Packet - Transportation and Infrastructure Meeting - 1-13-14 · 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE Pursuant to A.R.S. Section

1

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE and to the general public, that the PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE will hold a meeting open to the public on Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 9:15 a.m., located at Phoenix City Hall, 1st Floor Atrium, Assembly Rooms A, B, & C, 200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. One or more Subcommittee members may participate via teleconference. The agenda for the meeting is as follows (items may be discussed in a different sequence than posted): 1. Call to Order Chair Williams 2. Review and Approval of the December 9, 2014

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee Meeting Minutes.

Page 3

3. Metro, Regional Public Transportation Authority, and Maricopa Association of Governments Meetings This report provides the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with copies of past and/or upcoming meeting agendas or minutes for METRO light rail, Valley Metro/Regional Public Transit Authority (RPTA), and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). This item is for information only.

Maria Hyatt, Public Transit Page 15

4. Private Street Dedication Process and Creation of Maintenance Improvement Districts This report requests the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee recommend City Council approval of changes to the City private street dedication process, and City Code, Chapter 32, Subdivision Ordinance changes that would require the creation of Maintenance Improvement Districts to maintain private streets and other common tracts in future developments. This item is for information, discussion and possible action.

Ray Dovalina, Street Transportation Alan Stephenson, Planning and Development Page 17

2

5. Salt and Verde River Watershed Resiliency Programs This report provides the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with a summary of the Salt and Verde River watershed resiliency programs being conducted by The Nature Conservancy. This item is for information and discussion.

Kathryn Sorensen, Water Services Cheryl Lombard, The Nature Conservancy Page 37

6. Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Program and 2015 Financial Plans

a. Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Program This report summarizes the Water Services Department’s 2015-2020 Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Program. This item is for information and discussion.

b. 2015 Water and Wastewater Financial Plans

This report provides information regarding the financial requirements necessary to support the Water Services Department’s operations and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2015-16 through 2019-20 for the water and wastewater systems and requests the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee recommend City Council approval of the 2015 Water and Wastewater Financial Plans. This action recommends no increase in 2015 Water and Wastewater rates. This item is for information, discussion and possible action.

Kathryn Sorensen, Water Services Page 29 Neal Young, Finance Page 37

7. Capital Improvement Program Updates This report provides the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with an update on capital projects in 2014-15, and the 2015-2020 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for the Public Works Department. This item is for information and discussion.

John Trujillo, Public Works Page 41

8. Reimagine Phoenix Solid Waste Program Update This report provides an update to the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Reimagine Phoenix solid waste programs as well as information on the results of the initial phase of the Waste Characterization Study and proposed strategies for increased waste diversion. It also requests Subcommittee recommendation for City Council approval of measures to expand diversion efforts. This item is for information, discussion and possible action.

John Trujillo, Public Works Page 45

3

9. Street Transportation Department Procedure for Calculating Yellow Change Intervals at Traffic Signals This report provides information about how traffic signal yellow change times are calculated in Phoenix. This item is for information and discussion.

Ray Dovalina, Street Transportation Page 93

10. Call to the Public: Consideration, discussion, and concerns from the public. Those wishing to address the Subcommittee need not request permission in advance. Action taken as a result of the public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter or rescheduling the matter for further consideration and decision at a later date.

Chair Williams

11. Request for Future Agenda Items Chair Williams 12. Adjournment Chair Williams For further information, please call Rita Marko, Management Assistant, City Manager’s Office, at 602-262-7684 or Gabriel Morales at 602-262-4449. Persons paid to lobby on behalf of persons or organizations other than themselves shall register with the City Clerk prior to lobbying or within five business days thereafter, and must register annually to continue lobbying. If you have any questions about registration or whether or not you must register, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 602-262-6811. For reasonable accommodations, call Rita Marko at 602-262-7684 or Gabriel Morales at 602-262-4449 as early as possible to coordinate needed arrangements. January 8, 2015

4

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

5

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, January 13, 2015, Item #2

Phoenix City Council

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee Summary Minutes

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

City Council Subcommittee Room Phoenix City Hall, Assembly Rooms A, B, and C 200 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona Subcommittee Members Present Subcommittee Members Absent Councilwoman Thelda Williams, Chair None Councilman Bill Gates Councilwoman Kate Gallego Councilwoman Laura Pastor Staff Present Staff Present Public Present Penny Parrella Cindy Stottler Gabriel Morales Rick Naimark Monica Hernandez Karen Peters Maria Hyatt Mary Ling

Rita Marko Thomas Godbee Robert Ashton Ginger Spencer

Marvin Rochelle Haley Ritter Howard May Reid Butler Wes Lyons

1. Call to Order Chairwoman Williams called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. with Councilman Gates and Councilwoman Pastor present.

2. Review and Approval of the November 12, 2014 Transportation and

Infrastructure Subcommittee Meeting Minutes. Councilman Gates motioned to approve the minutes from the November 12, 2014

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee meeting. Councilwoman Pastor seconded the motion, which passed 3-0.

3. Metro, Regional Public Transportation Authority, and Maricopa Association of

Governments Meetings This item was for information only. 4. Issue a Request for Proposals for Public Transit Department Facilities

Maintenance 5. April 2015 Proposed Bus Service Changes

Councilman Gates motioned to approve consent items 4 and 5. Councilwoman Pastor seconded the motion, which passed 3-0.

6

6. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Proposed Ceremonial Signage Deputy City Manager Rick Naimark introduced Assistant Streets Transportation Department Director Kini Knudsen and Deputy Streets Transportation Director Tom Godbee. Mr. Naimark stated that, at the request of Councilwoman Gallego, Councilman Nowakowski and Councilman DiCiccio, staff was asked to evaluate options for naming a street after The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Mr. Naimark stated staff discovered that officially renaming a street is a long process; however, the Streets Transportation Director has the authority to ceremonially name a street. Mr. Knudsen stated that staff has been working with the Martin Luther King Advisory Committee, formed by Councilwoman Gallego and Councilman Nowakowski, and that they would like to recommend ceremonially naming Broadway Road “Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard.” He added that the funding for the ceremonial signs will be provided by the Martin Luther King Advisory Committee. He also added that he hopes to have the signs installed prior to Martin Luther King Jr. Day on January 19, 2015. Mr. Naimark added that the ceremonial name change will not require anyone to change their address. Councilwoman Williams asked if the name change will be a permanent designation. Mr. Knudsen stated that from a ceremonial perspective, the name change will be permanent. Councilwoman Gallego joined the meeting at 9:06 a.m. Councilwoman Pastor asked if the signs will look similar to signs used to identify historic neighborhoods. Mr. Naimark stated that the signs will look similar to the large street signs at major intersections. Mr. Knudsen added that the Martin Luther King Advisory Committee will meet with the District 8 African American Advisory Council and South Mountain Village Planning Committee to discuss the ceremonial naming proposal. Councilwoman Gallego stated that Phoenix is the largest city without a major thoroughfare named after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and ceremonially naming Broadway Road could be important for recognizing our civil rights history and our aspirations for the future. Councilwoman Pastor asked for an explanation of the ceremonial sign process. Mr. Knudsen stated that the process of ceremonially naming a street is initiated by the community and approved by the Streets Transportation Director.

7

Mr. Naimark stated that communities requesting to ceremonially name a street need to submit to the Neighborhood Services Department a petition with 70% support before the process can proceed. He added that the process also requires public meetings. Councilman Gates asked where the ceremonial signs will be installed, and if they will be illuminated. Mr. Knudsen stated that the signs will be installed above the current road signs and will not be illuminated. Councilman Gates asked if the ceremonial signs will be installed on every street along Broadway Road. Mr. Godbee stated that the signs will only be installed at the major intersection. Councilman Gates thanked Councilwoman Gallego, Councilman Nowakowski and Councilman DiCiccio for spearheading this effort. Councilwoman Gallego motioned to approve staff’s recommendation. Councilman Gates seconded the motion, which passed 4-0.

7. Reimagine Phoenix Update Deputy City Manager Rick Naimark introduced Public Works Director John Trujillo.

Mr. Trujillo stated in January 2014, the City Council approved the implementation of two new programs as part of Reimagine Phoenix: curbside pickup of green organics and Save as You Reduce and Recycle (SAY R&R). Mr. Trujllo stated that Green Organics program is being implemented in phases. He added that the goals of this program are to reduce the amount of trash, divert materials from the landfill, and reduce disposal costs. He stated that residents can request a tan Green Organics container for $5 per month per container that will be picked up on a weekly basis. Mr. Trujillo stated that Phase I of the program includes 150,000 households and focuses on areas with multiple garbage containers, large lots, and mature landscaping. Mr. Trujillo stated that as of July 2014, 3,551 residents have registered for the program and more than 3,000 ton of green organics have been diverted. Mr. Trujillo stated that the goal of SAY R&R is to reduce trash, recycle more and thereby reduce the costs of transporting trash to the landfill. Mr. Trujillo stated that the program allows residents to save $3 a month by reducing the size of the standard trash container from 90 gallons to 65 gallons. He added that the program is available to residents who have curbside collection and are enrolled in the City’s recycling program. He added that there are approximately 5,800 residents enrolled in the SAY R&R program. Mr. Trujillo stated that the next steps for the Green Organics program will be to focus on targeted marketing in the Phase I area, increase participation, and identify

8

Phase II boundaries. He added that staff will continue outreach and marketing for the SAY R&R program. Mr. Trujillo added that staff is reviewing the first phase of the waste characterization study to determine when the second phase of the study will take place. Mr. Trujillo explained that these two programs alone will not help the City achieve its 40 percent diversion goal; however, there are several alternatives being explored, such as improving the City’s composting capabilities, working with Arizona State University to develop additional diversion options, and developing an education and communication plan. Mr. Trujillo stated that more information regarding these alternatives will be brought to the Subcommittee in January 2015. Mr. Naimark reiterated that one of the goals of the two new programs is to divert waste from the landfill. He added that hauling waste to the landfill is very costly, and it is not good for the environment. Chairwoman Williams asked for the percentage of residents using the tan containers. Mr. Trujillo stated that approximately three percent of Phase I households are using the tan containers. Chairwoman Williams asked if there is a plan to increase participation in the Phase I areas. Mr. Trujillo stated that staff is developing a marketing plan to communicate the importance of diverting waste from the landfill. Mr. Trujillo added that the goal for Phase I is to have at least five percent participation. Councilman Gates asked what can be placed in the tan containers. Mr. Trujillo stated that most green materials can be placed in the tan container except oleanders, palm fronds and pyracantha. Councilman Gates also asked if the tan containers can be offered for free for a period of time. He also suggested that an application be developed to streamline the subscription process for both programs. Mr. Naimark stated that the cost for the tan container is associated with the additional resources needed to manage the program; however, a free trial period may be possible. Mr. Naimark stated that staff has noticed that neighborhoods with alley trash collection have higher participation in the green organics program although they cannot opt for a smaller garbage can and receive a reduction in monthly fees. Councilwoman Pastor asked if neighborhoods with alley collection share the tan containers and the cost associated with them. Mr. Trujillo stated that the tan container is the curbside, and the cost is the responsibility of the individual resident. Mr. Trujillo stated that in January 2015, the Subcommittee will be provided with additional options to enhance participation, including incentivizing programs and further reducing the size of the 65-gallon container.

