Loading...
Minutes_Resilient Community Advisory Commission 3 5 20City of Dubuque ITEM TITLE: SUMMARY: SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Copyrighted March 16, 2020 Consent Items # 1. Minutes and Reports Submitted City Council Proceedings 2/27, 3/2, 3/9; Community Development Advisory Commission of 2/19; Historic Preservation Commission of 2/20; Housing Commission of 2/25/20; Library Board of Trustees of 1/23; Resilient Community Advisory Commission of 3/5 with Attachments; Zoning Advisory Commission of 3/4; Zoning Board of Adjustment of 2/27; Proof of Publication for City Council Proceedings of 2/10, 2/17, 2/24, 2/26, 2/27. Suggested Disposition: Receive and File ATTACHMENTS: Description City Council Proceedings of 2/27/20 City Council Proceedings of 3/2/20 Community Development Advisory Commission Minutes of 2/19/20 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of 2/20/20 Housing Commission Minutes of 2/25/20 Library Board of Trustees Minutes of 1/23/20 Resilient Community Advisory Commission Minutes of 3/5/20 with Attachments and Correspondence Zoning Advisory Commission of 3/4/20 Zoning Board of Adjustment Proof of Publication for City 2/10/20 Proof of Publication for City 2/17/20 Special Session Proof of Publication for City 2/17/20 Regular Session Proof of Publication for City 2/24/20 Proof of Publication for City 2/26/20 Proof of Publication for City 2/27/20 Minutes of 2/27/20 Council Proceedings of Council Proceedings of Council Proceedings of Council Proceedings of Council Proceedings of Council Proceedings of Type Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation Supporting Documentation City of Dubuque COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES GOVERNMENTAL BODY: Resilient Community Advisory Commission DATE: March 5, 2020 TIME: 5:00 pm LOCATION: JOTC Circle Conference Room Jule Operations and Training Center, 949 Kerper Blvd., Dubuque IA 52001 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dean Boles, Sara Booth, Candace Eudaley-Loebach, Adam Hoffman, Lalith Jayawickrama, Robin Kennicker, Jake Kohlhaas, Craig Reber, Leah Specht. MEMBERS ABSENT: n/a STAFF PRESENT: Gina Bell, Sustainable Community Coordinator GUESTS PRESENT: Mary Rose Corrigan, John Klostermann, Anderson Sainci Specht called the meeting to order at 5:02 pm. Bell confirmed the meeting was in compliance with the Iowa Open Meeting Law. TEST AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT: Paul Uzel, representing Dubuque Interfaith Green Coalition Made up of 10 congregations, to address the automated collection issue and encourages commission to not rush this process. Especially consider low-income and renters. Also encourage "pay as you throw" to encourage reducing, reusing and recycling before throwing away. Urges again to go slow. Paul Shultz, President of Green Dubuque, shared the attached comments. The Commission allowed for a brief Q&A with Mr. Shultz. Commissioner Kohlhaas asked Mr. Shultz to address the worker's injury argument. Mr. Shultz responded that we already have semi -automated pick up. The only injuries he saw when he was in this role, was "an occasional sprained ankle". The loads are not that heavy. Commissioner Reber asked if it is a more automated system, won't maintenance costs increase? Mr. Shultz deferred to staff member John Klostermann for an answer. Commissioner Kennicker asked about studies of employees sitting in a truck for 8 hours a day and the injuries related to this? Mr. Shultz deferred to Mr. Klostermann again. She followed up with a question about the City's proposed plan to narrow streets and the feasibility of this if said plan goes through. Mr. Shultz responded that he is open to automation, just not at this rushed rate. There are lots of technology and truck designs to consider. CR picks up everything in a 35-gallon container. Commissioner Kohlhaas asked about the fee structure? Mr. Shultz responded that we should be able to be cheaper than private industry but we as residents have to now pay more. Commissioner Kennicker noted that instead of increasing property taxes, water, waste water and storm water, garbage and other fees have increased. Mr. Shultz agreed that she was correct. MINUTES APPROVAL: Motion by Commissioner Kennicker to approve February 2020 minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Boles. Motion carries. PUBLIC HEALTH PRESENTATION: Mary Rose Corrigan, Director of Public Health gave an update of the Council priorities that overlap with RCAC priorities covered by her department. She spoke of the Brain Health and the Pacific Islander Health Project. Corrigan share the Community Foundation did a study about mental health services and the lack thereof. It then became a council priority. The City does not directly fund nor provide brain health services. But law enforcement and other staff participate on the Brain Health Task Force which is addressing gaps in service and finding a provider to meet this need. Where does the RCAC fit in? Trauma and/or ACEs affect brain health. To build resilience, you need to not be affected by this trauma long term. If we have a resilient community, they can overcome trauma and lessen adverse effects. Relentless stress (immigration, poverty, racism, sexism, injury, etc.) leads to always being in fight or flight which makes other parts of our bodies not work as well. Which may lead to behavior and brain health and our ability to cope. It isn't just systemic or substance abuse, there are many factors that play into this. Crescent Community Health Center (CCHC) has added additional staff to address brain health needs and doing this in a more holistic way and focusing on wellness as a whole to decrease the constant stressors. Commissioners are invited to Crescent's Open House on March 30th at 5 pm. Handout attached. The Resilient Community Advisory Commission can help by supporting adequate funding for brain health (which is through the state). Additionally, advocacy work to support these initiatives and work to de -stigmatize and support brain health issues. The RCAC can encourage people to go to CCHC for health care needs even private health insurance holders. Commissioner Boles asked, "How do you fund care for Marshallese population since they are not eligible for Medicaid?" Corrigan responded that it is funded through donations, some City funding through a grant, and children who are eligible use Hawkeye Insurance. Boles followed up asking if our City's Legislative Priorities continue to advocate to change the language and policy in the Compact of Free Association. (Yes.) Commissioner Boles asked if there is an action plan associated with this work? Corrigan responded that there is not one from her office, the City doesn't have its own plan, but