The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 05/22/2018 - COMPLETE AGENDACity of Fort Collins Page 1 Wade Troxell, Mayor City Council Chambers Gerry Horak, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Bob Overbeck, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Ray Martinez, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Ken Summers, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron City Attorney City Manager City Clerk Adjourned Meeting May 22, 2018 6:00 P.M. Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Citizen Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2) hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented. NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details. 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 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance.  CALL MEETING TO ORDER  ROLL CALL 1. Consider Joining the Amicus Curiae Brief To Be Filed By Boulder County and Other Local Governments in Support of the Respondents in the Colorado Supreme Court Case Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Martinez (Staff Cassie Archuleta, Lucinda Smith 30 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to consider authorizing the City Attorney to join Boulder County and other local governments in an amicus curiae brief (the “Amicus Brief”) to be filed in the Colorado Supreme Court case Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Martinez (“Martinez”), and a motion to direct staff action on the request. At issue are differing interpretations of the scope of authority delegated to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the “COGCC”) by the Colorado City of Fort Collins Page 2 General Assembly in the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (the "Act"). The filing deadline for amicus briefs in support of the Respondents is May 25, 2018, and the deadline for the City to respond to Boulder County is May 23.  OTHER BUSINESS  ADJOURNMENT Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY May 22, 2018 City Council STAFF Cassie Archuleta, Senior Environmental Planner Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director Brad Yatabe, Legal SUBJECT Consider Joining the Amicus Curiae Brief To Be Filed By Boulder County and Other Local Governments in Support of the Respondents in the Colorado Supreme Court Case Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Martinez EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to consider authorizing the City Attorney to join Boulder County and other local governments in an amicus curiae brief (the “Amicus Brief”) to be filed in the Colorado Supreme Court case Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Martinez (“Martinez”), and a motion to direct staff action on the request. At issue are differing interpretations of the scope of authority delegated to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (the “COGCC”) by the Colorado General Assembly in the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (the "Act"). The filing deadline for amicus briefs in support of the Respondents is May 25, 2018, and the deadline for the City to respond to Boulder County is May 23. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Boulder County has asked if the City of Fort Collins is interested in signing the Amicus Brief that Boulder County and other governmental entities will be submitting in Martinez. An amicus curiae brief is submitted by non-parties to a case to assist a court in adjudicating a matter by providing information, expertise, and argument. The Amicus Brief supports the Respondents and requests that the Court affirm the court of appeals ruling that the COGCC misinterpreted its statutory authority as requiring a balance between oil and gas development and public health, safety and welfare. As of May 9, 2018, thirteen entities have joined the Amicus Brief: (1) Counties: Boulder, Gunnison, San Miguel, Eagle; (2) City and County of Broomfield; (3) Cities/Towns: Boulder, Carbondale, Erie, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Westminster, Basalt. Additional entities may join the Amicus Brief. Martinez is centered around an interpretation of the COGCC’s authority under the Act. The Act established the COGCC and describes its purpose and powers. The legislative declaration, § 34-60-102.(1)(a)(I) of the Act, states that it is declared to be in the public interest to: Foster the responsible, balanced development, production, and utilization of the natural resources of oil and gas in the state of Colorado in a manner consistent with protection of public health, safety, and welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife resources. 1 Packet Pg. 3 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 2 The essential question in Martinez is whether the Act should be interpreted as fostering oil and gas development to the extent it is protective of public health, safety and welfare, or if it should be interpreted as fostering a balance between oil and gas development and the protection of public health, safety and welfare. TIMELINE This case began in November 2013 when Xiuhtezcatl Martinez of Boulder, and several other teenagers, asked the COGCC to consider a new rule requiring that permits for oil and gas drilling not be issued “unless the best available science demonstrates, and an independent third-party organization confirms, that drilling can occur in a manner that does not cumulatively, with other actions, impair Colorado’s atmosphere, water, wildlife, and land resources, does not adversely impact human health and does not contribute to climate change.” In May 2014, the COGCC denied the request, stating in part that the proposed rule would mandate action that was beyond their statutory authority. This decision was appealed to the Denver District Court. In February 2016, the COGCC decision was affirmed by the Denver District Court which agreed that the COGCC lacked authority to consider the proposed rule, in part because the Court agreed that the Act requires that the COGCC balance the development of oil and gas resources with protection of public health, safety, and welfare. In March 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the District Court’s interpretation of the Act. The Court of Appeals interpreted the Act as fostering oil and gas development subject to the protection of public health, safety and welfare, rather than development that is “balanced” with these protections. In February 2018, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to address the question, “Whether the court of appeals erred in determining that the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission misinterpreted section 34-60-102(1)(a)(I), C.R.S. as requiring a balance between oil and gas development and public health, safety, and welfare.” The filing deadline for amicus curiae briefs in favor of the Respondents (in support of the Court of Appeals decision) is May 25, 2018. REQUEST TO JOIN AMICUS BRIEF Boulder County has asked whether the City will join the Amicus Brief in support of the Respondents (Martinez et al.). The Petitioners are the COGCC, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Colorado Petroleum Association. The draft Amicus Brief (attached) asserts two principal arguments regarding why the Supreme Court should uphold the appeals court decision that was in favor of the Respondents, Martinez et al: 1. That state and local governments, and state regulatory agencies, have an obligation to exercise regulatory powers in a manner that protects public health and safety. In light of this obligation, the appeals court interpretation of § 34-60-102(1)(a)(I), C.R.S., is correct and is not a radical change under the law. 2. The appeals court decision is consistent with prior Supreme Court decisions. The filing deadline for briefs in favor of the Respondents is May 25, 2018, and the deadline to respond to Boulder County regarding whether the City wishes to join in the Amicus Brief is May 23. CURRENT POLICY The request to join the Amicus Brief aligns with statements in the Legislative Policy Agenda (“LPA”) and City Plan regarding protection of human health, public welfare, and the environment. 1 Packet Pg. 4 Agenda Item 1 Item # 1 Page 3 The underlying objectives of the Amicus Brief are aligned with these aspects of the City’s 2018 LPA: • Energy: (2) Supports reductions in environmental damage caused by energy extraction and production. • Air Quality. Supports programs and policies that improve public health and air quality, and support rapid attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, including ozone. • Oil and Gas: (3) Supports state, federal, and academic studies evaluating impacts of oil and gas operations on human health and property values. Additionally, the objectives are aligned with the following principals adopted in the 2011 City Plan: • Principle ENV 8: Continually improve Fort Collins’ air quality. • Principle ENV 10: The City will, within the scope of its ability, strive to protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and free of levels of pollutants that harm human health (and public welfare). CITY FINANCIAL IMPACTS This request is not directly associated with pending legislation and is principally a policy decision about whether to sign on to support the point of view expressed. Signing on with another coordinating entity requires minimal staff time and resources, and no additional impacts are expected. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Due to timing, no Board or Commission recommendations have been requested or received. PUBLIC OUTREACH Due to timing, no public outreach has been conducted by staff. SUGGESTED MOTION 1. If the Council wishes to join the Amicus Brief, the following motion is suggested: I move that the Fort Collins City Council join the amicus curiae brief in substantially the same form that City staff has presented to Council and direct the City Attorney to sign said amicus brief. 2. If the Council does not wish to join the Amicus Brief, Council can either make no motion or vote down the above motion. ATTACHMENTS 1. Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 5 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Colorado State Judicial Building 2 East 14th Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, Colorado 80203 ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲ Case Number: 2017SC297 Colorado Court of Appeals Case Number 16CA0564 Opinion by Judge Fox; Judge Vogt concurring; Judge Booras dissenting City and County of Denver District Court No. 14CV32637 Judgment by Judge J. Eric Elliff Petitioners: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and American Petroleum Institute and Colorado Petroleum Association v. Respondents: Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, Itzcuahtli Roske-Martinez, Sonora Brinkley, Aerielle Deering, Trinity Carter, and Emma Bray, minors appearing by and through their legal guardians Tamara Roske, Bindi Brinkley, Eleni Deering, Jasmine Jones, Robin Ruston, and Diana Bray. ATTACHMENT 1 1.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Attorney for Amicus Curiae Boulder County David Hughes, #24425 Deputy County Attorney Katherine A. Burke, #35716 Assistant County Attorney BOULDER COUNTY ATTORNEY P. O. Box 471, Boulder, CO 80306 Phone Number: 303-441-3190 Email: dhughes@bouldercounty.org kaburke@bouldercounty.org Attorney for Amicus Curiae Town of Basalt NAME ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL 1.