Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-03/18/2013-AdjournedMarch 18, 2013 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLOR -ADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting — 6:00 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, March 18, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Troxell, and Weitkunat. Councilmembers absent: Poppaw (Secretary's note: Councilmember Kottwitz arrived at 6:07 p.m.) Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Nelson, Daggett. City Manager Atteberry withdrew Item No. 4, First Reading of Ordinance No. 044, 2013, Authorizing the Conveyance to Woodward, Inc. of Two Non -Exclusive Permanent Drainage Easements and a Temporary Construction Easement on City -Owned Property, to the March 26, 2013 meeting. Ordinance No. 047, 2013, Enacting Water Rates Adjustments for the Water Supply Shortage Response Levels Established in the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and Amending the Plan, Adopted on First Reading The following is the staff memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on the uncertainty ofhow much water supply will be availablefi-om our two main sources of supply, the Poudre River and Colorado -Big Thompson Project (CBT), which was presented to City Council as a staff report on February 5, the City Manager will declare Response Level 1 water restrictions for the City of Fort Collins on March 6for the water restrictions to be effective on April 1, 2013. The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, recommends water rate adjustments for Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. In preparing for the potential of moving to Response Level 2 or higher, Fort Collins Utilities staff has determined the amount that water rates need to be increasedfor each Response Level. Revising rates to be revenue neutral is consistent with the intent of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan and how the rates were developed in 2003. The rates being proposed in this Ordinance attempt to maintain revenues at the 2013 budgeted level for each 439 March 18, 2013 possible Response Level. The Ordinance also increaser the Excess Water Use Surcharge for each Response Level beginning with Response Level 1. Ordinance No. 048, 2003 does not allow the use of water fountains for public display for any of the Response Levels. In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, the City Manager has recommended that certain facilities of the City containing water features be excluded from the water restrictions set forth in the Plan so as to allow City management to evaluate their operation and use on a case -by -case basis in response to water shortage conditions. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION Going into 2013, staff is uncertain how much water supply will be available from our two main sources of supply, the Poudre River and Colorado -Big Thompson Project (CBT). The 2012 fires in the Poudre Canyon limited the amount of Poudre River water that was able to be treated for drinking water last year, due to poor water- qualityas a result of rain events over the burn area and fluctuations in the River's flow. In addition, persistent drought conditions continue that impact the amount of water supply available. For 2013, it is unknown how much be able to be drawn from the Poudre River because of the fire - related water quality degradation. Thus, there may be the need to rely heavily on our CBTsupplies from Horsetooth Reservoir. However, the amount of CBT water that will be available will not be clear until Northern Water declares the allocation available (or quota) to all unit owners in that project on April 12. It is anticipated that the quota may be low due to poor snowpack conditions. As such, not knowing how much water will be available staff believes it is in the best interest of the community's water supply resources to implement Response Level I water restrictions, effective April 1, 2013. On March 6, City Manager Darin Atteberty will declare the restrictions. In April 2003, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 048, 2003, a Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, The Plan is a comprehensive document that outlines a series of measures to be enacted, including four water shortage response level water restrictions. This Plan was. effective in responding to the 2003 drought efforts; therefore staffbelieves the Plan supports responding to the 2013 water supply conditions. Among other measures, Response Level 1 limits lawn watering to two days per week. Response Level 2 limits watering to one day per week and the adjustment to rates reflects a 15 percent reduction in water demand. Response Level 3 limits watering to one day per week for 2 hours that day and a 25 percent rate adjustment. No lawn watering is allowed between June 1 and August 31 for Response Level 4 and a 35 percent rate adjustment. In case it is necessary to immediately move to a higher Response Level, the Rate Ordinance increases the quantity rate charges for Response Levels 2, 3 and 4. It also includes an increase to the Excess Water Use Surcharge, beginning with Response Level 1. The reason this surcharge is increased at Response Level 1 when the quantity charges are not increased is because this surcharge reflects the use by a customer in excess of the amount of water the City would expect to be available in a normal yearfrom the water rights, City certificates and cash in -lieu ofwater rights assigned to the customer premise. Eff1; March 18, 2013 Water Rate Changes for Water Restrictions The following water rate increases comply with the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003. Proposed Water Rates Monthly water rates will not change,for Response Level 1. A fourth tier has been added for single family and duplex customers. The quantity charges will change, but not the base charges. All charges are for 1, 000 gallons of water use. Sinnle Family Tier Gallons Used 2013 Rate Level 2 Level Level 4 1 0-7,000 52.189 52.625 $3.074 $3.633 2 7, 001-13, 000 $2.516 $3.150 S3.689 $4.360 3 13, 001-20, 000 $2.894 $3.780 $4.427 55.232 4 >20,000 $2.894 $4.536 $5.312 $6.278 Duplex Tier Gallons Used 2013 Rate Level 2 1 0-9, 000 $2.109 $2.549 2 9,001-13,000 $2.424 $3.059 3 13, 001-20, 000 $2.789 $3.670 4 >20,000 $2.789 $4.404 V ulti-Family - Summer Rate 2013 Rate Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 $2.547 $3.395 $4.212 $5.173 Commercial -Summer Rate 2013 Rate Level Level 3 Level 4 1st Step $2.201 $2.903 $3.599 $4.610 Conservation Step $3.164 $4.173 $5.174 $6.627 Proposed Excess Water Use Surcharge The Ordinance also increases the Excess Water Use Surcharge for each Response Level beginning with -Response Level]. An annual water allotment is set based on the amount of raw water rights supplied far the account and is assessed for any use that exceeds it. The surcharges are per 1,000 gallons, in addition to the base and quantity charges. Any revenue from this surcharge is assigned to the Water Rights Reserve and not used for operational expenses. Below is a table of the proposed increases for this surcharge: 441 March 18, 2013 Exc ess Water Use Surcharge 2013 Rate Level I Level 2 Level Level 4 $3.060 $3.366 $4.440 $5.504 57.050 At the time the City Manager declares that the City's municipal water supply conditions no longer require a'water supply shortage response level, all water rates will revert to the rates shown in Chapter 26 of the City Code for subsequent billing periods. Redefining Water Fountains Ordinance 048, 2003 does not allow the use of water fountains for public display for any of the Response Levels. The ordinance defines "water fountain " as follows: "Water fountain shall mean a wafer feature that either causes water to be sprayed into the air, or is a waterfall or fountain for public display. The term water fountain shall not mean a water feature of a pond or basin that performs a junction essential to the support offish life in that pond or basin. In preparation for the implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan in the coming months, the City Manager has recommended that certain facilities of the City containing water features be excluded from the water restrictions set forth in the Plan so as to allow City management to evaluate their operation and use on a case -by -case basis in response to water shortage conditions. This Ordinance amends the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan so as to revise the definition of "water fountain " to read as follows: "Water fountain "shall mean a water feature that either causes water to be sprayed into the air, or is a waterfall or fountain,for public display. The term waterfountain shall not mean a water feature of a pond or basin that performs a function essential to the support offish life in that pond or basin, a water feature in a City -operated swimming pool, or a water -dependent recreational fixture or play structure that is operated by the City for public use and enjoyment. FINANCIAL I ECONOMIC IMPACTS The rate increases are designed to generate the same revenue for the Water Fund as the original 2013 rate structure. The financial impact of implementing higher water rates through the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan is anticipated to be minimal to most residential and commercial customers who respond to the plan by using less water for irrigation. Those customers that do not reduce their water demand as expected for a given Response Level because of business processes or other reasons, will see an increase in the water charges on their utility bill. The increase ofthe Raw Water Surcharge will also impact those customers who use more water than their annual allotment. Fort Collins Utilities is reaching out to customers who exceeded their annual allotment in 2012 through a letter explaining the water shortage situation and encouraging those customers to use less water and/or provide additional water rights, City certificates or cash in -lieu of water rights to avoid this surcharge in 2013. 