Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/2010 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilMayor Ben White Mayor Pro Tem Dave Ruesink City Manager Glenn Brown Councilmembers John Crompton James Massey Dennis Maloney Katy-Marie Lyles Lawrence Stewart Agenda College Station City Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, January 28,2010 3:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda. 2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of College Station's 75th Anniversary Celebration events. 3. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a possible amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance regarding the regulation of portable storage units. 4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the implementation of the strong and sustainable neighborhoods program including enhanced development services, enhanced neighborhood services, and enhanced code enforcement. 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a non-voting student representative on the City Council. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the City's role in the hosting and promotion of special community events. 7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a multifamily and commercial recycling feasibility study. This feasibility study evaluates the technical and financial feasibility of an expansion strategy for recycling services to multifamily and commercial solid waste customers in College Station. 8. Council Calendar January 29 the State of the Research Valley Luncheon at Miramont Country Club, 11 :30 a.m. January 29 CSISD Education Foundation "50 Men who can Cook" at Brazos County Expo, 6:30 p.m. February 1 2010 Citizens University ITIUtility Billing/Municipal Court, 5:30 p.m. February 8 2010 Citizens University at Fire Department. 5:30 p.m. February 11 Council WorkshopIRegular Meeting in Council Chambers, 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. 9. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Council Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the Page 12 City Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, January 28,2010 recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Arts Council of the Brazos Valley, Audit Committee, Brazos County Health Dept., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Brazos Valley Wide Area Communications Task Force, Cemetery Committee, Code Review Committee, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee, Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Committee, Metropolitan Planning Organization, National League of Cities, Outside Agency Funding Review, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister City Association, TAMU Student Senate, Research Valley Partnership, Regional Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Texas Municipal League, Transportation Committee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Wolf Pen Creek TIF Board, Zoning Board of Adjustments, BVSWMA, Signature Event Task Force, (Notice of Agendas posted on City Hall bulletin board). 1 1. Executive Session will immediately follow the workshop meeting in the Administrative Conference Room. Consultation with Attorney {Gov't Code Section 55 1.071 1; possible action. The City Council may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the City Council may need information from its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed: a. Application with TCEQ for permits in WestsideIHighway 60 area, near Brushy Water Supply Corporation b. Sewer CCN permit requests for Brushy & Wellborn Services Areas c. Water CCN permit requests for Brushy & Wellborn Services Areas d. Bed & Banks Water Rights Discharge Permits for College Station and Bryan e. Legal aspects of Water Well, permits and possible purchase of or lease of water well sites f. Cliff A. Skiles, DVM & C.A. Skiles Family Partnership, Ltd. Water permit applications with the Brazos Valley Groundwater Conservation District g. TMPA v. PUC (College Station filed Intervention) h. City of Bryan suit filed against College Station, Legal issues and advise on Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency contract, on proposed methane gas contract 1. Update on legal proceedings for Grimes County Landfill site and contracts for development of Grimes County site j. Weingarten Realty Investors v. College Station, Ron Silvia, David Ruesink, Lynn Mcllhaney, and Ben White k. Chavers et a1 v. Tyrone Morrows, Michael Ikner, City of Bryan, City of College Station, et a1 1. Rogers Sheridan v. Barbara Schob & Greg Abbott m. Clancey v. College Station, Glenn Brown, and Kathy Meirill n. Verizon v. City of College Station Personnel {Gov't Code Section 55 1.074); possible action Page 13 City Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, January 28,20 1 0 The City Council may deliberate the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a public officer. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following public officer(s) may be discussed: a. Mayor & Council Self Evaluation Economic Incentive Negotiations (Gov't Code Section 55 1.087); possible action The City Council may deliberate on commercial or financial information that the City Council has received from a business prospect that the City Council seeks to have locate, stay or expand in or near the city with which the City Council in conducting economic development negotiations may deliberate on an offer of financial or other incentives for a business prospect. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed: a. Proposed Area Bio-Technology Corridor 12. Action on executive session, or any workshop agenda item not completed or discussed in today's workshop meeting may be discussed in tonight's Regular Meeting if necessary. 