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Boulder Thomas A. Carr, #42170 City Attorney P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 Phone Number: (303) 441-3020 Fax Number: (303) 441-3859 E-mail: carrt@bouldercolorado.gov Attorney for Amicus Curiae City and County of Broomfield Patricia W. Gilbert #20818 City and County Attorney City and County of Broomfield ADDRESS ADDRESS Phone Number: E-mail:pgilbert@broomfield.org Attorney for Amicus Curiae Town of Carbondale Mark Hamilton #_______ Holland & Hart LLP 600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone Number: (970) 429-6890 E-mail: mehamilton@hollandhart.com Attorney for Amicus Curiae Eagle County Bryan Treu #29577 Eagle County Attorney PO Box 850 Eagle, Colorado 81631 Phone Number: (970) 328-8685 E-mail: bryan.treu@eaglecounty.us Attorney for Amicus Curiae Town of Erie Mark R. Shapiro, #6953 Mark R. Shapiro, P.C. Town Attorney for the Town of Erie 1002 Walnut Street, Suite 203A Boulder, CO 80302 Phone Number: (303) 443-3234 E-mail: mark@mshapirolaw.com 1.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Attorney for Amicus Curiae Gunnison County David Baumgarten, #6050 Gunnison County Attorney Matthew Hoyt #51792 Assistant County Attorney Gunnison County 200 E. Virginia Avenue Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Phone Number (970) 651-5300 Fax Number: (970) 641-7696 E-mail: DBaumgarten@gunnisoncounty.org mhoyt@gunnisoncounty.org Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Lafayette David S. Williamson, #8530 Williamson & Hayashi, LLC 1650 38th Street, Ste. 103W Boulder, CO 80301 Phone Number: (303) 443-3100 E-mail: dwilliamson@wandhlaw.com Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Longmont Daniel Kramer, # 43572 Assistant City Attorney City of Longmont 408 Third Avenue Longmont, CO 80502 Phone Number: (303) 651-8619 E-mail: dan.kramer@longmontcolorado.gov Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Louisville Samuel J. Light, #22883 Light Kelly P.C. 101 University Blvd., Suite 210 Denver, CO 80206 Phone Number: (303) 298-1601 E-mail: slight@lightkelly.com 1.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Attorney for Amicus Curiae Pitkin County John Ely, #14067 Pitkin County Attorney 530 East Main Street, Suite 301 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone Number: (970) 920-5190 E-mail: john.ely@pitkincounty.com Attorney for Amicus Curiae San Miguel County Amy T. Markwell, #36434 P.O. Box 791 Telluride, CO 81435 Phone Number: 970-728-3879 E-mail: amym@sanmiguelcountyco.gov Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Westminster David Frankel, #26314 City Attorney 4800 West 92 nd Avenue Westminster, CO 80031 Phone Number: (303) 658-2234 E-mail: dfrankel@cityofwestminster.us 1.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPONDENTS Certificate of Compliance I hereby certify that this brief complies with C.A.R. 29 and C.A.R. 32, including all formatting requirements set forth in these rules. Specifically, the undersigned certifies that the amicus brief complies with the applicable word limit set forth in C.A.R. 29(d) and contains _____ words. The amicus brief complies with the content and form requirements set forth in C.A.R. 29(c). I acknowledge that my brief may be stricken if it fails to comply with any of the requirements of C.A.R. 29 and 32. /s/ Katherine A. Burke 1.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTERESTS OF THE AMICUS CURIAE PARTIES .............................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. A requirement that government regulations protect public health and safety is not a change in Colorado law. ........................................................ 3 II. The decision below is consistent with prior decisions of this Court and other divisions of the court of appeals. .......................................................... 5 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Chase v. Colo. Oil and Gas Conservation Comm’n, 284 P.3d 161 (Colo. App. 2012) ........................................................................................... 7, 8, 9 Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass’n, 369 P.3d 586 (Colo. 2016) ................... 1, 7 Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913 (Colo. 1997) .................... 6, 7, 9 Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) ................................... 5 Longmont v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass’n, 369 P.3d 573 (Colo. 2016) .................. 5, 6, 9 Love v. Bell, 465 P.2d 118 (Colo. 1970) .................................................................... 4 Martinez v. Colo. Oil and Gas Conservation Commn., 2017 COA 37 ................. 3, 6 Town of Dillon v. Yacht Club Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, 325 P.3d 1032 (Colo. 2014) ............................................................................................................ 4 Town of Holyoke v. Smith, 226 P. 158 (Colo. 1924) ................................................. 4 W. Colo. Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 411 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1966) ................. 4 Statutes § 29-20-104(1)(d) and (h), C.R.S............................................................................... 1 § 30-11-101(2), C.R.S. ............................................................................................... 1 § 31-15-103, C.R.S. ................................................................................................... 2 § 31-15-401(b), C.R.S. ............................................................................................... 2 1.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation iii § 31-23-301, C.R.S. ................................................................................................... 2 § 34-60-102, C.R.S. (1995) ........................................................................................ 7 §§ 34-60-101 to -130, C.R.S. (2016) ......................................................................... 2 Other Authorities 2007 Colo. Legis. Serv. Ch. 312 (H.B. 07 –1298)(WEST) ....................................... 7 Colorado Constitution Rules C.A.R. 49.................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 1 INTERESTS OF THE AMICUS CURIAE PARTIES The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, the Town of Basalt, the City Council of the City of Boulder, the City Council of the City and County of Broomfield, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Carbondale, the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Erie, the Board of County Commissioners of Gunnison County, the City Council of the City of Lafayette, the City Council of the City of Longmont, the City Council of the City of Louisville, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, the Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel County, and the City Council of the City of Westminster are the governing bodies of Colorado counties, cities, and towns, all political subdivisions of the State of Colorado. The counties, as local government entities, are charged with protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents. See § 30-11-101(2), C.R.S.; see also § 29-20-104(1)(d) and (h), C.R.S. The City and County of Broomfield is a county and municipal corporation, with all the powers and responsibilities applicable to municipalities and counties, and as such, Broomfield seeks to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. See Colo. Const. art. XX, § 10. 1.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 2 The cities of Boulder, Carbondale, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, and Westminster are Colorado home-rule cities, with police power granted pursuant to the Colorado Constitution, article XX, to adopt regulations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. See, e.g., City and County of Denver v. Qwest Corporation, 18 P.3d 748, 755 (Colo. 2001) (“If there is a rational basis for legislating to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of a municipality, a home rule city may constitutionally do so.”) (internal citation omitted). The home-rule cities want to ensure that COGCC properly fulfills its statutory duties in Colorado’s mixed state and local regulation of oil and gas development. The towns of Erie and Basalt are statutory towns charged with protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of their residents. See §§ 31-15-103, 31-15- 401(b), 31-23-301, C.R.S. Erie’s and Basalt’s residents are concerned about the public health and environmental effects of oil and gas operations near their homes, schools, businesses, and recreation areas. Because oil and gas development is a mixed issue of state and local concern, see Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass’n., 369 P.3d 586, 591 (Colo. 2016), the amici parties’ land use and oil and gas permitting functions are affected by the manner in which the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission (“COGCC”) carries out its 1.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 3 statutory rule-making and permitting duties. Therefore, all amici parties have interests in this litigation. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Based on clear and unambiguous language in the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, Sections 34-60-101 to -130, C.R.S. (the “Act”), the court of appeals held that the COGCC has the authority to consider a proposed rule promoting public health and protecting the environment. This holding followed the well-settled legal principle that a primary function of state government is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. As shown below, this Court should affirm the appellate ruling because it is well-reasoned and neither changes existing law nor conflicts with prior decisions of other appellate divisions or this Court. ARGUMENT I. State and local governments must exercise their regulatory power in a manner that protects public health and safety. Petitioners describe the decision below as a radical and sweeping change in the law that will have drastic impacts. Intervenor/Petitioners call the decision “novel.” Lost in this rhetoric is the fact that lawmaking with the express purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare is the foundation of the police power for state agencies, just as it is for local governments. 1.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 4 When it adopted the Act, including its subsequent amendments, the General Assembly exercised its police power. See W. Colo. Power Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 411 P.2d 785, 794 (Colo. 1966) (“The power to regulate entities affected with a public interest is a function of the police power of the state.”); see also Town of Dillon v. Yacht Club Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, 325 P.3d 1032, 1041-42 (Colo. 2014) (police power includes “the power to anticipate and prevent dangers”). “[T]he police power of the state, which is exercised in the public interest . . . is an attribute of sovereignty, governmental in character, but its use is restricted to matters which relate to the health, safety, or general welfare of the people.” Town of Holyoke v. Smith, 226 P. 158, 161 (Colo. 1924); see also Love v. Bell, 465 P.2d 118, 121 (Colo. 1970) ( “[T]he provisions of [a] statute must be reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare.”) Like the General Assembly, state regulatory agencies exercise the police power. Numerous legislative grants of authority to state agencies establish public health, safety, and welfare as the fundamental justification for the agencies’ function, even if that function includes the very different goal of promoting an aspect of the state economy. See, e.g., § 35-28-102, C.R.S. (declaring that the regulation of the marketing of agricultural commodities “prevent[s] economic waste” and promotes equitable purchase power, all “for the purpose of protecting 1.