9

Mr. Trujillo added that the Public Works Department has not had a fee increase in the past six years due to the success of the programs implemented to divert waste and save money; however, it may be necessary to have a fee increase in the future. Councilwoman Pastor suggested an incentive where residents reduce the size of their standard waste container and receive a tan container in return. She added that people are more likely to participate if there are incentives. Haley Ritter spoke in favor of these programs. She added that she has alley trash collection and individuals from an adjacent apartment complex frequently fill the trash cans with their waste. She also stated that she would be willing to pay five dollars for the tan container. Councilwoman Gallego asked what the City requires of landscaping companies for disposal of green materials. Mr. Trujillo stated landscaping companies typically dispose of green materials at the transfer station. He added that they receive a 14 dollar incentive per ton if they separate out the green organics. He also stated landscapers dispose of green materials in alley containers, in the alleyway and in the tan containers. Mr. Naimark added that residents should speak to their landscaper about the use of the tan container, because it can provide a financial benefit for the resident and the landscaper. Councilwoman Gallego asked if staff could reach out to landscapers to inform them of the benefits of the tan container. Mr. Trujillo stated staff will look into reaching out to landscapers. Councilwoman Pastor suggested that the City hold a landscaper summit to inform the landscapers of the financial and environmental benefit associated with using the tan containers. Councilwoman Gallego asked if staff can provide an update on the businesses expressing interest in the green materials industry. Mr. Trujillo stated the department’s goal is to have businesses colocate near the transfer station and purchase and reuse the City’s waste materials. He added that Arizona State University and the incubator program will help find businesses that are interested in this opportunity. Chairwoman Williams stated that she is excited about the programs. She added that vendors have informed her that the City can make money by selling some of its waste materials.

8. Interstate 10 / Interstate 17 Corridor Master Plan Deputy City Manager Rick Naimark summarized the purpose of the master plan and introduced Bob Hazlett from the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG).

10

Assistant Streets Transportation Director Kini Knudsen stated that the City’s focus for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is improvements to the Interstate 10 (I-10) and Interstate 17 (I-17) corridor. Mr. Knudsen added that the need for the corridor where so great, it was necessary to reevaluate the RTP with MAG and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to determine what could be done within the established budget. Mr. Hazlett stated that the I-10 and I-17 corridor is 35 miles long. He explained that it has been nicknamed the “spine study,” because more than 40 percent of all the freeway traffic in the Valley uses this particular corridor. Mr. Hazlett noted that approximately $1.47 million is dedicated to this corridor in the RTP. Mr. Hazlett stated that ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration have been conducting a number of studies, including an Environmental Impact Statement that provided recommendations to expand I-10 to 25 lanes and portions of I-17 to 18 lanes. Mr. Hazlett noted that the studies were suspended due to cost and time limitations. Mr. Hazlett stated that on October 31, 2012, regional partners met to discuss the transportation needs and budgetary limitations. He added that approximately $4 billion in transportation needs were identified; however, there was only $1.5 billion available. He stated that as a result of the meeting a Near-Term Improvement Strategy and Corridor Master Plan were developed, along with a plan for environmental studies and the design and construction processes. Mr. Hazlett stated that the Near-Term improvement Strategy focuses on multiple options, such as those targeting bottlenecks and enhancing traffic operations. He added that potential projects must rapidly meet environmental requirements and a near-term construction timeframe. Mr. Hazlett stated that some near-term improvement projects included restriping portions of I-10 to add an additional lane; changing lane configuration on the Broadway curve to eliminate weaving of traffic; and a bicycle-pedestrian crossing near Temple Diablo Stadium He added that auxiliary lines, to assist with traffic movement on I-17, are included in the improvement strategy. Councilwoman Gallego asked about traffic signal timing near I-17 between 16th Street and 19th Avenue. Mr. Hazlett stated one of the goals of the near-term improvement strategies is ramp metering coordination, which evaluates street signal timing and ramp signals to enhance the flow of traffic. Councilman Gates asked if the ramp metering coordination will be evaluated throughout the Spine. Mr. Hazlett stated that it will be evaluated throughout the spine and I-10 West. Mr. Hazlett noted that the near-term improvement projects will be ready for construction by fiscal year 2017. He added that performance measures will be included in the process.

11

Chairwoman Williams asked if freeway improvements will take place at night. Mr. Hazlett stated that there will be coordination with all partners to minimize the impact on traffic. Mr. Hazlett stated that the Corridor Master Plan was initiated six months ago with an expected completion date of December 2016. He added that this plan will project needs along the Spine and adjacent streets to 2040. He emphasized that project stakeholders will include elected officials from throughout the region. He also stated public meetings will be held along the Spine to gather input from the community. Mr. Hazlett noted that a mobile compatible application called Metro Quest will also be used to gather input from the community. Councilman Gates emphasized that the City should look into leveraging similar technology for planning purposes. Councilman Gates asked if public meetings will focus on the long-term vision of the corridor. Mr. Hazlett stated that the public meetings will focus on the long-term vision of the corridor and the region’s transportation needs. Councilman Gates also asked if the potential light rail crossing over I-17 will be part of the discussion during public meetings. Mr. Hazlett stated that the light rail crossing and other items will be discussed. Chairwoman Williams asked when the Metro Quest application will be available. Mr. Hazlett stated that the application should be available in February 2015 on the azmag.gov website. Chairwoman Williams asked how the Subcommittee be notified when the application is available. Mr. Naimark stated that Mr. Hazlett will notify staff when the application is ready and staff will notify Subcommittee members. Chairwoman Williams asked if anyone is working with Valley Metro to add additional bus service along I-17 to alleviate traffic during project construction. Mr. Hazlett stated that ADOT has been the primary partner for the work; however, it may be possible to identify funding for additional bus service. Mr. Hazlet stated that I-17 and Pinnacle Peak and Happy Valley Road are experiencing some issues with traffic backing into the mainline. He added that MAG, ADOT and the City of Phoenix recently met to discuss possible solutions. Councilwoman Gallego asked what traffic data is used to determine traffic backups on the freeways. Mr. Hazlett stated that traffic backups can be determined by evaluating traffic count data, crash data, and socioeconomic data to forecast potential traffic patterns in various areas. Coucilwoman Gallego asked if traffic data can show if traffic is waiting multiple light cycles at a particular intersection. Mr. Hazlett stated that traffic data can be used to identify these issues.

12

Councilwoman Gallego asked about the primary congestion points along the Spine. Mr. Hazlett stated that the Broadway Curve, Dunlap, Bell Road and Peoria are some of the congestion points along the spine. Marvin Rochelle stated that he recommended a double deck freeway to Happy Valley Road in 1997. Mr. Rochelle also stated that the city needs light rail into Metrocenter, crossing I-17. He also recommended a toll lane on I-10 from the Loop-101 to downtown.

9. Southwest Growth Area Infrastructure Update Deputy City Manager Rick Naimark stated that staff will provide a comprehensive overview of the infrastructure in the Southwest growth area, particularly financed by impact fees. Mr. Naimark introduced Planning and Development Services Assistant Director Cindy Stotler. Chairwoman Williams stated that she wanted to ensure that impact fees being charged were adequate to fund the infrastructure associated with growth in the south and north areas of Phoenix. She added that recent rains have highlighted the need for additional infrastructure, such as bridges in the northern part of Phoenix. She emphasized that maps depicting the City’s infrastructure should have the latest information in order to anticipate funding needs and challenges. Ms. Stotler stated that the Southwest growth area consists of Estrella, Laveen, and South Mountain Villages. She added that there are four impact fee areas that contribute to the expansion and completion of infrastructure. Ms. Stotler introduced Water Services Department Deputy Director Brandy Kelso. Ms. Kelso reviewed maps depicting the water and wastewater infrastructure in the Southwest area. She added that there is only a small portion of the area that requires major additions to the water infrastructure, because infrastructure has been added as new developments have been built. Ms. Kelso stated that wastewater infrastructure is well established in the Southwest area; however, there are still areas where infrastructure is needed. She added that the wastewater in this area flows into the 91st Avenue treatment plant, and the infrastructure feeding this plant is running at capacity. Ms. Kelso stated that impact fees are being collected to fund infrastructure in this area, and additional infrastructure will be built as development progresses. Streets Transportation Assistant Director Kini Knudsen stated that a street classification map has been developed to determine which streets can be included in the impact fee program, such as arterial streets.

13

Mr. Knudsen stated that Dobbins Road was previously an arterial street; however, at the request of the community, it was changed to a collector street, making it ineligible for the impact fee program. Mr. Knudsen added that after the recent rains and flooding in that area, staff is analyzing this corridor to determine if it needs to revert back to an arterial street. Mr. Knudsen stated that the City is working with Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) to identify storm drainage projects within the impact fee areas. He added that the recent rains and floods have prompted the City and the FCDMC to reevaluate current projects to ensure they are correctly prioritized. Reid Butler stated that he and Wes Lyons, Laveen Village Planning Committee, are very supportive of staff’s infrastructure planning efforts. He added that building the proposed freeway in the Laveen area will help alleviate traffic along the Spine. He also asked if the City could facilitate a meeting with all stakeholders involved in the proposed freeway project to discuss infrastructure and logistical needs of the project. Mr. Butler added that tax increment financing could be a big advantage in the Laveen corridor for development along the proposed freeway. Chairwoman Williams stated that she is hopeful that it will be possible to bring all stakeholders together to meet. Councilwoman Gallego stated that residents in the Dobbins area really want infrastructure improvements to address concerns associated with the recent flooding. She emphasized that residents are depending on the City to make an investment in the area to prevent future flooding. She also added that she would like staff to look into financing options for flood control.