acts as a partner with the state and county initiatives and plans. The County Board of Supervisors is funding the Community Foundation to continue the brain health task force. Traditionally, brain health is a county responsibility. Commissioner Specht asked about connections between the school district and her work, citing that Roosevelt Middle School has one of the highest population of Marshallese populations and they are aiming to be a Trauma Informed Care (TIC) school and wondered if a direct relationship exist? Corrigan believes there is someone from the school district on the task force and encouraged that the TIC model is really important! Commissioner Boles asked if there is a community resource officer equivalent related to brain health in the schools or could the City fund this position? Corrigan: No, there are no school -based clinics. Corrigan also referenced the Politico article about the Marshallese population in Dubuque which can be found here. Commissioner Jayawickrama asked about the relationship between obesity and Marshallese population in Dubuque? Corrigan shared that there are many resources dedicated to this and a lot of data collection. PUBLIC WORKS - AUTOMATED COLLECTION INFORMATION: Anderson Sainci, Resource Management Coordinator presented the City's proposal and background related to automated waste collection. A copy of the presentation is attached. Sainci also shared the survey which the City conducted with the help of a consulting firm. Commissioner Kennicker asked if the survey was given to the landlord's association, adding that a 12% response rate is very low. Commissioner Reber is a renter and fears this will affect a lot of people. Sainci continued to share why the city wants to move to automated service. Slides speak to workers compensation and injuries. John Klostermann, Director of Public Works, added that the biggest concern is the industrial injuries which are permanent injuries, noting the City has paid over $1.3M over 13 years for the top 10 injury claims. See slides for additional information (attached). Commissioner Kennicker shared that she is struggling with basing this decision on the survey because it reflects so few people and followed up by asking how much time and money is spent in the schools to teach kids how to recycle? Sainci responded that it is someone's full time job and they spend significant resources related to reducing, reusing and recycling before throwing away. Klostermann shared that the City needs to have base fees paid to support the collection and recycling system and the ordinance states that everyone has to pay the base fee, or the system doesn't work. Commissioner Jayawickrama stated that different classes of people have different waste needs and asked if the City has studied economic buying power and waste? Sainci responded that what they see is wealthier people waste more/throw out more trash. Recycling rates across town are pretty equal. Commissioner Eudaley-Loebach gives shout out to Bev Wagner, the DMASWA education coordinator and clarifies: The problems are no lids (litter, rats, water) and people getting injured. (Correct.) The base fee is the trash and recycling pickup so picking up less trash, but more recycling still costs the same. For the Climate Action Plan, going to a 48-gallon seems counterintuitive. Her hang up is the size. Commissioner Hoffman offers another shout out to Bev Wagner as well as to Anderson Sainci and Paul Shultz. He asked how many L/I residents take advantage of the 50% bill reduction that is offered? Sainci explained that the funding comes from Public Works budget. For the past 5 years it is less than 300 households participating. Commissioner Boles shared that he has asked the same questions through the CDAC and stated that "24,000 households qualify and so there is a need but people aren't using the system. Booth agrees that this seems to address a concern about affordability. Sainci added the biggest concern he's received is about eliminating union jobs. Commissioner Boles asked if this plays a role in path to zero waste? Klostermann concurred that this proposal has nothing to do with zero waste goals outlined in the CAP. Boles followed up by stating that the benefits are decreased injuries and decreased litter (because of lids) and offered that there is a 7.6% increase in cost with no additional efficiencies. If it isn't going toward path to zero waste, it doesn't seem to matter to RCAC. Commissioner Reber asked if this isn't a priority why can't we slow down? Klostermann responded that "protecting my employees is a priority." Commissioner Eudaley-Loebach wants to see a more progressive pay as you throw to really incentive / have a pocket book impact. Commissioner Booth asked if data exists related to what works to help residents reduce the amount of trash they produce. Commissioner Kohlhaas expressed concerns with the work beginning when they get the money, saying, "It has gone way to fast and hasn't considered sustainability. We need to have a better process. It is missing too many pieces." Klostermann replied that the process began in 2017, there wasn't a lot of money for the study, but a lot of the background work has been done and it is time to move forward. Commissioner Reber asked how do we know the public supports this? Sainci: We did consider sustainability from the beginning. Review the slides - there was input from citizens of co -creation of a path to zero waste. RCAC was asked early on and Paul Shultz helped too. 80% of the people who took the survey said they are interested. While it is a small number, these are what the people said they wanted. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Kohlhaas motions to submit a letter to Council urging them to table the budget item related to automated collection and includes the following requests: • Slow down this process and increase community input, • Future proposals need a clear path to zero waste component, and • RCAC is not opposed to automated collection, just in this manner. Commissioner Eudaley-Loebach seconds. Motion passes unanimously. IMPROVEMENT BUDGET REQUESTS: Commissioner Eudaley-Loebach reviewed the improvement budget requests with the RCAC goals for FY 20 and the Commission decided not to discuss because they wasn't much overlap but RCAC will pay attention to for the future. COMMISSIONER REPORTS: Commissioner Kohlhaas shared that a portion of Valentine Park, including a house, barn and shed, was purchased by the City with a federal grant and there is interest by the neighborhood to put a community garden there. However, the Parks Department, without community input, tore down a barn instead of de -constructing and the house, that could be re -used, is also set to be torn down. When