13. Adjourn. APPROVED: City Manager Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the City Council of the City of College Station, Texas will be held on the 28th day of January, 2010 at 3:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda Posted this 25'h day of January, 2010 at 2:00 pm E-Slgnd by Con$n!e woks <@ JERIFY authentlc~ty w~tA ApproveIt ,; . .. "7, "-iT$;&-;I - -- . - -" "" -- -> City Secretary I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Governing Body of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website, www.cstx.gov . The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on January 25, 2010 at 2:00 pm and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours proceeding the scheduled time of said meeting. This public notice was removed from the official board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time: by Dated this day of ,2010. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS BY Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of , Page 14 City Council Workshop Meeting Thursday, January 28,20 1 0 Notary Public - Brazos County, Texas My commission expires: This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-500-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on ,w,w.w,c~,~go.v. Council meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. January 28, 2010 Workshop Agenda Item No. 2 College Station's 75th Anniversary Celebration To : Glenn Brown, City Manager From: David Schmitz, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation Department Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of College Station's 75th Anniversary Celebration events. Recommendation(s): Earl Apgar, Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) and staff will report on and discuss the plans for the 75th Anniversary of College Station, and seek Council direction. Summary: The City of College Station was incorporated by a vote of the local residents on October 19, 1938. The Historic Preservation Committee and city staff have begun planning activities to celebrate this special anniversary. The City celebrated its 5oth anniversary in 1988 with the release of a book, video, and community events. The HPC is looking to build on those projects and create energy to propel us into the future. Budget & Financial Summary: To be determined for FY 2011-14. Attachments: None January 28, 2010 Workshop Agenda Item No. 3 Unified Development Ordinance Amendment - Portable Storage Units To : Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a possible amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance regarding the regulation of portable storage units. Recommendation(s): Provide direction to staff regarding amendment of the UDO regarding the regulation of portable storage units. Summary: Staff was recently approached by a representative from the company PODS - Portable on Demand Storage requesting consideration of an amendment to the LIDO regarding regulation of portable storage units. Specifically, the request was that units which are to be stored on site for a short period (less than 14 days) be exempt from the requirement to secure a building permit (and associated permit fees - $40). Current requirements permit portable storage units without a separate permit or fee when used in combination with work requiring a building permit (new construction, major remodeling, etc). Units placed on a site for these reasons are allowed to remain on site for the duration of the project. The majority of units placed in the City are placed under this provision of the UDO. Other temporary placement of units require the issuance of a permit and payment of the permit fee ($40) and are limited to a single 28-day storage period upon which time the unit must be removed from the site. Units that are intended to be permanent are only permitted in non-residential areas, require a site plan, and must meet all development requirements (buffering, building requirements, etc) normally associated with a permanent building. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Excerpt from the UDO E. Portable Storage Structures 1. General Provisions a. A permit shall be obtained prior to placing a storage container on property. b. Exemptions: 1) Property with an active building or development permit. 2) Property zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, though M-2 districts that abut residential districts or uses shall comply with 1.c of this Section. 3) Sites in which storage containers constitute a principal use, as determined by the Administrator, shall be subject to the regulations of the district in which they are located. 4) Containers that receive site plan approval as per 3.b, Development of a Permanent Storage Container Area, of this Section. c. Placing material on top of, or the vertical stacking of, storage containers is prohibited. d. Permits shall be posted on the storage container. If a container is replaced by another during the permit period, the permit shall be removed and placed on the newly placed container. If the container is visible from a right-of-way, then the permit shall be posted in view of the right-of-way. e. Storage containers shall be placed outside of right-of-way and the sight triangle as established in Section 7.1.C, Visibility at Intersections in all Districts. f. Storage containers shall be places on an improved surface as specified in Section 7.2.G, Off-Street Parking Standards, Surfacing. g. In the event of a natural disaster of extenuating circumstance, the Administrator may grant that a permit be extended up to thirty (30) additional days. h. An application for permit of a storage container shall be accompanied by a fee of $40.00. 