442 March 18, 2013 Implementation of the Water Supply Shortage Response Plan may have a financial impact on the Water Fund. Attachment I shows the estimated revenue loss for each Response Level. The Plan calls for no rate adjustment at Response Level 1. It is estimated that remaining at Response Level I throughout the summer (May through October) will result in the loss of $850, 000 in operating revenue to the Water Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Response Level water rate adjustments promote conservation to sustain the needed water supplies to support indoor and health and safety uses. .The water restrictions target lawn watering as grass is less vulnerable to limited watering. Depending on the level of restriction, lawns may go dormant and brown lawns will be visible throughout the community. However, landscape watering for trees, shrubs and vegetable gardens is not limited, but must use a hose with a shut-off nozzle or low -volume, efficient irrigation. These landscape features are vulnerable to a lack of water and expensive to replace. Trees are often watered when lawns are watered. During the 2002-2003 restrictions, many trees were adversely affected. The City will offer landscape survival care information to citizens during the water restrictions, with a strong emphasis on caring for trees. PUBLIC OUTREACH Staff has begun the following public outreach: • Communicated in the 2012 Year -End Letter to our Customers • Contact with agricultural CBT renters, no water available for rent • Numerous media interviews • Contact with Northern Water staff A Water Supply Management Action Plan is being developed that will detail key activities to provide awareness and education to the community on the water restrictions. Activities include: • Bill inserts and City News articles, starting in March to customers • Dedicated restrictions website • An icon to graphically keep public aware of water supply monitoring • Articles in City and local newsletters, newspapers and other outlets • Newspaper and magazine advertising • Outdoor advertising on bus benches and bus shelters, • Displays at events and public locations, such as City buildings, libraries and other venues • Speakers Bureau that will give presentations to targeted customers, and to other interested organizations • Coordinate meetings for targeted customers, such as homeowner associations, industry groups, key utility customer accounts, landscape contractors, restaurants and other • Participate at'events, such as Biz Ed, Residential Environmental Program, Earth Day, Chamber Green in Action, Water Works open house, Climate Wise events and others • Offer watershed tours for key accounts, City employees and the general public • Continue outreach for water rebates, sprinkler system audit program and other help for saving water 443 March 18, 2013 Outreach key messages and information about the water restrictions, as well as enforcement procedures, will prepare the Fort Collins community for the April I effective date. The Water Supply Shortage Response Plan, Ordinance No. 048, 2003, states, "Upon such determination and declaration, the City Manager shall cause to be published in the local newspaper ofrecord a notice of the restrictions and requirements corresponding to the Water Supply Shortage Response Level, as set forth herein, and the effective date ofsaid restrictions and requirements... " The Public Notice is scheduled to be published in the Coloradoan on March 17 and March 24, and on the Fort Collins Utilities website. Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Manager, discussed the necessity for water restrictions and stated staff is hopeful there will not be a need to go beyond level 1 restrictions. Lance Smith, Utilities Strategic Financial Planning Manager, discussed the necessity for water rate changes at Response Levels 2, 3, and 4. Those increases would simply maintain operating revenues at the current 2013 budgeted level. Smith reviewed the proposed rate increases. Lisa Rosintoski, Customer Connections Manager, presented the Water Supply Management Action Plan, which is a comprehensive effort to inform and educate community members regarding water use management. She also discussed Water Restrictions Violations Management, which will focus on education and awareness prior to warnings and violations. Bill Whirty, Manager of Parks, discussed the redefinition of water fountains to water features. This change will allow public water features and private water fountains to remain on during Response Levels 1 and 2, and off during Response Levels 3 and 4. Additionally, this Ordinance would change the watering days for large spaces from Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Councilmember Manvel requested additional information regarding the excess water use surcharge. Smith replied there are commercial customers which have an annual allotment. Less than half of the commercial customers (around 340) have an allotment. Councilmember Manvel noted this surcharge would basically double rates for water used beyond the allotment. Smith 'replied in the affirmative.. Councilmember Troxell asked if the breweries fall under the commercial category. Smith replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Troxell asked if there are any special agreements with the breweries, given that water is a primary ingredient in their products. Smith replied there is no distinction in terms of allotment, though businesses may increase their allotment by turning over additional water rights, or cash in lieu of, to increase the allotment. CouncilmemberTroxell asked ifstaff has received any concerns from commercial customers. Smith replied the brewery industry does have some concerns. Rosintoski replied the industry is more concerned about the water quality. ME March 18, 2013 Councilmember Troxell asked if the current fire near Lory State Park is anticipated to affect water quality. Kevin Gertig, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager, replied staff is currently ascertaining the extent of the Galena Fire and its impact on Horsetooth Reservoir. Councilmember Troxell asked who will speak at various meetings regarding these changes. Rosintoski replied the speakers will be Fort Collins Utilities employees who will take turns addressing audiences as requests come in. Councilmember Horak asked about the triggers for an increase in response levels. Dustin replied supplies will need to be determined after receiving the Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) quota, which will be the largest trigger. The Ordinance allows the City Manager discretion to change the Response Level. Councilmember Horak asked if prior years' data has been used to support the current model. Dustin replied the operating revenues are based on an average year. There has not been a significant study in terms of price elasticity. Councilmember Manvel asked about the revenue loss if there is no rate adjustment at Level 1. Smith replied there will be lost revenue for 2013 as the City is not doing water leases. There will likely be some response with the excess water use surcharge. There will be roughly a $2 million revenue loss. Councilmember Manvel asked why rate increases will not occur at Level 1. Smith replied the previous Ordinance did not recommend a rate adjustment at Level 1 and, in 2012, operating revenues were higher than anticipated which will offset the expected revenue loss. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson, to adopt Ordinance No. 047, 2013, on First Reading. Councilmember Horak encouraged staff to differentiate between the rate increase and the water conservation issues as they are developing public outreach strategies. Mayor Weitkunat noted the utilities are revenue neutral and commended the use of this plan. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 048, 2013, Amending Chapter 10 of the City Code Relating to Development in the Poudre River Floodplain, Adopted on First Reading The following is the staff memorandum for this item. 445 March 18, 2013 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The f nal component of the Stormwater Repurposing program is to review the level of regulation protecting life and property for areas within the Poudre River foodplain. Staff is recommending that Council adopt revisions to the City Code that will establish a "performance -based " criteria and regulation that places more emphasis on life safety through advance warning and evacuation. The proposed Code language requires the development of a site -specific Emergency Response Preparedness Plan (ERPP) for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the Poudre River 100-Year foodplain. The ERPP requires that procedures be established for evacuation a minimum oftwo hours in advance of when floodwaters will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. The Code language requires that the ERPP be reviewed and updated annually ifthere are substantive changes to elements of the plan. In order to facilitate the implementation of this new Code language, staff has developed the following documents: 1. A draft template that uses the requirements outlined in the proposed code language to guide the preparation ofsite-specific ERPP's 2. A draft ERPP annual checklist form. The Working Committee and North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) support the new approach and recommend that the proposed revisions to the Poudre River foodplain regulations be presented to City Council for adoption. The Water Board recommended approval of the proposed revisions as an enhancement to the existing regulations, but encouraged Council consider prohibiting any new structures (i.e., development, redevelopment, etc.) in the 100-Year Floodplain. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION City Council requested a review of the Stormwater program in October 2008. Staff identified a list of issues to be addressed that included a review of the Poudre River floodplain regulations. The review was to focus on whether revisions were needed to better address foreseeable flooding risks to improve life safety and reduce property damage using a sustainable approach that considers environmental, economic and social factors. The current regulations focus almost exclusively on protecting new structures from flooding damage. Evolution of Floodplain Regulation Revisions The foodplain regulations have undergone thorough investigation and extensive public outreach over the last 2 'h years. Floodplain regulation options have been presented and discussed previously at four Council work sessions, four Water Board meetings and three Natural Resources Advisory Board meetings. A Working Committee was created to provide public discussion on these revisions met eleven times with Stormwater and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) staffbetween January 2011 and June 2012. The objective was to research, investigate and evaluate the potential development of an Adverse Impact Review (AIR) process and criteria. The current regulations allow non-residential development within the 100 year food fringe on the Poudre River that meets specific criteria (i.e., freeboard, property use, etc). Under these existing regulations, the potential f ooding impacts associated with ,.e March 18, 2013 such development are not analyzed. In addition, the group considered additional life safety and property damage reduction criteria. The overarching goal was to establish criteria that balance the competing economic, environmental, and public safety values of the Fort Collins community. As a result of these efforts, and taking into account concerns expressed at Council work sessions regarding the development of an implementable approach that addresses community values, the proposed revisions have evolved over time. Options presented to Council over this time include: • No change to the Poudre River floodplain regulations (null alternative). • The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to adopt a 0.1 foot rise floodway • The Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any structures in the 100- year floodplain. Adverse Impact Review (AIR). The Working Committee and staff recommended to City Council that additional consideration be given to implementing specific life safety and property damage criteria that will enhance and support the existingfloodplain regulations. At the work session in October 2011, Council directed staff to: • Investigate a "scalable " AIR regulation that would require additional investigation for any development that happens in areas with a higher potential impact to the food elevations; • Work with PFA for the development of specific code language; • Examine a notification process similar to the Land Use Code with clarification of the associated legal issues from the City Attorney's Office, and, • Provide a consistent summaryformat for the various regulation comparison charts. In 2012, Stormwater and Poudre Fire Authority (PFA) staff worked in combination with the Working Committee to further evaluate the AIR process and develop specific life safety criteria. At its May 14, 2012 Working Committee meeting, the general consensus was reached to discontinue the development of a scalable AIR regulation for the Poudre River in consideration of.- • the future construction of the Poudre River Downtown Core Improvements and subsequent reduction in potential development within the revised 100 year floodplain near College Avenue, - the Link-N-Greens area will develop using a full CLOMR/LOMR process that will include improvements and enhancements to the Poudre River adjacent to the site; • understanding that the Poudre River RiskMAP process will result in dramatically changed (corrected) floodplain delineation, mapping and flood elevations; • taking into account that the Foodway Surcharge Analysis identified primarily small floodway impacts to the Poudre River section within the Mulberry Corridor; and, • noting that the Mulberry Corridor is in the Growth Management Area (GMA) and not within the City Limits. 447 March 18, 2013 Floodplain Regulation Code Language Revisions The current regulations allow non-residential development within the 100 year food fringe on the Poudre River that meets specific criteria (i.e., fi-eeboard, property use, etc.). In addition, "dryland access" by elevating the access roadways is a typical consideration to ensure the safe evacuation of properties, but only when feasible. The final consensus of the Working Committee was that the Poudre River foodplain regulations should be revised to improve life safety by requiring the preparation of site -specific Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERPPs) for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the Poudre River 1004earfoodplain. Stafffrom the City and PFA were tasked with developing the final code language to incorporate proposed revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations into the City Code. The current effective Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-Year flood elevations reflect significant flooding depths (i.e., 2 to 3 feet on Vine Drive east of College Avenue) on existing public arterials and collectors that serve these areas. Requiring the construction ofnew emergency fire apparatus (access) roads to serve these properties in times offooding is not feasible as it will result in excessive grades and extended lengths of -elevated" roadways that do not appropriately provide for improved life safety and emergency response. At the February 4, 2013 Working Committee meeting, staffproposed the following revisions which create a "performance -based" life safety regulation. Staffproposed that the Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan (ERPP) requireprocedures be established for evacuation a minimum oftwo hours in advance of when food waters will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. Thisplaces the emphasis on life safety through advance warning and evacuation instead of the costly and in many cases infeasible construction of "elevated" emergency access roads. It also avoids potential adverse foodplain impacts resultingfrom embankments constructed to elevate new access roads. The proposed Code language that reflects the elimination of the fire apparatus (emergency access) road requirements and includes the revised ERPP provisions is shown in Attachment 1. In order to demonstrate how the process would work, sta. fpresented the following documents: • A draft template that uses the requirements outlined in the proposed code language to guide the preparation of site -specific ERPP's • A sample ERPPfor a property within the Poudre River 100 Year Floodplain situated along Vine Drive; and, • A draft ERPP annual checklist form. The Working Committee provided valuablefeedback and comments on the updated approach as well as the draft Code language and ERPP forms. The latest