questioned, the Parks Department responded that since they are using grant funds, which they received for a specific purpose, can't do anything about the neighbor's request. Commissioner Kohlhaas is dismayed with the response from Parks Department and feels there has been no public input. He shared his slideshow of potential changes and suggest to RCAC that Community Gardens are a good thing for commission to take on. Commissioner Boles added that he would like to be able to go on the website and find out where I can turn city lawn into orchard/garden/etc. but that doesn't exist. He then asked if as a commission can they request something like this? Commissioner Kohlhaas wants the commission to ask council for a pathway to create garden space. NEXT MEETING: The next commission meeting will occur on Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 5:00 pm. The location of the meeting will be at the Jule Operations and Training Center, 949 Kerper Boulevard. ADJOURNMENT: The Commission adjourned at 7:35 pm. Minutes approved by: Leah Specht, Commission Chair Prepared by: Gina Bell, Sustainable Community Coordinator Attachments 3/9/2020 Dubuque commission recommends tabling proposal for automated garbage pickup 1 Tri-state News 1 telegraphherald.com https://www.teleg raphherald.com/news/tri-state/article_882e0956-d761-50f3-b740-d 9b574ecde24. htm I Dubuque commission recommends tabling proposal for automated garbage pickup BY THOMAS J. BARTON thomas.barton@thmedia.com Mar 6, 2020 City of Dubuque employee Corey Leach collects trash on Feb. 6. NICK! KOHL A proposed increase in City of Dubuque solid waste fees to, in part, pay for a switch to automated trash collection received strong opposition Thursday from a citizen advisory board. Members of Dubuque's Resilient Community Advisory Commission voted unanimously Thursday to recommend City Council members table the proposal, citing a lack of information and public input. "It's hard for me to even say, 'Do this,' because no one's talking about it. No one knows about it," Commission Member Robin Rennicker said. "I feel like we're missing a lot of data and people are not going to be happy paying higher prices when this doesn't go to" helping reduce the amount of waste headed to the landfill. City staff intend to ask council members to increase Dubuque's solid waste collection fee by 7.68%, from $15.62 to $16.82 per month, as they set next year's budget. Of that increase, roughly 2% would be tied to purchasing equipment and borrowing $280,000 annually over three years to acquire trash carts. The remainder would pay for higher operating costs due to negotiated union wage increases, rising health care costs, increased tipping fees at the landfill and repair of equipment. https://www.telegraph herald.com/news/tri-state/article_882e0956-d761-50f3-b740-d9b574ecde24. html 1/2 3/9/2020 Dubuque commission recommends tabling proposal for automated garbage pickup I Tri-state News I telegraphherald.com Public Works Director John Klostermann said automation will reduce worker injuries and city compensation claims and future staffing costs. The move would lessen the need for two people on collection routes, eliminating the need to add staff as the city grows, Klostermann argued. City staff stressed that no city employees would be laid off under the switch to automation. However, solid waste staffers could shift to other duties, namely recycling collection. Possible savings from automation, though, would not eliminate, but likely would reduce the need to raise fees to pay for city garbage and recycling services in future years, he said. While they were not opposed to automation, commission members objected to the proposed fee structure. "We shouldn't be justifying a long-term change that isn't tied into zero waste," Commission Member Jake Kohlhaas said. In addition to asking the rate increase be tabled, commissioners voted to recommend the city conduct a more robust study that aligns with a zero -waste goal included in the city's comprehensive plan, as well as the city's climate action plan. Currently, residents can set out their own 35-gallon trash can or bag or use city -provided 48-, 65- and 95-gallon carts. Under the staff and consultant proposal, the option to set out a 35-gallon can or bag would go away. All residents would be required to use city carts, with a 48-gallon container becoming the new standard. Paul Schultz, president of Green Dubuque and former manager of the city's garbage and recycling services, told commission members the adjustments undermine the city's "pay -as -you -throw" fee schedule, as people who generate less waste won't see much of an advantage in doing so. Klostermann and city Resource Management Coordinator Anderson Sainci said while the new fee structure likely would not significantly reduce the amount of trash going to the landfill, it also likely would not lead to residents throwing out more waste. Citizens, too, they argue would continue to pay more the more they throw away. "We've been stagnant in terms of trash volume for the last several years," Sainci said. "Our trash is still going to be stagnant and our commitment to sustainability and recycling is not going to go away. Sustainability was a focus and will continue to be a focus." And while automation would not work in all areas of the city, the pair insist that 80% to 90% of city collection routes would be served by automation, despite concerns that have been raised by residents, Green Dubuque and council members about the ability to do so with the city's sloped terrain, narrow streets and alleys. Sainci pointed to East Dubuque, III., where garbage is collected by automation provided by Dittmer Recycling, though by front -loading trucks as opposed to side -loading trucks proposed by city staff. Schultz, too, said he's come around and now supports automation. "It's more feasible than I thought, but I think there are still these other problems," he said. The Dubuque City Council will meet at 6 p.m. Wednesday, March 25, in Council Chambers at the Historic Federal Building for the fifth of six scheduled departmental budget hearings prior to adopting the city budget for next fiscal year, beginning July 1. That will include a budget presentation by public works recommending the fee change. The city is required by state law to set its budget by March 30. https://www.telegraph herald.com/news/tri-state/article_882e0956-d761-50f3-b740-d9b574ecde24. html 2/2 Resilient Community Advisory Commission, March 5,2020 Talking Points by Paul Schultz • My name is Paul Schultz and I reside at 2700 Mathew John Drive in Dubuque. I worked for the City for 18 years as Resource Management Coordinator managing waste minimization and solid waste collection until October 2013. • I have