10. Call to the Public:

Haley Ritter congratulated the City on the implementation of the bike share program, and adoption of the Bike Master Plan. She asked for an update on the goals of the Bike Master Plan. Howard May stated that some people may not want to take the Sky Train and the City should have an alternate form of transportation to commute between the terminals. Mr. May added that there is a need for additional buses on Route 60. He also stated that some of the buses need their enunciator systems serviced.

11. Request for Future Agenda Items

Mr. Naimark stated that he will add Councilwoman Gallego’s request regarding financing for flood control to the agenda.

12. Adjournment Councilman Gates adjourned the meeting at 10:37 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Gabriel Morales Management Intern

14


15


CITY COUNCIL REPORT

TO: Rick Naimark Deputy City Manager

FROM: Albert Santana Light Rail Project Administrator

SUBJECT: METRO, REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MEETINGS

This report provides the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with copies of past and/or upcoming meeting agendas/summaries for METRO light rail, Valley Metro/Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA), and the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). This item is for information only. THE ISSUE Within Maricopa County, there are several agencies with different charges relating to public transit and transportation planning. Valley Metro/RPTA: In 1993, the Regional Public Transportation Authority Board adopted the name Valley Metro as the identity for the regional transit system in metropolitan Phoenix. Under the “Valley Metro” brand, local governments fund the Valley-wide transit system which the public sees on the streets today. Valley Metro Board member agencies include Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, El Mirage, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Maricopa County, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Queen Creek, Scottsdale, Surprise, and Tempe. Councilwoman Thelda Williams serves as Phoenix’s representative on the RPTA Board of Directors. METRO: METRO is the brand name for Valley Metro Rail Inc., a nonprofit, public corporation charged with the design, construction, and operation of the Valley’s light rail system. The cities that participate financially in the light rail system each have a representative on the METRO Board of Directors. Cities on the board include Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tempe. METRO is structured on a “pay-to-play basis” with voting power allocated based on investment in the system. Councilwoman Thelda Williams serves as Phoenix’s representative and is the current chair of the METRO Board of Directors. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG): MAG is a Council of Governments that serves as the regional agency for the metropolitan Phoenix area. When MAG was formed in 1967, elected officials recognized the need for long-range planning and policy development on a regional scale. Issues such as transportation, air quality, and human services affect residents beyond the borders of individual jurisdictions. MAG is the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for transportation planning in the Maricopa County region. Mayor Stanton serves as Phoenix’s representative.

16

OTHER INFORMATION The goal of staff is to provide the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with agendas for future meetings of these bodies. Meeting dates do not coincide and agendas are not available until close to the meeting date. However, prior to reaching each Board of Directors meeting, most agenda items are reviewed by staff committees which include City of Phoenix members. An attachment to the Subcommittee packet will provide meeting agendas and/or additional information for previous and upcoming METRO, RPTA and MAG meetings. RECOMMENDATION This item is for information only. Attachments

17


CITY COUNCIL REPORT


FROM: Ray Dovalina Street Transportation Director Alan Stephenson Planning and Development Director

SUBJECT:

PRIVATE STREET DEDICATION PROCESS AND CREATION OF MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS

This report requests the Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Subcommittee recommend City Council approval of changes to the City private street dedication process, and City Code, Chapter 32, Subdivision Ordinance changes that would require the creation of Maintenance Improvement Districts (MID) to maintain private streets and other common tracts in future developments. THE ISSUE The City allows the construction of private streets when developers wish to benefit from lower costs and design flexibility. In some cases, due to parcel size constraints, design flexibility is the only way a parcel can be developed. During the initial development process, a developer who wishes to build private streets must design and construct them in accordance with the City standard for a private accessway. As a condition of the development of private streets, the developer and property owners assume full responsibility for all maintenance costs. The ongoing private street maintenance responsibilities and costs can be significant, especially if regular preventative maintenance activities are delayed or deferred, and if the initial construction did not meet City design standards. There are currently 446 miles of private streets in the City. The City is regularly contacted by developers and property owners requesting to dedicate private streets and transfer maintenance responsibilities to the City. There are significant legal and liability issues concerning City acceptance of private street dedications, in addition to budgetary impacts to the City. The private street dedication issue was presented at the November 21, 2014 Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee meeting. OTHER INFORMATION Proposed Changes to the Private Street Dedication Process The existing private street dedication process has been in effect since 1986, with only minor modifications over the past 28 years. The existing process is focused on

18

residential private streets and the process to dedicate them to the City. Additionally, the existing dedication process is open only to streets built prior to March 19, 1986. The number of private streets in the City has increased dramatically from 180 miles in 1991 to nearly 450 miles today. Additionally, some private streets within the City were built to support commercial development. Under the existing dedication process, there is no clear option to consider the dedication of private streets built after March 19, 1986 or those built to support commercial development. Further, the existing process requires that all costs associated with the dedication of private streets are the sole responsibility of the developer and property owner(s). Staff has worked to modify and update the existing private street dedication process. The proposed revised private street dedication process (Attachment A) expands the dedication process to residential private streets built after 1986, includes commercial private street dedications, and allows for cost participation by the City, if such participation represents a substantial public benefit and that participation is proportional to the public benefit. Proposed Changes to the City Code, Chapter 32, Subdivision Ordinance Although the revised private street dedication process expands the opportunities available for developers and property owner(s) who would like to dedicate private streets to the City, it does not address situations where deferred private street maintenance constitutes a public safety issue. Staff has worked to find a methodology for the City to assist with, and be reimbursed for, the repair or maintenance of private streets, drainage ways, landscape, community centers, etc. in the event of bankruptcy or dissolution of the Homeowners’ Association (HOA). HOA responsibility for private streets, drainage ways, community centers, and other common tracts are identified and recorded on subdivision final plats. The proposed changes will require a City easement be placed on these common tracts and a fully executed petition to request the creation of a MID. This MID will lie dormant until the bankruptcy or dissolution of the HOA results in a public safety issue due to lack of maintenance on the common tracts. Once activated, the MID will allow the City to perform the necessary work and assess the subdivision homeowners via a property tax levy. Activation of the MID and the subsequent property tax levy must be approved by City Council. RECOMMENDATION This report requests the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommitee recommend City Council approval for: a. The revised private street dedication process (Attachment A), and

b. Changes to the City Code, Chapter 32, Subdivision Ordinance that would require

the creation of Maintenance Improvement Districts on plats to maintain private streets and other common tracts in future developments (Attachment B).

19

•

•

20

21

22

23

ATTACHMENT B

Phoenix Charter and City Code

Chapter 32-17 Easements.

A. It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to provide on the final plat such easements in such location and width as required for utility and/or Phoenix Building Construction Code purposes. *1

B. The following notation shall be placed upon all final plats which provide utility easements: "Construction within easements shall be limited to utilities, and wood, wire or removable section type fencing." *1 New Language: C. The subdivider shall grant the City an easement for maintenance, irrigation, drainage facilities, hardscape, private streets, multi-use trails, and all other similar common tracts owned by the Homeowners’ Association. Chapter 32-24 Information required for final plat submittal. A. Method and medium of presentation.

(1) The record plat shall be drawn in India ink on linen, plastic, or other non-shrinking material on a sheet of 24 inches by 36 inches proportions; (2) Copies of the record plat shall be reproduced in the form of blueline or blackline prints on a white background; and (3) The plat shall be drawn to an accurate scale having not more than 100 feet to an inch.

B. Identification data required. The following identification data provided by an Arizona registered land surveyor shall be required as part of the final plat submittal.

(1) A title which includes the name of the subdivision and its location by number of section, township, range, and county; (2) Name, address and registration number of seal of the registered land surveyor preparing the plat; and (3) Scale, north arrow, and date of plat preparation.

C. Survey data required. The following survey data shall be required as part of the final plat submittal.

(1) Boundaries of the tract to be subdivided fully balanced and closed, showing all bearings and distances, determined by an accurate survey in the field. All dimensions shall be expressed in feet and decimals thereof; (2) Any excepted parcel(s) within the plat boundaries shall show all bearings and distances, determined by an accurate survey in the field. All dimensions shall be expressed in feet and decimals thereof; (3) Location and description of cardinal points to which all dimensions, angles, bearings, and similar data on the plat shall be referenced; each of two corners of the subdivision traverse shall be tied by course and distance to separate section corners or quarter-section corners; (4) Location of all physical encroachments upon the boundaries of the tract; and

24

(5) Sealed copy of a computer printout or all material involved in hand-calculated boundary traverse survey.

D. Descriptive data required. The following descriptive data shall be required as part of the final plat submittal.

(1) Name, right-of-way lines, courses, length, width of all public streets, alleys, and crosswalks; radii, points of tangency, and central angles of all curvilinear streets and alleys; radii of all rounded street line intersections; (2) All drainageways shall be shown on the plat. The right-of-way of all major drainageways, as approved by the Department, shall be dedicated to the public in accordance with the area drainage master plan; (3) Location and all dimensions of all residential lots; (4) All residential lots shall be numbered by consecutive numbers throughout the plat. "Exceptions," "tracts," and "private parks" shall be so designated, lettered, or named and clearly dimensioned; (5) Location, dimensions, bearings, radii, arcs, and central angles of all sites to be dedicated to the public with the use clearly indicated; (6) Location of all adjoining subdivisions with date, book, and page number of recordation noted, or if unrecorded, so marked; (7) Any proposed private deed restrictions to be imposed upon the plat or any part or parts thereof pertaining to the intended use of the land shall be typewritten and attached to the plat and to each copy submitted; and (8) A grading and drainage plan in conformance with the grading and drainage regulations in Chapter 32A of this Code.

E. Dedication and acknowledgment.

(1) Dedication. There shall be required as part of the final plat submittal a statement of dedication of all streets, alleys, drainageways, pedestrian ways, and other easements for public use by the person holding title of record, by persons holding title as vendees under land contract and by spouses of said parties. If lands dedicated are mortgaged, the mortgagee shall sign the plat. Dedication shall include a written location by section, township, and range of the tract. If the plat contains private streets, public utilities shall be reserved the right to install and maintain utilities in the street rights-of-way. (2) Abandonment. Where there are temporary easements, landscaped easements and/or utility easements that are to be vacated (removing any City interest in the easement) they can be shown on the plat and described as such. A roadway right-of-way or easement can be placed on the plat for abandonment only if the requirements of State law are met concurrently with Council approval. (3) Acknowledgment of dedication. Execution of dedication acknowledged and certified by a notary public.