versions of the ERPP template and annual checklist form are included as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS The proposed approach of requi ring Emergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERPPs) places more emphasis on life safety through advance warning and evacuation instead of the costly and in many cases infeasible construction of "elevated" emergency access roads. This approach is also significantly less costly than the scalable AIR approach. MR March 18, 2013 The requirement to prepare an ERPP is triggered by an addition, substantial improvement, change ofoccupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the Poudre River 100-Yearfloodplain. Anticipated costs include those that are more easily estimated (initial preparation of the ERPP, annual review and update if conditions have changed) and implementation measures such as signage and instructions, emergency preparedness kit, mandatory practice drills, stafftraining, etc. which are more variable depending on the property location, type of structure, etc. The cost estimates for the ERPP itself are: • Initial Cost of ERPP Preparation $500 to $4,000 (Depends on complexity ofsite) • Annual Cost (Monitoring /Notices) $0 to $1, 000 (Depends on use of own staff or contract with a meteorological consultant). Given the typically significant project costs associated with any of the development actions that would trigger the requirement to prepare the ERPP, the costs involved with the ERPP process are considered by staff and the Working Committee as reasonable in order to improve life safety. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The existing Poudre River Floodplain Regulations provide protection to the Poudre River by restricting development in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the food fringe. Staff believes that the regulations in the Land Use Code (especially related to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired by this community and that any additional code language in Chapter 10 of City Code (Flood Prevention and Protection) would be redundant and not provide a measurable additional benefit. When the Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review was firstinitiated, one of the key areas of concern was protecting the natural and beneficial functions of the Poudre River near the Link-N- Greens GolfCourse as this was the largest privately owned, undeveloped property along the Poudre River. The current Floodplain regulations in combination with the Natural Resources Buffer regulations applied at the Link-N-Greens site are achieving the desired outcomes that were discussed at the beginning of the Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review process. As part of the planned Woodward development ofLink-N-Greens, considerable amounts of previously placed fill are being removed to lower the overbank to allow flows to spread out more frequently. This provides for reduced velocities and improved water quality. Some of this excavated material will be used to elevate the buildings to protect the structures from flood damage. An old meander bend is being recreated to allow the river to be more connected with the floodplain. Extensive plantings of native species will create more ecologically diverse habitats. Bank stabilization work will mitigate erosion problems along the stream banks. The river restoration work is being modeled to ensure that there is no rise in 100-year flood elevations on nearby property owners. The floodplain maps will be revised through the FEMA CLOMR and LOMR process to reflect the changes. This is clearly a success story of how the existing floodplain regulations and natural resources buffer regulations can work together to achieve property protection and improve natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain. March 18, 2013 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Water Board At its February 21, 2013 meeting, the Water Board had an extensive discussion regarding the original options and the Adverse Impact Review (AIR) approach. Several Boardmembers questioned whether the proposed ERPP process significantly increases life safety if the regulations still allow non-residential development in the 100-Year Floodplain. Staff noted that any new development, redevelopment, addition or substantial improvement is required by the floodplain regulations to elevate new structures above the 100-Year Floodplain and to meet freeboard (additional 2 feet) requirements. This greatly reduces potential flooding ofand damage to the new construction. The current regulations, however, do not address emergency access to and evacuation of these structures for employees, customers, vendors, etc. The intent of the ERPP process is to provide emergency response plans aimed at improving life safety by encouraging evacuation of these structures in advance of potential flooding. Prohibiting any new structures in the 100-Year floodplain was championed by some Boardmembers as providing an even higher standard for life safety. Concern was expressed that more emphasis should be placed on environmental considerations and protection of the natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. Staff noted that the existing regulations provide protection to the Poudre River by restricting development in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the flood fringe. Staff believes that the regulations in the Land Use Code (especially related to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired by this community and that any additional Code language in Chapter 10 of City Code (Flood Prevention and Protection) is redundant and does not provide a measurable additional benefit. A key concern has been protecting the natural and beneficial functions of the Poudre River near the Link-N-Greens property. Staff from Stormwater, Natural Areas, and Parks have been actively involved in collaboration throughout the development review process. The proposed Woodward development is clearly a success story of how the existing floodplain regulations and natural resources buffer regulations can work together to achieve property protection and improve natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain. The Water Board motion below was approved by a vote of 10 to 1: "In order to mitigate life -safety hazards, the Water Board recommends that the existing Poudre Riverfloodplain regulations be revised to incorporate the proposed code language introducing the requirement that a site -specific Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan be prepared and implemented for additions, substantial improvements, change of occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the 100-Year floodplain. The Water Board would further recommend that City Council consider excluding new developments or structures within the 100-year floodplain. " Attachment 4 contains an excerpt of the minutes from the February 21, 2013 Water Board meeting 450 March 18, 2013 Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) At its February 20, 2013 meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board had an extensive discussion regarding the original options and NRAB's previous recommendation that Council adopt the option prohibiting new structures in the 100-Year Floodplain. Staff noted that any new development, redevelopment, addition or substantial improvement is required by the floodplain regulations to elevate new structures above the 100-Year Floodplain and to meet freeboard (additional 2 feet) requirements. This greatly reduces potential flooding of and damage to the new construction. The current regulations, however, do not address emergency access to and evacuation of these structures for employees, customers, vendors, etc. The intent of the ERPP process is to provide emergency response plans aimed at improving life safety by encouraging evacuation of these structures in advance of potential flooding. NRAB members indicated that more emphasis should be placed on environmental considerations and protection of the natural and beneficial functions of floodplain. Stormwater staff noted that the existing regulation provide protection to the Poudre River by restricting development in the floodway and also, to a lesser degree in the flood fringe. Both Stormwater and Natural Areas staff stated that the regulations in the Land Use Code (especially related to buffer standards) provide the additional protections desired by this community. The proposed Woodward Development of the Link-N-Greens site presented to NRAB earlier in the evening was referenced as an example ofhow the existing floodplain regulations and natural resources buffer regulation can work together to achieve property protection and improve natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain. The NRAB chose not to provide a recommendation on the proposed draft Code language, citing the life safety focus as being outside of its charter. PUBLIC OUTREACH In 2012, Stormwater and PFA