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 5 the health, peace, safety, and general welfare”); § 12-55.5-101, 103, C.R.S. (authorizing division of professions and occupations to register and regulate guides and outfitters to both promote outdoor sports and “safeguard[] the health, safety, welfare, and freedom from injury” of participants); § 37-95-102(1), C.R.S. (creating the Colorado water resources and power development authority to administer water conservation projects, create jobs and promote economic welfare “for the protection of the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare”); § 8-20- 102, C.R.S. (authorizing director of division of oil and public safety to make rules regulating liquid and gas fuel products that are “reasonably necessary for the protection of the health, welfare, and safety of the public”). Like state agencies, local governments are required to exercise their regulatory power in a manner deemed necessary to provide for public health, safety, and welfare. See § 30-11-101(2), C.R.S. (granting counties the authority to adopt and enforce ordinances and resolutions “regarding health, safety, and welfare issues”); §31-15-103, C.R.S. (granting municipalities the power “to make and publish ordinances . . . which are necessary and proper to provide for the safety, [and] preserve the health . . . of such municipality and the inhabitants thereof”). 1.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 6 State agencies and local government successfully exercise their regulatory authority within the police power framework of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare without causing the kind of catastrophic disruptions of commerce or industry predicted by Petitioners. For example, counties and cities regulate the use of land within their jurisdictions. Land development continues to occur throughout the state despite the legislative requirement that zoning regulations protect the public health, safety, welfare, and the environment. See Colorado Springs v. Securecare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244, 1255 (Colo. 2000) (zoning ordinances are generally valid regulatory exercise of police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare). The court of appeals decision in the instant case simply means that the COGCC should exercise its authority in the same way other Colorado regulatory entities do. While the decision below might ultimately result in changes to existing COGCC rules or procedures that inadequately protect public health and safety, it will not result in a change in fundamentals of law related to the legislative process and rulemaking. If the COGCC has adopted rules and regulations that benefited private industry without protecting public health, safety, and welfare, it did so at its own risk. This Court should affirm the court of appeals ruling that clarifies the meaning of the Act in conformance with the legal mainstream. 1.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 7 II. The decision below is consistent with prior decisions of this Court and other divisions of the court of appeals. The court of appeals decision does not conflict with decisions of this Court or the court of appeals. In their Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Petitioners argued that the decision below conflicts with three specific court rulings. However, careful reading demonstrates the decision is consistent with those opinions and existing, relevant case law and should not be overturned. First, in Longmont v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass’n., 369 P.3d 573 (Colo. 2016), the Court undertook a preemption analysis with the underlying assumption that the COGCC enacted valid rules within its authority under the Act. In particular, the Court observed that the COGCC enacted fracking rules “to prevent waste and to conserve oil and gas in the State of Colorado while protecting public health, safety, and welfare.” Longmont, 369 P.3d at 584 (emphasis added). The remainder of the opinion focused on the narrower issue of state preemption over the city’s ordinances. Thus, to the limited extent the Longmont opinion addressed issues relevant to this case, it supports the court of appeals opinion that public health, safety, and welfare are paramount in the context of COGCC rulemaking. Like Longmont, the holding in Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913 (Colo. 1997), addresses an issue unrelated to the decision below and does not conflict with the court of appeals decision at issue here. The Court in Gerrity 1.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 8 determined that the Act did not give rise to a private cause of action. In discussing the Act, the Court stated “[w]e recognize that the purposes of the Act are to encourage the production of oil and gas in a manner that protects public health and safety and prevents waste.” 946 P.2d at 925. The Petitioners argued that by using the plural “purposes” rather than the singular “purpose,” the Gerrity Court interpreted Section 34-60-102, C.R.S. (1995) 1, to mean that oil and gas production and protecting public health and safety were separate purposes. However, the Gerrity Court never specified which “purposes” it was referring to. Moreover, the Court was summarizing the Act, not interpreting it. At best, the language is dicta. More recently, this Court characterized oil and gas production as a single goal. “This…materially impedes the state's goal of permitting each oil and gas pool in Colorado to produce up to its maximum efficient rate of production, subject to the prevention of waste and consistent with the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.” Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil & Gas Ass’n., 369 P.3d 586, 593 (Colo. 2016) (emphasis added). Thus, even if Gerrity raised questions by using the word “purposes,” Fort Collins subsequently clarified the issue by referring to 1 The Court in Gerrity referenced a prior version of the statute at issue. The General Assembly amended section 34-60-102, C.R.S. in 2007. See 2007 Colo. Legis. Serv. Ch. 312 (H.B. 07 –1298)(WEST). 1.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 9 production as a single “goal” that must be pursued consistently with the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. Finally, Chase v. Colo. Oil and Gas Conservation Comm’n, 284 P.3d 161 (Colo. App. 2012), supports, rather than conflicts with, the decision below. A division of the court of appeals in Chase recognized that “[t]he 1994 amendments to the Conservation Act enlarged the COGCC’s focus . . . to include consideration of environmental impact and public health, safety, and welfare.” 284 P.3d at 166. The Chase division characterized protecting public health, safety, and welfare as an “expanded charge” to the COGCC. Id. Further, the court did not describe the COGCC’s rules as achieving balance between fostering development and protecting public health and safety, but rather stated “the COGCC’s rules protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public during the drilling, completion, and operation of oil and gas wells and producing facilities.” Id.; see also id. at n.16 (quoting COGCC Rule 601 to note that COGCC safety rules were “promulgated to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public”). The issue on appeal in Chase was whether the COGCC could consider any “factors other than occupancy in determining whether land should be categorized as a Designated Outdoor Activity Area, or DOAA.” Chase, 284 P.3d at 170. The division concluded that the COGCC had the power to consider public safety in 1.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 10 making a DOAA determination. Id. However, it did not state that any factor was more important than public health, safety, and welfare and it did not consider the opposite question — whether the COGCC could ignore public health and safety in reaching its decision. Thus, nothing in Chase conflicts with the decision below. As shown above, the decision below does not conflict with Longmont, Gerrity, or Chase. CONCLUSION Like other state agencies and local governments throughout Colorado, the primary duty of the COGCC is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, not to “balance” it against the desires of for-profit corporations. For the reasons stated above, the amici parties respectfully assert that the Court should affirm the ruling below. Respectfully submitted this ____th day of _____, 2018. /s/ ______________ Katherine A. Burke, #35716 David Hughes, #24425 1.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 11 BOULDER COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Boulder County /s/ __________, #__________ Attorney for Amicus Curiae Town of Basalt /s/ Thomas A. Carr Thomas A. Carr, #42170 Boulder City Attorney Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Boulder /s/ Patricia W. Gilbert Patricia W. Gilbert #20818 Broomfield City and County Attorney Attorney for Amicus Curiae City and County of Broomfield /s/ Bryan Treu Bryan Treu, #____________ Eagle County Attorney Attorney for Amicus Curiae Eagle County /s/ Mark R. Shapiro Mark R. Shapiro, #6953 Mark R. Shapiro, P.C. Attorney for Amicus Curiae Town of Erie 1.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 12 /s/ David Baumgarten David Baumgarten, #6050 Matthew Hoyt, #51792 Gunnison County Attorney’s Office Attorney for Amicus Curiae Gunnison County /s/ David S. Williamson David S. Williamson, #8530 Williamson & Hayashi, LLC Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Lafayette /s/ Daniel Kramer Daniel Kramer, #43752 Assistant Longmont City Attorney Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Longmont /s/ Samuel J. Light Samuel J. Light, #22883 Light Kelly P.C. Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Louisville /s/ John Ely John Ely, #14067 Pitkin County Attorney Attorney for Amicus Curiae Pitkin County /s/ Amy T. Markwell Amy T. Markwell, #36434 1.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 13 San Miguel County Attorney Attorney for Amicus Curiae San Miguel County /s/ David Frankel David Frankel, #26314 Westminster City Attorney Attorney for City of Westminster CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this _____th day of _________, 2018, the foregoing LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPONDENTS was served via Colorado Courts E-Filing on all counsel who have consented to electronic service in this case. /s/ Cathy Peterson Cathy Peterson 1.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents (6808 : Consideration of Amicus Brief in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 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 Ken Summers, District 3 Kristin Stephens, District 4 Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 Ross Cunniff, District 5 and Channel 881 on the Comcast cable system Carrie Daggett Darin Atteberry Delynn Coldiron 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 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. City Council Work Session May 22, 2018 After the Adjourned Council Meeting which begins at 6:00 PM • CALL TO ORDER. 1. City Plan Visioning Update. (Staff: Ryan Mounce, Cameron Gloss; 10 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this item is to update Council on feedback received from community conversations to refine the City Plan vision. Staff will review how this input will be incorporated as part of the vision update and in framing the three City Plan scenarios that will be analyzed and shared with the public this summer. 