F. Required certifications. The subdivider shall require, as part of the final plat submittal, certification by the registered land surveyor certifying that the plat is correct and accurate, and that the monuments described in it have been located as described. *1

25

New Language: G. Maintenance Improvement District. The subdivider shall provide the documentation and written consent necessary for the City to form a Maintenance Improvement District for the purpose of maintaining common tracts within the subdivision.

26


27


CITY COUNCIL REPORT


FROM: Kathryn Sorensen Water Services Director

SUBJECT: SALT AND VERDE RIVER WATERSHED RESILIENCY PROGRAM

This report provides the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with a summary of the Salt and Verde River watershed resiliency programs being conducted by The Nature Conservancy. THE ISSUE The Nature Conservancy (Conservancy) is an international nonprofit organization whose mission is to “preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” The Conservancy works in all 50 states of the U.S. and in more than 35 countries, partnering with governments, universities, indigenous communities, business, and other non-profit organizations engaged in protecting land and water for nature and people. The Conservancy has been actively engaged in Arizona for almost 50 years, including work on various projects on the Salt River and Verde River watersheds that are vital to the City’s long-term water supply sustainability. At the subcommittee meeting, staff from the Conservancy will provide an overview presentation on her organization and its current projects within these watersheds. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

28


29

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, January 13, 2015, Item #6a

CITY COUNCIL REPORT


FROM: Kathryn Sorensen Water Services Director

SUBJECT: WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

This report summarizes the Water Services Department’s 2015-2020 Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). THE ISSUE The CIP provides for the infrastructure needed to supply high quality water and safely remove wastewater, ensure adequate water and sewer capacity for future growth, enhance community sustainability through the protection of the environment, ensure the operational resiliency of the water and wastewater utilities, and provide for a sustainable and resilient supply of water now and into the future. The City’s water and wastewater utilities are financed through water and wastewater enterprise funds. Revenue is generated from the sale of metered water, fees for services performed, the sale of treated wastewater, bonds for capital projects, and development-related fees. Payment for the water and wastewater capital improvement programs generally comprises more than half of the budget of the water and wastewater utilities, and therefore the CIP is the most significant driver of the rate increases periodically necessary to maintain financially viable water and wastewater utilities. Although staff does not recommend rate increases in 2015, it is important to update the City Council regarding the major components of the CIP. The proposed 2015-2020 CIP budgets were carefully crafted to uphold the Water Services Department’s mission to provide safe and reliable water and wastewater services that meet or exceed regulatory requirements while minimizing costs. Projects are prioritized through a rigorous and detailed process designed to ensure the Department is building and replacing the right infrastructure at the right time. In addition, to ensure the most efficient use of revenues, the Department has developed detailed monthly and quarterly reports that provide oversight on the aspects of capital projects that most impact cost, such as change orders, schedule variance, and construction contingencies. Water Capital Improvement Program The proposed 2015-2020 CIP totals $781.6 million, approximately 10 percent higher than last year’s program of $710.3 million. Attachment 1 lists the proposed 2015-2016 through 2019-2020 projects by fiscal year. Some of the key programs are summarized below.

30

The proposed CIP includes $168 million in water treatment plants, $183 million in reservoirs, wells, and pump stations; $369 million in water mains; and $62 million in other categories such as automation, safety, acquisition of water supplies, and the Colorado River Resiliency Program. The $71.3 million increase in the 2015-2020 Water CIP over last year’s 5-year program can be attributed mainly to replacement of aging water lines, hydrants, and valves; inspection and rehabilitation of large transmission lines; increased investment in wells; rehabilitation of reservoirs; and investment in a new supervisory control and data acquisition system for operation of the remote facilities including wells and booster stations. Continual reinvestment in infrastructure is necessary to ensure reliable water deliveries to customers. A new section of the CIP, the Colorado River Resiliency Program, was approved by the Mayor and Council on October 21, 2014. It is designed to fund various resiliency efforts to help protect the City against water shortage events on the Colorado River. Such resiliency efforts will vary year-to-year but generally include purchase of additional water for storage underground (both locally and in partnership with others in the Tucson area), expansion of the City’s aquifer storage and recovery well program, participation in Colorado River system conservation programs, participation in programs to store City water in Lake Mead, development of “dry-year option” partnerships with high-priority Colorado River water rights holders, watershed protection, and efforts to protect groundwater and stored water in the City’s water service area. The Colorado River Resiliency Fund is programmed at approximately $5.9 million per year on average. Wastewater CIP The proposed 2015-2020 Wastewater CIP totals $468.2 million, slightly less than last year’s 5-year program at $472.6 million. Attachment 2 lists the proposed 2015-2016 through 2019-2020 projects by fiscal year. The Wastewater CIP includes $83 million in wastewater treatment plants, $52 million in lift stations, $309 million in sewer lines and manholes, and $24 million in process efficiencies, including Automated Meter Reading, Instrumentation and Control process improvements, as well as the Customer Care and Billing system upgrade. It is worth noting that a total of $78.8 million has been programmed for regional sewer capacity improvements, specifically the Sub-Regional Operating Group (SROG) interceptors. These improvements are required to ensure sufficient capacity exists to convey flows to the treatment plants while meeting regulatory requirements. The water and wastewater capital projects outlined are necessary to ensure reliable infrastructure performance and maintain compliance with environmental regulations. Staff will continue to monitor system needs, seek efficiency savings where possible, and make program adjustments as necessary to keep program costs to a minimum. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

31

Attachment 1: Proposed Water Capital Improvement Program Attachment 2: Proposed Wastewater Capital Improvement Program

32

33

34

35

36


37

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, January 13, 2015, Item #6b

CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Ed Zuercher

City Manager

FROM: Neal Young Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: 2015 WATER AND WASTEWATER FINANCIAL PLANS

This report provides information regarding the financial requirements necessary to support the Water Services Department’s operations and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2015-16 through 2019-20 for the water and wastewater systems and requests the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee recommend City Council approval of the 2015 Water and Wastewater Financial Plans. This action recommends no increase in 2015 Water and Wastewater rates. Strong AAA credit ratings allow us to refinance our debt and use the savings to keep rates low. THE ISSUE Consistent with past years, five-year plans have been prepared by the Water Services and Finance departments which define both the capital infrastructure requirements and financial requirements of the water and wastewater systems. A second City Council Report (CCR) prepared by the Water Services Department outlines projects in the five-year CIP for the water and wastewater systems. The Mayor and City Council have consistently taken the necessary actions to meet the needs of a growing city, maintain the existing infrastructure, and meet federal standards for safe drinking water. This also included an efficiency study by an independent consultant to review the water and sewer systems which was completed in 2012. These innovation and efficiency actions have helped to develop strong reserves, a strong pay-as-you-go CIP, and manageable debt service levels which continue to support superior bond credit ratings. In calendar year 2014, water and wastewater bond refinancings achieved present value savings of $73.3 million in water and $21.9 million in wastewater. Due to the Water Services Department’s continuous improvement in managing the capital program and due to the savings achieved through the refinancing, staff does not recommend rate increases in 2015. For comparison, the history of rate adjustments for the last twenty years is provided in Attachment 1. Future rate adjustments as shown below will likely be necessary to address rising operating costs and to fund capital improvements to maintain safe and reliable systems. The City of Phoenix combined water and sewer utility bill is currently the fourth lowest of the twenty largest U.S. cities

38

PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER

RATE REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS

Combined Water and Sewer Water Sewer Effective

Date Previous Forecast

Current Forecast

Current Forecast

Current Forecast

2015

March 2016 March 2017 March 2018 March 2019 March 2020

2.0 %

2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

Not Forecasted

0.0 %

2.6 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

0.0 %

3.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

0.0 %

2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

OTHER INFORMATION The following sections outline the financial requirements for proposed rate adjustments. Water Financial Plan The Water Financial Plan forecasts minimal inflationary adjustments to support future operational, maintenance and CIP costs of the system based on the following assumptions:

• Continued slow economic recovery with 1 percent to 2 percent incremental annual increases in revenue due to growth and before proposed rate adjustments.

• Operating expenditures are budgeted for the first two years and are projected to increase 4 percent annually thereafter for system growth and inflation.

• Refund $175 million of commercial paper program notes (short term debt) used to finance the Water System’s Capital Improvement Program. This results in additional debt service of $3.9 million in fiscal year 2014-15, $7.3 million in fiscal years 2015-16 through 2017-18 and $10.5 million in fiscal years 2018-19 through 2043-44.

• Offsetting this additional debt service is savings from refunding existing Water System bonds. The refunding generated a present value savings of $73.3 million and reduced debt service by approximately $12.9 million in fiscal year 2014-15 and $16.2 million in fiscal years 2015-16 through 2018-19.

• The proposed 2015-16 to 2019-20 Five-Year Water CIP totals $781.6 million. Fund balance, debt service and other ratios are maintained at AAA bond credit rating levels.

39

The plan updates the proposed rate adjustments as follows:

Effective Date 2015


Previous Forecast 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

Not Forecasted

Current Forecast 0.0 % 3.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

Wastewater Financial Plan The Wastewater Financial Plan forecasts minimal inflationary adjustments to support future operational, maintenance and CIP costs of the system based on the following assumptions:

• Continued slow economic recovery with 1 percent to 2 percent incremental annual increases in revenue due to growth and before proposed rate adjustments.

• Operating expenditures are budgeted for the first two years and are projected to increase 4 percent annually thereafter for system growth and inflation.

• The proposed 2015-16 to 2019-20 Five-Year Wastewater CIP totals $468.2 million.

• Fund balance, debt service and other ratios are maintained at AAA bond credit rating levels.

The plan updates the proposed rate adjustments as follows:

Effective Date 2015


Previous Forecast 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

Not Forecasted

Current Forecast 0.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee recommend City Council approval of the 2015 Water and Wastewater Financial Plans. The Financial Plans indicate no change for either water or wastewater rates for 2015. This approval is in conjunction with the conceptual approval of the Water Services Department 2015-16 through 2019-20 Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Programs.