been President of Green Dubuque for the last 5 years. Green Dubuque is a "City Partner" and was identified in the Imagine Dubuque 2037 Comprehensive Plan "to define metrics to monitor progress on environmental goals as outlined in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan." • In February 2018, Green Dubuque gave Council input and support for funding an Improvement Increment to hire a consultant to analyze our Solid Waste Collection system and make recommendations for improvements. The Council agreed and reversed the City Mgr's recommendation of "NO" and approved the $30K Improvement Increment. • Green Dubuque was invited once to bring early and very limited input to the Foth Infrastructure consultant process on operational issues. We also assisted in outreach to gather and promote input from the community related to the "Paths Toward Zero Waste" Objective. • The Foth Report was issued March 18, 2019. The consultant's process was fundamentally flawed when they dropped the first RFP Objective: "Review current operation & identify opportunities for improved resiliency and efficiency - Enhance existing programs." The rationale given stated that "The City has indicated a commitment to phasing in automated trucks with the purchase of two automated side loaders in FY21." • I spoke with Mayor Buol yesterday. He confirmed that no final decision has yet been made by Council to purchase automated trucks and carts, commit to implementing automated collection, or mandating carts for all rate -payers. • Since the Report was issued, there has been no Report review by RCAC, Media Releases or Public Input or Forums. • A proposal for a Policy and system change in the Solid Waste Collection Model to phase -in conversion to automated collection was put forward by Public Works in last August's City Council Strategic Planning. It was not chosen as a Top or High Priority and therefore not designated to move forward toward FY21 phased implementation. • I attended the City Council Work Session on the Foth Report this January laying out background and a foundation for the FY21 Public Works Budget Proposal. It was not televised, no other residents attended and there was no Public Input. There was no vote to approve any Policy or Operational change toward carts or automated collection. • The Work Session PPT omitted many important findings. The bound Report document did not provide local actionable data to make the case for automated collection in Dubuque, mandating carts for all customers and charging all customers to pay for the collection system change whether they personally benefited or not. • A Green Dubuque document presented in Public Input at the February RCAC addressed some of those deficiencies. • The RCAC was not asked or encouraged to review and give input to the Council on the FY 21 Public Works/ Resource Management budget until Green Dubuque raised questions and concerns at your February meeting and you decided to take action. • In Green Dubuque's opinion, the key considerations for advising the City Council on the readiness of this systemic solid waste collection design change are stated in the document emailed to you for this meeting: 1. Do the majority of rate -payers have problems with the current system or want to change container options? 2. Did the Council Strategic Planning select this change for any Policy or financial commitment in FY21? 3. Should there be a commitment to a comprehensive Solid Waste Plan before implementing automated collection and mandatory cart tactics? 4. Is there a pressing reason to commit to this huge collection and customer behavior change now? 5. Does this proposal undermine our current Policy: Pay As You Throw - incentivized savings for wasting less? Will this proposed change to larger trash containers lead to more landfilling and less recycling? 6. Is the proposed revised fee structure equitable? Or, discriminatory and predatory in its effect? 7. Is proposal in line with the Imagine Dubuque 2037 Comprehensive Plan - Paths toward Zero Waste? 8. Will this proposal have further negative impacts on Dubuque's poverty rate and affordable housing options? 9. Does the RCAC advise that this FY21 budget proposal, without an Improvement Increment, is suitable for approval by Council? Or, does the RCAC advise that phased implementation needs further review and input before coming back for Council FY22 consideration? Additional Equity Considerations: A. Operational design, capitalization and revenue are closely interactive in a fee -based enterprise that does not receive tax support. Therefore, to move forward to implement a system change in solid waste collection, there needs to be a stable supporting revenue stream. Green Dubuque asserts that a major component of the Pay As You Throw foundation was discarded when multiplex landlords and/or renter rate -payers using carts shared in common, along with sharing the fees of the selected carts, was terminated several years ago. This was a predatory action, in effect, to target and increase revenue from mostly lower -income renters. I could get no data on how many common -carts, having households fee -sharing the cost of the carts, had been terminated and now required to pay the full base fee per rental unit through either their landlord or as themselves as being the rate -payer. During this period, landlords could subscribe to the size and number of containers or carts that would adequately supply sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the number of occupied rental units. Tenant rate -payers, paying their individual city utilities, had Utility Billing divide the fee for the cart size between the rate -payers. I recall one 6-plex building with 6 widows evenly dividing the cost and using a common 65-gal cart that was never overfilled. These multiplex cart -sharing rental units were successfully implementing PAYT. Now hundreds of single -person households are being charged up to $10/per month more for the same small amount of trash being discarded. The cost - sharing of a cart, used in common, needs to be reinstated to help create a fair and stable fee structure that could include automated collection if and when implemented. B. There is not currently any rate increase proposed to the 2,200+ individually subscribed 65g and 96g City cart rate -payers. This inequitable discrimination has gone on for eight years where the cart fees stayed the same or went down $1.35/month (65g cart) or $3.00/month (96g cart). During the same eight years the base rate for a 35-gallon customer can or bag has increased from $11.69/month (2"d lowest rate of the 10 largest Iowa cities) to the proposed $16.82/month (the 7th lowest rate of the 11 largest cities in Iowa). This is a base -fee increase of $5.13 per