2. Regional Wasteshed Recommendations. (Staff: Honore Depew, Jackie Kozak-Thiel; 15 minute staff presentation; 45 minute discussion) The purpose of this work session is to provide Council with recommendations from the North Front Range Wasteshed Coalition for infrastructure and policy and seek direction on next steps. Joining Fort Collins staff in the presentation is Ron Gilkerson, Larimer County. The project represents a unique regional collaboration for waste and recycling, providing strategic implementation opportunities for Zero Waste goals adopted by the City Council in 2013. Recommendations from the Wasteshed Coalition include new solid waste facilities and infrastructure (funded by Larimer County) and supportive policies (adopted by municipalities) to be outlined in an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). A master plan detailing these recommendations is expected to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in June. • OTHER BUSINESS. • ADJOURNMENT. DATE: STAFF: May 22, 2018 Ryan Mounce, City Planner Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION City Plan Visioning Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to update Council on feedback received from community conversations to refine the City Plan vision. Staff will review how this input will be incorporated as part of the vision update and in framing the three City Plan scenarios that will be analyzed and shared with the public this summer. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the proposed approach to updating the City Plan vision? 2. Are there other major vision themes that may have been missed in outreach so far? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION City Plan Overview City Plan is an update to the City’s comprehensive land use plan, transportation master plan, and transit master plan. Collectively, these plans set a general vision for the future and provide high-level policy guidance to inform decision-making for the community’s land use and transportation frameworks. The next City Plan update will provide guidance towards the year 2040. City Plan is currently at the end of the visioning phase, which included a comprehensive outreach program to identify potential vision updates and refinements. Final plan content is anticipated to be completed in winter 2018/2019, with consideration of adoption by Council in spring 2019. City Plan Vision City Plan is typically updated every 5-7 years to reflect changing conditions, new trends, and community priorities. Updates provide the opportunity to reconfirm or change policy guidance for how the community will look, feel, and develop in the future. Underlying this policy guidance is our community vision, an aspirational expression of community values and goals. The existing City Plan vision includes an overall vision statement, three vision themes, and specific community objectives tied to the seven key outcome areas. (Attachment 1) Based on prior feedback and the positive regard for the existing vision from both Council and the community, outreach conducted by City staff, Plan Ambassadors, and Community Partner organizations has focused on refinement of the existing vision, rather than starting from scratch. Outreach during the visioning phase was designed to understand important community values and gather input on the detailed objectives of the seven key outcome areas. Opportunities for public input were specifically focused on identifying the objectives that are working well (“keep”), objectives that may need updates (‘‘change’’), missing or new objectives (‘‘add’’), or areas to emphasize more in this City Plan update (‘‘prioritize’’). 1 Packet Pg. 2 May 22, 2018 Page 2 Feedback has already been collected from over three hundred community members at visioning workshops and visioning conversations held by City Plan Ambassadors and Community Partner organizations. Visioning conversations will continue through the first week of June. The feedback summarized below is representative of input collected through early May. Community Visioning Feedback - Values The current City Plan vision expresses many different values. Participants were given 10 of the most prominent values underlying the existing City Plan vision and asked to prioritize which values were most important. Livability, sustainability, and community consistently emerged as high priority community values, while connection and distinctiveness appeared as lower priorities for a large majority of community members. % Ranking as highest priority Value 28.39% Livability 23.23% Sustainability 18.30% Community 9.15% Leadership 7.14% Innovation 4.61% Fairness 4.55% Wellness 3.27% Choice 1.96% Connection 0.65% Distinctiveness To better understand what these values meant or how they were being defined, participants were also asked to describe their top and bottom values. The list of prioritized values and definitions of the top three and lowest prioritized values are described below. VALUE THEMES / DEFINITION Livability (top- ranked value) • Quality of life: safety, low stress, easy access to amenities • Good multi-modal transportation (walking, biking, transit, driving) • Affordability, especially of housing • Clean environment with access to parks, nature and recreation • Opportunity for good jobs and education Sustainability (second-ranked value) • Stewardship of natural resources: air, water, land, wildlife/habitat • Ensuring a healthy, viable city for future generations • Reduction of emissions; carbon neutral City • Managing growth within natural resource constraints • Triple Bottom Line (TBL) - economic, social, environmental all connected Community (third- ranked value) • Friendly, neighborly and pride in the community • Spaces and celebrations for interaction • Inclusive and respectful of diversity • Responsibility of sharing spaces with others • Open communication and engagement Distinctiveness (bottom-ranked value) • Unique elements that set us apart • Recognized by others for our efforts and leadership • A feature of being successful in other values • Desirability by offering or doing things differently During table discussions, most participants felt this range of values accurately represented core community values. “‘Opportunity’’ was most frequently mentioned as a potential value that was missing, especially as related 1 Packet Pg. 3 May 22, 2018 Page 3 to housing, jobs/prosperity, and education. Multiple individuals also suggested renaming ‘‘fairness’’ to ‘’equity’’ or ‘‘inclusivity’’ to better emphasize respect for all members of the community. Community Visioning Feedback - Objectives Feedback about the objectives for the seven key outcome areas was also collected during group discussions. Many felt the overall direction of the community was well supported by the existing vision objectives. A large set of the comments received in regard to elements to change, add, or prioritize focused on housing choices, housing attainability, access to services and amenities, and continuing to improve multimodal transportation and transit options. The table below highlights common and recurring themes and ideas from the keep, change, add, and prioritize categories: KEEP (Working well) • Commitment to community’s open spaces, parks, natural areas, recreation • Compact development; sticking to our growth management boundary • Arts, culture & creativity throughout the community • Biking infrastructure and programs • Public transportation, particularly MAX • Trails and pathway network • Everything (enjoy our current big-picture direction) CHANGE (Needs updating) • Enhanced public transit in Fort Collins and region • Improve accessibility to services close to where we live • Different housing options and addressing housing attainability/affordability • Address mental health, social services, homelessness • Flexibility for smaller dwelling units (accessory dwelling units, tiny homes) • Enhance inclusiveness and safety for different ages, abilities, cultures • Set priorities; we can’t have everything ADD (What’s missing) • Enhancements to multimodal transportation • Promote housing choices, affordability, attainability • Transit infrastructure and amenities, and new regional connections • Access to social and mental health services • Transportation connectivity: transit/bike gaps and connections from neighborhoods to services • Supporting resources for small and local business PRIORITIZE (What we should focus on) • Housing choices, attainability, affordability • Vibrant neighborhoods with access to services • Public transportation (increased routes, especially east-west, and frequency) • Improving walking/biking as an alternative to vehicles, especially for short trips • High quality building design • Infill/density in appropriate, targeted areas • Balanced transportation resources (more alternatives to having to use a vehicle) May 22, 2018 Page 4 • Many of the vision objectives in the seven outcome areas were well regarded and may not need much change or refinement. • Vision objectives related to housing and multimodal transportation/transit may warrant additional emphasis to reflect the priority the community is placing upon their importance. This could also mean they more directly influence the overall ‘big-picture’ vision statement and themes. • Build upon conversations held in small groups about how the vision should clarify our priorities to achieve a balance between being aspirational and pragmatic. Provide context in the Plan document for the vision and what it seeks to achieve. Next Steps: Scenarios This summer, City Plan will begin a scenarios phase to design and evaluate three potential paths for the future of Fort Collins. Feedback from the visioning phase will be used to frame the three scenarios and inform the metrics by which they will be evaluated. The three scenarios are likely to include a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario and two distinct variations of the ‘‘business-as-usual’’ scenario. Each scenario will build on the community’s feedback about the overall community direction gathered during the visioning phase. The two new scenarios will highlight potential changes and emphasize different housing, transportation, and access to amenity/nature options. Plan Ambassador and Community Partner organizations will also play an important role in hosting conversations and events during the scenarios phase alongside City-led events and activities. Key goals during outreach in the scenarios phase will be communicating what is different in each of the scenarios, what metrics are being evaluated, and the costs, benefits, and tradeoffs of each scenario. Staff is planning another City Plan Council Work Session in mid to late summer to share information and solicit direction as the scenario phase gets underway is rolled out to the community. Staff is also scheduled for the July Futures Committee to discuss scenarios in-depth. ATTACHMENTS 1. Existing City Plan Vision (PDF) 2. Detailed Values Priority Ranking (PDF) 3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) 1 Packet Pg. 5 Community Vision CITY PLAN 9 COMMUNITY VISION INNOVATE, SUSTAIN, CONNECT A vision represents a desired future as defined by the community. Three major themes of Plan Fort Collins provide direction for the vision for the next 25 years and beyond: Innovate, Sustain, and Connect. Innovate The citizens of Fort Collins wish to advance their future in a positive and vital way, and City government, educational, and other institutions, as well as the private sector, have always been willing to lead and serve as models for other communities. Our vision reflects our desire to remain innovative, world-class leaders. Sustain The basic tenets of sustainability serve as the guiding principles for our vision and act as a foundation underpinning all components of each plan. We find these tenets to be: • A focus on the future with a long-term perspective (an outlook for the generations to come). • An understanding that the community is bound by the limits of the natural world and its resources. • A systems perspective that recognizes the interdependent