40

Attachment 1

City of Phoenix History of Water and Sewer Rate Adjustments

Since 1993

Calendar Year Water Sewer Combined

2015* 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2014 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2013 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2012 4.50% -7.50% 0.00%

2011 7.00% 0.00% 4.40%

2010 9.00% 4.50% 7.00%

2009 11.00% 5.00% 8.40%

2008 12.00% 7.00% 9.70%

2007 9.50% 9.50% 9.20%

2006 8.50% 9.00% 8.70%

2005 7.00% 9.00% 7.80%

2004 4.00% 7.00% 5.20%

2003 3.00% 8.00% 5.00%

2002 5.00% 3.50% 4.40%

2001 4.00% 5.00% 4.40%

2000 2.00% 3.00% 2.40%

1999 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

1998 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

1997 4.00% 4.50% 4.20%

1996 4.50% 4.00% 4.30%

1995 3.80% 0.00% 2.20%

1994 8.30% 7.90% 8.10%

1993 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% * as recommended.

41


CITY COUNCIL REPORT


FROM: John A. Trujillo Public Works Director

SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATES

This report provides the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with an update on capital projects in 2014-15, and the 2015-2020 Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Public Works Department. THE ISSUE Each year, the Public Works Department updates a comprehensive Five-Year CIP to address critical infrastructure, aging equipment, and building needs for solid waste services, energy conservation, facilities management, and fleet services. The 2015-2020 CIP includes authorized funding for capital projects financed with General Obligation (GO) bonds, general and restricted funds, operating revenues, and impact fees. Given the economic impact to bond funded projects, the proposed Five Year CIP addresses critical projects to maintain sustainable infrastructure and ensure operational capacity for future growth development. OTHER INFORMATION The business process to evaluate capital projects starts in July of each year for Solid Waste operations, and September of each year for the Facilities Management and Energy Conservation Programs. Solid Waste conducts an annual service rate setting process and develops the preliminary CIP using a 10-year forecast module for the Solid Waste Program. The Solid Waste Fund is structurally balanced and has not had a residential rate increase since 2009, due to ongoing efficiency efforts. Over the years, there have been delays with the implementation of GO Bond funded projects approved for the Facilities Management Program. There are three projects totaling $4.13 million that are currently on hold for GO Bond funded projects at City Council direction. PROGRAM OVERVIEW Solid Waste Disposal Capital projects are proposed to maintain environmental compliance, support facility improvements, and expand landfill build-out. Solid Waste operating revenue, Solid Waste Remediation funds, impact fees, capital reserves, and nonprofit corporation bond funds are utilized to finance capital projects. The five-year $103.4 million Solid Waste Program includes several large capital projects located at the State Route (SR) 85 Landfill, 27th Avenue Transfer Station, and the North Gateway Transfer Station. Other projects are planned to address infrastructure needs at the City’s open and closed landfills.

42

The major capital projects include:

• Complete the construction of the 27th Avenue composting facility in July 2016 with estimated costs of $13.5 million.

• Construct and drill a new construction pond well at the SR 85 Landfill to provide adequate dust control for landfill construction projects and operations. The $2.1 million estimated project is expected to be completed by summer 2015.

• Complete the relocation of APS power poles and wires planned for $4.4 million in 2014-15 at the SR 85 Landfill property to accommodate future growth and development at the landfill. Upon completion of the 10 megawatt solar project, these poles and wires will be used for solar power generation to the electrical grid.

• Complete the multi-phased SR 85 Landfill drainage project planned in 2018-19

with estimated costs of $16.2 million, to provide sufficient storm water management across the entire SR 85 Landfill property.

• Improve various methane gas monitoring and extraction collection systems at the

landfills citywide to include groundwater remediation excavation and cell lining and capping. Several projects are proposed and planned during 2015-2020 with estimated costs of $33 million.

Energy Conservation The Energy Conservation Program has been in place for more than 20 years with a long-standing commitment to energy management, efficiency, and innovative services. This five-year $6 million citywide program is designed to address energy efficient retrofits, energy design and management, and new technology to achieve energy efficiencies and costs savings. Projects are financed from various funding sources including the General Fund ($2.5 million), Solid Waste ($1 million), and Water and Wastewater funds ($2.5 million) for energy conservation projects such as LED Lighting, retrofits and solar projects. Other citywide projects are planned for and financed by enterprise departments including Aviation and the Phoenix Convention Center. Facilities Management The five-year, $20.1 million Facilities Management Program supports the repair and replacement of critical equipment and infrastructure in City-owned buildings maintained by Public Works. These projects are funded primarily through 2001 and 2006 GO bonds, general and other restricted funds, and impact fees. The major capital projects include:

• Complete the final phase of the paving overlay project for the Union Hills Service Center by June 2015. The estimated cost for completion is $130,000.

• Maintain fire life safety systems and the multi-year fire sprinkler project, budgeted

at $500,000 annually, at Phoenix City Hall to ensure code compliance.

43

• Phoenix City Hall System Modernization- Provide critical repairs to various citywide building systems such as central plant repairs, fire life safety system segments and other facility systems. The GO Bond funded project is delayed until 2019-2020 and budgeted at $2,875,850.

• Phoenix City Hall Space Efficiency- Planned work includes reconfiguring selected portions of the building to maximize efficiency and office space. The planned efficiency studies are delayed until 2019-2020 and budgeted at $1,075,000 with GO Bond funds.

• Estrella Complex Infrastructure-The original intent of the project was to provide

required off-site road improvements and utilities for the future Estrella Complex Infrastructure located at 99th Avenue and Lower Buckeye. The Estrella Complex build-out has been put on hold indefinitely with funding budgeted at $185,380 with GO Bond funds in 2019-2020.

• Union Hills and Salt River Fleet Maintenance Facilities– Renovations at these

locations are planned in 2014-15 with estimated costs of $6.1 million to address safety and code compliance for building needs to include upgrades to shop lighting, heating, and ventilation needed to service compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles in compliance with the fire code. Two additional service bays will be added at each location to accommodate increased Solid Waste truck maintenance needs.

• Glenrosa Fleet Maintenance Bays – This more than 50-year-old maintenance

facility will be demolished and replaced in 2016-17 for an estimated cost of $4.9 million to make way for a facility with capacity to accommodate CNG vehicles and additional Solid Waste truck service needs.

RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

44


45


CITY COUNCIL REPORT


FROM: John A. Trujillo Public Works Director

SUBJECT: REIMAGINE PHOENIX SOLID WASTE PROGRAM UPDATE

This report provides an update to the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on the Reimagine Phoenix solid waste programs as well as information on the results of the initial phase of the Waste Characterization Study and proposed strategies for increased waste diversion. It also requests Subcommittee recommendation for City Council approval of measures to expand diversion efforts. THE ISSUE In February 2013, the Mayor and City Council established a citywide goal to divert 40 percent of solid waste by the year 2020. In an effort to improve the City’s diversion rate of 16 percent, the Public Works Department launched Reimagine Phoenix. This initiative focuses on offering new solid waste services, increased education and community outreach, and the creation of public and private partnerships centered on developing waste diversion strategies. OTHER INFORMATION Through continuous achievement of efficiencies and savings, Public Works has successfully maintained the current monthly solid waste fee of $26.80 for the past 7 years. Recent efficiencies include continuing transition of refuse vehicles from diesel to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), downsizing heavy equipment, and conversion to LED lighting at transfer stations. These efficiencies have resulted in a combination of one-time and continued savings of $1.8 million. Additionally, a new outbound scale house at the North Gateway Transfer Station was installed to decrease customer wait times. On February 19, 2014, the City Council approved the selection of Cascadia Consulting Group to conduct a Waste Characterization Study (see attachment) to analyze the composition of the City’s single-family residential contained garbage and recycling streams. The purpose of this study was to identify opportunities to increase diversion within the community and solid waste operations and opportunities for business development. The first phase of the study was conducted in August 2014 and included a review of 130 garbage samples and 101 recycling samples throughout the City. Findings from the study showed nearly two-thirds or 65 percent of the garbage sampled could be diverted from the landfill, including 118,000 tons of compostable yard waste, 57,500 tons of curbside recyclable materials, and 56,500 tons of food waste. The 57,500 tons of curbside recyclable materials translates to more than $5 million in potential revenue, if properly recycled.

46

Public Works has already implemented several measures to increase diversion from the waste stream including the launch of two new programs and increased community outreach. On July 7, 2014, Public Works launched the Curbside Green Organics Program and the “Save-As-You Reduce and Recycle” (SAY R&R) Program for single-family customers. Green Organics offers residents a weekly curbside collection of containerized compostable yard waste on a voluntary, subscription basis for a monthly fee of $5. Phase I of Green Organics was offered to 150,000 residents across all eight council districts. The SAY R&R Program encourages curbside-service residents to downsize from a large trash container to a medium-sized trash container with the incentive of a $3 fee savings per month. Since their launch, 3,605 residents are participating in the Green Organics Program and 5,916 residents are participating in the SAY R&R program. Of all compostable yard waste currently collected, 10 percent is being diverted through the new Green Organics program. To promote participation of Green Organics, staff will conduct additional marketing and expansion efforts focusing on residents within the current implementation area that have large lots or additional trash containers. Expansion will focus on five areas within and near the current boundaries based on two factors: current high participation and larger amounts of compostable yard waste based on the Waste Characterization Study. Public Works has also increased outreach efforts through a variety of outlets including social media, Phoenix At Your Service newsletters, Council District newsletters and community meetings, and at neighborhood meetings throughout the year organized by the Neighborhood Services Department. To address food waste diversion, Public Works is currently piloting a food waste diversion program with Bashas grocery stores and a program for upcoming Superbowl events. Public Works is also in discussion with the Aviation Department and Phoenix Convention Center for future food waste pilot programs. Staff anticipates returning to the Subcommittee in February with an update on food waste diversion strategies. Public Works is exploring the following strategies to continue to maximize waste diversion efforts:

• Expansion of the current plastic bag program, Bag Central Station. • “Pay-As-You Throw” options that provide incentives to customers to recycle

more. • Enhanced community outreach, including the use of automated outreach, Mind