month. This is financial discrimination grossly in favor of larger volume trash households. This discrimination has added over $1M onto 19,000 non -individually subscribed cart rate -payers over the eight years. Over 19,000 base -fee and customer container rate -payers experienced these predatory and/or discriminatory rate increases. C. There will be no worthy to be called Pay As You Throw program in the City of Dubuque if the FY21 Public Works / Resource Management Budget is approved, as is, by Council. This rushed proposal does not support core Sustainability principles and neither is it Resilient nor Equitable. Green Dubuque recommends tabling this FY21 phased implementation proposal and getting further input, review and reconsideration though FY22 City Council Strategic Planning process. D. Green Dubuque and Mayor Buol are encouraging broad community discussion and residents giving input to City Council at the Public Works Budget Hearing on March 25, 2020. Thank You! Paul Schultz President of Green Dubuque paul@greendubuque.org 563.845.1714 "Measure twice, cut once" are words of wisdom learned from my seamstress mother and wood worker father. The March 25th Public Works budget proposal skipped the necessary transparent, inclusive, equitable and actionable data -driven planning process that should have provided our community with what it wants and needs. RCAC - Public Works 3-5-20 presentation and statements: Questions and Green Dubuque response by Paul Schultz 1. Survey: 785 City of Dubuque residents contributed to a stream of responses givenduring the survey period. a. The 1st graph the under Foth Report's Key Findings was omitted in the Council Work Session and to RCAC: i. Does the 35-gallon trash can or bag meet your needs? 78% Yes b. The 2"d Key Finding, was only identified under Paths Toward Zero Waste, that 62% would not pay more for additional trash capacity c. A graph used was: Would you be open to the city changing to automated trash cart picked up. 80% YES i. How many respondents? Is that a valid sample? Is this type of speculative inquiry actionable? ii. "Be open to" is not near the same as Anderson saying this is what these few said they wanted. 2. Workers Health: 5th most Dangerous job in the US (Left out: in Deaths per 100,000 Workers) a. What were the 10 highest W/C claim amounts 2006-2019 ($91,079 average) for what injuries? b. What savings over 10 years are expected from the Dubuque automated implementation - where suitable? c. How do front-line employees evaluate their health impacts of the collecting mandatory carts in non - automated cart collection areas? d. What were the W/C injuries and claim costs in the last 5 years requiring Public Works to need to rush this initial FY21 financial commitment for 2 one -person side -loading trucks, collection arms and standup, right- hand drives along with 7, 000 48-gallon carts with City logos and a substantial fee increase? 3. Klosterman claim in discussion: "Everyone has to pay the base -fee or the system doesn't work." False a. Dubuque's robust Pay As You Throw (PAYT) system was very successful by significantly incentivizing rate- payers for many years to waste less. b. Rate -payers were not demanding systemic change or higher fees. c. The recent fee structure increased costs to low volume trash generators that were sharing cart costs. A ordinance loophole was used to target and terminate multiplex cart fee -sharing for hundreds of mostly low & middle income and elderly households. d. The last 8-year fee structure has increased costs to low -volume trash rate -payers while lowering fees to larger cart subscribers. This added $1M in inequitable charges onto 19,000 households over 8 years. e. This current per household fee structure has increased poverty impacts and the cost of affordable housing. 4. Sainci claim in discussion: "Recycling rates across town are pretty equal." False a. Recycling Participation — Set out Yellow Bins at least 1x/mo: Lower East 40%; higher West and South 60% b. Recycling Weight - Lower in East 40%; higher in West and South 60% - Recycling is declining by 7%/year 5. Klosterman claim in discussion: "A lot of background work has been done and it is time to move forward." FALSE a. "Measure twice, cut once." There are too many weaknesses/gaps, lack of rate -payer and collection crew input and reasonable alternative options not yet considered, to commit to a vague plan that fails to addresses our community's $300K Imagine Dubuque 2037 Comprehensive Plan - Paths Toward Zero Waste initiative. b. Green Dubuque supports the value of automated collection when and where it makes sense to ratepayers. Why does Public Works need to rush a commitment to a half-baked, fashionable collection system change before the community is finally scheduled to develop a Comprehensive Solid Waste Collection Plan, with transparency, equity, community engagement, goals, timelines, responsibilities and action plans, proposed to start in FY22? c. Introduce semi -automated, 35-gallon cart (122 # max) and 48-gallon cart (168 # max) options, where it makes financial, operational and environmental sense to rate -payers in FY21. A. Operational design, capitalization and revenue are closely interactive in a fee -based enterprise that does not receive tax support. Therefore, to move forward to implement a system change in solid waste collection, there needs to be a stable, supporting revenue stream. Green Dubuque asserts that a major component of the Pay As You Throw foundation was discarded when multiplex landlords and/or renter rate -payers using carts shared in common, along with sharing the fees of the selected carts, was terminated several years ago. This was a City Ordinance loophole, in effect, targeting and increasing revenue from mostly low- and moderate -income renters. Under the past practice: A. Landlords could subscribe to the size and number of carts that would adequately supply sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the number of occupied rental units. B. Tenant rate -payers, paying their individual city utilities, had Utility Billing divide the fee for the cart size between the rate -payers. I recall one 6-plex building with 6 widows evenly dividing the cost and using a common 65-gal cart that was never overfilled. These multiplex cart -sharing rental units were successfully implementing PAYT. Now hundreds of mostly single -person households are often being charged up to $10/per month more for the same small amount of trash they discard. The cost- sharing of a cart, used in common, needs to be reinstated to help create a fair and stable fee structure that could include automated collection if and when implemented. B. There is not currently any rate increase proposed to the 2,200+ individually