
- Monthly events?
none specifically
2.2
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Best Practice Research Findings
Finding: The more formal the program, the more resources and incentives are provided to
neighborhoods. Formal programs place strong emphasis on providing opportunities for citizen
involvement, ensure a direct communication link between neighborhoods and city government, and
empower residents to advocate for change in their communities. Typically, these programs provide
substantial financial and staffing resources to neighborhood groups, and in turn, require the groups to
be sophisticated in their organization. Some notable examples include Vancouver, BC, Vancouver, WA,
Portland, OR, Los Angeles, CA, and Minneapolis, MN.
Finding: Informal programs minimize requirements for groups to organize and be recognized by the city.
The intent of the informal programs is to maintain information flow between the City and
neighborhoods, and enable neighborhood organizations to present their positions before decisions are
made by City departments and agencies. The programs, which typically only require groups to register
with cities, create platforms for neighborhoods to take a proactive approach to engaging with respective
City departments/organizations, and focus neighborhood planning initiatives. Notable examples include
Denver, CO, Olathe, KS, Ames, IA, Iowa City, IA, Lakewood, CO, and Lincoln NE.
Finding: Hybrid programs can achieve the best of both models. Other cities have adopted neighborhood
engagement programs that are essentially hybrids of the informal and formal models. These hybrids
utilize a network of neighborhood leaders to build a communication link between municipal
governments and neighborhoods, and to address needs and concerns of residents. Longmont, CO, for
example, has the Neighborhood Group Leaders Program that requires registered neighborhood groups
to meet once per year to elect one or two leaders, who then represent their neighborhood at monthly
meetings held and facilitated by the City. The expectation is that the neighborhood leaders take the
information from the City back to their individual neighborhood groups. Registered neighborhoods are
also eligible for funding through various programs such as Neighborhood Activity and Neighborhood
Improvement Grants.
ATTACHMENT 3
2.3
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Best Practice Research Findings (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
City ProgramOverview
Vancouver,BC
22designatedneighborhoodareasusedinplanningprocesses.Developedrecentstrategy
reporttoimprovesenseofbelongingandinclusionincommunity,anddeepen
engagementwithlocalgovernment.
Seattle,WA
250neighborhoodandcommunityorganizationsdividedupinto13Neighborhood
Districts.EachDistricthastwocitystaffmembersassignedandotherresourcesare
providedonadistrictlevel.
Vancouver,WA
66recognizedneighborhoodassociationswithassociatedresourcessuchasuniquestaff
liaison,reduceslanduse/permittingfees,neighborhoodactionplanning,weekly
communicationsfromtheCity.
Portland,OR
95Recognizedneighborhoodassociationsand7neighborhoodcoalitiondistricts;selfͲ
governancesystemwithbaselinerequirements;extensiveleadershiptrainingandcapacity
buildingprogramsforneighborhoodleaders.
Salem,OR
19independentneighborhoodorganizationsrecognizedbythecity.Oncerecognized,
organizationsgainaccesstocitystaffliaisons,grants,andnotifications.
Corvallis,OR
32neighborhoodorganizationsrecognizedbytheCity.Requiredtohavebylawsand
contactinformationtobecomerecognized,inturnhelpdecisionmakersmakedecisions,
primarilyinplanning.
Eugene,OR
23recognizedneighborhoodorganizationsthatHaveaccesstocitynotifications,
equipment,grants,andstaffaslongasrequirementssuchasadoptingbylawsand
developingorganizationalstructure.
Madison,WI
120+NeighborhoodassociationsthatworkcloselywithPlanningstaffindevelopmentof
neighborhoodplan,beautificationandinfrastructureprojects,andleadershiptraining.
LosAngeles,CA
96NeighborhoodCouncils,eachwithannualbudgetsof$37,000.Formalstructurethat
requiresregularmeetings,bylaws,andaccountingcapabilities.
Boise,ID
29recognizedneighborhoodassociations,eachassigneddesignatedCityPlanners.
Associationsinvolvedindevelopmentissues,neighborhoodlivability,andneighborhoodreͲ
investment.
Olathe,KS
InformalselfͲidentificationsystemforneighborhoodorganizations,whichtheCityusedto
provideinformation,anddevelopneighborhoodactionplanthatcanberecognizedbyCity
council.
Lincoln,NE
51neighborhoodassociations,noneofwhicharerecognizedbyCitygovernment,butare
oftenconsultedbyCitystaffforoutreachandplanningpurposes.
Longmont,CO
50+neighborhoodassociationsrecognizedbytheCityaspartofthen/neighborhood
GroupLeadersAssociation.Leaders/representativesmeetoncepermonthwithCityand
relateinformationbacktoindividualneighborhoodgroups.
Ames,IA
27recognizedneighborhoodsthatprovideadditionalopportunitiestoengagewithcity,
receivenotifications,andaccessmanyneighborhoodprograms.
AnnArbor,MI
90registeredneighborhoodassociationsthatarenotifiedaboutdevelopmentproposals
andparticipatecloselyinplanningprocess.
IowaCity,IA
33neighborhoodassociations,withnoofficialCityrecognitionprogram.Neighborhood
groupscanreceiveplanningassicstanceandgrantopportunitiesfromCitystaff.
2.3
Packet Pg. 71
Lakewood,CO
120+neighborhoodassociationsthatgainaccesstonotifications,neighborhoodprograms,
andgrantsupto$60,000.
Denver,CO
186RegisteredNeighborhoodOrganizationsthatreceivenotificationsfromCityandcan
collectiveleyexpressstanceoncitypoliciesanddevelopmentprojects.
Minneapolis,MN
70neighborhoodassociations,requiredtooperateasindependentorganizations,that
havededicatedcitystaffmemberandreceivesubstantialannualbudgetsfromCity.
2.3
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Best Practice Research Findings (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
1
3-2-16
Neighborhood Connections
Josh Weinberg & Clay Frickey
ATTACHMENT 4
2.4
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Some of the ways we focus on
Neighborhood Livability
2
Traffic Calming Program Mediation Program Neighborhood Enforcement Team
Park Ranger Program Parking Permit Program Rental Housing Inspection
Neighborhood Grants And More! Public Nuisance Ordinance
Neighborhood Night Out Graffiti Abatement Occupancy Ordinance & Enforcement
Code Enforcement Police Patrol Services Community Liaison & Programs
Urban Forest Management Humane Society Contract Medians & Streetscapes Maintenance
2.4
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Introduction
• Project Purpose
• Project Managers
• Best Practice Research
• Public Engagement
Overview
• Next Steps
3
2.4
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Team
• Project Leaders
• Josh Weinberg
• Clay Frickey
• Consultants/Partners
• CSU Center for Public Deliberation
• Trebuchet Group
• City Staff
4
2.4
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Purpose
5
Photo Source: fanpop.com
Photo Source: thamesvalleypartnership.org.uk
Photo Source: natureworldnews.com
2.4
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Purpose
6
• Community desired outcomes
• Proactive approach
• Structure
• Enhanced connections
• Small town feel
• Leadership capacity
2.4
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Timeline
7
2.4
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Neighborhood Engagement Research
8
2.4
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Public Engagement Summary
9
• Questionnaire
• Leadership Events
• Community Advisory Group
• Community Issues Forum
• Focus Groups
• Community partnerships
2.4
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
What Neighborhood
Connections Should Achieve
• Proactive system to
manage issues
• Improved
communication
• Capacity building
• Give neighborhoods
more prominent voice
• Flexible system
10
2.4
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
What Neighborhood
Connections Should Avoid
• High barriers for
participation
• Top down approach
• HOA conflict
• Lack of knowledge
about Neighborhood
Connections
11
2.4
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Pilot Program - Hybrid
• Hold initial neighborhood meetings
• Identification of neighborhood representatives/boundaries
• Monthly meetings with representatives and City
• Roll out leadership training program
• Begin asset mapping and neighborhood project prioritization
• Optional monthly or quarterly neighborhood meetings
12
2.4
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Pilot Program - Components
13
Associated Activities Potential Measures
- Consolidated messaging and notifications
to neighborhoods on: development review,
neighborhood meetings, CAP initiatives,
Council listening sessions, etc.