economic, human, and environmental implications of policies, decisions, and outcomes. • A mechanism for continuous improvement through monitoring and future plan updates. Connect Being a “connected community” extends beyond the physical connections implied by our transportation system. It encompasses a community that is connected technologically and socially as well. Our vision embraces a City that provides safe and efficient facilities for all modes of travel. It also encourages expansion of technological infrastructure to serve and connect the community, increasing access to information and fostering better communication between residents, businesses, institutions, and local government. Finally, our vision promotes social connectivity through ongoing support of community organizations and volunteerism and by encouraging development patterns and creating gathering places that attract people and promote social interaction. VISION FOR A WORLD-CLASS COMMUNITY Through innovation, sustainability, and connections the City of Fort Collins aspires to create a vibrant, world-class community. The City of Fort Collins is committed to providing leadership and exceptional service to citizens, but recognizes that the entire community must be involved to achieve the vision. Quality of Place WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO BECOME A WORLD-CLASS CITY? The new reality is that home or business location is a real choice and cities that wish to thrive will have to be attractive places for people to live and work. Fort Collins already excels in meeting this requirement, but will have to 10 CITY PLAN The objectives on the following pages help to define and unify the vision for a world-class community under the seven topic areas of Plan Fort Collins. VISION BY TOPIC AREA ECONOMIC HEALTH VISION A healthy and resilient economy: • Diverse jobs that enable citizens and businesses to thrive. • Reflects the values of our unique community in a changing world. • An innovative, creative, and entrepreneurial atmosphere. • Strong partnerships and collaboration with the private sector, educational institutions, and other organizations. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH VISION A healthy and sustainable environment: • Conservation of resources including energy, water, wildlife, habitat, biodiversity, and other natural resources. • Responsible stewardship for open lands and natural areas. • A comprehensive and connected system of open lands. • Integration of renewable energy and new technologies for the electric grid. • Continuous improvements in air quality. • Investment to meet the goals of the climate action plan and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • Solid waste reduction and diversion and hazardous materials management. • Healthy urban watersheds and ongoing best-practices floodplain management. • A lasting water supply. • Meeting or exceeding standards for stream water quality, drinking water quality, and water reclamation. • Local and regional cooperation, coordination, and leadership on environmental matters. 1.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Existing City Plan Vision (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Community Vision CITY PLAN 11 COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY VISION A high quality built environment: • A compact pattern of development within a well-defined community boundary. • Adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure to serve existing development and new growth. • Opportunities for redevelopment, revitalization, and growth in targeted areas. • Cohesive, distinct, vibrant, safe, and attractive neighborhoods. • Vital and appealing activity centers and destinations throughout the city. • Quality and accessible housing options for all household types and income levels. • Preservation and enhancement of historic resources. • Distinctive and attractive community image, design, and identity. • Nature visible and accessible in the city. SAFETY AND WELLNESS VISION A safe and healthy community: • A safe, non-threatening city in which to live, work, learn, and play. • Opportunities to lead active and healthy lifestyles. • Access to healthy, locally grown or produced food. 1.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Existing City Plan Vision (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) 12 CITY PLAN CULTURE, PARKS, AND RECREATION VISION A diverse range of cultural and recreational options: • A recognized destination for arts and culture. • Arts and creativity integrated into community life and economic health. • An interconnected and wide network of parks and recreational facilities. • Multi-purpose and new types of facilities to meet the needs of a changing community. HIGH PERFORMING COMMUNITY VISION A city of choice: • A collaborative and community-based approach to problem solving. • Inclusive and accessible to all people. • Effective and efficient local governance where all voices are valued. • Fiscal sustainability and transparency in the City organization. • World-class communications technology. 1.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Existing City Plan Vision (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Community Vision CITY PLAN 13 TRANSPORTATION VISION • A connected community: • Land use and transportation will be fully integrated, both locally and regionally, to create an affordable, accessible, low energy, low impact, and efficient transportation system. • Multiple modes of safe, affordable, easy, and convenient travel will ensure mobility for people of all ages and abilities. Multiple travel modes will make it easy to choose transportation options that support a healthy lifestyle. Innovative travel modes will be accommodated through flexibility in the transportation system. • The transportation system will provide safe, reliable, convenient, and effective vehicular mobility and access. • Travel infrastructure will be high quality and recognized as world-class by residents, visitors, and peers. • People will be aware of the impact that their travel choices have on the transportation system, the environment, and the community. They will have travel options to choose that help Fort Collins achieve its overall vision of being a world-class community. 1.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Existing City Plan Vision (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Livability Sustainability Community Leadership Innovation Fairness Wellness Choice Connection Distinctivenes s 1 28.39% 23.23% 18.30% 9.15% 7.14% 4.61% 4.55% 3.27% 1.96% 0.65% 2 21.94% 20.00% 15.69% 8.50% 6.49% 7.24% 5.19% 3.27% 9.80% 1.30% 3 12.26% 14.19% 20.26% 8.50% 10.39% 7.24% 13.64% 5.88% 5.23% 2.60% 4 10.97% 14.19% 10.46% 9.15% 9.74% 9.21% 13.64% 3.92% 13.07% 5.84% 5 7.10% 7.74% 13.73% 9.15% 11.69% 15.13% 11.04% 7.84% 13.07% 3.90% 6 9.68% 2.58% 7.84% 5.88% 12.99% 13.82% 13.64% 8.50% 20.92% 4.55% 7 2.58% 9.03% 3.92% 9.80% 12.99% 15.79% 14.29% 12.42% 11.11% 7.79% 8 4.52% 3.23% 6.54% 16.99% 16.23% 7.89% 11.69% 14.38% 10.46% 8.44% 9 1.94% 5.16% 3.27% 15.69% 10.39% 7.24% 5.84% 24.18% 12.42% 13.64% 10 0.65% 0.65% 0.00% 7.19% 1.95% 11.84% 6.49% 16.34% 1.96% 51.30% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Percent Value Value Rankings (values sorted by first priority ranking percentage) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Summary of participant feedback from the four City-led April Visioning Workshops Rank ATTACHMENT 2 1.2 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Detailed Values Priority Ranking (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) 1 City Plan Update - Visioning Cameron Gloss ATTACHMENT 3 1.3 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) 2 Overview City Plan includes updates to: Provide a vision and high-level policy guidance for the next 10-20 years Comprehensive Plan Transportation Master Plan Transit Master Plan 1.3 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Phases 3 1 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS Trends, issues & opportunities, community priorities VISIONING Update & reconfirm a shared community vision for the future 3 SCENARIOS Evaluate different community scenarios to achieve vision 4 DRAFT PLAN & POLICIES Develop policies & plan document 5 ADOPTION Share, reconfirm & update draft plan with the community 1.3 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Direction Sought 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the proposed approach to updating the City Plan vision? 2. Are there other major vision themes that may have been missed in outreach so far? 4 1.3 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Visioning Outreach Goals  Leverage existing City Plan vision as a starting point  Understand important values & how the community defines them  Understand if/how existing vision & objectives should be updated Approach  Facilitated, small-group discussions  Values hierarchy exercise: Existing or missing City Plan values  Vision objectives exercise: Keep, change, add, prioritize 5 1.3 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Visioning Outreach Gathering Input:  Four visioning workshops  Plan Ambassador & Partner Organization events  Online questionnaire  Discussions with Boards & Commissions  Internal & City Plan Working Group discussions * Outreach activities continuing through early June 6 1.3 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Ambassadors and Community Partners 7 1.3 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Values Hierarchy 8 Livability Sustainability Community Distinctiveness Leadership Innovation Fairness Wellness Choice Connection Higher Priority Lower Priority 1.3 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Defining Values – Higher Priority LIVABILITY  Quality of life; safety, low stress, easy access to amenities  Multi-modal transportation (walking, biking, transit, driving)  Affordability, especially of housing  Clean environment with access to parks, nature & recreation  Opportunity for good jobs and education 9 1.3 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Defining Values – Higher Priority SUSTAINABILITY  Stewardship of natural resources & environment  Ensuring a healthy, viable community for the future  Reduction of emissions; carbon neutral city  Managing growth within natural resource constraints  Trible bottom line – economic, social, environmental 10 1.3 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Defining Values – Higher Priority COMMUNITY  Friendly, neighborly, and pride in the community  Spaces & celebrations for interaction  Inclusive and respectful of our diversity  Responsibility of sharing space with others  Open communication and engagement 11 1.3 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Defining Values – Lower Priority DISTINCTIVENESS  Unique elements that set us apart  Recognized by others for our efforts & leadership  A feature of being successful achieving other values  Desirability by offering or doing things differently 12 1.3 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Additional Value Themes Potential Missing Value: ‘Opportunity’  In relation to housing, jobs/prosperity, education Change/modify: ‘Fairness’ to ‘Inclusive’ or ‘Equitable’  Respect and accessibility for all members of the community 13 1.3 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Vision Objectives Keep (what’s working well)  Commitment to open spaces, parks, natural areas, recreation  Compact development; stick to growth management area  Arts, culture & creativity in the community  Biking infrastructure/programs & MAX  Trails and paths  Everything (enjoy current big-picture direction) 14 1.3 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Vision Objectives Change (needs updating)  Enhance local & regional public transit  Improved accessibility to services close to home  Housing options and housing attainability/affordability  Mental health, social services, homelessness  Flexibility for smaller dwelling units  Inclusiveness and safety for all  Set priorities - can’t have everything 15 1.3 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Vision Objectives Add (what’s missing)  Next steps in multimodal transportation  Incentivize housing opportunities  Enhanced transit infrastructure  Access to social & mental health services  Connectivity – focus on gaps and connecting neighborhoods & services  Support and resources for small and local businesses 16 1.3 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Vision Objectives Prioritize (what we should focus on)  Housing choices  Vibrant neighborhoods with access to services  Increase transit routes / frequency  Improving walking / biking as alternatives to vehicles on short trips  High quality building design  Infill / density in appropriate areas  Balance transportation resources / funding 17 1.3 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Incorporating Vision Feedback Big Picture Vision Statement & Vision Themes:  Refine to better reflect value priorities and how they are being defined/used by the community  Sustainability is well represented currently; elements of livability or community could become more prominent  Remove or clarify what is meant by connection, distinctiveness, world-class  These values & statements did not resonate as a priority or were confusing to community members. 