Mixer and media buys. Expand Bag Central Station The single use plastic bag came into the waste stream in the mid-1970s via grocery, convenience and other retail stores. The City’s recent waste characterization study shows that approximately 4,667 tons of plastic bags (grocery/merchandise) are disposed of annually by Phoenix residents. Plastic bags present many challenges such as litter, damaging equipment used to sort recyclables, and their effect on lowering the value of recyclables due to contamination. In 2007, staff worked with the Arizona Food Marketing Alliance (AFMA) and various Phoenix retailers to create the Bag Central Station –Where Plastic Bags Belong voluntary plastic bag recycling program. With this program, Phoenix became the first

47

city in Arizona to address the challenges associated with plastic bags without bans, taxes or fees. Other approaches to address the challenges with plastic bags have been implemented in other jurisdictions. For example, California recently approved a ban on single use grocery bags and a ten cent fee for paper bags in order to standardize the various bans/fees currently in place in more than 200 communities throughout California, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. Several other communities have instituted fees or taxes to fund clean-up programs or change resident behavior such as Washington, DC, Austin and Laredo, Texas, and countries such as Ireland, France, Nepal and China. In Arizona, only Bisbee has banned the use of single use plastic bags. Tempe, Tucson and Flagstaff have implemented the Bag Central Station approach either through resolution or by ordinance. AFMA members have continued to use the Bag Central Station program for collection of plastic bags and wrap from stores statewide in each chain. In response to a request at the March 25, 2014, City Council Policy Meeting, Public Works staff has researched implementation of a tax or fee for plastic grocery bags as a revenue source. However, grocery/merchandise bags account for less than one percent of the total tonnage collected in residents’ trash and recycling containers. Based on research and discussion with our partners, staff does not recommend a tax or fee for grocery/merchandise bags as a revenue source at this time. However, to reduce the volume of plastic material (i.e., grocery and merchandise bags, other clean bags such as bread, produce and dry-cleaning bags) found in the waste stream, staff is proposing to expand the Bag Central Station program by increasing partnerships with a goal of 20 percent reduction by 2020. The goal will be met through continued outreach and education efforts with grocers and retailers and outreach to industries beyond grocers that use bags. Since Spring 2014, staff has expanded focus beyond grocery stores to partner with other retailers (Arizona Retailers Association), the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Keep Phoenix Beautiful and the Arizona Restaurant Association. These partners have expressed support for outreach and campaign efforts to reduce plastic bags found in trash and recycling containers and increase collection sites to include retail and convenience stores.

“Pay-As-You Throw” (PAYT) “Pay-As-You Throw” (PAYT) is a usage-pricing model for disposing of municipal solid waste. In PAYT programs (also known as trash metering, unit pricing, variable-rate pricing or user-pay), residents are charged for the collection of municipal solid waste based on the amount they throw away. This creates a direct economic incentive to recycle more and to generate less waste. Traditionally, residents pay for waste collection through property taxes or a fixed fee, regardless of how much—or how little—trash they generate. PAYT treats trash services like electricity, gas, and other utilities. Households pay a variable rate depending on the amount of service they receive. Most communities with PAYT programs charge residents a fee for each bag or can of waste they generate. In successful programs, residents are charged based on the size

48

of their container with the price difference from 20 to 30 percent. In a small number of communities, residents are billed based on the volume of their trash. Phoenix residents are charged $26.80 for 90-gallon (traditional) containers and 300-gallon alley containers and $23.80 for 65-gallon containers. The newly implemented SAY R&R program is a modified version of a PAYT program, allowing Phoenix residents to elect to have a smaller 65-gallon trash container instead of the traditional 90-gallon trash container resulting in a $3 monthly savings for SAY R&R participants. An expanded PAYT program might vary costs or savings based on container size, curbside collection versus alleys, and other options such as smaller trash containers in an effort to encourage diversion. Tucson, Austin, San Jose, Long Beach, San Francisco, and Mesa use PAYT programs based on a fee-for-service model. Staff recommends conducting additional research and development of costing models to determine the impact of possible PAYT changes to solid waste customers, operations and revenue. Once the analysis has been completed, staff will return to the Subcommittee with a more specific recommendation. Outreach and Marketing The City of Phoenix has been in the recycling business for more than 25 years. The waste characterization study shows that nearly 15 percent or 57,493 tons of the trash collected through residential garbage, such as paper, metals, glass and plastics are recyclable through the City’s current recycling program. In the current residential recycling collection, 21 percent or 21,447 tons of the material contains contaminates including textiles, plastic film, purchased food, and food soiled paper products. Staff works throughout the year to educate residents about recycling through school presentations, transfer station tours, neighborhood meetings, community events, the City’s website, mass mailings, billboards and interviews with media. Since January 2014, staff has:

• Made 107 school presentations to 12,209 students; • Provided 115 transfer station tours to 3,067 individuals of all ages; • Attended 40 special events with 440,929 people in attendance; and • Participated in 188 community events with more than 28,942 residents, including

neighborhood meetings.

Given the current recycling and contamination rate, additional work is needed to raise awareness among residents regarding the importance and benefits of recycling as well as to increase participation in the SAY R&R and Green Organics programs. The Behavior Research Center Solid Waste Customer Survey is a useful tool that measures residents’ satisfaction with the weekly garbage/recyclable material collection services they receive from the city and its contractors. The survey incorporates questions to better understand why customers are or are not participating in the Green Organics or SAY R&R programs. This feedback provides staff efficient and timely insights on how to expand and improve these programs rather than anecdotal observations. Staff would like to explore options for survey research services. Without survey research services, it will be challenging for staff to refine our message and marketing plan.

49

Staff would like to explore options for purchasing media using internal resources. A media buyer services contract would allow for an existing network of contacts, values and bulk rates. However, the City does not currently have a media buyer services contract. Although using existing internal resources would not require additional staff, it will limit the marketing opportunities otherwise available through a media buyer service, resulting in extended time to establish contacts, no additional values and no bulk rates. Staff is also exploring options such as the use of automated outreach, Mind Mixer application and grassroots outreach to increase participation in Phase I of the Curbside Green Organics Program to achieve a five percent participation rate in FY14/15. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee recommend City Council approval to expand the Bag Central Station program by increasing partnerships with a goal of 20 percent reduction by 2020. The goal will be met through continued outreach and education efforts with grocers and retailers and outreach to industries beyond grocers that use bags. Further, staff requests direction on:

1) Further researching incentives and “Pay-As-You Throw” options that promote increased recycling;

2) Exploring survey research options; and 3) Using internal staff and funding to purchase media to raise community

awareness of City diversion programs.

50

Introduction and Background Since 2008, nine of the ten largest cities in the country (including Phoenix) have begun comprehensive waste characterization studies. These world class cities have used the results to:

• Increase recycling revenue by diverting more commodities into the recycling stream,

• Save money on tip fees by reducing the quantity of materials heading to the landfill,

• Reduce the contamination in recycling loads through targeted education campaigns,

• Save money by optimizing their collections, processing, and transfer operations, and

• Develop local recycling markets and create new job in the recycling industry.

Increasing waste diversion is a high priority for the City of Phoenix: in early 2013, Mayor Stanton announced his goal to achieve a 40 percent landfill diversion rate by 2020. An important first step on the path to meeting this goal and increasing waste diversion is a well-informed analysis of the composition of Phoenix’s residential waste stream. The 2014 City of Phoenix Residential Waste Characterization Study will collect composition and quantity data that will help guide policy formation and program implementation as the city moves toward its goal of 40 percent diversion by 2020. This study is an update to the previous Phoenix waste characterization study completed in 2003. This memo summarizes the field work and key findings for the first season of this work, which occurred in August 2014.

Summary of Field Methods This study characterizes samples from the following two substreams:

• Residential Garbage – Garbage generated by single family residences located within the City of Phoenix. City collection vehicles collect these materials at the curb or in the alley.

• Residential Recycling – Recycling generated by single family residences located within the City of Phoenix. City collection vehicles collect these materials at the curb or in the alley.

For the first season of this study (August 2014), the field crew intended to collect and sort 130 garbage and 100 recycling samples over two weeks. Samples were approximately evenly allocated among sampling days and the 10 bid areas. Field work began on Monday 8/18 and wrapped up on Friday 8/29. Prior to beginning field work, the project team coordinated with the Public Works Department (PWD) staff to randomly select routes for sampling and

51

to ensure plans were in place to direct the pre-selected routes to the appropriate tip location for sampling and sorting. The field crew spent the week of 8/18 collecting and sorting samples at the North Gateway Transfer Station (NGTS) and the week of 8/25 at the 27th Avenue Transfer Station (27th Ave.). The sample goals and actual samples collected are shown in Table 1. The largest deviation from sample goals occurred on Tuesday 8/19, when sampling activities were cancelled around 9:00am due to torrential rains and regional flooding which delayed or postponed collections due to roadway closures leading to the transfer station. This weather resulted in consistently low Tuesday sample counts across all bid areas. The field crew collected additional samples for the rest of the August study period to meet the overall sampling targets.

The field crew hand sorted all samples into 84 material types, and weighed the sorted materials. The target weight for a garbage sample was 200 pounds and for a recycling sample it was 125 pounds. The average garbage sample weighed 218 pounds and the average recycling sample weighed 130 pounds. In 2003 the average garbage sample weight was 228 pounds. The 2003 study did not include any recycling samples. The list of material types and definitions used for this study is included in Appendix A. Material Definitions.

Summary of Findings

To quantify diversion opportunities, the project team grouped material types according to their recoverability, using four recoverability groups:

•

•

52

•

•

Each material type was assigned to one of the recoverability groups based on the definitions listed above. Appendix A. Material Definitions shows how material types are categorized into each recoverability group.

substream, bid area, and citywide are presented in Appendix B. Detailed Composition Tables. Garbage The composition of residential garbage at the citywide level is summarized in Figure 1 and Table 2. This composition data is based on 130 hand sorted samples. Tables in this section aggregate the 84 material types included in field sorting into 25 condensed material categories designed to showcase the curbside recyclables and compostable materials remaining in the garbage and to make the tables more readable when comparing the results between bid areas. Many, but not all, materials in the construction and demolition (C&D) category are included in the Other Recoverable group; because of this the purple slice of the pie in Figure 1 is greater than the sum of the purple rows in Table 2. Key findings for the citywide residential garbage substream include:

•

•

•

53

Bid Area Comparisons Compostable yard waste and food waste are the two most prevalent disposed materials in every bid area (and citywide). Among the bid areas, these materials combined range from nearly 39% of residential garbage in area G to approximately 53% of residential garbage in area E. Compostable paper is the third most prevalent material in the residential garbage everywhere except areas E, G, and H. Other recyclable paper is the third most prevalent material in E and H; non-compostable organics is the third most prevalent material in area G. Table 3 summarizes the summer sort composition by bid area.