staff worked in combination with the Working Committee to further evaluate the AIR process and develop specific life safety criteria. The Working Committee met five times in 2012 and recommended that the development of a scalable AIR regulation be abandoned and that staff develop final Code language to limit flood depths on new fire apparatus (emergency access) roads to six inches and require the preparation and implementation ofEmergency Response and Preparedness Plans (ERRPs) for properties that pursue some type of development or redevelopment. Working Committee At its February 4, 2013 meeting, the Working Committee concurred with the staff proposal to eliminate the six-inch flood depth criteria for emergency access roads and instead modify the ERRP requirements to create a performance -based" life safety. regulation requiring procedures be established for evacuation a minimum oftwo hours in advance of when flood waters will impact the site and/or any portion of the designated evacuation routes. The Working Committee Meeting minutes are provided in Attachment S. In summary, the Working Committee's recommendation to Council are: 1. Discontinue the development of a scalable AIR regulation; and, 451 March 18, 2013 Adopt the proposed draft Code language that requires new construction, additions, substantial improvements, redevelopment or change of occupancy ofstructures within the Poudre River 100 Year Floodplain to develop, obtain approval of, and implement an Emergency Response and Preparedness Plan. Chamber of Commerce On February 8, 2013, the proposed Code language and accompanying ERRPprocess, template and annual checklist were presented to the Chamber of Commerce. Attendees provided varied input and feedback on the process, but in general expressed that the new approach was much preferable to the AIR process that had been under consideration previously. North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) On February 12„ 2013, staffreceived an email (Attachment 6) from the North Fort Collins Business Association (NFCBA) expressing appreciation for the work that has gone into the investigation of potential revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. The NFCBA is in support of the updated approach and identified some concerns/questions to be addressed in finalizing the process: 1. Clarify the potential liabilityfor businesses, individuals that submit ERPP plans; 2. Recommend that the City consider providing training on the ERPP process; 3. Increase clarity on who is responsible.for the ERPP (i.e. building owner, tenant), 4. Provide better information on expected initial / annual costs; 5. Recommend the City develop/offer a grant program for ERPP costs; and, 6. Requested that Council finalize the FP regulation review. Staff will address these issues in the finalization of the Code language and administrative procedures associated with the ERPP process. " Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering Field Operations Manager, stated this Ordinance is one of the final components of the stormwater repurposing effort and is focused on Poudre River floodplain regulations. Ken Sampley, Storrnwater and Floodplain Program Manager, reviewed the regulations governing the Poudre River. Sampley reviewed the public and boards and commissions outreach process. He stated the staff recommendation is to implement a performance -based regulation, which is focused on improving life safety through advanced warning and evacuation. A site specific emergency response and preparedness plan (ERPP) will be required for additions, substantial improvements, change of building code occupancy, redevelopment and/or new development within the 100-year floodplain. Sampley stated the ERPP would be required in conjunction with the development review process and associated floodplain use permit. Staff is also recommending that an additional Code provision be added to Section 10.48 for Second Reading. This provision would recognize sites that will ultimately be removed from the 100-year floodplain and not require ERPPs for those sites. Kevin Jones„ Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce Business Advocacy Coordinator, thanked staff for work on this item. He supported the proposal as being business -friendly and requested regular training and outreach for affected businesses and the inclusion of an indemnification clause to 452 March 18, 2013 address liability for affected businesses. He opposed the Water Board recommendation to prohibit any structures in the 100-year floodplain. Councilmember Kottwitz requested staff input regarding liability questions from the North Fort Collins Business Association. Sampley replied the Plans will be reviewed jointly by Poudre Fire Authority and the City of Fort Collins Stormwater master planning staff. Remodeling does not trigger the ERPP, unless it reaches the level of a cumulative substantial improvement. In terns of liability for the ERPP being out of date, failure to comply with the ERPP requirements would constitute a violation of Chapter 10 and could be a basis for enforcement action by the City; however, educational tactics will be employed. The Code does not contain any language specifically relating to the liability of individuals. Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the ongoing cost of the ERPP. Sampley replied staff estimates the initial cost to be $500-$2,000: Annual costs would include some type of weather monitoring, up to about $1000 per year. Councilmember Manvel noted this does not apply to residential properties and asked if residential properties in the floodplain are allowed to have a major expansion. Sampley replied substantial improvements are not allowed for residential properties in the floodplain. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked about the risk map process. Sampley stated the risk map process with FEMA has just started and will take 3 to 5 years. It will essentially remap the Poudre River floodplain from its confluence with the Platte River all the way to the west of the city. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if it would be possible for the floodplain to increase in size in some places. Sampley replied in the affirmative. CouncilmemberTroxellrequested specifics regarding the ERPP. Sampley replied the cost estimates were received from the engineering consultant who aided in preparing the form. The engineering time would go toward determining whether the property and/or evacuation route would be impacted based on elevation. The elevation models will be provided to engineering consultants by the City. Mayor Weitkunat asked about stream flow gauge data. Sampley replied that data will provide flow information which can be translated into an actual elevation of the river; individual properties can determine when they may be impacted. That data is live on the stormwater web page. Mayor Weitkunat asked why the City would not notify property owners, as it does in other emergencies. Sampley replied the City would notify through LETA if there is imminent flooding danger; however, because each property will be affected slightly differently, staff does not have the capability to individually notify property owners for lower levels of flooding. Councilmember Horak asked if property owners can print the forms from the City's web page. Sampley replied the forms are not yet on the website as Council has not yet adopted the Code language; however, they will be available on the website. Councilmember Horak noted the annual updates would not take an engineering consultant to complete. 453 March 18, 2013 Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 048, 2013, on First Reading. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson discussed the timing of this item and opposed the way the City responds when the business community or another special interest objects versus the way it responds when the public interest or environmental neighborhood groups object. He stated he would not support the motion. Councilmember Manvel stated this is better than nothing, though he understands Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson's points. He requested information as to why residential structures should not have a safety plan in place prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Kottwitz commended staff for work on the item but expressed concern regarding liability issues. She suggested a further examination of those issues in the future. Councilmember Troxell commended staff and stated the City is taking a prudent step for the health and safety of property owners in the floodplain. Councilmember Horak requested information regarding the liability issue. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied the liability issue is not any different than with any other provision in the Code; therefore, the mere fact that something is a violation of the City Code does not turn it into a private cause of action for some party who may want to claim that another party is liable to them. There is no attempt to create private liability in this situation. Councilmember Manvel asked if completing this plan would give a property owner protection from liability. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied it is difficult to predict liability cases; however, in general, it could be argued that the property owner made a reasonable effort to provide safe premises. Councilmember Manvel asked if he has support for staff completing a report on residential properties within the floodplain. He received sufficient support from Councilmembers for that request. Mayor Weitkunat commended the outcome of this item and stated she would support the inclusion of residential areas in all City floodplains. She asked if application of these criteria to all City floodplains has been considered. Sampley replied staff received direction to look only at the Poudre River and there is currently no plan to extend the criteria to other floodplains. Councilmember Manvel encouraged an examination of safety in the other floodplains on a future Council work plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson stated there should be no development in floodplains as they"are important riparian and wildlife movement corridors. Mayor Weitkunat stated life and safety should be of paramount concern as there is already development in the floodplain. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted these regulations'apply only to new structures or additions and asked why the plan is not going to be required retroactively. Sampley 454 March 18, 2013 replied the City cannot retroactively apply the regulations if there is not a condition of approval which would trigger the necessity for a plan. Councilmember Manvel asked if the City could disallow residents from living in the floodplain without a safety plan. Deputy City Attorney Daggett replied staff could work on applying the regulation to existing structures; however, it would be difficult to develop an effective date. Councilmember Manvel clarified he simply wants information regarding the residences, not an inclusion of the issue in the Code language. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Kottwitz, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 046, 2013, Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code to Establish a Disposable Bag Fee. Failed to Pass The following is the staff memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its November 27, 2012 work session, Council requested staff develop an ordinance that woula apply a fee on single -use grocery shopping bags. An ordinance is proposed that establishes a 10- centfee on both plastic bags and paper sacks that are used in the community's grocery (food) stores. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION Like many communities around the country and throughout the world, people in Fort Collins have expressed concerns about shopping bags that are designed to be used once before they are thrown away. At its November 27, 2012 Work Session, City Council reviewed options for decreasing the amount of disposable shopping bags that are used in Fort Collins. In preparation, staff prepared a Triple Bottom Line Analysis ofseveral approaches to reduce single -use bags including education and outreach, a ban, assessing a.fee or tax, and requiring credit or reimbursement when customer brings their own bags. After discussing the information, City Council requested that staffdevelop an ordinance that would apply a fee on single -use grocery shopping bags (Attachment 2). Council also requested that staff continue to increase awareness and outreach regarding plastic bags, and to look for ways to improve the availability of recycling for plastic 'film " bags in Fort Collins. A number of US communities have enacted a fee on plastic and paper bags including: • Washington DC • Basalt, CO • Boulder, CO _ • Montgomery County, MD 455 March 18, 2013 In Fort Collins, negative impacts from single -use bags include the following: Contributing to the volume of discarded material that enters landfills • Climate change: a source of 772 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emitted from Fort Collins • Littering, including in City natural areas and stormwater conveyances • Reduction in value ofsingle-stream recyclables (plastic bags are considered contamination when mixed with single stream items such as paper, cans and bottles) The proposed ordinance assesses a fee to help offset these impacts. Furthermore, community goals and values support action to decrease waste by reducing it at the source, which is expressed in City Plan, Principle ENV 14: The City will apply the US Environmental Protection Agency's integrated "hierarchy" of waste management to help protect all environmental resources, including air, soil, and water, using source reduction as the primary approach, followed in order by: reuse; recycling/composting; energy recovery using emerging pollution free technology; and, landfill disposal (where methane gas capture is employed), as a final resort. Adopting a fee on bags that motivates shoppers to use fewer plastic or paper bags is expected to have the following results: • Encourage source reduction and re -use, the most effective actions that can be taken to manage the waste stream (by bringing a durable carryout bag with them to stores for their purchases, shoppers are practicing both of these important principles) • Serve as a "gateway habit ", reinforcing people's willingness to expand re -use efforts to other products • Increase the Fort Collins community's ability to meet its goal ofdiverting 50%of trash from landfill disposal • Help meet the community's goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions • Meet the public's interest in recovering even more materials that continue to be discarded • Reduce "life -cycle" impacts of single use bags — which include impacts from material extraction to production and disposal ofplastic bag use by transitioning to a bag type that has lower life cycle impacts • Reduce stray litter and pollution in the community, and globally, including plastic bags in trees and waterways Proposed Ordinance Details The proposed Ordinance charges a 10-cent fee on both plastic bags and paper sacks used in the community's grocery (food) stores. Nationwide, grocery stores generate 60% of disposable bags (http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/05152012AgendalAgendaFlNALWeb.pdj). The Ordinance defines grocery stores as retail establishments located in city limits that operate year-round and sell a full line offood stuffs. The definition does not include temporary vendors or vendors for whom food sales represents less than 2% ofgross profit. 456 March 18, 2013 Following trends set in other communities that have adopted bagfees, the proposed ordinance splits the bag fee revenue between the City (60%) and the grocery stores (40%). Money (60% of fee) would be used by the City to pay for activities that include: • provide reusable carryout bags to residents and visitors; • educate residents, businesses, and visitors about the impact ofdisposable bags on the city's environmental health, the importance of reducing the number of single -use carryout bags entering the waste stream, and the expenses associated with mitigating the effects ofsingle- use bags on the city's drainage system, transportation system, wildlife, and environment; • fund programs and infrastructure that allow the Fort Collins community to reduce waste associated with disposable bags; • cover City's costs to collect, manage fees and administer new programs aimed at reducing consumption ofsingle-use bags; and • purchase and install equipment designed to minimize bag pollution, including recycling containers and waste receptacles associated with activities that reduce trash associated with disposable bags; and, mitigate the effects of disposable bags on the city's drainage system, transportation system, wildlife, and environment. Groceries would be able to retain 40% of the disposable bag fees to: • offset new administrative costs; _ • provide educational information and signage about the disposable bag.fee to customers; • train staff in the implementation, collection, and administration of the fee; • collect, account for and remit the fee to the City; develop and display informational signage to inform consumers about the fee, encourage the use of reusable bags, promote recycling of plastic bags; and, improve infrastructure to increase plastic bag recycling; • Sell low-cost reusable bags to customers to use; and • Provide alternative containers for customers who use federal or state food stamps, since these funds may not be applied to the purchase of carry -out bags. The Ordinance under consideration implements the fee starting as early as October 1, 2013. This allows six months following enactment of the Ordinance forgrocery retailers and City staffto make the necessaryfinancial, accounting, and education and outreach preparations. To