18 1.3 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Incorporating Vision Feedback Vision Objectives:  Majority of vision objectives were well regarded and may not need much updating  Emphasize or prioritize vision objectives related to housing & multimodal transportation. These objectives may influence the big- picture vision Other:  Achieve a balance between being aspirational and pragmatic 19 1.3 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Direction Sought 1. What feedback does Council have regarding the proposed approach to updating the City Plan vision? 2. Are there other major vision themes that may have been missed in outreach so far? 20 1.3 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) RESOURCE SLIDES 21 1.3 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) 35% 13% 22% 30% Demographics (City-led Events) 22 Which Visioning Workshop will you attend? 1.3 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Demographics (City-led Events) 23 44% 52% 0% 4% Male Female With which gender do you identify? 1.3 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Demographics (City-led Events) 24 2% 15% 13% 12% 27% 21% 4% 6% 18‐24 25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64 65‐74 75+ Prefer not to answer What is your age? 1.3 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Demographics (City-led Events) 25 What is your race or ethnicity? (Select as many as apply) 1.3 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Demographics (City-led Events) 26 What is your annual household income? 1.3 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Demographics (City-led Events) 27 • 80521 – 27.3% • 80525 – 24.9% • 80526 – 21.9% • 80524 – 18.9% • 80528 – 3.9% • Other – 2.9% What is your zip code? 1.3 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Plan Ambassadors 28 • Trainings for 55+ Ambassadors and 8 Community Partners completed • Two sessions, two hours each = 232 hours of facilitation training • First meetings being held in April/May 1.3 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Plan Ambassadors 29 • Partner organizations with funding/resources to gather feedback from underrepresented populations • Attended Plan Ambassador facilitation training • First meetings being held in April-June 1.3 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation [Revision 1] (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) DATE: STAFF: May 22, 2018 Honore Depew, Environmental Planner Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Regional Wasteshed Recommendations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to provide Council with recommendations from the North Front Range Wasteshed Coalition for infrastructure and policy and seek direction on next steps. Joining Fort Collins staff in the presentation is Ron Gilkerson, Larimer County. The project represents a unique regional collaboration for waste and recycling, providing strategic implementation opportunities for Zero Waste goals adopted by the City Council in 2013. Recommendations from the Wasteshed Coalition include new solid waste facilities and infrastructure (funded by Larimer County) and supportive policies (adopted by municipalities) to be outlined in an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). A master plan detailing these recommendations is expected to be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in June. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Does Council support moving forward to create an intergovernmental agreement that includes a Larimer County capital construction plan and Fort Collins process controls? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION History of Council Involvement Staff provided updates on this project to City Council at a regular meeting in January 2017, a Futures Committee meeting in April 2017, and at a work session in January 2018. In addition, Fort Collins City Council is represented on the Policy Advisory Committee of the Wasteshed Coalition by Mayor Troxell and Councilmember Cunniff. Wasteshed Coalition Background Because the Larimer County Landfill is forecast to reach capacity by 2025, staff and elected officials from the Cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, Larimer County, and the Town of Estes Park formed the North Front Range Wasteshed Coalition in 2015 to plan for the future of waste material handling in the region. Recommendations in the Solid Waste Infrastructure Master Plan (SWIMP) are the culmination of more than two years of work by the Coalition. In 2017, Larimer County engaged the consulting firm HDR, Inc. to provide: • detailed reporting of current regional solid waste volumes and future projections • consideration of emerging technologies for resource recovery • triple-bottom line and market analysis of infrastructure options • example agreements and policies to support new facilities Eleven possible solid waste infrastructure options were identified as potential pieces of a long-term waste material management system, once the Larimer County Landfill is closed. Each element has been closely reviewed by the Coalition and will be published in June 2018 as a Solid Waste Infrastructure Master Plan. 2 Packet Pg. 41 May 22, 2018 Page 2 Coalition Recommendations Five new facilities were selected for recommendations based on capital costs, timeframe to complete, cost-benefit ratio, and projected tipping fees: Recommended Facilities Capital Cost Tip Fee* Years to Build New County Landfill $11.7M $14 6 Central Transfer Station $15.8M $29 5 Yard Waste Composting Facility $11.8M $38 4 Food Waste Composting Facility $38 2 Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris Processing Facility $13.7M $37 4 *Estimated tip fees in 2017 dollars Locations All of the proposed facilities except a new landfill could be co-located in the undeveloped section of the current Larimer County landfill site on South Taft Hill Rd. A modern, sanitary landfill could be developed on a section of land owned by the County north of Wellington and would predominantly accept trash from the Central Transfer Station (including landfill waste from Fort Collins). The Transfer Station would provide the same or more convenience to customers with a redesigned entry point and traffic control. Capital Cost Most of the capital investment needed for the recommended facilities would come from an existing fund balance Larimer County has accumulated for infrastructure replacement, with the remainder being financed by the County. Because the Solid Waste Division is operated as an enterprise fund, no tax revenue is included in these projections and there is no expectation of municipal financial investment. Tip Fees The fee for disposing of trash at the Central Transfer Station is inclusive of the landfill tip fee, not additive. New Landfill tip fee is an operational number, not what customers would pay. The existing landfill currently charges a disposal fee of approximately $22 per ton for commercial customers and a flat rate of $9 or $18 for residents who self-haul small loads. Operational costs for the household hazardous waste and educational programs are distributed evenly between the facilities. Facility Construction Timeline One of the primary goals adopted by the Coalition is to have replacement facilities operational before the Larimer County landfill stops accepting waste in 2025. The projected development schedule for the new facilities includes design, permitting, and construction. Supportive Policy: Process Controls The Coalition is recommending several process controls to be implemented throughout the Wasteshed. A solid waste process control is a rule that governs the way waste materials may be collected, handled, or disposed. The recommended process controls are in alignment with adopted goals for increased diversion, are anticipated to drive economic development in the region, and are designed to support the financial viability of new facilities. The proposed process controls are: 1. Flow Control for Construction and Demolition Debris a. All mixed waste from building projects over 1,000sf must be sent to a County-owned processing facility. 2. Flow Control for Single-Stream Recyclables a. Residential and business recycling must be sent to a County-owned recycling transfer or recovery facility. 2 Packet Pg. 42 May 22, 2018 Page 3 3. Waste Stream Ban on Yard Trimmings a. Green waste such as branches, leaves, and grass clippings must not be sent to landfills. Intergovernmental Agreement To facilitate implementation of the recommended infrastructure and policy, an intergovernmental agreement is needed that would likely include the following elements: • County commits to finance and construct facilities • Municipalities commit to adopt rules for waste handling that support use of County facilities • Hauler licensing required throughout Larimer County • Coordinated data collection and reporting • Distribution of consistent public education • Formation of an Advisory Board Outreach Conducted • A Stakeholder Advisory Group met six times between May 2017 and March 2018 to provide input and review technical and policy information produced by the Wasteshed Coalition. o Over 50 stakeholders were invited to participate from key sectors including: the business community, academia, regional governments, waste haulers and recyclers, boards and commissions, state agencies, and advocacy groups. • Coalition staff met directly with local haulers twice over the past five months to discuss impacts on their operations. • Coalition staff presented updates to the Local Legislative Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce two times in 2018. • Four public meetings in an open house format were held in May 2018 throughout the County and an online town hall meeting is currently live at <http://nfrwasteshedpublicmeeting.com/>. • See Information Presented at Public Meetings (Attachment 1) and Public Engagement Summary (Attachment 2) for further details. Previous Relevant Analysis An earlier, less fine-grained Regional Wasteshed Planning Study was prepared in 2016 that established how the region handles waste materials and explored opportunities and challenges that exist for the future (www.fcgov.com/Ph1_wasteshed_report <http://www.fcgov.com/Ph1_wasteshed_report>). A “waste characterization” study of material accepted for disposal at the Larimer County Landfill was conducted in 2016. A major finding was that organics (yard trimmings and food scraps), as well as construction and demolition materials, offer a significant opportunity for waste diversion (<https://www.fcgov.com/recycling/publications- resources.php>). Bottom Line Unprecedented regional collaboration for solid waste planning, spurred by the Larimer County Landfill nearing capacity, has yielded a recommended infrastructure master plan to divert significant waste from landfills without capital investment needed from the City of Fort Collins. To support this project, the role of municipalities in the region is to adopt specific policies that would ensure the economic viability of County-built resource recovery facilities. If directed by Council, an intergovernmental agreement formalizing roles of the Wasteshed jurisdictions will be developed for review by City Council in August. The proposed facilities are projected to recover as much as 40% of what is currently landfilled in the Wasteshed, delivering useable products back into the regional economy and helping Fort Collins meet its goals for Zero Waste. 