54

As shown in Table 4, more than 60% of residential disposed garbage

55

Comparisons with 2003

Working with PWD staff, Cascadia designed the material list used in the current study to be comparable to the material list used in the 2003 study. Results in this section aggregate the 84 material types used in the 2014 study into a condensed list of 22 materials that nearly match the 2003 study and showcase the curbside recyclables and compostable materials in the garbage. The aggregations are shown in Appendix A. Material Definitions. The totals and subtotals shown in this section are slightly different than those in other sections because of changes to the material list between the 2003 and 2014 studies.1 Based on PWD provided tonnage information, the total quantity of garbage has decreased by approximately 10% since 2003 from nearly 435,000 tons to nearly 391,000 tons. The proportion of most recyclable or compostable materials also decreased between the 2003 and 2014 studies; exceptions include compostable paper, PET (#1) plastic, and compostable yard waste, all of which increased between studies. This information is detailed in Table 5. Compared to 2003, both the quantity of recyclable materials in the garbage and the proportion of garbage that is recyclable have decreased. In 2003, recyclables were nearly 19% of the garbage; in 2014, recyclables are nearly 13% of the garbage. The quantity of compostables in the residential garbage decreased from nearly 215,000 tons in 2003 to approximately 197,000 tons in 2014. This is due primarily to the overall reduction in garbage tonnage between the two studies, as the proportion of compostables in the garbage increased slightly from 2003 to 2014 (from 49.4% to 50.6%). See Table 6 for the comparison of the citywide garbage recoverability between study years.

56

57

Bulky Materials in the Garbage While in the field, the garbage sort crew noted loads that contained items too large or bulky for a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) to handle (appliances, furniture, tires, large stumps, concrete, etc.). The type of material and the number of items spotted were noted for all sampled loads. Of the 130 loads sampled in August 2014, four loads contained bulky items (3% of loads). There was one load from area A, one from area C, one from area H, and one from area J. The loads from areas A and H each contained one tire. The load from area C contained a large microwave and the load from area J contained a dishwasher.

58

Recycling

Tables in this section aggregate the 84 material types using during field sorting into 21 condensed material categories designed to showcase the acceptable and contaminant materials in the recycling substream and to make the tables more readable when comparing the results between bid areas. Many, but not all, materials in the construction and demolition (C&D) category are included in the Other Recoverable group; because of this the purple slice of the pie in Figure 2 is greater than the sum of the purple rows in Table 7. More than three quarters (80,435 tons) of the recycling substream is Curbside Recycle, mostly recyclable paper (55,307 tons). recycling

Figure 2 Approximately 21% of the recycling substream is contaminants, materials that should not be in the recycling bin. Citywide, the five most prevalent contaminant material types are:

• smaller than 2" in diameter including dirt, broken glass, bottle caps, loose shredded paper, and small pieces of food.

• pants, shirts, bed sheets, curtains, and towels. This does not include leather items.

•

•

• paper towels, paper plates, waxed paper, tissues, and other food service/food soiled paper products without a plastic coating.

The citywide recycling composition is summarized in Table 7. More detail on the recycling contamination is available in the Recycling Contamination section below.

59

Bid Area Comparisons

Table 8

60

Recycling Contamination

Citywide, the recycling contamination rate is approximately 21%. As shown in Table 9, the contamination rate ranges from less than 16% in area J to nearly one third (32.1%) in area A. Table 9 also summarizes the five most prevalent contaminant material types in each bid area and citywide. Non-distinct fines and textiles are the only material types in the top five in every bid area; citywide, they are the two most prevalent contaminants. Other film is in the top five in eight of the ten bid areas. Carpet/upholstery, disposable diapers, and contaminated wood each were in the top five in one bid area (areas E, G, and I respectively). The top five contaminants comprise between 45% and 62% of the total contamination in each bid area and citywide.

61

The five most prevalent contaminants in each bid area and citywide are shown in Table 10.

62

Appendix A. Material Definitions Paper

1. NEWSPAPER: Printed newsprint. Advertising “slicks” (glossy paper) are included in this category if found mixed with newspaper; otherwise, ad slicks are included with mixed low grade paper.

2. PLAIN OCC/KRAFT PAPER: Old unwaxed/uncoated corrugated container boxes and Kraft paper, and brown paper bags.

3. WAXED OCC/KRAFT PAPER: Old waxed/coated corrugated container boxes and Kraft paper, and brown paper bags.

4. HIGH GRADE PAPER: White or lightly colored sulfite/sulfate bond, copy papers, envelopes, and continuous-feed sulfite/sulfate/ground wood computer printouts and forms of all types. This is a combination of the 2003 types office paper and computer paper.

5. MIXED LOW GRADE PAPER: Low-grade, potentially recyclable papers, including junk mail, magazines, colored papers, bleached Kraft, boxboard, mailing tubes, carbonless copy paper, paperback books, paper egg creates, and telephone directories. This is a combination of the 2003 types mixed low grade and phone books.

6. MILK/JUICE POLYCOATED PAPER: Bleached polycoated milk, ice cream, and aseptic juice containers.

7. FROZEN FOOD POLYCOATED PAPER: Bleached and unbleached polycoated frozen/refrigerator packaging, excluding polycoated milk/ice cream/aseptic containers.

8. COMPOSTABLE/FOOD SOILED PAPER: Paper towels, paper plates, waxed paper, tissues, and other paper products without a plastic coating. The items may be food soiled.

9. PAPER/OTHER MATERIALS: Predominantly paper with other materials attached (e.g. orange juice cans and spiral notebooks) and other hard to recycle paper items such as carbon copy paper, hardcover books, and photographs. This is a combination of the 2003 types paper/other materials and other papers.

Plastic 10. #1 PET BOTTLES: Polyethylene terephthalate bottles. A bottle has a neck and a mouth narrower than the

base. Items may bear a #1 when labeled for recycling. This is approximately the same as the 2003 type PET pop and liquor bottles.

11. #1 PET OTHER PACKAGING: All non-bottle PET plastic packaging including tubs, jars, tray, and clamshells. This includes single use PET plastic cups. Items may bear a #1 when labeled for recycling. This is a combination of the 2003 types other PET bottles and the PET items in other rigid packaging.

12. #2 HDPE NATURAL BOTTLES: High-density polyethylene translucent bottles, often containing milk, juice, and beverage containers. A bottle has a neck and a mouth narrower than the base. Items may bear a #2 when labeled for recycling. This is approximately the same as the 2003 type HDPE milk and juice bottles.

13. #2 HDPE COLORED BOTTLES: High-density polyethylene colored or pigmented bottles. A bottle has a neck and a mouth narrower than the base. Examples include laundry detergent bottles and some gallon juice jugs. Items may bear a #2 when labeled for recycling. This is approximately the same as the 2003 type other HDPE bottles.

14. #2 HDPE OTHER PACKAGING: All non-bottle HDPE plastic packaging including tubs, jars, tray, and clamshells. An example is a ground coffee tub. Items may bear a #2 when labeled for recycling. This is a combination of the 2003 types HDPE jars and tubs and the HDPE items in other rigid packaging.

15. OTHER RIGID PLASTIC PACKAGING: Plastic bottles, jars, tubs, trays, clamshells, and other packaging not classified in the above-defined PET or HDPE categories; includes plastic packaging labeled #3-#7, unknown or unlabeled plastic packaging, and dual labeled plastic packaging but excludes all expanded polystyrene items and items labeled compostable. Examples include some shampoo bottles, dairy tubs, and single use plastic cups. This is a combination of the 2003 types other plastic bottles, jars, and tubs and other rigid packaging.

63

16. EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE: Includes packaging and finished products made of expanded polystyrene. Examples include packing peanuts, clamshells, trays, and packing blocks. Does not include rigid Styrofoam insulation.

17. COMPOSTABLE PLASTICS: Packaging made from compostable materials such as corn or potatoes, with the words “compostable” on the product. This is a new type.

18. PLASTIC GROCERY/MERCHANDISE BAGS: Plastic shopping bags used to contain merchandise to transport from the place of purchase, given out by the store with the purchase. Does not include dry cleaner bags. This does include grocery and merchandise bags reused for other purposes such as small trash bags. This is a new type.

19. OTHER CLEAN PLASTIC CONSUMER PRODUCT BAGS: Bread, produce, and dry cleaner plastic film bags. These are usually transparent and made of a single layer of film. Also includes Zip-Loc bags.

20. PLASTIC GARBAGE BAGS: Plastic garbage bags. This does not include single use shopping bags reused as garbage bags.

21. OTHER PLASTIC FILM: All other film items, including film packaging not defined elsewhere, plastic sheeting, photographic negatives, and shower curtains. This includes multi-layer and opaque food packaging such as chip bags, candy bar wrappers, frozen food bags, etc.

22. MIXED RIGID PLASTICS: Plastic products intended for long term use or for to be reused multiple times. Examples include toys, milk crates, plastic pallets, plastic pipes, and buckets. Includes fiberglass resin products and materials.

23. PLASTIC/OTHER MATERIALS: Predominately plastic with other materials attached such as disposable razors, pens, lighters, toothbrushes, hoses, and 3-ring binders.

Glass 24. GLASS BEVERAGE CONTAINERS: Includes any color pop, liquor, wine, juice, beer, and food bottles,

jars, and containers. This is a combination of the 2003 clear, green, and brown beverage container types and the 2003 container glass type.

25. FLUORESCENT TUBES: Fluorescent light tubes and compact fluorescent bulbs.

26. OTHER GLASS: Window glass, light bulbs (except fluorescent tubes), mirrors, glassware, and any other glass item that does not fit into a category above.

Metal 27. ALUMINUM CANS: Aluminum beverage cans (UBC) and bi-metal cans made mostly of aluminum. This

does not include aluminum food containers or cat food containers.

28. ALUMINUM FOIL/CONTAINERS: All other aluminum food containers, trays, and foil. This type includes cat food containers.

29. OTHER NONFERROUS: Metals not derived from iron, to which a magnet will not adhere, and which are not significantly contaminated with other metals or materials, including metal products and scrap such as window frames and cookware. This is a combination of the 2003 types other nonferrous and other aluminum.