subscribed 65g and 96g City cart rate -payers. This inequitable discrimination has gone on for eight years where the cart fees stayed the same or went down: $1.35/month (65g cart); or $3.00/month (96g cart). During the same eight years the base rate for a 35-gallon customer can or bag has increased from $11.69/month (2nd lowest rate of the 10 largest Iowa cities) to the proposed $16.82/month (the 7th lowest rate of the 11 largest cities in Iowa). This is a base -fee increase of $5.13 per month. This financial discrimination is grossly in favor of larger volume trash households. This favoring has added over $1M onto 19,000 non -individually subscribed cart rate -payers over the past eight years. "The City should review every action it takes that would potentially increase taxes, fees or citizens' costs with an eye toward rewarding or incenting sustainable behavior." A Dubuque Business Leader. NEWS FLASH 1. The RCAC role is to be the voice of the residents advising City Council on Dubuque becoming a more Resilient Community. Focusing on Paths toward Zero Waste and Equity are two of its main components. 2. RCAC is not responsible for supporting Departmental proposals lacking key elements. However, this is Public Works' ask for support to RCAC for a meeting on March 24th, the day before the Public Works Budget Hearing. y\ 650 Pacific Islanders in Dubuque 79% of the Pacific Islander population of focus has diabetes. 38% of those patients' diabetes is considered to be poorly controlled. 29% of our general populations' ciabetes is considerec poorly controlled. (4l • 192 l otal Pacific Islander patients at Crescent. 1 93% of the Pacific Islander population of focus has hypertension. 74% of those patients' hypertension is considered to be controlled. 61% of our general populations hypertension is considered controlled. Dubuque Pacific Islande Health Proj ec Healthcare the Navigating Sys e 28% of the qualifying Pacific Islander population have participated in colorectal screening. Pacific Islander population of focus Er working with Crescent case manager since January 2017. 33% of the qualifying Pacific Islander population have participated in a cervical cancer screening. disease burden £t healthcare access challenges • Diabetes and cancer are the two leading causes of death in the Pacific I"iIslander communit.y.compared to 8.3% of the U.S. adults, . prevalence estimates of diabetes ange from 25-50% in Pacific Islander, adults, a range considered to be one of the highest in the world. • Pacific Islanders are less aware of chronic diseases, less likely to seek :treatment, and typically do not seek are until there is a perceived health ,crisis usually indicated by pain. ;Barriers to access include: seeking 'affordable healthcare, trust, communication, culture, modesty, financial and systemic. L1945 e U.S. gained control of the Marshall Islands from Japan. 1946-1958 1978 U.S. tested Marshall Islands • nuclear • adopt their firs: weapons in the national Marshall Island constitution 1979 Government of the Marshall Islands stablished, country becomes self-governing. program objectives • Assist and support the Pacific Islander people in obtaining appropriate healthcare services. • Find workable solutions for language translation and interpretation. • Recruit, train, and provide a community health worker from the Pacific Islander population, and registered nurse, to conduct an in -reach program to establish trusting relationships, assist them in keeping appointments, encourage compliance with medications, educate them on appropriate use of the ER as well as other strategies to improve their health and other issues. positive outcomes 1986 mi The Compact of Free Association was signed by the U.S. and three Pacific Island nations. The Marshallese migrate to the U.S. for reasons such as health care, economic opportunities, and education. • • Pacific Islander patients are actively contacting Crescent when they encounter barriers to community resources because they are engaged and have a more trusting relationship with Crescent staff. • Lunch and learn classes have been held to educate on cooking techniques, nutritional value, and using healthier foods. • Patients have been enrolled into other programs such as the Visiting Nurse Association's - Care for Yourself Program and the First Five Program for kids ages 0-5. • Assistance with referral (translation and comprehension) to specialty services. • Transportation coordination/coverage is now offered and utilized. measurable results 18% decrease in ER visits since 2016 60% decrease in missed appointments barriers to success • Access to state and federal insurance programs. • Prescription medication costs. • Funding and sustainability of program. • Access to specialty care. • Language and cultural barriers. • Legal and immigration obstacles. • Lack of awareness regarding health status, chronic illness, and general health maintenance. Request For Proposal (RFP) Backnround • April 3, 2018, City of Dubuque Public Works Department solicited competitive bids from consulting firms to help co -create collection efficiency and rate study to improve effectiveness and efficiencies of City's Resources Management program • Selected Foth Infrastructure and Environment, LLC out of 8 proposals • $30,000 allocated for solid waste operation and review study ectives 1. Review current operation and identify opportunities for improved resiliency and efficiency. • Enhance existing programs • Best management practices for modern collection systems Automated collection system 2. Co -create a community engagement process focused on adopting and implementing Paths Towards Zero Waste. • Imagine Dubuque 2037 Comprehensive Plan 3. Perform a comprehensive rate analysis. Objective 1 Review current operation and identify opportunities for improved resiliency and efficiency Current Collection Operation • Single family up to a six (6) multiplex. • Manual collection + use hydraulic lifting system. • Service Includes: • Refuse • Recycling • Yard Waste • Food Scrap • Large Item • Electronics Collection Crew size + Method of Collection ■ Mon -Fri collection 6- Refuse Truck 5- Recycling Truck 1- Yard Waste Truck Special Design Collection Recommendation: Phase in Automated Collection • Convert two semi -automated routes to fully automated • 2 - Two person routes • 4 - One person routes • No layoffs • Automated where it makes sense. • Allow the department to plan for future growth related to SW Arterial + other areas. SURVEY QUESTION ♦ Number of Dubuque residents who took the survey. 