2. Additional Provision for Residential Property a. No more than one (1) storage container shall be allowed at a time per dwelling unit. b. A permit shall remain valid for a maximum of twenty-eight (28) days. c. No more than four (4) permits may be issued to a dwelling unit per calendar year and there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) days between issuance of permits. d. No storage container shall exceed a height of eight feet (8'), a width of eight feet (87, or a floor area of 130 square feet. e. Storage containers may be screened from view of the right-of-way and adjacent properties instead of being placed on an improved surface. 3. Additional Provisions for Non-Residential Property a. Temporary Placement 1) Each address shall be allowed one (1) storage container. Additional storage containers are permissible provided that all containers do not utilize the area of more than five percent (5%) of the existing parking spaces, or sixteen (16) Article 6. Use Regulations Section 6.4 Accessory Uses 6-22 Unified Development Ordinance 12/22/09 City of College Station, Texas spaces, whichever is smaller. 2) Storage container(s) shall not be allowed more than three (3) separate time periods per calendar year and there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) days between the issuance of permits. 3) A permit shall remain valid for a maximum of forty-five (45) days. If multiple permits are allowed, as per 3.a.l above, all containers must be removed within forty-five (45) days of the date of the initial permit is issued. 4) Storage containers shall not be placed in the front yard of a site, adjacent to right-of-way, or interfere with on-site traffic flow. If rear or side yard placement is not possible, the alternate location shall be approved by the Administrator. 5) Storage containers shall meet required setbacks as stated in Section 5.4, Non-Residential Dimensional Standards. b. Development of a Permanent Storage Container Area 1) In lieu of a permit, site plan approval identifying the location of an area to be used for the placement of storage container(s) for an indefinite period shall be obtained prior to placing container(s) on property. 2) Storage container(s) shall be screened from view of right-of-way and adjacent properties by landscaping and an eight-foot (8') wooden fence or wall. 3) Additional parking shall be provided based on the square footage of the screened area for the container(s) according to Section 7.2, Off Street Parking Standards January 28, 2010 Workshop Agenda Item No. 4 Update on Implementation of Strong and Sustainable Neighborhoods Program To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Bob Cowell, AICP, Director of Planning & Development Services Agendacaption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on the implementation of the strong and sustainable neighborhoods program including enhanced development services, enhanced neighborhood services, and enhanced code enforcement. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the Council provide direction on implementation efforts regarding the program. Summary: In the winter of 2007 and the spring of 2008 staff worked with stakeholders representing the neighborhoods, TAMU students, TAMU Administration, property managers, and others to develop a comprehensive approach to developing and maintaining strong and sustainable neighborhoods. This effort culminated in a report entitled "Strong and Sustainable IVeighborhoods: An Action Plan for Neighborhood Integrity". This report outlined four strategies to address the issues identified. Each of these strategies had a series of actions that would result in implementation of the plan. In the spring of 2008 the City Council accepted the report and directed staff to proceed with its recommendations. The purpose of this workshop item is to update Council on the actions taken to date and to further discuss the implementation of this program. Budget & Financial Summary: IV/A Attachments: IV/A Home of Texas A&M University January 28, 2010 Workshop Agenda Item No. 5 Non-Voting Student City Council Representative To: Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Hayden Migl, Assistant to the City Manager Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a non-voting student representative on the City Council. Summary: A bill was passed by the Student Senate on October 21, 2009 requesting that the City Council create a non-voting student representative on the Council in order to represent the opinions of the students of Texas A&M University. Texas A&M Student Government representatives will be present to explain the bill that was passed, have discussion about the intention of this position, and receive Council direction. This is not a new concept in College Station. There have been students in years past who served as semi-permanent liaisons to the Council, but this bill is meant to memorialize this position for both the students and Council. Budget & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Texas A&M University IVon-Voting Student City Council Representative Bill The Student Senate 62nd Session Texas A&M University Senate Bill S.B. 09 (F) 05 Introduced By: Daniel W. Dick Action Taken Certified By: Michele Renee Breaux Speaker of the Senate Duly Approved: Kolin Loveless Student Body President Texas A&M University Non-Voting Student City Council Representative Bill "A bill requesting the creation of a non-voting student seat on the College Station City Council to represent the opinions of the students of Texas A&M University. " Whereas(1): College Station was a city created due to the growth of what was then Texas A&M College and has seen tremendous growth as a result of the increased size of Texas A&M University; and, Whereas(2): It is imperative that the students of Texas A&M University have a say in