30. TIN FOOD CANS: Tinned steel food containers, including bi-metal cans mostly of steel. Does not include paint cans or other types of steel cans.

31. EMPTY AEROSOL CANS: Empty, mixed material/metal aerosol cans. (Aerosols that still contain product are sorted according to that material—for instance, solvent-based paint.)

32. OTHER FERROUS: Ferrous and alloyed ferrous scrap metals to which a magnet adheres and which are not significantly contaminated with other metals or materials. Stainless steel is included in this material type. This includes empty and punctured tanks for liquid and gaseous fuels.

33. OIL FILTERS: Metal oil filters used in cars and other automobiles.

34. MIXED METALS/MATERIALS: Motors, insulated wire, and finished products containing a mixture of metals, or metals and other materials, whose weight is derived significantly from the metal portion of its construction.

64

Organic 35. LEAVES AND GRASS: Grass clippings, leaves, and weeds.

36. UNACCEPTED YARD WASTE: Oleander, palm fronds, pyracantha, and creosote. This is a new type.

37. PRUNINGS LESS THAN 2”: Cut prunings, 2" or less in diameter, from bushes, shrubs, and trees. This may include some prunings with fruit attached if the weight of the pruning exceeds the weight of the fruit. This is a new type.

38. PRUNINGS 2” TO 12”: Cut prunings, between 2" and 12” in diameter, from bushes, shrubs, and trees. This may include some prunings with fruit attached if the weight of the pruning exceeds the weight of the fruit. This is a new type.

39. PRUNINGS GREATER THAN 12”: Cut prunings, 12" or more in diameter, from bushes, shrubs, and trees. This may include some prunings with fruit attached if the weight of the pruning exceeds the weight of the fruit. This is a new type.

40. PURCHASED FOOD: Food wastes and scraps, including bone, rinds, etc. Excludes the weight of food containers, except when container weight is not appreciable compared to the food inside.

41. HOMEGROWN FOOD: Fruits and vegetables grown at home. Large quantities of the same fruit or vegetable lacking PLU stickers or other grocery store marking are considered homegrown fruits and vegetables. This may include some prunings with fruit attached if the weight of the fruit exceeds the weight of the prunings. This is a new type.

42. BEVERAGES AND FOOD LIQUIDS: Bottled water, soda, and other edible liquids such as pickle juice. This does not include the moisture content of solid foods. This is a new type.

Other Materials 43. TEXTILES: Clothing, rags, and accessories made of natural and synthetic textiles such as cotton, wool,

silk, woven nylon, rayon, polyester, and other materials. Examples include pants, shirts, fabric purses, bed sheets, non-leather shoes, and towels.

44. CARPET/UPHOLSTERY: Floor coverings and other furnishings made entirely of natural or synthetic fibers. Carpet is a general category of flooring applications consisting of various natural or synthetic fibers bonded to some type of backing material. Other examples include carpet padding, area rugs, curtains, pillows, and cushions.

45. LEATHER: Finished products or scraps of leather. Examples include leather purses, leather shoes, and baseball gloves.

46. DISPOSABLE DIAPERS: Disposable baby diapers and adult protective undergarments.

47. ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS: Animal carcasses and wastes. This includes animal feces and kitty litter.

48. RUBBER PRODUCTS: Finished products and scrap materials made of rubber, such as bath mats, inner tubes, rubber hoses, and foam rubber (except carpet padding).

49. TIRES: Vehicle tires of all types.

50. ASH: Fireplace, burn barrel, or fire pit ash.

51. FURNITURE: Mixed-material furniture such as upholstered chairs. Items made wholly of a single material will be sorted based on the material type (wood furniture is sorted as treated wood, a metal desk is sorted as other ferrous).

52. MATTRESSES: Mattresses and box springs of any kind. Include memory foam, coil, stuffed, and futon mattresses.

53. SMALL APPLIANCES: Small electric appliances such as toasters, microwave ovens, power tools, curling irons, and light fixtures.

54. CRT’S: Computer monitors and television sets containing a cathode ray tube (CRT). This is a combination of the 2003 types computer monitors and televisions.

55. OTHER ELECTRONICS: Item with some circuitry not categorized elsewhere including cell phones, answering machines, electronic toys, stereos, radios, tape decks, other audio/visual equipment, VCRs, DVD players, computer processors, mice, keyboards, disk drives, monitors and TV’s that do not contain cathode

65

ray tubes, printers, scanners, gaming systems, tablet computers, e-readers, and laptops. This is a combination of the 2003 types audio/visual equipment and other computer equipment.

56. CERAMICS/PORCELAIN: Finished ceramic or porcelain products such as dishware, toilets, etc.

57. NONDISTINCT FINES: Contains mixed fines smaller than 2" in diameter including dirt and other small materials. This is a combination of the 2003 types nondistinct fines and sand/soil/dirt.

58. MISCELLANEOUS ORGANICS: Wax, modeling clay, bar soap, cigarette butts, and other organic materials not classified elsewhere.

59. MISCELLANEOUS INORGANICS: Other non-combustible, inorganic materials not classified elsewhere.

Construction and Demolition Wastes 60. DIMENSION LUMBER: Clean milled lumber.

61. PALLETS/CRATES: Untreated wood pallets, crates, and other packaging lumber/panel board. This is a combination of the 2003 types pallets and crates.

62. TREATED WOOD: Lumber and wood products that have been painted or treated so as to render them difficult to compost. This includes plywood, other engineered woods, furniture made wholly of wood, and painted pallets and crates.

63. CONTAMINATED WOOD: Lumber and wood products contaminated with other wastes in such a way that they cannot easily be separated, but consisting primarily (over 50 percent) of wood. Often adhered to concrete or other contaminants that would not compost easily. This includes plywood and other engineered woods.

64. NEW GYPSUM SCRAP: New gypsum wallboard scrap.

65. DEMO GYPSUM SCRAP: Used or demolition gypsum wallboard scrap.

66. INSULATION: Fiberglass building and mechanical insulation, batt or rigid. Includes rigid Styrofoam insulation panels.

67. ROCK/CONCRETE/BRICKS: Includes rock gravel larger than 2" diameter, Portland cement mixtures (set or unset), and fired-clay bricks.

68. ASPHALTIC ROOFING: Asphalt shingles, tarpaper of built-up roofing.

69. OTHER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS: Construction debris (other than wood), which cannot be classified into other component categories, and mixed fine building material scraps.

Household Hazardous 70. LATEX PAINTS: Water-based paints and similar products.

71. HAZARDOUS ADHESIVES/GLUES: Oil/resin/volatile solvent-based glues and adhesives, including epoxy, rubber cement, two-part glues and sealers, and auto body fillers.

72. NON-HAZARDOUS ADHESIVES/GLUES: Water-based glues, caulking compounds, grouts, and spackle.

73. OIL-BASED PAINT/SOLVENT: Solvent-based paints, varnishes, and similar products. Various solvents, including chlorinated and flammable solvents, paint strippers, solvents contaminated with other products such as paints, degreasers and some other cleaners if the primary ingredient is (or was) a solvent, or alcohol such as methanol and isopropanol.

74. HAZARDOUS CLEANERS: Various acids and bases whose primary purpose is to clean surfaces, unclog drains, or perform other actions.

75. PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES: Variety of poisons whose purpose is to discourage or kill pests, weeds, or microorganisms. Fungicides and wood preservatives, such as pentachlorophenol, are also included.

76. NON-RECHARGABLE DRY-CELL BATTERIES: Dry-cell batteries of various sizes and types as commonly used in households that are not intended to be re-charged and re-used. This is a new type created by splitting the 2003 type dry cell batteries.

66

77. RECHARGABLE DRY-CELL BATTERIES: Dry-cell batteries of various sizes and types as commonly used in households that are intended to be re-charged and re-used. This is a new type created by splitting the 2003 type dry cell batteries.

78. WET-CELL BATTERIES: Wet-cell batteries of various sizes and types as commonly used in automobiles.

79. ASBESTOS: Asbestos and asbestos-containing wastes (if this is the primary hazard associated with these wastes).

80. EXPLOSIVES: Gunpowder, unspent ammunition, picric acid, and other potentially explosive chemicals. This includes full or partly full tanks for liquid and gaseous fuels.

81. VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT FLUIDS: Containers with fluids used in vehicles or engines, including antifreeze, brake fluid, motor oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. This is a combination of the 2003 types gasoline/kerosene and motor oil/diesel oil.

82. POOL CHEMICALS: Chemicals in liquid or powder form used to maintain swimming pools. This is a new type, probably included in the hazardous cleaners type in 2003.

83. OTHER HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS: Other hazardous wastes that do not fit into the above categories, including unidentifiable materials and medical wastes such as I.V. tubing and patient drapes (Medical wastes that could be considered a bio-hazard were excluded from the sorts.).

84. OTHER NON-HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS: Non-hazardous soaps, cleaners, medicines, cosmetics, fire extinguishers, and other household chemicals.

67

68

69

Table 12. 2014 vs. 2003 Comparison Categories, contd.

70

Appendix B. Detailed Composition Tables Garbage

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

Recycling

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92


93


CITY COUNCIL REPORT


FROM: Ray Dovalina, PE Street Transportation Director

SUBJECT: STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING YELLOW CHANGE INTERVALS AT TRAFFIC SIGNALS

This report provides information about how traffic signal yellow change times are calculated in Phoenix. THE ISSUE The purpose of the yellow change interval is to warn drivers that the green signal is transitioning. After the yellow indication, the signal then transitions to a red phase clearance interval to allow all approaching intersection traffic to stop for up to 1 second (actual time based street width and speed) before other traffic is signaled to proceed. The primary reason for adequate yellow times is to reduce the frequency of red light running. Research has shown that change intervals which are “too long” or “too short” can increase the frequency of red light running. Phoenix uses an “optimal” change interval calculation. OTHER INFORMATION The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) “Traffic Control Devices Handbook” outlines the method to determine the yellow change interval and is considered the definitive reference by traffic engineering professionals. The City of Phoenix and the Arizona Department of Transportation follow the procedures and formula as outlined in the handbook. The federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Arizona Supplement to the MUTCD refer to the ITE formula to set yellow clearance intervals. They further refer to using a minimum setting of 3 seconds and a maximum setting of 6 seconds based on the calculation. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only.

Documents

Packet - Transportation and Infrastructure Meeting - 1-13-14 · 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE Pursuant to A.R.S. Section