The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 06/23/2015 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 u r b a n r e n e w a l a u t h o r i t y Wade Troxell, Chairperson City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, Vice-Chairperson City Hall West Bob Overbeck 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez Fort Collins, Colorado Gino Campana Kristin Stephens Ross Cunniff Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Wanda Nelson City Attorney Executive Director Secretary 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. URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY BOARD WORK SESSION June 23, 2015 6:00 PM  CALL TO ORDER. 1. College Avenue and Vine Drive Revitalization Study. (staff: Tom Leeson; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to provide an status update and elicit feedback on the College Avenue and Vine Drive Revitalization Study. 2. URA Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts. (staff: Tom Leeson; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to provide an update to the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board regarding recently passed URA state legislation and the impacts to the Midtown URA Plan.  OTHER BUSINESS.  ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: June 23, 2015 Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager WORK SESSION ITEM Urban Renewal Authority Board SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION College Avenue and Vine Drive Revitalization Study. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide an status update and elicit feedback on the College Avenue and Vine Drive Revitalization Study. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board support the direction of the revitalization study, as well as the public engagement efforts? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Purpose of Study The North College Urban Renewal area has seen some successful urban redevelopment projects during the last decade; however, the projects have not been part of any focused redevelopment strategy that has resulted in a significant redevelopment momentum. In recent years, however, there has been significant activity in and around the Vine Drive area, along the southern boundary of the North College Urban Renewal Plan area. These projects include:  Rocky Mountain Innosphere, a nonprofit technology incubator formed to accelerate the development and success of high-impact scientific and technology startup companies, completed a new 30,000+ square foot LEED Platinum building in 2010.  CSU recently completed the Powerhouse Energy Campus, a nearly 100,000 sf LEED Certified green research complex. Powerhouse will be home to numerous labs, policy centers, superclusters, and start- ups. At its core, Powerhouse will be a catalyst for clean energy transformation.  Woodward, an industrial-controls manufacturer is currently constructing a new world headquarters on Lincoln Avenue. The project is a $200 million manufacturing and office complex to be built in four phases.  The City of Fort Collins is currently developing a master plan for the Cache la Poudre River in the downtown corridor (Shields Street to Mulberry Street) to improve in-river and bankside recreation, habitat connectivity, restoration and rehabilitation, bank protection, flood mitigation and floodplain management, water quality, public safety and access, and transportation. The purpose of the Vine Drive/College Avenue Revitalization Study is to evaluate existing conditions, as well as the opportunities and constraints for revitalization in the area along Vine drive to the east of College Avenue, as well as properties to the south of Vine Drive and to the west of Linden Street. The study will include an analysis of public infrastructure needs in the area, including future improvements to Vine Drive. Packet Pg. 2 June 23, 2015 Page 2 The revitalization study is distinguished from a “plan” as it will not result in any proposed changes to any existing policy, zoning, or codes of the city, and will not require adoption by the URA Board or City Council. The revitalization study is intended to provide preliminary market and economic analysis, as well as physical site analysis, including infrastructure requirements and costs to support revitalization. The information collected in the revitalization study will be used to inform the URA Board of the feasibility of redevelopment in the area, and what actions could be taken to stimulate revitalization. Furthermore, the intent is to utilize the information collected within the Revitalization Study and dovetail with the Downtown Plan, as the study area is included within the Downtown Plan as the Innovation District Character Area. The Revitalization Study will be used as background information for the Downtown Plan, and can be used to inform decision making as part of that planning process. Public Engagement Public engagement for this study continues and has included presentations and outreach to the primary stakeholders in the area, which include:  Property Owners within Study Area  Businesses  Residents (Old Town North)  Professionals in the real estate and development community  North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA)  North Fort Collins Citizen’s Advisory Group  Chamber of Commerce (LLAC)  Land Conservation Stewardship Board  Natural Resources Advisory Board  Water Board As noted above, the information collected in this study will be used to inform the Downtown Plan, so public engagement will continue as the Downtown Plan transitions into the "Choices and Strategies" phase in the fall. Timing There are three primary steps of the study: Document Existing Conditions:  This phase of the study is basically complete and includes a profile of current zoning, land use, transportation, environmental, and public infrastructure conditions within the study area, as well as recent and proposed public and private investments. Evaluate Opportunities and Constraints:  This phase of the study is underway and should be completed by end of July. The opportunities and constraints analysis is intended to provide information about specific locations or conditions where there are barriers to, or opportunities for future revitalization. Opportunities and constraints include physical and environmental circumstances, infrastructure conditions, long-term land use designation, market conditions, or property ownership conditions. Present continuum of choices for revitalization:  The North College Urban Renewal Area has been identified within City Plan as a targeted Redevelopment and Infill Area. Based on the opportunities and constraints for revitalization identified within the study area, the community will have the necessary information to make choices regarding revitalization within the study area. The purpose of this task is to provide a list of choices available to the Packet Pg. 3 June 23, 2015 Page 3 community to achieve revitalization. A continuum of choices will be provided to the community for revitalization and will be evaluated as part of the "Choices and Strategies" phase of the Downtown Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Packet Pg. 4 1 College Avenue and Vine Drive Revitalization Study URA Board June 23, 2015 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 2 Direction Sought Does the URA Board support the direction of the revitalization study, as well as the public engagement efforts? Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 3 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 4 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 5 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Purpose of Study: • Evaluate existing conditions • Opportunities and constraints for revitalization • Analysis of public infrastructure needs • Future improvements to Vine Drive • Feasibility of redevelopment, potential actions Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 6 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Revitalization Study: • Distinguished from a “plan” • Will not result in any proposed changes to any existing policy, zoning, or codes of the city • Will not require adoption by the URA Board or City Council Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 7 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Revitalization Study will: • Dovetail with Downtown Plan (Innovation District Character Area). • Be used as background information for the Downtown Plan • Inform decision making as part of that planning process Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 8 College/Vine Revitalization Study Existing Conditions N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 9 College/Vine Revitalization Study Existing Conditions N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 10 College/Vine Revitalization Study Existing Conditions N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 11 College/Vine Revitalization Study Planned Investment N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 12 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 13 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 14 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 15 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Next Steps: • Refine Opportunities and Constraints based on feedback • Provide continuum of choices to the community for revitalization • Evaluate choices as part of the "Choices and Strategies" phase of the Downtown Plan process Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 16 College/Vine Revitalization Study N. College Hickory Conifer Hickory N. College Public engagement continues and has included outreach to the primary stakeholders in the area: • Property Owners and Businesses • Residents (Old Town North) • Professionals in the real estate and development community • North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) • North Fort Collins Citizen’s Advisory Group • Chamber of Commerce (LLAC) • Land Conservation Stewardship Board • Natural Resources Advisory Board Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) 17 Thank you Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3239 : URA College & Vine Revitalization Study) DATE: STAFF: June 23, 2015 Tom Leeson, Redevelopment Program Manager WORK SESSION ITEM Urban Renewal Authority Board SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION URA Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide an update to the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) Board regarding recently passed URA state legislation and the impacts to the Midtown URA Plan. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Given the ambiguous language within the recently passed HB15-1348, how would the URA Board like to proceed with proposed redevelopment projects within existing urban renewal plan areas? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Changes to URA Legislation On May 29, Governor Hickenlooper signed into law HB15-1348, “Concerning modifications to statutory provisions governing urban redevelopment to promote the equitable financial contribution among affected public bodies in connection with urban redevelopment projects allocation tax revenues.” The bill modifies the current URA legislation in the following respects: A. The bill modifies the number of commissioners of a URA. Specifically, the bill deletes the requirement that a URA have an odd number of commissioners and allows a URA to have up to 13 commissioners. B. The bill requires one additional commissioner on the authority be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, one additional commissioner must also be a board member of a special district selected by the special districts, and one additional commissioner must also be from the school district. C. The bill requires that prior to approval of a URA Plan, the municipality notify the board of county commissioners as well as the taxing entities. Representatives of the municipality/URA, county commissioners, and taxing entities are then required to meet and attempt to negotiate an agreement governing the types and limits of tax revenues of each taxing entity to be allocated to the urban renewal plan. The agreement must address estimated impacts of the urban renewal plan on county or district services. D. If no agreement can be reached within 120 days of notification, the parties must submit to mediation on the issue of appropriate allocation of urban renewal project costs among the municipality and taxing entities. The mediator has 90 days to render a decision. Typically mediation is not binding on the parties, but the mediation in HB-1348 is binding. If the parties cannot reach a different agreement, the City can only adopt a URA plan that allocates the tax increment revenues of the City and the other taxing entities in accordance with the cost allocations determined by the mediator. E. The bill applies to URAs or URA Plans created on or after January 1, 2016; or urban renewal plan amendments or modifications adopted on or after January 1, 2016, that include any of the following: Packet Pg. 22 June 23, 2015 Page 2  Any addition of an urban renewal project;  An alteration in the boundaries of an urban renewal area;  Any change in the mill levy or the sales tax component of any such plan, except where such changes or modifications are made in connection with refinancing any outstanding bonded indebtedness; or  An extension of an urban renewal plan or the duration of a specific urban renewal project regardless of whether such extension or related changes in duration of a specific urban renewal project require actual alteration of the terms of the urban renewal plan. Concerns and Impacts  It is clear that beginning January 1, 2016, the bill applies to any new urban renewal plan area, or an existing urban plan area that is modified. Therefore, if no modifications are made to the existing urban renewal plan areas, then the new provisions would not apply.  There are, however, some questions related to what modifications to a plan area would trigger the new provisions. For instance, would the adoption of a new TIF district in the Midtown Plan Area trigger the requirements for notification and negotiation for the entire plan area (including the existing Foothills district and existing obligations), or just for the new TIF district?  There have also been questions raised as to whether or not the new provisions would apply if amendments were made to the existing Foothills Redevelopment Agreement on or after January 1, 2016. The language in the bill is ambiguous and has raised some concerns by municipalities.  Governor Hickenlooper recognized these concerns and addressed them by proposing some clarifying language to be reviewed as part of next year's legislative session (Attachment 1). The clarifying language, however, will not be incorporated for a year (if at all), which leaves some questions about process on and after January 1, 2016. Update on Regional Impact Study It should be noted that municipalities within northern Colorado, as well as Larimer County and the special taxing entities, have been collaborating on a regional TIF study to better understand the service impacts of TIF. The goals of the study are threefold: to develop a method to qualify and quantify the economic benefits of TIF proposals; to identify and address the differences of TIF proposals and corresponding financial effects on taxing entities; and to adopt formal agreements, as appropriate, among the participating Larimer County entities. The fiscal impact model that will be developed as part of this effort will be a highly effective tool for the URAs, municipalities, county, and special taxing districts to "negotiate an agreement governing the types and limits of tax revenues of each taxing entity to be allocated to the urban renewal plan" and "address the estimated impacts of the urban renewal plan on county or district services" as required by the new URA legislation. It is anticipated this regional TIF study and corresponding fiscal impact model will be complete by mid-summer 2015. Options The Fort Collins Urban Renewal Authority staff has, in recent months, been in discussion with property owners in the Midtown and North College Plan Areas regarding potential redevelopment projects. One of these would require the creation of a new TIF district, while the others would be within existing TIF districts. While it is clear that the creation of a new TIF district in the Midtown Plan Area after January 1, 2016 would trigger the new provisions, it is not clear if the action would affect the existing Foothills and Prospect South TIF Districts and their associated obligations. One option available to the URA would be try to accommodate those projects prior to January 1, 2016 to avoid any confusion regarding applicability. While it might be possible to process an Urban Renewal application for a project within an existing TIF district by the end of the year, it would be difficult to adopt a new TIF district, given the required process and existing resources. Packet Pg. 23 June 23, 2015 Page 3 Another option would be to take no action that might affect existing obligations until clarifying language has been added to the bill. This would most likely mean postponing any action on proposed redevelopment projects within existing plan areas until after the 2016 legislative session. ATTACHMENTS 1. Governor's Letter, May 29, 2015 (PDF) 2. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) Packet Pg. 24 ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Governor's Letter, May 29, 2015 (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Governor's Letter, May 29, 2015 (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) Amend Section 4(2) as follows: “Section 4 (2). SECTIONS 1 AND 3 OF THE ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 31-25-104 AND 31-25-115, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, APPLY TO ANY URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 31-25-104 OR 31-25-115 PRIOR TO, ON, OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT. Section 4 (3). SECTION 2 OF THIS ACT AMENDING SECTION 31-25-107, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, APPLIES TO ANY URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CREATED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2016, AND TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN THAT IS APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 31-25-107(4) ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2016 AND THAT DIRECTLY AND MATERIALLY AFFECTS AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT THROUGH (i) THE ADDITION OF LANDS NOT PREVIOUSLY WITHIN THE PLAN AREA, (ii) A MATERIAL INCREASE IN THE EXISTING ALLOCATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 31-25-107 (9) OF THE REVENUES FROM MILL LEVIES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAID TO TAXING ENTITIES OTHER THAN THE MUNICIPALITY OR A DECREASE IN THE EXISTING ALLOCATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 31-25-107 (9) OF SALES OR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAID TO THE MUNICIPALITY, OR (iii) AN EXTENSION OF THE TERM OF AN ALLOCATION OF TAX REVENUES PURSUANT TO SECTION 31-25- 107 (9) THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAID TO TAXING ENTITIES OTHER THAN THE MUNICIPALITY BEYOND THE TERM PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. Section 4 (4). NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THIS ACT TO THE CONTRARY, NOTHING IN THIS ACT IS INTENDED TO IMPAIR, JEOPARDIZE OR PUT AT RISK ANY EXISTING INVESTMENTS, LOANS, PLEDGED REVENUES, ASSETS, EQUITY, OR CONTRACT RIGHTS EXISTING PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT.“ Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Governor's Letter, May 29, 2015 (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 1 URA Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts URA Board June 23, 2015 ATTACHMENT 2 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 2 Direction Sought Given the ambiguous language within the recently passed HB15-1348, how would the URA board like to proceed with proposed redevelopment projects within existing urban renewal plan areas? Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 3 URA Legislation HB15-1348 “Concerning modifications to statutory provisions governing urban redevelopment to promote the equitable financial contribution among affected public bodies in connection with urban redevelopment projects allocation tax revenues” Hickory Conifer Hickory Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 4 URA Legislation HB15-1348: Overview • Allows a URA to have up to 13 commissioners • The bill requires one additional commissioner from: • County Commissioners, • A special district selected by the special districts, • School district • Notification and negotiation of URA Plan. • Agreement must address estimated impacts of the urban renewal plan on county or district services Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 5 URA Legislation HB15-1348: Overview • If no agreement within 120 days, the parties must submit to mediation on the issue of appropriate allocation of urban renewal project costs among the municipality and taxing entities. The mediator has 90 days to render a decision. Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 6 URA Legislation HB15-1348: Applicability • The bill applies to URAs or URA Plans created on or after January 1, 2016; or urban renewal plan amendments or modifications adopted on or after January 1, 2016. • Amendment language is ambiguous. Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 7 URA Legislation HB15-1348: Concerns and Impacts After January 1, 2016: • New urban renewal plan area, • Existing urban plan area that is modified. If no modifications are made to the existing urban renewal plan areas, then the new provisions would not apply. Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 8 URA Legislation HB15-1348: Concerns and Impacts After January 1, 2016: • Questions related to what modifications to a plan area would trigger the new provisions • Would the adoption of a new TIF district in the Midtown Plan Area trigger the requirements for notification and negotiation for the entire plan area (including the existing Foothills district and existing obligations), or just for the new TIF district? Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 9 URA Legislation HB15-1348: Concerns and Impacts After January 1, 2016: • Would provisions apply if amendments were made to the existing Foothills Redevelopment Agreement after January 1, 2016. The language in the bill is ambiguous. • Governor proposed clarifying language for next year's legislative session. Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 10 URA Legislation Update on Regional Impact Study Regional Study to better understand impacts of TIF Goals of Study: • Develop a method to qualify and quantify the economic benefits of TIF proposals (Fiscal Impact Model); • Identify and address the differences of TIF proposals and corresponding financial effects on taxing entities • Adopt formal agreements, as appropriate, among the participating Larimer County entities. Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 11 URA Legislation Update on Regional Impact Study • “Address the estimated impacts of the urban renewal plan on county or district services“ HB-1348. • Regional TIF study and corresponding fiscal impact model will be complete by mid-summer 2015 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 12 URA Legislation Options for Fort Collins URA Recent inquiries regarding redevelopment: • New projects within existing TIF Districts • Potential for new TIF District within Midtown Plan Area • New TIF District after January 1, 2016: Trigger provisions – not clear of impact on existing obligations with Midtown Plan Area. Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 13 URA Legislation Options for Fort Collins URA Accommodate projects prior to January 1 to avoid confusion with applicability language. Take no action that might affect existing obligations until clarifying language has been added to the bill. • Postpone any action on proposed redevelopment projects until after the 2016 legislative session Other options? Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) 14 Thank you Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3248 : URA State Legislation and Midtown URA Plan Efforts) City 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 Nelson 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 June 23, 2015 After the Urban Renewal Authority Work Session, which begins at 6:00 PM  CALL TO ORDER. 1. Amending the City’s Naming Policy. (staff: Dan Weinheimer; 10 minute staff presentation; 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to consider amendments to Chapter 23, Article V of the City Code relating to the naming policy for properties and facilities. Staff is bringing this item forward to discuss changes to the existing City Code and Administrative Policy. 2. Community Recycling Center Operational Costs. (staff: Susie Gordon, Lucinda Smith, Jeff Mihelich; 15 minute staff presentation; 60 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to present information about the estimated range of ongoing operational costs of the new Community Recycling Center (CRC) for “hard-to-recycle-materials” and to discuss options going forward. A public collection site for hard-to-recycle-materials is one of the City's strategies for achieving its goal of Zero Waste. Funding has been secured to construct the site and significant progress has been made in preparing to build the CRC at Timberline/East Prospect. In 2015, staff and the potential site operator developed a Profit & Loss (P&L) analysis that applies a set of key assumptions (e.g., number of visits, volume of material collected) and forecasts costs to run the facility. Based on these assumptions, the net annual operating expenses could be in the range of $200-$300K per year. It was originally envisioned that a private contractor would be able to operate the site and cover operational expenses by charging a small gate fee. However, the market for recyclable commodities has changed recently. It is likely that a small gate fee will not cover all the operational expenses, and City support will be needed to provide this innovative service to the community. City of Fort Collins Page 2 Staff will seek guidance from Council about its interest in: (A) supporting on-going operational costs,( B) scaling back the site construction to move existing recycling center only and thereby reduce financial risk, but preserve future options, or( C) placing the project on hold or terminating it.  OTHER BUSINESS.  ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: June 23, 2015 Dan Weinheimer, Policy & Project Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Amending the City’s Naming Policy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to consider amendments to Chapter 23, Article V of the City Code relating to the naming policy for properties and facilities. Staff is bringing this item forward to discuss changes to the existing City Code and Administrative Policy. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does the current naming policy accomplish the City Council’s goals? 2. What policy enhancements would City Council like to consider? 3. Are there additional boards or commissions Council would like to see engaged in this process? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Maintenance of a consistent and understandable process of naming City-owned facilities is important for identification and can add to community connection to these amenities. The naming of facilities or streets is not undertaken lightly as names help with directions, convey a sense of place and help memorialize community leaders. While the naming policy is holistic, the primary focus, for many concerned, is the use of proper names - who is eligible, attributing those individuals’ contributions appropriately and ensuring diversity within those honored. The purpose of a naming policy is to establish a systematic and consistent approach for official naming. Current City objectives for naming are to:  Fairness and appropriateness  Easy identification and location of City facilities by users, public officials and the general public  Encouragement of the dedication of lands and facilities and the donation of funds by individuals and organizations Fort Collins has adopted policies governing the official naming of parks, recreational facilities, cultural facilities, trails and civic buildings. In November 2011, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 134, 2011, amending Chapter 23, Article V to add new provisions to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities:  Section 23-141 Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities  Section 23-142 Naming of properties and facilities for other than persons or entities Section 24-91 of the City Code contains the naming policy for City streets. Planning Services maintains the street name list and consults with local historians, neighbors, and others on appropriate proper names for this list. November 20, 2012, Section 24-91 was amended to empower City Council, not developers, to name new arterial and collector streets. Council used that authority in January 2015 to name Suniga Road. The street policy is regularly updated to either add or delete eligible names. The most recent update occurred January 20, 2015. 1 Packet Pg. 3 June 23, 2015 Page 2 These City Code sections provide City Council a role in approving collector and arterial street names and in the development and approval of facility names. Existing Naming Criteria: 1. Donor naming a. Donation in excess of 75 percent of overall value of facility or the portion of the facility that will be named b. Consideration of the request of a donor while balancing the public interest c. If City feels donation is not sufficiently large to justify naming entire facility, consideration of naming a part of the facility or a feature after donor 2. Non-donor honorees a. May be named for a community member or significant contributor to community - living or deceased b. Deceased person honor can occur only after a 12 months waiting period after death c. City Council will choose name from proposal of ad hoc naming committee i. Committee consists of some City Council and appropriate staff members 3. Administrative naming a. Names derived from categories including: i. Geographic location ii. Unique natural features iii. Specific purpose of the facility iv. Place of historical or cultural significance Staff has identified several areas that City Council might consider in amending the existing City Code or Administrative Policy: Preapproval  Adopt and maintain a preapproved list of names, using the street naming model, to draw from for future facility naming.  Embedded in this model are historian and community input as well as adequate time to consider the contributions of individuals and families to Fort Collins.  Using a facility naming list could eliminate the need for an ad hoc naming committee of City Council.  If a list of preapproved names could be created, part of a new naming policy could be allowing a prospective donor to choose either their own name or to select a name from this list.  An important element of the use of a list would be to recognize and honor community history and diversity, retaining a sense of place and the connection to people foundational in Fort Collins’ development.  A list might even be geographically based - considering the area a family settled for instance.  Using a name from a City Council preapproved list could also allow elimination of Section 23-141 and Section 23-142 of the City Code and, instead, make all facility naming part of an updated Administrative Policy. 1 Packet Pg. 4 June 23, 2015 Page 3 Code clarification  Clarify the language to the City Code provisions to define what City Council intends by, “provided a significant service or direct benefit to the community which will endure over many years.”  Add language to the City Code describing a historical review of potential non-donor honorees. Specifically direct staff historical evaluation of potential non-donor honorees could solidify the rationale for honoring an individual or family. This public discussion would serve as a valuable public connection with community history.  Create a clearer hierarchy of naming choices - criteria could include historic ownership of a parcel, leadership on City Council or volunteer boards, business ownership, achievement in academics or contribution to a field of knowledge.  Section 23-141.c states that the City Council will give “significant weight” to a naming or recognition request received from an individual, family or entity donor. The code balances a request with existing policy or practical priorities and the public interest. Bequests  If the naming policy objectives state a desire to encourage donations to the City. It may be useful to allow a current owner of a historic structure or parcel to donate on behalf of that facility’s historic owner.  Allowing naming for a third-party individual or family that meets the naming policy parameters could result in increasing contributions. Next Steps Staff will discuss the City naming policy with several boards before coming back to City Council on July 21. The board engagement plan includes Parks and Recreation Board on June 24, Landmark Preservation Board on June 24 and July 8, and the Land Conservation Stewardship Board on July 8. ATTACHMENTS 1. Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (PDF) 2. Street Naming Policy Update Agenda Materials, November 20, 2012 (PDF) 3. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 5 DATE: November 1, 2011 STAFF: Ann Turnquist AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 10 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on October 18, 2011, establishes a process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties. The process defines how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead), or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility naming and establishes the City Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the naming of facilities in other circumstances. In response to a Council comment that the proposed ordinance included some confusing language, staff has streamlined subsection 23-141(d) to clarify the process to be used. This simplified language is included in the Ordinance on Second Reading. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - October 18, 2011 (w/o attachments) COPY COPYY OP 011, establishes stabla e process defines defi how , or for an organization gani (e.g. ity ty naming and establishes esta the C Administrative dministrative Policy is outlined which ordinance rdinance included some confusing langu la ss s to be used. This simplified language rdinance dinance on Second Reading. Reading Agenda Item Summary - Octobe Octob hments) 1.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: October 18, 2011 STAFF: Ann Turnquist AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 13 SUBJECT First Reading of Ordinance No. 134, 2011, Amending Chapter 23, Article V, of the City Code to Add New Provisions Related to the Naming of City Properties and Facilities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance establishes a process for the City Council’s responsibilities in the naming of City facilities or properties. The process defines how appropriate names are selected when a facility is to be named for a person (living or dead), or for an organization (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This Ordinance establishes Council’s role in such facility naming and establishes the City Manager’s authority to name other facilities. In addition to this Ordinance, an Administrative Policy is outlined which establishes staff’s role in the naming of facilities in other circumstances. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The purpose of this policy is to establish a systematic and consistent approach for the official naming of parks, recreational facilities, cultural facilities, natural areas, trails and civic buildings, or portions thereof. The City’s objectives for naming of facilities include: • To name City facilities through a consistent, fair and appropriate process utilizing established criteria. • To ensure that City-owned facilities are easily identified and located. • To encourage the dedication of lands, facilities, or donations by individuals and organizations. City-owned facilities include all property assets under the City’s ownership and control including parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas, and trails. Such facilities will not include streets which are named according to policies established through the City Code Sec. 24-91 and as a part of the Development Review Process. CITY COUNCIL NAMED FACILITIES: Under the proposed Ordinance (Sec. 23-141 Naming of properties and facilities for persons or entities), the City Council has the authority to select or approve the naming of a facility or a portion of a facility that is to be named after individuals, organizations (e.g., foundations) or corporations. Provisions include the following: A. Donor Naming Policy In circumstances where a significant financial donation has been made for the acquisition, construction or improvement of the facility, the facility or a portion of the facility may be named either for the donor or in consideration of the wishes of the donor. The following guidelines shall be used when such a name is proposed: 1. Donations shall be of a significant size and proportion to the total cost of the facility or portion of the facility to be named. As a guideline, a donation of 75 percent (75%) or more of the value of the facility, feature or portion of the facility to be named is a baseline in determining a naming or recognition opportunity. 2. It is the City’s intent to encourage and recognize private contributions. If a significant donation is received from the private sector or an individual, significant consideration will be given to a donor’s naming or recognition request while balancing the public interest. 3. If the City does not believe a donation is sufficiently large to warrant the naming of an entire facility after the donor individual or organization, the City may offer the donor the opportunity to name a part of a facility or a feature of the facility to recognize the donation. 1.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) COPY COPY COPY COPY October 18, 2011 -2- ITEM 13 B. Non-Donor Honorees A facility or portion thereof may be named for a community member or other significant contributor to the community (living or deceased), subject to approval of City Council. If such a naming is to be considered, the City may solicit nominations for such naming. Such nominations will be reviewed by an ad hoc committee of Councilmembers and appropriate staff members. The ad hoc committee will make recommendations to the full City Council regarding the nominations. Names which are proposed to honor a non-donor deceased person shall be subject to a minimum 12 month waiting period following the death of such honoree. Such honorees should have provided significant service or direct benefit to the community which will endure over many years. When the City Council is to select or approve the name of a facility or portion thereof, an ad hoc Council Committee will first review the proposal in preparation for formal consideration by City Council. Names selected pursuant to this Ordinance will be adopted by Council Resolution. The Council may solicit input from the public and City boards and commissions as deemed appropriate and advisable. The proposed Resolution will include the following information: • A description of the contributions of the individual, organization, or corporation to the City. • Written documentation of approval by next of kin of the person to be honored (if available/possible) is required as part of the proposal if the facility is to be named after a deceased person. Exceptions to approval of a relative or executor will be considered when no living relatives can be identified or are unable to participate in such approval process. • A provision allowing the City to change or modify the approved name in the future, should such a modification be necessary for the public good (e.g., change of use for the facility; future negative associations with the selected name, etc.), regardless of whether the naming was for a donor honoree or non-donor honoree. ADMINISTRATIVELY NAMED FACILITIES Other naming of facilities will occur in compliance with an Administrative Policy approved by the City Manager. Provisions of the policy include the process for naming of facilities which are not named after individuals, organizations (e.g., foundations) or corporations. This authority is outlined in the proposed Ordinance (Sec. 23-142 Naming of properties and facilities for other than persons or entities.) The attached draft administrative policy outlines the process to be used for administrative naming of City-owned facilities and properties. (See Attachment 1) OTHER NAMING POLICIES The proposed Ordinance applies to City-owned parks, recreational and cultural facilities, civic buildings, natural areas, and trails. The provisions do not apply to the naming of City streets. Arterial and collector streets are named through provisions of the City Code Section 24-91. Sec. 24-91. List of street names. All new arterial and collector streets, as defined in the City of Fort Collins Master Street Plan, are to be named from the list of street names approved by the City Council. The list of street names shall be composed of names of natural areas, natural features, historic and/or well-known places, citizens of the City or Growth Management Area whom the Council would like to honor posthumously, and such other names of places, things or deceased persons as the Council may approve. With respect to citizens of the City whom the Council desires to honor posthumously, such citizens must have devoted much time and effort to the City either as a former City officer or employee, a former Colorado State University officer or employee, a person important in the founding of the City or a former citizen of exemplary character deserving of special recognition. The list of street names shall be adopted and amended by the City Council by resolution. All new arterial and collector streets which are not extensions of existing arterial and collector streets must be named from the foregoing list of street names, and the Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services shall strike names 1.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) COPY COPY COPY COPY October 18, 2011 -3- ITEM 13 from the list as they are used in the naming of such new arterial and collector streets and shall promptly file an updated list in the Office of the City Clerk. Local streets are named by developers as part of the Development Review Process. During the Development Review Process, staff reviews the proposed names of local streets to ensure that the selected names do not duplicate existing names, create confusion with other similar names within the City or adjacent areas, or are “sound-alike” to existing street names. When staff finds problems with a developer’s proposed names, they will reject the names under these criteria, but otherwise do not make changes to those names. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Administrative Naming Policy 1.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) 1.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) 1.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) 1.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) 1.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Naming Policy Agenda Materials from November 1, 2011 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) DATE: November 20, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 11 SUBJECT Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2012 Amending Section 24-91 of the City Code Regarding the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 6, 2012, amends the City Code relating to naming new arterial and collector streets so that City Council ,rather than the developer, would select the name of the new street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading. ATTACHMENTS 1. Copy of First Reading Agenda Item Summary - November 6, 2012 (w/o attachments) COPYY PYYY 2, ament amends developer, per, would s ading. mmary y - November 6, 2012 201 ATTACHMENT 2 1.2 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Street Naming Policy Update Agenda Materials, November 20, 2012 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) COPY COPY COPY COPY ATTACHMENT 1 DATE: November 6, 2012 STAFF: Laurie Kadrich AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL 17 SUBJECT Items Relating to the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2012 Amending Section 24-91 of the City Code Regarding the Naming of Arterial and Collector Streets. B. Resolution 2012-100 Updating the List of Names for Arterial and Collector Streets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance amends the City Code relating to naming new arterial and collector streets so that City Council ,rather than the developer, would select the name of the new street. The Resolution will update the current list of names for arterial and collector streets. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On October 8, 2012, the City Leadership Team was reviewing suitable names for public alleys that have been improved by the Downtown Development Authority. During that discussion several prominent individual names were suggested but not selected in anticipation of reserving those names for a future collector or arterial street. City Code currently allows Council to add those names to an official list for future consideration by a developer as roads are constructed. Council suggested changing the Ordinance to allow only Council to name the streets, rather than the developer. During this review two names were deemed worthy of consideration for a future arterial or collector street: A.E. Blount and Charles Lauterbach. Staff requests those names be added to the official street name list. In addition, staff recommends adding Ann Azari to the list, as it is customary to honor those who have provided a significant contribution and public service to our community. The rationale for these additions is: • Charles Lauterbach In 1882, Charles Lauterbach was the first to establish a cigar business within Fort Collins on the Vandewark Block of Jefferson Street. Lauterbach touted he obtained the best quality tobacco from the great tobacco mart in Baltimore. His cigars were well-regarded and one of the editors of the Fort Collins Courier even outlined six reasons why Fort Collins smokers should purchase Lauterbach cigars. Lauterbach’s cigar factory would eventually move to 210 Linden Street, where the building still remains. • Ainsworth E. Blount (A.E. Blount) Ainsworth E. Blount was the first farm manager and the first professor of practical agriculture at the new Agricultural College of Colorado. His work at the College lasted fourteen years, beginning in 1879. Blount was famous for his agricultural research and experiments, focusing primarily on small grains. His experiments helped farmers statewide manage their grain practice in Colorado’s unique and arid climate and his work established his reputation as a prominent and scientific agricultural researcher. Years later, Blount’s wife took charge of floral work at the College and helped to beautify the campus grounds. • Ann Azari Ms. Azari was a Councilmember from 1989 to 1993 and Mayor from 1993 to April 1999. She and her husband and five children moved to Fort Collins in 1963. Her community involvement including serving on the boards 1.2 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Street Naming Policy Update Agenda Materials, November 20, 2012 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) COPY COPY COPY COPY November 6, 2012 -2- ITEM 17 of the Colorado Municipal League, the Downtown Development Authority, the Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters of Larimer County and the Girl Scouts Council. History of Street Naming since 2000 The last new arterial was Mountain Vista Drive, named when Anheuser-Busch located the brewery here in the mid- 1980s. Four collector streets have been named in the past five years and eight were named between 2000 – 2007, or about an average of one per year. This information was based on the Master Street Plan collector designation. In the spring 2000, Council updated the official list to delete nine names that had been previously selected and added seven new names. Of these seven, five were selected to re-name existing County roads in the southeast quadrant of the city. The Board of County Commissioners then approved an action to continue these newly selected names to the limits of the Growth Management Area. The affected roads were: Changed From: To: County Road 7 Strauss Cabin Road County Road 9 Ziegler Road County Road 11 Timberline Road County Road 32 Carpenter Road County Road 36 Kechter Road In the fall 2003, Council again updated the list add 16 new names. Of these 16, six were selected to re-name existing County roads in the northeast quadrant of the City. Five were arterial streets and one was a state highway. In addition, four names were selected to name new collector streets. Again, the Board of County Commissioners approved the continuation of the newly selected names for the arterials and state highway to logical termination points both inside and outside the Growth Management Area. The affected arterial/minor arterial roads were: Changed From: To: County Road 50 Mountain Vista Drive County Road 52 Richards Lake Road County Road 54 Douglas Road County Road 11 Turnberry Road County Road 9 Giddings Road State Highway One Terry Lake Road In September 2005, four new names were added for selection and 18 names were deleted as duplicates. From this updated list, three collector streets were renamed as: Changed From: To: Coffey Parkway William Neal Parkway Katahdin Drive Charles Brockman Drive Sagebrush Drive Joseph Allen Drive In February 2006, 41 new names were added based on the recommendation from a citizen advisory committee and five names were deleted. In addition, Council took the following specific action to rename a collector street in the southeast quadrant: Changed From: To: Cambridge Avenue Lady Moon Drive On October 16, 2007, Council voted to add Sergeant Nicholas Walsh to the list but did not do so by Resolution. In January 2009, Council deleted three previously selected names (Lady Moon, Council Tree and Montezuma Fuller) and added four new names (Maurice Albertson, Louis Brown Jr., Dr. Karl Carson, and Sergeant Nicholas Walsh). 1.2 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Street Naming Policy Update Agenda Materials, November 20, 2012 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) COPY COPY COPY COPY November 6, 2012 -3- ITEM 17 In October 2011, Council adopted a Resolution naming an access drive into Spring Canyon Park in honor of Sergeant Nicholas Walsh. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading and the Resolution. 1.2 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Street Naming Policy Update Agenda Materials, November 20, 2012 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) 1.2 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Street Naming Policy Update Agenda Materials, November 20, 2012 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) 1.2 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Street Naming Policy Update Agenda Materials, November 20, 2012 (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Amending the City’ s Naming Policy 6-23-15 Dan Weinheimer ATTACHMENT 3 1.3 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Questions Does the current naming policy accomplish the City Council’s goals? What policy enhancements would City Council like to consider? Are there additional boards or commissions Council would like engaged? 2 1.3 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Why have a naming policy? 1. Consistency 2. Clarity 3. Contribution 4. Recognition 5. Community Values 3 1.3 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Naming Policy Background Naming objectives: • Fairness and appropriateness • Easy identification and location of City facilities by users, public officials and the general public • Encouragement of the dedication of lands and facilities and the donation of funds by individuals and organizations 4 1.3 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Municipal Code Section 23-141 – naming for persons or entities 1. Donor naming 1. Donation of at least 75 percent of overall value 2. Consideration of the request of a donor while balancing the public interest 3. Consideration of naming a portion after donor 2. Non-donor honorees 1. May be named for a community member or significant contributor to community - living or deceased 2. 12 months waiting period after death 3. City Council will choose name from proposal of ad hoc naming committee 5 1.3 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Municipal Code Section 23-142 – naming for other than persons or entities 1. Administrative naming Names derived from categories including: • Geographic location • Unique natural features • Specific purpose of the facility • Place of historical or cultural significance 6 1.3 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Possible Enhancements Preapproval of names • Create a preapproved list of historical figures for naming Code Clarification • Define qualifications for naming more precisely Bequests • Allow a donor to propose name for historic owner 7 1.3 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Process and Timeline Staff will conduct outreach to: • Parks and Recreation Board – June 24 • Landmark Preservation Board – June 24 and July 8 • Land Conservation Stewardship Board – July 8 City Council consideration of proposed amendments: • July 21 City Council meeting 8 1.3 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) Questions Does the current naming policy accomplish the City Council’s goals? What policy enhancements would City Council like to consider? Are there additional boards or commissions Council would like engaged? 9 1.3 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3191 : Amending the City’s Naming Policy) DATE: STAFF: June 23, 2015 Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Community Recycling Center Operational Costs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to present information about the estimated range of ongoing operational costs of the new Community Recycling Center (CRC) for “hard-to-recycle-materials” and to discuss options going forward. A public collection site for hard-to-recycle-materials is one of the City's strategies for achieving its goal of Zero Waste. Funding has been secured to construct the site and significant progress has been made in preparing to build the CRC at Timberline/East Prospect. In 2015, staff and the potential site operator developed a Profit & Loss (P&L) analysis that applies a set of key assumptions (e.g., number of visits, volume of material collected) and forecasts costs to run the facility. Based on these assumptions, the net annual operating expenses could be in the range of $200-$300K per year. It was originally envisioned that a private contractor would be able to operate the site and cover operational expenses by charging a small gate fee. However, the market for recyclable commodities has changed recently. It is likely that a small gate fee will not cover all the operational expenses, and City support will be needed to provide this innovative service to the community. Staff will seek guidance from Council about its interest in: (A) supporting on-going operational costs,( B) scaling back the site construction to move existing recycling center only and thereby reduce financial risk, but preserve future options, or( C) placing the project on hold or terminating it. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council have guidance on the Community Recycling Center (CRC), considering unanticipated, ongoing operating costs? 2. What direction does Council have regarding the three options identified? A. Support a mid-cycle BFO proposal that would identify ongoing funding, starting in 2016, for operating the new Community Recycling Center B. Undertake only as much development on the new CRC site necessary to move the existing recycling center to the City-owned location, thereby postponing the "hard-to-recycle-materials" area of the CRC C. Place the project on hold or terminate work on building a new CRC. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION A public collection site for hard-to-recycle-materials is one of the City's strategies for achieving its goal of Zero Waste and significant progress has been made in preparing to build the CRC at Timberline/East Prospect. The plan includes two areas where separate activities will occur:  On the east side nearest Timberline Road, the relocated "Rivendell" Recycling Center will operate as usual (for free, seven days/week during daylight hours, unstaffed). This element of the CRC project has its own, separate funding for O&M ($66,000 annually, as approved in the 2014 BFO process). The 2 Packet Pg. 29 June 23, 2015 Page 2 Rivendell Recycling center is currently located adjacent to Rivendell School, and accepts “traditional” recyclables such as paper, cardboard, bottles and cans etc.  Farther back on the property, a completely new facility will operate (open during regular business hours, staffed, visitors charged a gate fee), which will accept a variety of new materials for recycling, including several construction and demolition (C&D) wastes, paint and other low-toxicity household wastes, and old/obsolete electronic equipment. Permits have been obtained and Connell Resources is prepared to break ground on the 5-acre Timberline property, which is owned by the City, as soon as notified to proceed. Signage has been planned to notify patrons of the current Rivendell Recycling Center about the upcoming facility. (Attachment 1) An original budget of $750,000 for the CRC was approved in 2013. Financial setbacks slowed the project in 2014, when capital construction costs were found to be higher than estimated, bringing the total cost estimate up to $1.7M. In 2014, Council approved an additional $1.0M for construction in 2015. Resuming work in December to develop the new facility, staff in ESD and Finance began working in earnest with the private sector vendor selected through the 2014 RFP process to be the site operator (Waste-Not Recycling). Several conclusions were reached through this collaborative process. One was the suggestion to increase the number of vendor employees, from one person to two full-time people, in the interests of providing sufficient customer service. As a result, expenses to pay site attendants, which represent a significant part of the O&M costs, were effectively doubled. Secondly, the City team created a detailed P&L spreadsheet for the CRC's income stream (gate fees and rebates from saleable commodities) and expenses, including the vendor's overhead and freight/trucking costs. Modeled estimations for a range of net operational costs were identified to be between $200,000 and $300,000. A worst- case-scenario could result in as much as $400,000 per year in the unlikely event of several worst case variables occurring simultaneously. Negotiations with the vendor have not yet concluded, and staff feels there are several potential operational cost reductions that can be implemented. The P&L modeling was undertaken to reduce the City's financial risks, to the extent possible, that come with innovations such as a drop-off center for hard-to-recycle materials. Unfortunately, few examples exist for Fort Collins to use as comparable models; although some communities in the US have built this type of facility, information was hard to obtain about how they finance the O&M costs. A non-profit organization, Ecocycle, operates a Center for Hard-to-Recycle-Materials (called "CHaRM") in Boulder. Differences in which materials are accepted vary significantly, but the project does clearly demonstrate how usage grows (from 15 trips/day in 2002 to 115 trips/day in 2013) and how it also gives Boulder the ability to expand the types of materials accepted locally, as viable markets for recycling emerge. The CHaRM started off accepting two materials, and now collects 14 materials due to additional markets and relationships built with local small-scale manufacturers.) The unknowns/inherent risks of running a CRC that will influence net operational costs include:  Difficult to estimate the number of customers who will use the site, especially at first while people learn about it  Impossible to accurately estimate how much volume of material people will bring with each visit  Gate fees modeled at $5/visit (excludes those dropping off paint) and proposed volume-based fees for green waste and wood do not offset expenses  Prices from sales of recyclable commodities cannot be reliably predicted to offset expenses because of market volatility  Currently commodities are at all-time lows; while income from sales of materials such as scrap metal are anticipated to rise, it is much lower than estimated just one year ago  If large amounts of low-value material (e.g., green waste and wood waste) are received at the CRC, it skews operational expenses because of these materials' higher handling/disposal costs, compared to commodities that have value (e.g. scrap metal, cardboard.) Another discussion item that emerged during Q1 of 2015 is the proposal to host the City's biannual Household Hazardous Waste collection events at the CRC. Staffed by Utilities, these events have been held since their 2 Packet Pg. 30 June 23, 2015 Page 3 inception in 2009 at a parking lot on the campus of Colorado State University (Lake and College). Due to CSU's development plans, the Lake Street parking lot is no longer available for the City to use and a new location needs to be found. In collaboration with the Environmental Services Department, Utilities has agreed that the Timberline CRC would be a good venue for holding the HHW collection days, once the new facility is open. Summary of Benefits Based on staff’s 13 years of experience running the Rivendell Recycling Center, it is anticipated the CRC will be highly used and appreciated, just as Rivendell has been very popular, an asset in which many citizens seem to take great pride of ownership. There are a number of strikingly similar circumstances between development of Rivendell in 2001 and today's efforts to build an expanded recycling center. The Rivendell facility was built about 15 years after recycling was introduced to the Fort Collins community in the mid-to-late 1980s. A goal of 50% waste diversion had just been adopted in 1999, and the public's growing interest and demand required the City to respond to citizen expectations for greater opportunities to recycle. Now, with passage of another 13 years, the City is gearing up to respond to even higher expectations for recycling more types of materials, and for meeting new goals aimed at sending even less waste to landfills. In 2002, the City had little idea of how much growth in usage (currently 400 visits on average daily) and tonnage (1,500 tons/year) would occur at Rivendell. At the CRC, advanced recycling opportunities that are in high demand by citizens will be accessible and actionable, providing more avenues to achieving Zero Waste goals and implementing the Climate Action Plan (CAP). Initially, the CRC may experience low levels of usage, but from staff’s experience seeing how much citizens of Fort Collins respond to expanded opportunities to recycle, it is anticipated the number of visits would likely grow rapidly, to as many as 100 per day. In drawing further comparison, the Rivendell Recycling Center costs approximately $66,000/year to operate (which includes $16,500 lease payments to the school). With 1,500 tons/year now being conservatively modeled for the CRC, the amount of material recycled at the CRC, at minimum, will be equal to the amount recycled at Rivendell. The CRC will support goals adopted in the 2013 Road to Zero Waste, not only by diverting a conservatively estimated 1,500 tons/ year of new material from landfill disposal, but by providing positive experiences for citizens that motivate them to take even further action to reduce waste. The amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that will be avoided, 2,350 tons estimated in the first year, will help support goals adopted for the 2014 CAP. The CRC is one of the primary tactics identified in the 2015 CAP Framework Plan, as a way to recycle more materials (thereby reducing GHG emissions from energy required to manufacture new products and avoiding emissions caused during mineral resources extraction), help people gain confidence in their ability to undertaken even greater sustainability practices in their daily lives, and divert waste from being landfilled (a disposal method that generates methane emissions, a significant source of GHG). The CRC will give citizens more ability to appropriately manage the types of household hazardous waste (HHW) that are generated at the residential level. On a year-round basis, four materials (antifreeze, batteries, oil, and paint, or ABOP for short) can be brought to the recycling center. On two occasions each year, the CRC would function as the host site for residents to bring all types of residential HHW during the Utility's popular HHW collection days (the May 30 event this year broke previous years' attendance records, with well over 1,000 visits). The CRC's year-round activities to collect ABOP would reduce costs for the biannual HHW round-ups, and therefore the Utility Department foresees having $25,000 available annually to help support the recycling center's operations and maintenance costs. Staff suggests that providing annual funding for operating the CRC will provide social benefits to the community, support the culture of recycling that is critical to achieving progress on zero waste goals and the Climate Action Plan Framework, and preserve the site for the unique opportunities it presents for future development of small scale waste-to-energy or expanded resource recovery. If directed, staff is prepared to develop a budget "offer" to introduce into the process for making mid-cycle BFO revisions. To ensure a budget is adopted that is sufficient to 2 Packet Pg. 31 June 23, 2015 Page 4 address the uncertainties inherent in new and "uncharted" initiatives, staff recommends an initial annual budget of $300,000 to cover anticipated net operating expenses. To control costs, staff submits the following ideas for consideration:  Limit the amount of green/wood waste accepted at the CRC o establish policy of charging an amount (i.e., $7.00 per cubic yard fee when customers bring green/wood waste (it is important to note that the public already has the option of using one of the two local businesses that accept woody/organic materials for less than $7.00 per yard) o these are the materials for which management/dispose costs are highest o disallow use by commercial landscapers or arborists  Establish a policy that limits the volume of materials that are more costly to process (green waste and yard waste). o For example, customers could be limited to 2 cubic yards of these commodities. o until it is established how much usage the CRC can absorb, setting limits for customers will help prevent being overwhelmed by volumes Expenses to operate the CRC facility will receive close scrutiny by staff in partnership with the contractor, Waste- Not Recycling. Starting at the outset, joint monthly financial meetings will be held