ensure grocery stores were collecting the !0-cent per bag fee, City sales tax staff will monitor a new remittance that would be submitted by retailers. If a lack of compliance with the Ordinance is suspected, Finance Department auditors will be authorized to conduct an audit, much as they are authorized to conduct sales tax audits of Fort Collins retailers. The Ordinance defines non- compliance by food stores with any provision of the Ordinance as a civil infraction. Anticipated Effectiveness of Fee In 2009, Washington DC was the first municipality in the country to implement a fee (5 cents per bag) on disposable plastic and paper bags. This initiative demonstrated significant reduction in disposable bag use. After the first year, Washingtonians reduced disposable bag use from 270 million in 2009 to about 55 million in 2010, a reduction of 80 percent (Washington Post, "District Businesses Not Harmed by Bag Tax'). The Alice Ferguson Foundation conducted a survey one 457 March 18, 2013 year after implementation of Washington DC's bagfee ordinance to measure public perceptions and effects on businesses (htip:lffergusonfoundation.orglwp-content/uploadsl2012ll2/AFF-DC- Research-Memo-2-15-11.pdf). The survey showed that: 75% of Washington residents reported a reduction in their bag usage a majority of businesses reported that their bag consumption dropped at least 50% 78% of businesses had a neutral or positive response when asked how the bag fee was impacting their business. There are two other compelling examples. of the impact of modest fees on disposable bag use. In 2002, Ireland implemented a 15-Euro-cent tax (approximately 20 US cents) on plastic bags and found that plastic bag consumption decreased 90% in the first year after the policy was enacted (Environment California "Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean "p.14). In 2007, IKEA became the first major retailer in the United States to charge a fee, 5 cents for disposable plastic bags and 59 cents for reusable bags. IKEA has witnessed a 95% drop in disposable plastic bag use at the store (County of Los Angeles, California "An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County" p.43). In Fort Collins, a fee on bags may have the effect ofchangingshoppers' selection at grocery stores for the type of sack they use to hold their purchases, from a single -use plastic or paper bag to a durable carry -out bag that can be used multiple times. Based on experiences in communities around the world, staffestimates reduced consumption ofsingle-use bags by 50% in the first year, as people become accustomed to bringing their own durable bag with them to grocery stores. In the second year another estimated 50% reduction is anticipated and another 50% reduction will occur in the third year. FINANCIAL I ECONOMIC IMPACTS A 10-cent per bag fee in Fort Collins will create a new income stream. A study conducted for the City of Boulder in 2012 put the estimated number of bags affected by a fee on disposable grocery store bags at 145 per capita each year, based on information about bag use from large, medium, and small grocery stores and convenience (food) stores in Boulder. Applying this per capita amount to our population suggests about 22 million disposable bags would be covered by a fee in Fort Collins. A 10-cent/bag fee would create a fund of nearly $1 million in the first full year of implementation. 2014 2015 2016 2013 (Oct -Dec) (50% reduction (50% (50% reduction Budget Year (50% reduction) year-to-year) reduction year-to-year) year-to-year) Estimated # 2.7 million disposable bags 118 of 22 million 9.8 million 5.0 million 2.5 million affected by fee bags used throw hout ear Fees remitted to City (60%of $164,571 $586,188 5298,278 $151,777 e 458 March 18, 2013 2014 2015 2016 Budget Year 2013 (Oct -Dec) (50% reduction (50% (50% reduction (50% reduction) year-to-year) reduction year-to-year) year-to-year) Fees remitted to $109714 $390,792 $198,852 $101,184 grocery stores TOTAL $274,286 $976,980 $497,130 $252,961 Using Boulder's per capita estimate as a proxy for Fort Collins, if each resident were to use 145 disposable bags per year to hold grocery shopping purchases instead of switching to a durable reusable bag, a'10-centlbag.fee would cost each resident $14.50 annually. Grocery stores stand to save money when a fee is imposed on disposable bags because they would no longer have to automatically provide customers with a bag that costs in the range of 2 cents to 5 cents each. Although bag manufacturers and retailers have not been willing to publicize exact numbers, savings may be roughly estimated at several thousands of dollars per month for each of the major grocery stores in Fort Collins. The option forgrocers to begin chargingfor each bag can be seen to represent a market -based solution; customers may either choose to buy the bag or decline it and either go without, or bring their own. Administration of fee collection may add to a grocery store's operating costs, but those additional costs will be offsets by the revenue from the fee. The benefits of having fewer disposable bags to clean up in public areas will save the City money; however, staff was not able to quantify the costs savings to overall litter programs from a reduced number ofdisposable bags. Havingfewer disposable bags will also save money at recycling plants in Denver and will improve their profttability. From the Finance Department's perspective, a new .25 FTE clerklaccountant would be needed to carry out tasks for collecting a fee on grocery sacks, including entering filings from grocery stores as journal entries and copying remittance slips for Finance Department reports, and auditing. Another new .5 FTE environmental education specialistlplanner would be needed to manage the use of the funds and implement new programs on which to spend fee revenues (education and outreach activities, purchase and distribution of durable bags to citizens, enhancement to local recycling opportunities for bags, etc.). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Ordinance restricting disposable bags will have a small but measurable impact on the community's waste stream. According to Brendle Group, a local consulting firm hired by the City to evaluate options for reducing consumption of single -use bags, an estimated 220 tons/year of plastic bags from Fort Collins are sent to landfills for disposal, which represents .2% of the waste stream that Fort Collins sends for landfill disposal. (No data were available for disposable paper bags.) Over a three-year period of October 2013 through 2016, it is estimated that amount of disposable bags used in community Food Stores would be reduced by 60% compared to business as usual, thereby diverting a potential 709 tons of waste (281 tons/year). Both plastic and paper single -use bags cause other types of environmental damage. Plastic is very visibly a problem in maritime states and communities, where a serious consequence of plastic bag pollution is lethal harm to marine life that ingests bags or get tangled in them, and plastic litter can 459 March 18, 2013 float around and wash onto shores. For landlocked Fort Collins, plastic bag litter may disappear with the wind or be broken down by sunlight and weather into smaller pieces. These bits ofplastic are still pollutants, even if they don't resemble the bags they started off as; it is likely that studies understate the environmental issues and magnitude of problems caused by plastic particulates. On the other hand critics of restrictions on bags will point out that replacement bags, such as cotton fabric bags, create their own carbon footprint and may not be environmentally sustainable because of reliance on fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. While plastic 'film " bags and paper shopping bags are both recyclable, there is insufficient data on bagconsumption and recycling quantities to estimate their current recycling rate in Fort Collins. There are at least 19 sites where plastic bags are accepted for recycling, including all grocery stores in town. Paper bags are recyclable at public drop-off locations as well as in the single - stream recycling offered in curbside collection programs throughout Fort Collins. The new tons of avoided bag usage per year that are estimated to occur from passage of the Ordinance will reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 772 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent/year, compared to business as usual. SOCIAL IMPACT In October, 2012, the City contracted a consultingfirm, Brendle Group, to conduct a triple bottom line evaluation ofpolicy choices available to the City for restricting carry -out bags in Fort Collins. The report(http://www.fczov.com/recvclin"/pdf/triple-bottom-line-evaluation-plastic-baz policy- options-10-2012.pdP1351696764) describes a number of social impacts to the community that would result from establishing fees on carry -out bags. Among the positive social impacts are: • Taking