the city of College Station because they represent such a large percentage of the population; and, Whereas(3): Unlike the cities of Austin, Lubbock, and Waco the students who are registered in College Station do not have a seat in the City Council; and, Whereas(4): The afore mentioned cities all possess a smaller percentage of total population represented by the respective student bodies and cannot claim the intertwined history that Texas A&M University and the city of College Station can boast, yet all have larger student participation in the civic activities of communities. Whereas(5): A non-voting student seat on the College Station City Council will allow students to participate in city issues and have a direct voice within the City Council Chamber; and, Whereas(6): By doing so the city of College Station will encourage civic participation of the students and discourage apathy in what is going on within their community. Senate Act S.B. 09 (F) xx - Page 2 Further Certified By: Michele Breaux Speaker of the Senate Therefore Let it be Enacted(1): Let it be Further Enacted(2): Let it be Further Enacted(3): On behalf of the Student Body of Texas A&M University, the Texas A&M University Student Government Association formally requests a non-voting seat on the College Station City Council; and, The Students of Texas A&M University hereby commit themselves to working with the College Station City Council on local issues to promote a thriving relationship between students and the permanent citizens of College Station and to ensure the continuing growth and prosperity of this great city; and, That a copy of this bill be presented to each of the College Station City Council members within five (5) business days after passage. January 28, 2010 Workshop Agenda Item No. 6 Special Community Events and the Role of the City To : Glenn Brown, City Manager From: David Gwin, Director of Economic and Community Development Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion of the City's role in the hosting and promotion of special community events. Recommendation(s): Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation and provide any input or direction in this regard. Summary: Staff will provide the Council with a presentation highlighting the success of several recent special events and discuss the City's future participation and/or role in such community events. Budget & Financial Summary: Potential financial implications will be discussed during the presentation and direction in this regard will be sought. Attachments: None C:\Documents and Settings\tmcnutt\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\03HS2WEX\Coversheet[l ].doc January 28,2010 Workshop Agenda Item No. 7 Multifamily and Commercial Recycling Feasibility Study To : Glenn Brown, City Manager From: Mark Smith, Director of Public Works Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a multifamily and commercial recycling feasibility study. This feasibility study evaluates the technical and financial feasibility of an expansion strategy for recycling services to multifamily and commercial solid waste customers in College Station. Recommendation(s): After consideration and discussion regarding the study, staff respectfully requests Council direction on the implementation of a long-term recycling service expansion strategy. Staff is recommending the development of a service level adjustment for a recycling drop off center during the FY 2011 budget process. Summary: Currently there are no recycling programs available to over 17,000 multifamily apartment units and over 1,000 commerical businesses in College Station. These sectors have only two options, either throw away their recyclables or transport them to the City of Bryan Drop-off Center. Expanding services to these customers would provide a more convenient method in diverting recyclable materials from the landfill. Over the past several years, the sanitation division has received numerous requests from College Station multifamily residents and businesses that want to recycle expressing concerns for the lack of recycling options that are available in the City. The feasibility study was conducted by sanitation division staff. During the study, the division examined the best practices of Austin, TX; Waco, TX; Boulder, CO; Norman, OK; Lincoln, NE; Killeen, TX; and Pearland, TX. Budget & Financial Summary: An expansion of services to multifamily and commercial customers may require a future sanitation rate increase. The minimum annual operating costs for a drop off center, including a 10 year amortization of capital costs will be $183,850. Applying the additional operating costs to occupied multifamily units will result in a $1.01 increase to the current $6.75 monthly sanitation fee assessed to each unit, or $7.76. The increase could be reduced if the additional fee was also applied to commercial customers. Attachments: 1. Multifamily and Commercial Recycling Feasibility Study Feasibilitv Report Multi-Familv& Commercial Recvclinc! Studv I. Introduction This Feasibility Study evaluates the technical and financial feasibility of implementing a multi-family and commercial recycling service in College Station. The purpose of this study is to evaluate multi-family and commercial business recycling as an alternative to conventional waste disposal. While all single family homes, duplexes, and some four-plexus currently receive curbside recycling services, recent and future growth of 'the City of College Station will give rise to increased multi-family residences and increased demands for recycling options. The environmental image of the City will be negatively affected without the availability of these alternatives. As such, it is necessary to explore and evaluate any and all viable waste