- Explore dedicated City liaison to
neighborhoods
- Number of touch points with
neighborhoods
- Amount of online traffic around resources
- Number of requests for notifications.
Strategy: Improve neighborhood information on City programs,
initiatives, policies, and pilot projects
2.4
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Pilot Program - Components
14
Strategy: Build leadership capacity in community
Associated Activities Potential Measures
- Deliver in-person leadership training
courses with assistance from local
resources
- Provide online leadership resources
- Participation in programs
- Shift in resident participation in their
neighborhoods and in City processes
- Quality of community conversations among
residents that are already engaged
2.4
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Pilot Program - Components
15
Strategy: Enable neighborhoods to effectively organize and connect
Associated Activities Potential Measures
- Conduct monthly meetings of
representatives of all participating
neighborhoods
o Topics that are of broad interest
o Includes training and informal
networking/connecting
- Participating neighborhoods be
inclusive of all property owners and
tenants
- Neighborhood representation /
participation at meetings and events
- Feedback on effectiveness / flexibility
of program
2.4
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Pilot Program - Components
16
Strategy: Enable neighborhoods to positively and effectively influence
planning
Associated Activities Potential Measures
- Encourage proactive neighborhood
planning through sub-area plan
implementation, asset mapping, and
budget prioritization.
- Neighborhood actions on planning
objectives
- Feedback from citizens on planning
and implementation effectiveness
2.4
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Questions
1. What feedback does Council have for staff moving forward with a
pilot program?
2. What additional components, strategies, outcomes, and measures
would Council like to see incorporated?
17
2.4
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
18
2.4
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
19
2.4
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Community Issues Forum
20
Top 5 Program Elements
Leadership Training +22
Council of Neighborhoods +9
Neighborhood Planning +9
Participatory Budgeting +8
Expanded Neighborhood Grants +8
Bottom 5 Program Elements
Neighborhood Branding -14
Neighborhood Associations -12
Neighborhood Awards -10
Annual Budgets -7
Staff Liaison +5
2.4
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Questionnaire Results
21
How would you say your neighborhood
interacts with the City currently?
How would you like to see your
neighborhood interact with the City?
2.4
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Questionnaire Results
22
2.4
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
Questionnaire Results
23
2.4
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
24
2.4
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
25
2.4
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
DATE:
STAFF:
April 12, 2016
Honore Depew, Environmental Planner
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director
Jason Graham, Water Reclamation/Biosolids Manager
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainabillity Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Waste Optimization and Materials Management.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update and seek feedback regarding the Advanced Waste
Stream Optimization initiative, including Sustainable Materials Management research, waste-to-energy
exploration, organics diversion, and regional collaboration.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does Council have on specific projects?
2. How can the Sustainable Materials Management framework best support Council’s goals?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Advanced Waste Stream Optimization was funded from a budget enhancement offer for 2015 and 2016 that
directed staff to:
Enhance regional collaboration, with a focus on organics diversion
Support innovation and implementation of local waste-to-energy conversion technology
Systematically evaluate “waste” materials using Sustainable Materials Management principles
Encouraging the optimal use of waste and promoting the management of materials (goods and food) in a
sustainable way is a big-picture, transformational initiative that covers a number of interconnected elements. The
Waste Reduction and Recycling program area in Environmental Services has dedicated a significant portion of its
staff time over the past year to researching and developing the following:
Regional Collaboration
By partnering with Loveland, Estes Park, and Larimer County to conduct long-range “wasteshed” planning, staff is
seeking effective approaches to manage waste more efficiently and sustainably, while increasing City and public
influence on decisions about the future of materials management and next steps after the closure of the County
landfill in approximately 10 years.
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for regional wasteshed planning in the North Front Range - comprised of
staff from Larimer County, the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland, and the Town of Estes Park - has been
meeting regularly for the past year to gather information and provide options for future solid waste management
and resource recovery opportunities in the region. The existing County landfill has an estimated ten years of “life”
remaining (air space to be used for landfilling at existing rates of fill), and no further expansion of landfill
operations is possible at the existing site. An increase in landfilled material, such as if another natural disaster
were to take place, would further reduce the life expectancy of the landfill.
There is an urgent need for collaboration between the regional jurisdictions to make recommendations for solid
waste/materials management system planning and operations, which may include shared regional infrastructure,
3
Packet Pg. 98
April 12, 2016 Page 2
priority and policy recommendations, potential project schedules, and funding sources. In addition to the
Technical Advisory Committee, a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) has recently formed for the project,
composed of Mayor Troxell (co-chair) and Councilmember Cunniff, as well as Steve Johnson (Larimer County),
Leah Johnson (chair, Loveland), and Wendy Koenig (Estes Park). Highlights of the process include:
Policy Advisory Committee meeting quarterly throughout 2016
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment grant funding received for regional wasteshed
study (report will be available in July 2016)
Extensive public engagement planned for summer/fall 2016
Organics
Organics (including yard trimmings, food scraps, and food-soiled paper) diversion is especially important because
approximately half of the materials landfilled from Fort Collins could be composted, and because the greenhouse
gas emissions that come from landfilling organics are significantly higher than other materials. Increasing local
organics recycling has a high potential for helping to achieve 2020 Climate Action Plan goals.
Numerous strategies are being explored to divert organics, including:
Expanding anaerobic digestion capacity at Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF)
o Life cycle assessment tools used to inform enhancements
Exploring partnerships with CSU and a private company for development of mid-size anaerobic digesters
for retail food scraps
Supporting a distributed network of neighborhood composting sites, in partnership with local non-profits
Developing ordinances to increase food scrap and yard debris diversion
o Community Recycling Ordinance project includes these topics
o Engaging with haulers to explore viable collection options
o Work session currently scheduled for June 28
Waste-to-Energy
Using appropriate technology to convert material discards to energy, either thermally or biologically, is of interest
as a means of waste disposal and to enhance the resilience of the local energy system. Staff is pursuing
opportunities locally and regionally including:
Requesting funding for a municipal biomass burner feasibility study
Exploring the possibility of a triple-helix pilot project (including CSU, the City, and Starbucks)
Expanding the capacity for energy co-generation at the DWRF (anaerobic biodigestion)
Sustainable Materials Management
This work session introduces the framework of sustainable materials management as a transformational
approach to how the City fundamentally views and acts upon the waste stream by shifting from disposal
management to materials management. Sustainable materials management (SMM) offers the tools and means of
evaluation necessary to help the City meet its long-term goals for addressing climate change, zero waste, quality
of life, increased employment and economic security, as well as the health and well-being of its citizens and the
environment.