785 ♦ What type of home do you live in? 0.00% 50.00% 100.00% ■ Detached single family home/Duplex ■ Multi -family home up to a six-plex Condominium or townhome Do you own or rent your current residence? ■ Own ♦ Is your trash and recycling currently picked up from the curb or alley? ■ Curb SURVEY QUESTION • Would you be open to the City changing to trash carts that could be picked up with automated trucks vs. smaller trash carts that are manually collected? 20% NO 80% Yes Workers Health +Safety Bureau of Labor • 5th most dangerous job in the U.S 2017-2019 - 46% of Public Works OSHA Employee Injuries • Related to the collection of solid waste • $36,842 Workers Health +Safety . . 2006 - 2019 Employee worker compensation costs related to the collection of solid waste in the Public Works Department • Top 10 Injury Claims $1,287,710 Reduces Manual Collection • Average stop per route for trash operators is 677 stops. • Reduces the need for the operator to manually lift heavy bags or containers. Other Changes to Collection • Eliminate extra 35 gallon container • 209 customers +$8 additional • Eliminate oversize container • 547 customers +$5 additional • Eliminate extra oversize container • 18 customers +$12 additional Common Trash Violation: Excessive Trash/Oversize Tipper Cart Proposal: 48 Gal • Since 2008 48 gallon tipper carts have been used throughout the downtown community 782 carts are currently being used • Encourage better management of trash • Reduce litter ,,j Propose Tipper Cart Structure • 65 gallon - 2,077 customers • 95 gallon- 479 customers • Room for flexibility in rate structure • Share carts +base fee • 50% reduction of monthly fee SOLID WASTE COLLECTION RATE COMPARISON (11 Largest Cities) Automated Collection $30.00 $25.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 $26.25 $22.53 18.00 $17.10 $16.82 $16.63 $16.57 $16.25 ■ ■ $13.64 $13.02 $12.25 ■ $10.00 FY 21 REFUSE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE .1=1. III 7.68% Proposed Rate Increase over FY 20 $1.20 Monthly Bill Impact for Average Household Objective 2 Co -create a community engagement process focused on adopting and implementing Paths Towards Zero Waste KEY FINDINGS ♦ Understand willingness to pay for additional services and zero waste programming ► Over 60% would not pay more for additional trash capacity ► Over 70% would not pay more for curbside food scraps collection ► 46% would not be willing to pay more for zero waste initiatives but 41 %would pay $2-4 per month RECOMMENDATION • Appoint a Path toward Zero Waste Implementation Team that will work with the City's Resilient Community Advisory Commission. — FY22 ► Team will consists of the following: • Rahim Akrami, ICMA Local Government Management Fellow • Gina Bell, Sustainable Community Coordinator • Ken Miller, Solid Waste Agency Administrator • Anderson Sainci, Resource Management Coordinator & Supervisor • Arielle Swift, Assistant Public Works Director • Beverly Wagner, Education & Communication Coordinator In fiscal year 2020 a total of $34,871 was spent on promotion/education. REThink WOSTE DBQ CLEAN & DRY METAL PAPER PLASTIC www.cityofdubuque.org/publicworks Masterpiece on the Mississippi Mayor Roy D. Buol, City of Dubuque 50 W. 13th Street Dubuque, IA 5201 Dubuque All -America City II 2007.2012*2013 2017*2019 March 5, 2020 Honorable Mayor Buol, The Resilient Community Advisory Commission (RCAC) submits this letter in support of city funding for the Dream Center and Fountain of Youth. At their February 2020 regular meeting, the RCAC received a presentation by Kelly Larson, Director, Human Rights Department regarding these organizations. The programs offered by the Dream Center and Fountain of Youth are aligned with the RCAC's priority of improving Economic Resiliency Through Combatting Poverty and Increasing Social Capital. The RCAC, by a unanimous vote, advocates that the City Council approve funding support for the Dream Center and Fountain of Youth in the FY2021 budget. Sincerely, Stpc4 Leah Specht Resilient Community Advisory Commission Chair Masterpiece on the Mississippi Mayor Roy D. Buol, City of Dubuque 50 W. 13th Street Dubuque, IA 5201 March 9, 2020 Dubuque herd AII-America City 1,91,VbV_(]VX_ I15M fLF 11111, IIr 2D07.2012.2013 2017*2019 Dear Mayor Buol and Members of the Dubuque City Council, On Thursday evening, March 5th, the Resilient Community Advisory Commission had the opportunity to listen to concerned members of the public and city staff regarding the proposed acquisition of side -loading trucks for automated waste collection. The present proposal includes an increase to the minimum size of waste bins that is tied to the purchase of automated trucks which will serve the city for years to come. To finance these, the proposal would also restructure collection fees. Beyond educational programs, collection fees are a primary means of encouraging reduced waste and are currently tied to bin sizes. The Commission believes the present proposal is neither sufficiently guided by a commitment to reduced waste nor adequately aligned with the City's Climate Action Plan to justify its proposed changes. Moreover, the Commission is concerned that the study supporting this proposal was insufficient in its community outreach and engagement. While the Commission understands the benefits of transitioning to automated collection, we unanimously recommend against advancing this proposal in this year's budget. Instead, we encourage the Council to consider investing in a more strategically -aligned and community - engaged study to better guide the transition to automated collection. Sincerely, Ik�l4ti��'il Leah Specht Resilient Community Advisory Commission Chair Masterpiece on the Mississippi Mayor Roy D. Buol, City of Dubuque 50 W. 13th Street Dubuque, IA 5201 Dubuque All•America City I i.VI, I I 2007*2012.2013 2017*2019 March 5, 2020 Honorable Mayor Buol, The Resilient Community Advisory Commission (RCAC) submits this letter in support of continuing the efforts of the Dubuque Pilot Project for Nutrient Trading. At their February 2020 regular meeting, the RCAC received a presentation about this pilot project by Teri Goodman (Assistant City Manager), William O'Brien, (Water Resource and Recovery Center Manager), Deron Muehring (Civil Engineer) and Eric Schmechel, Urban Conservationist with the Dubuque Soil and Water Conservation District. This pilot project is aligned with the RCAC's priority of Mitigating and Adapting to the Effects of Climate Change. The RCAC, by a unanimous vote, advocates that the City Council continue championing the Dubuque Pilot Project for Nutrient Trading. Sincerely, 1,4 kAnt Leah Specht Resilient Community Advisory Commission Chair "Measure twice, cut once" are words of wisdom learned from my seamstress mother and wood worker father. The March 25th Public Works budget proposal skipped the necessary transparent, inclusive, equitable and actionable data -driven planning process that should have provided our community with what it wants and needs. RCAC - Public Works 3-5-20 presentation and statements: Questions and Green Dubuque response by Paul Schultz 1. Survey: 785 City of Dubuque residents contributed to a stream of responses givenduring the survey period. a. The 1st graph the under Foth Report's Key Findings was omitted in the Council Work Session and to RCAC: i. Does the 35-gallon trash can or bag meet your needs? 