disposal options, including multi-family and commercial business recycling. II. Background The City of College Station has been a leader in environmental excellence for many years. College Station, like many other municipalities across the nation implemented a recycling program to allow its citizens an alternative to conventional waste disposal methods. Since the inception of the curbside recycling program in 1990, over 17,000 tons have been diverted from the landfill and numerous environmental awards have been received. The national and state awards won by the College Station recycling program speak for themselves as do the exceptional commitment to environmental excellence and awareness; the birth of the curbside recycling program was just the beginning. Today, the curbside recycling program serves approximately 18,000 single-family homes and this number continues to grow each year; we service about 65-70% of these homes. There are currently 17,798 multi-family units in College Station. Assuming an 85% occupancy rate, College Station has approximately 15,128 households that have no recycling options. There are also more than 1000 businesses operating in College Station that have no recycling options. The population living in single and multi-family units will continue to rise as the College Station community grows and prospers. In order for College Station to maintain its dynamic, award winning environmental program, one challenge must be faced- a multi-family and commercial recycling program. Feasibility Report Multi-Family& Commercial Recycling Studv Ill. Objectives In order for a recycling program to be a success, many objectives must be satisfied. The lack of commercial business and multi-family options in College Station must be addressed. A significant portion of the population has no access to recycling. These sectors have only two options, either throw away their recyclables or transport them to the City of Bryan Drop-off Center. Many College Station multi-family residents and businesses that want to recycle have expressed concerns for the lack of recycling options that are available. A recent survey shows that out of more than 200 multi-family residents 87% would use a conveniently located drop off center. The program that is initiated must be cost effective. One concern we must face is whether adding commercial business and multi-family recycling to the current waste-management system will increase the overall cost of the system over the long term. The answer, in large part, depends on the design and maturity of the recycling program and the rate of participation within the community. The current standard of service in the curbside recycling program must be maintained. Multi-family residents and commercial businesses should receive that standard as well. In addition, the service level that is selected and implemented should be dynamic so that it can meet the needs of College Station's residents and businesses for many years to come. Providing a recycling service to multi-family units and commercial businesses will allow more options than just conventional waste disposal and will allow the recycling program to expand to its full potential. IV. Success Factors A pilot apartment recycling study was performed in 2001. According to this study, many factors contribute to the success of a multi-family program. In order for multi-family recycling to become established, these factors must be satisfied: Apartment owners or managers need to support the program. This could be accomplished with a voluntary "Green Apartment" Certification Program or, in the future, through financial incentive. Changing from the current unit rate to a variable commercial rate would make recycling financially attractive to apartment managers, as they would save money through recycling. This change in billing from residential Feasibilitv Report Multi-Familv& Commercial Recvcling Study to commercial must be implemented in order to ensure the success of the recycling program A high participation rate. Education on the benefits of recycling is the single most important variable influencing participation. A large-scale education program would be essential for success. Ease of participation. This largely depends on the type of program that is chosen because some programs are inherently easier to participate in. A comprehensive program making administration and recovery more efficient increases success. A Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) would provide the type of uniformity and participation that could make a good program great. A MRF is a facility that allows for the sorting, separation, and storage of recyclables. This would allow recyclables to be commingled, which could increase participation rates throughout the program. As the materials are sorted at the facility, contamination is virtually eliminated. The number of waste streams can be cut from the current five (aluminum, plastic, glass, paper, garbage) to only two (recyclables and garbage). A NlRF provides convenience for residents, and addresses all of the success factors mentioned above. In addition, recyclables would be sold to help offset the costs, and both single and multi-family recycling could be completed at the same location. If placed at the landfill, as a regional facility, the facility and its costs could be shared with BVSWMA, The City of College Station, and The City of Bryan. V. Approaches Several service approaches will be discussed and include the following: a drop-off center, curbside pickup, and an on-site container for recycling. In analyzing the approaches we will consider the following questions, 1.) Life cycle of the program, time to implementation, and ability to accommodate the growth of the city; 2.) Financial feasibility, estimate