One important evaluation tool used in the SMM framework is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which helps map the
pathways and measure the impacts of a given material (greenhouse gas emissions, water use, etc.). As a pilot
project to explore LCA modeling, staff has begun to map and assess the associated impacts of food and food
waste in the Fort Collins community. The results of this study will inform decisions about building additional
capacity for accepting food scraps during planned enhancements at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility, and
will lead to further LCA research for additional materials.
3
Packet Pg. 99
April 12, 2016 Page 3
Attachment 3 provides a detailed overview of Sustainable Materials Management as an emerging framework of
systems-based analysis used to:
Shift focus from managing discards to reducing waste and maximizing recovery
Reduce inefficiencies
Promote a local, circular economy
Further connect Road to Zero Waste goals with Climate Action Plan goals
Next Steps
The projects highlighted in this work session are funded primarily through an enhancement offer and will require
renewed resources to be pursued fully. As the City strives to lead by example in the community, staff will
implement and accelerate the following:
Continue pursuing Road to Zero Waste goals, focusing on high impact strategies
Inform DWRF expansion through life cycle assessment research
Lead regional wasteshed planning efforts
Work with Purchasing Department to enhance sustainable procurement policies/ practices
Expand educational efforts, especially in support of SMM
Develop tools to enhance business opportunities for material reuse and recycling
ATTACHMENTS
1. Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, March 16, 2016 (draft) (PDF)
2. Fort Collins Food Map Project Summary (PDF)
3. Sustainable Materials Managment Overview (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
3
Packet Pg. 100
1 | Page
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Location: 215 N. Mason Conference Room 1A
Time: 6:00–8:30pm
For Reference
Bob Overbeck, Council Liaison 970-988-9337
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison 970-221-6317
Board Members Present Board Members Absent
John Bartholow, chair Katherine de Leon
Bob Mann Jay Adams
Luke Caldwell
Nancy DuTeau
Elizabeth Hudetz
Harry Edwards
Drew Derderian
Staff Present
Katy Bigner, Staff Liaison
Dianne Tjalkens, Admin/Board Support
Honore Depew, Environmental Planner
Matt Parker, Crew Chief
Travis Paige, Community Engagement Manger
Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner
David Young, PR Coordinator
Guests:
None
Call meeting to order: John called the meeting to order at 6:02pm
Agenda Review: No changes
Staff Comment: None
Public Comments: None.
Approval of Minutes:
Harry moved and Nancy seconded a motion to approve the February minutes as amended.
Motion passed, 6-0-1. Bob abstained.
P3: 1st P, this tool… insert “construction or” before expansion
P3: 1st P, next sentence missing word “for”
AGENDA ITEM 1—Sustainable Materials Management Framework
ATTACHMENT DRAFT 1
3.1
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, March 16, 2016 (draft) (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
2 | Page
Honoré Depew, Environmental Planner, provided an overview of a newly emerging framework in the
field of waste reduction & recycling, Sustainable Materials Management (SMM).
Update on projects related to BFO offer for advanced waste stream optimization. Have aggressive
sustainability goals—connecting waste reduction and recycling to Climate Action Plan (CAP) goals.
Will be calculating pounds of overall waste per person in the community. Exploring new hierarchies
for waste disposal management. BFO offer contains three elements: evaluate waste materials, support
waste-to-energy, and address organics diversion. Regional collaborations for Road to Zero Waste
(RZW) goals. Trash knows no boundaries—“wasteshed” is new term to describe where waste flows.
Long range planning project that involves public input, technical advisory committee, and policy
advisory committee. For organics diversion (food scraps and yard waste) staff is exploring options
with haulers around residential, as well as alternatives to curbside collection. New biodigester in
Weld County is large piece of infrastructure. Also working with nonprofit and community
organizations to have neighborhood level composting. Increasing focus on food recovery. EPA is
going to begin outreach campaign for reducing food waste. Analyzing city readiness for waste-to-
energy projects—looking at technology, options, what is appropriate for our community. One option
will be biomass burner to manage Emerald Ash Borer-affected ash trees. (feasibility study moving
forward)—large wood stove with strict emissions controls to create heat and hot water. Many
technologies are expensive and feasible only at regional level—looking to service multiple areas.
Have had conversations with Starbucks and CSU to explore anaerobic digestion of waste from coffee
grounds. Drake water treatment plant is currently converting organics into biogas for the facility.
Expansion planned with input from food waste analysis conducted as part of this project.
Sustainable materials management challenges the way we calculate GHG metrics. May be able to
calculate emissions related to consumption in Fort Collins. Discards management approach impacts
smallest piece of pie for GHG inventory—waste and recycling account for less than 6%, so when get
zero waste, still only reducing GHG a small portion. Sustainable Materials Management groups
emissions by systems: raw materials, manufacture, transportation, use and disposal. Can promote
local markets for things that would otherwise have been discarded (circular economy). One tool
successfully employed is lifecycle assessment—which helps us understand how materials move
through the community and what their impacts are. Collaborating with CSU to analyze food system,
which informs Co-Gen project at Drake facility. Have found that households have largest out-flow of
food waste, second is cafés and restaurants. Next will look at portions that go to landfill, compost,
anaerobic digestions, etc., and impacts.
Organization wants to lead by example—hierarchy of waste, sustainable purchasing, etc.
Seeking feedback on presentation.
Discussion/Q & A:
Sectors begin to address what happens in the pipeline? Looking at consequences at front end,
not just back end.
o Exactly. Measuring true impacts.
Policy advisory committee at regional level—who is on it?
o Technical advisory is staff from Fort Collins, Larimer County, Loveland and Estes
Park. Have requested same municipalities to appoint an elected official. First meeting
end of March.
o Each community has a person like Honoré looking at these same issues?
Yes. Sometimes 2 or 3. Meeting twice a month. Secured funding from
CDPHE to have consultant do wasteshed study.
Would like more information on state leadership and opportunities, grants
that are available, etc. Some could impact the plan if change permitting for
composting facilities, business incentives for recyclable materials, etc. Could
be goals and support from state.
Regional wasteshed planning is in alignment with state priorities.
Some landfills are covered and gas is vented. Then still have land for hiking or other uses.
3.1
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, March 16, 2016 (draft) (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
3 | Page
o Methane capture is important. Not currently being used to power anything, but being
flared off. In Ault there is no methane capture or flaring.
Methane is large contributor to GHG. Wouldn’t they want to capture it?
They fall under threshold for being required to capture. Would be
good to revisit regulations for landfills.
Can be more explicit in showing how goals align with CAP around
methane emissions.
Concrete examples are helpful.
Is there an economic component to studies?
o Have been looking at economic activity involved in recycling and repurposing.
Makers movement may develop uses for materials.
o Council may wonder at cost.
Chamber has been commenting a lot. They are protective of current businesses. What is
impact on today’s business people?
o Can tie back to improved efficiencies and getting ahead of potential future increased
costs.
Sustainable purchasing? Is that about packaging?
o Purchasing department is leader in state for adopting sustainability metrics when
contract with outside organization. Preferential purchasing policies for sustainable
products such as recycled copy paper. Could lead to department purchasing
guidelines and triple-bottom line criteria for vendor proposals and bids.