2 Packet Pg. 43 May 22, 2018 Page 4 Next Steps During the summer 2018, the Coalition will release a final report detailing recommendations for solid waste infrastructure and policy and then conduct extensive, targeted stakeholder engagement. Depending on Council support for entering into a formal agreement with the County, next steps prior to an August 14 work session are: • implement a public engagement plan • conduct local environmental/economic analysis • provide Council with a draft IGA and ordinance language ATTACHMENTS 1. Information Presented at Public Meetings (PDF) 2. Public Engagement Summary (PDF) 3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 44 North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study PHASE 2 NFRWASTESHEDPUBLICMEETING.COM WELCOME ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 1 GOALS ESTABLISHED AUGUST 2017 FOR ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE WASTESHED PLANNING STUDY, PLEASE JOIN US FOR A PRESENTATION THAT IS SCHEDULED TO RESTART EVERY 15 MINUTES Implement programs and facilities › Materials Recovery Facility Transfer Station › New County Landﬁll › Central Transfer Station › Yard Waste Organics Processing Facility › Food Waste Compost: Static Aerated Bins › Construction & Demolition (C&D) Processing Facility Achieve regional waste diversion/ reduction goals › Diversion/reduction of 40% by 2025 for total material currently received at the Larimer County Landﬁll Conduct consistent public education and outreach › Coalition implements consolidated education programs with haulers Establish regional materials management system › 390k tons landﬁlled/year in 2017 with a goal of 540k tons/year by 2025 › Proposed system would divert ~40% 2.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 2 OUR COALITION AREA MUNICIPALITIES THAT SHARE THE NORTH FRONT RANGE REGIONAL WASTESHED SELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO HELP INFORM THE STUDY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE › Frank Lancaster Town of Estes Park › Martin Carcasson - Colorado State University Facilitation › Todd Blomstrom › Stephen Gillette › Ron Gilkerson Larimer County › Honore Depew › Susan Gordon › Caroline Mitchell City of Fort Collins › Mick Mercer › Tyler Bandemer City of Loveland › Ken Zornes Town of Estes Park › Steve Johnson Larimer County › Wade Troxell › Ross Cunniff City of Fort Collins › Leah Johnson City of Loveland 2.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 3 STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP THE COALITION ACTIVELY E NGAGED THIS GROUP MADE UP OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FOLLOWING: Local Business › Waste Haulers › Uncle Benny’s › Biochar Now › Etc. › Sierra Club - Pourde Canyon › TYMA of the Rockies › Estes Park League of Women Voters › Etc. › Colorado State University › Poudre School District › Thompson School District › Fort Collins Natural Resources Advisory Board › Larimer County Environmental Science Board › Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce › Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) › Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Community Groups Educational Institutions Regional Governance Boards & Commissions WHAT WE LEARNED FROM ADVISORY GROUP MEETINGS PUBLIC OUTREACH SIX MEETINGS TOOK PLACE BETWEEN MAY 2017 AND MARCH 2018 More Than 1,200 Larimer County residents responded to a survey regarding their recycling habits and attitudes in summer of 2016 96% provided consensus to move forward with the ﬁve Infrastructure Recommendations 95% agreed to the proposed solid waste process controls for construction and demolition debris generated in Larimer County 100% agreed to the proposed process controls for yard waste generated North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 4 OUR COMPREHENSIVE WASTE SYSTEM AFTER INTENSIVE DATA COLLECTION, THOROUGH ANALYSIS, AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT, THE FOLLOWING FACILITIES ARE RECOMMENDED AS THE MOST FEASIBLE FOR THE WASTESHED TO MEET ESTABLISHED GOALS: 9 EXISTING MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY TRANSFER STATION 1 NEW COUNTY LANDFILL 2 CENTRAL TRANSFER STATION 3 YARD WASTE ORGANICS PROCESSING FACILITY 4 FOOD WASTE COMPOST: STATIC AERATED BINS 5 CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION (C&D) PROCESSING FACILITY 2.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 5 NEW COUNTY LANDFILL TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTY, SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLOSURE OF THE EXISTING COUNTY LANDFILL, AS A MULTI-FUNCTIONAL FACILITY TO DISPOSE OF SOLID WASTE MATERIALS BY BURYING AND COVERING WITH SOIL. RECOMMENDED PROCESS CONTROLS Hauler licensing ■ Pay as you throw, or PAYT, has a volume based pricing structure ■ Potential bundling of recycling and trash collection for multi-family unit & single family residential customers ■ Direct haul to the new landﬁll will be limited ■ Landﬁll Gas Capture for Municipal Solid Waste collected in Larimer County BENEFITS County owned tract of land available for environmentally sound facility Self-sustaining revenues that support other County programs such as household hazardous waste, recycling, convenience centers, and public education First phase of landﬁll at $11.7m can handle all solid waste generated in County Social, economic, and environmental monetary beneﬁts outweigh the costs Solid Waste 191,311 Tons Single Stream Recyclables 39,995 Tons Yard Waste 15,257 Tons Construction & Demolition Debris 119,169 Tons Residential & Commercial Food Waste ~ 25,000 Tons 9 1 OUR WASTE SYSTEM The future Larimer County Solid Waste Management Site has already been selected. DATA BREAKDOWN 2016 Waste Composition and Characterization Analysis Numbers 2.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 6 CENTRAL TRANSFER STATION A FACILITY THAT RECEIVES MATERIALS FROM WASTE HAULERS AND THE PUBLIC TO BE TAKEN OFF-SITE ON A LARGER TRANSFER VEHICLE FOR TRANSPORT TO A SOLID WASTE HANDLING FACILITY LIKE A LANDFILL. RECOMMENDED PROCESS CONTROLS Hauler licensing ■ Pay as you throw, or PAYT, has a volume based pricing structure ■ Potential bundling of recycling and trash collection for multi-family unit & single family residential customers ■ Direct haul to the new landﬁll will be limited BENEFITS Continued convenient disposal location for existing customers — centrally located amongst high density population areas Increases collection efﬁciencies for customers by consolidating waste in one location for eventual transfer For $15.8m various waste materials can be managed and provides ﬂexibility for future changes in waste management Social, economic, and environmental monetary beneﬁts outweigh the costs Images of example Central Transfer Station facilities. Solid Waste 191,311 Tons Single Stream Recyclables 39,995 Tons Yard Waste 15,257 Tons Construction & Demolition Debris 119,169 Tons Residential & Commercial Food Waste ~ 25,000 Tons 9 2 OUR WASTE SYSTEM DATA BREAKDOWN 2016 Waste Composition and Characterization Analysis Numbers 2.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 7 YARD WASTE ORGANICS PROCESSING FACILITY A FACILITY THAT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE NATURAL PROCESS THAT CONVERTS ORGANIC MATERIAL INTO A STABLE RICH SOIL AMENDMENT. ■ Aerobic composting places organics into windrows that aerate through turning the piles by machine, introducing oxygen and moisture. RECOMMENDED PROCESS CONTROLS Hauler licensing ■ Waste ban — prohibits disposal of yard waste in Municipal Solid Waste landﬁlls into the waste stream ■ Yard waste bundled with trash and recycling for single-family residential within certain, deﬁned areas ■ Commercial landscaping businesses required to be licensed BENEFITS Diverts 100% of yard waste materials from being buried and creates compost for beneﬁcial reuse Compost material available for gardens, ﬂower beds, landscaping, etc. Provides compost material for use in parks and recreational facilities At $11.8m can handle yard waste from the County, Fort Collins and Loveland Social, economic, and environmental monetary beneﬁts outweigh the costs Images of example Yard Waste Organics Processing facilities. Solid Waste 191,311 Tons Single Stream Recyclables 39,995 Tons Yard Waste 15,257 Tons Construction & Demolition Debris 119,169 Tons Residential & Commercial Food Waste ~ 25,000 Tons 9 3 OUR WASTE SYSTEM DATA BREAKDOWN 2016 Waste Composition and Characterization Analysis Numbers 2.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 8 FOOD WASTE COMPOST: STATIC AERATED BINS RECOMMENDED PROCESS CONTROLS BENEFITS Diverts 100% of food waste collected and segregated for nutrient rich material in composting with yard waste Compost material available for gardens, ﬂower beds, landscaping, etc. Provides compost material for use in parks and recreational facilities Removes a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from landﬁlls Social, economic, and environmental monetary beneﬁts outweigh the costs Images of example Food Waste Compost facilities and Static Aerated Bins. Solid Waste 191,311 Tons Single Stream Recyclables 39,995 Tons Yard Waste 15,257 Tons Construction & Demolition Debris 119,169 Tons Residential & Commercial Food Waste ~ 25,000 Tons 9 4 OUR WASTE SYSTEM Hauler licensing In the future, may consider process controls for pre- and post-consumer food scraps Process control requirements where grocers send food scraps to a permitted facility A FACILITY THAT USES AERATED PILES THAT DON’T NEED TO BE TURNED IS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST COST-EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO COMPOSTING LARGE VOLUMES OF ORGANIC WASTE MATERIALS. ■ The Aerated Static process is the simplest and least cost approach to composting large volumes of organic waste materials. DATA BREAKDOWN 2016 Waste Composition and Characterization Analysis Numbers 2.