78% Yes b. The 2nd Key Finding, was only identified under Paths Toward Zero Waste, that 62% would not pay more for additional trash capacity c. A graph used was: Would you be open to the city changing to automated trash cart picked up. 80% YES i. How many respondents? Is that a valid sample? Is this type of speculative inquiry actionable? ii. "Be open to" is not near the same as Anderson saying this is what these few said they wanted. 2. Workers Health: 5th most Dangerous job in the US (Left out: in Deaths per 100,000 Workers) a. What were the 10 highest W/C claim amounts 2006-2019 ($91,079 average) for what injuries? b. What savings over 10 years are expected from the Dubuque automated implementation - where suitable? c. How do front-line employees evaluate their health impacts of the collecting mandatory carts in non - automated cart collection areas? d. What were the W/C injuries and claim costs in the last 5 years requiring Public Works to need to rush this initial FY21 financial commitment for 2 one -person side -loading trucks, collection arms and standup, right- hand drives along with 7, 000 48-gallon carts with City logos and a substantial fee increase? 3. Klosterman claim in discussion: "Everyone has to pay the base -fee or the system doesn't work." False a. Dubuque's robust Pay As You Throw (PAYT) system was very successful by significantly incentivizing rate- payers for many years to waste less. b. Rate -payers were not demanding systemic change or higher fees. c. The recent fee structure increased costs to low volume trash generators that were sharing cart costs. A ordinance loophole was used to target and terminate multiplex cart fee -sharing for hundreds of mostly low & middle income and elderly households. d. The last 8-year fee structure has increased costs to low -volume trash rate -payers while lowering fees to larger cart subscribers. This added $1M in inequitable charges onto 19,000 households over 8 years. e. This current per household fee structure has increased poverty impacts and the cost of affordable housing. 4. Sainci claim in discussion: "Recycling rates across town are pretty equal." False a. Recycling Participation — Set out Yellow Bins at least 1x/mo: Lower East 40%; higher West and South 60% b. Recycling Weight - Lower in East 40%; higher in West and South 60% - Recycling is declining by 7%/year 5. Klosterman claim in discussion: "A lot of background work has been done and it is time to move forward." FALSE a. "Measure twice, cut once." There are too many weaknesses/gaps, lack of rate -payer and collection crew input and reasonable alternative options not yet considered, to commit to a vague plan that fails to addresses our community's $300K Imagine Dubuque 2037 Comprehensive Plan - Paths Toward Zero Waste initiative. b. Green Dubuque supports the value of automated collection when and where it makes sense to ratepayers. Why does Public Works need to rush a commitment to a half-baked, fashionable collection system change before the community is finally scheduled to develop a Comprehensive Solid Waste Collection Plan, with transparency, equity, community engagement, goals, timelines, responsibilities and action plans, proposed to start in FY22? c. Introduce semi -automated, 35-gallon cart (122 # max) and 48-gallon cart (168 # max) options, where it makes financial, operational and environmental sense to rate -payers in FY21. A. Operational design, capitalization and revenue are closely interactive in a fee -based enterprise that does not receive tax support. Therefore, to move forward to implement a system change in solid waste collection, there needs to be a stable, supporting revenue stream. Green Dubuque asserts that a major component of the Pay As You Throw foundation was discarded when multiplex landlords and/or renter rate -payers using carts shared in common, along with sharing the fees of the selected carts, was terminated several years ago. This was a City Ordinance loophole, in effect, targeting and increasing revenue from mostly low- and moderate -income renters. Under the past practice: A. Landlords could subscribe to the size and number of carts that would adequately supply sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the number of occupied rental units. B. Tenant rate -payers, paying their individual city utilities, had Utility Billing divide the fee for the cart size between the rate -payers. I recall one 6-plex building with 6 widows evenly dividing the cost and using a common 65-gal cart that was never overfilled. These multiplex cart -sharing rental units were successfully implementing PAYT. Now hundreds of mostly single -person households are often being charged up to $10/per month more for the same small amount of trash they discard. The cost- sharing of a cart, used in common, needs to be reinstated to help create a fair and stable fee structure that could include automated collection if and when implemented. B. There is not currently any rate increase proposed to the 2,200+ individually subscribed 65g and 96g City cart rate -payers. This inequitable discrimination has gone on for eight years where the cart fees stayed the same or went down: $1.35/month (65g cart); or $3.00/month (96g cart). During the same eight years the base rate for a 35-gallon customer can or bag has increased from $11.69/month (2nd lowest rate of the 10 largest Iowa cities) to the proposed $16.82/month (the 7th lowest rate of the 11 largest cities in Iowa). This is a base -fee increase of $5.13 per month. This financial discrimination is grossly in favor of larger volume trash households. This favoring has added over $1M onto 19,000 non -individually subscribed cart rate -payers over the past eight years. "The City should review every action it takes that would potentially increase taxes, fees or citizens' costs with an eye toward rewarding or incenting sustainable behavior." A Dubuque Business Leader. NEWS FLASH 1. The RCAC role is to be the voice of the residents advising City Council on Dubuque becoming a more Resilient Community. Focusing on Paths toward Zero Waste and Equity are two of its main components. 2. RCAC is not responsible for supporting Departmental proposals lacking key elements. However, this is Public Works' ask for support to RCAC for a meeting on March 24th, the day before the Public Works Budget Hearing.