action against the use of disposable bags represents progressive environmental sustainability, contributing to the perception of Fort Collins as a sustainable community • Using reusable bags is a relatively easy and low-cost practice for consumers to adopt and may lead to other choices to counteract a disposable, throw -away culture of consumerism • Alternatives to single -use bags are readily available and relatively easy to use • Several grocers in Fort Collins have adopted similar policies voluntarily without noticing fewer numbers of customers • When compared to an outright ban on bags, a fee can be seen to retain shoppers' choice; those who choose single -use bags can pay for them while shoppers who decline to use a bag or bring their own bag do not pay the fee • Fewer disposable bags will reduce stray litter, such as bags caught in trees or floating in waterways, and improve the community's aesthetics. Some of the "cons " of establishing a fee on disposable bags include: Regulating consumer choice Less availability of single -use bags for common second uses such as trash can lining and picking up pet waste Seen as a regressive measure that may affect low-income populations in a negative way M1 March 18, 2013 • May drive grocery shoppers to out-of-town stores (not enough evidence to support or deny this point; would work best for neighboring communities to implement fees at the same time to avoid this concern) • Lack of national Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation means costs and responsibilities fall to local agencies to createlenforce restrictions on disposables such as carry -out bags; shifts the burden of litter and pollution cleanup from the polluting industry onto the consumer of the bags PUBLIC OUTREACH During fall of 2012, meetings were held with members of the trash/recycling hauling industry, Chamber of Commerce members and staff, and a variety of City staff to discuss alternatives to reduce single use shopping bags, including the implications ofa fee on disposable bags. Newspaper articles and columns, television bulletins, and spotlights oil City webpages and utility bill inserts were published, and a public Open House was conducted on November 8, 2012, to introduce proposals to the community. Several representatives from the grocery industry attended the Open House. Comments from citizens and from specially affected interests were reported during a work session with the City Council on November 27. Letters have been sent on three occasions over the pastfour months (November 5, 2012 and January 18 and February 21, 2013) to grocery store headquarter offices to keep them informed of the City of Fort Collins' interest in limiting the use of disposable bags. " Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner, stated staff is making a recommendation to charge a $0.10 fee on the use of plastic and paper bags in the city's grocery stores. The use of reusable shopping bags will increase the community goal to divert trash from landfills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and will reduce the amount of litter an pollution in our community and globally. Washing reusable bags will greatly reduce the potential for food Gordon stated staff is proposing a split of the fee proceeds, with 60% going to the City for education and outreach, and to cover the City's administrative costs. The remaining 40% would be retained by the grocery stores to offset their new administrative costs of collecting the money and remitting it to the City. Stores would also be tasked with providing educational information and signage, as well as employee training. Gordon detailed projected proceeds and stated the fee would go into effect October 1, 2013, if the Ordinance is adopted. Ross Cunniff, 2267 Clydesdale, supported the Ordinance as a minimum step in the right direction. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if this would apply to the smaller bags used for vegetables or meat. Gordon replied in the negative and stated there are sanitation and weight issues which necessitate those bags. Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the other cities cited as having a bag fee have voted on those fees. Gordon replied she was uncertain, but believed most of the fees were put in place by city leaders. Councilmember Kottwitz asked what type of effect these laws have had in other cities. Gordon replied Washington D.C. has seen an 80-90%reduction and other cities have seen roughly the same amount of reduction. Erin March 18, 2013 Councilmember Kottwitz requested clarification as to whether or not some of the e. coli bacteria are harmful and some are not. Councilmember Kottwitz asked where the proceeds would be allocated, once the part-time employees and program implementation costs are complete, particularly in 2014. Gordon replied the funds would go toward communication, education and outreach. Additionally, some of those funds would go toward augmenting litter collection. Councilmember Kottwitz asked about the staff recommendation. City Manager Atteberry replied there are some staff concerns regarding whether or not this item needs additional time to process; however, Council has directed staff to proceed forward for this meeting. . Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked what would be done with additional time and why staff recommended approval. Gordon replied the typical public involvement activities could have been more in-depth. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson questioned why supermarkets have not weighed in on the issue. Gordon stated the grocery industry's lobbyist was in attendance at the previous Council meeting when this item was initially scheduled. She stated the grocers are not surprised by this potential move as it has occurred in many other municipalities with little negative effect. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson's question regarding the staff recommendation for approval, Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer, stated staff has questioned whether or not enough public outreach had been completed; however, staff does support the fee, subject to further information regarding bacteria, and noted the Climate Action Plan implementation will be aided by this item. City Manager Atteberry stated staff should have included some information regarding concerns about the process. Councilmember Troxell asked about the energy content of a plastic or paper bag. Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director, replied the energy and water used to produce paper bags is typically more than for plastic. She stated both types of bags have embodied energy and can therefore be considered a resource. Councilmember Troxell asked how much consumers currently pay for bags. Gordon replied stores do presumably pass the $0.02 to $0.05 charge per bag on to the customer. Councilmember Troxell opposed the singling out of this one item to reduce the waste stream. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 046, 2013, on First Reading. . Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson opposed the City's public process related to environmental issues. He stated the e. coli rumors were debunked by health officials. Councilmember Kottwitz stated the Climate Action Plan implementation is a goal of the City and noted there should be additional consumer education related to the fact that paper bags are worse for the environment than plastic bags. She supported the "reverse tax" of rewarding customers for 462 March 18, 2013 bringing in their own bags and supported plastic bag recycling at grocery stores. Kottwitz supported allowing citizens to vote on the issue, as it could be considered a tax. Councilmember Troxell supported a more comprehensive sustainability effort. Councilmember Horak stated this is a fee, not a tax, as the proceeds will be going to specific purposes related to the fee. He suggested agenda items should be tied to at least one of the seven outcome areas for the City. Councilmember Manvel stated he would support the motion as it is part of the direction the City has set for itself to have positive impacts on the climate. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted Whole Foods does not charge for a bag and stated regulations exist to place everyone on a level playing field. Mayor Weitkunat cited examples of Fort Collins citizens responding on other environmental issues, such as recycling. She stated the Climate Action Plan can be achieved through education rather than fees. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Ohlson, Manvel and Horak. Nays: Weitkunat, Troxell and Kottwitz. THE MOTION FAILED. Other Business Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if there is any support for the removal of the barrier between Council and chambers. Councilmember Horak agreed. Councilmember Kottwitz suggested the future Council should make the decision. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. ATTEST: City Clerk Adiournment 463