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) North Front Range Regional Wasteshed Planning Study Phase 2 9 C&D PROCESSING FACILITY A CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION (C&D) PROCESSING FACILITY EXTRACTS WOOD, METAL, GYPSUM BOARD, CONCRETE AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED MATERIALS, AND PROCESSES FOR REUSE, RECYCLING, AND/OR COMPOSTING. RECOMMENDED PROCESS CONTROLS DATA BREAKDOWN BENEFITS Diverts approximately 30% of the current waste stream from being buried in the landﬁll Creates jobs and develops end markets for better management of resources Provides jobsite convenience for builders to use mixed-material roll-offs Segregated materials are processed for end markets for reuse or repurpose At $13.7m can handle 30% of the waste stream Social, economic, and environmental monetary beneﬁts outweigh the costs Images of example Construction & Demolition Processing facilities. Solid Waste 191,311 Tons Single Stream Recyclables 39,995 Tons Yard Waste 15,257 Tons Construction & Demolition Debris 119,169 Tons Residential & Commercial Food Waste ~ 25,000 Tons 9 5 OUR WASTE SYSTEM Require the recycling of metal, wood, cardboard, drywall and aggregate from construction and demolition sites Would apply to all residential and commercial new buildings, and demolition Term limited ﬂow control of construction and demolition debris waste to County facility (10 years) 2016 Waste Composition and Characterization Analysis Numbers 2.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) 1 WASTESHED PLANNING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE: Regional Wasteshed Planning OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: Collaborate with key stakeholders and the public to review materials and recommendations developed by the North Front Range Wasteshed Coalition and consultant. BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: What infrastructure and policy options will best meet the needs of communities within the North Front Range Wasteshed after the Larimer County Landfill closes? 2016-18 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: City Boards and Commissions Presentations Natural Resources Advisory Board July 20, 2016 and May 16, 2018 Fort Collins Super Board Meeting October 9, 2017 Meetings with Fort Collins Haulers Wasteshed Coalition staff met with Waste Management, and Gallegos Sanitation, and Ram Waste on December 7, 2017 and May 2, 2018. • Several representatives from the local hauling industry have also participated in the Stakeholder Advisory Group Town Hall Meetings • The Coalition held four public meetings in 2016, throughout Larimer County, with the assistance of CSU’s Center for Public Deliberation. • The Coalition held four public meetings in May 2018, throughout Larimer County. Wasteshed Survey From June 24 until July 31, 2016, citizens from across Larimer County were solicited to participate in a professionally-conducted online survey posted by City and County officials, promoted through various media outlets. During this time, over 1200 responses were collected, 42% from Fort Collins. Of Fort Collins respondents, • 51% indicated that current disposal options for food scraps are inadequate • 47% indicated that current disposal options for yard trimmings are inadequate. Other outreach • Project website with updates and project documents • Email updates to 850+ subscribers • Met with Executive Director of Downtown Development Authority November 14, 2017 • Presented to the Local Legislative Affairs Committee of the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce December 2016, January 2018 and April 2018 Stakeholder Advisory Group A dedicated Stakeholder Advisory Group met six times between May 2017 and March 2018 to provide input and review technical and policy information produced by the TAC. Over 50 stakeholders were invited to participate from key sectors including: the business community, academia, regional governments, waste haulers and recyclers, local government boards and commissions, state agencies, and advocacy groups. Key themes in stakeholder feedback: • Desire for future solid waste programs to be within the Wasteshed 2 2018 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN: Public Meetings Fort Collins staff will hold public meetings during the summer of 2018 to seek feedback on recommendations for infrastructure and policy. City Boards and Commissions Presentations • Water Board, June 17, 2018 • Additional presentations as appropriate Other outreach • Virtual Town Hall meeting led by consultant Various Stakeholders Fort Collins staff will conduct individual and group interviews to gain insight on the impacts of proposed rule changes on specific stakeholders. Examples of target sectors include: • General waste and recycling haulers • Construction waste haulers • Builders and developers • Recycling businesses • Landscaping businesses • Multi-family housing managers 2.2 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) 1 Regional Wasteshed Project Jackie Kozak Thiel, Honore Depew; Sustainability Services Ron Gilkerson; Larimer County 5-22-18 ATTACHMENT 3 2.3 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Council Direction 2 1. Does Council support moving forward to create an intergovernmental agreement that includes a Larimer County capital construction plan and Fort Collins process controls? 2.3 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) 3 Strategic Plan Goals Impacted 3.2 Maintain and grow diverse employment opportunities 4.5 Achieve the 2020 Road to Zero Waste goals and work toward 2030 zero waste goals 4.1 Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals and continue progress toward the 2030 goals 2.3 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Council-Adopted Goals 4 GHG emissions 20% below 2005 levels GHG emissions 80% below 2005 levels 90% diversion ൑ 2.8 lbs/person landfilled per day Carbon Neutral 2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2050 Road to Zero Waste Goals Adopted 75% diversion Approaching Zero Waste Climate Action Goals Adopted 2.3 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Wasteshed Coalition 5 TAC Technical Advisory Committee PAC Policy Advisory Committee Stakeholder Advisory Group 2.3 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Larimer County Capital Investments 6 Recommended Facilities New Landfill $11.7M (Equity – 1 st Phase) Central Transfer Station $15.8M (Equity) Yard Waste & Food Waste Composting Facilities $11.8M (Finance) Construction & Demolition Debris Processing Facility $13.7M (Equity) Total: $53M 2.3 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Recommended Facilities 7 NEW LANDFILL CENTRAL TRANSFER STATION 2.3 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Recommended Facilities 8 FOOD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY YARD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY 2.3 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Recommended Facilities 9 RECYCLING TRANSFER UPGRADES CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS PROCESSING FACILITY 2.3 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) 10 Infrastructure Timeline Facility Years to Build New Landfill 6 Transfer Station 5 Compost: Yard Waste 4 Compost: Food Waste 2 Construction Waste 4 • Timeline Includes: • Permitting •Design • Construction • All facilities to be operational by 2025 2.3 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) 11 • County commits to finance and construct facilities • Municipalities commit to adopt rules for waste handling • Hauler licensing throughout Larimer County • Coordinated data collection and reporting • Consistent public education • Formation of an Advisory Board Intergovernmental Agreement 2.3 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Process Controls 12 Flow Control Construction & Demolition Debris Waste Ban Yard Trimmings Flow Control Mixed Recyclables • Mixed loads • 10-year term • Jobsite convenience • Market development • “Single-stream” recyclables • Residential and commercial • Assured volumes attract investment • Wood, branches, leaves, etc. • Readily recyclable at multiple sites • Generates finished compost 2.3 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Economic Development • Public-Private Opportunities • Transfer Hauling • Operation • Production Facilities • Maturing markets • Raw materials for a circular economy 13 2.3 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Estimated Tipping Fees 14 Facility Cost per ton Current Landfill $22 Transfer Station: Trash $29 Compost: Yard $38 Compost: Food $38 Construction Debris $37 2.3 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Trash Cart Rate ($13.00 per month) Trash Cart Rate ($13.80 per month) Household Cost Estimate 15 City of Loveland Solid Waste Disposal Fee Increase (+50%) Collection Fee Increase (+6%) 2.3 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Stakeholder Engagement 16 • Stakeholder Advisory Group • 50+ Diverse Members • 8 Meetings over 10 Months • Strong Support for Coalition Recommendations • Four Public Open Houses • Multiple 1x1 Meetings with • Private Haulers • Fort Collins Chamber 2.3 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Next Steps 17 June July August County Commissioners to Adopt Master Plan Stakeholder Engagement Economic/Environmental Analysis IGA Development 8/14 Work Session 2.3 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) Council Direction 18 Does Council support moving forward to create an intergovernmental agreement that includes a Larimer County capital construction plan and Fort Collins process controls? 2.3 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) • Interest in regional end-markets for “waste” material • Maintaining affordability & convenience for citizens • Need for public education • Strong support for Coalition recommendations ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Public Engagement Summary (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) in Larimer County 90% agreed to the proposed process controls for single stream recycling generated in Larimer County 4 public forums were held in the fall of 2016 2.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Information Presented at Public Meetings (6800 : Regional Wasteshed Recommendations) continue to do so if it is to be a world-class city. Great Facilities and Institutions The features that attract people to a community can be created, not just inherited. While Fort Collins has been blessed with many inherent features of the city such as its climate, setting, and natural resources, other critical features have been “created” – the parks and open space system, Downtown amenities, a thriving arts and culture scene, high-caliber university, and an innovative business climate. An Educated, Creative Workforce Fort Collins has been fortunate to attract and retain a high- quality, creative workforce with a diverse set of skills. It must continue to do so in order to meet the challenges of the future through continuing and enhancing its strong partnerships with CSU, Front Range Community College, Poudre and Thompson Valley School Districts, and other educational institutions throughout the region and state. Sense of Community The people in Fort Collins are known to be neighborly, friendly, and deeply committed to making their community a desirable place to live, work, visit, and raise a family. This strong sense of community sets Fort Collins apart from many other places, and will remain an important and desirable quality in the future. ATTACHMENT 1 1.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: Existing City Plan Vision (6799 : City Plan Visioning Update) Updating the City Plan Vision Staff anticipates refining the current City Plan vision after outreach activities have concluded in early June. Based on feedback to date, several suggested approaches to the City Plan structure and vision language are proposed: • Refine the ‘‘big-picture’’ vision statement and vision themes to better reflect prioritized community values. Sustainability is well represented in the existing vision, but elements of how residents define ‘’livability’’ and ‘’community’’ should become more prominent. • Remove or clarify what is meant by connection, distinctiveness and being ‘‘world-class’’. These values and statements are featured prominently in the existing vision, but were confusing to participants, did not resonate as shared values, and were consistently ranked lower as a priority. 1 Packet Pg. 4