of costs, materials needed, personnel present, contract labor, ability to use existing resources, funding; 3.) Negative impacts, increased fees, taxes and workload; 4.) Estimated benefits, cost savings, contented residents. Feasibilitv Report Multi-Familv& Commercial Recvcling Study 1. Drop-off Center The location of the center is important in determining the feasibility of this option. If it can be placed on city property, implementation would be rapid. A drop-off center would have the ability to grow and expand as the city grows, and would produce revenue that will help alleviate some of the costs incurred. Associated costs are land, building, equipment, and personnel (See attachment 1 for breakdown of costs). Cardboard could be collected at the drop-off, a commodity that College Station residents currently throw away or take to the Bryan Drop-off center. In fact, cardboard has the potential to be a source of increased revenue for the city. The advantages of a drop-off center are that it will meet the needs of all residents in the area, including current curbside residents, and might appeal to those that are eligible to participate in curbside recycling, but do not. It would be controlled by the city and can be run exactly as the city sees fit. In addition, due to the sorting of materials as they come in, there is almost no contamination of recyclables. Possible negative impacts are mainly aesthetic, which could occur if the area is not kept neat, clean, and professional. Disadvantages include the cost of possible land acquisition and the storage and selling of materials. However, staff has been approached by retail shopping centers about the possibility of locating a center in parking areas as an extra convenience for retail patrons. Minimum annual operating costs for a drop off center, including a 10 year amortization of capital costs will be $183,850. Applying the additional operating costs to occupied multifamily units will result in a $1.01 increase to the current $6.75 monthly sanitation fee assessed to each unit, or $7.76. The increase could be reduced if the additional fee was also applied to commercial customers. 2. Curbside Collection (containers) An on-site container for recycling would place a container for recycling at every complex. This approach would allow for a relatively short implementation period. Also, this type of service would be able to accommodate growth as new containers are needed, but more routes and pickups would have to be scheduled. Costs will include 30 yard containers for each complex (approximately 120 complexes, some complexes will require two-three) and labor costs. The cost per container would be $7,695 plus a cost Feasibilitv Report Multi-Familv& Commercial Recvclina Study of $100-300 (estimation) per pickup. The initial cost for the containers would be approximately determined by number of apartments willing to participate (See attachment 2 for breakdown of costs). An important aspect of this approach would be that it remains voluntary. By forcing a complex to recycle you create a rift between the management and the city. A "Green Apartment" certification program would offer some prestige and an additional marketing aspect to offer potential residents. Apartments would recycle to keep pace with neighboring complexes. Since this would be management oriented and voluntary, it ensures the complete support of the management in helping the program succeed. The advantages are that the container is on site and easy for the residents to participate. The disadvantages are that apartments control the process and that programs might differ from complex to complex. From past experiences there is a high contamination rate for this type of program, and containers might not be able to be placed where they would be most effective. This would negatively influence the longevity of this approach, because if it were not effective, it would not be continued. Minimum annual operating costs for curbside collection assuming participation in 100 complexes, including a 10 year amortization of capital costs will be $350,000. Applying the additional operating costs to occupied multifamily units will result in a $1.93 increase to the current $6.75 monthly sanitation fee assessed to each unit, or $8.68. VI. Solution Analysis The multi-family pilot program utilized an on-site container for recycling at three apartment complexes. The pilot program began on February 1, 2001 and ended on February 1, 2002. This time frame was chosen so that both spring and fall semesters at Texas A&M University could be analyzed. The time frame chosen also allowed us to see the effects of students moving out in May, and moving in during August, as well as summer, when the percentage of permanent residents falls. This time span demonstrated the ability of the program to achieve the goals that are necessary to warrant continuance. There were three options considered for the onsite program. First was using 90-gallon containers that are management assisted and are serviced by Texas Commercial Waste. Second was a 30-yard roll-off container that is sectioned off to hold accepted commodities. College Station would be responsible for emptying, sorting, and storing the recyclables. Third, a Request Feasibilitv Report Multi-Familv& Commercial Recvclinn Studv for Proposal (RFP) was sent out for a contractor to service the containers. College Station would be responsible for education to residents only. The pilot proved to be very unsuccessful due to very high contamination, lack of participation, and high disposal fees due to the overwhelming amount of contamination. (Contamination - anything other than the accepted recyclable materials available for recycling in that area.) VII. Conclusion Looking back over the