Comments on pie charts in packet: could use more description to understand differences.
Also, would discuss example like a specific item and show how you would look at it from a
materials-based versus systems-based perspective.
o Good feedback for finalizing graphic.
Pie chart on left says 35% of GHG emissions are from electric generation in US; however,
locally it is 50% due to coal power generation.
o Will be more specific and local with information.
Mentioned that organics diversion can reduce GHG emissions significantly. Suggest giving
Council very specific information on projects we really want to do.
o CAP Work Session last week highlighted community recycling ordinance as one of
top seven initiatives to reach 2020 goal.
o Half of what is going to landfill now is compostable/digestible.
Scheduling field trip to Drake waste water treatment facility.
o Will be adding 2-4 new engines that could achieve over 700KW of total capacity,
which would be powered by anaerobic digestion. Jason is exploring potential
collaboration with Woodward to test various engines.
o Also ask to see pulped food material that is coming from CSU dining halls.
o Potential to add more food waste from large producers.
Looking at options and attendant cost of each, from curbside collection to use
of garbage disposals.
In nature every waste is food for a new process. We are trying to better follow that system or
process.
3.1
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board minutes, March 16, 2016 (draft) (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
April 5, 2016
1
Material Flow Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment of Food in Fort Collins, CO
Background
A small research team from Colorado State University’s College of Engineering was commissioned to
investigate the flow of food and food waste in the Fort Collins community. As of April 5, 2016 the team
has employed generally accepted methodology to calculate the volume of food entering and leaving
Fort Collins and has produced a “map” that represents the data visually:
Research Goals
Provide quality information for decision makers about the flow of food (and food waste) in and
out the City of Fort Collins, as well as the associated impacts of disposal methods, by:
Systematically calculate how much food moves through the community, organized by sector and
disposal method;
Offer insight into the highest and best use for organic, non-ligneous waste material (i.e., food
scraps);
Highlight potential public and private partnerships;
Spark future research into the material management of organics.
ATTACHMENT 2
3.2
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Fort Collins Food Map Project Summary (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
April 5, 2016
2
Definitions
Material Flow Analysis (MFA) – a “map” quantifying the flow of materials in a defined situation and
over a set period of time. In this analysis the timeframe is one year, but an exact point in time is difficult
to specify because available data points span differing timeframes. The software used to conduct an
MFA for food in Fort Collins is called STAN (SubSTance flow ANalysis) and was developed by the
University of Vienna.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) – a cradle-to-grave measurement of the impacts of a defined material,
product, or process. Once all the data from the food MFA has been analyzed, a life cycle assessment will
be conducted using SimaPro, a premiere LCA software tool used frequently in academia and the private
sector, or similar open-source software. A number of impact variables may be included, such as climate
impacts, water use, radiation, respiratory effect from smog, exposure to carcinogens, etc.
The advantage of conducting an MFA and LCA is that these studies can be used together to gain a more
holistic view of food and its impact in Fort Collins. When used in conjunction with an MFA, LCA highlights
where to direct resources for greatest payback.
Methods
Estimating Inputs
Data from the United States Department of Agriculture( USDA) was utilized to calculate total food
inputs. According to that study there were 1,388 pounds of food supply per capita in 2010. This number
was converted to tons and multiplied by the population of Fort Collins (156,480 people) to estimate
total food available.
Estimating Food Waste
Estimating food wasted by businesses and institutions is a burgeoning area of research in the U.S. and
only a few studies have been conducted thus far. The California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery commissioned an extensive study conducted by Cascadia Consulting Group. This study broke
down waste generation rates for businesses on a per employee per year basis using NAICS (North
American Industry Classification System) codes. This was useful for this project because the California
(CA) study included all necessary businesses as well as provided a means of calculating food waste based
on data that was readily available, i.e. number of employees per business. The CA study methodology
was used to calculate food waste for the majority of businesses. This was done because the California
study broke down waste per employee for total employees instead of just full time employees. The data
base provided by the city of Fort Collins, CO listed total employees for employee number.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently been designing a tool for calculating food
waste. This study does not include as many NAICS codes, since it is intended for national use and cannot
afford to be as detailed. However, it was useful to cross check different methodologies to produce as
much accuracy in predictions as possible. For example, when it came to education, the two
3.2
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Fort Collins Food Map Project Summary (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
April 5, 2016
3
methodologies were compared based on very few known values of food waste provided by Colorado
State University (CSU) and 12 schools in the Poudre School District (PSD). A percent error was calculated
to decide which methodology to use for the remaining educational institutions in Fort Collins. It was
found that the EPA method for PSD had a 40.8 percent error while the CA methodology had a 45.9
percent error. Therefore, the EPA method was used for the majority of the education sector (see
methodology write up for a more detailed description).
The methods used to estimate food waste at the household level employ the same USDA national data
mentioned above adjusted for Fort Collins population.
Life Cycle Assessment Tools
LCA research will be conducted using SimaPro or similar open-source software. The impacts investigated
will include greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel use, and (possibly) human health effects.
Food Bank
Actual numbers for donations and waste were obtained from Nate Kay, Warehouse Manager for the
Larimer County Food Bank.
Supporting Organizations and Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Larimer County Food Bank
Colorado State University
Poudre School District
Recycling Works Massachusetts (Funded by Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection and the Center for EcoTechnology)
CalRecycle
Northern Colorado Food Cluster
Stan 2.5 software developer at the Vienna University of Technology
EarthShift Sustainabilty consulting (Life Cycle Analysis webinar)
Next Steps
Expand original research within each sector to track actual food waste, rather than using
estimates.
Conduct research that yields a better understanding of where food waste from different sectors
is going (e.g., landfill, compost, AD, etc.).
Complete a comprehensive life cycle assessment for each of the potential disposal methods
available (i.e., landfill, compost, anaerobic digestion) calculating the impacts associated with
each option, given specific North Front Range conditions.
3.2
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Fort Collins Food Map Project Summary (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
April 5, 2016
1
Sustainable Materials Management in the City of Fort Collins:
A Future Vision for Making Waste a Thing of the Past
Goals and Priorities
This internal guidance document is being offered as a framework for
transformation in how the City of Fort Collins fundamentally views and acts
upon those changes necessary to meet its long-term goals for addressing
climate change, zero waste, quality of life, increased jobs and economic
security, and the health and well-being of its citizens and environment.
Sustainable Materials Management will help Fort Collins accomplish these
goals.
In 2011, the City of Fort Collins approved the EPA waste hierarchy in its City
Plan1 and adopted a goal of reducing solid waste by 50%. In 2013 City Council
updated our waste reduction goal to achieve a community diversion rate of
75% by 2020, partly in response to the realization that we are misplacing
$6.5M worth of resources2 from our economy by sending materials to the
landfill each year. Wasting resources of this magnitude highlights the
inefficiencies in our current system.