to enable fast adaptation for most efficiently managing the site. As a highly experienced company with a long track record as a successful recycling business, Waste-Not will be committed to helping find ways to reduce costs such as freight charges, and to improve commodity values (e.g., by installing a baler for cardboard), as well as developing opportunities to expand the list of materials that people can bring to the CRC as recycling markets open up for them. Pros and Cons of Options Identified by Staff A. Mid-cycle BFO proposal that would identify ongoing funding, starting in 2016, for operating the new Community Recycling Center  May provide sufficient degree of assurance to proceed with construction and to open the CRC now, if it is known that Council's approval is likely to be given in November for costs of O&M in 2016  Enables staff to spend $68,000 of state grant money by deadline of June 30 for purchase of CRC equipment (collection bins) if City is confident that construction of the site will proceed as described in the grant application  Meets the aspirations and desires of the community and helps address adopted City goals  Provides greatest return on the City's investment of time and resources already made, to date, in developing and planning the project (approximately $175,000, including $70,000 on engineering costs, $41,000 on project manager salary, and $28,000 for tree-moving)  Provides host site for City's highly successful collection events for household hazardous waste, in collaboration with the Utilities Department  Annual O&M costs defrayed by $25,000 from HHW collection events budget  Opens up options for contracted operator to host other discretionary, special-material collection events, e.g., block Styrofoam, on occasional basis  Leaves opportunities open for developing future phases of CRC on west-most portion of site, e.g., pilot project to demonstrate waste-to-energy technology such as bio-digester system that could potentially fuel a nearby recreational facility.  Location provides potential for industrial symbiotic system, whereby businesses in adjacent industrial park or artisan village could use material collected at CRC to make products B. Build the site to a level of construction that allows staff to proceed with moving the "Rivendell" Recycling Center to the City's property on Timberline Road  Altered plan would complete all preliminary work except paving for the west portion, allowing Center for Hard-to-Recycle-Materials to be built at later date 2 Packet Pg. 32 June 23, 2015 Page 5  Allows the City to initiate the CRC project at a known level of O&M that is already funded, the "Rivendell" activities were included in the 2014-15 budget  Saves the City $16,500 in annual payments to the Rivendell School from which property is leased  Encourages the public to become acquainted with location of new City drop-off site, therefore, in the long run an expanded drop-off site is more familiar for people to use  Activates project to construct the site using: o fully engineered plans o permits that are already obtained o funding already in-hand to pay for earth-moving, electrical installation, drainage, and paving work  Postpones expenditure of roughly $150,000 of the budget for doing the paving work  Allows time to further evaluate costs and funding mechanism to pay O&M for the "hard-to-recycle- materials" portion of the CRC in future BFO processes  Relatively undeveloped area on west side of site could function as space for holding special-material collection (such as Styrofoam etc.) events conducted by contracted operator. C. Place the CRC project on hold, or terminate it  Prevents staff from expending more time working on the CRC  Helps City avoid risks associated with change and innovation  Leaves implementation of this important new measure to reach Zero Waste goals and Climate Action Plan goals unfulfilled  Incurs disappointment among members of the public who have been looking forward to completion of the CRC  Represents lost investment of staff time and other resources that have been expended during 2013-15 Guidance from City Council will determine next steps for the CRC. ATTACHMENTS 1. Banner for Rivendell Recycle Center (PDF) 2. Staff memo, May 1, 2015 (PDF) 3. Staff memo re: Household hazardous waste collection events at CRC, April 23, 2015 (PDF) 4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 33 Watch for more details at fcgov.com/RecyclingCenter WE’RE MOVING & IMPROVING! WE’RE MOVING & IMPROVING! TIMBERLINE RD PROSPECT RD RIVERSIDE AVE You Are Here New Location N IVEEE IIIIIII IVE VE V VEE VVVE VVVV E FORT COLLINS POLICE NANCY GRAY AVE ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Attachment: Banner for Rivendell Recycle Center (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) Environmental Services 215 N. Mason PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221-6600 970.224-6177 - fax fcgov.com MEMO DATE: May 1, 2015 TO: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer THRU: Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director FROM: Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner RE: Community Recycling Center: Update On April 6, staff met with the City Manager to discuss final questions about the Community Recycling Center. In preparation for a meeting on Monday, May 4, we have summarized responses in this memo to those questions, and documents that are attached here may be referenced for more details. 1. Costs of Operations - Amount of City Subsidy Needed A matrix of six operational scenarios is attached that shows a range in annual costs for running the new hard-to- recycle-materials facility. Staff has identified two scenarios that seem to represent the most optimal models for the City to consider applying. Once we have input from City management about key variables, we will finalize proposals for how Waste-Not Recycling will conduct operations. 2. Operations Contract Staff has spent the past three weeks refining contractual elements of an agreement with Waste-Not Recycling and a final draft is ready to be sent to the company for negotiation. These elements reflect a variety of "wants" that have been expressed by City management. After we have input with respect to key operational "variables" (item 1, above), we look forward to reaching mutual agreement with Waste-Not Recycling about serving the needs of the community. 3. Use of the Site for household hazardous waste (HHW) collection See a recent memo (attached) from Errin Henggeler, Environmental Regulatory Specialist, describing agreement and intent to use the Community Recycling Center for bi-annual HHW collection events starting in spring of 2016. 4. Memorandum of Understanding - Utilities will lease site for CRC See attached MOU, written in February, 2014, whereby Utilities agrees to allow Environmental Services to use the property on Timberline as a CRC for 10 years at no cost. 5. Future Expansion (narrative) Two areas of the CRC have been earmarked to be used for future expansion (see stippled areas on attached site plan). One section is in the for-free recycling portion of the site (10,000 ft.2), and one is in the west-side, hard- to-recycle-materials area (15,900 ft.2). According to construction plans, these sections will be a gravel surface with the possibility of installing an asphalt surface as budget allows, but otherwise will be in an "unfinished" condition, ready when we decide to use them for more than temporary parking. Combined, these two areas would increase the size of the operating portion of the property by 76% (from 33,900 ft.2 of working area to 59,800 ft.2), expanding the CRC's capacity to provide recycling to the public. ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Staff memo, May 1, 2015 (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 2 Expansion could occur to respond to a variety of needs, such as: City decision to add one or more types of materials to the list of accepted recyclables. For instance, we anticipate the breweries in Fort Collins will soon approach the City after the CRC is built with a proposal to create a bulk glass-only collection "bunker" so that their quality-defect bottles can be aggregated into large loads for delivery to the bottle-making plant in Wheat Ridge (and possibly even Windsor's bottle plant). We may find more volume of materials than we currently anticipate will be received, requiring us to add more collection bins, or we may decide to provide a space for distributing ground mulch to the community from Forestry's arborist/pruning activities the same way we currently offer the public to load wood mulch at Rivendell Recycling Center. It could turn out that our contractor makes a compelling suggestion to improve the way we prepare materials for delivery to recycling plants such as baling cardboard (which increases the value of the cardboard and reduces transportation expenses) or separating certain types of plastic from the "commingled bottles/cans" bin because they can be used by local manufacturers/industry. Any one of these decisions could easily come up within the first year or two of opening the CRC. The entire CRC is being designed to have conduits installed throughout the site, with extra electric lines stubbed out for future possible expansion if/when power is needed to operate more equipment or provide lighting, etc. Ultimately, there is another section of the 7-acre property on the west-most side that could also be developed if there is a need for even more space to conduct recycling/waste diversion activities. However, this portion was not included in the Proposed Development Plan, and therefore will remain in an undeveloped condition for now. 5. Exit Strategy (narrative) It is conceivable that something could happen that makes the City decide to close the hard-to-recycle-area of the CRC, such as: worsening prices for materials or other economic considerations such as excessive O&M costs; our contracted operator decides to quit; or, the public shows insufficient interest in participating in recycling. There are choices the City could make to close the new, hard-to-recycle-materials operations on the west side of the Timberline property (for the sake of this narrative, we are making the assumption that the "Rivendell" portion of the CRC would not close). The following actions could occur in some combination, such as: announce closure to the public within a minimum 2-month timeline so people aren't caught by surprise; provide information to the public about what their recycling options are to replace the CRC; physically close the site and lock the gates to the west-side area to prevent public access. If closure were to occur, the west-side of CRC's paved area and infrastructure would then revert to usage by Light & Power as the owner of the property; it is likely that L&P would be willing and able to put this developed site to use for their own operational purposes. 6. Work that is underway - community education plan and public information campaign for the CRC, with signage, is underway - trees on the Timberline site were transplanted to locations designated on the landscaping plan - RFP has been issued to obtain quotes on equipment that will be purchased using state grant of $698,000. 