objectives and the factors for success, there are several points that stand out. First, apartment managers and commercial businesses must support the program. Unless the billing is changed from a unit rate to a variable commercial rate offering a financial incentive to the apartment manager, the programs must be voluntary. Voluntary enrollment provides a solid foundation to the program, because the participating complexes and businesses want the program to succeed as well. This would allow for the program to be streamlined and not waste time and effort on those that are not interested in providing recycling. In conclusion, the challenge of providing multi-family and commercial recycling is one that has no easy answer, however it is a challenge that the City needs to address. While no obvious solution exists, the approaches considered in this study provide the opportunity and information necessary for further direction. While a full city-wide conversion to automated single stream recycling collection would be the most efficient and highest cost-benefit outcome for collections, it will require complex multi-entity cooperation and is at least several, possibly five, years away from a potential implementation start date. Curbside collections will be expensive and have the potential to fail due to contamination issues. The staff recommendation is that the City move forward at least as a temporary measure until single stream collection is a possibility, with a manned drop off recycling center. Staff further recommends that the City pursue a public private partnership to locate the center at a retail shopping center in order to minimize capital costs for land acquisition. Feasibility Report Multi-Familv& Commercial Recvclinp Study Attachment 1 Proposed Project: Manned Drop Off Recycling Center 1 Building I $50,000 1 100 x 50 Ft. Steel Building 1 Land Acquisition 1 Bailer $151000 ( Vehicles 1 $30,000 Forklift 1 $30,000 Truck 1 $5,000 Trailer I If no City Property Available s75.000 I Building amenities should include: A/C & heat, full bathroom, phone, computer I Minimum 10,000 sq. ft. I Salaries I ( ~ull-time, with benefit; I Customer Service (5) ( $31,200 I Junction 505 Employees 1 1 Intern (1) 1 $8,160 I Part-time I ( Operating Budget I ( Initial Costs 1 Est. Annual Operation Budget Collections Contract I Capital Investment w/ Land 1 $215,000 1 Salaries $84,360 $53,000 $25,000 I 1 Annual Operating Supplies ) $78,000 Without salaries Total Annual Operating Budget $162,360 Feasi bilitv Report Multi-Familv& Commercial Recvcling Studv 1 :Commodity Based Costs 1 - 1 Annual Revenues I ~oiavailable Collection Contract 1 Revenue Per Commodity I $25,00O/annually for roll-off rental and collection of materials 1 Brown Glass 1 4.03 per lb. Annual Tonnage 1 1100 tons 1 Clear Glass 1 ~5.03 per lb. 1 Participation 1 Green Glass Aluminum 1 Regular Traffic Does not accept $.I5 per Ib. 1 100-125 cars per day * Based on City of Bryan Drive-In Recycling Center for 2009 The Bryan Drive-In Recycling Center located at the Super Wal-Mart is 100x50 feet with a 7-foot privacy fence around the parameter. They currently have an 8x10 building within the fence that has a window A/C & heating unit and a separate portable restroom. The plan to increase the building size ti, 10x16 and establish full bathroom facilities has been approved. Hours of Operation The Drive-In center is open seven days a week. Their current hours of operation are: Monday-Friday loam-6pm Saturday 9am-6pm Sunday 12pm-6pm Based on their service, they suggest having an early day, where the center would open at 8am or earlier. They do report a minimal amount of materials left outside the facilities fence after business hours. They are closed on City of Bryan holidays, but the Drive-In Coordinator or an employee he designates periodically removes any materials left by residents on these holidays in order to maintain the facilities appearance. Employees The Drive-In coordinator works Monday-Friday. Junction 505 employees work Monday-Thursday and Route Managers work at the center on Friday. Junction 505 employees do no work on weekends, so city employees from the Solid Waste Department work these shifts. Six employees is the optimum number of staff per shift. Containers The Drive-in Center uses containers designed by TCW specifically for their center. They have three modified roll-off containers that each have 3 square or round openings (depending on what it's used for) with plastic lids that lift vertically to open. They suggest having lids that slide horizontally to reduce the incident of lids closing while filling container. These containers are Feasibility Report Multi-Familv& Commercial Recvcling Study used for newspaperfmagazines, clear/brown glass and aluminum/steel cans. There is a dumpster on-site for green glass and a baler for cardboard. The Center notifies TCW 24 hours prior to needing a pick up and has these containers emptied. The Drive-In Coordinator hauls plastic, approximately 30 bags every two days, to TCW. The aluminum/steel and newspaperfmagazine container is emptied twice a week and the glass containers once a week. The center also accepts plastic grocery bags, which it gives to Wal-Mart for recycling. Since materials often arrive co-mingled, there is a sorting table with approximately 8-inch walls and a screen bottom to separate materials. Attachment 2 Proposed Project: Curbside Collection for Multi-family and Commercial Sectors 1 Capital Investments 1 1 Vehicles 1 $200,000 Roll Off Trucks 1 I salary I Containers Operating Budget 1 Est. Annual Operating Budget ( $215,000 I $750,000 I Initial costs i For all Multi-Family and Businesses 1 Capital Investment 1 $950,000 1 I Total Annual Operating Budget I $255,000 I Annual Operating Supplies $215,000