The waste hierarchy adopted in City Plan consists of:
x Reduce – through conscientious consumerism, sustainable purchasing,
product redesign (lower product toxicity, product durability, etc.), less
packaging
x Reuse – through repairing, donating, repurposing, sharing
x Recycle – through collection and remanufacture of ‘curbside’
recyclables, adding hard-to-recycle materials, expanding industrial recycling
x Composting – through opportunities for processing of yard waste,
food scraps, other organics by collection or drop-off
x Waste-based energy – through anaerobic digestion and other ultra-
low polluting conversion technology
x Landfilling – the hierarchy of landfilling as a disposal method:
o Facility utilizing methane capture and use (more desirable)
o Facility with methane capture and flaring
o Facility with no methane management system (less desirable)
1
Principle ENV 14: The City will apply the US Environmental Protection Agency’s integrated “hierarchy” of waste management to help
protect all environmental resources including air, soil, and water using source reduction as the primary approach, followed in order by
reuse, recycling/composting energy recovery using emerging pollution-free technology, and landfill disposal (where methane gas capture
is employed) as a final resort.
2
Road to Zero Waste Plan (2013): http://www.fcgov.com/zerowaste/
Sustainable Materials
Management (SMM) is a
systemic approach to
using and reusing
materials more
productively over their
entire lifecycles. It
represents a change in
how our society thinks
about the use of natural
resources and
environmental
protection. By examining
how materials are used
throughout their lifecycle,
an SMM approach seeks
to:
Use materials in the most
productive way with an
April 5, 2016
2
The traditional hierarchy of solid waste management has emphasized landfilling as a preferred method of
disposal with reduction and recycling being secondary priorities. In the new paradigm of managing materials
sustainably, that model is flipped upside down, with a strong emphasis placed on reducing waste at the source.
In the current waste hierarchy in Fort Collins, there are insufficient resources directed to the tracking and
reporting the reduction of waste and pollutants, the durability of products, or their repair and reuse. These will
be important factors for the city to consider in order to meet the
aggressive goals set by Council (see sidebar).
Fort Collins is coming closer to meeting its diversion goals. However,
the waste diversion goal is less meaningful than it appears. Most
experts are now using pounds per person per day (PPD) as the more
accurate measurement of overall waste reduction. Using this metric,
Fort Collins is not demonstrating progress. In 2013, the PPD was 4.85
but in 2014, it had risen to 4.88 PPD. Reaching the goal of 3.5 PPD by
2020 is a significant challenge that requires additional strategies for
waste reduction and recycling.
Sustainable Materials Management
Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) is the newest and most
innovative method for a holistic approach to addressing many of our
negative environmental, economic, and societal issues. Scientists no
longer look at waste disposal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 3%
as being the best way to measure the impacts of consumption and
disposal. Rather than viewing waste and GHG emissions as separate
and distinct issues, SMM shows how interconnected they are.
Goals:
Waste Reduction: The city was so
successful in achieving its 1999 goal of a
50% recycling rate that in 2013 the city
council set new Zero Waste goals for the
community: 75% landfill diversion/ 3.5
pounds of daily waste per capita by
2020; 90% diversion/2.8 pounds of daily
waste per capita by 2025; and
approaching zero waste by 2030.
Climate Action Plan: On March 3, 2015
The Fort Collins City Council adopted
some of the most aggressive goals in the
nation to reduce community greenhouse
gas emissions: 20 percent below 2005
by 2020 and 80 percent by 2030, which
will put the community on a path to be
carbon neutral by 2050.
3.3
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Sustainable Materials Managment Overview (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
April 5, 2016
3
Experts have shown how the provision of materials – food and goods – creates more than 40% of overall GHG
emissions and contributes to the discards disposed of in our community. The upstream impacts of extraction,
initial processing, transportation and manufacturing account for the majority of our society’s GHG emissions,
toxins in the environment, water and soil pollution, energy usage, and more. In other words, SMM shifts from
calculating just the end-of-life impacts to accounting for the beginning-, middle- and end-of-life impacts. This
feat is achieved, in large part, with the help of a tool called life cycle assessment (LCA).
The Role of Life Cycle Assessment
The physical materials that flow through our community in the form of goods and food come in all shapes, sizes,
and volumes. What they all have is common is a measurable, if complex, “life cycle.” The framework of
Sustainable Materials Management looks to broaden the scope of influence over material resource flows in the
community to include all stages of the life cycle. Through a systems-based accounting process that includes
formerly externalized costs material resource flows may be tracked, mapped, and measured to achieve greater
efficiency and significantly reduce waste. LCAs can highlight the dissonance between expectations and reality
because they account for the overall impact an item has on all aspects of the environment, not just whether or
not it can be recycled.
Examples
1) Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality studied three types of ground coffee packaging: one is a
recyclable steel coffee can with a plastic lid, one is a plastic container and lid, and the other is a non-
recyclable pouch. Lifecycle assessment shows that for single use the overall impact of the pouch is far
lower in terms of energy used, GHG emissions emitted, and even waste created than the other two
types of packaging, despite the fact that it must be disposed of in a landfill at end of its useful life.
Coffee
Packaging
(11.5 oz
product)
Material
Package
Weight
Recyclable
by
Consumers
Energy
Used
(MJ/11.5
oz)
GHG
Emissions
(lbs CO2e/
11.5 oz
product)
MSW Waste
Generated
(lbs./ 100,000
oz. of
product)
Steel
can,
plastic lid
~4 oz. Yes 4.21 0.33 1,305
Plastic
container
and lid
~3 oz. Yes 5.18 0.17 847
Flexible
pouch
~0.4 oz. No 1.14 0.04 176
3.3
Packet Pg. 109
April 5, 2016
4
2) Another excellent example of this tool being employed (strictly for carbon footprint assessment) is The
New Belgium Brewing Company’s LCA of a six-pack of Fat Tire Amber Ale. The report states:
System boundaries of the assessed life cycle encompass acquisition and transport of raw materials, brewing
operations, business travel, employee commuting, transport and storage during distribution and retail, use and
disposal of waste.
The carbon footprint of a 6-pack of Fat Tire® Amber Ale, or the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during its life
cycle, is 3,188.8 grams of CO2 equivalents. Of this total, emissions from New Belgium Brewing Company’s own
operations and the disposal of waste produced there account for only 5.4%. Upstream emissions during production
and transportation of packaging materials and beer ingredients total 48.0% of total emissions. Downstream
emissions from distribution, retail, storage and disposal of waste account for the remaining 46.6% of the total
emissions.3
University Collaboration
Future life cycle assessments of materials should be conducted in partnership with Colorado State University
research teams. The City is currently funding a community-wide LCA by the College of Engineering for food flows
and food waste. This study is critical to determining proper capacity for the anaerobic digester expansion at the
Drake Water Reclamation Facility. Future studies could inform sustainable procurement (e.g., construction
materials, paper, equipment, etc.) to ensure the City uses products with the least negative impact, or look
outward at material flows and their impacts throughout the community.
Additional Benefits of SMM
Other benefits resulting from the adoption of SMM are the growth of jobs, regionalism, local economic
development, reduced transportation, and improved health and well-being of employees no longer required to
use potentially toxic substances for cleaning, landscaping, etc.
Regionalism
By definition, SMM takes a more inclusive approach to finding solutions to and avoiding the creation of
problems. This holistic framework lends itself to regional collaboration. It fits well with the concepts being
brought forward by the Colorado Depart of Public Health’s study of regional wastesheds, and with the idea of
reducing the number of landfills, replacing them with transfer stations for waste and separated recyclables.
With the upcoming closure of the Larimer County landfill (around 2025) Fort Collins is currently in the process of
collaborating with other entities in the region to develop optimal solutions for its waste issues. By applying the
concepts of SMM, Fort Collins will showcase its leadership in municipal sustainability not only in Northern
Colorado, but nationally as well.