7. Other Pertinent Information Budget: $1,700,000 Value engineering propositions were integrated into the design and $500,000 was removed from the earlier projected cost of construction, bringing the price within budget. Upon recommendation from the Chief Financial Officer, the budget now includes full payment of Street Expansion Fee ($82,400), rather than deferring the payment until next phase of expansion to CRC. The budget also includes an allocation of $80,000 to pay costs for operations and maintenance within the first year. 2.2 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Staff memo, May 1, 2015 (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 3 Schedule Task 1: Minor Amendment Design & Review – underway, to be completed May 15 Task 2: Contract with Connell Resources to Construct CRC - starts as early as May 31, ends as early as July 26 Task 3: Move Rivendell Recycling Center to Timberline Location – week of August 2 Task 4: Sign Contract with Private Site Operator – negotiations started May 2014, continuing until final agreement reached in May 2015 Task 5: Open Timberline Site for Operations – could start as early as mid-August Hard-to-Recycle Materials included (to date): Wood - dimensional lumber, fencing, tree limbs, non-painted and non-engineered lumber products Green waste -yard debris such as brush, leaves, tree and hedge trimmings, etc. Scrap metal - items such as broken tools, most appliances, fencing, aluminum screen doors and window frames, etc. Aggregates - concrete, asphalt, brick, tile, porcelain and ceramic plumbing fixtures Bulk (non-compacted) cardboard –large sized packaging such as shipping boxes for appliances, furniture, etc. Household hazardous waste – antifreeze, batteries, used oil, and paint Electronic waste – computers and televisions 2.2 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Staff memo, May 1, 2015 (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) - 1 - Utilities electric · stormwater · wastewater · water 700 Wood Street PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6700 970.221.6619 – fax 970.224.6003 – TDD utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 23, 2015 TO: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer FROM: Errin Henggeler, Environmental Regulatory Specialist RE: Potential Coordination of Household Hazardous Waste Events with the new Community Recycling Center SUMMARY: City Regulatory and Government Affairs and Environmental Services Division staff have partnered to evaluate the potential for semi-annual Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection events to be held at the proposed Community Recycling Center (CRC). Staff is recommending that the new CRC host both 2016 HHW events. This approach allows for local promotion of CRC services and capabilities while reducing the final cost of the HHW event due to the ability to maximize the management of antifreeze, batteries, oil and paint (ABOP) waste streams. EXPLANATION: Funds were allocated in the 2015-2016 Budgeting for Outcomes process to provide two Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection events per year to City of Fort Collins residents. The HHW collection events are typically held the Saturdays after Memorial Day and Labor Day. The budgeted amount to provide two events each year in 2015 and 2016 is $126,625 and $143,214 respectively. The City was recently informed that, due to planned construction activities for the new Colorado State University Football Stadium, the current location used for previous HHW events will no longer be an option. Staff has secured a location for the September 12, 2015 event but will need to look at different locations in 2016. HHW and CRC The Community Recycling Center (CRC) is slated to open in late 2015 and is planning on accepting a variety of waste materials year round; some of these materials comprise a large component of those materials accepted at the single-day HHW events, specifically antifreeze, batteries, oil and paint (ABOP). Approximately 70% of the material collected at each event falls ATTACHMENT 3 2.3 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Staff memo re: Household hazardous waste collection events at CRC, April 23, 2015 (3266 : Community Recycling Center - 2 - into the ABOP category, however management of the ABOP waste stream represents only about 20% of the total HHW budget. One benefit of holding the HHW event at the CRC is that we could use the CRC’s existing collection structures and disposal contracts. For example, currently used oil is bulked with other products and there is an associated fee for disposal; if the HHW event is hosted at the CRC, the used oil can be placed in the CRC’s used oil containers and sold as a commodity. Additionally, all architecture paint products collected can be packaged separately and be managed under the Colorado architecture paint stewardship law that goes into effect July 1, 2015. The Colorado architecture paint stewardship law will provide some reimbursement to entities that collect and manage architectural paint products. Traffic Management and Safety will need to be addressed when planning the HHW events at the CRC. The CRC is being designed to have a circular traffic pattern-citizens will only be allowed to enter the CRC from the right and exit to the right. Planned road construction in 2016 could also be a challenge for suitability of the CRC, but staff will monitor these items before the 2016 HHW events are scheduled. CONCLUSIONS HHW event transportation and disposal costs can vary greatly depending on the types of materials that are dropped off and citizen participation, therefore it is difficult to predict how much money each event will cost and, in turn, how much will be saved by utilizing the CRC for the ABOP waste materials. However, considering data from past events, staff foresees having approximately $25,000 annually available in the HHW budget to help support the CRC. Hosting the 2016 events at the CRC will help promote what materials will be accepted at the CRC year round, while still providing world class HHW collection events to the citizens. Please let us know if you have any questions. ec: Kevin R. Gertig, Utilities Executive Director Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner Lucinda Smith, Environmental Services Director Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Manager Matt Zoccali, Interim Regulatory and Government Affairs Manager 2.3 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Staff memo re: Household hazardous waste collection events at CRC, April 23, 2015 (3266 : Community Recycling Center Community Recycling Center ~ Operating Expenses City Council Work Session June 23, 2015 ATTACHMENT 4 2.4 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) Direction Sought 2 • Does Council have guidance on the Community Recycling Center (CRC), considering unanticipated, on-going operating expenses? • What direction does Council have regarding the three options presented tonight? 2.4 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) Community Recycling Center (CRC) History 3 2013/2014 BFO Offer for CRC ($750,000) • Planned as Public Private Partnership with private operator • Envisioned as revenue neutral with a small gate charge • Found higher than anticipated construction costs • CRC construction placed on “hold” in 2014 2015/2015 BFO Offer funded ($1M for construction) ($80K for O & M removed) 2015 – Market for recyclables is changing Current Total Project budget: $1.7 M for construction (Invested $175K to date) 2.4 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) CRC Vision 4 Vision: One-stop-shop for recycling • Free area for “traditional” recyclables • Fee for “Hard to recycle” materials o Scrap metal, aggregate, wood, cardboard o E-waste o Green waste o Antifreeze, batteries, used oil, paint 2.4 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) CRC Vision 5 Supports Road to Zero Waste o Conservative estimate of 1,500 tons new tons material diverted in year 1 Supports Climate Action Plan - o Conservative estimate of 2,350 new tons GHG avoided in year 1 Residents have requested expanded recycling opportunities 2.4 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 6 Context – Waste Diversion Rate Increasing 2.4 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 777 Fort Collins Waste Diversion Leadership Pay-As- You- Throw passes Card- board Ban Zero Waste Goals Adopted Rivendell Opens GHG goals increase 1995 2002 2007 2009 2013 2015 Single Stream Recycling E-Waste Ban 2.4 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) CRC Location 8 2.4 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 9 North CRC Original Concept Rendering …. Timberline Road Electric Substation 2.4 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 10 CRC - Progress to Date • Construction planning completed • PDP and amendment approved • Connell Resources selected as construction contractor • Financial support from Household Hazardous Waste funding • Site ready for construction to begin 2.4 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 11 Business Operations • Site Operator (Waste Not) identified thru competitive process in 2014 • Operations discussions started in 2014; resume in 2015 • “Profit and Loss” assessment - to examine financial risks What has changed in last 2 years? • Market for recyclables has dropped • Haulers now must pay to tip recyclables • Increased # of contractor employees from one to two 2.4 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 12 Many Variables Impact Net Operating Expense • Number of customers • Volumes of material • Fee structure Estimated Net Operational Expense Range: $200,000 - $300,000/year Current Operating Assumptions • Open at least 5 days/week including weekends • “Rivendell”-like area is still free • $5 gate fee for most hard to recycle items • 2 contactor employees needed on site Basic Operations 2.4 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 13 Operational Cost Considerations Major Cost Drivers Expenses: • Contractor personnel • Contractor management costs and overhead • Commodity disposal fee, especially: o Green Waste o Wood Options to Manage Costs Fee structure or policy to limit wood and green waste • Policy to limit accepted volume wood and green waste • Higher fee for Green Waste and Wood Waste 2.4 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) 14 Options for Council to Consider A. Consider mid-cycle BFO to cover projected net O & M • Leverages investment thus far and $68K grant money for bins • Creates opportunity for additional targeted material recycling • Provides public service B. Just move Rivendell now to CRC • Constructs site ($150,000 savings) • Preserves land and options for expansion in future • Reduces City risk (no new O and M costs) C. Terminate CRC Project or place on hold • No other large scale project ready to bring forward now • Future large capital projects may be several years away • Eliminates City risk 2.4 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs) Direction Sought 15 • Does Council have guidance on the Community Recycling Center (CRC), considering unanticipated, on-going operating costs? • What direction does Council have regarding the three options identified? A. Consider mid-cycle BFO to cover projected net O & M B. Just move Rivendell now to CRC C. Place CRC project on hold or terminate it 2.4 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Powerpoint presentation (3266 : Community Recycling Center Operational Costs)