3
The Carbon Footprint of Fat Tire® Amber Ale, The Climate CO2nservancy: http://www.newbelgium.com/files/the-carbon-footprint-of-
fat-tire-amber-ale-2008-public-dist-rfs.pdf
3.3
Packet Pg. 110
Attachment: Sustainable Materials Managment Overview (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
April 5, 2016
5
Jobs and Local Economic Development
Fort Collins has the opportunity to bring the Northern Colorado
region together in creating a supportive atmosphere for small,
entrepreneurial businesses to reuse, repair, recycle, or refurbish
items and develop innovative uses for local discards. The Economic
Health Office is currently developing business support tools to
specifically target small businesses with social and environmental
missions.
Eco-business parks – such as those being developed in Phoenix, AZ
and Austin, TX – are proving to be successful by supporting small
businesses that utilize locally generated discards that can be:
x Repaired
x Reused
x Sorted and remanufactured into new items
x Composted
x Used for anaerobic digestion
Eco-business parks stimulate the local job market, reduce miles traveled between discard and market, produce
goods from recycled products and extend the life of other products through repair and reuse.
Sustainable Purchasing
Fort Collins can take a leading, proactive approach to reducing waste
and pollutants through sustainable procurement practices. As part of
an overall framework of Sustainable Materials Management, carefully
researching/choosing purchasing options not only reduces discards,
GHG emissions and pollutants, but also becomes a major part of the
local jobs equation by ensuring products can be repaired or
remanufactured. Enhancing a strong, consistent procurement policy
will put Fort Collins in a leading municipal role in Colorado.
SpringBack Mattress Colorado, a
Denver-based company that
employs disenfranchised
individuals, would like to be able to
set up a location in Northern
Colorado to expand their current
operation. This would bring a much
needed service (mattress recycling
and refurbishing) to the area as
well as offering employment to an
underserved and underemployed
population. This is just one
example of the many opportunities
for entrepreneurs to build local
businesses, employ local residents,
and reduce miles traveled for
products.
The University of Colorado –
Boulder, has instigated a
cutting-edge on-line
purchasing program. It is
controlled by a small group
using LCAs, best practices, and
sustainable standards to
determine what products may
be purchased by any
department or individual
within the university. It has
greatly contributed to the
reduction of waste and their
carbon footprint.
April 5, 2016
6
Conclusion and recommendations
SMM and LCAs can lead to the development of strong, consistent policies for the City, demonstrating the
success of this approach for the business community and other organizations and municipalities. This approach
allows for knowledgeable decision-making to reduce cross-media pollution, emissions, toxicity and waste, and to
increase jobs and enhance economic development, while assisting the City to reach its goals of approaching Zero
Waste by 2030 and being carbon neutral by 2050.
Next steps for implementation of Sustainable Materials Management
x Engage in an education campaign that encourages source reduction, pollution prevention and
sustainable purchasing practices and uses PPD (pounds per person per day) generated as the metric for
measuring success (uses adopted hierarchy).
x Work with CSU to develop LCAs for commonly purchased materials / services and create policies to
support using the optimal product or service to reduce GHG, waste and toxicity in the environment
(helps to meet both Climate Action Plan and Road to Zero Waste goals).
x Perform a community-wide LCA for food and food waste flows to determine proper capacity for the
anaerobic digester enhancement at the Drake Waste Reclamation Facility (GHG and waste reduction
method while co-generating local renewable energy).
x Explore regional development of a Materials Recovery Economic Cluster and an Eco-Business Park to
foster innovation, job creation, economic development, and efficiencies within the production and
consumption system (supports economic development and Road to Zero Waste goals while reducing
GHGs).
x Look for other materials that can easily be diverted from the landfill and pursue policies to encourage
the growth of new businesses based on those materials (economic development and Road to Zero
Waste).
x Continue to engage with regional and state partners on generating new ideas, technological advances
and innovative solutions that embrace reduction, reuse, recycling and composting (regionalism and
partnership).
x Become a leader for Sustainable Materials Management in Colorado.
3.3
Packet Pg. 112
Attachment: Sustainable Materials Managment Overview (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
1
Waste Optimization and Materials Management
Jackie Kozak Thiel, Lucinda Smith, Honoré Depew
3-29-16
ATTACHMENT 4
3.4
Packet Pg. 113
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Direction Sought
1. What feedback does Council have on specific projects?
2. How can the Sustainable Materials Management
framework best support Council’s goals?
3.4
Packet Pg. 114
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Responsibly Managing Materials
3
What is Sustainable
Materials Management?
Sustainable Materials Management
(SMM) is a systemic approach to
using and reusing materials
more productively
over their entire
lifecycles.
3.4
Packet Pg. 115
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Waste and Climate Action Goals
4
2005 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2050
GHG
emissions
baseline
Road to Zero
Waste
Goals Adopted
Climate Action
Goals Adopted
75% diversion;
3.5 lbs/person
GHG emissions
20% below
2005 levels
GHG emissions
80% below
2005 levels
90% diversion;
2.8 lbs/person
Carbon
Neutral
Approaching
Zero Waste
3.4
Packet Pg. 116
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
From Waste to Misplaced Resource
5
3.4
Packet Pg. 117
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Advanced Waste Stream Optimization
• Enhance regional collaboration, with a focus on
organics diversion
• Support innovation in local waste-to-energy conversion
technology, especially City readiness
• Systematically evaluate “waste” materials using
Sustainable Materials Management principles
6
3.4
Packet Pg. 118
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Regional Collaboration
7
Outcome: Increased City and public influence on decisions
about what comes after County landfill closure
• Regional “Wasteshed” Planning
• Improved disposal efficiency
• Enhanced resource recovery
• Statewide and Regional Studies
3.4
Packet Pg. 119
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
8
Outcome: Increased volume of organic material diverted
from landfills; significant greenhouse gas reductions
• Emerging opportunities:
• Anaerobic digestion
• Neighborhood composting
• EPA Food Recovery Challenge
• Community Recycling Ordinance
Organics Diversion
3.4
Packet Pg. 120
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Waste-to-Energy
Conversion Technology
Outcome: Recommendations for appropriate Waste-to-Energy
projects for our community
• Biomass burner feasibility (CAP initiative #7)
• Expanding co-generation capacity at DWRF
• Exploring mid-size anaerobic digester
• Regional opportunities
9
3.4
Packet Pg. 121
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Advancing
Municipal Waste-to-Energy
Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF)
• Biogas beneficially used on-site
• Co-Gen project to increase waste-to-energy opportunities
• Food mapping project informing enhancements
10
3.4
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Sustainable Materials Management
11
Outcome: Transformation from disposal management to
materials management
• Support local, circular economy
• Reduce inefficiency
• Use broad-impact accounting methods
• Rethink production and consumption
3.4
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Life Cycle and
Systems-Based Assessment
Outcome: A more complete understanding of the materials
coming into our community and leaving as waste
• Map material flows
• Goods and food
• Calculate impacts
• Greenhouse gas emissions, water use, etc.
12
3.4
Packet Pg. 124
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Total Food Waste in Fort Collins
Food
Wholesalers
& Distributors
13
Food
Manufacturers
& Processors
Hospitality/
Healthcare
Education
Other
Food
Retailers
Household
TOTAL FOOD AVAILABILITY
Food
Bank
TOTAL FOOD WASTE
605
20,577
8,743
1,207
696
2,784
1,116
170
+35,896
3.4
Packet Pg. 125
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Next Steps
Lead by Example
• Continue on Road to Zero Waste
• Lead Regional Wasteshed planning efforts
• Conduct life cycle assessments
• Enhance City sustainable procurement
• Expand educational efforts
• Support local business opportunities
14
3.4
Packet Pg. 126
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Direction Sought
1. What feedback does Council have on specific projects?
2. How can the Sustainable Materials Management
framework best support Council’s goals?
15
3.4
Packet Pg. 127
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Definitions
Regional Wasteshed: An area that shares solid waste disposal methods and/or
infrastructure
Organics: Both food scraps and yard debris
Compost : Organic matter that has broken down in the presence of oxygen
Waste-to-energy: Conversion of matter to energy using a thermal or biological
process
Biomass: Organic matter used for thermal fuel (usually wood)
Anaerobic Digestion: Biological process converting organic matter
without oxygen to biogas and fertilizer
Life Cycle Assessment: Measuring full impacts of a product, from cradle to grave
16
3.4
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
3.3
Packet Pg. 111
Attachment: Sustainable Materials Managment Overview (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Attachment: Sustainable Materials Managment Overview (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
emphasis on using less.
~
Reduce toxic chemicals
and environmental
impacts throughout the
material lifecycle.
~
Assure we have sufficient
resources to meet today’s
needs and those of the
future.
-EPA definition
ATTACHMENT 3
3.3
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Sustainable Materials Managment Overview (4313 : WasteOp/MM)
Attachment: Best Practice Research Findings (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
rating
Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
Front Range
benchmark
Your neighborhood during the day 93 5 17 Much higher
Your neighborhood at night 81 5 11 Much higher
Downtown Fort Collins during the
day 89 10 20 Similar
Downtown Fort Collins at night 68 12 14 Much lower
Parks 79
Not
available Not available Not available
2.2
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
(Access Fort Collins, Digital
Publications, Recreator) 19% 16% 22% 23% 20% 20%
City booth at local events 45% 42% 39% 38% 44% 42%
2.2
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
" % 4DF ;
0 ;4F
%" 4F
& ">% 7 %6$" 4)F
2$ % $ 4F 3
7 "
" 34F G
. 4F
<
$ G
340
%5
"4DF
&
" %4DF
0 ;F
%"4F
& ">% 7 %6$" 4)F
2$ % $F
7 "
" 34F
. 4F
;
2.2
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
%7 $$ %
"% % ""
"
7 $ " % " $
7
4
6"
$/
%$ $
" *$/ /% ","
" *"
" ,4
*+,*
2.2
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
$
"
" " %
"
$
% " " 4
"
"
$ 7"%
$$
77
%
"
%
$
$
$ $
$$ " "
" " %
"" %
" %
"
"
!"
"
"7 $$
7 " $
$ $
"
%$"
>
"
%
"
I
%$ " "$
" ".$ <
"
$(I
$
"
9%
"
"
"""%
"
"
$ " 7 $ $
%
"
%"
"
$"
$ " "
"
%
"
$ %/
7%
"
" %$"
$
7%
" 7 /N
$
%
M $
"
""$! " " '" "
< $
1"
$ %
" "
"*
% $$
7 $ $
$
$ ,
%
7 / "7 $ "
* 5,$
" $ "
"$ *"" $
7 7
'B,4
*+,*
2.2
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
%
+
"
"
&$
" "
6
$ %
" "! " 2$
4
!" %
! " $
"! "
"
!
"7 %"
2 %
"
$
$
"
"%
: "
"
"
"" $7 % " " " " %
"4
)
"5L
"8
% 4
4 L51 "
5'
"4
"" &
"
$
"
"
M .
"""%
$
"! " "" = "
" % " "
7
$% $% " "
"
"$$ " %
%$
$"
"
" $ " %
"
$ 7 $
% $"
&
I
" " "$ I
< 77 %
%
"
$
"M
*+,*
)
2.2
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
"""% )4)F );
. 34GF DD
<
$ ;3
*+,*
!7 $" )
$
%
> " I
77 %$ < $ "4<
$ 7
$$4
>
" "%"
%
""%
"
"
1
$'
'
" ""%"7 %"4
'
"
: "
'
"
"
'
"
$
""4
-
/ %"" "% " ' $
0$$" - 4
-
"8" 4
)467
L "7 "
9%/
$
"
"5
'
"
$ " 4F
$ % ;F
7
D4F
6"7 % 4F
< "
"D4DF
"""%)4)F
. 34GF
2.2
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
7%
4
*+,*
2.2
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
"
"7
"
+-
+
"$%
"% $%
77 % $
0 " '
%
%
"
$ 7"A,
"
"$ ">
4&
7
" '
*% %$$
$
,5
)4F
4F
)D4DF
;4F
4;F
4F
2 $
"
% $2 $ '
"> " .
3
;
G
2.2
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
$
7
4GF ))
."%
" D4F
2$
$
" 4F )
<
$ G
4&
7 C"$
%
"'
""%% *"
" /'
'
"% $
" /
" %
" " /%4,5
4F
%
$
7
4GF
."%
" D4F
2$
$
" 4F
;
2.2
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
( ( )
'
0 &%
D4F
'$
4)F
4F
G
6
$
" "$
3)4F
#"
))43F
&
)4F
G
<<*
$ %, '
;4DF
#
)4F
$
4;F
G
( *B $ , !'
;;4F
$
43F
4)F
G
: " $"
4GF
&#
)D4F
$
4DF
G
1 '
$$ "' (" %!
34F
"
;4F
$!
4F
G
" 1 .%
&&
3G4F
'
4F
#
343F
G
'$ 0 '
)4F
#
D43F
%
;4GF
G
7
%
$ %$
34F
'
4F
)4;F
G
G4&
7 $
7
$$
"
>
%
77
'
5
D
2.2
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
% %% "$
7%
" %
"
7"
'" 4" 40 %
9%
4F 4F 4F F
"7 9
"7
'B
"
%
7% "%
" %
" 4F 4F 4F F
%%
" % $ "% "
7"
4F 4F 4F F
'B%
" %
" 4F 4F 4F F
$%
""% 4F 4F 4F F
B
%
" "
%
" %
"
9%" $ 4F 4F 4F F
" "%
$
""7 %"/ "%$ " "%"$
"
4
4F 4F 4F F
> $ """% 4F 4F 4F F
$ " "
"
7$ " 7" "!2 "(
4F 4F 4F F
2 " " " "
% % 4F 4F 4F F
68 $
%%
$
"
"-
$ "
4F 4F 4F F
$ %
4F
4F
!"
4DF
#
)4;F
$
;4)F
;G
% %
4F
$
4;F
!
34F
$&
)4DF
%'
)4F
G
'
$"" " * $
" , "
34F
"$
G4F
&
);4F
&
4F
$'
34)F
;G
1
4F
%
4F
$
34F
);4F
$
4;F
;;
< "1 %
;4GF
'&
4F
$
)G4F
&
4)F
!
D4F
G
" %
"
)4;F
!
;4)F
$
G4F
!'
G4DF
'
G4)F
G
B $ %
4F
D4GF
'&
;4F
%#
)4DF
D4GF
G
'
4F
!&
D4)F
#
;4F
$#
D4F
$$
4F
;G
;4&
%
$
%%
7
$$
" '
"" %5
3
2.2
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
" /
"""%/ %"/%4, " $
"%
$ "/ %
" "
" " %$ $ $$ %
C$
7"
""
46
$
4F 4F 4F F
$$" $ %
" %
""%
" " 4F 4F 4F F
"7 %"
7$ $ 4F 4F 4F F
(
" " " 4F 4F 4F F
%
"'" 4F 4F 4F F
2
"
" $
7%
$ " " " " 7 $$
%
"%'
" > "
$ 4K$ $ "
$"
$
4
4F 4F 4F F
%
"$%" 4F 4F 4F F
%
$ 4F 4F 4F F
$/ " 4F 4F 4F F
'
" %
" 4F 4F 4F F
+%
"
"0 $$ $ 4F 4F 4F F
%
" %
"(
" 4F 4F 4F F
.%%
"%
6
% "7 %" 4F 4F 4F F
7
$
" 4F 4F 4F F
" 4F 4F 4F F
6"%$
" " 1 '
$$ "%
$ % 4F 4F 4F F
" 4F 4F 4F F
$/
4F 4F 4F F
6" "*
4 $ "
'"
! ", 4F 4F 4F F
< 77 %$ @ """% 4F 4F 4F F
" !
" %
" "
". $" < 4 4F 4F 4F F
$ ( "
"
" 1 "
42"
%""
$
$ % "
" %
7
$ "
%
7
"4"
" %" >
$$
/ $
"%
%
4F 4F 4F F
2.2
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
42 %
%$
%
"!
7 $
"" % "$
$ 4
4F 4F 4F F
'
"7 %" " " $ 4F 4F 4F F
$$
- "
77 %7
%
$
444<
" "
%7
"
4F 4F 4F F
'
$$ " ""
4F 4F 4F F
$" "%
" %
"/
$"" " >(
" " " " $ 4F 4F 4F F
$
" 4F 4F 4F F
'
"7 %" 4F 4F 4F F
'
"7 %" 4F 4F 4F F
&
"
%
" " " @ % 4F 4F 4F F
$ 4F 4F 4F F
'B "
" 4F 4F 4F F
2 " " " % %
7 "
" 7%
7
7
(
" " " $
" 4
4F 4F 4F F
$ %
$ 4F 4F 4F F
< '
"
7 " " 7
%
"
" 4F 4F 4F F
4F 4F 4F F
< 77 % 4F 4F 4F F
4F 4F 4F F
>
$"
$ %
""%""
4F 4F 4F F
0 "
7%
"
"
""$! " " '" >
< $
4F 4F 4F F
"
$
"
"
""
4F 4F 4F F
77 %
$ "
"
< $ "
4F 4F 4F F
. % "
7%
" %
"$"" % $$ "
72
"
' % " !
$" 7$
4F 4F 4F F
'
%>"7 $$
"
4F 4F 4F F
6
$ $ 7 %
"
"7
"
"
2 $%
$4
4F 4F 4F F
$
"
'B%
" %
" 4F 4F 4F F
"" %
% 4F 4F 4F F
2.2
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
6"7 % * $/$" %
" /
, D 4DF )) 34F ; ;4F ;; F
< "
"* $
/%%
$ % " / 77 %, D 4F G; ))4;F ; 4DF G F
+
"%*
"""%/"
/$
/
$%
$,
; 4F ) )4GF 33 )4F ;D F
&.
$ "
$
% "$ % %$
"
/7
"
" " /
" /%$
$ "4
4F 4F 4F F
$ A %
$$ $ "
"
7 " $
$ $$H
""
>" * " "@
,
4F 4F 4F F
-
/
"
4F 4F 4F F
$" % " 4F 4F 4F F
%
" " %
"/ " "%/"
%
7
"
4
4F 4F 4F F
< 77 %%$ " 4F 4F 4F F
%
""%
"
$ 4F 4F 4F F
7%%
$/ $" " I 4F 4F 4F F
(
" "
"
7%
"
"
$ 7 $
$$ " 4F 4F 4F F
. 7$
" /$$
"""% 4F 4F 4F F
"7 % " $
%$ " "
7
$4 4F 4F 4F F
< 77 % "$ "
"$
" 7
$%
$$%
$$ "
7
$%
4F 4F 4F F
> "%" 7
"* "
77 % "%
,
4F 4F 4F F
<
% " $(
" " 40" %
% $4
" "4
4F 4F 4F F
2
" " $ %
7" "
4F 4F 4F F
=%"
4F 4F 4F F
' % 4F 4F 4F F
:
4F 4F 4F F
% "
"*= ./6 ,7
" "
" $"
4F 4F 4F F
"""% 4F 4F 4F F
D40 %
7
7$"
" "" %
" %
""
"
" '
5
)
2.2
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
- " '
'
- % " " " $
$4
&.
2
!" %
'
!" %
> '
2
7&.
2
7 " '
!
"
"&
"
%
% $%
<
< /
2
$ " /
" %
"
" 77 "%
40
$ "
%
"5
2.2
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
$
%
$$
$
"
"
"%
$
"
$$
$"
$$ %
"
/ % 7 " $
$$ $$4 $ "
% " "
% " & /"
"
% " &
" %
$$
"
"
"
4<
"
+
% " "
"4B $$7
$ 7 " $
"
"%$ ""
" /" "
&.4
6$ " $$/ 7$$ "
" %
" ("
444
$
"8 $$
"
%$
7 % " & 4
D
2.2
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
0 $$
0 $$
"
0 $$
"
0
0
* $ @$$
,
% $$
%
"
"(
$
@7
$
%
$
"
C $
$$
"
3
2.2
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
<& A
".$ <
"/@0- " <7
<""
"&
<
"
< <
< 0
$" *&
"
> $ ,
2.2
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
%" '
$$
% $
%> $
"%
"
? $&$$
% $
% !
) % $
& $$
$$
"1
"1
"7
%'
&
"
%'
" >!2 "(
%'
"
)
/2$
" <
$
$$" 2
$$" 2 0
)
40 %
" 2 "
$
&.
'
%
%
% "
$
2.2
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
$& $$
2
$ $$
2
$
2 "(
2 "(
2%'$$$" 8'
2
$
2
2
*0
7< $ "" - ,
2 $$
) 2
"
2
"= $$
2
" "
2
" "= &
2$
& $$
.
.
= $$
.$
%
.$ <
"
.$ <
"/'
$$ >2$
.$ <
"
.$ <
"0
.$ <
"0>!
"
.$ 7 %
$$ "
.$
"
.$
"
.$
"/$ ( "
"
. $
0
4.44<
"
)
2.2
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
2.2
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)
!" "
"
#"
$$
% " &
% "
% "
'
$& $$
'
'
&
'
% $ $(
) '
$$ " $
'
$$ " $
'
"
*
"%
$+,
'
"
-
'
.$
"
.$
"
/0 "
%
$ ( " %
$$
) " $ "%
1$%
"
1
$' '
"
1
$' 2
3 1
$! "%
4 0 "
$ "5*67
"
"8 "/ " 9
%
5,
2.2
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Public Outreach Summary (4311 : Neighborhood Connections)